In a 2001 paper, distributed on the internet through the website of the Project for theDocumentation of Languages of Mesoamerica (PDLMA) the eminent linguist and
expert in Mesoamerican languages Terrence Kaufman analyzed the prehistory of
Nahuan languages. He focused specifically on showing how influence from the
languages of the Mesoamerican Language Area participated in shaping the
Southern Uto-Aztecan dialect proto-Nahuan into the Mesoamerican language
Nahuatl. The data used for the paper is very impressive, his conclusions well
argued, and Kaufman’s writing style is as always very authoritative, and so the
paper has been cited quite a few times (30 citations in google scholar).
In this
post, I will take issue with some of the conclusions in Kaufman’s paper,
specifically I will show that Kaufman significantly overstates his evidence for
substantial lexical influence from Mesoamerican languages on proto-Nahuan,
because he does not adequately take into account alternative, potential or
probable etymologies from Uto-Aztcan sources. I show that most of his proposed
borrowings into proto-Nahuan are in fact equally (or more) likely to have
Uto-Aztecan etymologies, either from proto-Uto-Aztecan, from
proto-Corachol-Nahuan or can be plausibly analyzed as originating as
combinations of Nahuan roots.
My
conclusion is that there are much fewer borrowings from Mixe-Zoquean, Wastekan
and Totonakan in proto-Nahuan than often thought, and that we therefore cannot
use this contact as evidence that proto-Nahuatl was spoken in the area of
north-eastern Mesoamerica where Kaufman locates the speech community. Rather we
should locate the proto-Nahuan speech community on the north-western periphery
of Mesoamerica in close contact with Corachol and with Oto-Pamean languages.
Proposed loans from Mixe-Zoque in all Nahuan
Word
|
Nahuan
|
Kaufman’s source
|
Potential UA etymology
|
Cacao
|
kakawa
|
*kakawa
|
PUA *kawa “shell”
|
Footwear
|
kakƛi
|
PZ *kɨ’ak
|
PCN *kakai
|
Head
|
kopak-ƛi
-kwa
ikpak
|
PMZ *kopak “head”
|
*PUA *kupa “top of head/hair”
|
Break
|
pos-teki
|
PMi *pus
|
Huichol *purusi “stub, cut short”<PCN *puyusi “stub”
|
Mat
|
peƛaƛ
|
PZo *pata’
|
PCN *pɨta
|
Old man
/Sorcerer/shape-shifter
|
nawal
|
PMZ *na’w
|
PCN *nawari “thief”
*nawa “steal”
|
Ant
|
¢ikatl
|
PMZ *(hah)-¢uku
|
-
|
Turkey
|
totolin
|
PMZ *tu’nuk
|
Corachol *tutuvi “large parrot”, Nahua toto “bird”
|
Adobe
|
šamitl
|
PMZ *sam “heat”
|
PCN *sia “sand/clay” + mi “collective plural”
|
Enter-house
|
kal-aki
|
PMZ calque of *tɨ’k-ɨy “house enter”
|
-
|
Kaufman
proposes 9 borrowings and a lexical calque from proto-Mixe-Zoque, proto-Zoque
or proto-Mixe into proto-Nahuan. Of these borrowings, 7 have equally probable
Uto-Aztecan etymologies, and 5 have definite cognates in Corachol, suggesting
that if they are borrowings and not inherited then the borrowing would have
been between proto-Mixe and proto-Corachol-Nahuan. The calque seems likely, and
the word for ant seems possible. Also, I actually think the word for cacao is a
likely borrowing from Mixe-Zoque, since the alternative “shell” etymology
proposed by Dakin and Wichmann is somewhat weak, and given the fact that it is
extremely unlikely that proto-Nahua was spoken by people who lived in a
cacao-producing region whereas proto-Mixe-Zoque almost certainly was. Nevertheless, the claim of Mixe-Zoque contact
with proto-Nahuan seems to lack real support once the alternative etymologies
are examined. This is particularly
significant because the words proposed as borrowings are highly culturally
significant suggesting that Mixe-Zoque speakers had a profound culturalizing
influence on proto-Nahua speakers, teaching them to use foot-wear, live in
adobe houses with cultivated liverstock such as turkeys, and to use the
culturally salient luxury good cacao, and that through them the Nahuas adopted
the pan-Mesoamerican belief in shapeshifting sorcerers. With these borrowings,
the role of Mixe-Zoque in this regard seems much less significant. Kaufman has
been a major proponent of seeing Mixe-Zoque speaking Olmecs as the drivers of
the development of the Mesoamerican cultural area, and they probably were – but
it does not seem to me that there was any significant contact between
Mixe-Zoque speakers and the proto-Nahuan speech community. This probably means
that the Nahuas entered Mesoamerica after the decline of Olmec civilization in
the centuries before the beginning of the first millennium.
Proposed loans from Wastekan in all Nahuan
Word
|
Nahuatl
|
Kaufman’s proposal
|
Potential UA etymology
|
Deer-foot
|
čočolli
|
čočob
|
-
|
Pulque
|
okƛi
|
book
|
-
|
Sp. of Parrot
|
kočotl
|
kuču’
|
-
|
Breadnut
|
ohošihtli
|
ohoš
|
Nahua oši-ƛ “sticky dirt”
|
Striated/layered
|
nete:č
|
net’eč/nit’ič
|
Nahua ne:-te:č “reciprocal-together”
|
Kaufman
proposes 5 loans from Wastek Maya into proto-Nahuan. Of these only pulque, and
deer-foot seem likely loans. Kochotl
is not a general Nahuan word, and there is no reason to reconstruct it for
proto-Nahuan – likely be an exclusive eastern or Huasteca Nahua loan. Netech is morphologically analyzable as ne-te:ch. Ohoxihtli seems a likely reduplicated form of oxitl “dirt that comes of when you wash”. Nahuas in fact associated
the origin of pulque with the Huastecs, so it seems likely that this is indeed
a likely loan. In conclusion, there may have been contact between proto-Nahuan
and Wastekan, but if there was it was quite limited – the only likely loan is
the word for pulque, and in fact not all Nahuan varieties have this root, as
many use the inherited word for “honey” nekwƛi instead.
Proposed loans from Totonac in all Nahuan
Word
|
Nahuatl
|
Kaufman’s Totonac source
|
Alternative source
|
Cottonwood
|
pocho-ƛ
|
puučuut
|
PUA (Stubbs, 2011,
#557)
|
Honorific/diminutive
|
-¢in diminutive
|
-¢iin
|
Otomi-Mazahua či-
Corachol ¢i-/-ši (š is a regular cognate of
Nahuan ¢ in Corachol)
|
jonote
|
šono-ƛ
|
šuunuk
|
-
|
tadpole
|
šolo-ƛ
|
šuuɬʰ
|
Corachol *siuri
“tadpole” regularly becomes Nahuan *šoli-.
|
Cage/crate
|
wahkal-ƛi
|
wahkat
|
Nahua: wa(k/h)-kal-ƛi “drying house”.
|
dog
|
čiči
|
čiči’
|
Corachol ¢ɨ¢ɨ
|
Sp. Of fish
|
wapo-ƛ
|
waapa “tilapia”
|
-
|
Brother in law
|
tex-ƛi
|
tiiš
|
-
|
Older sister
|
pih-ƛi
|
pi:pi’
|
-pi “sister” (not
younger)
|
Grass
|
saka-ƛ
|
saqa
|
SUA *saka “grass”, Hopi tïïsaqa ”grass”, NUA *saka “willow” (Stubbs 2011 #1055)
|
Plate/flat bowl
|
kašiƛ
|
qa’š
|
-
|
Wild avocado
|
pawa-ƛ
|
ɬʰpaw
|
Avocado is yewka in Coracholan suggesting an
origin as proto-Cora-Nahuan *pewaka.
|
Sour
|
šoko
|
šku’ta
|
Proto-Corachol-Nahuan
*siwi “sour/bitter”. *iw becomes Nahua o, but the question is where the
-ko element then comes from.
|
Hawk
|
čoneh
|
čuu’ni’
|
-
|
Phoneme
|
-ƛ
|
Totonac *ƛ
|
-
|
Kaufman’s
14 proposed loans from Totonac fare a little better when checked for plausible
alternative etymologies. The forms šolotl,
wahkalli, chichi, pihtli, pawatl have viable UA etymologies. Šolotl and chichi are shared with Corachol. The diminutive -tzin could be borrowed from Totonac, but
Otomi-Mazahua has a diminutive/honorific prefix či- and Coracholan has a diminutive prefix ¢i- and a honorific suffix -ši. The Totonac form does
match the Nahua form better than either of those sources. In any case there is
basis for considering the -¢i diminutive morpheme to be an areal trait since it is shared between
Mesoamerican languages of three different linguistic families (Totonakan,
Oto-Pamean and Uto-Aztecan).
The words pochotl and xonotl, describe species with restricted distribution that likely
arose as local borrowings in the Nahuatl varieties spoken where these species
are found and only subsequently spread through inter-Nahua contact – I would
not reconstruct these words to proto-Nahuan. Wapotl and čone are not
found in all (or most?) Nahuan dialects, but are local (recent) borrowings.
That leaves
the words for plate, brother in-law, tilapia and xonote, as well as the phoneme
ƛ, as likely borrowings
from Totonacan into proto-Nahuan.
Conclusion:
Out of 29
proposed borrowings, only 9 seem more likely to have been borrowed, than to
have been inherited. So, having reviewed the evidence of borrowings from
Mixe-Zoquean, Totonac and Wastekan, I must conclude that the extent of lexical
borrowings from Mesoamerican languages into proto-Nahuan is greatly overstated
by Kaufman.
Kaufman
also shows a long list of borrowings from Wasteko into Huastecan Nahuatl – the
Nahuatl variety that we know has been spoken in close contact with Wastekan
Maya for centuries. Here, most of the proposed borrowings seem completely
plausible, but a couple to me suggest the direction of borrowing to be the
opposite of what is assumed by Kaufman.
For example
the Wastekan word kw’itš’a “grind in
mortar” which Kaufman proposes as the source of Huastecan Nahua tekwicha “pestle” seems likely to be
related to the Nahuan word for grinding kwečoa
“to grind” from PN kwe¢iwa, and related to Huichol rakwi¢i “nixtamal”, Cora kwei¢i “dough” – suggesting a loan from Nahuan into Wasteko.
The Wastek word
molik “elbow” is suggestive, but it
is not restricted to Huastecan Nahuatl as Kaufman implies, it is found also in
western Nahua branch (and as molic in
Molina’s dictionary). This suggests either borrowing into Wastek from Nahuan or
an additional example of Wastek contact with PN. Given the otherwise
unconvincing evidence for Wastek/proto-Nahuan contact, it is probably best to
see the default hypothesis as a loan from Nahuan into Wastek. The proposed
borrowing of Wastek či’im “maguey
juice” as čiimiƛ “mothers milk” in Wastek Nahuan is unlikely, since Cora has ¢i’imé “mothers milk” suggesting again borrowing in
the opposite direction.
In the paper itself, Kaufman states that Mesoamerican languages are seemingly reluctant to borrow and that therefor any situation in which a language is permeated by borrowings shows very intense contact. I think the review of the paper suggests that proto-Nahuan was not permeated with borrowings from Wastekan, Totonakan and Mixe-Zoquean.
References Cited:
*Kaufman, T. (2001). The history of the Nawa language group from the earliest times to the sixteenth century: Some initial results. Paper posted online at http://www. albany. edu/anthro/maldp/Nawa. pdf. University of Pittsburgh.
I've never seen ¢ in a linguistic transcription before. How is it thought to have been pronounced?
SvarSletI just use that instead of c for ts. It's a sub convention of APA that I've learned in Mesoamericanist historical linguistics - in the olden typewriting days they would write the slash through the c's by hand before publishing the manuscripts.
SletRegarding the Wastekan loans:
SvarSlet1. N. čočolli – W. čočob 'deer-foot': assuming the /b/ was borrowed as /p/ which was later lost, is that consistent with the absolutive -lli? Also, what is "deer-foot"?
Regarding the Totonacan loans:
2. N. wapo-ƛ – T. waapa 'fish sp.': Why wouldn't this be borrowed as something like wāpa-ƛ? What kind of fish is it in Nahuatl?
3. N. tex-ƛi – T. tiiš 'brother-in-law'. Wouldn't it be borrowed as tīš-ƛi? Also, I see in Stubbs that this kind of term does not have a widespread etymon in UA. In other words, there are still a number of in-law terms in UA without much of an etymology. I would guess that they have internal etymologies, just not very easy ones to guess. With so few loans, I wouldn't think kin terminology is too likely to be one of them.
4. And on the same topic, if there are just a couple of loans from Totonac to Nahuan, the level of linguistic acculturation between the two was very slight. Given that, how do you justify ƛ coming in from Totonac?
If we are to accept both the deer-foot and the fish etymologies, are the environments of the *p similar enough that we need to set the relative chronology Wastekan contact, then p-loss, then Totonac contact?
SvarSletA deer foot is the foot of a deer. They are used as ceremonial objects I think. I think Kaufman considers that borrowings can be borrowed with phonological changes that are no necessarily rule-structured- for example leaving out segments or changing them semi-randomly. Whereas inherited words have to follow the sound changes.
SvarSletThe idea of p loss being diagnostic for inherited versus borrowed words bothers me a lot, because it seems to be simply wrong. Nahuatl has literally dozens of inherited words with p in them, both word initially and in "protected" positions inside thre word. The reality is that only some p's dissappeared, some of them became y and some stayed p. I think that Langacker's idea of something like a fortis/lenis distinction in PUA is probably required to account for the different paths of p. In any case, as I see it the reduction of p to h in many words is shared with Coracholan and must have happened much before proto-Nahuan moved into contact with any Mesoamerican languages.
Denne kommentar er fjernet af en blogadministrator.
SvarSlet