Walter Lehmann's Documentation of the Extinct Uru Variety of Ch'imu

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/272141870
The Uru of Ch'imu: An investigation of Walter Lehmann's material
Article · July 2014

DOI: 10.1515/stuf-2014-0013
CITATIONS READS
0 246
1 author:
Katja Hannß
University of Cologne
14 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
lexical manipulations of Kallawaya; subject clitics of Chipaya View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Katja Hannß on 10 May 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

stuf 2014; 67(2): 175 – 211
1 Katja Hannß
2
3
The Uru of Ch’imu: an investigation of
4 Walter Lehmann’s material
5
6
Abstract: In this paper, I will describe and discuss the extinct Uru variety of
7
Ch’imu/Lake Titicaca (Peru), as documented by the German researcher Walter
8
Lehmann (1878–1939). To this purpose, I will compare the Ch’imu Uru to the
9
closely related varieties of Irohito Uru and Chipaya (both Bolivia), relying on
10
archival material and previous studies. The topics I will take into consideration
11
include phonological and etymological features as well as grammatical markers
12
and constructions, such as e.g. personal and possessive pronouns and negation.
13
Based on the findings of my investigation, I will critically discuss the utility of
14
Lehmann’s Ch’imu data for further research.
15
16 Keywords: Peru, Bolivia, The Uru of Ch’imu, Chipaya, Uru phonology, Uru gram-
17 mar, Walter Lehmann
18
19 DOI 10.1515/stuf-2014-0013
20
21
22 1 Introduction
23
24 The goal of this paper is to describe and compare the Uru variety of Ch’imu (Peru)
25 to the Uru spoken in the community of Irohito (Bolivia). The Ch’imu variety is
26 special in at least one way, because there exists only one source for it: the manu-
27 script of Walter Lehmann from 1929, which he recorded with the support of his
28 two language consultants, Florentino and Nicolás Valcuña. Assessing the Uru of
29 Ch’imu appears to be possible only by a comparison with what we know of the
30 other varieties, particularly that of geographically close Irohito Uru.
31 The manuscript of Lehmann is a word list of 324 entries, which contains only
32 very basic grammatical information and the possibilities for a comparison are
33 thus restricted. In accordance with the scarce information obtainable for Ch’imu,
34 the following topics were chosen for the comparison: phonology, lexical, and in
35 particular, etymological information, the personal pronouns and possessive
36 marking strategies as well as negation. The Irohito data used for the comparison
37
38
39 Katja Hanss: Institute of Linguistics, University of Cologne, 50923 Cologne, Germany.
40 E-mail: khannss@uni-koeln.de; katja.hannss@googlemail.com
(CS6) WDG (155×230mm) DGMetaScience J-2913 STUF 67:2 pp. 175–212 STUF_67_2_#03 (p. 175)
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
176 Katja Hannß
are mainly taken from the unpublished manuscript of Max Uhle (1856–1944) 1
dating from 1894, Lehmann’s manuscript from Irohito, which he composed two 2
weeks before he visited Ch’imu, and the extensive word list of Alfred Métraux 3
(1902–1963) dating from 1935 (for a more detailed description, see section 2). 4
In this paper, it will be shown that the variety of Ch’imu, as represented in the 5
manuscript of Lehmann, is heavily influenced by Aymara and differs in pivotal 6
aspects from Irohito Uru. As a consequence of these findings, the linguistic usability 7
of the Ch’imu data will be critically discussed (see section 4.2). 8
The paper is organized as follows: after a brief introduction to the Uru lan- 9
guage, I will provide an overview of the database and sources in section 2. In the 10
following section 3, I will discuss the Ch’imu manuscript and compare selected 11
topics to the Uru data from Irohito. The paper will conclude with a summary and 12
an evaluation of the findings in section 4. 13
14
15
1.1 Introduction to Uru 16
17
Ch’imu Uru forms part of the small and isolated Uru-Chipaya language family of 18
the Bolivian highlands. The two members Uru and Chipaya are closely related, 19
although the exact degree of their relationship is not entirely certain (but see 20
Torero 1992). Uru was spoken around Lake Titicaca in the villages of Irohito 21
(Bolivia) and Ch’imu (Peru), while Chipaya is still spoken in the village of the 22
same name, Santa Ana de Chipaya, close to the Uyuni Salt Lakes (see Map 1). 23
Although in modern times reduced to these few locations, the language 24
family had a greater distribution in pre-colonial and early colonial times and was 25
presumably used from Lake Titicaca in the north, along the Desaguadero River to 26
the Lakes Poopó1 and Coipasa in the south, a distribution referred to as “aquatic 27
axis” by Wachtel (1986: 283). In contrast to their Aymara and Quechua neighbors, 28
farmers and stockbreeders, the Uru-Chipaya were hunters and gatherers, who 29
lived of fish, wildfowl, and aquatic plants. For this, they were despised first by the 30
Aymara and Quechua population and later also by the Spanish colonists, who 31
arrived on the Bolivian Altiplano in the second half of the 16th century. Because 32
of their low social and economic prestige, the Aymaricization and Quechuization 33
of the Uru-Chipaya had already begun in Inca times and was further fuelled 34
during the colonial period. The Spanish conquerors quickly adopted the Inca 35
policy of re-settling the Uru-Chipaya (and other smaller peoples) and forced them 36
37
38
1 There, another Uru variety, Uru Murato, was spoken, but became already extinct in the 17th
century. Only about 50 lexical items of this variety were recorded (see Miranda Mamani et al. 39
1992). 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
177
The Uru of Ch’imu
1 to live in newly founded communities2 with a dominant Quechua or Aymara pop-

2 ulation. Put under such pressure, most Uru-Chipaya quickly adopted the lifestyle
3 of their new neighbors and became, in parts quite successfully, farmers and
4 stockbreeders. At the end of the 17th century, the Uru-Chipaya population in
5 places had been reduced up to over 90% (see Wachtel 1986: 299).
6 Along with their traditional lifestyle, the Uru-Chipaya also gave up their lan-
7 guage and at the end of the 19th century, there were only three places left were
8 Uru-Chipaya was spoken: in Irohito and Ch’imu at Lake Titicaca and in the village
9 of Chipaya. Of these three, Chipaya is today the only community in which the
10 language is still in use, although it must be regarded as endangered (see Adelaar
11 2007: 19).3 Chipaya was recently documented and described by Cerrón-Palomino
12 (2006) and the DobeS documentation team (see also Dedenbach & Hannß 2008).4
13 Neither the Uru of Irohito nor that of Ch’imu fared as well as Chipaya, and
14 Irohito Uru became extinct in the early 1950’s. However, between 1894 and ap-
15 proximately 1952, Irohito-Uru was documented by a number of mainly European
16 researchers, who recorded grammatical and lexical data. Based on these sources,
17 the latest research on Irohito-Uru was conducted (see Hannß 2008, Muysken
18 2010). Ch’imu-Uru, finally, is as good as undocumented, except for Lehmann’s
19 manuscript from 1929. Accordingly, the status of Ch’imu-Uru when recorded by
20 Lehmann, its linguistic structure and the relation to Irohito-Uru and Chipaya5 as
21 well as the time from which on this variety must be regarded as extinct are virtu-
22 ally unknown. One aim of the present paper is thus to provide as much insight to
23 Ch’imu Uru as is possible on the basis of this severely limited material.
24
25
26
27
2 The database
28
In the following, I will present the most important sources for the present article.
29
I will first discuss Lehmann’s work, detailing in particular his manuscript of
30
Ch’imu, before turning to an outline of Uhle’s and Métraux’s achievements. The
31
works of Uhle and Métraux were chosen for two reasons: they are not only the
32
most comprehensive, but also the most reliable sources on Uru. Their reliability
33
was tested by cross-checking the results of one source with those of the other
34
35
36
2 The so-called reducciones (literally ‘reductions’ KH).
37
3 The estimated number of speakers ranges from 1,000 (see Adelaar 2007: 19) to 1,800 (see:
38
http://www.mpi.nl/DOBES/projects/chipaya) (13/01/2012).
39 4 See: http://www.mpi.nl/DOBES/projects/chipaya (13/01/2012).
40 5 But see Torero (1992) and section 4.2.
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
178 Katja Hannß
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Map 1: Uru-Chipaya speaking communities in the 21st century 6
37
38
39
6 From http://www.mpi.nl/DOBES/projects/chipaya/geography (01/02/2012). 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
179
The Uru of Ch’imu
1 sources. The more sources agree on a particular feature, the greater becomes its
2 reliability and, in turn, the more results from a particular source can be verified
3 this way, the greater becomes the reliability of that particular source itself (see
4 also Hannß 2008: 25).
5 This is crucial for the present paper. As the Irohito sources and the data they
6 contain have been cross-checked and verified that way, the lexical and grammat-
7 ical items found in (almost) all sources on Irohito are considered to be as ‘truly’
8 Irohito Uru. From this follows that I consider Ch’imu data that are different from
9 those of Irohito to be derivative of the Irohito variety. This is all the more the case
10 if a particular Irohito item agrees with its equivalent from Chipaya; often, Irohito
11 and Chipaya words and grammatical items are identical (whenever suitable,
12 reference to Chipaya will be made in the following). The varieties of Irohito and
13 Chipaya share a number of (phonological, grammatical, and lexical) features
14 which suggest that these are characteristic of the Uru-Chipaya language family as
15 a whole. Thus, deviations from these features in the Ch’imu data are viewed as
16 derivative from the general pattern displayed by Irohito (and Chipaya).
17 Before turning to a description of the sources, it is important to point to some
18 general peculiarities of the Uru data (see also Hannß 2008: 52f.). The idea of
19 collecting linguistic and anthropological data clearly stems from colonial times,
20 an era when Europeans had conquered ‘far-away’ places of the world and became
21 interested not only in the economic exploitation of their colonies, but also in the
22 cultures and languages of the indigenous peoples. Although the data discussed
23 here clearly come from the post-colonial period of Peru and Bolivia, they none-
24 theless were collected in a time and under circumstances that undoubtedly pre-
25 date the modern understanding of linguistic and anthropological fieldwork.
26 First, it must be noted that only Uhle had professional linguistic training,
27 while the other researchers were either social anthropologists or even came from
28 completely unrelated disciplines. However, they nevertheless considered them-
29 selves qualified to collect linguistic (and anthropological) data, a consideration
30 originating in the old idea of the ‘all-round scientist’, an idea rooted in an early
31 modern European understanding of education. With the possible exception of
32 Vellard (1949–67), the researchers presented here thus approached the Uru
33 language and culture from a rather pre-modern point of view. This is particularly
34 reflected in Uhle’s description of the Uru language, for which he relied on a
35 Latin-based grammar model, the classical grammar model for almost all Euro
36 pean languages. In the (many) cases where his Latin grammar failed him, Uhle
37 attributed these ‘failures’ to the native language and its speakers (see e.g. Uhle
38 1894: 84), a viewpoint from colonial times, when European cultures and lan
39 guages were considered superior to the supposedly lesser developed native ones.
40 That is, although we are dealing with data collected in post-colonial times, the
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
180 Katja Hannß
ideas employed by the respective researchers often still relate to pre-modern and 1
colonial times. 2
It is not mentioned explicitly in the sources, but we may assume that Uhle, 3
Lehmann, and Métraux were also influenced to a certain degree by the political 4
and social circumstances of their research. Even at the end of the 19th century, 5
many Latin-American countries still suffered from the aftermath of colonial times, 6
being entangled with each other in wars for access to resources and land gains. 7
This is particularly the case for the so-called “War for the Pacific” (1879–1884), 8
which was fought between Chile, Peru, and Bolivia (see Loza 2004: 22). This war 9
was followed by rebellions of the indigenous population against Spanish domi- 10
nation, which was still heavy on the native peoples. Although Peru and Bolivia, 11
like other Latin-American countries, were independent then, life had not 12
improved for the indigenous peasantry, who often was still as dependent on their 13
white landowners as before and kept in a system of patronage originating from 14
early colonial times. In Bolivia, this dependency ended only in 1952 with a revolt 15
of farmers, miners, and students who succeeded in establishing the so-called 16
Agrarian Reform (Reforma Agraria). In Peru, the Reforma Agraria followed in 17
1968.7 It was only after the Reformas Agrarias that native farmers could own land 18
and became independent of their patrons. Once again, it must be pointed out that 19
the Uru data discussed here were collected before the native population became 20
truly independent and was recognized (at least in theory) as an equal part of the 21
Bolivian and Peruvian society. 22
Thus, when Uhle, Lehmann, and Métraux came to Bolivia and Peru, they not 23
only brought with them their own biased views of indigenous cultures and lan- 24
guages, they furthermore found their attitudes confirmed by the way native peo- 25
ples were perceived by Spanish landowners and politicians. These attitudes tran- 26
spire in the sources on Uru in several ways, but most notably in an almost complete 27
lack of information on the native language consultants, for whom often not even 28
names were provided. Hence, when working with these Uru sources, one has to 29
keep in mind that the collection of the data and the general circumstances of field- 30
work were influenced by ideas and attitudes originating from pre-modern times. 31
32
33
2.1 Walter Lehmann (1929) 8
34
35
In 1929 and 1930, the German researcher Walter Lehmann conducted field work
36
in South America, one result of which is the manuscript from Ch’imu described
37
38
7 www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/76_1.pdf, www.nuso.org/upload/articulos/201_1.pdf (02/04/2013) 39
8 For more detailed biographical information, see Riese (1983) and Hannß (2008). 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
The Uru of Ch’imu 181
1 below. Walter Lehmann died in Berlin 1939, leaving five unpublished manuscripts
2 on Uru, 9 which are:
3 – an original manuscript from Irohito 10 (Lehmann 1929a)
4 – a fair copy of the manuscript from Irohito (Lehmann 1929b)
5 – the original manuscript from Ch’imu (Lehmann 1929c)
6 – a fair copy of the manuscript from Ch’imu (Lehmann 1929d)
7 – a comparative word list Ch’imu-Irohito (Lehmann 1929e).
8
9 Walter Lehmann visited the community of Irohito for one day only, on 12 October
10 1929, almost two weeks before he came to Ch’imu. Both these visits are quite sim-
11 ilar with respect to data recording and the duration of Lehmann’s stay (see also
12 section 2.1.2 below). However, in contrast to the Ch’imu manuscript, where he
13 explicitly names his language consultants and states who provided which part of
14 the data, we do not learn the name(s) of his Irohito language consultant(s) nor
15 does Lehmann provide any further information on them.
16 The composition of the Irohito manuscript is almost identical to that of the
17 Ch’imu manuscript, only the Irohito manuscript is slightly more extensive, con-
18 sisting of 453 entries. The information requested in Irohito is again almost the
19 same as in Ch’imu (see section 2.1.2 below).
20 Lehmann produced two versions of each manuscript, an original and a fair copy.
21 As I did not have access to the original manuscript from Irohito, all following state-
22 ments referring to Lehmann’s Irohito data are based on the fair copy.
23 In addition, Lehmann also compared his findings from Irohito to that of
24 Ch’imu, without, however, providing further comments or an analysis. This list
25 will not be considered in the following.
26
27
28 2.1.1 The Ch’imu manuscript
29
30 With respect to contents, the original manuscript and the fair copy are almost
31 identical and I will refer to both in the following.
32 Lehmann visited Ch’imu on 26th October 1929 where he met Florentino Val-
33 cuña, an elderly fisherman who lived in the village. Lehmann started working
34
35
36 9 As part of Lehmann’s academic legacy, the Uru manuscripts are in the possession of the
Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut in Berlin, at: http://www.iai.spk-berlin.de/bibliothek/nachlaesse/
37
einzelnachlaesse/lehmann-walter-1878-1938.html (13/01/2012). I owe thanks to the Ibero-
38
Amerikanisches Institut for providing me access to the manuscripts of both Walter Lehmann and
39 Max Uhle.
40 10 Referred to by Lehmann as Ancoaqui.
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
182 Katja Hannß
with Florentino Valcuña immediately, collecting a few hundred words. When Flo- 1
rentino’s son Nicolás Valcuña, alcalde 11 of Ch’imu, appeared Lehmann persuaded 2
Nicolás to accompany him to Puno. They kept working at Lehmann’s hotel in 3
Puno but Nicolás Valcuña returned to Ch’imu the same night. Thus, Lehmann 4
spent only one afternoon in the Uru community and did not return for further 5
interviews. 6
Lehmann worked with the interpreter Enrique Rodríguez Averanta (Lehmann 7
1929c: 2; my page numbering). He spoke Aymara with the Valcuña family and the 8
languages thus used in data recordings were Spanish, Aymara, and Uru. A valu- 9
able clue to the manuscript is the fact that in most cases Lehmann states whether 10
an item has been provided by Florentino or Nicolás Valcuña. Despite this, some 11
entries are also unspecified for their origin. However, as these resemble phono- 12
logically and, though to a lesser degree, grammatically those that were provided 13
by Florentino, we may assume that the majority of these unspecified entries was 14
actually provided by Florentino Valcuña. 15
Lehmann made the fair copy in his hotel in La Paz (date unspecified) and on 16
board of the ship back to Europe. The date given here is January 30th 1930, i.e. 17
about three months after his trip to Ch’imu. According to a final note, Lehmann 18
wrote the introduction to the manuscript on March 8th 1937 in Berlin, i.e. almost 19
eight years after his trip to Ch’imu. 20
The manuscript of Ch’imu consists of 29 pages with 324 entries. Until 21
p. 14/18812 the word list is ordered alphabetically and contains mainly concrete 22
nouns referring to body parts, clothing and such (for a more detailed description, 23
see below). On the following five pages, Lehmann provides directions i.e. north, 24
south, etc., temporal adverbs and expressions as well as conjugations of the verbs 25
‘to be’ and ‘to eat’ and a possessive paradigm for the word ‘house’. Numerals 1 to 26
10, 20, and 40 are provided on p. 19 to be followed by further lexical entries, 27
which do not belong to a particular semantic field but comprise only nouns. Page 28
24/273 contains another example of a possessive paradigm of ‘house’, which, 29
however, is incomplete since second and third person plural are missing. Leh- 30
mann supplies purely lexical information on the following pages, but on pp. 27 31
and 28 he adds conjugations of the verbs ‘to be’ and ‘to give’, again providing 32
single entries on ‘I am not’, ‘I was’, and ‘I was not’. The verb ‘to give’ is used as an 33
example of a transitive verb. Lehmann provides the drawing of a traditional loom 34
and lists thirteen items designating its parts. The headline clearly states that the 35
drawing was made two weeks earlier in Irohito, so it is likely that Lehmann used 36
37
38
11 Alcalde can be equated with the function of a mayor.
12 The number behind the slash denotes the number of Lehmann’s Uru entry; p. 14/188 thus 39
reads ‘page 14, entry no 188’. 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
1 the older drawing in the absence of a real loom to collect some more terms with
2 Nicolás Valcuña.
3 If we sort the contents of the manuscript into semantic domains, taking into
4 consideration the respective language consultant, the distribution as shown in
5 Table 1 emerges:
6
7 Table 1: Semantic domains of the Ch’imu manuscript
8
9 Semantic domain Florentino Nicolás unspecified for origin in total13
10 Body parts 26 3 – 29
11 Animals 16 5 2 23
12 Natural phenomena 18 6 1 22
13 Food 12 4 – 16
Household and its contents 9 5 2 15
14
Clothing 5 3 4 12
15
Person and kinship terms 7 6 1 12
16 Boats and fishing devices 9 3 – 11
17 Directionals – 10 – 10
18 Temporal information 1 4 – 5
19
20
The semantic fields, as listed here, are my proposal; Lehmann worked mainly
21
with an alphabetical word list, which was almost identical to the one he used in
22
Irohito two weeks earlier. This suggests that Lehmann applied a kind of stan
23
dardized questionnaire he had possibly prepared before-hand. Although this
24
undoubtedly offers some advantages, a researcher working with such a standard-
25
ized list also runs the risk of missing culture- and language-specific information.
26
If we take a look at e.g. the semantic field of ‘boats and fishing devices’, we find
27
that all in all Lehmann asked only for 11 terms, but given that Ch’imu, like all
28
other villages around Lake Titicaca, relied on fishing as an economic source, one
29
would expect a far greater number of terms, e.g. detailing the particular pieces of
30
a balsa raft or a net.14 That is, Lehmann used a word list, which was, at least in
31
parts, rather basic and, furthermore, did not spend sufficient time in Ch’imu to
32
learn more about any culture-specific vocabulary.
33
34
35
36 13 Refers to the overall number of words of a particular semantic field asked for by Lehmann.
In some cases, terms were provided by both Florentino and Nicolás, which explains why the
37
total number of entries does not necessarily equal the number of words given by the language
38
consultants.
39 14 As shown by the research of Vellard (1950: 70ff.), there are indeed a vast number of specific
40 terms referring to balsa rafts and fishing devices.
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
184 Katja Hannß
Apart from this, we also find that the lexical information is complementarily 1
distributed, i.e. for those semantic domains which require a (more or less) purely 2
lexical knowledge, Florentino provided most of the items. Only for the smallest 3
two semantic fields (directional and temporal expressions) did Nicolás contribute 4
the majority of information. For the rest of the semantic fields, Nicolás is marked 5
as contributor only when Florentino failed to provide the required information. 6
Although Lehmann does not further specify why he chose one language consul- 7
tant over the other, we may assume that Lehmann failed to elicitate these items 8
when working with Florentino in Ch’imu and took his chance to fill in the missing 9
words when working with Nicolás in Puno. As for the information on spatial and 10
temporal expressions, almost exclusively provided by Nicolás, we may further 11
hypothesize that Lehmann found the younger language consultant a more suit- 12
able contributor than his father (see also section 3 below) and thus decided to 13
work with Nicolás on these more complex terms rather than with Nicolás’ father. 14
15
16
2.2 Max Uhle (1894) 15 17
18
Uhle’s data on Uru-Chipaya were collected during a field trip between 1892 and 19
1894 and are presently kept at the Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut in Berlin.16 20
Uhle stayed in Irohito for one week only, the languages used in data collec- 21
tion were Uru, Aymara, and Spanish, and from Uhle’s remarks (see Uhle 1896: 22
19), we know that his language consultant was a man (for further information, 23
see Uhle 1894, 1896 and Hannß 2008). 24
Uhle’s manuscript, titled Grundzüge einer Uro-Grammatik ‘Basic outline of 25
an Uro grammar’, consists of 117 single and double pages, some of which are not 26
numbered, in which case they are cited as e.g. 64.1, where 64 refers to the last 27
page number Uhle used, while .1 indicates that it is the first unnumbered page 28
after this. 29
Uhle deals with every aspect of the language and in contrast to Lehmann, he 30
was also concerned with the closely related variety of Chipaya. His manuscript is 31
thus an entire grammar of Uru-Chipaya, in which Uhle usually, Uhle indicates 32
whether a particular construction stems from Irohito or Chipaya.17 Although 33
34
35
36
15 For more biographical details, see Rowe (1954).
37
16 At http://www.iai.spk-berlin.de/bibliothek/nachlaesse/einzelnachlaesse/uhle-max-1856-
38
1944.html (13/01/2012).
17 Unless indicated otherwise, only information marked as coming from Irohito is considered 39
for the present paper. 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
185
The Uru of Ch’imu
1 having collected a considerable number of sentences and more than 600 words in
2 Irohito (see Uhle 1896: 19), Uhle does not provide texts but single sentences.
3 The nominal and pronominal system of the language is by far the most elab-
4 orate section. In comparison, the verbal system is less detailed and other parts of
5 the language are treated equally briefly, e.g. postpositions, clausal markers, and
6 adverbs. Each of these topics receives only a few pages’ treatment.
7 When it comes to an evaluation of the manuscript we find that particularly
8 his description of the nominal and pronominal system is supported by later works
9 and even modern studies on the closely related Chipaya (see Cerrón-Palomino
10 2006) confirm his findings. Uhle’s manuscript is one of the most comprehensive
11 and reliable early works on Uru (and Chipaya).
12
13
14 2.3 Alfred Métraux (1935) 18
15
16 Like Uhle, Métraux visited Irohito only once for one week (in 1931) and communi-
17 cated with his language consultants (among whom was at least one elderly man)
18 via an interpreter; the languages used during the interviews would then have
19 been Spanish, Aymara, and Uru. The resulting article Contribution à l’ethnogra-
20 phie et à la linguistique des indiens Uro d’Ancoaqui (Bolivie) was published in 1935
21 (for more detailed information, see Métraux 1935 and Hannß 2008). Métraux’s
22 article consists of an introduction and a detailed ethnographical description (see
23 Métraux 1935: 75–89), where Métraux (1935: 89) observes that the Uru would not
24 use their ancient language any more but spoke Aymara even among themselves.
25 A somewhat contradictory statement is that Uru is “purer” than closely related
26 Chipaya, which Métraux explained by the fact that Irohito is geographically close
27 to important Uru centers of Lake Titicaca (Métraux 1935: 89). The word list itself
28 (see Métraux 1935: 90–110) is French-Uru and ordered alphabetically. It contains
29 631 lexical items of all word classes, i.e. verbs from every semantic class, adjec-
30 tives, adverbs of time, manner and degree as well as nouns. The latter cover all
31 possible semantic fields, as there are: body parts, kinship terms, clothing, food,
32 illness, tools and appliances, balsa rafts, domesticated and non-domesticated
33 animals as well as natural and astronomical phenomena. Métraux also provides
34 personal and interrogative pronouns, directional adverbs, short phrases of every-
35 day life, and numerals 1 to 23, 100, 1,000 and 10,000. However, Métraux made
36 only very basic grammatical observations. He further provides almost 200 addi-
37 tional explicative clauses, which aim to show the use of a certain word in e.g.
38
39
40 18 For further biographical details, see e.g. Sachot (2007) and Hannß (2008).
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
186 Katja Hannß
interrogative or imperative clauses. The example clauses are of varying length 1

and complexity. 2
Almost all grammatical interpretations obtained by an analysis of Métraux’s 3
example clauses are congruent with Uhle’s findings and can thus be verified by 4
them. The lexical material provided by Métraux agrees to a high proportion with 5
the lexical data given by e.g. Lehmann (1929b), and, together with Uhle’s manu- 6
script, Métraux’s data form ‘core information’ on Uru. 7
I would like to point to the quite remarkable documentary situation of Uru. In 8
contrast to the other main indigenous languages of the Bolivian Altiplano, Uru 9
was not documented or described in colonial times. Yet, during the late 19th and 10
early 20th, i.e. in a time before modern linguistics and modern fieldwork tech- 11
niques originated, the language experienced an increased interest and almost 12
every decade a new description or documentation of Uru was launched (see Uhle 13
1894, Polo 1901, Bacarreza 1957 [1910], Lehmann 1929a–e, Métraux 1935, Vellard 14
1949–67).19 We are thus in the somewhat remarkable situation that we have a 15
considerable amount of data, which, however, reflect the last 50 years of a lan- 16
guage in decline. About the structure and use of Uru before 1894, we can at best 17
speculate. 18
19
3 The Ch’imu manuscript in comparison to Irohito 20

21
22
In the following, I will compare the Ch’imu manuscript with the data we have
23
from Irohito, in particular those of Lehmann (1929b), Uhle (1894) and Métraux
24
(1935). In section 3.1, I will provide a lexical comparison, focusing on phonological
25
features in section 3.1.1, before turning to a brief discussion of loan words in sec-
26
tion 3.1.2. Grammatical features of Ch’imu-Uru and Irohito-Uru will be compared
27
in section 3.2, detailing the numeral system (section 3.2.1), personal pronouns
28
and nominal inflection in section 3.2.2 as well as some remarkable grammatical
29
deviations in the Ch’imu negation system (section 3.2.3).
30
31
3.1 Lexical comparison 32
33
In this section, I will discuss lexical features, i.e. phonological features, and those 34
related to the meaning and origin of a lexical item. I will begin with an outline of 35
36
37
19 Of these, Polo (1901), Bacarreza (1957 [1910]), and Vellard (1949–67) are not used here, since
38
Polo (1901) and Bacarreza (1957 [1910]) provide mere word lists without any extensive grammat-
ical observations, while Vellard’s material is vast, but differs notably from formerly collected 39
data by showing features typical for semi-speakers (see also Hannß 2008: 44ff.). 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
1 phonological features in section 3.1.1, before turning to loan words and words of
2 unidentifiable origin in section 3.1.2.
3
4
5 3.1.1 Phonology
6
7 The kinds of phonological deviations we find in the Ch’imu material, when com-
8 pared to Irohito, are manifold and comprise several, sometimes contradictory
9 features. The most common process attested in the Ch’imu manuscript is the
10 reduction or entire loss of a complex word-initial consonant. Most affected are
11 the affricates /ts/ and /č/; consider (1a–d). The Chipaya word for ‘bone’ is tsij
12 (Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Aguirre 2011: 245).
13
14 (1a) tshiji ‘bone’ Irohito [Uhle 1894: 1]20
15 (1b) tsix ‘bone’ Irohito [Métraux 1935: 102]
16 (1c) tsi:xi ‘bone’ Irohito [Lehmann 1929b: 8]
17 (1d) síxe ‘bone’ Ch’imu [Lehmann 1929d: 25/Florentino]
18
19 This process occurs three times with terms provided by Florentino and seven
20 times with items unspecified for language consultant. However, as outlined above
21 (see section 2.1.2), it is likely that the majority of these unspecified items was
22 indeed provided by Florentino. No item where a word-initial consonant cluster
23 has been reduced or omitted is attributed to Nicolás.
24 The reduction of complex consonants or consonant clusters occurs also
25 word-internally.21 In (2d), the consonant cluster [ks] has been reduced to a simple
26 fricative [k].
27
28 (2a) pek.si ‘flute’ Irohito [Uhle 1894: 2°] 22
29 (2b) peks ‘flute’ Irohito [Métraux 1935: 97]
30 (2c) pekx ‘flute’ Irohito [Lehmann 1929b: 6]
31 (2d) pi.ki ‘flute’ Ch’imu [Lehmann 1929d: 8]
32
33
34
35 20 Unspecified for origin.
36 21 Also affecting consonant clusters across syllable boundaries. Note that although in (2b,c) the
consonant cluster appears word-finally, this is due only to a deletion of the final vowel /i/, which
37
may be ascribed to rapid speech.
38
22 Unspecified for origin. Note that the Chipaya expressions for various types of flutes do not
39 contain something similar or identical to peksi (see Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Aguirre 2011: 239,
40 272, 400f.).
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
188 Katja Hannß
In addition, the Ch’imu material also shows contraction of words, as contrasted 1

to the respective equivalents in the Irohito data. Although no clear pattern is 2
observable, it appears that the middle syllable is often affected in contractions. 3
Again, the Chipaya words are more similar or even identical to Irohito: trhuki- 4
tsemz23 for ‘eyebrows’ and kakuna for ‘net’ (Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Aguirre 5
2011: 214, 274). Consider (3–4): 6
7
8
(3a) čuk.-čim.ča ‘eyebrows’ Irohito [Métraux 1935: 107]
9
(3b) tšuk-tšem.tša ‘eyebrows’ Irohito [Lehmann 1929b: 4]
10
(3c) tšun.tša ‘eyebrows’ Ch’imu [Lehmann 1929d: 5]
11
(4a) ka.ku.na ‘(fishing) net’ Irohito [Métraux 1935: 97] 12
(4b) ká:.na ‘(fishing) net’ Ch’imu [Lehmann 1929d: 22] 13
14
15
Example (3c) from Ch’imu suggests that the final stop /k/ of the first syllable as
16
well as the CVC-sequence of the following syllable have been deleted, thus result-
17
ing in the contracted, bisyllabic form tšuntša ‘eyebrows’. In the case of ká:na
18
‘(fishing) net’ (example 4b), the process is more transparent. The middle syllable
19
of kakuna ‘(fishing) net’ is not realized, but instead the final vowel of the first
20
syllable is lengthened, possibly as a reflection of the deleted syllable -ku-. Whereas
21
this example was provided by Florentino, the speaker of example (3c) is left
22
unspecified. It is uncertain whether the contraction of words in the Ch’imu data is
23
a regular process or is rather arbitrarily caused by rapid speech. Although in (3c),
24
the contraction does not appear to be particularly systematic, affecting parts of
25
two different syllables, the pattern in (4b) points to a more regular process, where
26
the contraction apparently leaves a trace in the form of vowel lengthening. As we
27
have only five examples of word contraction (two from an unspecified speaker,
28
two are attributed to Florentino, while one is provided by Nicolás), a definite
29
answer has to remain elusive.
30
In contrast to the processes affecting consonants, the reduction of complex
31
vowels occurs only twice in the Ch’imu data and both instances are somewhat
32
doubtful. In the case of pita pita ‘belly button’ (Lehmann 1929c: 6; my page num-
33
bering), the Ch’imu term differs from the Irohito word paeta paeta ‘belly button’
34
(Lehmann 1929b: 13) in that the diphthong has been reduced to a single vowel /i/.
35
However, the Irohito term is itself doubtful, because the Quechua word, from
36
which both Uru terms are derived, is pupute ‘belly button’ and thus does not con-
37
38
39
23 The grapheme <tr> represents what is spelt as <tš> or <č> here. 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
1 tain a diphthong, either.24 However, as I assume that the Irohito term is generally
2 the one underlying the Ch’imu expression, I tentatively propose vowel reduction
3 in the Ch’imu expression.
4 The other Ch’imu entry where we find a possible reduction in vocalic com-
5 plexity is kú:ña ‘strand of thread’ (Lehmann 1929d: 9), as opposed to káuni
6 (Lehmann 1929b: 7) from Irohito. There, the diphthong of the Irohito word has
7 apparently been reduced to a simple, although lengthened, vowel in the Ch’imu
8 expression.25 Since the Chipaya equivalent, qawñi ‘thread’ (see Cerrón-Palomino
9 & Ballón Aguirre 2011: 244), is almost identical to the Irohito expression, it seems
10 possible to claim a reduction of vocalic complexity in the Ch’imu word. Both
11 examples are unspecified for speaker(s).
12 However, the opposite process occurs more often in the Ch’imu data, i.e. the
13 addition or maintenance of vowels. 26 Consider (5a) to (5c).
14
15 Irohito Irohito Ch’imu
16 (5a) s-ta-i s-ta-i is-ta-lla
17 ob-give-imp ob-give-imp ob-give-imp
18 ‘Give me!’ ‘Give me!’ ‘Give me!’
19 [Métraux 1935: 95] [Lehmann 1929b: 25] [Lehmann 1929d: 28]
20 Irohito Irohito Ch’imu
21 (5b) tsmoya ‘a fly’ tsmá:ya ‘a fly’ tšús mú:yu ‘a fly’27
22 [Métraux 1935: 101] [Lehmann 1929b: 11] [Lehmann 1929d: 10]
23 Irohito Ch’imu
24 (5c) tší:utšul ‘dove’ tší:utšú:la ‘dove’ 28
25 [Lehmann 1929b: 13] [Lehmann 1929d: 11]
26
27 In the examples, the Ch’imu data contain an additional vowel, either in initial
28 (5a), middle (5b) or final position (5c) that is not present in the material from
29 Irohito. In the case of (5b), it seems as if the Irohito expression tsmoya/tsmá:ya ‘a
30 fly’ results from contraction, whereas the Ch’imu form has preserved the underly-
31 ing form, including the intermediate vowel. For example (5c), it is impossible to
32
33
34 24 The presumable Uru word for ‘belly button’ given by Métraux (1935: 102) and Vellard (1950:
35 58) is toñi:. This word is also the one used in Chipaya (see Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Aguirre
36 2011: 261).
25 Note that the final vowel is also different: /a/ in the Ch’imu term, /i/ in the one from Irohito.
37
26 The addition or maintenance of vowels occurs seven times in the data, where four instances
38
are unspecified for origin, two are attributed to Florentino and one to Nicolás.
39 27 The Chipaya word for ‘mosquito’ is smoya (Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Aguirre 2011: 257).
40 28 No Chipaya word for ‘dove’ found.
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
190 Katja Hannß
state whether the final vowel in the Ch’imu word tší:utšú:la ‘dove’ has been pre- 1
served or added, since we have no comparative data for this item. However, for 2
example (5a), it seems quite clear that the initial vowel /i/ on the first person 3
object marker (i)s- is an addition in the Ch’imu variety (at least, in the variety 4
used by Florentino and Nicolás), because all sources from Irohito and Chipaya29 5
agree on that the form of this marker is otherwise s- (see Hannß 2008: 226ff.). 6
The reduction of complex consonants or consonant clusters to simple conso- 7
nants demonstrates a tendency towards the assimilation to an Aymara or Quechua 8
syllable structure. Both these languages, but in particular Quechua, have a clear 9
bias towards an alternating CV.CV-syllable structure (see Hoggarth 2004: 17, on 10
Quechua; Huayhua Pari 2001: 93, on Aymara), whereas the Uru as known from 11
Irohito shows a tendency towards word-initial consonant clusters, thus resulting 12
in the following syllable pattern: CCVC (see examples 5b,c); another equally fre- 13
quent syllable pattern is CVC (see examples 3a,b) (for an overview of Uru syllable 14
structures, see Hannß 2008: 115). It thus seems that the syllable structure, and as 15
a result, the ultimate word structure, of the Ch’imu-Uru as spoken by Florentino 16
and Nicolás has been influenced by Quechua and/or Aymara. 17
Other and minor differences to the Uru of Irohito involve metathesis of vowels 18
and consonants and the change of sounds; most of these processes occur only 19
once or twice. The sound changes affect mainly the vowels /i/ and /a/ a well 20
as the lateral /l/, the vibrant /r/, the nasal /n/ and stops and fricatives. These 21
changes are marked either as unspecified or else were provided by Florentino. 22
Consider the examples below: in (6a) and (6b), a metathesis of vowels /a/ and /o/ 23
is shown, while in examples (7a) to (7c) the change of vibrant /r/ to lateral /l/ is 24
demonstrated. Finally, examples (8a) to (8c) illustrate the change of an initial 25
stop to a lateral in the Ch’imu form. 26
27
(6a) tsá:ko ‘bat’ Irohito [Lehmann 1929b: 11] 28
(6b) tšó:kha ‘bat’ Ch’imu [Lehmann 1929d: 19] 30 29
30
(7a) xorka ‘necklace; rosary’ Irohito [Métraux 1935: 93]
31
(7b) xórka ‘necklace; rosary’ Irohito
o31
[Lehmann 1929b: 4]
32
(7c) xólka ‘necklace; rosary’ Ch’imu [Lehmann 1929d: 4] 32
33
34
35
29 The Chipaya equivalent is zh- (see Cerrón-Palomino 2006: 109f.) and thus identical to Irohito. 36
Note that zh- is interpreted as non-personal in Chipaya (Cerrón-Palomino 2006: 109f.).
37
30 This is the only instance where the Irohito word is closer to Ch’imu than to Chipaya, as the
38
Chipaya expression for ‘bat’ is p’aspa (Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Aguirre 2011: 257).
31 Superscript vowels in Lehmann’s data denote glide vowels (see Hannß 2008: 93). 39
32 In Chipaya, ‘necklace’ is expressed by jorkiza (Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Aguirre 2011: 216). 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
1 (8a) qosqa ‘owl’ Irohito [Uhle 1894: 2a]33

2 (8b) káska ‘owl’ Irohito [Lehmann 1929b: 8]
3 (8c) lóska ‘owl’ Ch’imu [Lehmann 1929d: 10]34
4
5 Apart from these cases where certain regularities are observable, we also find
6 instances where no such regularities can be stated. 35 That is, these Ch’imu items
7 appear to be similar to their Irohito equivalents, but the deviations they show
8 cannot be explained by one of the processes discussed above. This is the case
9 with e.g. Ch’imu lí:tris ‘road’ (Lehmann 1929d: 3), which is provided by Uhle
10 (1894: 96.1) as llik, by Métraux (1935: 93) as liks or hiks, and by Lehmann (1929b:
11 2) on Irohito as lí:kshi. 36 Although the Ch’imu word shows a certain resemblance
12 to the other items, the difference between the Ch’imu and the Irohito data cannot
13 be accounted for by e.g. metathesis, vowel maintenance, Aymaricisation or
14 Quechuization of the syllable structure, etc. Another example is the Ch’imu word
15 tš’útko: ‘hat’, which in Irohito is realized as ska:ra or tská:ra (Uhle 1894: 1, 2b;
16 items from unspecified sources, Métraux 1935: 93, Lehmann 1929b: 17).37 It is
17
uncertain what causes these (irregular) deviations in the Ch’imu Uru. One
18 possible explanation is that in particular Florentino, who presumably produced
19 most of these items, had only insufficiently acquired the Uru language, could
20 remember these terms therefore only vaguely, and, accordingly, produced them
21 incorrectly.
22
23
24 3.1.2 Loan words and words of unidentifiable origin
25
26 In what follows, I will first present loan words in the Ch’imu data, before I turn to
27 a discussion of words for which no etymological origin can be established.
28 The most prominent deviations from Irohito-Uru found in the Ch’imu mate
29 rial, concern loan words. 38 Most of these loan words come from Aymara (32 items),
30 while a smaller part (13 items) is provided by Quechua. Spanish items are found
31
32
33 Unspecified for origin.
33 34 In Chipaya, ‘owl’ is quzhqa (Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Aguirre 2011: 250).
34 35 All in all, there are six cases found in the Ch’imu data. Three are unspecified for origin, two
35 are attributed to Florentino, and another one is found in Nicolás’ data.
36 36 The Chipaya equivalent is hikz(a) (Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Aguirre 2011: 212).
37 An (almost) identical expression is found in Chipaya: skara (Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Agu-
37
irre 2011: 281).
38
38 Note that Irohito Uru also contains a considerable number of loan words. However, I here
39 specifically refer to those concepts and/or entities that in Irohito Uru are expressed by an Uru
40 word, while Ch’imu Uru has adopted a Quechua, Aymara or Spanish word for it.
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
192 Katja Hannß
only four times in Lehmann’s Ch’imu manuscript. The largest portion of loan 1
words occurs in the data of Florentino: he provides 21 items of non-Uru origin. In 2
Nicolás’ data, 14 loan words are found, while the source(s) of 24 items are left 3
unspecified. The following Table 2 summarizes the distribution of loan words in 4
the Ch’imu data, according to language consultants and source languages. 5
The number of loan words constitutes about 15% of the Ch’imu data, which is 6
not an overly impressive number, given that in modern Quechua we sometimes 7
find up to 40% of Spanish loan words (see Hout & Muysken 1994: 47). However, it 8
is quite interesting to examine in which semantic domains the loan words appear. 9
Most are found in the semantic domain of body parts. Here, at least 13 items are 10
of Aymara, Quechua, or Spanish origin. Six of these items are unspecified for 11
language consultant, while the rest is attributed to Florentino; apparently, Nicolás 12
did not contribute to this semantic domain. As this is the semantic field which 13
includes most of the loan words, I provide an overview in Table 3. 14
There is possibly yet another word of Aymara origin, há:ke ‘nose’. The phono- 15
logical form resembles the Aymara word jake (see DeLucca 1983: 161) remarkably, 16
but while the Aymara word means ‘person, human being’ (DeLucca 1983: 161), the 17
18
Table 2: Distribution of loan words in the Ch’imu data 19
20
Florentino Nicolás unspecified speaker(s) in total 21
Aymara 16 10 6 32 22
Quechua 3 3 7 13 23
Spanish 2 1 1 4 24
in total 21 14 14 49 25
26
Table 3: Semantic domain of body parts 27
28
unspecified speaker(s) Florentino 29
Quechua pupú:te ‘belly button’ 30

ñó:tkxo ‘brain’ 31
Aymara nu:k’ó:ta ‘hair’ paeke ‘face’ 32
tšá:ra ‘leg’ axá:nu ‘face’ 33
ó:so- ‘to hurt’ nik’ú:ta ‘hair’
34
li:p’í:tši ‘skin’
35
lá:xla ‘tongue; language’
Aymara/Quechua 39 sílyo ‘(finger-/toe)nail’ 36
Spanish pí:tšu ‘breast’ sá:kre ‘blood’ 37
38
39
39 Refers to words which are phonologically and semantically identical in both languages. 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
1 Uru expression refers to ‘nose’. Since the Uru word for ‘nose’ is osa (see Uhle
2 1894: 6a,40 Polo 1901: 473, Métraux 1935: 102), it is unlikely that há:ke represents a
3 genuine Uru word. Unless one assumes some kind of semantic re-interpretation
4 of the Aymara word in Uru, it appears best to treat há:ke ‘nose’ as a word of
5 unidentifiable origin (see also further below).
6 It is, however, quite indicative that most loan words are found in this partic-
7 ular domain of body parts, which is assumed to form a considerable part of the
8 core vocabulary of a language (as represented by the Swadesh List; see e.g. Morris
9 1950). The relatively high number of Aymara but also Quechua words in this core
10 semantic domain points to a substantial influence these languages had on the
11 two Uru language consultants.
12 This is also reflected in the spatial and temporal expressions provided by Nicolás.41
13 There, all words are of Aymara or Quechua-Aymara origin. Table 4 summarises the
14 findings on the semantic domains of spatial and temporal expressions.
15 Like body parts, the temporal and spatial terminology forms part of the core
16 vocabulary of a language (e.g. the expressions for ‘year’, ‘night’, and ‘day’ are
17 given in the Swadesh List). The observation that we find Aymara loan words, too,
18 in the semantic domains of temporal and spatial expressions further supports the
19 assumption that Aymara was pivotal to both Uru speakers and might have even
20 been as essential as Uru. 42
21 Other semantic domains, such as domesticated and non-domesticated ani-
22 mals, the house and its goods, food and the denomination of plants, the climate
23
24 Table 4: Semantic domain of spatial and temporal expressions
25
26 unspecified speaker(s) Nicolás
27 Aymara t’u:mí:ña mara ‘year’43
28 ‘arranging corn stalks for the first time’ í:tša ‘now, presently’
29 úro: ‘day’
30 arú:ma ‘night’
halánta ‘west’
31
pá:ra ‘front’
32
Aymara/Quechua ké:pa ‘behind’
33 pú:ri- ‘wander; arrive’
34
35
41 One of these items is unspecified for origin, while none of the temporal or spatial expressions
37
is attributed to Florentino (see also section 2.1.2).
38
42 For Aymara influence on negation and the numeral system, an equally central part of the
39 lexicon, see sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
40 43 Used several times.
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
194 Katja Hannß
and natural phenomena, clothing as well as titles of people and/or their profes- 1
sions (such as e.g. ‘baker’, ‘mayor’) contain at the maximum three loan words, 2
but usually less. It is uncertain why these semantic domains show fewer loan 3
words than those that belong, at least in part, to the core vocabulary of Uru. 4
Before proceeding to a discussion of words of unidentifiable origin, I would 5
like to point out that most loan words do not show any of the phonological mod- 6
ifications otherwise attested for Ch’imu Uru (see section 3.1.1). One of the few 7
changes concerns the Aymara word nik’ú:ta ‘hair’, which is also realized as 8
nu:k’ó:ta, i.e. the first vowel has changed from /i/ to /u/ (see Table 3). Apart from 9
this, most loan words were integrated in Ch’imu Uru in their original, i.e. Aymara 10
form. 11
When compared to the Irohito data, the second greatest part of words of non- 12
Uru origin (38 items) is of unknown and mostly doubtful origin (see also section 13
3.2.1). Of these 38 words, 10 are unspecified for origin, while 17 are found in the 14
data provided by Florentino; 11 terms are attributed to Nicolás. Among these 15
words of unidentifiable origin, we find such basic terms as ‘eat’ and ‘food’, which 16
in Ch’imu are given as indira- and sí:ntañá:ne:, respectively. The expression found 17
everywhere else, in the Irohito data (see e.g. Uhle 1894: 92.1) but also in that of the 18
closely related variety of Chipaya (see Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Aguirre 2011: 19
217), is lul- ‘eat’. It must be mentioned that the word lu’x ‘food’ also appears in the 20
Ch’imu data (Lehmann 1929d: 5), but the words used to exemplify the verbal 21
inflection pattern are sí:nta- and indira- (see Lehmann 1929d: 17/208, 210). These 22
expressions cannot even be attributed, either, to a language spoken formerly in 23
the region: Pukina. Until the 19th century, Pukina was another language of the 24
Lake Titicaca region, 44 but the Pukina word for ‘food’ is uqqa (see Torero 2002: 25
455) and thus bears no resemblance to the Uru words in question. Below are 26
further examples of words with an unidentifiable etymology. 27
28
(9a) ‘átto: ‘mother’ Irohito [Vellard 1950: 61] 29
(9b) a:tà ‘mother’ Irohito [Lehmann 1929b: 9] 30
(9c) a:tò ‘mother’ Ch’imu [Lehmann 1929d: 10/Nicolás] 31
(9d) ko:kó:ba ‘mother’ Ch’imu [Lehmann 1929d: 25/Florentino] 32
33
(10a) qóñi ‘dry’ Irohito [Uhle 1894: 103]45
34
(10b) koñi ‘dry’ Irohito [Métraux 1935: 106]
35
(10c) khóñi dry’ Irohito [Lehmann 1929b: 17]
36
(10d) hándžis/hiuáña ‘dry’ Ch’imu [Lehmann 1929d: 13]
37
38
44 In the area of Tiwanaku (see Adelaar & van de Kerke 2009: 126). 39
45 Unspecified for origin. 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
1 In (9a–d), the expressions for ‘mother’ are listed. The Irohito data from Vellard
2 and Lehmann as well as the term given by Nicolás reflect the genuine Uru word,
3 which is further attested in Polo (1901: 472), Bacarezza (1957 [1910]: 62), Vellard
4 (1967: 23), and Muysken (2005: 7).46 Only the item given by Florentino differs com-
5 pletely. We find a similar situation in example (10a–d): while the sources quoted
6 above agree that the word for ‘dry’ is qóñi or k(h)óñi, the term found in the Ch’imu
7 data (speaker(s) left unspecified) deviates entirely from the other entries.47 The
8 aforementioned word há:ke ‘nose’ (see above) also seems to belong in this con-
9 text of unidentifiable words. It appears best to analyze such words as ad-hoc cre-
10 ations, possibly made up by the Ch’imu language consultants when being lost for
11 words during the recording. It is, again, quite significant that even central terms,
12 such as ‘mother’, were apparently not in the immediately accessible lexicon of
13 the language consultants, and such errors cannot be entirely attributed to a
14 certain hesitation caused by the unfamiliar recording situation. We thus have to
15 assume that these words were possibly unknown to Florentino and/or Nicolás,
16 which, in turn, suggests that Uru might have not been the prevalent language of
17 their daily communication.
18 A somewhat contradictory observation is that in seven cases the Ch’imu term
19 possibly represents the genuine Uru word, whereas the Irohito word is a loan.
20 Compare (11a,b) to (11c).
21
22 (11a) lai:ka ‘sorcerer’ Irohito [Uhle 1894: 5] 48
23 (11b) laiki šoñi ‘sorcerer’ Irohito [Métraux 1935: 107]
24 (11c) pá:kho ‘sorcerer’ Ch’imu [Lehmann 1929d: 7]
25
26 The word lai:ka or laiki, respectively, is a loan from Aymara layka ‘sorcerer’
27 (DeLucca 1983: 272), as pointed out by Uhle and Métraux, while the word in (11c)
28 cannot be traced back to either Aymara or Quechua. The only alternative we have
29 for lai:ika/laiki and pá:kho is čis-ni, literally saying ‘the one who knows’ (Vellard
30 1951: 6). Although not entirely certain due to a lack of data, it is possible that in
31 the case of pá:kho ‘sorcerer’ we are confronted with the genuine Uru expression,
32 which in Irohito had been replaced either by the Aymara word or else by the
33 (transparent) derivation čis-ni.
34
35
36
46 The Pukina equivalent is imi ‘mother’ (Torero 2002: 451). In Chipaya, the Quechua based
37
word maa ‘mother’ is used (see Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Aguirre 2011: 252).
38
47 At the present state of research, the Pukina word for ‘dry’ is unknown. The Chipaya word
39 agrees with the Irohito term: qhuñi ‘dry’ (see Cerrón-Palomino & Ballón Aguirre 2011: 278).
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
196 Katja Hannß
A similar example is provided in (12a–c). While all other sources have the 1
Quechua based word tara for ‘maize’, the Ch’imu data in (12c) gives a divergent 2
term. Again, its genuineness cannot be verified, but given that for the Uru people, 3
as for all other communities on the Bolivian Altiplano, maize was a significant 4
part of their nutrition, it is not unlikely that there existed a distinct Uru word for 5
it. 6
7
8
(12a) tara ‘maize’ Irohito [Métraux 1935: 100]49
9
(12b) tá:ra ‘maize’ Irohito [Lehmann 1929b: 10]
10
(12c) k’u:rú:nda ‘maize’ Ch’imu [Lehmann 1929d: 26/Florentino]
11
12
The picture that evolves from an analysis of loan words and words of unidentifi- 13
able origin in the Ch’imu data further strengthens the impression that Aymara 14
(and Quechua, although to a lesser degree) had a very strong effect on the speech 15
of the two language consultants and one might even wonder whether Uru was 16
indeed the first language for Florentino (see also section 4.2). This notion is 17
further supported by the fact that a significant number of loan words occurs in 18
semantic domains which form part of the core vocabulary of a language (see e.g. 19
the discussion on ‘body parts’). This suspicion is further supported by the fact 20
that the Ch’imu data contains quite a number of words that are best analyzed as 21
ad-hoc creations, which occur in central parts of the lexicon (see e.g. example 22
9d). As already noted for the analysis of phonological features (see section 3.1.1), 23
it is the elderly language consultant Florentino who produces most of the loans 24
and ad-hoc creations, although these are also found in the speech of his son 25
Nicolás. 26
In the following sections, it will be investigated whether we find a similar 27
situation with respect to grammatical features. 28
29
30
31
3.2 Grammatical comparison
32
33
In this section, I will turn to a grammatical comparison, beginning with a discus-
34
sion of the numeral system in section 3.2.1, before turning to the use of personal
35
pronouns and nominal inflection in section 3.2.2. Finally, negation marking will
36
be discussed in section 3.2.3.
37
38
39
49 Métraux (1935: 100) points to the Quechua origin of this term. 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
1 3.2.1 The numeral system

2
3 In what follows, I will present the numeral systems of Florentino and Nicolás.
4 Table 5 presents the numeral systems relevant for the following discussion.
5 Although the numerals as provided by Nicolás largely correspond to the Iro-
6 hito forms of Uhle (1894: 29) and can thus be interpreted as being Uru, they, too,
7 show some of the phonological deviations discussed in section 3.1.1. The form
8 tásnu: ‘five’ thus possibly results from a contraction of taks.nú.ku, where the velar
9 stop /k/ of the first syllable has been deleted. Likewise deleted is the coda <ku>,
10 thus yielding the form tásnu:. The numeral taxso: ‘six’ possibly demonstrates the
11 addition (or else maintenance) of a final vowel (see section 3.1.1). In contrast to
12 the Uru numeral as given by Uhle, which ends in a consonant, the Ch’imu form
13 displays a long vowel, although it has to remain open whether the Ch’imu numeral
14 preserves the final vowel or whether it arises from some Aymaricization (or
15
16
Table 5: Numeral system of Uru (Ch’imu and Irohito), Aymara, and Quechua
17
18
Numerals Florentino Nicolás Irohito50 Aymara51 Quechua52
19
20 1 pí:si – tsi maya huk
2 pá:ti – pisk paya iskay
21
3 pé:xe – čep kimsa kimsa, kinsa
22 4 pú’xtsi – pakpik pusi tawa
23 5 p’íske: tásnu: taksnúku phichqa p(h)isqa
24 6 súxte: taxso: tajts suxta soqta
25 7 kállke: tú:ku: tó:gu paqallqu qanchis
8 púxse: kúnku kónku kimsaqallqu pusaq
26
9 kándžis sánko sánku llatunka isqon
27
10 túnka khá:ro qa:lu tunka chunka
28 11 túnka pí:si t´:esña53 kalu či:čis54 tunka mayani chunka hukniyoq
29 20 pá:a túnka pá:a khá:ro pisk kalu55 paatunka iskay chunka
30 40 pá:a té:sña – páktik kalo56 pusitunka57 tawa chunka
31
32
33 50 From Uhle (1894: 29).
34 51 From Huayhua Pari (2001: 212).
35 52 From Hoggarth (2004: 118).
36 53 It is uncertain whether té:sña refers to 11 or 20.
54 From Métraux (1935: 11).
37
55 From Métraux (1935: 11).
38 56 From Polo (1901: 468)
39 57 From DeLucca (1983: 623). Originally spelt as pusitunca, but for sake of uniformity, I represent
40 it as pusitunka.
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
198 Katja Hannß
uechuization) of the syllable structure (for a more detailed discussion, see sec-
Q 1
tion 3.1.1). Finally, Nicolás’ numeral khá:ro ‘ten’ shows a change from /l/ to /r/, 2
when compared to the Irohito equivalent as provided by Uhle, qa:lu. Thus, 3
although the numerals given by Nicolás are undoubtedly Uru, they show some of 4
the characteristic phonological differences to the Irohito data as found elsewhere 5
in the Ch’imu material. 6
The numeral system as provided by Florentino is quite remarkable and 7
requires a more detailed discussion. Florentino’s numerals one to three do not 8
equal or even resemble the Quechua and Aymara numerals and differ from the 9
Irohito numeral system, too, i.e. Florentino’s numerals one to three are best 10
regarded as private. 58 Remarkably, from four onwards, Florentino counts by mix- 11
ing Aymara and Quechua, although Aymara appears to be slightly predominant. 12
The numerals five and eight are clearly from Quechua and we may further assume 13
that also kándžis, although glossed as ‘nine’, is Quechua, since it suspiciously 14
resembles the Quechua word for ‘seven’, qanchis. Whether this is a systematic 15
deviation in Florentino’s numeral system or whether it rather has to be attributed 16
to some misunderstanding during the recording session has to be left unan- 17
swered. Florentino’s term for ‘seven’ is adopted from Aymara, although the onset 18
syllable is not realized in Florentino’s speech; again, it has to remain open 19
whether Florentino always omits the onset syllable of Aymara paqallqu, did so 20
only on this occasion, or whether Lehmann simply failed to capture the first 21
syllable. Even within one numeral, Florentino shows some mixing, as can be seen 22
in the form túnka pí:si ‘11’, where Florentino combines the Aymara numeral tunka 23
‘10’ with what he gives as ‘one’. 24
Although Nicolás’ numeral system is quite consistently Uru, here, too, we 25
find some mixing. His form for ‘20’, pá:a khá:ro, consists of the Aymara element 26
pá:a, meaning ‘two’ (see DeLucca 1983: 660) and the Uru numeral khá:ro, ‘10’. 27
Another striking form is té:sña, which is the only numeral found in the data 28
of both Florentino and Nicolás. In the manuscript, it is not clearly discernible 29
whether Nicolás’ form té:sña refers to ‘11’ or rather to ‘20’. Since Florentino uses 30
pá:a té:sña to express ‘40’, it seems likely that té:sña should refer to ‘20’; however, 31
Nicolás gives pá:a khá:ro as ‘20’ and, as outlined above, the composition of this 32
form is quite transparent (regardless of the fact that it is mixed). For lack of other 33
data, we may assume that té:sña is an alternative expression for ‘20’, which would 34
also explain Florentino’s numeral pá:a té:sña ‘40’. However, té:sña has no equiv- 35
alent in the Irohito data and, given that Nicolás otherwise uses the Uru numeral 36
37
38
58 Although Florentino’s numeral for ‘one’, pí:si, resembles quite remarkably the Quechua word 39
for ‘little’, pisi (see Hoggarth 2004: 88). 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
1 Table 6: The old numeral system of the Titicaca region, according to Vellard (1967: 36)
2
3 Inf.: Chura Tihuanacu (1942) Inf.: Manuel inta Indio Inf.: Posnansky
4 uru (1942) Tihuanacu
5 1 máyti máyti maiti
6 2 páyti páyti paiti
7 3 iríti yṹnti iriti
4 tak’ sax (6 ¿yána?) ták’si yunki
8
5 čanákọ tákiri takiri
9
6 iríti taksa
10 7 čipána chipana
11 8 wanū́ku chanaka
12 9 ačíči kolko
13 10 ţọ́trọ chitjo
14
15
16 system, it is possible that Nicolás adopted the form té:sña from his father. Note
17 that pá:a té:sña ‘40’ is another case of language mixing, where Florentino com-
18 bines Aymara pá:a with unknown té:sña.
19 In this context, it must be noted that Vellard lists a numeral system which he
20 refers to as the “old numbering of the Lake Titicaca region” (Vellard 1967: 36f.,
21 translation mine). See Table 6.
22 In this system, at least the first two numerals, máyti ‘one’ and páyti ‘two’ seem
23 to be derived from Aymara, while iríti ‘three’ cannot be attributed to Aymara or
24 Quechua.59 However, Florentino’s numerals one to three do not correspond to
25 these forms, either, and even if we compare them to the Pukina numerals (see
26 Vellard 1967: 37; Torero 2002: 418), we do not find any particular resemblance. It
27 thus appears best to analyze Florentino first three numerical terms as words of an
28 unidentifiable origin (see also section 3.1.2).
29 A last remark concerns the missing numerals ‘one’ to ‘four’ in Nicolás’ data
30 (see Table 5), a gap, for which Lehmann does not provide an explanation. One
31 interpretation is to assume that Nicolás’ first four numerals are identical to those
32 of his father and that Lehmann therefore refrained from repeating them. Although
33 Nicolás seems to use quite consistently the Uru numeral system, we saw above
34 that he integrated a foreign numeral into his system and it is thus not entirely
35 improbable that Nicolás adopted the numerals ‘one’ to ‘four’ from his father’s
36 rather private numeral system.
37
38
39 59 Note that most of the other numerals of the so-called Titicaca numeral system have an e qually
40 opaque origin. The issue of the Titicaca numerals will not be further pursued in the following.
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
200 Katja Hannß
However, what (again) transpires is that while Nicolás’ data are by and large 1
comparable to the Irohito data and are thus further confirmed by these, the Uru 2
of Florentino shows a considerably higher degree of Aymara and Quechua influ- 3
ence and, furthermore, contains elements that (so far) cannot be attributed to any 4
language. 5
6
7
3.2.2 Personal pronouns and possessive marking 8
9
Table 7 provides an overview of the personal pronouns as represented in the 10
Ch’imu and Irohito material. 11
Before turning to a comparison of the Irohito and Ch’imu data, it must be 12
noted that a profound shift of the pronominal system of Irohito Uru is d ocumented 13
during the approximately 55 years in which the language was recorded (although 14
this process had probably started earlier). I will briefly sketch the changes in the 15
Irohito variety in order to make more clearly understood the deviations we find in 16
the Ch’imu material. 17
The data on the pronominal system of Irohito display several types of incon- 18
sistencies that point to a rapid change under Aymara (and possibly Quechua) 19
influence. One of the more crucial changes involves the introduction of an 20
inclusive/exclusive split in the first person plural (see Crevels & Muysken 2005: 21
322, Hannß 2008: 216), modelled after Aymara (and/or possibly Quechua). In this 22
newly created split, the former general pronoun of a first person plural was turned 23
into a first person plural inclusive pronoun (see Hannß 2008: 216), while the 24
recently introduced category of a first person plural exclusive is expressed by 25
26
27
Table 7: The personal pronouns of Ch’imu and Irohito
28
29
Ch’imu60 Irohito61
30
1st singular uí:tra wir 31
2nd singular á:ma a:m
32
3rd singular anxáta ni:
1st plural inclusive uí:tš’ú:ña učum 33
1st plural exclusive – wejnaka 34
2nd plural ántšó:ko: amčuk 35
3rd plural ní:uináka ni:naka 36
37
38
60 After Nicolás Valcúña. 39
61 From Uhle (1894: 35). 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
201
The Uru of Ch’imu
1 wisnaka (represented as wejnaka in Table 7), i.e. the pronoun of the first person
2 singular to which the Aymara general plural marker -naka is attached (see also
3 Hannß 2008: 184). At this time, the Aymara general plural marker -naka quickly
4 spread through the Uru pronominal system and replaced the former Uru pronom-
5 inal plural marker -wiči (see Hannß 2008: 182f.). Both forms were competing for
6 a while, but finally, sometime around 1930, the use of -wiči ceased and ‑naka
7 became the only plural marker. Compare (13a–e) from Irohito:
8
9
(13a) niu-wič
10
3rd-pl
11
‘they’
12
[Polo 1901: 480]
13
(13b) ni-wič kuya
14
3rd-pl house
15
‘their house’
16
[Lehmann 1929b: 22]
17
(13c) ni-wiči-tani
18
3rd-pl-com
19
‘with them’
20
[Métraux 1935: 90]
21
(13d) ni-naka lik-čay
22
3rd-pl drink-dec
23
‘they drink’
24
[Métraux 1935: 92]
25
(13e) ni-naka
26
3rd-pl
27
‘they’
28
[Vellard 1951: 16]
29
30
31 This system in transition is possibly reflected in the pronoun of a third person
32 plural as given in the Ch’imu data (see Table 7). The form ní:uináka can be ana-
33 lyzed consisting of the pronoun of a third person ni-, the Aymara plural marker
34 -naka, while the middle element -wi- 62 is possibly a remnant of the former Uru
35 pronominal plural marker.
36
37
38
39
40 62 Represented as <ui> in Lehmann’s (1929d: 17) transcription.
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
202 Katja Hannß
It is important to note that Lehmann does not mention an inclusive/exclusive 1

split for Ch’imu, which suggests that the language consultants possibly preserved 2
an older stage of the language in their speech. 3
However, while the contrast through the inclusive/exclusive split can be 4
explained by language shift in Irohito, the following difference between the 5
pronominal systems of Ch’imu and Irohito is more striking: while for Irohito, the 6
pronoun of a third person is usually provided as ni (see Table 7), the Ch’imu data 7
has anxata. In this context, it is quite intriguing that Lehmann (1929b: 22, on I rohito) 8
lists a similar form amxá ‘3rd person’ and that Métraux (1935: 100) provides the 9
form ni as correspondent to French “lui”, while am means “elle” (Métraux 1935: 10
95).63 Since the closely related variety of Chipaya has gender distinction in its pro- 11
nominal 64 and verbal inflection system (see Cerrón-Palomino 2006: 113ff., 147ff.), it 12
is tempting to analyze the Ch’imu pronoun anxata as referring to a third person 13
singular female, thus postulating gender distinction in Ch’imu Uru as well. How 14
ever, this analysis poses some problems. First, the Ch’imu data offer no correspond- 15
ing masculine form. Second, even if we assume that the alleged female form anxata 16
had at some point in time replaced the masculine pronoun ni and had thus become 17
the general pronoun for a third person singular, unmarked for gender, it is typolog- 18
ically uncommon to have the female form as the unmarked one (see Greenberg 19
[1966] 2005: 39).65 Finally, the Ch’imu pronoun of a third person plural is clearly 20
built on the form ni, and we do not have the slightest evidence that there once 21
existed a form like *anxata-naka or *anxata-wichi (either marked or unmarked for 22
gender). On the other hand, it appears insufficient to interpret anxata as a mere 23
mistake, made by Nicolás or Lehmann, particularly as Lehmann had collected sim- 24
ilar information in Irohito two weeks before he visited Ch’imu; furthermore, 25
Métraux, who, as far as we know, had been uninfluenced by Lehmann’s research, 26
reports something similar. 27
A definite answer has to remain elusive, but I tentatively propose to analyze 28
anxata as a remnant of an older, different and possibly more complex pronominal 29
system (to which probably also the pronominal plural marker -wichi belonged). 30
The nature of the changes and possible re-interpretations that led to its use as 31
documented in Lehmann’s Ch’imu material as well as its potential connotations 32
will probably remain unknown. 33
34
35
63 Although the final element *-ta of the Ch’imu third person singular anxata pronoun looks 36
suspiciously like a grammatical marker, we have no evidence that the pronoun is actually *anxa
37
instead of anxata. Compare Table 8 on possessive pronouns.
38
64 The Chipaya pronoun of a third person feminine is naa (see Cerrón-Palomino 2006: 102).
65 Although Greenberg himself admits that “[f]or the category of gender [. . .] the evidence is less 39
clear [. . .].” For a detailed discussion of the topic of gender, see e.g. Corbett (1991). 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
1 Other and minor differences to Irohito concern the phonological structure of

2 the Ch’imu personal pronouns. This applies in particular to the addition or main-
3 tenance of a final vowel /a/ and /o/, respectively, and the use of an alveolar nasal
4 /n/ instead of a bilabial nasal /m/ (see the pronouns of a first and second person
5 plural in Table 7). A final remark concerns the pronoun of the first person singular
6 uí:tra ‘I’, differing from its Irohito equivalent not only by the final vowel, but also
7 by an additional /t/, which remains largely unanalyzable. An analysis of the pos-
8 sessive pronouns (see further below) suggests that the element ?-tra66 is some kind
9 of additional, and possibly grammatical, element, of an unknown function.
10 Another issue to be discussed concerns nominal inflection. Usually, in Irohito
11 Uru, possession is indicated by juxtaposing possessor and possessed, where the
12 possessor precedes the possessed. There are no special forms for possessive pro-
13 nouns; rather, they equal the personal pronouns (see Table 7), with the exception
14 of the first person singular wist ‘my’ instead of wir (for an overview, see Hannß
15 2008: 186f). The possessed is unmarked, as can be appreciated in examples (14)
16 and (15) from Irohito.
17
18 (14) wist kui[a]-kista pit-čay
19 my house-sep come-dec
20 ‘I come from my house.’ [Vellard 1967: 17]
21
(15) am kui[a]-kina
22
you house-dir
23
‘to your house.’ [Vellard 1967: 20]
24
25
Consider examples (14) and (15) to the possessive forms as provided by Florentino
26
and Nicolás Valcúña in Table 8.
27
28
Table 8: Possessive paradigms of Florentino and Nicolás Valcúña67
29
30
Florentino Nicolás translation
31
32 ku:yá-ga ui:k’ú:ña ku:yá-ga ‘my house’
ku:yá má:i á:mp ku:yá-ga ‘your (sg) house’
33
ku:yá-pa anxat ku:yá-ga ‘his/her house’
34 tš’í:mu ku:yá-ga u:tš’ú:ña ku:yá-ga ‘our house’
35 – antšo:xo ku:yá-ga ‘your (pl) house’
36 – ní:ui-náka ku:yá-ga ‘their house’
37
38
66 The question mark (?) indicates uncertainty as to whether the sequence -tra can indeed be
39 labelled a grammatical marker.
40 67 The hyphenation is mine.
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
204 Katja Hannß
What is most striking is that Florentino uses the Aymara possessive markers, 1
which are -ja for a first person, -ma for a second person, and -pa for a third person 2
(see Cerrón-Palomino & Carvajal Carvajal 2009: 188). Compare the possessive 3
paradigm in Aymara:68 4
5
(16) uta-ja ‘my house’ 6
uta-ma ‘your (sg) house’ 7
uta-pa ‘his/her house’ [Cerrón-Palomino & Carvajal Carvajal 2009: 188] 8
9
The only exception from the otherwise Aymara-like structure of Florentino is the 10
use of tš’í:mu in the first person plural, presumably to bring out the difference 11
between the first person singular and plural, which are both marked by -ga. It is 12
quite remarkable that Florentino uses the denomination of his village (and 13
people), tš’í:mu, instead of the Uru pronoun of a first person plural u:tš’ú:ña (see 14
Tables 7 and 8). Whether this is another ad-hoc creation of Florentino (see also 15
section 3.1.2) or a systematic feature of his possessive paradigm has to remain an 16
open issue, as the only other information we have on nominal and verbal inflec- 17
tion patterns had been provided by Nicolás. 18
Nicolás likewise shows a possessive paradigm that differs notably from that of 19
Irohito. Like his father, he attaches a possessive marker to the possessed, but in 20
contrast to Florentino, who inflects the possessed item for person, Nicolás appears 21
to make use only of the marker for a first person, -ga, without adapting it to the 22
respective person. This is, however, not entirely certain, because the word forms of 23
the possessed noun are mainly based on my interpretation of Lehmann’s record- 24
ings. Lehmann (1929c: 18; my page numbering) explicitly provides only the forms of 25
the first person singular and third person plural, i.e. ku:yá-ga and ku:yá-ga. For the 26
remaining persons, he gives only the personal pronouns and, in the case of the 27
second and third person singular, the final and superscripted /a/ in brackets, while 28
the possessed nouns are referred to by hyphens. These are interpreted here as indi- 29
cating a repetition of the same nominal form. In addition to this apparently defec- 30
tive Aymara paradigm, Nicolás further uses personal pronouns to express posses- 31
sion. The form of the pronoun of a first person singular, ui:-k’ú:-ña 69 ‘I’ or ‘my’, is 32
again striking and only in part analyzable. It appears that the aforementioned ele- 33
ment ?-tra is indeed some grammatical marker, since it can apparently be detached 34
(see Table 8) and be replaced by other material. The alleged element ?-k’ú:- remains 35
inexplicable, while the final element -ña might be tentatively analyzed as the 36
37
38
68 Possessive pronouns can be omitted in Aymara. 39
69 Hyphenation mine. 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
205
The Uru of Ch’imu
1 Aymara genitive marker -na (see Porterie-Gutiérrez 1988: 165). However, such an
2 analysis is precarious because it does not offer an explanation why only the pro-
3 noun of a first person singular should be marked for possession but none of the
4 other pronouns. On the other hand this may be interpreted as a feature from the Uru
5 possessive marking system (see above). Nicolás’ pronoun of a second person sin
6 gular á:mp ‘you(r)’ also differs from the form given above (see Table 7), but may be
7 explained by a deletion of the final vowel accompanied by co-articulation. The
8 other possessive pronouns are identical to the ones given in Table 7.
9 In sum, both language consultants show a mixture of possessive marking
10 strategies from Aymara and Uru. On the whole, Florentino’s system is structurally
11 closer to Aymara, as he uses lexical bases from Uru, but the structure as well as
12 the possessive marking elements are Aymara. Nicolás combines the Uru posses-
13 sive marking strategy of applying pronouns with attaching Aymara possessive
14 suffixes. For once, his system appears to be more defective than that of his father,
15 since Nicolás apparently just uses the Aymara marker for a first person, -ga, rather
16 than applying the entire Aymara paradigm. Furthermore, his form of a first per-
17 son singular pronoun is almost unanalyzable.
18
19
20 3.2.3 Negation
21
22 There is another grammatical feature in which Ch’imu Uru differs from the variety
23 of Irohito: the negation marker. In contrast to Aymara and Quechua, which both
24 make use of negative concord, Irohito Uru just has the negative particle ana ‘no,
25 not’, which precedes the clause or phrase it negates. It can take most verbal and
26 clausal clitics and the negation is not marked on any other element in the phrase
27 or clause (see Hannß 2008: 262ff.). In Ch’imu Uru the situation is different,
28 because there, an element (-)á:re follows the negated element. Consider (17) and
29 (18):
30
31 (17a) Irohito
32 ana čin
33 neg speak
34 ‘mute’
35 [Métraux 1935: 101]
36 (17b) Irohito
37 á:na tší:ñi
38 neg speak
39 ‘mute’
40 [Lehmann 1929b: 11]
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
206 Katja Hannß
(17c) Ch’imu 1
tši:ñ-á:re 2
neg-speak 3
‘mute’ 4
[Lehmann 1929d: 11] 5
6
(18a) Irohito
7
ana=l tší:u:
8
neg=cl.1 good
9
‘enemy’
10
[Lehmann 1929b: 5]
11
(18b) Ch’imu
12
sú:ne á:re
13
man neg
14
‘enemy’
15
[Lehmann 1929d: 7]
16
17
We find five tokens of the negator (-)á:re in the data and, with the exception of the 18
Aymara negation hani:hua used by Florentino (Lehmann 1929d: 21), it is the only 19
negation marker documented for Ch’imu Uru. That is, the Irohito negator ana 20
(also attested for Chipaya, see Cerrón-Palomino 2006: 241) apparently is not used 21
by the Ch’imu language consultants. 22
It remains uncertain whether (-)á:re is a suffix, as suggested by Lehmann’s 23
representation in example (16c) or rather a postposition (see example 17b). Given 24
the inconsistency of Lehmann’s transcription, we have virtually no evidence to 25
help us decide whether (-)á:re is a postposition or an affix.70 I will therefore repre- 26
sent it with a bracketed hyphen. 27
What seems quite clear is that (-)á:re is derived from the Irohito Uru negation 28
ana. The Ch’imu form, however, has been phonologically modified by turning the 29
alveolar nasal /n/ of the Irohito negation into a vibrant /r/ in Ch’imu; note that 30
other and similar processes affecting a vibrant /r/ have been attested for Ch’imu 31
Uru (see section 3.1.1). The final vowel /a/ of the Irohito form is realised in Ch’imu 32
as /e/, which is likewise testified for other cases (see section 3.1.1). The phonolog- 33
ical processes that turned ana into (-)á:re are thus not uncommon and found for 34
other instances of the Ch’imu data as well. What is far more crucial is that the 35
Ch’imu negation has also changed its syntactic position, i.e. instead of preceding 36
37
38
70 Prosody is likewise no help in that matter as in Uru suffixes can also receive stress (see Hannß 39
2008: 117ff.). 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
207
The Uru of Ch’imu
1 the negated element, it follows it. It is likely that this change in syntactic behavior
2 has been brought about by a considerable influence from Aymara, which is an
3 entirely suffixing language. It is clear that for the syntax of a language to be influ-
4 enced by another language’s syntax, the actual impact must be extensive. What
5 has to remain an open issue once more is the question whether the use of the
6 negation (-)á:re is representative of the Ch’imu variety as a whole or rather re-
7 flects the individual (and Aymaricized) speech of Nicolás and his father Florentino
8 Valcuña.
9
10
11 4 Conclusions
12
13 In the following, I will first present a summary overview before proceeding to an
14 evaluation of the results and some conclusions.
15
16
17 4.1 Summary overview
18
19 With respect to phonology it has been shown that the Ch’imu data frequently
20 displays the reduction of complex consonants or consonant clusters to simple
21 consonants, the contraction of words, several metathetic processes as well as the
22 addition or maintenance of a final vowel (see section 3.1.1). Based on these find-
23 ings, it is argued that the structure of words of Ch’imu Uru, when compared to
24 Irohito Uru, has a tendency towards an Aymaricized word structure i.e. a CV-
25 structure, whereas Irohito Uru often shows a CCVC- or CVC-structure (see Hannß
26 2008: 115).
27 An equally strong influence is proposed for the lexicon. Although the overall
28 number of loan words from Quechua, Aymara, and Spanish is not o
verwhelmingly
29 high (see section 3.1.2), a considerable number of these loan words occurs in
30 semantic domains which are usually considered as forming the core vocabulary
31 of a language. In addition to loan words, we also find a great number of words for
32 which no etymological origin can convincingly be established and which are thus
33 interpreted as ad-hoc creations, possibly arising from a lack of amenability during
34 the recording session.
35 When comparing the grammatical information from Ch’imu with that of
36 Irohito, we find that, in contrast to the previous impression, the pronominal system
37 of Ch’imu appears to preserve some features of an older pronominal paradigm and
38 is apparently less influenced by Aymara than would have been expected. At least in
39 the speech of Florentino and Nicolás Valcuña no inclusive/exclusive distinction in
40 the first person plural is made; instead, the former Uru pronominal plural -wichi is
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
208 Katja Hannß
partly preserved, and, finally, the pronoun of a third person singular anxata has 1
tentatively been interpreted as being the remnant of an older and possibly more 2
complex pronominal paradigm (see section 3.2.2). 3
What is remarkable is that, on the other hand, the nominal inflection system 4
is heavily influenced by Aymara. This applies in particular to the data provided by 5
Florentino, which structurally resembles the Aymara possessive marking strategy 6
to a considerable degree. The data on possessive marking as given by Nicolás is 7
analyzed as representing a mixture from Aymara and Uru strategies, using pro- 8
nouns as in Uru, but at the same time attaching a possessive marking suffix, as in 9
Aymara. 10
Another grammatical feature discussed is the negation marker (-)á:re, which 11
is argued to have been derived from the Uru (and Chipaya) negation particle ana 12
‘no, not’. However, the syntactic position of (-)á:re differs notably from that of 13
ana, since (-)á:re follows the element it negates, whereas ana precedes it. It has 14
been proposed that this change in syntactic behavior has been brought about by 15
strong influence from Aymara. 16
It must be noted that the Ch’imu data contains many inexplicable elements in 17
virtually all domains investigated in the present paper. 18
19
20
4.2 Evaluation and conclusions 21
22
How to evaluate a document whose greatest advantage, its uniqueness, is at the 23
same time its greatest disadvantage? One impression that has transpired 24
throughout the entire investigation is that the variety of Ch’imu, as displayed by 25
Florentino and Nicolás Valcuña, is quite strongly influenced by Aymara or else is 26
in a state of attrition. It is remarkable that this is much more so on Florentino’s 27
side than on the side of his son Nicolás. Usually, the expectation is that in a 28
speech community in decay the elder generation is more competent in the lan- 29
guage than the younger generation. This gives rise to the question whether Flo- 30
rentino was indeed a native speaker of Uru at all. Unfortunately, Lehmann does 31
not provide background information on his language consultants and it therefore 32
remains uncertain whether Florentino was a native speaker of Uru or whether he 33
often had dealings outside his community or had even lived in an Aymara- 34
speaking community, which would explain his Aymaricized Uru. About the rea- 35
sons why his son Nicolás showed greater competence in Uru, we can, again, only 36
speculate. 37
This brings forth the question for the value of Lehmann’s Ch’imu manuscript. 38
On the one hand, we would not have a single trace of this Uru variety without 39
Lehmann’s manuscript. On the other hand, we do not know whether the devia- 40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
209
The Uru of Ch’imu
1 tions we find in the Ch’imu data as provided by Florentino and Nicolás are repre-
2 sentative of the Ch’imu variety as a whole or rather mirror the speech of two indi-
3 viduals, one of whom is strongly influenced by Aymara. The differences we find
4 between Florentino and his son (and between Florentino and the Irohito data)
5 suggest that Florentino was not a fully competent native speaker of Uru, which
6 then would leave us with virtually one language consultant, Nicolás, whose com-
7 petence we cannot truly assess either. Thus, although for the history of Andean
8 research and as a testimony of the Uru-Chipaya language family, Lehmann’s man-
9 uscript from Ch’imu is undoubtedly valuable, from a linguistic point of view, its
10 usability is severely restricted.
11 This leads to a final remark. In his paper Acerca de la familia lingüística
12 uruquilla (Uru-Chipaya) (1992), Torero (1992: 181) uses Lehmann’s Ch’imu manu-
13 script to compute the percentage of cognates between Chipaya and Ch’imu as
14 52%, with a minimum of approximately 2,100 years of separation; for the relation
15 between Ch’imu and Irohito, 71 Torero (1992: 181) estimates 56% of cognates and a
16 separation of about 1,900 years. Without going into details, the restricted reliabil-
17 ity of Lehmann’s data makes Torero’s computation quite doubtful if we take into
18 consideration the findings of this paper. That is, although Torero bases his esti-
19 mations on the Swadesh List, it has been shown in the present paper that even in
20 the core vocabulary of Ch’imu Uru, we find loans from Aymara and, to a lesser
21 degree, from Quechua; what has been analyzed here as ad-hoc creations also
22 occurs in the core vocabulary of Ch’imu Uru. In addition, the phonological system
23 of Florentino, but also that of Nicolás, appears to be quite influenced from Aymara
24 and, as outlined above, we cannot know whether Florentino’s and Nicolás’ way
25 of speaking Uru is representative for the entire community of Ch’imu. It thus
26 becomes doubtful whether these data should thus be taken as a basis for estima-
27 tions of cognates and times of separation and a re-evaluation of the Ch’imu-
28 Irohito relationship is a topic for further research.
29
30
31
Abbreviations
32
cl.1 clitic first person ob object marker (first person)
33
com comitative pl plural
34
dec declarative sep separative
35
dir directional sg singular
36
imp imperative 3rd third person
37
neg negation
38
39
40 71 Referred to by Torero as Ancoaqui.
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
210 Katja Hannß
References 1
2
Adelaar, Willem. 2007. Threatened languages in Hispanic South America. In Matthias 3
Brenzinger (ed.), 9–28. 4
Adelaar, Willem & Simon van de Kerke. 2009. Puquina. In Mily Crevels & Pieter Muysken (eds.), 5
125–146.
6
Bacarreza, Zenón. 1957 [1910]. Proyecto de alfabeto para escribir la lengua aymará. Khana
25/26. 57–63. 7
Brenzinger, Matthias (ed.) 2007. Language diversity endangered. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 8
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2006. El chipaya o la lengua de los hombres del agua. Lima: Fondo 9
Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. 10
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo & Juan Carvajal Carvajal. 2009. Aimara. In Mily Crevels & Pieter
11
Muysken (eds.), 169–214.
12
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo & Enrique Ballón Aguirre. 2011. Chipaya. Léxico – Etnotaxonomía.
Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen: Centre for Language Studies & Lima: Fondo 13
Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. 14
Corbett, Greville C. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 15
Crevels, Mily & Pieter Muysken. 2005. Inclusive-exclusive distinctions in the languages of 16
central-western South America. In Elena Filimonova (ed.), 313–339.
17
Crevels, Mily & Pieter Muysken (eds.) 2009. Lenguas de Bolivia. Ámbito andino. Vol. I. La Paz,
Bolivia: Plurales Editores. 18
Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz, Sabine & Katja Hannß. 2008. Chipaya case markers -kiś and -kin: 19
subject and speaker reference. Indiana 25. 77–95. 20
DeLucca, Manuel. 1983. Diccionario Aymara-Castellano. Castellano-Aymara. La Paz: Comisión 21
de Alfabetización y Literatura en Aymara (CALA).
22
Filimonova, Elena (ed.) 2005. Clusivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
23
Flores Farfán, José Antonio & Fernando F. Ramallo (eds.) 2010. New perspectives on endangered
languages. Bridging gaps between sociolinguistics, documentation and language 24
revitalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 25
Greenberg, Joseph H. 2005 [1966]. Language universals. With special reference to feature 26
hierarchies. Reprint, with a preface by Martin Haspelmath. Berlin/New York: Mouton de 27
Gruyter.
28
Hannß, Katja. 2008. Uchumataqu. The lost language of the Urus of Bolivia. A grammatical
description of the language as documented between 1894 and 1952. Doctoral dissertation. 29
Radboud University Nijmegen. 30
Hoggarth, Leslie. 2004. Contributions to Cuzco Quechua grammar. Aachen: Shaker. 31
Hout, Roeland van & Pieter Muysken. 1994. Modelling lexical borrowability. Language Variation 32
and Change 6. 39–62.
33
Huayhua Pari, Felipe. 2001. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua aimara. Lima: Negocios Arco Iris
34
S.R.L.
Lehmann, Walter. 1929a. Aufnahme der Uro-Sprache in Hanko hake am Río Desaguadero, 35
Bolivien. 12. Oktober 1929. Ms. Berlin: Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut. 36
Lehmann, Walter. 1929b. Vocabulario de la lengua Uro sacado en el pueblecito de Hanko Hake 37
o sea Uru eru’itu. 13. Oktober 1929. Ms. Berlin: Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut. 38
Lehmann, Walter. 1929c. Sprachaufnahmen des Uro-Dialektes von Ts’imu (Tš’imu) bei Puno am
39
Titicaca-See. 26. Oktober 1929. Ms. Berlin: Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut.
40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
1 Lehmann, Walter. 1929d. Vokabular des Uro-Dialektes von Ts’imu bei Puno, Titicaca-See. Ts’imu
2 bei Puno, den 26. Oktober 1929. Ms. Berlin: Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut.
Lehmann, Walter. 1929e. Aufnahmen der Uro-Sprache a) in Hanko hake, am Río Desaguadero,
3
Bolivien; 12. Okt. 1929. b) in Ch’imu bei Puno am Titicaca-See; 26. Okt. 1929. Ms. Berlin:
4
Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut.
5 Loza, Carmen Beatriz. 2004. Itinerarios de Max Uhle en el Altiplano boliviano. Su libretas de
6 expedición e historia cultural (1893–1896). (Indiana, Beiheft 15.) Berlin: Gebr. Mann
7 Verlag.
8 Métraux, Alfred. 1935. Contribution à l’ethnographie et à la linguistique des indiens Uro
d’Ancoaqui (Bolivie). Journal de la Société des Americanistes 27. 75–110.
9
Miranda Mamani, Luis, Daniel Moricio Choque & Saturnina Álvarez de Moricio. 1992. Memorias
10 de un olvido. Testimonios de vida Uru-Muratos. La Paz: ASUR. Editorial Hisbol.
11 Morris, Swadesh. 1950. Salish internal relationships. International Journal of American
12 Linguistics 16. 157–167.
13 Muysken, Pieter. 2005. El idioma Uchumataqu. Irohito: Distrito Nacionalidad Indígena. Urus de
Irohito.
14
Muysken, Pieter. 2010. The demise and attempted revival of Uchumataqu (Uru). In José Antonio
15
Flores Farfán & Fernando F. Ramallo (eds.), 93–118.
16 Polo, José Toribio. 1901. Los indios Urus del Perú y Bolivia. Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de
17 Lima 10, 445–482.
18 Porterie-Gutiérrez, Liliane. 1988. Etude linguistique de l’Aymara septentrional (Pérou-Bolivie).
19 Doctoral dissertation. Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris IV.
Riese, Berthold. 1983. Walter Lehmann. Eine Bio-Bibliographie. Indiana 13. 311–341.
20
Rowe, John H. 1954. Max Uhle, 1856–1944: a memoir of the father of Peruvian archaeology.
21 Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
22 Sachot, Lea-Jeanne. 2007. Das Bild der Chipaya (Bolivien) in den Fotografien von Ethnologen –
23 Wahrnehmung, Konstruktion und Repräsentation fremder Identität. Master’s thesis.
24 University of Bonn.
Swadesh, Morris. 1950. Salish internal relationships. International Journal of American
25
Linguistics 16(4). 157–167.
26
Torero, Alfredo. 1992. Acerca de la familia lingüística uruquilla (Uru-Chipaya). Revista Andina
27 19, 171–191.
28 Torero, Alfredo. 2002. Idiomas de los Andes. Lingüística e Historia. Lima: Instituto Francés de
29 Estudios Andinos Horizonte.
30 Uhle, Max. 1894. Grundzüge einer Uro-Grammatik. M.s. Berlin: Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut.
Uhle, Max. 1896. Über die Sprache der Uros in Bolivia. Globus 69(19). 328–332.
31
Vellard, Jean (Jehan) A. 1949. Contribution à l’étude des Indiens Uru ou Kot’suñs. Travaux de
32 l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 1 (Paris/Lima). 145–209.
33 Vellard, Jean (Jehan) A. 1950. Contribution à l’étude des Indiens Uru ou Kot’suñs. Travaux de
34 l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 2 (Paris/Lima). 51–89.
35 Vellard, Jean (Jehan) A. 1951. Contribution à l’étude des Indiens Uru ou Kot’suñs. Travaux de
l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 3 (Paris/Lima). 3–39.
36
Vellard, Jean (Jehan) A. 1967. Contribución al estudio de la lengua uru. Cuadernos de Lingüística
37
Indígena 4. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.
38 Wachtel, Nathan. 1986. Men of the water: The Uru problem (sixteenth and seventeenth
39 centuries). In John V. Murra (ed.), Anthropological history of Andean polities, 283–310.
40 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014 23 April 2014 8:18 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
PMU:(idp) 15/04/2014
View publication stats 23 April 2014 8:18 AM

Walter Lehmann's Documentation of the Extinct Uru Variety of Ch'imu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Walter Lehmann's Documentation of the Extinct Uru Variety of Ch'imu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Uru of Ch'imu: An investigation of Walter Lehmann's material

Article · July 2014

lexical manipulations of Kallawaya; subject clitics of Chipaya View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 to live in newly founded communities2 with a dominant Quechua or Aymara pop-

interrogative or imperative clauses. The example clauses are of varying length 1

3 The Ch’imu manuscript in comparison to Irohito 20

In addition, the Ch’imu material also shows contraction of words, as contrasted 1

1 (8a) qosqa ‘owl’ Irohito [Uhle 1894: 2a]33

Quechua pupú:te ‘belly button’ 30

1 3.2.1 The numeral system

It is important to note that Lehmann does not mention an inclusive/exclusive 1

1 Other and minor differences to Irohito concern the phonological structure of

You might also like

Walter Lehmann's Documentation of the Extinct Uru Variety of Ch'imu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Walter Lehmann's Documentation of the Extinct Uru Variety of Ch'imu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Uru of Ch'imu: An investigation of Walter Lehmann's material

Article · July 2014

lexical manipulations of Kallawaya; subject clitics of Chipaya View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 to live in newly founded communities2 with a dominant Quechua or Aymara pop-

i­nterrogative or imperative clauses. The example clauses are of varying length 1

3 The Ch’imu manuscript in comparison to Irohito 20

In addition, the Ch’imu material also shows contraction of words, as contrasted 1

1 (8a) qosqa ‘owl’ Irohito [Uhle 1894: 2a]33

Quechua pupú:te ‘belly button’ 30

1 3.2.1 The numeral system

It is important to note that Lehmann does not mention an inclusive/exclusive 1

1 Other and minor differences to Irohito concern the phonological structure of

You might also like

interrogative or imperative clauses. The example clauses are of varying length 1

1 (8a) qosqa ‘owl’ Irohito [Uhle 1894: 2a]33