Adelaar Muysken Thelanguagesofthe Andes 2004

THE LANGUAGES OF THE ANDES
The Andean and Pacific regions of South America are home to a remark-
able variety of languages and language families, with a range of typologi-
cal differences. This linguistic diversity results from a complex historical
background, comprising periods of greater communication between dif-
ferent peoples and languages, and periods of fragmentation and individual
development. The Languages of the Andes is the first book in English to
document in a single volume the indigenous languages spoken and for-
merly spoken in this linguistically rich region, as well as in adjacent areas.
Grouping the languages into different cultural spheres, it describes their
characteristics in terms of language typology, language contact, and the
social perspectives of present-day languages. The authors provide both
historical and contemporary information, and illustrate the languages with
detailed grammatical sketches. Written in a clear and accessible style, this
book will be a valuable source for students and scholars of linguistics and
anthropology alike.
 . .  is Professor of Amerindian Languages and Cul-

tures at Leiden University. He has travelled widely in South America
and has conducted fieldwork in Peru on different varieties of Quechua
and minor languages of the area. He has also worked on the historical-
comparative reconstruction of South American languages, and since 1991
has been involved in international activities addressing the issue of lan-
guage endangerment. His previously published books include Tarma
Quechua (1977) and Het Boek van Huarochirı́ (1988).
 .  is Professor of Linguistics at the University of

Nijmegen. He has travelled widely in the Caribbean and the Andes, and
was previously Professor of Sociolinguistics and Creole Studies at the Uni-
versity of Amsterdam and Professor of Linguistics and Latin American
Studies at Leiden University. He is co-editor of the Cambridge jour-
nal Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, and his previously published
books include Bilingual Speech: a Typology of Code-mixing (Cambridge,
2000), and One Speaker, Two Languages (co-edited with Lesley Milroy,
Cambridge, 1995).
CAMBRIDGE LANGUAGE SURVEYS
General editors
P. Austin (University of Melbourne)
J. Bresnan (Stanford University)
B. Comrie (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig)
W. Dressler (University of Vienna)
C. Ewen (University of Leiden)
R. Lass (University of Cape Town)
D. Lightfoot (University of Maryland)
I. Roberts (University of Cambridge)
S. Romaine (University of Oxford)
N. V. Smith (University College London)
This series offers general accounts of the major language families of the
world, with volumes organised either on a purely genetic basis or on a
geographical basis, whichever yields the most convenient and intelligible
grouping in each case. Each volume compares and contrasts the typological
features of the languages it deals with. It also treats the relevant genetic re-
lationships, historical development and sociolinguistic issues arising from
their role and use in the world today. The books are intended for linguists
from undergraduate level upwards, but no special knowledge of the lan-
guages under consideration is assumed. Volumes such as those on Australia
and the Amazon Basin are also of wider relevance, as the future of the lan-
guages and their speakers raises important social and political issues.
Volumes already published include

Chinese Jerry Norman
The languages of Japan Masayoshi Shibatani
Pidgins and Creoles (volume I: Theory and structure; volume II:
Reference survey) John A. Holm
The Indo-Aryan languages Colin Masica
The Celtic languages edited by Donald MacAulay
The Romance languages Rebecca Posner
The Amazonian languages edited by R. M. W Dixon and Alexandra Y.
Aikhenvald
The languages of Native North America Marianne Mithun
The Korean language Ho-Him Sohn
Australian languages R. M. W. Dixon
The Dravidian languages Bhadriraju Krishnamurti
THE LANGUAGES
OF THE ANDES
WILLEM F. H. ADELAAR
with the collaboration of P I E T E R C . M U Y S K E N
cambridge university press
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521362757
© Willem F. H. Adelaar and Pieter C. Muysken 2004
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of

relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2004
isbn-13 978-0-511-21587-2 eBook (NetLibrary)

isbn-10 0-511-21587-8 eBook (NetLibrary)
isbn-13 978-0-521-36275-7 hardback

isbn-10 0-521-36275-x hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls
for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
CONTENTS
List of tables page x

List of maps xiv
Preface xv
Orthographic conventions xvi
List of abbreviations xx
1 Introduction 1
1.1 The languages of the Andes 4
1.2 Physical description 6
1.3 Brief history of the region 7
1.4 A brief overview of the different Andean countries 10
1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages 15
1.5.1 The colonial period 15
1.5.2 The nineteenth century 18
1.5.3 Contemporary Andean linguistics 19
1.6 Sources for the study of the languages of the Andes 20
1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages 22
1.7.1 History of classificatory efforts 23
1.7.2 Quechuan and Aymaran, Quechumaran 34
1.7.3 Other proposals for individual language families 36
1.7.4 The Greenberg (1987) proposal 41
2 The Chibcha Sphere 46

2.1 The language groups and their distribution 50
2.2 Research on the native languages of Colombia 54
2.3 Chocoan 56
2.4 Yurumanguı́ 60
2.5 Cuna 61
2.6 The languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 66
vi Contents
2.7 Chimila 75
2.8 Barı́ 80
2.9 The Muisca language 81
2.9.1 Sources 82
2.9.2 Phonology 83
2.9.3 Grammar 89
2.9.4 Lexicon 103
2.9.5 A Muisca text 106
2.10 Tunebo (Uw Cuwa) 109
2.11 Yukpa and Magdalena valley Cariban 112
2.12 The Arawakan languages of the Caribbean coast 115
2.13 Timote–Cuica 124
2.14 Jirajaran 129
2.15 Páez (Nasa Yuwe) 130
2.16 Andaquı́ and the languages of the Upper Magdalena valley 138
2.17 Barbacoan languages 141
2.18 Kamsá 151
2.19 Esmeraldeño 155
2.20 Overview of the languages of the eastern Colombian lowlands 161
3 The Inca Sphere 165

3.1 The languages and their distribution 168
3.2 The Quechuan language family 179
3.2.1 The Quechua homeland 180
3.2.2 Historical overview of the colonial period 182
3.2.3 Dialect situation 183
3.2.4 Quechua studies 191
3.2.5 Phonology 194
3.2.6 Grammar 207
3.2.7 Characteristics of the Quechua lexicon 233
3.2.8 A sketch of an Ecuadorian Quechua dialect (Salasaca) 237
3.2.9 A sketch of a Peruvian Quechua dialect (Pacaraos) 242
3.2.10 A Cuzco Quechua text fragment 249
3.2.11 Literary production in Quechua 254
3.2.12 Social factors influencing the future of Quechua 256
3.3 The Aymaran language family 259
3.3.1 Past and present distribution 260
3.3.2 Homeland and expansion 263
3.3.3 Internal variation in the Aymaran language family 264
Contents vii
3.3.4 Salient features of the Aymaran language family 267

3.3.5 Aymara phonology 270
3.3.6 Aymara grammar 274
3.3.7 Aymara lexicon 293
3.3.8 Literary production in Aymara 296
3.3.9 Aymara sample text 296
3.3.10 The Jaqaru language 301
3.3.11 Jaqaru sample text 315
3.4 The Mochica language 319
3.4.1 The sounds of Mochica 321
3.4.2 Mochica grammar 328
3.4.3 Mochica sample texts 344
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya 350
3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages 362
3.7 The Atacameño language 375
3.8 The Lule–Tonocoté language 385
3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages of the Inca Sphere 391
3.9.1 Ecuador 392
3.9.2 Northern Peru 397
3.9.3 Northwestern Argentina 407
4 The languages of the eastern slopes 411

4.1 The Pano–Tacanan languages 418
4.2 The Arawakan languages 422
4.2.1 Yanesha phonology 424
4.2.2 The principal grammatical features of Yanesha 425
4.2.3 Complex sentences in Yanesha 430
4.3 Tupi–Guaranı́ 430
4.4 The Jivaroan languages 432
4.4.1 Shuar phonology 433
4.4.2 The principal grammatical features of Shuar 435
4.4.3 Complex sentences in Shuar 445
4.5 Cahuapana 447
4.6 Bora–Huitoto 449
4.7 The Zaparoan languages 451
4.8 The Tucanoan languages 453
4.9 Small families and supposed language isolates in Ecuador 454
4.10 Small families and supposed language isolates in Peru 456
4.11 Cholón 460
viii Contents
4.11.1The Cholón lexicon and relationship with Hibito 461

4.11.2Gender-determined language use 462
4.11.3Cholón phonology 463
4.11.4The principal grammatical features of Cholón 463
4.11.5The basic word order of Cholón 475
4.12Small families and supposed language isolates in Bolivia 475
4.13Chiquitano 477
4.13.1Gender-determined language use in Chiquitano 478
4.13.2Chiquitano phonology 479
4.13.3The principal grammatical features of Chiquitano 480
4.13.4Chiquitano word order 488
4.14The languages of the Chaco region: Guaicuruan, Matacoan,
Zamucoan and Lengua–Mascoy 488
4.15 Quechua influences on eastern slopes languages 499
5 The Araucanian Sphere 502

5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche 508
5.1.1 Mapuche studies 510
5.1.2 The sounds of Mapuche 512
5.1.3 Grammar 517
5.1.4 Lexicon 537
5.1.5 Mapuche sample text 539
5.2 The Allentiac language 544
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego 550

6.2 Ethnohistory 555
6.3 Problems in classification 556
6.4 Linguistic features 558
6.4.1 The Chonan languages 558
6.4.2 Chono and Kawesqar 564
6.4.3 Yahgan 567
6.4.4 Areal-typological features of the Fuegian languages 578
6.5 Oral literature 580
6.6 Language contact 580
6.7 A Tehuelche text 582
7 The Spanish presence 585

7.1 Characteristics of Andean Spanish 585
Contents ix
7.1.1Demography and the Iberian dialectal origins 586

7.1.2Linguistic features 587
7.2Amerindian substratum influence 589
7.3Language mixture and pidginisation in the Andes and the
Amazon basin 602
7.4 African influences 604
7.5 Language planning and policy with respect to the Amerindian
languages and to bilingual education 605
7.6 Andean languages in the modern world 608
Appendix: Inventory of languages and language families

of the Andean region 610
References 625
Author index 681
Index of languages and ethnic groups 690
Subject index 703
TABLES
1.1 Percentage of Indian population in the different

Andean countries page 11
1.2 Early grammars of Andean languages 16
1.3 Greenberg’s (1956) classification of the languages
of the Andes 28
1.4 The four networks proposed by Swadesh (1959, 1962) 29
1.5 The language families relevant to the Andes listed in Loukotka
(1968) 31
1.6 Groupings suggested by Suárez (1974) of language families and
isolates included in Loukotka (1968) 32
1.7 Language families relevant to the Andes listed in Kaufman (1990)
with their correlates in Loukotka (1968) 33
1.8 Greenberg’s (1987) classification of the languages
of the Andes 44
2.1 Overview of the consonant inventories of Chocoan languages
and dialects 58
2.2 Cuna consonant inventory 63
2.3 Overview of the consonant inventories of the Arhuacan
languages 68
2.4 Possessive modifiers in Chimila 77
2.5 Personal reference markers for subject and object in Chimila 78
2.6 Inventory of Muisca consonant phonemes 88
2.7 Inventory of Muisca vowel phonemes 88
2.8 Personal reference in Muisca 97
2.9 Inventory of Muisca pronoun and case combinations 100
2.10 Uw Cuwa (Tunebo) consonant inventory 110
2.11 Proto-Yukpa consonants 113
2.12 Guajiro consonant inventory 117
2.13 Personal prefixes and pronouns in Guajiro 120
List of tables xi
2.14 Caldono Páez obstruents 131

2.15 Caldono Páez continuants 132
2.16 Caldono Páez vowels 132
2.17 Person markers in Nasa Yuwe (Páez) 135
2.18 Guambiano consonant inventory 143
2.19 Awa Pit (Cuaiquer) consonant inventory 144
2.20 Tsafiki (Colorado) consonant inventory 144
2.21 Chapalaachi (Cayapa) consonant inventory 145
2.22 Awa Pit pronouns 148
2.23 Cha palaachi pronouns 148
2.24 Kamsá consonant phonemes 152
2.25 Kamsá personal reference markers 153
3.1 Proto-Quechua consonants 196
3.2 Proto-Quechua vowels 196
3.3 The Quechua four-person system 211
3.4 Subject conjugation in Ayacucho Quechua 219
3.5 Valency-changing suffixes in Quechua 229
3.6 Jaqaru personal reference markers 269
3.7 La Paz Aymara consonant inventory 271
3.8 Aymara subject and subject–object paradigm for the unmarked
tense 282
3.9 Subject and subject–object endings for the future tense in La Paz and
Sitajara Aymara 284
3.10 Aymara subject and subject–object paradigm for the imperative
mood 285
3.11 Subject and subject–object endings for the present and past potential
mood in La Paz Aymara 286
3.12 Nominalising affixes in Aymara 288
3.13 Jaqaru consonant inventory 302
3.14 Subject and subject–object endings of the unmarked tense in
Jaqaru 307
3.15 Subject and subject–object endings of the future tense in
Jaqaru 308
3.16 Mochica vowels as represented in Carrera Daza (1644) and
Middendorf (1892) 324
3.17 Sibilants in seventeenth-century Mochica 326
3.18 Overview of the consonant symbols in the Mochica grammars of
Carrera Daza (1644) and Middendorf (1892) 329
3.19 Personal reference in Mochica 331
xii List of tables
3.20 Mochica preterit and future tenses 337

3.21 Numerals 1 to 10 in Mochica 343
3.22 Puquina personal and possessive pronouns 353
3.23 Possessed nouns in Callahuaya 359
3.24 Personal and possessive pronouns in Callahuaya 360
3.25 Callahuaya consonant inventory 361
3.26 Chipaya consonant inventory 364
3.27 Unmarked present tense in Chipaya 371
3.28 Tentative inventory of Atacameño sounds 380
3.29 Possessive nominal paradigm in Atacameño 381
3.30 Atacameño personal and possessive pronouns 382
3.31 Verbal past-tense paradigm in Atacameño 383
3.32 Lule personal endings for unmarked tense and nominal
possession 389
3.33 Lule future and imperative verbal paradigms 389
4.1 The relationship between the Arawakan languages of the pre-Andean
area 423
4.2 Yanesha (Amuesha) phoneme inventory 424
4.3 The relationship among the pre-Andean members of the
Tupi–Guaranı́ language family 431
4.4 Shuar phoneme inventory 434
4.5 The Shuar switch-reference system illustrated with the verb
ant- ‘to hear’ 446
4.6 Phoneme inventory of Bora 450
4.7 Phoneme inventory of Huao 454
4.8 The sound inventory of Cholón 464
4.9 Chiquitano phoneme inventory 480
4.10 Phoneme inventory of Toba 489
4.11 Phoneme inventory of Bolivian (Noctenes) Mataco 493
4.12 Reconstructed consonant system of Proto-Matacoan 495
4.13 Phoneme inventory of Ayoreo 496
5.1 Mapuche consonant inventory 517
5.2 Personal and possessive pronouns in Mapuche 519
5.3 Mapuche subject endings 523
5.4 Unmarked verbal paradigm in Allentiac 546
5.5 Interrogative verbal paradigm in Allentiac 547
6.1 The relation between putative Chono words identified by Bausani
(1975) and their possible equivalents in the Alacalufan materials of
Skottsberg (1913) and Clairis (1987) 553
List of tables xiii
6.2 Historical demographic data for the canoe nomads 555

6.3 Historical demographic data for the hunter nomads 555
6.4 Phoneme inventory of Selk nam 559
6.5 Phoneme inventory of Gününa Yajich 562
6.6 Phoneme inventory of Tehuelche 563
6.7 Tentative sound inventory of Chono 565
6.8 Phonemes of Kawesqar 566
6.9 Phoneme inventory of Yahgan (based on Golbert de Goodbar 1977
and Poblete and Salas 1999) 568
6.10 Phoneme inventory of Yahgan (based on Adam 1885) 569
6.11 Person inflection in Yahgan 575
6.12 Phonological features of the Fuegian languages 579
6.13 Morphological features of the Fuegian languages 579
6.14 Constituent order features of the Fuegian languages 579
7.1 Major isoglosses in the Andean areas of Latin American
Spanish 588
7.2 Types of speakers of Spanish that may show influence from
Quechua 590
7.3 Sprachbund phenomena in the pronunciation of liquids and vibrants
in different varieties of Quechua and Spanish in Ecuador 591
7.4 Features claimed to be due to Quechua in different varieties
of Spanish 593
MAPS
Map 1 The Chibcha Sphere: overview of ethnolinguistic groups attested

in premodern sources page 47
Map 2 The Chibcha Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous
languages in the mid twentieth century 51
Map 3 The Inca Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous
languages in the sixteenth century 166
Map 4 The Inca Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous
languages in the mid twentieth century 169
Map 5 Approximate distribution of Quechua dialects in Peru and
adjacent areas 184
Map 6 Distribution of Aymaran and Uru–Chipaya languages 260
Map 7 Eastern lowland languages: Ecuador and northern Peru 412
Map 8 Eastern lowland languages: southern Peru 413
Map 9 Eastern lowland languages: Bolivia 414
Map 10 Eastern lowland languages: the Chaco area 415
Map 11 The Araucanian Sphere: approximate distribution of languages
at the time of the Spanish conquest (sixteenth century) 503
Map 12 The Araucanian Sphere: twentieth-century distribution
of indigenous languages 504
Map 13 The languages of Tierra del Fuego 551
PREFACE
This book took much longer to write than originally intended, particularly because very
little was known about some of the regions to be covered, while much new material has
become available these last few years. We hope this survey will in its turn inspire new
research in the years to come.
We wish to thank first of all Bernard Comrie for his precise and encouraging comments
on earlier chapter drafts. We are very grateful to Ana Fernández, Timothy Curnow, Knut
Olawsky and Nicholas Ostler for reading and commenting on specific chapters of the
book. A special word of thanks goes to Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino for providing us with
data from his ongoing research on the Chipaya language, and to Alfredo Torero for
permitting us to use his unpublished work on Puquina. Many colleagues and friends
have contributed over the years with valuable advice and commentary, by providing us
with newly published or little-known publications, or by calling our attention to new
materials and research results. Their generosity is duly remembered, although space
does not allow us to mention each of them individually.
Our gratitude extends in particular to those academic institutions that have provided
the environment and the facilities necessary for an undertaking such as the present one:
the Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) in Wassenaar, the Netherlands, the
Research Centre for Linguistic Typology (RCLT) at La Trobe University in Victoria,
Australia, the Research School CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies and
the Faculty of Letters of Leiden University.
While the book was written under the primary authorship and responsibility of
Willem Adelaar, the individual chapters were divided as follows: Pieter Muysken wrote
sections 1.1–1.5 of chapter 1 and Adelaar the introductory pages of chapter 1 as well as
sections 1.6–1.7. Adelaar also wrote chapter 2 except for section 2.15, chapter 3 except
for section 3.2.8, and all of chapter 5. Muysken wrote chapters 4, 6 and 7, as well as the
sections 2.15 and 3.2.8.
ORTHOGRAPHIC CONVENTIONS
This book on Andean languages relies on heterogeneous sources, including premodern

grammatical studies and vocabularies, as well as contemporary descriptions obtained
by direct observation of living languages. These circumstances made it difficult to adopt
a uniform orthographic practice. The spelling of colonial and other traditional sources
has been preserved, allowing for marginal adaptations where the sources are internally
inconsistent. Languages such as Allentiac, Muisca and Puquina, which have long been
extinct, are known from premodern sources only, and the interpretation of the symbols
used to represent them remains tentative. In the case of relatively recent data from
languages that became extinct during the twentieth century, such as Mochica and Timote–
Cuica, the identification of sounds can be problematic when the recorded materials are
not in agreement with modern linguistic standards. Such materials are exemplified in the
original spelling as well. Finally, there are premodern sources relating to languages still
spoken, for instance, Valdivia’s Araucanian grammar of 1606. The use of premodern
sources includes exotic symbols, such as cɥ , c−h, h, γ and œ. Among the languages
primarily known from premodern sources, the only one presented in a reconstructed,
rather than an original spelling is Cholón (see section 4.11.3).
For most of the living languages we are on firmer ground, although for these too we
have to rely on published sources with different methodological approaches, theoretical
backgrounds and degrees of phonological abstraction. In view of the necessity to repre-
sent such heterogeneous materials, we have opted for a phonetically based orthography
such as commonly found in North American linguistic journals dealing with Amerindian
languages (e.g. International Journal of American Linguistics). Consequently, several
of the original symbols have been replaced with others, and adjustments have been made
at the level of individual languages so as to facilitate the presentation of the linguistic
facts in a unified way.1 In a number of cases (e.g. Guajiro l and r, Mapuche r, Quechua
n and q) concessions have been made to established practice. Such deviations of the
1 We wish to apologise beforehand for the inevitable errors and inconsistencies that are inherent
to this procedure.
Orthographic Conventions xvii
overall orthographic practice adhered to in this book are duly explained in the respective
sections.
Vowels
When only vowel quality is taken into consideration, most languages of the Andean
region select their vowels from a set of five, including two front vowels (e, i), two rounded
back vowels (o, u) and one low vowel (a). These vowels usually exhibit a certain amount
of non-distinctive variation, which is not shown in the orthography except when the
phonetic realisation itself is a topic of discussion. In addition, many Andean languages
also have an unrounded vowel which may be high central, mid central, or high back.
We represent this sixth vowel by means of the symbol , regardless of its exact phonetic
nature and possible existing spelling conventions. For the representation of languages
exhibiting an additional contrast between a high central and a mid central vowel we
use the symbols and ə to distinguish between the two. The main reason for following
this procedure is to preserve unity in the presentation. It is, furthermore, justified by
the consideration that the sixth vowel often shows a wide range of non-contrastive
variation, depending on the phonetic environment in which it occurs, and the fact that
the observations of different authors rarely coincide, even when they are dealing with
the same language. In the absence of specialised phonetic studies, almost non-existent
in the case of Andean languages, the exact phonetic nature of the sixth vowel generally
remains uncertain.
Vowel systems of a different qualitative structure are found in Mochica, in languages of
the Amazonian lowlands, and in languages of Tierra del Fuego. They will be discussed
in the respective chapters (sections 3.4.1, 4.6 and 6.4). For these cases, as well as in
explanative phonetic representations relating to more current Andean systems, additional
symbols (ɑ, α, œ, ε, ı̈, ɔ, ɯ ) are used.
Secondary articulations of the vowels

– Vowel length is indicated by a colon (a:, e:, i:, o:, u:), except when the
long vowel consists of several tone-bearing units. In that case, the vowels
are written separately (aa, etc.). Extra short vowels are marked as follows:
ǎ, ě, ı̌, ǒ, ǔ.
– Nasal vowels: ã, ẽ, ı̃, õ, ũ, etc.
– Aspirated vowels: ah , eh , ih , oh , uh , etc.
– Glottalised vowels: aʔ , eʔ , iʔ , oʔ , uʔ , etc.
– Voiceless vowels: a, e, i, o, u, etc.
˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚
– Tonal contrast is indicated by means of an acute accent (for high or rising
tone), a grave accent (for low or falling tone), a superscript level stroke
(for mid level tone), or a circumflex (for a descending tonal glide): á, à, ā,
xviii Orthographic Conventions
â. Contrastive stress is also indicated by means of an acute accent. Stress

and tone are indicated only when contrastive.
Non-syllabic vowels
When non-syllabic, the high vowels i and u are analysed as glides, hence they are written
as y and w, respectively. This is always the case in syllable-initial position ( yV, wV ), and
it is the preferred option in postvocalic syllable-final position (Vy, Vw). Occasionally,
however, postvocalic glides are represented as vowels (Vi, Vu), when the status of vowel
sequences in the language under discussion appears to favour that choice.
Consonants
In the following overview the consonant symbols are grouped in categories:
– Bilabial: plain stops p, b; implosive stop: ; fricatives ϕ, β ; nasal m;
glide w.
– Labiodental: fricatives f, v.
– Interdental: stops t , d; fricatives θ, ð; nasal n.
ˆ ˆ ˆ
– Alveodental: plain stops t, d; implosive stop ; affricates c (t s in phonetic
explanations), d z (dz before secondary articulation markers, as in dz y );
fricatives s, z; nasal n.
– Apico-alveolar: fricative ş; affricate t ş .
– Alveopalatal: affricates č, d ž ; fricatives š, ž; glide y.
– Retroflex: stops .t, d.; affricates č., d .ž ; fricatives š., ž.; nasal n.; glide ɺ.
– Palatalised velar (ich-laut): fricative: ç; affricate: t ç .
– Velar: stops: k, g; fricatives x, γ; nasal ŋ.
– Uvular (or postvelar): stops q, G; fricatives x., ʁ .
– Glottal: fricative h; stop ʔ. (Note: h can also refer to a velar fricative
because many Andean languages tend to use glottal and velar fricatives in
a non-distinctive way.)
– Laterals: plain (voiced alveodental) l; interdental l; retroflex .l; voiceless
fricative l̃; voiceless affricate λ- .
– Vibrants: voiced tap r; trill rr; tap with palatal affrication ř; retroflex
flap .
Secondary articulations of the consonants

– Gemination is indicated by doubling the consonant symbol (pp, kk, nn,
etc.). Double rr represents a trill, rather than only a geminate. (Quechua
nn is a cluster [ŋn]; see section 3.2.5.)
Orthographic Conventions xix
– Coarticulation is indicated by juxtaposition of the symbols: kp, pk, pkw .

– Glottalisation: p’, t’, č’, k’, q’, etc.
– Aspiration (of stops and affricates): ph , th , čh , kh , qh , etc.
– Preaspiration or voicelessness (of resonants): hm, hn, hr, etc.
– Palatalisation: ty , ky , ny , ly , etc.
– Labialisation: pw , mw , kw , xw , etc.
– Prenasalisation (or postoralisation): mb, nd, ŋg.
– Postnasalisation (or preoralisation): bm , dn , g ŋ.
– Click-like articulation: p< , m< .
– Syllabic resonants: l, n.
˚ ˚
Other symbols and conventions

V Vowel (only in phonological explanation).
C Consonant.
[. . .] Phonetic representation or tentative pronunciation.
Etymological provenance or borrowing source.
<. . .> Symbols used in premodern sources.
{ . . . } Explanation of morphological structure.
- Morpheme boundary.
Division of morphemic glosses.
= Division of constituents in reduplicated forms.
. Division of speech elements covered by a single morphemic
gloss.
Division of morphemic glosses relating to a portmanteau
speech element.
ABBREVIATIONS
In the example sentences of this book morphemic glosses may consist of numbers,
letters, or letter combinations. For reasons of presentation, all letter combinations have
been limited to a maximum of two elements. Grammatical person is indicated by means
of the numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, which refer to the four-person system characteristic of the
structure of some of the languages treated in this work:
1 first person (speaker)

2 second person (addressee)
3 third person (neither)
4 fourth person (speaker + addressee)
These numbers can be followed by the symbols S (subject), O (object), or P (possessor)

without an intervening hyphen or dot:
1S, 2S, 3S, 4S first-person subject, etc.

1O, 2O, 3O, 4O first-person object, etc.
1P, 2P, 3P, 4P first-person possessor, etc.
The following list is an inventory of all the remaining morphemic glosses, which consist
of letters or letter combinations.
A absolute (as opposed to relational)

absolutive (as opposed to ergative)
AB ablative case
AC accusative case
AD additive (‘also’, ‘even’)
AF affirmative (evidential)
AG agentive nominaliser
AJ adjective
adjectiviser
AL allative case
List of abbreviations xxi
AN anticompletive (‘still’, ‘yet’)

AO aorist
AP applicative
AR attributive
AS assistance
AT attenuator
AU augmentative
AV adverbialiser
AX auxiliary
B benefactive case
BN beneficiary
C comitative case
CA causative
CD conditional mood
CE centripetal (converging motion)
CF centrifugal (diverging motion)
CL classifier or shape morpheme
(with semantic specification, e.g. CL: round object)
CM completive (‘already’)
CN continuative
CO co-ordination
CP comparative (‘like’)
CR circular motion (‘go around’)
CS courteous
CT change of topic
CU customary
CV copula verbaliser
D dual
DA dative case
DB distributive
DC deictic
DD different directions
DE desiderative
DF definite
DG degree
DI diminutive
DL delimitative (‘just’, ‘only’)
DM detrimental
xxii List of abbreviations
DP deductive past
DR directional
DS different subjects (in switch-reference systems)
DT distal
DU dubitative
DV declarative
DW downward motion
E ergative case
EC exclamation
EM emphatic
ES external subject
EU euphonic element
EV event/action
EX exclusive (addressee excluded)
F future
FA factitive (‘make’)
FE feminine
FM factual mood
FN future-oriented nominaliser
FO focus
FR far remote
G genitive case
GA genitive agent
GO goal
GP generic pair
GR gerund
H hither (motion towards speaker)
HB habitual past
HN honorific
HO hortative
HS hearsay (evidential)
HY hypothetical
I inverse
IA imperfective aspect
IC inchoative
ID indicative mood
IE irrealis mood
IF infinitive
List of abbreviations xxiii
II indefinite
IK indirect knowledge
IL inferential
IM imperative mood
IN inclusion (‘provided with’)
IP inferential past
IR interrogative
IS instrumental case
IT intensive
IU immediate future
IV inclusive (addressee included)
IW inward motion
L locative case
LA lack (‘not having’)
LB left-behind object
LI limitative case (‘until’)
LK linking element
LN locality nominaliser
LP lexicalised prefix
LS lexicalised suffix
LV locative verbaliser
M momentaneous
MA motion across (‘traverse’)
MD medial
MS masculine
MT motion
N noun
nominaliser
NA narrative past
NC non-control
ND non-determinate
NE negation
NF near future
NM nominative case
NP nominal past
NR near remote
NS non-speaker
NT non-transitive
xxiv List of abbreviations
NU neutral
O object
OB obligation
OC oblique case
OE ongoing event
OS ownership (‘having’)
OV obviative
P possessor
PA past tense
PC paucal
PD predicate marker
PE perfect tense
PF perfective aspect
PI privative
PL plural
PM permissive
PN present tense
PO potential mood
PR progressive
PS passive
PT perlative case (path)
PU pronoun
PV previous event
PX proximate
Q question marker
QU quotative
R relativiser
RC reciprocal
RD realis mood
RE recent past
RF reflexive
RL relational (possessed)
RM remote past
RO reportative
RP repetitive
RR referential
RS restitutive
RU remote future
List of abbreviations xxv
S subject
SA simple aspect
SD sudden discovery tense
SG singular
SI simulation
SJ subjunctive mood
SM simultaneous
SO source
SN stative nominaliser
SP supine
SQ sequential
SR speaker
SS same subject (in switch-reference systems)
ST state
SU subordination
T transitive
transitiviser
TF transformative (‘become’)
TH thither (motion not towards speaker)
TO topic
TS thematic suffix
TV thematic vowel
U urgency
UF unfulfilled
UG undergoer
UN unspecified subject
UW upward motion
V verb
verbaliser
VE verbal extension
VO vocative
Z zero complement
ZP zero person
1
Introduction
In his book Visión histórica del Perú (A Historical Vision of Peru) the Peruvian historian
Pablo Macera (1978) dates the beginning of human presence in the middle Andes at about
20,000 BC. The supposition of such an early human occupation, difficult to explain
within the context of New World prehistory, is based on datings relating to excavations
conducted by MacNeish at the highland site of Pikimachay of the Pacaicasa complex near
Ayacucho (cf. MacNeish 1979). These datings are now considered very controversial (cf.
Rick 1988). Although Macera himself recognises the uncertain character of the 20,000
BC date, its value is more than just scientific. It acquires the character of a fictitious
date, needed to express the emotional feeling of timeless antiquity often associated with
Andean culture and tradition, a feeling that is best put into words by the expression
milenarismo andino (‘Andean millenarism’). It is not the cold evidence of radiocarbon
datings, but the conscience of an immobile human society that clings fatalistically to
age-old agricultural traditions perfectly adjusted to the formidable Andean landscape,
that determines the view of the Andean intellectual until today. It is the view of a reality
which has always been there, seemingly immune to the triviality of programmes aimed
at modernisation and globalisation.
In the meantime, the antiquity of human settlement in the Andean region, indeed in
all of South America, remains a matter of debate. The rise of sea levels at the end of the
Ice Age (± 10,000–8000 BC) may have hidden the traces of early coastal occupation.
Excavations conducted by Dillehay at Monte Verde, near Puerto Montt in the south
of Chile, have brought evidence of a relatively well-developed village culture that had
its beginnings as early as 11,500 BC. (Dillehay 1989–97; cf. also Fiedel 1992). The
inhospitable southern tip of South America at the Strait of Magellan (Fell’s Cave) was
inhabited about 9000 BC. When considering the linguistic evidence, the bewildering
variety of mutually unrelated languages found in South America suggests a protracted,
gradual process of penetration, followed by long periods of isolation. This evidence
appears to be in conflict with the traditional concept of a rapid colonisation of the
subcontinent by big-game hunters, associated with the Clovis horizon of the North
2 1 Introduction
American plains (± 9500 BC). For an overview of the arguments in favour of a rapid
colonisation of South America after 9500 BC, see Lynch (1999).
For the Pacific side of the South American continent, the alternative of an early human
penetration in a context of marine and coastal activity remains attractive to those familiar
with the Andean situation, even though there is little support from archaeology. The date
at which human activity throughout the Andean region becomes unequivocally visible
is 9000 BC.
From a cultural point of view, the Andean civilisation initially did not lag behind the
rest of the world. Its agricultural beginnings were among the oldest in the world. The
site of Guitarrero cave in the Callejón de Huaylas (north-central Peru) contains evidence
of plant domestication (beans, peppers) before 8000 BC (Lynch 1980; Fiedel 1992:
193). Agriculture in the Andes reached a high degree of sophistication, both in diversity
of crops and in engineering techniques (terraces, raised fields, irrigation works). The
Andean camelids possibly became domesticated as early as 4000 BC (evidence from
Telarmachay, Junı́n, in central Peru; Fiedel 1992: 195). The mummification techniques
of the Chinchorro fishermen of the coast near Arica in northern Chile (5000 to 1500 BC)
predated those of the Egyptians (Arriaza 1995). The construction of the extensive (pre-
ceramic) urban settlement of Caral-Chupacigarro, which has been excavated since 1996
near Supe in the central Peruvian coastal area, has been dated at about 2650 BC (Shady
Solı́s 1997). Curiously, the Andean society failed to develop an indigenous writing sys-
tem, a circumstance that sets it apart from other areas of civilisation elsewhere in the
world.
The variety of native cultures and languages in South America, in particular in the
Andes and on its eastern slopes, is remarkable even within the context of the New
World. Kaufman (1990) has calculated the number of language families and geneti-
cally isolated languages in the subcontinent at 118. Recent advances in the study of
historical-comparative relations have tended to reduce this number, but proposed group-
ings reducing the number of families mainly concern the eastern part of South America
(cf. Dixon and Aikhenvald 1999). The Andean area, with its wealth of mutually unre-
lated languages, has remained as opaque as ever in this respect. The linguistic diversity
is not only genetic; the typological distance between some of the language groups is
also impressive. It suffices to have a quick look at almost neighbouring languages such
as Quechua, Mochica and Harakmbut to be struck by the differences.
The historical picture is further obscured by the radical changes that have affected
South America during the last five centuries of the second millennium. Scores of
native languages, including entire families, have disappeared, often without leaving
a trace. Others have dwindled to insignificant numbers. A few of them, including
Aymara, Mapuche and Quechua, maintained a prominent position during the colonial
period, partly at the cost of other languages, only to become endangered themselves
1 Introduction 3
in the subsequent period. Mapuche, Muisca and Quechua acted as linguae francae for
local tongues, which were considered obstacles to evangelisation and effective domi-
nation. Most languages, however, gave way to Spanish, the language introduced by the
conquerors.
The Spanish occupation, which for the Andean region began in Panamá, the Caribbean
coast of Colombia and Venezuela, and at the mouth of the River Plate, brought death
and destruction for many native groups. The prosperous and numerous Cueva people
of the Darien region in eastern Panamá were exterminated between 1510 and 1535,
their country depopulated, given back to the jungle, and partly occupied by other na-
tive groups (Romoli 1987). Many others were forced to participate in civil wars or to
join discovery parties geared at finding the legendary country of El Dorado (Hemming
1978). Epidemics of devastating dimensions swept through the continent even before the
conquest. Huayna Capac, the last ruler of the undivided Inca empire, became one of their
victims. After the arrival of the Europeans and during the first half of the colonial period
the native population dropped dramatically. Many nations, such as the Quimbaya of the
Cauca river valley in Colombia, known as the New World’s most talented goldsmiths,
disappeared with their languages during that period. At the same time a benign and
protective colonial rule guaranteed a state of relative quietude and prosperity. During
most of the colonial period widely used native languages, such as Quechua, benefited
from a certain prestige and legal protection. In 1770 the new Bourbon administration
headed by Charles III banned the use of the indigenous languages from his domains and
started a period of effective repression (Triana y Antorveza 1987: 499–511; Mannheim
1991: 74–9). In Peru the repression gained momentum in 1781 after the unsuccessful
outcome of the Indian rebellion led by Tupac Amaru II.
The independence of the South American nations was at first a new drawback for
the native populations. As a last manifestation of indigenous sentiment, the act of 1816
declaring the independence of the United Provinces of Rı́o de la Plata, the predecessor of
Argentina, was printed in Tucumán both in Spanish and in Quechua. Subsequently, the
linguistic and cultural rights of native South Americans were discontinued everywhere.
In the more traditional areas with large indigenous populations, the hacienda system with
its oppressive bondage practices reached its worst dimensions. Physical elimination by
military forces or headhunters struck the Indians of Argentina, Uruguay and Chilean
Tierra del Fuego, who had largely remained independent throughout the colonial period.
The Araucanians of southern Chile lost their independence and integrity as a nation. The
increase in the exploitation of rubber around the turn of the nineteenth century brought
untold misery to the tribes of the Peruvian and Colombian rainforest, including slavery,
deportation and ruthless massacres (Taussig 1987; Gray 1996).
Until the second half of the twentieth century, the attitude of the South American
governments and national societies remained indifferent to the existence of the native
4 1 Introduction
languages, if not overtly hostile. The survival of these languages depended on the per-
severance of their speakers, occasionally with the support of sympathising groups, such
as indigenista circles or missionaries. Only during the last decades has there been a
growing awareness at the national level of the importance of the cultural and linguistic
heritage and the practical consequences of a multilingual reality. It started in 1975 in Peru
with the recognition of Quechua as a second national language, a measure now largely
forgotten. Meanwhile, the multicultural and multilingual character of the Bolivian na-
tion has been recognised at the official level. A strong movement of highland Indians
has come to play a crucial role in Ecuadorian politics. Finally, the cultural and terri-
torial rights of native groups have been recognised in Colombia’s constitution of 1991
(see section 1.4 below). There have been several more or less successful attempts to
introduce bilingual education in Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. Needless to say, the prac-
tical elaboration of all these measures and their effectiveness still leave much to be
desired.
1.1 The languages of the Andes

The languages of the Andes are not at all structurally similar, nor directly related, and
are spoken in a huge area. Nonetheless, there are many connections between them, and
they share a recent history of domination by Spanish. To us falls the task of both pointing
out general traits, and doing justice to their various properties. It is only when compared
to each other that their individuality emerges most clearly.
In addition, we must try to stay clear of viewing these languages as static. In Race
et histoire (1952) Lévi-Strauss warns against viewing other civilisations as either infant
or stationary. When we sit in a train, our perception of the movement of other trains
depends on the direction they are travelling in, with respect to our own train.
The history of the Andes is characterised by an alternation between periods of greater
communication and integration of different peoples and languages, and periods of frag-
mentation and individual development. For this reason we must find, on occasion, a
middle perspective between the Andean region as a whole and individual languages. We
have tried to establish this by describing the Andean languages grouped into different
‘spheres’, zones which at different points in time have functioned as single units. Within
these cultural spheres, the languages have influenced each other, sometimes rather pro-
foundly. Hence our repeated insistence on the phenomenon of language contact in the
chapters that follow.
This book consists of seven chapters. In the introductory chapter we begin by sketching
the geographical and the historical context in which the languages of the Andes attained
their present form and use. We then turn to an overview of the linguistic and demographic
situation of the Indians in each of the Andean countries, and to the history of descriptive
and comparative studies of the languages of the Andes. Finally, we give a brief outline of
1.1 The languages of the Andes 5
the history of classificatory efforts for the Andean languages. More details are provided
in chapters 2 to 6, which deal with specific regions or spheres.
Chapter 2 deals with the Chibcha Sphere, which we define as the Venezuelan Andes
and Colombia, including some of the border areas of Colombia with Peru and Ecuador.
In chapter 3 the Inca Sphere is discussed, roughly the area covered by the Inca empire:
highland and coastal Ecuador and Peru, highland Bolivia, northern Chile and north-
west Argentina. Chapter 4 deals with the eastern slopes of the Andes and the up-
per Amazon basin in Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, and some information on the Gran
Chaco area of Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay will be included. Chapter 5 is dedi-
cated to the Araucanian Sphere: the Chilean coast and highlands and part of south-
central Argentina. Chapter 6 treats the languages of Tierra del Fuego and adjacent
Patagonia.
Chapter 7, finally, deals with the non-Indian languages, primarily Spanish, but also
Afro-Hispanic survivals, as well as Amerindian contact vernaculars. In addition, policies
of bilingual education and language maintenance are surveyed.
Language contact in the Andes has taken several forms. First, we find the use of spe-
cific lexical items (e.g. the Quechua word waranqa ‘thousand’ or reflexes of Quechua
atawaly pa ‘chicken’, ‘rooster’) in a wide variety of languages, many of which have
never been in direct contact with the language of source. This suggests extensive
and, as Nordenskiöld (1922) argues, sometimes fairly rapid transmission, over a wide
area.
Second, we find cases of intense lexical influence from either a demographically or a
culturally dominant language, as in the case of Mapuche influence on Gününa Küne in
Argentina, or Quechua influence on Amuesha on the Andean foothills in Peru.
Third, there is evidence of highly complex patterns of long-term convergence, inter-
ference and mutual lexical influence in the contact between languages of the Aymaran
and Quechuan families. The contact has been so intense in this case that for a long
time the two families were thought to be directly related. We will address the question
whether the situation of Aymara and Quechua is unique in South America, or whether
there are other cases of intense mutual influence as well.
Fourth, there are documented patterns of language mixture through relexification,
e.g. in the case of Media Lengua in Ecuador and the Callahuaya in Bolivia, a group of
itinerant herbal curers, who used a sort of secret language with elements of Puquina and
Quechua.
Fifth, a phenomenon frequently observed is the fusion of the remnants of a tribe that
has been decimated in number with another more vigorous tribe. Under the protection
of their new social environment such tiny groups may preserve a language for gener-
ations, and only gradually adopt the dominant language, as in the Chiquitano area in
Bolivia.
6 1 Introduction
Finally, the Indian languages of the Andes have responded in different ways to the
pressures from Spanish, from incidental lexical borrowing, through convergence and
relexification, to shift and substrate.
In the chapters to follow these different types of contact will be explored in some
detail.
1.2 Physical description

The Andes – or, more properly speaking, the Cordilleras de los Andes – constitute
a mountain range about 7,000 kilometres long. They stretch all along the west coast
of South America, from near Caracas to Cape Horn. On the average, the Andes are
400 kilometres wide, but at the twentieth parallel, at the altitude of Bolivia, over
900 kilometres. Steep on the western or Pacific side, the Andes are flanked by lower
ridges on the eastern side, providing a more gradual transition to the Amazon and La
Plata basins. In the south the Andes start out as a single ridge, but in northern Chile they
split up into several ridges, enclosing the widening altiplano (high plain) of Bolivia and
southern Peru. Through northern Peru and Ecuador there are two ranges, with a valley in
between. In southern Colombia these join again before fanning out over this country in
three separate cordilleras, the easternmost of which reaches into Venezuela. The Andes
are a very high range, with several dozen peaks above 6,000 metres, and generally very
high passes. Only the Chamaya highlands, at the border between Ecuador and Peru,
provide an easy passage from the Amazon basin to the Pacific, as Raymond (1988: 281)
points out, providing the opportunity for tropical forest/coastal plain contacts starting
in early prehistory.
For our purposes, the physical characteristics of the Andes are important for a number
of reasons. First of all, because of their inhospitable character they have provided zones
of refuge for numerous indigenous groups. We have but to compare Bolivia, where
both remote mountainous regions and inaccessible Andean foothill areas have provided
niches for Indian languages, with the Argentinian plains, where widely spread Indian
groups were destroyed by the regular Argentinian army in the nineteenth century, to
realise the effect that the physical environment has in this respect. The linguistic and
cultural zones of refuge exist both where extremely harsh conditions or poor soils made
colonisation difficult or unprofitable, and where the terrain made communication with
and travel to regional centres an ordeal. Within the ecological perspective taken here, it
is important to ask ourselves, for each indigenous language in South America and each
group, how come it still exists, resisting or escaping destruction or assimilation?
A second crucial aspect of the Andes, with its often steep slopes, is that it has made
available different ecosystems even to a single ethnic group. Thus we find the Quechua-
speaking Saraguro Indians in the province of Loja, southern Ecuador, cultivating maize
and other cereal crops in the highlands in alternation with the raising of cattle on the
eastern slopes. Murra (1975) has documented a very extensive system of ‘vertically’
organised barter and economic cooperation networks in the Andes of Bolivia and Peru,
in which groups located at different altitudes were allied. Sometimes these subgroups
belonged to the same ethnolinguistic group, sometimes they did not. Altiplano groups
such as that of the Bolivian Lupaca kingdom relied on an archipelago of lower-down
settlements for their coca leaves and maize crops.
Third, the mountains influence the climates in the Andean region enormously, in
conjunction with the Humboldt current. In the extreme south, the western slopes are
humid, and on the eastern side, Patagonia, it is dry. Near Valparaiso, however, where the
Humboldt current reaches the Chilean coastline, the coast becomes a desert and the east-
ern side more humid. This is the situation throughout Peru. At the altitude of the
Ecuadorian border it changes again: tropical rains fall on both sides of the Andes.
In Colombia, the coastal zone is hot and humid, and the central valleys are cooler. Thus
we have virtually all existing climates represented in the region we are studying: from
the Pacific deserts of Chile and Peru through the rainforest near the Brazilian borders of
Bolivia, Peru and Colombia, to the permanent snow of the mountains in the altiplano
regions around Lake Titicaca.
1.3 Brief history of the region

We will sketch the prehistory of the Andean region on the basis of Peruvian prehistory,
since it has been studied in the greatest detail and provides a point of reference for the
whole region. At various points we will link developments in the northern and southern
Andes to the central region focused on here.
In Keatinge (1988a, b) the archaeological evidence is reviewed, and it is concluded
that the earliest human occupation of the central Andes that is well documented dates
back to 9000–8000 BC. The early occupants were hunters and gatherers, and they had
well-defined lithic technologies. Soon settlements emerged, on the coast centred around
fishing and gathering shellfish, and in the highlands based on the domestication of
plants and animals. Although in the central Andes the preceramic period lasted till
around 1800 BC, there is evidence of high levels of cultural evolution, e.g. in large
constructions such as at Sechı́n Alto.
The ceramic period is characterised by phases in which cultural elements were shared
by groups in the whole central Andes, called Horizons, and intermediary periods in
which cultural developments (as reflected, for instance, in ceramic patterns) were more
regional. The Early Horizon (900 BC– AD 200), is associated with the Chavin de Huántar
religious shrine and represents the consolidation of a pan-Andean religious foundation.
The Middle Horizon (AD 600–1000, according to Keatinge 1988a, b) is linked with the
two large urban centres of Huari and Tiahuanaco, which may have been the capitals of
two empires: Tiahuanaco around the Titicaca basin and extending into western Bolivia
and northern Chile, and Huari extending as far as the northern Peruvian coastal plains.
These zones of influence did not last for more than two centuries, but they formed the
8 1 Introduction
scene for a large network of exchange of goods, visual motifs and patterns of organisation
throughout the whole central Andes. The shared religious heritage remains, however, in
the subsequent period of regionalisation and is preserved in such centres as Pachacamac.
During this period of regionalisation we do see large kingdoms emerging, particularly
on the coastal plains of northern Peru, such as the Chimú kingdom. The Late Horizon
corresponds to the Inca period, to which we will turn shortly.
To the north in Ecuador we find equally old early settlements, both near Quito and
on the Santa Elena Peninsula, where there are traces of some of the earliest New World
ceramics and textiles. Ecuador was at the crossroads between the Peruvian civilisations
just mentioned and circum-Caribbean cultures. The bivalve shell spondylus, fished along
the Pacific coast of Ecuador (and later much further north as well), was a highly valued
object of trade, not just in Ecuador but also in Peru, particularly in the Chavı́n culture.
Colombian archaeological remains date back to 8000 BC at the site of Tequendama
(Correal and Van der Hammen 1977; Lynch 1999). Ceramic techniques were known
as early as 3000 BC at the site of Puerto Hormiga on the Colombian Caribbean coast
(Reichel Dolmatoff 1965; Rojas de Perdomo 1979; Allaire 1999). The earliest construc-
tions at San Agustı́n date back to 500 BC (Rojas de Perdomo 1979), but the highly
developed gold-working techniques, which inspired the Spanish thirst for gold and led
to the myth of El Dorado, generally can be dated as having arisen in the first millennium.
The San Agustı́n culture lasted until shortly before the arrival of the Spaniards.
Although the Andes are associated in popular opinion with the Inca civilisation,
historically the Incas played a relatively minor role. In the early part of the fifteenth
century, they rose as a military power in southern Peru. Under Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui
the southern highlands were conquered, and one by one the earlier Peruvian states,
including powerful Chimú, were toppled. After 1460 his son Tupac Inca conquered the
northern highlands, as far as Quito in Ecuador, and after 1471 highland Bolivia and
adjacent parts of Chile and Argentina were incorporated into the growing Inca empire.
While most highland territories thus became Inca, the tropical forest remained out of
reach for the new conquerors.
Unlike earlier military powers, the Incas were not content with looting new territory,
but rather they organised and restructured it. Huayna Capac, who succeeded around
1492, only added small parts to the empire, and withstood the first major assault on it,
from the Chiriguanos in the southeast. When Huayna Capac died in 1527, his two sons,
Huascar and Atahuallpa, fought over domination for five years, and when a small group
of Spaniards under Francisco Pizarro invaded Peru in 1532 they could profit from the
divisions caused by the wars of succession and from the disaffections among local elites
of nations recently conquered by the Incas. In addition, the Incas were greatly debilitated
by waves of European epidemic diseases, smallpox and measles, which had reached the
Andes even before the advent of the Spaniards themselves.
From 1538 on Peru was firmly under the control of the Spanish colonialists, and it
remained under their control inspite of uprisings and resistance during the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries. Resistance to Spanish colonial rule took several forms. While
the Spaniards had been able to conquer most of the Andean region rather rapidly, in
the montaña, on the eastern slopes, the Incas held out for a long time, in fact until
1572, in their stronghold at Vilcabamba. While Europeans played the dominant role
in the highlands, it should not be thought that there were no Indian rebellions during
the colonial and republican periods. Messianic movements (Ossio 1973) kept flaring
up throughout the colonial and early republican periods. Only a few can be mentioned
here.
In 1564 there was a revolt in the Ayacucho region of Peru, inspired by native religious
leaders, called Taki Onqoy (lit. ‘dancing sickness’, i.e. ‘dancing into a trance’), which
spread through large parts of central Peru and lasted seven years (Millones 1973, 1990).
Around 1780 there was the famous uprising in southern Peru of Tupac Amaru II, a
remote descendant of the Incas, which gained enormous peasant support before being
squashed.
The Páez in Colombia withstood the attacks by various Spanish conquistadores, in-
cluding Belalcázar,1 but here also the Spaniards profited from conflicts between the
various Indian nations. The Magdalena valley remained difficult to control for the colo-
nial rulers until the nineteenth century.
Just as the Incas had never been able to conquer the Mapuche in Chile, the Spanish
conquistadores, after some initial successes, were unable to bring this Araucanian group
down. Until the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Mapuche retained their inde-
pendence and proved to be a formidable enemy, requiring repeated military expeditions
by the colonial and later by the republican powers. After new hostilities, in 1869 and
again in 1880, they were finally subdued or ‘pacified’ in 1882. They were forced to share
their limited agricultural area with intrusive settlers, but a majority has stayed in the
heartland south of the Biobı́o river.
The independence from Spain of the Andean regions and the formation of new
nation-states brought some changes for the Indian populations, but in many ways the
patterns established in the colonial period persisted. The overt rebellion against Spain
started in 1810 at the two opposite ends of the Spanish empire – Caracas and Buenos
Aires – and spread from there to the central Andean regions. Bolı́var in the north
first liberated Venezuela, then Colombia and then Ecuador, with the help of Sucre.
San Martı́n started in the Argentine and then liberated Chile. The two met in Peru,
where the battle of Ayacucho in 1824 marked the effective end of Spanish rule in South
America.
1 Benalcazar or Benalcaçar in the colonial sources.

10 1 Introduction
Even though Bolı́var attempted to form larger nation-states, e.g. uniting Peru and
Bolivia, and uniting Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, the contours of what were to
become the Spanish American republics became clearer as the Wars of Independence
were fought. The republics founded in the early nineteenth century have remained till
today, and have now developed strong national identities. It would be a mistake to think
that independence was inspired by the Indians or was beneficial to them. The opposite
is the case, for several reasons.
To begin with, independence from Spain did not mean full autonomy. When the
Spanish officials were gone, European bankers, traders and settlers stepped in. The
nineteenth century was a period of more intensive exploitation of a new series of
natural resources in Latin America. The guano dug up along the Peruvian coast,
the saltpetre mined in northern Chile and the rubber gathered in the upper Amazon
basin are examples of this. In many areas, the Indians were driven from their home-
steads by new colonists or forced to participate in the new explorations under hardship
conditions.
Further, the nationalism accompanying the forging of new nations was often translated
into a desire for the cultural homogeneity of the citizenry. Public education, in Spanish,
was extended into rural areas. Cities expanded, and urban norms and values were seen
as signs of modernity. All of this meant that Indian lifestyles were depreciated and
threatened. An extreme result is the genocide perpetrated against the Indians of the
Argentinian pampas under the command of General Roca (1878–82).
Finally, independence had been fought for and won by elites associated with the import
and export sectors of the colonial economies, who had been clamouring for trading
possibilities with different nations, against the Spanish monopoly. These elites favoured
the breaking up of the traditional feudal landholding system, which had exploited the
Indian work force but at the same time sheltered their culture, or rather a complex
amalgam of their traditional culture and colonial patterns. Modernisation of agriculture
was accompanied by the increasing mobility of rural labourers, and hence by the splitting
up of traditional Indian communities.
These three factors still hold and help shape the relations between Indians and non-
Indians in the Andes. In recent history organised Indian movements have allied them-
selves with political movements, but major guerrilla activities such as Sendero Luminoso
in Peru and FARC in Colombia are only peripherally related to Indian movements (cf. the
contributions in Eckstein 1989).
1.4 A brief overview of the different Andean countries

All Andean countries have a native population which speaks several native languages.
However, the number of languages that became extinct since 1500 probably exceeds
1.4 Brief overview of the Andean countries 11
Table 1.1 Percentage of Indian population in the different Andean

countries (a fairly conservative estimate based on Instituto Indigenista
Interamericano 1993)
Total population Amerindian population Percentage
Venezuela 21,300,000 315,815 1.48

Colombia 35,600,000 620,052 1.74
Ecuador 10,600,000 2,634,494 24.85
Peru 22,900,000 8,793,295 38.39
Bolivia 8,200,000 4,142,187 50.51
Chile 14,000,000 989,745 7.06
Argentina 33,900,000 372,996 1.10
that of the languages still spoken. There is no longer a full coincidence between Indian
descent and the preservation of the native languages. Nor are languages always spoken
in their original locations. The social developments of the second half of the twentieth
century have induced many Indians to migrate to urban centres both within and outside
their original living areas.
The countries involved in our study differ widely in the variety and relative impor-
tance of native languages. Consider the figures for 1993 of the percentages of the Indian
ethnic groups of the total population in different countries (these figures refer to cultur-
ally identifiable ethnic groups, not to speakers of Indian languages) in table 1.1. Bolivia,
Ecuador and Peru differ clearly from Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Venezuela in the
size of their indigenous populations. Although overall figures have changed somewhat
since 1993, the percentages remain comparable. These figures are rather conservative
estimates; for individual countries, sometimes higher figures are given. With the excep-
tion of Chile, all Andean countries mention Amerindian languages explicitly in their
constitutions. Of course, these documents are no more than that, and explicit mention in
the constitution is no guarantee of the existence or otherwise of an indigenous language.
However, these texts do reflect the self-perception of the political classes, at least, of the
different countries.
Let us briefly look at these countries one by one.
Venezuela. In so far as the region covered by this book is concerned, the Indian
languages of Venezuela have been preserved mainly in the area to the west of Lake
Maracaibo. In the Andes all native languages, including several isolates and small fam-
ilies, are considered extinct.
The 1999 Venezuelan constitution states in its article 9 that Spanish is the official
language, while the indigenous languages are also for official use by the indigenous
peoples and must be respected throughout the Republic, since they constitute a cultural
12 1 Introduction
heritage of the nation and of humanity at large.2 Article 100 provides for the recog-
nition of cultural diversity and equality of all cultures that constitute the Venezuelan
identity.3 Finally, there is a transitory measure regulating the election of indigenous po-
litical representatives, which includes the requirement that they speak their indigenous
languages.
Colombia. The Andean region of Colombia occupies the western, central and northern
parts of the country, and is bordered by tropical lowlands in the east. The Andean
mountain ranges, which run from north to south, are separated by mighty river valleys and
extensive forest areas, especially along the Pacific coast. At the arrival of the Europeans
many autonomous ethnic groups inhabited Andean Colombia, which has preserved part
of its original multilingualism. The languages that have survived belong to different
families and constitute linguistic islands in a largely Hispanicised country.
The Indian groups of the Colombian Andes are known for their spirit of independence
and ethnic awareness. Their high level of organisation is rooted in the defence of their
rights to reserved areas (resguardos) inherited from the colonial period. Many of them
encourage efforts to codify and preserve their languages as long as these are compatible
with the interests of the community.
The 1991 constitution of Colombia (with modifications in 1997) states in article 10
that Spanish is the official language of Colombia while the languages and dialects of the
ethnic groups are also official in their territories. Education in communities with their
own linguistic traditions will be bilingual.4
Ecuador. Ecuador has one of the highest percentages of Indian population in South
America. It is mainly concentrated in the inter-Andean valleys and the Amazonian low-
land to the east, referred to as the oriente in Ecuador. Some small communities inhabit the
northern part of the forested region separating the Pacific Ocean from the Andean ranges.
The majority of Ecuadorian Indians speak Quichua, the local variety of the Quechua lan-
guage spoken in the Andean countries further south. Quichua is found in the entire high-
land region except for its northern and southern extremities (in the provinces of Carchi
and Loja). The Quechuanisation of highland Ecuador became complete during the colo-
nial period when it replaced a multitude of local languages. At the same time Quichua was
introduced in the Ecuadorian oriente, where it also gradually replaced some of the local
2 El idioma oficial es el castellano. Los idiomas indı́genas también son de uso oficial para los
pueblos indı́genas y deben ser respetados en todo el territorio de la República, por constituir
patrimonio cultural de la Nación y de la humanidad.
3 Las culturas populares constitutivas de la venezolanidad gozan de atención especial, recono-
ciéndose y respetándose la interculturalidad bajo el principio de igualdad de las culturas.
4 El castellano es el idioma oficial de Colombia. Las lenguas y dialectos de los grupos étnicos
son también oficiales en sus territorios. La enseñanza que se imparta en las comunidades con
tradiciones lingüı́sticas propias será bilingüe.
1.4 Brief overview of the Andean countries 13
languages. Varese (1983) estimated the Indian population of the Ecuadorian oriente at be-
tween 30,703 (minimum) and 58,353 (maximum). The Abya–Yala cultural organisation
on its website Peoples of Ecuador (http://abyayala.nativeweb.org/ecuador/pueblos/php)
mentions a figure of over a 100,000.
Article 1 of the 1998 constitution of Ecuador perhaps goes furthest in declaring that
the state respects and stimulates the development of all the Ecuadorian languages. While
Spanish is the official language, Quechua, Shuar and the other ancestral languages are
to be used officially for the indigenous peoples.5 Article 23 states that every person has
the right to be informed in her or his mother tongue, of proceedings against her or him.6
Article 69, finally, guarantees a form of bilingual education in which the indigenous
language is the principal one and Spanish the language for intercultural relations.7
Peru. Like Ecuador, Peru has an Indian population of several millions concentrated
mainly in the Andes. The Peruvian eastern lowlands (selva) and the foothills (montaña)
separating them from the Andean highlands are inhabited by a substantial number of
ethnic groups. Their number has been estimated between 200,000 and 220,850 (Varese
1983). More recent estimates (Pozzi-Escot 1998) are slightly higher, but the number of
speakers of lowland languages of five years and older has been calculated at 130,803
by Chirinos Rivera (2001). The Peruvian coast harbours several communities that have
native American roots but have lost their language.
The Andean highlands are dominated by the presence of two languages, Quechua and
Aymara. Peruvian Quechua shows a considerable amount of internal dialect diversity.
The number of Quechua speakers in Peru has been calculated at 4,402,023 (Cerrón-
Palomino 1987a). A recent estimate by Chirinos Rivera (2001), based on the national
census of 1993, is much lower, however: 3,199,474 speakers of five years and older.
Aymara is mainly confined to the southern departments of Puno, Moquegua and Tacna
and has around 350,000 speakers in Peru. It has 412,215 speakers of five years and older
according to Chirinos Rivera.
Article 48 of the 1993 Peruvian constitution talks of official languages in the plural,
declaring these to be Spanish and, in those zones where they are dominant, Quechua,
Aymara and the other aboriginal languages.8 In the general motivation for the 1993 con-
stitution it is mentioned that Peru is to be conceived of as a multiethnic and multicultural
5 El Estado respeta y estimula el desarrollo de todas las lenguas de los ecuatorianos. El castellano
es el idioma oficial. El quichua, el shuar y los demás idiomas ancestrales son de uso oficial para
los pueblos indı́genas, en los términos que fija la ley.
6 Toda persona tendrá el derecho a ser oportuna y debidamente informada, en su lengua materna,
de las acciones iniciadas en su contra.
7 El estado garantizará el sistema de educación intercultural bilingüe; en él se utilizará como lengua
principal la de la cultura respectiva, y el castellano como idioma de relación intercultural.
8 Son idiomas oficiales el castellano y, en las zonas donde predominen, también lo son el quechua,
el aimara y las demás lenguas aborı́genes, según la ley.
14 1 Introduction
country, where all citizens have the right to express themselves in their own language
before any authority.9
Bolivia. The Bolivian highland region is again characterised by the dominance of
Quechua and Aymara. Only small pockets of speakers of other highland languages
remain. In the lowlands surrounding the northern edge of the Andean high plateau there
is a wide array of small, genetically isolated languages.
The number of Quechua speakers in Bolivia is estimated at 2,194,099 on the basis
of the 1992 census figures, that of Aymara speakers at 1,503,754 (Albó 1995, I: 19).
Speakers of the lowland languages are estimated at more than 96,000 (Albó 1995,
I: 19).
The 1967 constitution of Bolivia, with modifications dating from 1994, guarantees
in article 171 the rights of the indigenous peoples, including those concerning their
identity, values, languages and customs, and institutions.10
Chile. The Mapuche people, who constitute the majority of the Chilean indigenous
population, are mainly concentrated in the region called La Araucanı́a in the south of
that country. Originally, they inhabited most of the central and southern mainland parts
of Chile, including the island of Chiloé, but centuries of war and colonising pressure
have reduced their territorial space. Although there may be a million people of Mapuche
descent, only an estimated 40 per cent continue to speak the language. There are no
reliable figures as to the actual number of speakers, however. In addition to Mapuche
only a few other native languages are found in the northern and southern extremities of
the country.
The current Chilean constitution makes no reference, as far as we could establish, to
language and culture, indigenous or not. This may reflect the fact that Chileans tend not
to perceive themselves as a partly Amerindian nation.
Argentina. The northwestern part of Argentina is inhabited by Indians and mestizos
belonging to the Andean cultural sphere. Many of them speak Quechua or did so in the
past. The Gran Chaco, to the east of the northern Argentinian Andes, is inhabited by
the Tupi–Guaranı́ Chiriguano and several other important indigenous groups speaking
Guaicuruan and Matacoan languages. Araucanian (Mapuche) is the dominant Indian
language in the south and southwest of Argentinia. Other groups in Patagonia and Tierra
del Fuego are extinct or nearly so. In the central and western part of the country all
9 La primera visión que tiene el Proyecto concibe al Perú como paı́s pluriétnico y pluricultural; en
consideración a ello el Proyecto comienza estableciendo por ejemplo, que todos los peruanos
tienen el derecho a expresarse en su propio idioma, no solamente en castellano, sino también en
quechua o en aymara, ante cualquier autoridad.
10 Se reconocen, respetan y protegen en el marco de la ley, los derechos sociales, económicos
y culturales de los pueblos indı́genas que habitan en el territorio nacional, especialmente los
relativos a sus tierras comunitarias de origen garantizando del uso y aprovechamiento sostenible
de los recursos naturales, a su identidad, valores, lenguas y costumbres e instituciones.
aboriginal Indian languages have disappeared. Indians or people of local indigenous

descent number several hundred thousand in Argentina.
Article 75 of the 1994 constitution of Argentina states that Congress must recognise
the ethnic and cultural pre-existence of the Argentinian indigenous peoples, and
guarantee the respect for their identity and right to bilingual and intercultural education.11
The term ‘pre-existence’ presumably refers to the Argentinian self-perception as a non-
Indian immigrant nation.
1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages

Little if anything is known about linguistics in the preconquest era, although there
may have been awareness of linguistic differences in the Inca empire. The colonial
era, in which missionary priests started recording the richness of the Indian linguistic
heritage, is well worth describing in some detail. The nineteenth century is dominated
by laymen: primarily European scholars, often with an archaeological and historical
interest. In the twentieth century we find a stronger American presence, in addition to
the emergence of groups of researchers in the different Andean countries themselves.
The recent period shows several new developments: the participation of speakers of
native languages in the research, the widening concern for language use, the concern
about language endangerment and the role of multilingualism in Andean society.
We will describe the developments in these periods in sequence, first looking at the
external history of language study in each period, and then consider the treatment of a
particular grammatical construction. Relative clauses in Quechua are used as an example
to illustrate different phases in the thinking about Andean languages: they are complex
and unfamiliar enough to have posed a challenge for different generations of outside
scholars.
1.5.1 The colonial period

The first data on any Andean language gathered by an outsider, as far as we know, consist
of vocabulary noted down by Pigafetta, as Vocables Des Géantz Pathagoniens. Antonio
de Pigafetta accompanied Fernando de Magalhães (Magellan) on his voyage around
the world between 1519 and 1522 (Pigafetta 1956: 177 ff ). The list of words includes
body parts, some terms referring to social status (her ‘chief’) and the physical universe.
No grammatical items were recorded, except chen [čen] ‘us’. The list reveals only a
superficial dialogue context and probably reflects some profound misunderstandings.
Contacts did not lead to immediate colonisation. This was different, of course, when
11 Reconocer la preexistencia étnica y cultural de los pueblos indı́genas argentinos. Garantizar el

respeto a su identidad y el derecho a una educación bilingüe e intercultural . . .
16 1 Introduction
Table 1.2 Early grammars of Andean languages (arranged

from north to south)
Chibcha 1609 Bernardo de Lugo

Mochica 1644 Fernando de la Carrera
Quechua (Inca) 1560 Domingo de Santo Tomás
1607 Diego González Holguı́n
Aymara 1603 Ludovico Bertonio
Morocosi (Mojo) 1699 Anonymous Jesuit
Mapuche 1606 Luis de Valdivia
Allentiac 1607 Luis de Valdivia
Millcayac 1607 Luis de Valdivia
the Andes were taken from the north by Spanish bands of conquistadores in the 1530s.
With the conquistadores came the priests.
From the very beginning of the European presence in South America Indian languages
were studied and documented by Roman Catholic missionaries. Some of the early lin-
guistic descriptions written in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are admirably
accurate for the time. They contain a wealth of information, which is particularly valu-
able when placed in the interpretative context of recent findings. Rowe (1974) calculates
that by 1700 grammars of 21 Amerindian languages had been published, 19 of which
dealt with languages of Mexico and South America. In addition, we find a large num-
ber of vocabularies, catechisms, etc. Some of the first grammars written for Andean
languages are listed in table 1.2.
The early grammars had an ecclesiastical use, and this meant that they were couched
in a vocabulary a priest could understand. Grammatical descriptions often ‘reduced’
grammars to the Latin mould. Most missionaries used the model developed by the
Spanish grammarian Antonio de Nebrija in his Introductiones Latinae (c.1488); see
Dümmler (1997).
Still, we should not underestimate the achievement of early colonial grammarians.
First of all, they were writing at a time when very few languages had been described
yet in Europe. Fray Domingo de Santo Tomás’s (1560a) grammar of Quechua antedates
the first grammars of German (1573) and of English (1586). Second, we find, next to
or subsequent to fumbling first efforts, early seventeenth-century masterpieces, still un-
surpassed, of grammatical description and lexicographic exploration. Examples include
Bertonio (1603a, b) on Aymara, Valdivia (1606) on Mapuche and González Holguı́n
(1607) on Quechua. An adequate assessment of their intellectual background and insights
into the organisation of grammar is still lacking, even though a number of studies are
filling the gap (Suárez Roca 1992; Troiani 1995; Zimmermann 1997; Dedenbach-Salazar
Sáenz and Crickmay 1999; Nowak 1999; Zwartjes 2000). The work of Hervás (Hervás y
Panduro 1784, 1800–5) reflects the detailed knowledge which Jesuits and missionaries
of other congregations had in the eighteenth century of the linguistic situation in South
America.
We will illustrate the evolution of the grammatical tradition by using the example of
the treatment of Quechua relative clauses. Quechua relative clauses are generally formed
with nominalising particles. When the subject is relativised, -q is used (examples are
given from the Cuzco variety):
(1) kay-man hamu-q runa ruwa-nqa

this-AL come-AG man do-3S.F
‘The man who comes here will do it.’
The relative clause precedes the antecedent, and the relativised element is generally not
expressed in the clause itself; cf. Weber (1983, 1989), Cole et al. (1982), Lefebvre and
Muysken (1982, 1988). In the Central Peruvian varieties the relative clause generally
follows the antecedent; if it precedes the antecedent, it is often interpreted generically.
When a non-subject is relativised, a different nominalising particle, such as -sqa, is
used:
(2) qaynunčaw riku-sqa-yki runa ruwa-nqa-n

yesterday see-SN-2S man do-3S.F-AF
‘The man you saw yesterday will do it.’
The grammars by Santo Tomás (1560a) and González Holguı́n (1607) illustrate
the early tradition. The unfamiliar features of Quechua relative clauses, such as the
subject/non-subject distinction, their position and the absence of tense marking, posed a
considerable challenge for Spanish priests. Santo Tomás (1560a) does not discuss nom-
inalising particles in relation with relative clauses. Rather, he introduces a periphrastic
construction in his fifteenth chapter (‘Of relatives’), as in (3) (his spelling):
(3) Pedro pori-rca, pay-pas, o chay-pas, o quiquin-pas, micu-rca

Pedro walk-PA.3S he-AD or that-AD or self-AD eat-PA.3S
‘Pedro walked, the same ate.’ (Pedro anduvo, el cual comió.)
This coordinate construction occurs in Quechua, but it is not the most common way to
form a relative.
González Holguı́n’s (1607) grammar constitutes a considerable improvement. It is
noted that the primary way of forming relative clauses is with a participle and without a
relative pronoun, as in (1), but then González Holguin goes on to say that a clearer and
more elegant way (oración muy clara y elegante) exists to express the same meaning, as
18 1 Introduction
in (4), involving the question word pi ‘who’, which again recalls the European models
(original spelling):
(4) Dios-pa gracia-n-pac pi-ch camari-cu-n, o pi-pas camari-cu-n

chay-ca usachi-cu-nca-tac-mi
God-G grace-3P-B who-DU prepare-RF-3S or who-AD prepare-RF-3S
that-TO attain-RF-3S.F-EM-AF
‘Whoever prepares himself for God’s grace, that person will certainly
attain it.’
González Holguı́n also mentions a third way of forming relatives, corresponding to

Santo Tomás’s example (3).
An admirably detailed and generally faithful account of the language is coupled
with Jesuit certainty and missionary zeal, and with a desire to cultivate the language
(somewhat along the lines of Latin). This cultivation of Quechua was part of Spanish
colonial policy (see chapters 3 and 7). University chairs were established for Quechua
and Aymara at the University of San Marcos in Lima, for Quechua in Quito and for
Muisca in Santafé de Bogotá.
Half a century later we find the first grammar of Quechua in which different varieties
are explicitly treated (Torres Rubio 1619), and this coincides with the beginning of the
comparative tradition in Andean language studies, which will be the subject of the final
sections of this chapter.
1.5.2 The nineteenth century

The opening up of Latin America to other European nations after independence was
accompanied by a new type of scholar dedicated to the languages of the Andes. Wilhelm
von Humboldt had already paid attention to languages such as Quechua, basing himself
on seventeenth- and eighteenth-century sources (1836, 1971). He saw the Quechua
relative clauses in an evolutionary perspective, in a fashion typical of nineteenth-century
historicist thought. The nominalised participles, as in (1) and (2), reflect an early, more
primitive phase in Quechua language and culture; the relative clauses involving question
words as in (4) correspond to the higher attainments of Inca civilisation.
The same tendency to view Andean culture patterns in terms of the Great Civilisations
is found in Ernst Middendorf, a curious but highly impressive figure who arrived in Peru
as a physician in 1855, twenty-five years old. He spent a total of twenty-five years in the
country, in three extended periods, first as a physician in Lima and then as a hacendado,
a landowner, in the Cuzco region. Middendorf combined the edition of surviving texts
in a number of Andean languages with actual fieldwork. In his Quechua grammar
(1890a, 1970) the relatives formed through coordination, (3), and those formed with a
question word, (4), move to the second plan. The crucial subject (1)/non-subject
(2) distinction is stated clearly for the first time.
For the first time as well we find an explicit discussion of possible Spanish influence
on the Andean languages: are relative clauses formed with a question word the result
of Spanish grammatical influence? Middendorf considers the question unanswerable,
and indeed the issue is highly complex (see, for instance, Lefebvre 1984; Appel and
Muysken 1987: 161), since already in the earliest Quechua sources we find a special
type of correlative formed with question words, but no ordinary relative clauses formed
this way.
1.5.3 Contemporary Andean linguistics

Particularly after the Second World War, the study of Andean languages underwent a
new upsurge, stimulated by linguists from the United States and Europe, both secular
and evangelist. The activities of the early missionary grammarians have received a
modern continuation in the work of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL; in Spanish:
Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano, ILV), whose members study the native Indian languages
for purposes of evangelisation. SIL members have been active in most South American
countries.
Two typical examples of post-Second World War descriptive linguistics are Yokoyama
(1951) and Levinsohn (1976). In contrast with the notionally based grammars of tra-
ditional and nineteenth-century linguists, these scholars focus on formal patterns and
resemblances. Yokoyama discusses relative clauses in Quechua in terms of their con-
stituent morphemes, going through some of the different uses of a suffix such as -sqa,
before coming up with some examples of a relative clause.
Levinsohn (1976), working in the framework of tagmemics, sets up numerical for-
mulas for different verb and suffix combinations. We get examples such as (5a), which
can be glossed as (5b):
(5) a. Vb 1331.1 – H:nighua

b. ni-g-wa
say-AG-C
‘with the one who says’
While the formula in (5a) may have made it possible for the author to describe the lan-
guage economically and consistently, for outsiders it is difficult to gain much information
from it without a lot of puzzle work. Work in more contemporary grammatical frame-
works such as Lefebvre and Muysken’s (1988) analysis, couched in the Government
and Binding model, while providing more examples, similarly has proven little more
accessible.
20 1 Introduction
In work done by scholars from the Andean countries often a more tradition-based,
practical perspective is adopted.
1.6 Sources for the study of the languages of the Andes

Linguistic fieldwork is, of course, the principal source of information concerning the
languages presently spoken. Cases where this type of research is particularly urgent are
numerous. Notwithstanding its essential importance, field research cannot answer all
the questions relevant to the past and present state of the South American languages.
Manuscripts with word lists, travel accounts and recordings in public archives or libraries,
or in private possession, may provide data concerning extinct languages and earlier stages
of living languages.
As we have said before, early Spanish grammarians contributed substantially to our
knowledge of native American languages, and some of them played a role in efforts
towards the standardisation of the Quechua language to suit its use as an instrument of
evangelisation. Among these was the team that translated the Doctrina Christiana and
the Catechism into Quechua following the Third Lima Council of 1583. They designed a
unified, phonologically simple version of Quechua in which the regional differences were
to some extent attenuated (Cerrón-Palomino 1987b: 84–90). Others, such as Bertonio and
González Holguı́n, wrote grammars and dictionaries (of Aymara and Cuzco Quechua,
respectively) considered among the classics of renaissance linguistic description. How-
ever, they too focused their attention mainly upon those languages considered useful
for purposes of colonisation and evangelisation. When unimportant from a numerical
point of view, languages were mostly left unrecorded, or the grammars, dictionaries
and catechisms dedicated to them remained in single manuscript versions. Many of
these subsequently became lost. One manuscript grammar that fortunately has sur-
vived is de la Mata (1748), kept in the British Library in London. It is a grammar
of the Cholón language spoken until recently in the Huallaga valley in the Peruvian
department of San Martı́n. However, the previous existence of Barzana’s grammar (pub-
lished in 1590; see Brinton 1891: 170) of the Diaguita or Kakán language, once spoken
in what is now northwestern Argentina and northern Chile, is only known to us from
an indirect source. Most unfortunately, there is no grammatical nor lexical information
on this language apart from a substantial number of place names and a few terms in
local use.
Not until shortly before the end of Spanish colonial presence in the Andean region, do
we find a renewed interest in local linguistic and cultural conditions. A remarkable figure
representing this current, inspired by the European Enlightenment, is Baltasar Jaime
Martı́nez Compañón, who collected word lists of the native languages still spoken about
1780 in the northern Peruvian coastal and sierra regions (Martı́nez Compañón 1985).
Martı́nez Compañón stood at the beginning of a tradition of systematically collecting
1.6 Sources for study 21
data for a variety of Amerindian languages that lasted through the nineteenth and part
of the twentieth centuries.
The analysis of texts in native languages collected for different purposes, published
and unpublished, constitutes another promising field. Much work remains to be done in
this area.
Several areas in South America, especially in the Andes, exhibit an ancient agricultural
tradition rooted in the pre-Columbian and early colonial past but have lost their original
languages. In such areas, the study of toponymy can provide information about the
linguistic situation as it was in early postconquest times. Such an undertaking can help
not only to identify the languages formerly spoken in a particular area, but also to provide
an indication of their territorial extension at the time before they became extinct. This
type of research has been carried out in recent years in relation to the coast and sierra
of northern Peru (Torero 1986, 1989; Adelaar 1988, 1999).
As regards the issue of extinction, a precaution is in order. Rediscoveries of languages
thought extinct are not unusual. Elderly people may remember a language whereas the
younger generation is hardly aware that it ever existed. Cholón, for instance, was found
to be still in use with a few individuals in the Peruvian Huallaga valley (Barbira 1979,
cited in Cerrón-Palomino 1987a), although it is probably extinct now. Van de Kerke
(1998, 2000) found a number of speakers of Leco, a language on the slopes of the Andes
in Bolivia that had been considered extinct as well.
Several surveys dealing with the present-day situation of the native languages in the
South American countries have provided data for this book. For Colombia the principal
sources are publications of the Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes
(CCELA) of the Universidad de Los Andes and González and Rodrı́guez (2000). For
both Colombia and Ecuador a basic source are publications of the Summer Institute of
Linguistics. Torero (1974) and Cerrón Palomino (1987a) are important reference works
for Quechua. For Aymara there is Hardman et al. (1988), and Cerrón Palomino (2000).
For Chile the main reference for Mapuche is Salas (1992a). The Argentinian situation is
treated in Klein (1985) and Censabella (1999); as far as Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego
are concerned, a basic source is Clairis (1985a).
With respect to the Amazon area, important compilations have appeared, such as
Key (1979), Pottier (1983), Klein and Stark (1985a), Derbyshire and Pullum (1986,
1990, 1991, 1998), Doris L. Payne (1990a), Queixalós and Renault-Lescure (2000) and
Dixon and Aikhenvald (2000). Loukotka (1968), Tovar and Larrucea de Tovar (1984),
Migliazza and Campbell (1988), Campbell (1997) and Fabre (1998) provide the most
complete recent bibliographical data. These books give a fairly complete listing of South
America’s native languages, accompanied by remarks concerning existing classificatory
proposals. Their aim is not to contribute a reasoned classification in itself. The Atlas
of the World’s Languages (Moseley and Asher 1994), with a contribution by Kaufman,
provides additional information.
22 1 Introduction
1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages

South America has rightly been called ‘the least known continent’ (Lyon 1974). This
statement holds true, in particular, when applied to the genetic relationships of the
native languages of its western half. Much remains to be done before a comprehensive
classification can be established of the numerous native languages spoken, or once
spoken, in the Andes and in the pre-Andean lowlands. Genetically isolated languages
and small language families predominate in the area. Not the number of languages,
but rather the number of irreducible genetic units constitutes its most striking feature.
The resulting impression of extreme linguistic diversity is partly due to insufficient
documentation, but in cases where good data are available the situation seems to be
no less complex. The linguistic situation in the Andes is comparable in many ways
to that in other parts of the Americas, except for the circumstance that maybe more
languages became extinct here during the last five centuries than anywhere else on the
continent. In a majority of cases, such languages have remained undocumented. Their
extinction implies the loss of just as many potential genetic links between the languages
still in use. Consequently, some of the best-known languages of the Andean region, such
as Araucanian or Mochica, do not form part of any genetic grouping that could meet
with the consensus of linguistic scholarship. The same holds true for ‘shallow’ genetic
units such as Quechua, a conglomerate of closely related dialects, and Aymaran (also
known as Aru or Jaqi), the language family that includes Aymara as its most important
representative.
The existence in South America of a number of large genetic groupings including
many widely scattered individual languages has been known for a long time. They in-
clude the Arawakan, Cariban, Chibchan and Tupi linguistic stocks. All four of them
are represented in the Andes, in the pre-Andean lowlands or in both. However, with
the exception of Chibchan in the northern Andes, they all occupy a predominant place
elsewhere in South America. There have been several attempts to link linguistic isolates
of the eastern Andean slopes to one of the larger stocks just mentioned, but in most cases
without lasting success. The genetic status of several languages that were once tenta-
tively classified as Arawakan or Chibchan will have to be reconsidered. The Amuesha
language of the central Peruvian forest slopes constitutes a remarkable exception to this.
Its supposed membership of the Arawakan family was long considered controversial,
but its close genetic relationship with other Arawakan languages of the Pre-Andine
subgroup has now become established beyond reasonable doubt (Wise 1976).
Like in North America, the diversity of languages seems to have been the greatest
along the mountainous spine on the Pacific side of the continent, which may also have
constituted the scene of the earliest wave of migrations. Early colonial observers, such
as Bibar (1558), Cieza de León (1553), Cobo (1653) and Simón ([1626] 1882–1892,
II: 116, 284; cited in Pérez de Barradas 1955: 17–19) speak of an amazing variety
of languages in what is now Colombia, Peru and northern Chile. It is often not clear,
however, whether the languages referred to were actually different languages or merely
local varieties of more widespread languages. When Simón, for instance, speaks of the
numerous languages used in the highlands surrounding Santafé de Bogotá and Tunja
in New Granada (present-day Colombia), he may have been referring to dialects of the
prevailing Muisca and Duit languages with the possible inclusion of some unrelated
neighbouring idiomatic groups. On the other hand, the linguistic variety in the northern
Peruvian bishopric of Trujillo observed by Garcilaso de la Vega (Royal Commentaries
of the Incas, 1609, Book VII, chapter 3) turned out to be quite real. Except for Mochica,
these languages remained virtually without record throughout the colonial period and
hardly received any attention until their extinction at a relatively recent date.
The cultural and political developments that took place in the Andes have favoured the
spread of a few languages, i.e. Quechua, Aymara and Araucanian, at the cost of scores
of local languages originally present in the area. Their expansion was initiated before
the establishment of the Inca empire and the European invasion. In quite a few cases, the
local languages did not disappear before the end of the colonial period. A few of them
remained vital well into the twentieth century. In addition to the expansion of the major
native languages, the rapid spread of Spanish also contributed to further reducing the
complexity of the linguistic situation in the Andes. Spanish, for instance, has directly
replaced Mochica and several other languages on the northern Peruvian coast as well as
in its mountainous hinterland.
The disappearance without record of so many potential relatives has doubtlessly con-
tributed to the apparent genetic isolation of the languages still spoken. Tenacious efforts
to relate some of the surviving languages of the area to each other, rather than con-
sider them within the framework of more comprehensive genetic constructs, may have
contributed to further obscuring the situation. This holds true, in particular, for the two
Indian languages most widely spoken in the Andes, Quechua and Aymara.
After centuries of increasing uniformisation, considerable language diversity, as may
once have existed everywhere in the Andes, is still found nowadays on the eastern slopes
along the upper reaches of the Amazonian rivers. Lowland Bolivia and eastern Ecuador,
as well as the Colombian and Peruvian Amazonian regions adjacent to Ecuador, are
typical areas in this respect.
1.7.1 History of classificatory efforts

Opinions about the origin of the South American Indians and their languages date back
to the early years of European presence on the continent. If we leave aside the initial
postdiscovery belief that America was part of Asia, Acosta in his Historia natural y moral
de las Indias (Natural and Moral History of the Indies; 1590, Book I, chapters 20–4) was
probably the first to intuitively sense the way in which the ancestors of America’s Indian
24 1 Introduction
population had entered the New World in times long gone. He assumed that they came
mainly over land, crossing estuaries whenever necessary, in small bands and without
the intention of peopling a new continent. Acosta also indicated the areas where this
could have taken place: in the Arctic regions, where the boundaries of the Old and New
World had not yet been discovered by his contemporaries. It was precisely the diversity
of nations and languages found throughout the Americas that incited Acosta to reject
prevalent theories about shipwrecks and maritime expeditions organised by historically
known peoples. Quite correctly, he predicted that such diversity must have taken a long
time to develop.
In the linguistic domain, Cobo in his Historia del Nuevo Mundo (History of the New
World; 1653, Book XI, chapter 10) assigned a common origin to Quechua and Aymara,
the two predominant languages in the Inca empire, on account of their being remarkably
similar (cf. Mannheim 1985b, 1991). He compared their relationship to that of Spanish
and Italian, both descendants from Latin. By doing so, Cobo underestimated the power
of long-term contacts between two languages sharing a common geographic and cultural
space, a fact of which he was well aware nevertheless. As he posited the genetic unity
of Quechua and Aymara, Cobo also laid the foundations for a debate bound to continue
until the present.
In the eighteenth century, as a result of expanding missionary activity, the awareness
grew that the languages of many South American ethnic groups could be reduced to a
few comprehensive genetic units. Missionaries were well informed about the existence
of a multitude of tribes speaking different languages in the South American lowlands.
Among them, the Italian Gilij (1780–4) drew the contours of several genetic groupings
of lasting validity, including Arawakan (still referred to as Maipuran at that time) and
Cariban (Hoff 1968). Another representative of the church, the abbot Hervás (1784,
1800–5), published a substantial amount of data, collected from, among others, Jesuit
missionaries residing in Europe after their expulsion from the Spanish American domains
in 1767. When pointing out the fact that the Omagua of the Upper Amazon valley
and the Guaranı́ of the Paraguayan missions spoke closely related languages, despite
geographic separation and different environments, Hervás showed himself to be aware
of the existence of a Tupi–Guaranı́ linguistic family. Hervás refers to information from
Gilij, among others, when assigning a number of languages to the Maipuran or Arawakan
family. Among them is the language of the Achagua people of the Colombian llanos
‘plains’, of whose good disposition towards Spanish rule and religion Hervás speaks
highly. On the other hand, his concept of the existence of a Cariban language family
seemed to be partly inspired by the idea that the Caribs did not easily submit to Spanish
colonial domination. Arawakan nations who resisted colonisation efforts were classified
as Cariban in company with a number of unsubjugated North American tribes. Hervás
held an interesting concept of language families. If several languages appeared to be
related, one of them was assigned the status of lengua matriz (‘mother language’ or
‘principal language’), from which the others, by extension, were derived. This approach
must be viewed in relation to the necessity felt at that time to select a limited number of
languages for the purpose of evangelisation carried out among a much larger number of
linguistic groups.
There is a definite contrast between the amount of information provided by Hervás
concerning the Andes and the Pacific coast on one hand and the Amazonian lowlands on
the other. The latter is remarkably accurate and full of detail; the former exhibits many
lacunae, particularly in the sphere of the minor languages spoken within the limits of
the former Inca empire. As it appears, the availability of Quechua as a vehicle used
for evangelising purposes made these languages less interesting in the opinion of the
missionaries and information concerning them was not passed on systematically. It may
explain why languages such as Culli, Sechura and Tallán, spoken until the nineteenth
century in the northern Peruvian coastal plains and highlands, and the Pre-Quechuan
languages of highland Ecuador received almost no attention before they eventually
became extinct.
The nineteenth century marks a renewed interest in native American linguistics and
ethnography. In the southern half of the Andean region, including the adjacent lowlands,
the French traveller and natural scientist d’Orbigny recorded word lists and ethnographic
information on many Indian groups (d’Orbigny 1839). His information on the lowland
Bolivian tribes brought together in the Chiquitos and Moxos missions is particularly
valuable. D’Orbigny’s classification of Indian nations is still primarily based on ethno-
graphic and geographic rather than on linguistic considerations, however.
Efforts towards a genetically based classification of the South American languages
gained importance during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Brinton published
The American Race (1891), a survey of the native American peoples with a strong
emphasis on linguistic classification. Almost simultaneously, Uhle (1890) proposed the
existence of a Chibchan family, and Middendorf (1890–2) published his monumental
work on the indigenous languages of Peru, in which he also discusses the nature of the
relationship between Quechua and Aymara.
Henceforth, two types of contributions must be distinguished, those aiming at overall
classifications meant to include all documented South American languages, or, at the
least, as many of them as possible, and those aiming at establishing genetic links between
specific languages or language families. Both activities have been going on, often without
much mutual feedback. Proposals concerning genetic relations involving native Andean
languages have been numerous and often contradictory. Here they will be dealt with
very selectively.
We will first enumerate and discuss some of the proposed classifications. Propos-
als concerning individual languages or language families will be treated subsequently.
26 1 Introduction
Classifications are termed conservative if their authors refrain from including genetic
units of which the internal cohesion is still open to doubt. Virtually no classifications are
entirely consistent in this respect. Two classifications stand at the conservative end of
the scale, Loukotka (1968), with 117 independent units for all of South America and the
Caribbean islands, and Kaufman (1990), with 118. At the other end we find Greenberg
(1987) with one comprehensive Amerind phylum thought to include all the native lan-
guages of South and Central America, the Caribbean and most of North America as
well. Conservative classifications do not necessarily imply a rejection of possible com-
prehensive groupings, as their authors explicitly indicate, but they are meant to provide
a list of firmly established ‘shallow’ language families, which can be used in further
rearrangements.
One of the earliest overall classifications of the South American languages, apart from
Brinton’s, is that of Chamberlain (1913). It is a conservative classification containing 84
groups, most of which are represented in the Andes and the eastern foothills. The lower
number of units in relation to, for instance, Loukotka’s classification is due to the fact
that many languages and small families were still absent from Chamberlain’s account.
In Rivet’s classification of the South American and Caribbean languages, which ap-
peared in Meillet and Cohen’s well-known handbook Les langues du monde (1924),
some reductions in the number of groups can be observed (to a total of 77; expanded to
108 in the revised edition of 1952). These reductions reflect Rivet’s comparative views
and concern, in particular, the Chibchan language family, to which several groups previ-
ously thought independent had been added. Languages thus classified as Chibchan were
Andaquı́, the Barbacoan languages (Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer), the Coconucan
languages (including Guambiano), the Paniquitan languages (including Páez), Cofán
and Cuna. Rivet also proposed a subgroup consisting of Barbacoan, Cuna and the Costa
Rican groups Guatuso and Talamancan (the latter comprising all Costa Rican languages
except Guatuso). Further innovations of Rivet’s classification concern the inclusion of
the Tacanan family of northern Bolivia within Arawakan and the inclusion of Uruan
and Puquina (wrongly considered a unit) within that same family. Of these proposals
only the classification of Cuna as a member of the Chibchan family became generally
accepted.
Mason’s contribution to the Handbook of South American Indians (1950) contains
an extensive and very useful discussion of previous classificatory efforts. It also brings
a further reduction of the number of language families. Proposals to establish new
groupings are partly taken from other authors. For the Chibchan family and its possible
expansions (classified as Chibchan, probably Chibchan, or doubtful), Jijón y Caamaño
(1940–5) is the main source, although the latter’s proposals are presented with much re-
serve. Following up suggestions of Rivet, Harrington (1944) and Jijón y Caamaño, Mason
groups the Huitotoan, Boran and Zaparoan languages of the Colombian, Ecuadorean
and northern Peruvian lowlands with Tupi–Guaranı́. Two innovations in Mason’s
classification are the terms Kechumaran and Ataguitan, the former referring to a ge-
netic grouping consisting of Quechua and Aymara and the latter bringing together the
Atacameño, Diaguita and Humahuaca languages of northern Argentina and northern
Chile. Mason presents the proposed Ataguitan grouping with much hesitation. It has
never gained much support, in particular, because the Diaguita and Humahuaca groups
are virtually undocumented. In contrast, Mason considers Kechumaran ‘yet unproved
but highly probable’ (again referring to Jijón y Caamaño’s work). Subsequently, the term
has become widely used in the alternative spelling Quechumaran. It is remarkable that
Mason explicity excludes the Cauqui or Jaqaru language from this grouping, although
Cauqui was already thought (and is now known) to be closely related to Aymara.
McQuown’s classification (1955) follows Mason’s in several respects, including the
acceptance of the Ataguitan and Quechumaran groupings, which he considers less con-
vincing than Mason does (1955: 562), the unjustified exclusion of Cauqui and the ex-
panded Tupi–Guaranı́. On the other hand, it is a conservative classification since it allows
for no less than 629 unclassified languages in South America in addition to 12 large fam-
ilies and 38 minor families. Characteristic of McQuown’s contribution is an attempt to
enumerate and locate on maps all the native Latin American languages ever mentioned
in literature (1820 for all Latin America). Although doubtlessly useful, McQuown’s lan-
guage list contains many items which are geographic denominations rather than language
names. This is the case, in particular, of the Quechua-dominated middle Andean region,
where names of towns, provinces and valleys figure as just as many separate languages.
This procedure apparently rests on the assumption that Quechua was introduced at a
recent stage in most places where it is now spoken (or known to have been spoken),
and that in each case a different language must underlie it. The linguistic parcelling that
results from it is merely hypothetical and is also accessory to a spectacular increase in
the number of unclassified languages.
In 1956 Greenberg presents a classification which is distinguished from the previous
ones by its greater sophistication and classificatory explicitness (Greenberg 1960a). In it
few South American languages, however poorly documented, remain unaccounted for.
Although it was published without a factual justification of the groupings proposed, it
became widely known after its appearance in the 1958 edition of the Encyclopaedia
Britannica, in Steward and Faron (1959) and in Current Anthropology (Greenberg
1960b). Much later work on individual South American native languages begins with
a statement locating the language at issue in Greenberg’s classification. It was also
used and given credit in the development of anthropological and archaeological theory
concerning past migrations; see, for instance, Lathrap (1970: 83) and Meggers (1979).
Greenberg’s initial classification was superseded by a rather revolutionary proposal
advanced in his book Language in the Americas (Greenberg 1987). It will be the subject
of a separate section (1.7.4). Since the influence of Greenberg’s initial classification has
been particularly great, the essentials of it regarding the Andean region are reproduced
28 1 Introduction
Table 1.3 Greenberg’s (1956) classification of the languages of the Andes
 Yurumangui
- A. Chibchan proper Chibcha–Duit,Tunebo group, Aruaco group,

Cuna–Cueva.
B. Paezan Choco, Cuaiquer, Andaki, Paez–Coconuco,
Colorado–Cayapa, Jirajira, Yunca (=Chimú,
Mochica), Atacameno (=Kunza), Itonama.
–– A. Macro-Ge 1. Ge: Caingang, Chiquita, Guato.
2. Bororo.
B. Macro-Panoan Tacana–Pano, Moseten, Mataco, Lule, Vilela,
Mascoy, Charrua, Guaycuru-Opaie.
[C. not applicable]
D. Huarpe
E. Macro-Carib Carib, Peban (=Yaguan), Witotoan.
– A. Andean A 1. Ona, Yahgan (=Yamana), Alakuluf
(=Kawesqar), Tehuelche, Puelche
(=Gennaken), Araucanian (=Mapuche).
2. Quechua, Aymara.
3. Zaparoan (including Omurano, Sabela),
Cahuapana.
4. Leco, Sec, Culle, Xibito–Cholon, Catacao,
Colan.
5. Simacu (=Itucale, Urarina).
B. Andean B Jibaro-Kandoshi, Esmeralda, Cofan, Yaruro.
C. Macro-Tucanoan 1. Tucano (including Auixira), Ticuna, Muniche,
Yuri, Canichana, Mobima.
2. Puinave.
D. Equatorial Arawak (including Chapacura–Uanhaman,
Chamicuro, Apolista, Amuesha, Araua, Uru),
Tupi, Timote, Zamuco, Guahibo–Pamigua,
Saliban, Otomaco–Taparita, Mocoa
(=Kamsá, Sibundoy), Tuyuneri (=Toyeri,
Harakmbut), Yurucare, Cayuvava.
in table 1.3. For this classification see also Key (1979) with some minor orthographic
variation. Occasionally, alternative language names are added in parentheses and pre-
ceded by an equation sign in order to facilitate comparison with other classifications.
There are minor differences between the versions in circulation of Greenberg’s classifi-
cation. In the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Current Anthropology versions, Greenberg’s
classification is mapped onto McQuown’s (1955) language list; Simacu (better known
as Itucale or Urarina) is classified as Macro-Tucanoan, not Andean; Atacameño (also
known as Kunza) is left out (possibly as a result of a confusion with the extinct Ecuadorian
language called Atacame or Esmeraldeño); the subdivisions are more detailed and ex-
plicit and their denominations (phylum, stock, family, subfamily) more differentiated.
In the Steward and Faron version, Simacu is not mentioned.
Table 1.4 The four networks proposed by Swadesh (1959, 1962)
-: Chibchan (in its limited sense, see below, but including Timote) and
Tucanoan; most languages of Meso-America.
-: Cariban (including Jirajaran), Zaparoan (including Yaguan), Arawa,
Kaingangan (including Ge), Guamo and Guató; many language
groups of Brazil.
-: Campan (including part of the Arawakan family: Campa,
Machiguenga, Chamicuro, Amuesha, and additionally Chirino),
Arawakan, Guahiboan, Camsá, Chapacuran, Saliban, Yurı́an
(including Ticuna and Cofán), Mobima, Tupı́, Bororoan (including
Chiquitano), Sec, Lecoan (including Chocó) and Mochica; several
language groups of Brazil, Venezuela and Florida (Timucua).
-: Quechuan (including Aymara, Cauqui and Uru–Chipaya), Paezan
(including the Barbacoan and Coconucan languages, Andaquı́,
Atacameño and the Brazilian Kapishana and Mashubı́), Cullian
(including Hibito–Cholón), Itonama, Cayuvavan (including
Esmeralda), Pano–Tacanan, Sonchon (which includes Mosetén,
Chon and Hongote), Yuracare, Macuan (which includes
Macú–Puinave, Het, Charrúan, Ahuishiri, Zamucoan, Yurumanguı́,
Canichana, the Brazilian Otı́, Ofaié–Xavante and Catuquina, and the
Venezuelan Macu), Muran (which includes Jivaroan–Cahuapanan,
Boran and Huitotoan, along with the Brazilian Matanauı́ and
Mura–Pirahá), Puelche (Gennaken), Huarpean, Urarina,
Guaicuruan, Mapuchean (including Matacoan), Guachian
(including Vilela and Guachı́ of Mato Grosso, Brazil), Yamanan
(including Alacaluf), Lule, Otomaco and Yaruro (Venezuela),
Lengua-Mascoy (Paraguay), Trumai and Huari (Brazil). Outside
South America: Tarascan (Mexico) and Zuni (New Mexico, USA).
Swadesh’s classification (1959, 1962) is to a certain extent comparable with

Greenberg’s in that it seeks to account for as many languages as possible. Swadesh
sees the differentiation of languages as a geographic continuum. He does not define it
exclusively in terms of genetically independent units which are internally structured by
chronologically ordered moments of splitting. Instead of the usual tree model, Swadesh
opts for a model of interconnected networks designed to cover the whole world, not
only the Americas. As in the case of Greenberg’s initial classification, the publication of
factual evidence supporting the classification was announced but remained fragmentary.
Swadesh’s classification is less well known than Greenberg’s. Nevertheless, some of the
surface-level proposals brought forward in it have of late received renewed attention (for
instance, the Jı́varo–Cahuapana connection and the proposed link between Atacameño
and the Brazilian Kanoê or Kapishana; see Kaufman 1990).
Swadesh distinguishes four networks in South America represented in table 1.4.
Tiniguan, Omurano and Nambikwara (Brazil) have a status independent from the
networks. Some languages are left unclassified for lack of data: Puruhá, Cañari, Aconipa
30 1 Introduction
(Tabancale), Copallén, Diaguita, Gorgotoqui, Humahuaca, Munichi, Sabela and Mayna

(considered by others to be a group with Omurano). The networks are linked to each
other at different points and also to the North American Macro-Hokan network.
Loukotka (1968) was published posthumously by Wilbert. It had been preceded by
several other classifications, elaborated by the same author, the first of which dates back
to 1935. Loukotka’s work is well known among scholars of South American Indian
languages because it provides the reader with short word lists of almost every language,
whether spoken or extinct, that had been documented before 1960. Although the data
presented are frequently inaccurate, the availability in one single work of some basic
vocabulary of so many different languages constitutes an invitation to browsing and
amateur linguistic comparison.
Loukotka divides the South American and Caribbean languages into languages of
Paleo-American tribes, languages of Tropical Forest tribes and languages of Andean
tribes. This general division, together with its subsequent subdivisions, seems to have a
geographic or an anthropological inspiration, rather than a linguistic one. More essential
are the 117 genetic units (stocks, small stocks and isolated languages) which Loukotka
distinguishes and his endeavour to assign to as many languages as possible a place in the
classificatory framework which he develops. Loukotka’s classification is conservative in
the sense that the proposed groupings basically contain languages of which the genetic
unity is unquestioned. Unnecessary splitting, such as observed elsewhere in the separa-
tion of Aymara and Cauqui (Mason, McQuown) or in that of Puquina and Callahuaya
(Kaufman 1990: 44), is successfully avoided. On the other hand, two cases of unjustified
grouping occur, both of them concerning the northern Andes (see also Kaufman 1990:
37–8): (1) the inclusion into the Arawakan family of the Guahiboan languages of eastern
Colombia; and (2) the inclusion into the Chibchan family of Yaruro, Esmeraldeño and a
substantial number of language groups of Ecuador and southern and eastern Colombia
that are not visibly related to it: Betoi, Andaquı́, Páez, Coconuco, Barbacoa and Sibundoy.
The assignment of the Misumalpa family of Central America to the Chibchan stock must
equally be rejected if indisputable internal genetic cohesion is to be the leading criterion
(Constenla Umaña 1981). Loukotka’s postulation of two separate isolates in the south
of Chile, Alacaluf and Aksanás, will be discussed in chapter 6.
In table 1.5, those of Loukotka’s 117 stocks and families relevant to the Andean region
are enumerated. We will distinguish three approximate categories: (I) groups located in
the Andes and along the Pacific coast, (II) groups which are predominantly located in the
eastern lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Argentina, and (III) groups
which are strongly represented in other areas, but also in the Andes, or in the eastern
lowlands as defined above. The original numbering is retained.
As can be observed from table 1.5, 75 of Loukotka’s 117 units are represented in the
Andes or in the eastern lowlands of the Andean countries. Admittedly, some groups are
Table 1.5 Language families relevant to the Andes listed in Loukotka (1968)
I Linguistic groups located in the Andes and along the Pacific coast:
Yámana (1), Alacaluf (2), Aksanás (3), Patagon or Tshon (4), Timote (95), Jirajara
(96), Chocó (97), Idabaez (98), Yurimangui (99),* Sechura (101), Catacao (102), Culli
(103), Tabancale (104), Copallén (105), Chimú (106), Quechua (107), Aymara (108),
Puquina (109), Uro (110), Atacama (111), Mapuche (113), Diaguit (114), Humahuaca
(115), Huarpe (117).
II Linguistic groups located in the eastern lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia
and Argentina:
Gennaken (5), Chechehet (6), Sanaviron (7), Vilela (9), Chiquito (13), Gorgotoqui
(14), Tinigua (51), Yagua (54), Kahuapana (55), Munichi (56), Cholona (57), Mayna
(58), Murato (59), Auishiri (60), Itucale (61), Jı́baro (62), Sabela (63), Záparo (64),
Cayuvava (71), Mobima (72), Itonama (73), Canichana (74), Tacana (76), Toyeri (77),
Yuracare (78), Mosetene (79), Andoque (82), Uitoto (83), Bora (84), Cofan (100),
Leco (112), Lule (116).
III Linguistic groups partly or mainly represented in other areas:
Guaicuru (8), Mataco (10), Lengua (11), Zamuco (12), Charrua (15), Kaingán (16),
Boróro (27), Tupi (45), Arawak (46), Otomac (47), Guamo (48), Piaroa (50),
Tucuna (53), Chapacura (65), Pano (75), Guató (80), Tucano (81), Yuri (85), Makú
(86), Arawá (88), Karaib (89), Chibcha (94).
* The original sources refer to this group as Yurumanguı́, which is also the name of a river
in the present-day Colombian department Valle del Cauca. The form Yurimanguı́ is found in
Loukotka (1968) and, as Yurimangi, in Kaufman (1990, 1994).
represented very marginally (Arawa, Guató, Kaingán, Yuri). On the other hand, there
is an additional enumeration of ‘unclassified or unknown languages’, some of which
probably represent separate groups, and, as we saw earlier, the Arawak and Chibcha
groups are subject to further splitting.
Another relatively conservative classification was carried out by Suárez, and published
in the fifteenth edition (1974) of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It distinguishes 82
language groups for all South America. In relation to Loukotka (1968), Suárez proposes
the groupings listed in table 1.6.
Apart from these groupings, which apparently meet with Suárez’s approval, he in-
dicates possible additional linkings advanced by others. Of Suárez’s groupings some
are relatively well established, such as Lulean (Balmori 1967; Lozano 1977), and Pano–
Tacanan (Key 1968) without its Fuegian–Patagonian extension. Others have been refuted
(Chocó and Cariban; Uru–Chipaya and Mayan, see below) or rest upon extensive bor-
rowing (Quechua and Aymara).
Kaufman’s classification of 1990 (see also Kaufman 1994) is a conservative proposal,
comparable to Loukotka’s insofar as the number of genetic groups (118 for all South
America) is concerned. According to the author, every group ‘is either obvious on
inspection or has been demonstrated by standard procedures’ (Kaufman 1990: 37).
32 1 Introduction
Table 1.6 Groupings suggested by Suárez (1974) of language families and isolates
included in Loukotka (1968)
Suárez (1974) Loukotka (1968)
Alacalufan Aksanás, Alacaluf

Bora–Huitotoan Bora, Uitoto
Cariban Chocó, Karaib
Guaycurú–Charruan Charrua, Guaicuru
Jebero–Jivaroan Jı́baro, Kahuapana
Lulean Lule, Vilela
Macro-Chibchan Chibcha, Itonama, Warao (Venezuela), Yanoama (Brazil, Venezuela)
Macro-Ge Boróro, Kaingán and a number of Brazilian groups
Macro-Mayan Uro and the Mayan languages (Meso-America)
Macro–Pano-Tacanan Mosetene, Pano, Patagon/Tshon, Tacana, Yuracare
Quechumaran Aymara, Quechua
Suggestions for further grouping are accompanied by the qualifications ‘good’, ‘good?’,
‘promising’, ‘probable’ or ‘maybe’. Considering the greater methodological rigidity
observed by Kaufman, one may wonder why the number of groups in his classification
are not substantially higher. This is mainly because a number of poorly documented
extinct languages and language groups have not been included.
In table 1.7 we have arranged the genetic groups of Kaufman’s classification insofar as
they concern the Andean region by using the same geographic distinctions as observed
in relation to Loukotka’s work above.
As can be deduced from tables 1.5 and 1.7, the extinct languages and language
groups figuring in Loukotka’s classification, but not included in Kaufman’s, are
Idabaez in Colombia, Tabancale and Copallén in northern Peru and four Argentinian
groups, Diaguit, Humahuaca, Chechehet and Sanaviron because they are undocumented.
Kaufman observes that maybe Gorgotoqui should be excluded as well for the same
reason.12 The differences between the two classifications reside in the treatment of
the Chibchan family (L94) (Kaufman has six units where Loukotka has one), the
Arawakan family (L46) (Kaufman keeps Guahibo apart from Arawakan), Puquina
(L109) (Kaufman has two units where Loukotka has one), the Je family (K74) (Kaufman
has one unit where Loukotka has two), and Kawéskar (K58) (Kaufman has one unit where
Loukotka has two). Otherwise, apart from a minor readjustment concerning the demar-
cation between Arawakan and Harákmbut/Toyeri (K18, L77), the two classifications are
identical insofar as the Andean region is concerned.
12 The Gorgotoqui people are well attested historically, and so is the existence of a grammar of the
language written by a father Ruı́z (Gonzales de Barcı́a 1737–8). Unfortunately, no one has been
able to locate this grammar in recent years.
Table 1.7 Language families relevant to the Andes listed in Kaufman (1990) with
their correlates in Loukotka (1968)*
I Linguistic groups located in the Andes and along the Pacific coast:
Yurimangi (1, L99 Yurimangui), Timótean (2, L95 Timote), Hiraháran (3, L96 Jirajara),
Chokó (4, L97 Chocó), Páesan (6, L94 Chibcha: Andaquı́/ Paez/ Coconuco), Barbakóan
(7, L94 Chibcha: Barbácoa), Ezmeralda (27, L94 Chibcha: Esmeralda), Chimúan (41,
L106 Chimú), Kulyi (43, L103 Culli), Sechura (44, L101), Katakáoan (45, L102 Catacao),
Kechua (47, L107 Quechua), Haki (48, L108 Aymara), Chipaya (49, L110 Uro), Pukina
(50, L109 Puquina: Puquina), Kolyawaya (51, L109 Puquina: Callahuaya), Chon (56, L4
Patagon or Tshon), Yámana (57, L1), Kawéskar (58, L2+L3 Alacaluf, Aksanás),
Mapudungu (59, L113 Mapuche), Warpe (61, L117 Huarpe), Kunsa (99, L111 Atacama).
II Linguistic groups located in the eastern lowlands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and
Argentina:
Betoi (5, L94 Chibcha: Betoi), Kamsá (10, L94 Chibcha: Sebondoy), Tinı́wan (11, L51
Tinigua), Wahı́voan (15, L46 Arawak: Guahibo), Harákmbut (18, L46+L77 Arawak:
Mashco, Toyeri), Tekiraka (21, L60 Auishiri), Kanichana (22, L74 Canichana), Munichi
(26, L56), Kofán (29, L100 Cofán), Kandoshi (30, L59 Murato), Hı́varo (31, L62 Jı́baro),
Kawapánan (32, L55 Kahuapana), Sáparoan (33, L64 Záparo), Yáwan (34, L54 Yagua),
Omurano (35, L58 Mayna), Sabela (36, L63), Urarina (37, L61 Itucale), Bóran (38, L84
Bora), Witótoan (39, L83 Uitoto), Andoke (40, L82 Andoque), Cholónan (42, L57
Cholona), Leko (46, L112 Leco), Yurakare (52, L78 Yuracare), Takánan (54, L76 Tacana),
Mosetén (55, L79 Mosetene), Puelche (60, L5 Gennaken), Lule (65, L116), Vilela (66,
L9), Gorgotoki (69, L14 Gorgotoqui), Chikitano (70, L13 Chiquito), Itonama (98, L73),
Movima (107, L72 Mobima), Kayuvava (108, L71 Cayuvava).
III Linguistic groups partly or mainly represented in other areas:
Chı́bchan (8, L94 Chibcha), Otomákoan (12, L47 Otomac), Wamo (13, L48 Guamo),
Chapakúran (14, L65 Chapacura), Maipúrean (16, L46 Arawak), Arawán (17, L88
Arawa), Puinávean (19, L86 Makú), Tukánoan (23, L81 Tucano), Tikuna (24, L53
Tucuna), Jurı́ (25, L85 Yuri), Jaruro (28, L94 Chibcha: Yaruro), Pánoan (53, L75 Pano),
Matákoan (62, L10 Mataco), Waikurúan (63, L8 Guaicuru), Charrúan (64, L15 Charrua),
Maskóian (67, L11 Lengua), Samúkoan (68, L12 Zamuco), Boróroan (71, L27 Boróro), Je
(74, L16+L24, Kaingán, Ge), Guató (82, L80), Tupı́an (109, L45 Tupi), Káriban (110,
L89 Karaib), Sálivan (114, L50 Piaroa).
* Along with the group numbers introduced by Kaufman, the numbers of Loukotka’s classifi-
cation are given in the formula Lx, followed by his group or language names when different
from those used by Kaufman. In the main text, Kaufman’s group numbers are referred
to as Kx.
Kaufman suggests that further grouping may be possible in the following cases (the
spelling is Kaufman’s): Páesan (K6) and Barbakóan (K7); Chibchan (K8) and Misumalpa
(a Central American group); Wamo (K13) and Chapakúran (K14); Tikuna (K24) and
Jurı́ (K25); Ezmeralda (K27) and Jaruro (K28); Hı́varo (K31) and Kawapánan (K32);
Sáparoan (K33) and Yáwan (K34); Bóran (K38), Witótoan (K39) and Andoke (K40);
Sechura (K44) and Katakáoan (K45); Kechua (K47) and Haki (K48); Pukina (K50) and
Kolyawaya (K51); Pánoan (K53) and Takánan (K54); Mosetén (K55) and Chon (K56);
34 1 Introduction
Lule (K65) and Vilela (K66); Chikitano (K70), Boróroan (K71), Je (K74), Guató (K82)
and nine other Brazilian groups; Kunsa (K99) and Kapishaná.
In connection with other classifications, we commented en passant upon some of these
suggested groupings (Lule and Vilela, Panoan and Tacanan, Chibchan and Misumalpa,
Aymara and Quechua). Arguments for a comprehensive Macro-Ge grouping including
Ge, Guató and Bororoan, as well as several other language groups, can be found in
Davis (1968) and in Rodrigues (1986, 1999), but do not, as yet, extend to Chiquitano.
The proposal of a special genetic relationship between Esmeralda and Yaruro was ad-
vanced by Seler (1902); see section 2.19. Loukotka located them in the same subgroup
of Chibchan. Doris Payne (1984) has presented evidence for a genetic relationship of
Yaguan (K34) and Zaparoan (K33). Callahuaya (Kaufman’s Kolyawaya) is a profes-
sional jargon composed of roots taken from a Puquina dialect and Quechua endings (see
section 3.5). The unity of the extinct Sechura and the equally extinct Tallán languages
of the Piura area (K45 Katakáoan) was proposed by Rivet (1949) but the evidence for
it considered inconclusive by Torero (Torero 1986); see section 3.9.2. The possibility
of a genetic relationship between the Boran and Huitotoan languages, on one hand, and
Andoque, on the other, was considered unconvincing by a leading expert on this lan-
guage (Landaburu 1979). As for the proposed special relationship between the Kunza or
Atacameño language and the Brazilian Kanoê or Kapishana, the geographic and cultural
barriers seem formidable, and there would need to be a very strong linguistic case to
support it (see also section 3.7).
1.7.2 Quechuan and Aymaran, Quechumaran

The two dominant language groups of the central Andes, Quechuan and Aymaran,
must be viewed as language families rather than as single languages. Traditionally,
however, Quechuan is more often referred to as the Quechua language. The internal
comparison of Quechuan, a linguistic entity consisting of numerous local varieties,
became an issue in the 1960s when Parker (1963) and Torero (1964) published their well-
known articles about the Quechua dialect situation (see section 3.2.3). Hardman (1975,
1978a, b) introduced the name Jaqi (‘man’, ‘human being’) for the Aymaran family,
which, according to her, has three living members to be treated as separate languages:
Aymara, Cauqui and Jaqaru. For a discussion of the terminology and a justification of
our use of the term Aymaran see section 3.1.
Quechua(n) and Aymara(n) have repeatedly been compared to each other, but rarely
to other languages. Harrington (1943) suggested a relationship between Quechua and
Hokan; Dumézil (1954, 1955) compared some of the Quechua numerals to those of
Turkish. Following an unconvincing first attempt by Swadesh (1967), Liedtke collected
a list of lexical and grammatical resemblances between Quechua and Tarascan, some
of which are quite suggestive (Liedtke 1996). No thorough comparative study has been
carried out, however.
Orr and Longacre (1968) set out to prove Mason’s Quechumaran hypothesis by trying
to reconstruct the phoneme system and part of the lexicon of the proto-language un-
derlying it. Although they apparently achieved their aim, the lexicon they reconstructed
consists almost exclusively of shared vocabulary, which is evidently due to intensive
borrowing between the two languages at an early stage of their development. Given
the virtually identical form of the shared items, the radically different character of the
remainder of the lexicon is left unexplained. The same holds for the grammatical com-
ponents of the two language groups, which show quite a few semantic but hardly any
formal similarities (Davidson 1977). Notwithstanding the lack of proof, the idea of a
Quechumaran genetic unity exclusive of all other languages still has supporters. For
an attempt to revive the Quechumaran hypothesis on a more sophisticated basis see
Campbell (1995).
The relationship between the Quechuan and Aymaran linguistic families is indeed
unique. When the effects of loan traffic between individual Quechua dialects and the
different languages of the Aymaran family are left aside, a substantial basis of common
lexicon remains (about 20 per cent of the root vocabulary in each group), which can be
traced back to the proto-languages. The phoneme inventories of the two proto-languages
were probably very similar, as most of the existing differences may be explained by
later internal developments in each of the two families. The existence of glottalised
and aspirated consonants in Aymaran and in a number of Quechua dialects (Cuzco,
Puno, Arequipa, north and south Bolivian Quechua) is generally attributed to diffusion
from Aymaran into Quechuan, although its distribution within the latter group is far
from predictable (see section 3.2.5). Morphological and lexico-semantic coincidences
are highly specific and difficult to ascribe to parallel developments of a typological
nature (see chapter 3 for more details). For a systematic inventory and discussion of
all the coincidences see also Cerrón-Palomino (1994a). The obvious similarities that
have united Quechuan and Aymaran since the stage of the proto-languages stand in
contrast with differences that are equally impressive. The very characteristic phonotac-
tics and vowel suppression rules of all Aymaran languages (see section 3.3.4) are not
found in Quechuan. The structure of the verbal inflection, personal reference marking
in particular, differs considerably between the two language groups, and, of course, a
major part of the lexicon and affixes do not show any systematic formal relationship
at all.
All this leads to the conclusion that Proto-Quechua and Proto-Aymaran were spoken in
contiguous areas, if not in the same area, which were probably situated in central Peru, the
heartland of the Middle Andean civilisation. The bi-directional loan influence between
the two linguistic families was so intense, that possible surviving correspondences of a
36 1 Introduction
genetic kind became hard to detect. If the languages were not genetically related – and
there is no decisive evidence that they were – at the least one of them must have suffered
a profound structural transformation adopting the phonological and morphosyntactic
model represented by the other. This scenario presupposes a period of intense interaction
and common development prior to the stage of the proto-languages. It may have begun
well before the beginning of our era. Although it is risky to venture a statement on
such a speculative matter, a variety of Aymaran would be the best candidate for having
provided such a model because of the more homogeneous character of Aymaran verbal
and nominal inflection in comparison to Quechuan inflection.
The remaining languages of the central Andean region do not participate in the same
sort of lexical and grammatical entwining that characterises the relationship between
Quechuan and Aymaran, although lexical borrowing has occurred. Since these languages
have been poorly studied so far, further research may eventually cast additional light on
their relationship with either Quechuan, or Aymaran (or both).
1.7.3 Other proposals for individual language families

As we anticipated, there have been many proposals of genetic connections between
specific groups which were formulated outside the framework of an overall classification.
For the earlier period (before 1960), two scholars, Rivet and Jijón y Caamaño, deserve
to be specially commended for the size of their contribution to South American Indian
linguistics, including much classificatory work. Many of their classificatory proposals
have been the subject of drastic reconsideration. Therefore, it is not necessary to treat
them in detail here, but the amount of data they brought together and their influence have
been considerable. Among Rivet’s classificatory contributions we find the proposed
connection of Arawakan and Tacanan (see above), the inclusion of Uru and Puquina
within the Arawakan family (see also above), a rearrangement of the Chibchan family
involving many groups in Ecuador and southern Colombia (see also above), and the
association of the isolated Yurumanguı́ language of the Colombian Pacific coast with
Sapir’s Hokan phylum (Rivet 1942). Well known was also Rivet’s conviction that the
Chon languages (Tehuelche and Ona) of Patagonia were genetically related to languages
spoken by the Australian aborigines (Rivet 1925). Rivet’s comparative methods have
met with much criticism. In the case of Yurumanguı́, for instance, he compared the
vocabulary of this poorly documented extinct language with that of a wide array of
North American and Mesoamerican languages of supposed Hokan affiliation. A lexical
similarity between Yurumanguı́ and any of these languages would be considered evidence
of a genetic relationship.
In his monumental El Ecuador Interandino y Occidental antes de la Conquista Espa-
ñola (Inter-Andean and Western Ecuador before the Spanish Conquest, 1940–5), Jijón y
Caamaño assigned most languages of northwestern South America to a Macro-Chibchan
phylum, which, in its turn, would fit into Hokan–Siouan. His Macro-Chibchan was
more comprehensive than any of the previous proposals concerning Chibchan and its
connections. Jijón y Caamaño’s Macro-Chibchan not only included all the languages in
Loukotka’s Chibcha, but also Timote, Cofán, Murato (Candoshi), Yurumanguı́, Mochica
(Chimú), Cholona and the Central American Lenca, Xinca, Jicaque and Subtiaba.
By contrast, Tucano and Huitoto–Bora–Záparo are listed as separate phyla. Jijón y
Caamaño’s interpretation of the comparative method has been much criticised, inter alia,
for its acceptance of systematic equations of phonetically unrelated sounds. Constenla
Umaña (1981) mentions some striking examples of this procedure. Nevertheless, both
Rivet and Jijón y Caamaño must be credited with having brought to public attention a
wealth of data on many extinct and poorly documented languages, which until then had
been virtually unknown.
Recent investigations of the Chibchan family have tended to reduce the number of
languages associated with it. In his thorough phonological reconstruction of Proto-
Chibchan, Constenla Umaña (1981) found that the Barbacoan, Paezan, Andaquı́, Kamsá,
Betoi, Jirajaran and Misumalpa languages are not Chibchan. What is left is a family
based primarily in Central America and represented in Colombia and Venezuela by the
Cundinamarcan Chibchan languages Muisca and Duit, Tunebo, the Arhuacan languages
of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Barı́, Chimila and Cuna. In a revised version of
his reconstruction, Constenla Umaña (1989) proposes a Paya–Chibchan family con-
sisting of a Paya branch (represented by the sole Paya language of Honduras) and a
Chibchan branch. The Chibchan branch comprises several subgroups. One of them is a
Colombian Chibchan group which comprises the Arhuacan, Tunebo and Cundinamarcan
Chibchan languages. Cuna is found to belong to a different subgroup with the extinct
Dorasquean languages of Panama. Chimila and Barı́ remain unclassified as to subgroup
for lack of data. Several poorly documented languages once spoken in the Colombian
department of Antioquia (Nutabe, Catı́o Chibcha) are also classified as Chibchan. The
linguistic evidence seems to point to a relatively recent arrival of the Chibchan people
from Central America, making it less likely for all proposed South American connec-
tions to be correct. The alleged genetic relationship of Chibchan with Warao (in the
Venezuelan Orinoco delta) and with Yanomama (in the Brazilian–Venezuelan border
lands; Greenberg 1959, 1960a, b; Migliazza 1978a) has been the object of an investi-
gation by Weisshar (1982). Among many other similar proposals, we may mention that
of Lévi-Strauss (1948), who suggested a genetic relationship between Chibchan and the
Brazilian Nambikwara languages (refuted in Constenla Umaña 1981).
The reduced Chibchan family, such as proposed by Constenla Umaña, is almost the
same as that originally outlined by Uhle (1890). The affinities of the different mem-
bers of the family thus being reconsidered, many languages previously classified as
Chibchan are again left unclassified. There is convincing evidence that the Barbacoan
38 1 Introduction
languages Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer are related in a family which also includes
the Coconucan languages Guambiano and Totoró (Constenla Umaña 1991; Curnow and
Liddicoat 1998). Whether the extinct languages of the northern Ecuadorian highlands
and the adjacent highlands in the Colombian department of Nariño (Cara, Pasto) also
belonged to the same grouping is a question which deserves further investigation (see
section 3.9.1). Although Greenberg and Kaufman classify Guambiano as Paezan, the
distance between Guambiano and Páez seems to be greater than that between Guambiano
and the Barbacoan languages. The position of Páez, Andaquı́, Kamsá and Betoi requires
renewed attention.
The Cariban language family, which has it greatest concentration of speakers in the
Guyanas and eastern Venezuela, is represented in the Colombian–Venezuelan border
mountains, west of Lake Maracaibo, with the Yukpa or Motilones group. Rivet (1943a)
assumed a more generalised presence of Carib-speaking peoples in the Colombian
Andes, by assigning the (extinct) Muzo, Colima, Panche, Pijao, Pantágora and Opón–
Carare languages of the Magdalena basin to the same family. He also believed the
Chocoan languages of the Colombian Pacific area to be related to Cariban (Rivet 1943b).
Durbin and Seijas (1973a, b, 1975) have shown that only the Opón and Carare languages,
located to the northwest of the Cundinamarcan highlands, were demonstrably Cariban.
Of the other languages Muzo and Colima may have been Cariban as well. For the three
remaining languages, however, the lexical similarity with Cariban is not such that it
can provide the assumed relationship with a solid basis (see section 2.11). The alleged
connection of Chocoan and Cariban has been superseded by Greenberg’s proposal relat-
ing the Chocoan languages to Paezan. For similarities between Chocoan and Barbacoan
see section 2.3. Similarly, Constenla and Margery (1991) have published evidence for a
relation between Chocoan and Chibchan.
Genetic connections have been sought between the Mochica language (also known
as Yunga and, erroneously, as Chimú) and Chibchan (Jijón y Caamaño, Greenberg),
and also with the Mayan language family in Mesoamerica (Stark 1972a, 1978). Another
language that has been associated with Mayan is Mapuche (Stark 1970, Hamp 1971).
Olson (1964, 1965) has proposed a genetic relationship between Mayan and the Chipaya
language of the Bolivian altiplano (closely related to Uru). As this theory became widely
accepted – Longacre (1968: 320) considers it proven – Uru–Chipaya came to be included,
along with Mayan, into the North America-based Macro-Penutian phylum in published
classifications of the North American and Mesoamerican languages (e.g. Voegelin and
Voegelin 1965). Campbell (1973) later showed that many of the similarities observed by
Olson between Chipaya and Mayan could have been the result of contact with Quechua or
Aymara. Very little is left of the arguments that seemed to have convinced the Americanist
linguistic community for some time. A serious drawback is the lack of a good grammar
and dictionary of Uru and Chipaya, which makes verification a difficult task for the
non-initiated.
Family-internal reconstruction work was carried out for Panoan by Shell (1965, 1975),
and for Tacanan by Key (1968) and by Girard (1971). Another complex of proposals
concerns the connection of Panoan and Tacanan with the Bolivian Mosetén language
(Suárez 1969) and the relationship of both groups to Uru–Chipaya, to Yuracaré (also in
Bolivia) and to the Chon languages of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego (Suárez 1973,
following Swadesh 1962 in the latter two suggestions). Key (1978) compared Pano–
Tacanan and Mosetén to Araucanian.
The extensive Arawakan or Maipuran family has been the subject of much comparative
and classificatory work (Shafer 1959, Kingsley Noble 1965, Matteson 1972, Tovar 1986,
Valenti 1986, Payne 1991a). Kingsley Noble includes the Uru and Puquina groups and
Arawá in his comparison. Arawakan and Arawá share rather specific features of their
gender systems but are quite far apart lexically. Matteson includes Madi (Arawá) and
Harakmbut, a procedure which is rejected by Tovar. David L. Payne (1991a) does not
include Arawá and Harakmbut within the Arawakan family. Harakmbut has now been
shown to be related to the Brazilian Katukina family with a suggested further connection
to Macro-Ge (Adelaar 2000).
Although Arawakan as a whole constitutes a closely-knit family with strong lexical
resemblances (Rodrigues 1986: 70), the supposed affiliation between Arawakan and a
number of languages in the Andean region has met with reserve. Such languages are
Amuesha (recognised as Arawakan by Tello in 1913), Apolista (shown to be Arawakan
by David L. Payne 1991b), Chamicuro (Parker 1987) and Resı́garo. Although Amuesha
(spoken in the Andean foothills of the Peruvian department of Pasco) seemed at the
best a highly divergent member of the Arawakan family, Wise (1976) convincingly
demonstrated that Amuesha is closely related to pre-Andean Arawakan groups, such
as Campa, Machiguenga and Piro, the relationship being obscured by rather unusual
phonetic changes that took place in Amuesha. These changes must have occurred recently
because they have also affected loan words from Spanish. The classificatory status of
Resı́garo is discussed by Allin (1975) and by David L. Payne (1985); see also Aikhenvald
(2001).
The fact that Uru–Chipaya and Puquina are by no means closely related invalidates
their inclusion into Arawakan as a subgroup, a hypothesis which is nevertheless defended
by de Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1925–7), Kingsley Noble (1965) and Greenberg
(1987). It does not, however, preclude the possibility that one of the two languages,
i.e. Puquina, exhibits a remote Arawakan affinity. There are, in fact, similarities in the
lexicon and, above all, in the pronominal system (cf. section 3.5). The ongoing inves-
tigation of the internal relations within the Arawakan family, which once spread over
40 1 Introduction
much of South America and the Caribbean, holds great promise for the unravelling of
the continent’s linguistic puzzle.
David L. Payne (1990) has pointed at some very striking similarities concerning the
formation of possessive nouns in four South American families, Arawakan, Arawá,
Cariban and Candoshi, which are difficult to explain through borrowing. On the other
hand, Rodrigues (1985a) has presented well-documented lexical evidence relating the
Cariban family to the Tupi stock (tronco Tupı́ ), a huge genetic construct attaining its
maximum differentiation in the Brazilian Madeira basin. Lexical similarities between
Tupi and Macro-Ge (tronco Macro-Jê) were already noticed by Davis (1968, 1985) and
confirmed in Rodrigues (1985b). The suggested genetic relationship of Tupi, Cariban
and Macro-Ge is supported by typological similarities (a relatively loose morphological
structure and a lack of polysynthesis), as observed by Doris Payne (1990b); see also
Rodrigues (2000).
David L. Payne (1981) investigated the alleged relationship of the Jivaroan languages
and Candoshi (proposed in both Greenberg’s classifications). Although he found lexical
similarities, these lay in the sphere of flora and fauna and seemed to point at bor-
rowing. David L. Payne (1990: 84–5) no longer considers the evidence for a Jı́varo–
Candoshi grouping convincing, but he mentions some grammatical similarities between
Arawakan, Candoshi and Cariban. In Suárez’s classification (1974), Jivaroan is linked to
Cahuapanan, another small language family of the northern Peruvian foothills. Kaufman
(1990) considers this a possible relationship. Among several other suggestions, Kaufman
(1994: 63) offers an interesting new proposal concerning a genetic relationship between
Candoshi, Omurano (Mayna), and Taushiro (all in the Peruvian Amazon).
A new proposal concerning a possible genetic relationship between two linguistic
groups that had never been associated before has been made by Croese and Payne
(Croese 1990). They observed rather striking lexical similarities between Araucanian
(Mapuche) and the Arawakan family. The matter requires further investigation.
For the Panoan languages Migliazza (1978a, mentioned in Migliazza 1985) proposes
a rather close genetic relationship with Yanomaman, based on a cognate number of about
40 per cent, and a more remote relationship with Chibchan (see above).
The Guaicuruan language family (including Toba as its principal representative in
the pre-Andean space) and the Matacoan language family have, together with a third
group, Lengua–Mascoy, their centre of gravity in the Gran Chaco. Tovar (1981) found
considerable lexical resemblance between Toba and the Matacoan languages. Whether
this is due to a common genetic origin or borrowing is an issue awaiting further in-
vestigation. Tovar also observes lexical similarities between Matacoan and Arawakan.
In Greenberg’s classification Matacoan, Guaicuruan and Lengua–Mascoy are taken
together. For Charrúan, a group of extinct languages once located in Uruguay and
Argentinian Entre Rı́os, Arawakan, Matacoan, Lule–Vilelan and Guaicuruan connec-

tions have been proposed by Perea y Alonso (1937), Ferrario (Ms), Rona (1964) and
Suárez (1974), respectively. See for the three first proposals the discussion in Longacre
(1968: 353–4), who seems to give most credit to Ferrario’s arguments for the Matacoan
connection, cited in Censabella (1999: 61). Sušnik (1978: 94) appears to favour a
Guaicuruan connection.
Among the languages of the southernmost part of South America, a grouping
was recognised as early as 1913 by Lehmann-Nitsche. It consisted of the Patagonian
languages (Tehuelche, Tehues) and the languages of Tierra del Fuego’s main island
(Selk nam or Ona, Haush). This grouping was called Tshon or Chon, a denomination
that includes elements of the words ‘Tehuelche’ and ‘Ona’. For many languages once
spoken in Argentina it will probably never be possible to even approximately determine
a genetic affiliation because the populations in question were exterminated before their
languages could be recorded. Viegas Barros has proposed a genetic relationship between
Kawesqar and Yahgan (Censabella 1999: 88).
A final word about possible trans-Pacific genetic connections. Although there have
been many proponents of such connections (Rivet 1925; Imbelloni 1928; Ibarra Grasso
1958), no valid arguments were brought forward to support them. The search for them,
however, has shown at the least two lexical items shared by Polynesian languages and
languages in South America. One of them is the name of a plant domesticated in the
New World, the sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), Easter Island kumara, Hawaiian ʔuala,
which is found as k’umar or k’umara in Quechua and Aymara. The second word is toki,
Easter Island ‘stone axe’, Mapuche ‘stone axe’, ‘military chief (the holder of the axe)’;
compare also Yurumanguı́ totoki ‘axe’ (Jijón y Caamaño 1945). Although the former
case constitutes near proof of incidental contact between inhabitants of the Andean
region and the South Pacific, the latter is not nearly as convincing but certainly deserves
attention. Apparently, there were sporadic contacts that led to an occasional interchange
of words, not to migrations of entire populations that could have brought along their
languages.
1.7.4 The Greenberg (1987) proposal

The appearance of Greenberg (1987) brought the discussion about the origins of lan-
guage, both in the Andes and elsewhere in the New World, into a new phase. Rather than
merely containing the long expected factual justification of Greenberg’s earlier proposal,
which, in part, it did, the terrain of comparison was widened to include the whole of
native America. It also brought a revision of the classification of the South American
Indian languages proposed before. In short, Greenberg (1987) contains the following
new elements:
42 1 Introduction
A. All the languages of the New World belong to three families: Eskimo–Aleut, Na–
Dene and Amerind; Eskimo–Aleut and Na–Dene are limited to the Arctic and parts of
North America. Consequently, all South American and Mesoamerican Indian languages,
as well as most North American Indian languages are related. They belong to a single
family: Amerind. The tripartite division of the native American languages is associated
with three consecutive waves of migration, the first of which is represented by speakers
of Amerind. Support for this hypothesis is sought from physical anthropology (blood
groups, dental structure) and archaeology; a first outline of it had already been published,
before the appearance of Greenberg (1987), in Greenberg, Turner and Zegura (1985,
1986).
B. The South American languages are divided into seven subgroups: Macro-Ge,
Macro-Panoan, Macro-Carib, Equatorial, Macro-Tucanoan, Andean and Chibchan–
Paezan. As in Greenberg’s earlier classification, one language, Yurumanguı́ is assigned
to a North American subgroup, Hokan. In addition, Macro-Ge, Macro-Panoan and
Macro-Carib are said to form a group at an indermediate level, which corresponds
to the Ge–Pano–Carib of Greenberg’s earlier classification; the same holds for Equa-
torial and Macro-Tucanoan, which formed part of Andean–Equatorial in the earlier
classification. Andean–Equatorial as such is abandoned. So there are four groups at
the intermediate level between Amerind and the seven subgroups just enumerated: Ge–
Pano–Carib, Andean, Equatorial–Tucanoan and Chibchan–Paezan (the former Macro-
Chibchan). For Amerind as a whole, including North America and Mexico, Greenberg
posits eleven subgroups and six groups at the intermediate level. As Swadesh (1962)
did before him, Greenberg finds more genetic diversity in South America than in
North America (except for the presence of non-Amerind Na–Dene and Eskimo–
Aleut).
C. Chibchan–Paezan receives extensions in North America and elsewhere in the
Americas. Its Chibchan division is made to include Tarascan and Cuitlatec, two lan-
guage isolates located in Mexico; the Paezan division now includes Timucua, a lan-
guage isolate once to be found in Florida. Huarpean (Allentiac), originally classified
as Ge–Pano–Carib, has been reassigned to Paezan, where it finds itself together with
Atacameño. Jı́varo–Candoshi and the languages associated with it (Esmeralda, Yaruro
and Cofán), originally a separate division of Andean–Equatorial, have been reclassi-
fied as Equatorial. Quechua and Aymara are both classified as Andean but no longer
treated as a unit. Greenberg (1987: 100) admits ‘that Aymara appears relatively isolated
within Andean’.
Greenberg’s new classification comes at a point in time when historical linguists tend
to be increasingly reluctant to accept distant genetic relationships if not accompanied
by solid proof (see, in particular, Campbell and Mithun 1979). Greenberg shows him-
self highly critical of the current methods of obtaining such proof, ‘the use of sound
correspondence tables and asterisked reconstructed forms’ (1987: 1). Instead, Greenberg
advocates the search for lexical and grammatical similarities that become apparent from
a comparison of many languages at the same time (‘multilateral comparison’). He does
not pursue phonetic exactitude and considers it premature to look for regular sound cor-
respondence lest other significant similarities should be missed. Greenberg also allows
for a substantial amount of error in his data: ‘the method of multilateral comparison
is so powerful that it will give reliable results even with the poorest of materials. In-
correct material should have merely a randomizing effect’ (1987: 29). As a matter
of fact, the data included in Greenberg (1987) are riddled with errors. For instance,
Cochabamba Quechua ‘to see’ is given as ruk, instead of rikh u-, and quechuologists
are puzzled about identifying the ‘Huanacucho dialect’ (probably a designation for
Ayacucho affected by a confusion with the name of some other dialect, such as Huánuco
or Huanca). Old misunderstandings are perpetuated and even reinforced. For instance,
the alleged unity of Uru–Chipaya and Puquina is not only defended, but Olson’s work is
quoted as evidence for it (Greenberg 1987: 84). In reality, Olson (1964) merely observed
that some Chipaya call their language Puquina, which says nothing about the undeni-
able fact that there also existed a Puquina language quite distinct from present-day
Chipaya. Identical namegiving is no proof of identity. On the other hand, possible close
connections, such as Guambiano and Barbacoan, or Harakmbut and Katukina, were
missed.
It is not surprising that Greenberg’s work has met with vigorous criticism; see, for
instance, the discussion in Current Anthropology 28: 647–67, Kaufman (1990), and the
reviews by Adelaar (1989) and Matisoff (1990). Nevertheless, not all his proposals should
be dismissed lightly. Some of the proposed genetic links will undoubtedly turn out valid,
even though the factual basis is still insufficient. Greenberg also gives an inventory of
grammatical elements that are widespread in the Amerindian languages. Of some cases
Greenberg was not the first to have noticed them (see, for instance, Swadesh 1954).
The grammatical elements in question are not merely cases of typological resemblances
because they concern the formal aspects of morphemes. One of the best-known cases
is a pattern consisting of n, or another non-labial nasal, for reference to first person, in
combination with m for reference to second (both usually followed by a vowel). One
may be tempted, for instance, to investigate the possibility of a genetic link between,
say, Araucanian and Californian Penutian on the basis of Araucanian ny i ‘my’ and mi
‘your’, on the one hand, and Wintu ni ‘I’ and mi ‘you’, on the other, only to find out later
that many other Amerindian languages exhibit similar or related patterns of personal
reference. Whatever the origin of such resemblances may be, they can hardly be due to
borrowing.
In table 1.8, we summarise the classification proposed in Greenberg (1987) insofar as
it concerns the languages and language groups located in the Andean region. Alternative
44 1 Introduction
Table 1.8 Greenberg’s (1987) classification of the languages of the Andes
I.   C. Hokan 5. Yurumangui.

III. - A. Chibchan 3. Nuclear Chibchan: a. Antioquia (incl.
Katio, Nutabe). b. Aruak (incl.
Guamaca and Kagaba). c. Chibcha
(incl. Duit and Tunebo) d. Cuna.
f. Malibu (incl. Chimila). h. Motilon.
B. Paezan 1. Allentiac (incl. Millcayac).
2. Atacama. 3. Betoi. 4. Chimu.
5. Itonama. 6. Jirajara. 8. Nuclear
Paezan: a. Andaqui. b. Barbacoa (incl.
Cara, Cayapa, Colorado and Cuaiquer).
c. Choco. d. Paez (incl. Guambiano).
IV.  A. Aymara Aymara, Jaqaru.
B. Itucale–Sabela 1. Itucale. 2. Mayna. 3. Sabela.
C. Kahuapana–Zaparo 1. Kahuapana (incl. Jebero and
Chayahuita). 2. Zaparo (incl. Arabela
and Iquito).
D. Northern 1. Catacao. 2. Cholona (incl. Hibito).
3. Culli. 4. Leco. 5. Sechura.
E. Quechua.
F. Southern 1. Alakaluf. 2. Araucanian. 3. Gennaken
(=Gününa Küne). 4. Patagon (incl.
Ona). 5. Yamana.
V. – A. Macro-Tucanoan 1. Auixiri. 2. Canichana. 10. Mobima.
11. Muniche. 15. Puinave. 17. Ticuna–
Yuri: a. Ticuna. b. Yuri. 18. Tucano.
B. Equatorial 1. Macro-Arawakan: a. Guahibo.
c. Otomaco. d. Tinigua. e. Arawakan:
(i) Arawa. (ii) Maipuran (incl.
Amuesha, Apolista, Chamicuro,
Resı́garo and the Harakmbut
languages). (iii) Chapacura.
(iv) Guamo. (v) Uro (incl. Puquina and
Callahuaya). 2. Cayuvava. 3. Coche
(=Kamsá). 4. Jibaro–Kandoshi:
a. Cofan. b. Esmeralda. c. Jibaro.
d. Kandoshi. e. Yaruro. 5. Kariri–Tupi:
b. Tupi. 6. Piaroa (incl. Saliba).
8. Timote. 11. Yuracare. 12. Zamuco.
VI. –– A. Macro-Carib 1. Andoke. 2. Bora–Uitoto: a. Bora.
b. Uitoto. 3. Carib. 5. Yagua.
B. Macro-Panoan 1. Charruan. 2. Lengua. 3. Lule–Vilela:
a. Lule. b. Vilela. 4. Mataco–Guaicuru:
a. Guaicuru. b. Mataco. 5. Moseten.
6. Pano–Tacana: a. Panoan. b. Tacanan.
C. Macro-Ge 1. Bororo. 4. Chiquito. 7. Ge–Kaingan:
a. Kaingan. 8. Guato.
names are occasionally added, preceded by an equals sign (=) in order to ease identi-
fication. The lowest level of the classification is left out because not all the language
names listed in Greenberg’s classification actually represent different languages but,
rather, dialects or different designations of the same language. In other cases, however,
they do represent different languages, a fact which may give rise to confusion.
2
The Chibcha Sphere
The present chapter deals with the languages of the northern Andes; the term ‘Chibcha
Sphere’ has been chosen because of the historically important role of the Chibcha people
in that area. In the sixteenth century the Chibcha or Muisca were the inhabitants of the
highland region that coincides with the modern Colombian departments of Boyacá and
Cundinamarca. Although historical sources insist that there was no linguistic unity, it
is likely that most Chibcha spoke closely related languages or dialects belonging to a
subgroup of the Chibchan language family. At least two languages have been identified:
Muisca was spoken on the upland plain (sabana) surrounding the present-day Colombian
capital Santafé de Bogotá (department of Cundinamarca) and Duit in the department
of Boyacá. By their location in the highlands east of the Magdalena river valley, close
to the Amazonian plains, the Chibcha held a peripheral position in the Colombian
Andes. Therefore, their linguistic influence on other parts of that area must not be
overestimated.
The Chibcha were a populous agricultural nation, who specialised in the cultivation of
potatoes and cotton. They were divided into several chiefdoms, two of which occupied a
leading position. A southern chiefdom, centred in Bacatá or Muequetá (near the modern
town of Funza, close to present-day Bogotá), was ruled by a king called the zipa. At
the time of the arrival of the conquistador Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada in 1537, the
valley of Bogotá was filled with a multitude of high wooden buildings, which impressed
the Spaniards so much that they gave it the name of Valle de los Alcazares (‘Valley
of the Castles’). The zipa’s northern neighbour, located in Hunza (today’s Tunja, the
capital of the Boyacá department), was known as the zaque. A third town of importance
was Sogamoso (Sugamuxi), the religious centre of the Chibcha and the seat of a highly
venerated wooden temple of huge dimensions. According to tradition, the temple of
Sogamoso was burned down accidentally by two greedy Spanish conquistadores, who
let go of their torches as they beheld the richness of the gold decorations inside (Hemming
1978: 86–7). The high priest of Sogamoso subsequently changed his name to don Alonso
and became one of the most faithful propagandists of the Christian faith (Triana y
Antorveza 1987: 555).
J I RO
UA
G
Santa Marta A TÍO
TA IR O N QU E
ARHUACO CA
S
NE
J I R A JAR A
A
Cartagena
CHI
MALIBÚ
AN
ILO
AYA MÁ N
MILA
MOC
G AYÓ N
MOT
PACABUEY
CUICA
CU
EV SINÚ TE
Panamá TIMO
A
Magdalena R.
Mérida GUAMO
HACARITAMA
GUACA-
UÍ
NORI
VENEZUELA
YA R IG
PA N A M A
.
YAMESÍ
aR
CUNA CHITARERO
uc
Ca
OPÓN-CARARE OTOMACO
Atrato CHOCÓ
CATÍO
GUANE BETOI
NUTABE LACHE
IDABAEZ
R.
AGATANO
COLIMA SÁLIBA
DUIT
GORA Sogamoso
PANTÁ MUZO MAIPURE
OS
R.
ARMA- Tunja TEGUA

NC
ACHAGUA
PANCH
POZO
S. Juan
MUISCA
C HA
IRRA
ANSERMA Bogotá
QUIMBAYA SUTAGAO
QUINDÍO
O
P I JA
LILI
C O L O M B I A
CA
YURUMANGUÍ
NA
JAMUNDÍ
JITIRIJITI PÁEZ
GUA
Í
QU
PUBENZA
TIMANÁ
DA
Popayán YALCÓN
AN
BARBACOA TAMA
San Agustín
SINDAGUA
QUILLACINGA
NIGUA PASTO
MALABA
ESMERALDEÑO SIONA
YUMBO CARA
O QUIJO
N
O
CH
L
ECUADOR
Z I
A
R
P E R U
B
Map 1 The Chibcha Sphere: overview of ethnolinguistic groups attested in premodern sources
The Chibcha heartland also became known worldwide as the source of the El Dorado
legend, a major incentive for conquest and exploration in the northern Amazon. At
regular intervals, the cacique or chieftain of Guatavita, one of the most influential vassals
of the zipa, would anoint himself with gold dust and plunge into a volcanic lake. The
48 2 The Chibcha Sphere
story of El Dorado had a tremendous impact on Spanish conquistadores and adventurers.

During the decades following the conquest, they would organise numerous expeditions
geared at finding other El Dorados. These expeditions brought considerable havoc and
misery to the Chibcha and their neighbours. Their damage in terms of human losses and
social disruption was such that the emperor Charles V forbade all such expeditions in
1550 (Hemming 1978: 139).
There were some remarkable cultural achievements, such as the goldsmith’s art of
the Quimbaya people of the Cauca river valley, the monumental stone sculptures of San
Agustı́n in the department of Huila, the Ciudad Perdida (‘lost city’) of the Tairona in
the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, and the pictographic writing system of the Cuna (cf.
Nordenskiöld 1928–30). At the same time, the native peoples of the northern Andes were
divided. Apart from the powerful Muisca kingdoms, there was no political unity, but
rather a conglomerate of small chiefdoms and tribes, living in an almost permanent state
of war. These small political units were usually referred to as behetrı́as by the Spaniards
(see, for instance, Cieza de León 1553; Acosta 1590). The difference in this respect
between New Granada, as Colombia was called in colonial times, and Peru (including
present-day Ecuador) was emphasised by most of the chroniclers. The Chibcha, although
highly organised internally, were besieged by the warlike tribes of the Magdalena valley,
including the Panche, the Pantágora and the Pijao, who blocked their way to the west
and contributed to their isolation. Within the neighbouring highlands, the Muzo and the
Colima were encroaching upon the Chibcha heartland from the northwest. A special
caste of warriors, the guecha (probably güecha [wety a]; cf. Uricoechea 1871: 253) were
in charge of the defence of the Chibcha realm, which is otherwise described as relatively
peaceful.
After the arrival of the Spaniards, many Colombian tribes refused to submit and
continued to fight the colonial rulers, taking advantage of the rugged physiognomy of
the country. Famous is the story, possibly a legend, of la Gaitana, a female cacique of
Timaná in the Upper Magdalena valley. In 1543 she is said to have hunted down and
ferociously killed the Spanish conquistador Pedro de Añasco, who was responsible for
burning her son.1 Many sectors of the Magdalena river valley remained dangerous and
insecure for travellers well into the twentieth century. The Chimila, who inhabited the
region east of the lower Magdalena valley (departments of Cesar and Magdalena) and the
Andaquı́ of the forest region east of San Agustı́n (departments of Huila and Caquetá), are
known for their long and tenacious resistance. The fearsome Pijao of Huila and Tolima
challenged Spanish rule in a large-scale rebellion in the early seventeenth century.
1 The story of La Gaitana is related by the chroniclers Juan de Castellanos (1589) and Pedro Simón
(1625). Her ethnic background has not been established. She may have belonged either to the
Páez or to the local Yalcón nation.
Outside the Chibcha heartland, another concentration of highly developed and popu-
lous societies was found in the valley of the Cauca river, in the modern departments of
Caldas, Risaralda and Quindı́o. An outstanding position was occupied by the Quimbaya
federation, centred around the modern towns of Chinchiná (near Manizales) and Pereira
(Chaves, Morales and Calle 1995: 156). The Quimbaya are known as the most talented
goldsmiths of pre-Columbian America. Although the first contacts with the Spanish
conquistador Jorge Robledo in 1539 were not particularly hostile, the subsequent re-
pression and exploitation by Sebastián de Belalcázar and his men from Peru led to a
series of rebellions, which brought about the near annihilation of the Cauca peoples. The
Quimbaya became extinct as a recognisable group around 1700 (Duque Gómez 1970).
Their language remains unknown and its affiliations a matter of speculation.
Sixteenth-century chroniclers report the existence of almost innumerable different
languages. Some of them give a fair account of the situation which can help to make us
aware of the loss. Pascual de Andagoya (1545) mentions the Atunceta, Ciaman, Jitirijiti
and Lili languages spoken in the area of Cali and Popayán. Only the names of these
languages have been preserved, as well as the observation that they were so different
from each other that the use of interpreters was required. Pedro de Cieza de León
(1553), the chronicler of Peru, who accompanied Captain Robledo in his conquest of
the lower and middle Cauca valley, has left very precise information about the language
situation of Antioquia, Caldas, Quindı́o and Risaralda. Through an analysis of Cieza’s
linguistic observations, Jijón y Caamaño (1938: Appendix, pp. 109–12) points at the
existence of four different languages in the Caldas–Quindı́o–Risaralda region: Arma–
Pozo, Quimbaya–Carrapa–Picara–Paucura, Quindı́o and Irra. However, this enumeration
does not include the languages of the Anserma, of the Chancos nation and of several
other local groups. They may either have been separate languages, or be included in
one of the groupings just mentioned. The information on all these languages is too
limited to permit any conclusion as to their genetic affiliation. An exception are the
languages of Antioquia (known as Old Catı́o and Nutabe), which were identified as
Chibchan (Rivet 1943–6; Constenla Umaña 1991: 31). Interestingly, one of the few
words mentioned by Cieza de León for the language spoken in the towns of Arma and
Pozo (department of Caldas) is ume ‘woman’, which corresponds to ome in the Cuna
language of the Colombian and Panamanian Caribbean coast. A frequent ending -racua
is reminiscent of the Cuna derivational ending -kw a (cf. Llerena Villalobos 1987: 72–3).
Such similarities, as well as some others, were observed by Rivet (1943–6) but remain
merely suggestive as long as no additional data are found concerning the languages of
the Cauca valley.
Since most of the indigenous languages were lost without possibility of recovery,
the extent of linguistic variety in the northern Andes may never be fully appreci-
ated. The few languages that have survived the contact with the European invaders may or
may not be representative. As it stands, none of the original languages of the Cauca
and Magdalena valleys have survived, and there is hardly any documentation on them.
The main languages of the sabana, Muisca and Duit, became extinct in the eighteenth
century, although in the first case the available documentation is relatively extensive. On
the other hand, some surviving groups (e.g. the Chocoan Emberá, the Cuna, the Páez)
have been remarkably expansive in recent times. From this perspective, the original
linguistic situation and the present-day one are hardly comparable.
2.1 The language groups and their distribution

Colombia and western Venezuela form the northernmost section of the Andean region.
This area was a meeting point of linguistic and cultural influences from the central
Andes, the Amazon basin, the Caribbean and Central America. From an archaeological
and cultural point of view, it is part of a region often referred to as the ‘Intermediate Area’
(Area Intermedia), negatively defined as an area belonging neither to Mesoamerica, nor to
the Central Andean civilisation domain. In addition to Colombia and western Venezuela,
the Intermediate Area also comprises a substantial part of Central America. The linguistic
features of the Intermediate Area have been studied by Constenla Umaña (1991), who
finds it subdivided into three main typological regions: a Central American–Northern
Colombian area (including the Cofán language isolate as an outlier), an Ecuadorian–
Southern Colombian area, and a Guajiro–Western Venezuelan area.
Two important language families, Cariban and Chibchan, have left their mark in the
northern Andes since precontact times. Cariban has its origin in the Amazonian and
Guyanese regions, whereas Chibchan has Central American connections. Considering
their distribution and the amount of internal differentiation within the area under dis-
cussion, the intrusion of the Chibchan languages in the northern Andes is clearly much
older than that of the Cariban languages. Nevertheless, a Central American origin for
the Chibchan languages seems likely because some of the most fundamental diversity
internal to the family is found in Costa Rica and western Panama (Constenla Umaña
1990). Furthermore, the closest presumable relatives of the Chibchan family as a whole,
Lenca and Misumalpa, are located at the northern, Central American borders of the
Chibchan domain (Constenla Umaña 1991).
The area of the Caribbean coast of Colombia comprises two important nuclei of
Chibchan-speaking populations: the Cuna, around the Gulf of Urabá and adjacent
areas of (Atlantic) Panama, at one end, and the complex of indigenous peoples of
the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta (Ika, Kankuamo, Kogui and Wiwa) and the Sierra
de Perijá (Barı́), at the other. Between these two geographical extremes, several other
groups were decimated or eliminated early in the colonial process. In the present-day
departments of Bolı́var, Córdoba and Sucre, three prosperous chiefdoms, Fincenú,
Pancenú and Cenúfana represented the Sinú culture, renowned for its burials rich in gold
NO
O
JIR A
UA UJ
G A RA
A P
A
N († ) RIA
RE
UÍ
JA P
KA M
NK
DA
KOGUI Maracaibo
Cartagena IKA
YUKPA
GUAJIRO
CHIMILA recent expansion
BARÍ
EMBERÁ (†)
TE
TIMO
CUNA
VENEZUELA
R.
PA N A M A
ca
OPÓN-
au
CARARE(†)
C
TUNEBO YARURO
EM BE R Á
Atra
EM
HITNÜ CUIBA
to R.
Medellín
BERÁ
SÁLIBA
a R.
R.
R. eta
Magdalen
M
NI
u an
UA
SIK
ACHAGUA PIAROA
Sa n J
WAUNANA Bogotá
PIJAO(†) PIA
POCO YAVITERO(†)
PUINAVE
Cali
GUAM
BI ANO
PÁEZ
C O L O M B I A BANIVA DEL
TINIGUA G u av ia re R . GUAINÍA
EMBERÁ G UAYABERO
TOTORÓ CURRIPACO
Popayán NUKAK
ING CARIJONA CUBEO

KAMSÁ AN YURUTÍ KAKUA
GUANANO
KOREGUAJE- PISAMIRA SIRIANO
O
AWA CARAPANA DESANO TARIANA

PIT TAMA PIRATAPUYO
TATUYO
CHA’PALAACHI N SIONA BARÁ TUCANO
FÁ MAKAGUAJE
CABIYARÍ
TUYUCA
BARASANA
CO
TETETÉ (†) C a qu et á R .
Quito MACUNA HUPDÁ
TSAFIKI SECOYA TANIMUCA
ANGUTERO ANDOQUE CUNA
Y U CARIJONA
Pu H U M U I NONUYA
L
ECUADOR tu
m IT
OT
NANE
MIRAÑA
O BORA
ay
Z I
OCAINA YURÍ
oR
.
RESÍGARO
OREJÓN
YAGUA
A
COCAMA TICUNA
R
P E R U
B
Map 2 The Chibcha Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous languages (mid twentieth
century). The shaded area surrounding Lake Maracaibo indicates a recent expansion of the
Guajiro language.
(Chaves et al. 1995). The surviving descendants of the Sinú, who live at San Andrés de
Sotavento (Córdoba), not far from the town of Sincelejo, have no record of their origi-
nal languages. The language of the lower Magdalena river (between Tamalameque and
Trinidad) was known as Malibú. It and the extinct languages of neighbouring peoples,
such as the Mocana and the Pacabueyes, have been grouped with the (Chibchan) lan-
guage of the Chimila by Loukotka (1968: 244) without any factual basis (cf. Constenla
Umaña 1991). The Chimila language is still spoken today. The language of the Tairona,
who were destroyed in 1600 after almost a century of warfare with the colonists of Santa
Marta, may have been related to (or even identical with) one of its Chibchan neighbours
further east in the Sierra Nevada.2
The Andes northeast of the Chibcha heartland were inhabited by several agricultural
highland peoples who shared some of its cultural characteristics. They include the Lache,
who lived near the Sierra Nevada del Cocuy (northeastern Boyacá), the Guane in the
southern part of Santander department (south of Bucaramanga) and the Chitarero of
the Pamplona area (department of Norte de Santander). The Agatano occupied the
mountains west of Vélez (Santander). Most of these peoples have been classified as
Chibchan, although there are hardly any linguistic data to support such a supposition.
Since the territory of the Lache bordered on that of the modern (Chibchan) Tunebo or
Uwa of the eastern Andean slopes and lowlands in Casanare, it is tempting to speculate
that they represented the same linguistic grouping. Here again, however, the necessary
data on Lache are lacking. The Venezuelan Andes form a geographical continuation of
the area just referred to. The high Andes of the states of Mérida and Trujillo comprise
a substantial indigenous (now Spanish-speaking) population, representing the (extinct)
Timote–Cuica family, not related to Chibchan. In the pre-Andean hills of the states of
Lara and Falcón, the Jirajaran family (also extinct) constituted another linguistic isolate.
Cariban-speaking peoples survive in the Colombian–Venezuelan border area west of
Lake Maracaibo (Yukpa and Japreria). Elsewhere in the northern Andean region the
identification of Cariban languages has been problematic as a result of their poor docu-
mentation and early extinction. In addition, Spanish chroniclers did not employ the term
‘Carib’ (caribe) primarily as a linguistic concept, but rather as a cover term for Indians
who remained intractable in their contacts with the colonial authorities, and, especially,
for those who used arrow-poison and practised cannibalism. Such tribes inhabited the
2 The linguistic connection between the area of Santa Marta and the Muisca highlands of Bogotá
is illustrated by Piedrahita’s account of the conquest of 1537. In 1676 he wrote: Quienes más
percibieron el idioma fueron Pericón, y las Indias, que se llevaron de la costa de Santa Marta, y
Rı́o Grande, que con facilidad lo pronunciaban, y se comunicaban en él con los Bogotáes (‘Those
who best understood the language [of the Muisca] were Pericón [the expedition’s guide] and the
Indian women, who hailed from the coast of Santa Marta, and the Rı́o Grande [Magdalena], who
with ease pronounced it, and communicated in it with the Bogotáes’; Ostler 2000, following Uhle
1890).
Magdalena valley, where at least one group, Opón–Carare, has been identified as Cariban
on linguistic grounds (Durbin and Seijas 1973a, b). In the case of other Magdalenan
peoples, such as the Panche and the Pijao, a Cariban affiliation remains hypotheti-
cal, although the poor lexical data of the Pijao language that are left exhibit traces of
Cariban influence in its basic vocabulary (cf. Constenla Umaña 1991: 62). Cariban influ-
ence in the Magdalena valley is also suggested by its unique Carib-sounding toponymy
(Coyaima, Natagaima, Tocaima), which is found in both the ancient Panche and Pijao
areas. In other areas, however, where a Carib presence has been suspected mainly on
cultural grounds, e.g. in the Cauca valley, there is no linguistic evidence to support it.
In addition to Cariban and Chibchan, two more families which have their origin out-
side the northern Andes are found in the area under discussion. The Arawakan family
of probable Amazonian origin is represented near the Caribbean coast (Guajiro and
Paraujano). The Quechuan group (cf. chapter 3) is represented by the Inga or Ingano
language in the southern Colombian departments of Nariño and Caquetá. The influence
of Quechua is particularly noticeable in the southern Andes of Colombia, notwith-
standing the fact that local languages, such as Pasto, Quillacinga and Sindagua contin-
ued to remain in use for a long time. It is not unlikely that Quillacinga and Sindagua
survive in present-day Kamsá or Sibundoy and in (Barbacoan) Cuaiquer or Awa Pit,
respectively (Groot and Hooykaas 1991). The department of Nariño, bordering on
Ecuador, has a substantial indigenous population, even though the use of Spanish is now
predominant.
The extent of Quechua influence in southern Colombia, as well as the moment of its
introduction, is a matter of debate. It may already have been present before the arrival of
the Spaniards, or it may have been introduced by the yanacona (serfs) from Quito, who
accompanied Belalcázar and other conquistadores on their expeditions. The Quechua-
speaking yanacona played an important part in the conquest of New Granada. They were
eventually allowed to settle down at several locations north of Popayán, in the Bogotá
area and in Huila (Triana y Antorveza 1987: 118–20). As early as 1540, Andagoya (1986:
133) observed a sort of mixed use of Quechua and Spanish among the Jitirijiti tribe, who
lived in the neighbourhood of the present-day town of Cali. He quotes the words of a
recently christianised Indian woman turning down an improper proposal made to her by
a Spaniard: mana señor que soy casada y terná Santa Marı́a ternan hancha piña, ‘no,
sir, I am married, and the Holy Mary will be very angry’; cf. Quechua mana ‘no’, anča
piny a ‘very angry’ (terná and ternan may represent the Spanish verb tendrá ‘he/she will
have’). In 1758 the Franciscan friar Juan de Santa Gertrudis visited the archaeological
remains at San Agustı́n, leaving a detailed account of his findings (Reichel-Dolmatoff
1972). He reported that Quechua, la lengua linga (an adulteration of la lengua del Inga
‘the language of the Inca’), was used in the Upper Magdalena region, an area which had
been highly multilingual in the sixteenth century (Triana y Antorveza 1987: 169).
As might be expected, not all northern Andean languages can be assigned to one
of the four widely extended families discussed so far. In addition to the two extinct
Venezuelan families mentioned earlier, there are at least two local families, Barbacoan
in the southern departments of Cauca and Nariño (as well as in Ecuador) and Chocoan
in the Pacific region. There are five living Barbacoan languages: Awa Pit (Cuaiquer),
Chapalaachi (Cayapa), Guambiano, Totoró and Tsafiki (Colorado). Cha palaachi and
Tsafiki are only spoken in Ecuador. Chocoan is represented by two languages: Emberá
and Waunana. The Páez language of Cauca and Huila is either an isolate or the surviving
member of a small family. On the eastern slopes Kamsá or Sibundoy and Andaquı́ (the
latter extinct) are isolates, and so are Yurumanguı́ and Esmeraldeño, extinct languages
of the Pacific region of Colombia and Ecuador.
In the following sections we will discuss some general characteristics of the principal
documented languages of the Colombian and Venezuelan Andes, as well as the north-
western part of Ecuador. Because of its historical importance, Muisca will be treated
in somewhat more detail. Demographically important languages, such as Guajiro and
Páez, will also receive particular attention. The final section of this chapter contains
an overview of the languages of the eastern lowlands that are adjacent to the northern
Andes.
2.2 Research on the native languages of Colombia

Among the precursors of academic studies concerning the languages of the northern
Andes two scholars must be mentioned, the natural scientist and physicist José Celestino
Mutis (1732–1808) and the linguist Ezequiel Uricoechea (1834–80). After his arrival in
New Granada in 1761, Mutis became an enthusiastic collector of descriptive material
of difficult accessibility concerning the indigenous languages of the Spanish American
domain. In 1787 he received the commission to make a collection of indigenous language
materials as the result of a request addressed by Catherine II of Russia to the king of Spain.
The empress needed these materials for her ambitious project to document the languages
of the world in Saint Petersburg. Mutis carried out his assignment with great care, making
copies so as to avoid losses. As it appears, most of Mutis’s materials never reached
Russia (Ortega Ricaurte 1978: 102), but copies remain in Madrid. Born in Colombia,
Uricoechea, a man of wide interests, spent part of his life in Belgium, where he held
a professorship in the Arabic language. He was the founder of the series Bibliothèque
Linguistique Américaine (1871–1903), in which much early work on the indigenous
languages of the Americas, including his own on Muisca, was brought together. In
more recent times, the Frenchman Paul Rivet (1876–1958) collected and published
material on numerous languages of Colombia and the Venezuelan Andes, including
extinct languages of which only a minimum amount of data could be found. Landaburu
2.2 Research on the native languages of Colombia 55
(1996a, 1998, 1999) has published substantial parts of Rivet’s Colombian archive, kept
at the Musée de l’Homme in Paris.
In Colombia a number of important studies, both descriptive and historical, have
appeared, especially in recent decades. In 1965 Sergio Elı́as Ortiz published a survey of
the Colombian indigenous languages. The Instituto Caro y Cuervo in Bogotá, a venerable
institution originally dedicated to Hispanic studies, issued several works of indigenous
linguistic interest. Among these are a history of studies dedicated to the Colombian
native languages (Ortega Ricaurte 1978), a history of the fate of the indigenous languages
in colonial society (Triana y Antorveza 1987), an overview of historical-comparative
efforts concerning these languages (Rodrı́guez de Montes 1993) and two fundamental
works on Muisca (González de Pérez 1980, 1987; see section 2.9 on Muisca). A most
remarkable achievement is Lenguas Indı́genas de Colombia: una visión descriptiva
(Indigenous Languages of Colombia: a Descriptive Vision) (González and Rodrı́guez
2000), a monumental book containing descriptive sketches and information by different
specialists on all the native languages spoken in Colombia today.
In 1984 the Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá, in co-operation with the French
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), initiated a programme for the
training of descriptive linguists under the direction of Jon Landaburu, in order to study
and document the indigenous languages of Colombia in a systematic way. The institution
harbouring this programme, the Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes
(CCELA), issues a series of descriptive studies and dictionaries, which have appeared
regularly since 1987. Up to now, the series includes work on Achagua, Cuna, Emberá,
Chimila, Damana, Guambiano, Guayabero, Kogui, Páez, Sikuani and Ticuna. Most of the
contributions in González and Rodrı́guez (2000) have been written by linguists trained
in the CCELA programme.
Members of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, which has deployed activities in
Colombia for several decades, have produced descriptive studies, inter alia, of Achagua,
Emberá, Ika and several Tucanoan languages. Also worth mentioning is a useful com-
parative vocabulary of Colombian indigenous languages, compiled by Huber and Reed
(1992).
The journal Estudios de Lingüı́stica Chibcha, published by the University of Costa
Rica at San José, contains much data and discussion concerning the reconstruction of
earlier stages of Chibchan in particular. Other important work by the Costa Rican school
is Constenla’s dissertation on the reconstruction of Chibchan phonology (Constenla
Umaña 1981) and his book on the typology of the Intermediate Area (Constenla Umaña
1991). Morphosyntactic reconstruction of Colombian Chibchan languages is attempted
in Ostler (2000).
The indigenous literature of the northern Andean area is mainly confined to collec-
tions of folkloric text. An overview of the traditional literature in the Chibchan languages
can be found in Constenla Umaña (1990a). Two Chibchan languages, Cuna and Kogui,
are well represented in this respect. Many Cuna texts were collected in the first half
of the twentieth century by researchers of the Ethnographic Museum in Göteborg
(Nordenskiöld 1928, 1930a, 1938; Holmer 1951; Holmer and Wassén 1953). An eval-
uation of the literary value of these texts is provided by Kramer (1970). More recent
text material and an extensive study of Cuna discourse and speech styles can be found
in Sherzer (1983, 1986). A rich corpus of Kogui folkloric text was collected by Preuss
in 1915 and published in different issues of the journal Anthropos (Preuss 1921–5; cf.
also Fischer and Preuss 1989). Further information on Kogui traditional literature can
be found in Reichel-Dolmatoff (1950–1). Of great interest is an extensive collection of
Huitoto myths, transcribed and with a vocabulary and a German translation, again by
Preuss (1921–3). Finally, Howard and Schöttelndreyer (1977) present some texts in
Kamsá and in Catı́o (Chocó), respectively.
2.3 Chocoan
The Chocoan language family is located on the Pacific side of Colombia and eastern
Panama.3 It consists of two languages, Emberá and Waunana. The Waunana language
has its principal location in the lower part of the San Juan river valley in the Colombian
department of Chocó. Additionally, a substantial number of Waunana speakers have
migrated to coastal areas adjacent to Panama and to the Darien region of Panama itself.
The Emberá constitute a flexible and expanding population, which have colonised new
territories whenever external or demographic pressure incited them to do so. At present,
the Emberá not only inhabit Darien and the Chocó, but also parts of Antioquia, Cauca,
Córdoba, Nariño, Risaralda and Valle del Cauca, thus occupying areas both to the north
and to the south of the Waunana. In recent times some Emberá have reached Ecuador,
and others have crossed the Andes into the Amazon region (department of Caquetá).
Chocoan presence is easily traceable by the frequent occurrence of the ending -dó ‘river’
in place names (e.g. Apartadó, Baudó, Docampadó, Opogadó). The number of Emberá
speakers in Colombia is estimated at more than 70,000, while that of the Colombian
Waunana has been calculated at ca. 8,000 (Arango and Sánchez 1998).4
3 Loukotka (1968) reports the existence of an extinct language isolate in the area of Bahı́a de
Solano (northern Chocó), which he calls Idabaez. It is based on a report concerning a short-lived
missionary adventure of the Franciscans between 1632 and 1646 (Rowe 1950a). Only one word
(tubete ‘medicine-man’) and the name of a chief (Hijuoba) were recorded, too little to attribute
a separate identity to this group on linguistic grounds only.
4 The population numbers supplied by Arango and Sánchez (1998) often seem to be inflated in
relation to figures taken from other sources. It has nothing to do with a difference in number be-
tween speakers of the language and members of the ethnic group. In many Colombian indigenous
groups the ancestral language is used by all members.
2.3 Chocoan 57
In their expansion the Emberá have settled in areas formerly occupied by other peo-
ples who became extinct during the process of colonisation. Emberá is known under
different names according to the region where it is spoken (Catı́o in central Antioquia
and Córdoba, Chamı́ in southern Antioquia and Risaralda, Saija in the area south of
Buenaventura, Sambú in the Panamanian border area). At least in one case, such a
name (Catı́o) originally designated a Chibchan people who preceded the Emberá in
the same area (central Antioquia). Whether or not there has been any continuity be-
tween the modern Chocó and extinct societies such as the Quimbaya and Sinú, re-
mains an open question.5 A connection that certainly seems promising is that between
Chocoan and the language of the Cueva people, who inhabited central and eastern
Panama at the beginning of the sixteenth century (Loewen 1963a; Constenla and Margery
1991).
Constenla and Margery (1991) point out a number of lexical and morphological
similarities between the Chocoan and the Chibchan languages, which may indicate
historical contact or a possible genetic relationship. It seems useful to observe that there
are a number of close lexical similarities with the Barbacoan languages as well, e.g.
Proto-Barbacoan (Curnow and Liddicoat 1998) *kim-ϕu ‘nose’, Guambiano (Curnow
1998) kalu, Awa Pit (Calvache Dueñas 2000) kail y ‘ear’; Proto-Chocoan (Constenla
and Margery 1991) *kẽbú ‘nose’, *k w r´ ‘ear’. Greenberg (1987) links Chocoan with
Barbacoan and Páez. Rivet’s proposal of a genetic link between Chocoan and Cariban
(Rivet 1943b) has been rejected upon several occasions (cf. Pardo and Aguirre 1993:
278–92).
The difference between the two Chocoan languages, Emberá and Waunana, is in the
first place lexical. Emberá itself is best treated as a dialect continuum. From a phonolog-
ical point of view, the Chocoan languages are complex and show a considerable amount
of internal variation. Comparative studies of the phonology of the different varieties can
be found in Loewen (1963b), and Pardo and Aguirre (1993). Llerena Villalobos (1995)
contains the views of different authors on the phonology of several Emberá varieties.
Waunana has many syllable- and word-final obstruents, whereas Emberá has a preference
for open syllables. All varieties of Chocoan present three series of stops, which can be
either voiceless aspirated/voiceless unaspirated/voiced lax (Waunana, Saija), or voice-
less plain (somewhat aspirated)/voiced tense/voiced implosive (the northern dialects of
Emberá). In addition to these basic distinctions, there is much allophonic variation; in
5 In a discussion of Rivet (1943b), Constenla and Margery (1991) refer to a short word list collected
by Bastian (1878) among possible descendants of the Quimbaya. It seems relatable to Chocoan.
Considering the late date, so long after the recorded extinction of Quimbaya, one has to take into
account the possibility that the interviewed persons were Chocoans who had migrated into the
area. A closer analysis of the place and circumstances under which this word list was collected
can possibly throw light on the matter.
Table 2.1 Overview of the consonant inventories of Chocoan languages and dialects
(adapted from Pardo and Aguirre 1993)
Atrato,
Upper San Antioquia,
Waunana, Saija Lower Baudó Juan N. Chocó
Stops Aspirated ph th kh ph th kh ph th kh ph th kh
Plain p t k ʔ p t k
Voiced b d g b d b d b d
Implosive /ð
Affricates Voiced z dž

and β
Fricatives Voiceless č s h
Vibrants r rr
Resonants l m n
Approximants w y
a nasal environment the stops generally have prenasalised allophones. The dialect of
the lower Baudó river is unique in that it presents four series in the labial and dental
articulations (voiceless aspirated/voiceless unaspirated/voiced lax/voiced implosive). A
constant feature of all the Chocoan languages is a phonemic opposition between a sim-
ple (r) and a multiple vibrant (rr), both of which occur in intervocalic and syllable-final
position. The number of affricates and fricatives varies according to the dialect. Only
the southern varieties have a phonemic glottal stop.
Table 2.1 contains a synopsis of the consonant systems of Waunana and a number of
Emberá dialects.
Constenla and Margery (1991) propose a reconstruction of Proto-Chocoan phonology.
In spite of the rather elaborate inventories of stops found today in the Chocoan varieties,
they reconstruct a stop system with voiced (b, d ) and voiceless (p, t, k) elements only.
This reconstruction is claimed to be valid for Proto-Emberá, as well as for Proto-Chocoan
in its totality.
The minimal vowel inventory found in all present-day varieties comprises three high
vowels (i, , u), two mid vowels (e, o) and one low vowel (a). In addition, Waunana has an
extra row of lowered (open) high vowels; Saija has an extra central vowel (). A nasality
opposition is relevant for all six vowels. Progressive nasal spread can affect whole words
unless checked by an opaque consonant (one of the obstruents, or rr). In an analysis of
2.3 Chocoan 59
Saija (Harms 1994), the nasal consonants are treated as allophones of b and d before a
nasal vowel. Also in Saija stress can be contrastive.
Two detailed and recent studies address the structure of Emberá varieties. Harms
(1994) deals with the Saija variety of Nariño, Cauca and Valle, whereas Aguirre Licht
(1998, 1999) describes the Chamı́ dialect of Cristianı́a (southwestern Antioquia). Llerena
Villalobos (1994) treats predication in the Chamı́ dialect of the Upper Andágueda
(interior of Chocó). In González and Rodrı́guez (2000), Hoyos Benı́tez presents a sketch
of the Napipı́ river dialect (in the Baudó hills, coast of north-central Chocó) and Mejı́a
Fonnegra a sketch of Waunana. A detailed study of loan words in Waunana by Loewen
(1960) documents language contact with Spanish.
Chocoan word forms present an agglutinating structure which is mainly based on
suffixes. Prefixes are exceptional. Nominal suffixes refer to case and number. Verbal
suffixes refer to aspect, tense, number and mood. The verbal morphology furthermore
includes suffixes for causative, directionality and other derivational categories. Auxil-
iaries and copula verbs play an important role in the grammar. There is a rich choice of
compound verbs, including some cases of object incorporation.
In a genitive construction a possessor precedes its head without any special marker.
This is also the case when the modifier is a demonstrative pronoun. Adjectives and
numerals, however, follow their heads. Personal reference is indicated by pronouns,
which precede a noun (when referring to a possessor), or a verb (when referring to
subject and object). There is no indication of personal reference in the verb form itself,
except that Waunana has a set of auxiliary verbs reflecting person-of-subject, which are
limited to stative constructions (Mejı́a Fonnegra 2000).
All Chocoan languages are ergative. The case system comprises an ergative marker
which is obligatory with agents of transitive constructions. Objects of transitive verbs
and subjects of intransitive verbs remain unmarked. The preferred constituent order is
Agent–Patient–Verb. For instance, in Waunana, we find:
(1) kh um-au su:rr bu:rr-pi-hi-m

jaguar-E deer fall-CA-PA-DV
‘The jaguar caused the deer to fall down.’ (Mejı́a Fonnegra 2000: 89)
(2) su:rr bu:rr-hi-m
deer fall-PA-DV
‘The deer fell down.’ (Mejı́a Fonnegra 2000: 89)
A special ergative marker is used with singular pronouns:
(3) mu-a p-rik binʔʔe de:-hi-m

I-E you-DA medicine give-PA-DV
‘I gave medicine to you.’ (Mejı́a Fonnegra 2000: 90)
When plurality is marked on the verb in Emberá, it refers to the agent, regardless
of whether the latter is in the ergative or in the absolutive case. Examples from Saija
(southern Emberá) are:
(4) eperã:-rã́-pa ph okh úra6 kh o-pa-či-dá

person-PL-E toasted.corn eat-HB-PA-PL
‘The Epena used to eat toasted corn.’ (Harms 1994: 98)
(5) mwarrá-rã čõ:-pa-či-dá
I son-PL fight-HB-PA-PL
‘My children used to fight.’ (Harms 1994: 103)
Emberá has a series of copula verbs used in adjectival and locative constructions. They
(lexically) encode such distinctions as number, aspect, honorific and size. In example (6),
also from Saija, či-to:n-a- is the honorific plural past stem of the copula verb. A past-
tense marker (-či-) is then still required.
(6) čuprı́a či-to:n-a-pa-či-dá

poor be.HN-PL-PA-HB-PA-PL
‘They were very poor.’ (Harms 1994: 32)
The following examples from Chamı́ illustrate a predicative construction with a

dual copula verb (7), and a locative construction with a possessive interpretation (8),
respectively.
(7) dái ẽp˜éra panú-ma

we Emberá be.D-DV
‘The two of us are Emberá.’ (Aguirre Licht 1999: 55)
(8) či wár marı́a-e ú
DC child Marı́a-L be.SG
‘The child belongs to Marı́a.’ (Aguirre Licht 1999: 56)
2.4 Yurumanguı́
Yurumanguı́ is the name of a group of Indians who inhabited the upper reaches of the
Cajambre, Nava and Yurumanguı́ rivers. These rivers descend to the Pacific Ocean from
the mountain range Los Farallones de Cali, situated southwest of the modern town of
Cali in the department of Valle del Cauca. The Yurumanguı́ were visited between 1765
and 1768 in two expeditions organised by a local prospector, Sebastián Lanchas de
Estrada. He left a diary and a list of words and expressions in the language, as well as
some interesting ethnographic notes. These materials were published in 1940 by Arcila
6 Intervocalic kh has a fricative pronunciation [x].

2.5 Cuna 61
Robledo (cf. Ortiz 1946). The fate of the Indians of Yurumanguı́ after the two visits of
the 1760s is unknown. There have been no further records of their existence.
Rivet (1942) made a study of the language data recorded by Lanchas and concluded
that Yurumanguı́ was not visibly related to any other language of the area. He proposed
a genetic relationship with the Hokan languages of North America, leaving Yurumanguı́
as the only language with such an exclusive connection outside South America. The
suggestion was explicitly followed by Greenberg (1960a, 1987: 132). Jijón y Caamaño
(1945) proposed both a Hokan and a Chibchan affinity. Many other researchers (e.g.
Kaufman 1990, Constenla Umaña 1991) prefer to treat the language as an isolate.
The data on Yurumanguı́ are very limited and probably unfit to establish genetic
connections that are not particularly close. Its simple sound system with a preference for
open syllables does not plead in favour of a North American connection. Even though
the Yurumanguı́ territory was situated along rivers descending to the Pacific, it was an
inland tribe, one of the reasons for which the group could remain unnoticed for so long.
Instead of speculating about a marine origin for the Yurumanguı́, it would probably be
more logical to consider them as survivors of one of the groups of the Cali region who
may have fled exploitation by the cruel Belalcázar and his men.
Some morphological elements can be deduced from the Yurumanguı́ data, such as a
suffix -sa that characterises the citation form of several verbs (e.g. anga-sa ‘to sleep’,
sai-sa ‘to die’, ulsa-sa ‘to take out’) and a prefix ca(i)- that occurs frequently in kinship
terms and words referring to body parts (e.g. cai-gı́ ‘mother’, cai-enaié ‘grandmother’,
cai-cona ‘head’, cai-lusa ‘hair’). Assumedly, ca(i)- may have been one of the possessive
personal reference markers. Interrogative pronouns began with c [k], as, for instance,
cana ‘what?’, and cu or co ‘where?’ (cu-na ‘where is it?’, cu-cae ‘where are you?’,
co-cobica ‘where do you come from?’, co-cuebiquen ‘where are you going?’). Constenla
Umaña (1991: 53) observes word order preferences to the effect that a genitive must
precede its head, and an adjective must follow its head, characteristics that the language
shares with Chocoan.
A lexical item worth mentioning is chuma ‘to drink’ (e.g. in chuma-é ‘drink!’). Ortiz
(1946: 25) observes that it is used in southern Colombian Spanish to denote drunkenness,
suggesting that it could be a loan from Yurumanguı́. However, the same expression is
widely used in Ecuador and northern Peru. Its most likely source is Mochica cɥ uma-
‘(get) drunk’ (cf. section 3.4). The case suggests that, notwithstanding their apparent
isolation, the Yurumanguı́ were not entirely free of contact with neighbouring speakers
of Spanish.
2.5 Cuna
In Colombia approximately 1,000 Cuna (autodenomination Tule) occupy two villages
near the Gulf of Urabá: Arquı́a (department of Chocó) and Caimán Nuevo (department of
Antioquia). A majority of the Cuna people (over 40,000) inhabit neighbouring Panama,
where they occupy an autonomous region or comarca, comprising the archipelago of
San Blas in the Caribbean and parts of the Darien mainland. The Cunas of Panama
obtained their autonomy as a result of the 1925 uprising led by the nele (‘shaman’)
Kantule.7 Notwithstanding their present homeland, the Panamanian Cuna are origi-
nally from Colombian territory. They were probably chased from the Atrato river valley
and the adjacent Pacific region by their hereditary enemies, the Emberá. On the coast
of northern Chocó a place name Juradó means ‘river of the Cuna’ in Emberá, sug-
gesting that Cuna once may have inhabited that area (cf. Rowe 1950a). During the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries they moved eastward, attacking the Spanish set-
tlements on the Sinú river (Fals Borda 1976), and westward, occupying empty areas in
the Darien region, which had been inhabited by the extinct Cueva people. In 1681 the
Darien Cuna were visited by the English ship’s doctor Lionel Wafer, who stayed with
them for a while and published a word list of the language (Friedemann and Arocha
1985).8
The Cuna language belongs to the Chibchan family, of which it constitutes a separate
branch (Constenla Umaña 1993: 119). Descriptive material on the Cuna language can be
found in Holmer (1946, 1947, 1951, 1952), Sherzer (1975, 1978) and Llerena Villalobos
(1987, 2000). The sound inventory of Cuna, which is relatively small, is subject to
morpheme-internal allophonic variation and an elaborate set of sandhi rules operating
at morpheme boundaries. The language has five vowels (a, e, i, o, u) and a series
of diphthongs or, rather, vowel sequences. Vowels are automatically long in stressed
open syllables (stress is normally on the penultimate). Extra-long vowels, analysable as
sequences of same vowels, occur as well, in particular, in monosyllabic words (Holmer
1946: 186).
Within the consonants there is a distinction between geminate (tense) and simple
(lax), as can be seen in table 2.2.
Geminate consonants only occur intervocalically; the geminate stops pp, tt, kk and
kkw are always voiceless. By contrast, the plain stops p, t, k and kw occur in all positions.
They are normally voiced between vowels or when adjacent to a voiced consonant; in
word-initial position voicing is optional. The affricate č is always voiceless and acts
7 The kantule, literally, ‘flute (kammu) man (tule)’, is the name of the central figure at girls’ puberty
rites (Sherzer 1974).
8 Loukotka (1968: 238–9) apparently treated Wafer’s Cuna word list as a specimen of the Cueva
language. The mistaken view that the Cuna are close relatives or even direct descendants of the
Cueva is still upheld in literature (e.g. Greenberg 1987: 117; Whitehead 1999: 887). Cuna lan-
guage and culture are very different from those of the unfortunate Cueva, who were exterminated
during the early years of Spanish colonisation (Romoli 1987; Constenla Umaña 1991: 47).
2.5 Cuna 63
Table 2.2 Cuna consonant inventory
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Labiovelar
Stops Simple p t k kw
Geminated pp tt kk kkw
Affricate č
Fricative s
Nasals Simple m n
Geminated mm nn
Laterals Simple l
Geminated ll
Vibrant r
Approximants w y
as the geminate counterpart of s. As a result, the two are usually not distinguished in
loan words, where č is banned from positions reserved for non-geminates. The sound r
is a trill and has no geminate counterpart. It cannot occur in word-initial position, and
neither does l, which is automatically replaced by n in that position.
The existence of separate labiovelar phonemes kw and kkw is defended in Holmer
(1947: 13; 1951: 35) and Sherzer (1975: 49), but rejected by Llerena Villalobos. The
existence of an opposition between kue ‘to be, to become’ and kw a (classifier for seed-
like objects and also a frequent multifunctional suffix) seems to favour the former
position.
Sandhi in Cuna mainly consists in the syncope of morpheme-final and word-final
vowels and syllables, sometimes accompanied by other processes, such as replacement
of l by r (9) and various types of fusion (for an account of the possible changes see
Llerena Villalobos 1987: 209–16). Particularly frequent is the suppression of final e
in polysyllabic morphemes, when followed by any other morpheme. Voicing may be
preserved, even where the triggering intervocalic context has disappeared as a result of
syncope (10).
(9) mola-makke
[mormákke]
cloth-prick
‘to sew’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 26)
(10) ape-takke

[abdákke]
want-see
‘to await’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 216)
When, as a result of syncope, the velar stops k and kk end up in syllable-final position
before another (non-velar) consonant, they are often replaced by a high vocalic glide y,
as in (11):
(11) pakke-nae-te

[payna:de ∼ pany a:de]
buy-go-TH
‘He went to buy it.’ (Llerena Villalobos 2000: 29)
In spite of its frequency, it is not always predictable whether sandhi will occur or
not. Holmer (1951: 41) observes that syncope is highly dependent on register. The use
of non-syncopated forms is often found in songs and in ceremonial speech, of crucial
importance to Cuna society. Syncopated forms are more frequently found in men’s speech
than in the speech of women and children. In some cases sandhi is obligatory, whereas
in other cases it is merely a matter of stylistic variation. The different registers of the
Cuna language have been studied by Sherzer (1983) in his work on the ethnography of
speech tradition. He observes the use of separate registers for public discourse, daily
language and specific rites, such as puberty rites. In the remaining part of this section,
the example sentences will be given in their non-syncopated forms, as they are presented
in the sources.
Cuna is an agglutinating, predominantly suffixing language. The occurrence of pre-
fixes is limited to the function of indicating a difference in verbal valency. There are
matching pairs of transitive and intransitive verbs differentiated by the initial vowel, e- for
the transitives and a- or zero for the intransitives (12)(13).9 In addition, causativisation
can be indicated by means of a prefix o- (14).
(12) kw ane e-kw ane

‘to fall (of fruit)’ ‘to drop (fruit)’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 24)
(13) a-tinne e-tinne10
‘to get tied’ ‘to tie’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 24)
(14) purkw e o-purkw e
‘to die’ ‘to kill’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 25)
Verbal morphology expressed by suffixes includes voice (passive), tense, number and
directionality. In addition to the directional suffixes, there is a set of verb stems referring
to direction. These directional verb stems can be either affixed or used as main verbs
9 This situation is reminiscent of similar paired categories in Chiquitano (see section 4.13.3).
10 Llerena Villalobos (2000: 71) gives a phonetic representation [ettı́nne] for this form, suggesting
a geminating effect of the prefix.
2.5 Cuna 65
themselves. Even when affixed, they frequently combine with the directional suffixes,
as illustrated in (11) and (15).
(15) se-tani-kki
carry-come-H
‘He came to bring it.’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 29)
Another set of stems combine the functions of bodily posture with durative aspect
and ‘to be’. They can be used either as main verbs or as affixed auxiliaries. For instance,
in (16) the stem kw iči indicates that the subject performs his action standing.
(16) we sunmakke-kw iči-t sayla ospino

this speak-stand-N chief Ospino
‘The one who stands there talking is chief Ospino.’
(Llerena Villalobos 1987: 130)
As in Chocoan, personal reference is not expressed morphologically. Subject and

object (with verbs) and possessor (with nouns) are all indicated by the same uninflected
personal pronouns an ‘first person’, pe ‘second person’ and e ‘third person’ (Llerena
Villalobos 1987: 63–4). Third-person subject is often omitted. The corresponding plural
forms are obtained by adding the universal pluraliser -mala, and dual forms by adding
-po ‘two’. The personal pronouns accompany verbs on an SOV order basis. When used
as possessive pronouns, they must precede the head noun immediately. The same holds
for the demonstrative pronouns we ‘this’ and a ‘that’. It should be observed that not all
authors agree as to the status of the personal and demonstrative pronouns. Holmer (1946,
1951) treats them as prefixes, thus expanding the prefix inventory of the language, but
makes an exception for the plural forms an-mal(a) ‘we’, pe-mal(a) ‘you (plural)’, which
are clearly independent forms. Adjectives and numerals follow their heads, again as in
Chocoan.
Cuna has several relational suffixes which together divide the oblique case functions.
For instance, -kala indicates possession, destination and beneficiary; -kine locative,
ablative, instrument and cause.
(17) an mači sayla-kala kue-oe

I son chief-DA become-F
‘My son will be a chief.’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 47)
(18) akkw a-kine makke-sa-mala
stone-IS hit-PA-PL
‘They hit him with a stone.’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 53)
Cuna has a series of numeral classifiers based mainly on shapes and measures (Sherzer
1978). Even though there are special classifiers for fish and personal adornments, there is
none for human beings. These are classified among the long objects (wala- ∼ war-). The
numerals and the stem for ‘how many?’ (-pikw a) are suffixed to the numeral classifier,
which itself follows the noun it classifies, as in (19):
(19) mači-mala wala-pikw a pe nikka

son-PL CL-how.many you have
‘How many children do you have?’ (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 67)
Cuna has a great variety of compounds, including verb–verb compounds and combina-
tions of verbs with an incorporated object; e.g. mas-kunne ‘to eat’ (from masi ‘banana’,
‘food’ and kunne ‘to chew’); kap-takke ‘to dream’ (from kape ‘to sleep’ and takke
‘to see’) (Llerena Villalobos 1987: 25–6). A more complex form is op-nake-t-akkw a
‘millstone’ (from opa ‘maize’; nake- ‘to grind’; -t ‘nominaliser’, and akkw a ‘stone’)
(Llerena Villalobos 1987: 37). There are borrowed words not only from Spanish (kannira
‘chicken’, from Sp. gallina), but also from English; e.g. mani ‘money’; wači ‘time,
hour (watch)’.
2.6 The languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta

The languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, also known as the Arhuacan lan-
guages (not to be confused with Arawakan; cf. Shafer 1962), form a group of mutually
related languages of undisputed Chibchan affiliation. There are three living languages,
which are known under several names. The Ika language is spoken in the southern part
of the mountain massif (departments of Cesar and Magdalena) by some 14,000 people
also known as Arhuaco or Bı́ntukua (Arango and Sánchez 1998). The Ika are well known
for their dynamic organisation and level of political awareness. Their principal centre
is the town of Nabusı́make (former San Sebastián de Rábago). North of the Ika, in the
highest part of the Sierra Nevada (departments of Cesar, La Guajira and Magdalena),
some 9,000 traditional Kogui or Kággaba are speakers of the Kogui language, called
Kougian in Kogui, and Peibu in Ika (Frank 1990: 41). The Kogui are an individualis-
tic people, known for their inaccessibility and religious conservatism. Their principal
ceremonial centre is Macotama. The third language of the Sierra Nevada, Damana, is
found in the eastern and northeastern part of the Sierra Nevada (departments of Cesar
and la Guajira). The approximately 2,000 speakers of Damana are less numerous than
the Ika and the Kogui. As an ethnic group they are known by no less than six dif-
ferent names: Arsario, Guamaca, Malayo, Marocasero, Sanjá or Sanká, and Wiwa;
see Trillos Amaya (1989: 15–17) for a discussion of the respective merits of all these
names.
2.6 Languages of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 67
In spite of the fact that the Sierra Nevada people have been successful in preserv-
ing their languages and traditions, they have felt the constant pressure of non-native
colonisation. In addition to the three nations mentioned so far, a fourth group the
Kankuamo, located near the town of Atánquez (Cesar) lost its identity in the twen-
tieth century. Its language, Kankuı́, closely related to Damana, is no longer spoken,
although some people claim knowledge of it (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000). In order to escape
colonisation and preserve their secluded life the Kogui have had to abandon most of the
lower strata of their original habitat. The sixteenth-century Tairona, who occupied the
area east of Santa Marta, were almost certainly part of the Arhuacan culture complex.
It is likely that survivors of the Tairona group sought refuge with the Kogui after their
defeat in 1600. It is not known to what extent the languages spoken by the Kogui and
Tairona differed. The religious leaders of the Kogui claim knowledge of a ceremonial
language called Téižua, and it is tempting to interpret this as a relict of Tairona. Land-
aburu (1994: 375) mentions that the speakers of Damana also have a sacred language
called Terruna shayama.
The survival of the cultural and linguistic identity of the Arhuacan peoples is largely
due to the strength of their traditional authorities and spiritual leaders, the mama (‘grand-
fathers’), who distribute their knowledge at ceremonial temples known as kankurua.11
They have successfully fought the influence from outside, in particular, missionary ac-
tivity. The native languages are part of the traditional values they seek to protect. At the
same time, mama refuse to take part in formal education (Trillos Amaya 2000: 750).
Some actively discourage the learning of Spanish, in particular by women. On the other
hand, multilingualism seems to be the rule in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Due to
mixed marriages and contact, many people speak several languages (especially Damana
and Kogui), and some know as many as four languages.
Since the pioneering work by Celedón (1886), Preuss (1921–5), Holmer (1953) and
Reichel-Dolmatoff (1950–1, 1989), the study of the Arhuacan languages has developed
considerably. The Ika language has been the object of studies by Frank (1985, 1990)
and Landaburu (1988, 1992, 1996b, 2000a). The Damana language is treated in Trillos
Amaya (1989, 1994, 1999, 2000). There are partial studies of Kogui in Ortiz Ricaurte
(1989, 1994, 2000) and in Olaya Perdomo (2000). Each of the three languages of the
Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta has a clearly distinct character. Among them, the Kogui
language is most conservative and particularly well suited for historical comparison
with other Chibchan languages. Its nominal derivational morphology, involving several
old classifying elements, is quite elaborate; see Ortiz Ricaurte (2000) for an inventory.
11 K nkurwa, an Ika word; cf. Landaburu (1988: 163) and Trillos Amaya (2000: 749).
Table 2.3 Overview of the consonant inventories of the Arhuacan

languages
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal
Stops Voiceless p t k ʔ****

Voiced b d g
Affricates Voiceless č
Voiced dž *
Fricatives Voiceless s š** h**
Voiced w z ž
Nasals m n [ŋ]*****
Vibrants Simple r*
Multiple rr***
Laterals l**
* not in Kogui, ** marginal or absent in Ika, *** only in Damana, **** not in
Damana, ***** only in Ika
However, many of the characteristics that are of interest in a general survey like the
present one coincide and, therefore, justify a combined treatment.
All the Arhuacan languages have voiceless and voiced stops: p, b; t, d; k, g (intervocalic
k is realised as a fricative [x] in Kogui). They also distinguish between voiceless and
voiced alveodental sibilants: s, z. The distinction between voiceless and voiced palatal
sibilants (š, ž) is found in all three languages, with the observation that š is marginal in
Ika. Furthermore, a voiceless palatal affricate č occurs in all three languages, its voiced
counterpart d ž being limited to Damana and Ika. The glottal stop (ʔ ) plays an important
role in Ika, a marginal one in Kogui, and it is absent from Damana. Conversely, the velar
or glottal fricative h is frequent in Damana and Kogui, but marginal in Ika. As far as
the vibrants and laterals are concerned, Damana stands out with three distinct sounds:
lateral l, simple vibrant r, and multiple vibrant rr. Ika only has r, and Kogui only has l.
All three languages have labial and alveodental nasals (m, n); the latter assimilates to the
articulation place of a following stop. In Ika the velar nasal ŋ can occur between vowels
at morpheme boundaries, and may thus be interpreted as a separate, albeit peripheral
phoneme. Ika has a bilabial approximant w, which is pronounced fricatively [β], except
before a. It is also found in Damana, where a fricative realisation obtains between
vowels. Its absence from the consonant inventory of Kogui (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000) seems
to be the result of different analyses; cf. Ika wak , Kogui uaka [wáxa] ‘fish’. Table 2.3
contains a combined representation of the consonant inventories of Damana, Ika and
Kogui.
Consonant clusters can be found in initial position (stop + r in Ika; sibilant + stop
in Kogui). In these cases there is often a suppressed vowel that can be restored even
synchronically. All Arhuacan languages have labiovelar consonants (kw , gw ). These are
generally not treated as separate phonemes in the available descriptions, but as consonant
clusters or consonant–vowel sequences. In Ika most syllable-final stops are disallowed,
and the number of consonant-clusters is limited. Prevocalic k in Ika often corresponds
with a glottal stop in word- or syllable-final position, e.g. nak-a ‘to come’ (perfective
participle) vs. naʔ (indefinite participle) (Landaburu 2000: 743); cf. also Ika aʔn ‘stone’,
Kogui hag-, hagi; Ika kaʔ ‘earth’, Kogui kag-, kagi.
The vowel inventory is basically the same in all three languages and consists of six
basic vowels: a, e, i, o, u and a sixth vowel , which has been described as a central
vowel [ə] in Damana and in Ika, and as an unrounded high back vowel [] in Kogui. For
Ika, Frank (1990) recognises two central vowels, high central and mid central [ə],
instead of one, but admits that their distribution is largely predictable. Damana has an
additional nasal vowel ũ of unclear status (Trillos Amaya 2000: 751). Vocalic nasality
is also found in Kogui, where it is limited to a small number of instances (e.g. hay˜ú
‘coca’), including very few minimal pairs (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000: 760). Stress is largely
predictable in Damana and Ika, but distinctive in Kogui.
The morphophonology and morphosyntax of the Arhuacan languages stand out on
account of their great complexity and highly unusual character. In the context of this
chapter we can only mention a few examples, referring to the literature mentioned above
for a fuller picture. The Arhuacan languages are mainly verb-final with a preferred word
order of subject–object–verb. Adjectives follow the substantive they modify, whereas
genitive modifiers and possessors precede it. In Ika many adjectives in postnominal
modifier position are followed by a nominalised verb kaw-a ‘seeming’ in a sort of
adjective phrase reminiscent of a relative clause.
(20) dže k kaw-a

water cold seem-N
‘cold water’ (Frank 1990: 32)
Nouns and noun phrases can receive case markers, as illustrated by the following
example from Damana, where -že indicates genitive and -rga allative case:
(21) ra-n-že ade te-rga

I-EU-G father field-AL
‘My father is in the field (has gone to the field).’ (Trillos Amaya 2000: 753)
Pronominal possession is often expressed by a genitive phrase. In addition, prefixed

possessive markers indicating personal reference also occur. Prefixed possessives are fre-
quently found with kinship terms, but not exclusively. Kogui, for instance, has two ways
to express the notion ‘my house’, with a prefix and by means of a genitive construction;
see example (22). The full word form for ‘house’, hu-ı́, contains a petrified suffix element
-ı́, which can be suppressed both in compounds (e.g. hú-kala ‘roof of house’) and in
inflected forms (e.g. na-hú).12
(22) na-hú na-hı́ hu-ı́

1P.SG-house 1.SG-G house-LS
‘my house’ ‘my house’ (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000: 765)
Subject and object are not obligatorily marked for case. Nevertheless, Ika has a locative
case marker -seʔ, which can be added to the agent–subject of a transitive verb in an
ergative function. This marker can remove doubts as to which constituent plays the
role of subject in a transitive construction. It is used, for instance, when the subject
stands immediately before the verb, either because there is no overtly expressed object,
or because the prevalent SOV order has been modified for pragmatic or other reasons.
The marker -seʔ is frequently found in combination with a topicalising suffix -ri. For an
extensive discussion of the use of both suffixes see Frank (1990: 115–34).
(23) maikəən per -ri ∅-kəə-g-a na gw iadž ina-seʔʔ-ri

three dog-TO 3O-DA-eat-N be/past13 puma-E-TO
‘The puma ate his three dogs.’ (Frank 1990: 116)
Verbs in Arhuacan languages often exhibit a set of competing stems which can differ
in their final consonants and internal vowels. Several types of nominalised and non-
finite verb forms are derived from these stems. The morphosyntax of the Arhuacan
languages is furthermore characterised by an extensive use of auxiliary verbs, which
may appear in strings following a main verb. The choice of the appropriate form both for
non-independent main verbs and for auxiliaries depends on the auxiliary that follows.
In Ika the verb phrase is regularly ended by a suffix indicating the epistemic status of
the sentence (validation), whereas in Kogui prefixes fulfill such a role.
Auxiliary verbs may carry the morphology that cannot be accomodated on the main
verb, but in other cases their presence is merely pragmatic or serves the purpose of
refining temporal and aspectual distinctions. A characteristic case in which a morpho-
logical element is transferred from the main verb to an auxiliary is negation. In Ika the
negative marker -uʔ is suffixed to the root of a main verb, creating some sort of negative
participle; the latter is followed by a form of nan ‘to be’. In example (24) the main verb
12 The bound form hu- coincides with a widespread Chibchan root for ‘house’. The conservative
character of Kogui appears clearly in the Chibchan reconstructions presented in Constenla
Umaña (1993: 111–13). For the suffix -ı́ see also Constenla Umaña (1981: 362).
13 The element na has received two interpretations, (1) that of a ‘distal’ past marker (Frank 1990:
63–4); and (2) that of a nominalised form of the verb nan ‘to be’. According to Landaburu
(2000), it acts as an auxiliary verb in indefinite past forms.
is čwa ‘to see’; when -uʔ is attached to it, it becomes č-uʔ. Before the suffix -w- the
appropriate stem for the auxilary verb ‘to be’ is nar-.14
(24) č-uʔʔ nar-w-in

see-NE be-1S.SG-DV
‘I do not see.’ (Landaburu 2000: 743)
The expression in (24) can be made more complex by adding a form of the auxiliary
verb u/aw- ‘to do’, ‘to have’, as in (25). The negative participle of u/awis a-uʔ:
(25) čwa a-uʔʔ nar-w-in

see have-NE be-1S.SG-DV
‘I have not seen.’ (Landaburu 2000: 743)
Personal reference marking in the Arhuacan languages is remarkable for the num-
ber of syntactic roles that can be expressed. In Ika Landaburu (1992: 12; 2000a: 740)
distinguishes as many as five formal possibilities. These are subject, direct object (ac-
cusative), indirect object (dative), beneficiary and possession acted upon. Non-subject
personal reference is indicated by means of prefixes. The latter consist of more or less
constant elements accompanied by an additional marker identifying the syntactic role
(dative, beneficiary, etc.). Fusion of the respective elements occurs. The non-subject roles
can be expressed in combination with the subject role, but they cannot be combined with
each other within a single verb form. The distinction between non-subject roles in the
verb form is all the more important due to the fact that many Arhuacan verbs are im-
personal, their main participant being encoded as accusative, dative, etc. Example (26)
from Damana illustrates the combined use of subject and accusative markers.
(26) m-n-paš-ka
2S.SG-1O.SG-beat-FM.2S.SG
‘You beat me.’ (Trillos Amaya 1989: 54)
The subject marker in (26) is a prefix, but it is accompanied in Damana by a suffix -ka
(-ga after monosyllabic roots beginning with k, z or ž), which plays an accessory role
in the identification of the subject. Its primary function is that of a marker of a factual
mood, indicating the general validity of the stated event. It varies according to person and
number, the form -ka being limited to third-person subjects and second-person-singular
subjects. Dative marking with an impersonal verb (ž n- ‘to dream’) is illustrated in (27).
14 In Landaburu’s analysis, the reference of -w- to a first-person-singular subject is not the primary,
but rather a derived function of that suffix, which he defines as an ‘intralocutive’. It denotes a
combination of speaker–subject and present tense. After roots ending in -k/-ʔ its allomorph is
-kw -; see example (30) below.
The choice of the prefix mi- identifies it as dative, not accusative; there is no special
marker for third-person subject.
(27) mi-n-žn-ga
2.SG.DA-EU-dream-FM.3S
‘You dream.’ (lit. ‘Dream comes to you.’) (Trillos Amaya 1989: 54)
A comparable example from Kogui (28) shows the use of a special dative marker -k-,
which follows the person marker. The impersonal verb is nuni ‘to want’. The initial n
of the stem changes to l according to a frequent morphophonemic rule of the Kogui
language.
(28) bigı́ža na-k-lúni

pineapple 1O.SG-DA-want
‘I want a pineapple.’ (Ortiz Ricaurte 2000: 774)
Accusative marking with an impersonal verb can be observed in example (29) from
Ika. It is followed by (30), which illustrates a verb form with a beneficiary marker.
(The auxiliary verb nuk (∼nuʔ ) ‘to be’ in combination with the nominalisation in - n
expresses a progressive form.) The future tense in Ika is expressed by an impersonal
auxiliary verb -ŋgw a. It obligatorily takes an accusative object marker that refers to the
actor. The auxiliary verb -ŋgw a is preceded by the imperfective participle (in - n) of the
verb it dominates (31).
(29) n-aʔʔtikuma na
1O.SG-forget be/past
‘I forgot.’ (Frank 1990: 9)
(30) akusa win-i-zas-n nuʔʔ-kw -in [Spanish aguja ‘needle’]
needle 3O.PL-BN-save-N be-1S.SG-DV
‘I am saving needles for them.’ (Frank 1990: 71)
(31) pinna dž una was-n n-ŋŋgw a
all kind chase-N 1O.SG-F
‘I will chase all kinds (of animals).’ (Frank 1990: 61)
The interplay of prefixes and suffixes referring to person of subject is illustrated in

(32) by means of the factual (habitual) mood paradigm of the verb buš- ‘to spin’ in
Damana (Trillos Amaya 1989: 87):
(32) 1S.SG buš-uga ‘I spin’

1S.PL buš-kurra ‘we spin’
2S.SG m-buš-ka ‘you (sg.) spin’
2S.PL m-buš-kw a ‘you (pl.) spin’
3S.SG buš-ka ‘he/she spins’
3S.PL yi-buš-ka ‘they spin’
The Damana affixes for virtual (non-realised) and real (realised) mood are inserted
between the root and the variable suffix, as in buš- n-kurra ‘we may spin’ or m -buš-
an-ka ‘you spun’.
In Ika the interplay of subject-marking prefixes and corresponding suffixes that also
convey such meaning is even more subtle, because the latter are selected on the basis
of deictic distinctions involving both personal reference and tense. Further temporal
distinctions are made explicit by variation in the stems to which the suffixes can be
attached. For a detailed discussion of this complicated part of Ika verbal morphology
see Landaburu (1988, 1992, 2000a); cf. also Frank (1990: 63–6).
The system of Damana and Ika pronouns and object markers is based on the distinction
of three persons and singular or plural number. At the least in its set of possessive markers
Kogui expresses a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural. The
form s n- ‘our (exclusive)’ reflects a Chibchan first-person-plural marker not recorded in
the other Arhuacan languages.15 Its inclusive counterpart na-wi- is the regularly derived
plural of the first-person-singular marker na-. In other contexts the element s n- is used
indistinctively both for inclusive and exclusive (33).
(33) gaiká-li ni ubı́ša sn-ka-lái

snow.mountain-L water much 1O.PL-DA-be
‘On the snow-capped mountain we have a lot of water.’
(Olaya Perdomo 2000: 782)
Some valency-changing processes show a clear affinity with other Chibchan lan-
guages (cf. section 2.5 on Cuna). It is the case in example (34), where u- is a transitiviser,
and (35), where a- is an intransitiviser.16 The examples are from Kogui. (The substi-
tution of stem-initial consonants is part of a regular morphophonemic alternation; cf.
also (28).)
15 Constenla Umaña (1981: 430) reconstructs *sẽ´ʔ for Proto-Chibchan on the basis of the
Talamancan (Costa Rican) languages Bribri, Cabécar and Térraba.
16 A Chibchan language of Central America (Honduras) that uses the prefix u- as a transitiviser is
Paya (see Holt 1989).
(34) náši ‘to come’ u-láši ‘to bring’ (Olaya Perdomo 2000: 781)
(35) gw áši ‘to kill’ a-kw áši ‘to kill oneself’
(Constenla Umaña 1990: 117)
In Ika causative derivation can be achieved by adding a suffix -s- to the root, usually
in combination with further morphophonemic adaptations; cf. (36) and (37). Another
strategy consists in raising the root-vowel with simultaneous replacement of root-final
-n- by -ŋ- (Frank 1990: 66–7); cf. (38).
(36) kmma- ‘to sleep’ kmma-s- ‘to cause to sleep’

(37) aruk- ‘to go up’ aru-s- ‘to lift’
(38) čon- ‘to enter’ ŋ-
čuŋ ‘to let someone enter’
Also in relation to Ika, Frank (1990: 55) lists a series of transitive verbs differing
semantically by the shape of the object that is handled (39). Similarly, intransitive verbs
referring to position may differ according to the shape of the subject (40).
(39) gaka ‘to place long and thin objects’

sa ‘to place three-dimensional objects’
pan ‘to place flat objects’
čoʔʔ ‘to place things with an upright position’
(40) aʔʔ-gei-kw a ‘to be in (of long objects)’
aʔʔ-pn-kw a ‘to be in (of flat objects)’
aʔʔ-ni-kw a ‘to be in (of three-dimensional objects)’
aʔʔ-nuk ‘to be in (of upright objects)’
Arhuacan languages have fully developed numeral systems formed on a decimal basis.
As Constenla Umaña (1988) has pointed out, some of the Arhuacan numerals contain
petrified classifier elements also found in other Chibchan languages. One of them is
*kw a2 ‘seed’, for instance, in Kogui máigw a ‘three’, kúgw a ‘seven’, úgw a ‘ten’, múžugw a
‘twenty’.
The Arhuacan languages have several lexical borrowings from Spanish, some of
which are quite old. An example is Damana turruma, Kogui tuluma, from Spanish
turma, an early term for ‘potato’ that was widely used in New Granada. Damana galina
[galy ina] ‘chicken’ (Spanish gallina) and paka ‘cow’ (Spanish vaca) are evident loans.
In spite of their isolation the Kogui have adopted a few characteristic loan words, such
as kálta ‘book’, ‘paper’ (from Spanish carta) and gw ı́bu ‘egg’ (from Spanish huevo).
A very important cultural term is kw ı́bulu or kw ı́bulo, which refers to the traditional
Kogui village. Although it is perfectly adapted to Kogui pronunciation, it does not seem
far-fetched to derive its etymology from Spanish pueblo ‘village’.
2.7 Chimila 75
2.7 Chimila
The Chimila language (or Ette Taara) is spoken by the descendants of a once numerous
population (Ette Ennaka) inhabiting the space situated between the lower Magdalena
river to the west and southwest, and the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and the Cesar
river to the east. The strategic centre of the Chimila homeland was formed by the
Ariguanı́ river valley, which constitutes the border of the modern departments of Cesar
and Magdalena. During the conquest the Chimila were much feared because of their
use of poisoned arrows. They were referred to as ‘Caribs’ (Hemming 1978: 70; cf.
section 2.1). In reality, the Chimila speak a language of the Chibchan family.
About 1720 the Chimila people, exasperated by the excesses of colonisation, began
a guerrilla war that was conducted with great cruelty on both sides (Chaves et al. 1995:
127–34). Although this war reached its highest intensity in the eighteenth century, ruth-
less violence against the Chimila aiming at their extermination continued until well into
the twentieth century. In 1990 the last traumatised and largely assimilated survivors were
assigned a small reservation called Issa Oristuna, near San Angel (Magdalena), which
harbours some eighty families (Trillos Amaya 1997: 25). The language, which had been
practised in secret for a long time, is now spoken more openly, but field research is still
difficult due to the Chimila’s understandable distrust of outsiders. The total number of
Chimila is estimated at 900 (Arango and Sánchez 1998).
In 1947 the anthropologist Reichel-Dolmatoff published an article on the Chimila
language, summarised in Meléndez Lozano (2000a). The information on Chimila con-
tained in the present study is based on Trillos Amaya (1997). She provides a very good
and honest impression of the language, admitting that many of the analyses offered
must remain provisional for lack of data. Trillos Amaya respected the restrictions set by
the community upon her fieldwork in the expectation of a more open attitude that may
develop over the coming years.
The phonology of Chimila still retains several unsolved questions. According to Trillos
Amaya (1997: 66), its five vowels (a, e, i, o, u) can be short, long, interrupted (glottalised)
and aspirated. Monosyllabic words ending in a long vowel can bear contrastive tone, e.g.
tó: ‘maraca (a musical instrument)’ with rising tone, versus tò: ‘heart’ with descending
tone. Polysyllabic words contain a tone-bearing syllable of which the tone appears to
be partly determined by the nature of a following consonant (descending tone before
geminates and r, rising tone before non-geminate obstruents). In Trillos Amaya’s study,
tonal distinctions are not indicated except for a few relevant pairs in the phonological
chapter (Trillos Amaya 1997: 75–6).
The consonant inventory comprises a series of voiceless oral stops and affricates (p,
t, č, k), a prenasalised series (m b, n d, n d ž , ŋg) and a nasal series (m, n, ny , ŋ). In addition,
there is a voiced stop (g) and a voiced affricate (d ž ). All these oppositions are fairly
well exploited, e.g. ka: ‘breast’, ga: ‘excrement’, ŋga: ‘wing, feather’, ŋà: ‘to hoist up’,
ŋá: ‘to lie down’. All the velar sounds have labiovelar counterparts (kw , gw , ŋw , ŋgw )
The remaining consonants are a lateral l, a preglottalised tap r, the laminal and velar
fricatives s and h, and an approximant w. Syllable-initial consonant clusters may consist
of a stop + r. In clusters after velar consonants r is pronounced as a uvular trill.
Most consonants (not the prenasalised ones, and not h, r, w) have tense or geminate
counterparts. Gemination appears to be an automatic process, occurring after a stressed
short vowel. Nevertheless, gemination is sometimes found more than once in a word
(even in consecutive syllables), and Trillos Amaya mentions the case of suffix pairs in
which gemination appears to be contrastive, as in (41):
(41) ki:ro-tikw i ki:ro-tikkw i

chicken-PL.DI chicken-not.fully.grown
‘small chickens’ ‘small chick’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 75)
The interaction between gemination, vowel length, accent and tone in Chimila is a
field that requires further investigation. Some of these aspects are discussed in Malone
(1997–8).
As might be expected, Chimila shares a number of characteristics with the related
languages of the Arhuacan group, with which it has been in contact over centuries. As
in Ika, some verbs exhibit internal stem variation depending on the affixes with which
they are combined.
(42) kenne-riddž a konni-ddž a

eat-AG eat-PS.N
‘eater’ ‘food’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 83–4)
Most conspicuous among these similarities is the use of a set of auxiliary verbs, which
follow nominalised or otherwise non-finite main verbs. The selection of a particular
auxiliary verb (here glossed as ‘be’ or ‘do’) may reflect tense or mood distinctions,
but in many cases there appears to be no clear semantic distinction that determines the
choice. The matter requires further research. Finite verbs must either be specified as
declarative or interrogative. The following examples illustrate the use of auxiliaries and
the declarative marker -(t)te.
∅-tte
(43) hoggw a17 ŋa-∅
bathe be-3S.SG-DV
‘He bathes.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 157)
17 Trillos Amaya suggests that the final vowel in a full verb, such as hoggw a, has an aspectual
function. Note that verbs such as hoggw a in constructions with an auxiliary verb must also
be nominalised. If not, it may be necessary to reinterpret the auxiliary verb stems as suffixes.
Considering that the relevant information is imprecise and insufficient, we will not represent
aspect and (covert) nominalisation in our glosses.
2.7 Chimila 77
Table 2.4 Possessive modifiers in Chimila (from Trillos

Amaya 1997: 126)
Singular Dual Plural
1 pers. naʔ na na-ra

2 pers. maʔ ma ma-ra
3 pers. nih ni nih -ne
∅-tte
(44) hoggw a dž a-∅
bathe do-3S.SG-DV
‘He will bathe’. (Trillos Amaya 1997: 157)
When directly affixed to a noun, the declarative marker -(t)te indicates that the noun
is used predicatively (45).
ŋŋa-te
(45) iŋ
smoke-DV
‘It is smoke.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 161)
In contrast to the Arhuacan languages, Chimila is predominantly or entirely suffixing.

The language has a set of possessive personal reference markers, which are prefix-like
elements encoding the distinctions of first, second and third person, as well as singular,
dual and plural number.
In spite of the syntactic limitations, there are arguments to consider these possessive
markers as free forms, rather than as prefixes. As a matter of fact, a numeral can intervene
between a possessive marker and the noun it modifies (46).18
(46) naʔ m buh na oggw e

1P.SG two child
‘my two children’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 141)
Possessive constructions are obtained by the juxtaposition of a possessive marker, the

possessed and the possessor in that order. No genitive case marker occurs.
(47) nih oggw e taki:riddž aʔ o

3P.SG child chief
‘the son of the chief’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 127)
In the verb personal reference and number are indicated by means of suffixes. These
suffixes bear no formal relationship to the possessive markers. There are different sets
18 Compare the case of the Araucanian possessive markers in chapter 5.

Table 2.5 Personal reference markers for subject and object in Chimila (based on
Trillos Amaya 1997: 123, 125, 163)
Subject markers
Subject markers in negation Object markers
Singular Dual Plural Singular Non-singular Singular Non-singular
1 -n -ŋ kre -ŋ kre-m bre -na -na-ŋ kre -nu -nu-ra

2 -uka -uka-ra -uka-ra-m bre -ka -ka-ra -dž u ∼ -ču -dž u-ra
3 -Ø -(n)ne -(n)ne-m bre -Ø -ne -wi -(n)ne
for the identification of subject and object, respectively. In addition, there is a sep-
arate set of personal reference markers used to indicate the subject in a negation.
Table 2.5 represents the three sets of verbal personal markers that refer to subject and
object.
As can be seen in table 2.5, the category plural for subject markers is systematically
distinguished from the dual by the addition of a plural marker -m bre. This marker -m bre
is also used to indicate plural with nouns. It can be left out, so that the difference between
plural and dual is not always overtly expressed. In the third person plural the order of
the suffixes represented in table 2.5 is not always respected, for instance, in dž uŋŋa-
m
bre-nne-tte ‘they (more than two) walk’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 123). The elements
-ŋkre, -ra and -(n)ne are non-singular markers, with functions limited to the pronominal
system.
Object markers have only been found in verbs with a third-person subject (49). The
scarce examples of use recorded so far do not yet allow a full appreciation of the
possibilities. In negative sentences personal reference markers referring to first- and
second-person subject are attached to the adverbial negation marker d ž umma, not to the
verb itself (50). By contrast, the third-person non-singular marker -ne is attached to the
main verb, not to the negative adverb d ž umma (51).
(48) kenne ka-uka-ra-tte

eat be-2S-D-DV
‘The two of you eat.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 124)
∅-tte
(49) če:-ri seddž a koʔ -dž u-∅
money-DA give be-2O-3S.SG-DV
‘He gave you money.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 109)
(50) dž umma-ka dž uŋ ŋŋa
not-2S.SG walk
‘You do not walk.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 163)
2.7 Chimila 79
(51) dž umma dž uŋ

ŋŋa-ne
not walk-3S.PL
‘They do not walk.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 163)
The noun morphology of Chimila displays an elaborate inventory of case markers and
postpositions with a particular emphasis on spatial distinctions and types of association.
Strings of case markers referring to spatial relations occur; in (52), for instance, the case
marker -ŋ a refers to ‘action within a space’, whereas -(s)sa implies a previous motion
into that space.
(52) ummaŋ ŋenta ka-∅∅-tte assu n diddž o-ŋ

ŋa-ssa
become.quiet be-3S-DV only rain-L-AL
‘He only became quiet under the rain.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 115)
Both subject and object can remain unmarked in a constituent order which is predom-
inantly SVO. An ergative–dative case marker -ri is available for the purpose of marking
off the actor of a transitive verb from its object, as illustrated in (53). However, in (49) we
have seen that -ri can also mark a direct object, when there is no independent expression
of either the subject or a dative. The matter requires further investigation.
(53) noggw e-ri assu tukku wi-∅∅-tte kawi-manta

he-E only see do-3S-DV cabildo-LS
‘He only saw the cabildo.’19 (Trillos Amaya 1997: 108)
Chimila has a set of numeral classifiers: gwa- for round objects; ti:- for long objects;
kra:- for corncobs; m bri:- for animals and clothing. As in Cuna, these are prefixed to
the numerals.
(54) ti:-muh na
CL-two
‘two pencils, bananas, etc.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 139)
(55) m bri:-mah na
CL-three
‘three animals, clothes, etc.’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 139)
The Chibchan affinity with Chimila is not only clearly evident from its lexicon, but
also from its frequent use of the lexical suffixes -kw a/-gw a and -kra; for instance, in
kak-kw a ‘mouth’, wa:-kw a ‘eye’, rug-gw a ‘neck’; ha:-kra ‘head’, kik-kra ‘bone’. These
19 Cabildo: traditional administrative board of an indigenous community. The element -manta is

translated as ‘skin’ (Trillos Amaya 1997: 86–8). Its function in this particular context remains
obscure.
elements reflect the classifiers *kua2 ‘seed’ and *kara3 ‘bone, stick’ reconstructed for
the proto-language by Constenla Umaña (1990).20
2.8 Barı́
The Barı́ or Dobocubı́ occupy an area at the border between Colombia and Venezuela
corresponding to the southern part of the Sierra de Perijá (department of Norte de
Santander in Colombia and state of Zulia in Venezuela). Together with their neighbours
to the north, the Cariban Yukpa, the Barı́ were traditionally referred to as Motilones
‘shaven heads’. Due to their hostile attitude towards outsiders and, among other things,
their resistance to oil prospectors working in the area, the Barı́ were known as Motilones
bravos ‘wild Motilones’ in contrast to the Yukpa, who were called mansos ‘tame’. The
Barı́ inhabit thirteen villages on the Colombian side, as well as a number of villages
in Venezuela. In Colombia their number is estimated at approximately 3,500 (Arango
and Sánchez 1998). The Barı́ language, which belongs to the Chibchan family, has only
recently begun to be studied (Mogollón Pérez 2000). The vocabularies of Catarroja and
Gutiérrez published by Rivet and Armellada (1950) have only a few words in common
with the more recently collected data.
Like its Proto-Chibchan ancestor, Barı́ is a tonal language. Two basic tone levels,
low and non-low, are distinguished. The non-low tone is subject to some subtonemic
variation. No examples are provided of tonal contrast between vowels that are part of
the same root.
(56) kábbú ‘he sleeps’ kàbbù ‘heron’ (Mogollón Pérez 2000: 724)
Noun phrases display special internal tonal patterns, which suggest grammatical func-
tions such as ‘genitive’ or ‘subordination’. No further grammatical markers specifying
the relation appear to be used. Modifiers precede the modified in a genitive construction,
but follow their heads in a noun–adjective combination.
(57) čı́dúú ábbı́

[čı̄dū: ābbı̄]
snake blood
‘snake blood’ (Mogollón Pérez 2000: 724)
(58) čı́dúú àbbı̀ı̀
[čı̄dū: àbbı̄:̀]
snake big
‘big snake’ (Mogollón Pérez 2000: 724)
20 The superscript numbers 2 and 3 in the reconstructed forms refer to mid and high tone, respec-
tively (Constenla Umaña 1989: 37).
The Barı́ language distinguishes six oral (a, e, i, , o, u) and six nasal vowels (ã, ẽ, ˜
, ˜,
õ, ũ). Long vowels are interpreted by Mogollón Pérez as sequences of same vowels and
tone-bearing segments, rather than as single phonemes. Barı́ has a small, asymmetrical
consonant inventory, which consists of four stops (b, t, d, k), two fricatives (h, s), one true
nasal (m), a multiple vibrant (rr), and two variable resonants. In Mogollón Pérez (2000)
these resonants were classified as nasals (n, ny ). However, a fully nasal realisation ([n],
[ny ]) is found in one specific environment only, namely, in word-initial position before a
nasal vowel. Elsewhere, they are either oral ([r], [y]), or slightly nasalised. As a matter of
fact, the least environmentally influenced allophones of the two resonant phonemes are
non-nasal; e.g. in /ny inu/ [yiru] ‘yesterday’. The opposition of the alveodental resonant
[r], which is found between two oral vowels, and the multiple vibrant rr is that of
two vibrants; e.g. /kinu/ [kiru] ‘to spin’ versus /kiru/ [kirru] ‘to rub with tobacco.’
Alveodental consonants have palatal allophones before high front vowels, as could be
seen in examples (57) and (58).
Geminate consonants and consonant clusters of two consonants occur frequently at
syllable boundaries, and most combinations are permitted. Within a syllable the only
consonant cluster found occasionally is that of a stop followed by an alveodental resonant,
e.g. [tr], in syllable-initial position. This fact and the contrast between the two vibrants
are both Chibchan and northern Colombian areal features shared by Barı́.
2.9 The Muisca language

The importance of the Muisca or Mosca language (in Muisca: muysc cubun [mw sk
kuβun] ‘language of the Indians’) in the sixteenth century can be measured from the
amount of descriptive material prepared in the colonial period. In 1538 the high plain
of Boyacá and Cundinamarca was densely populated by speakers of Muisca and related
dialects. In spite of the fact that the Spanish colonial authorities and clergy were aware of
the linguistic diversity in the area, they chose Muisca as a so-called ‘general language’
(lengua general ) to be used for administration and evangelisation. A chair for Muisca was
established in Santafé de Bogotá in 1582. The first chairholder was a parish priest called
Gonzalo Bermúdez (González de Pérez 1980: 60–75). In the meantime, the practicability
of Muisca as a general language remained a matter of contention. Apparently, history
put the opponents in the right, as the language died out during the eighteenth century.
According to Uricoechea (1871: xliv), the language was no longer spoken in 1765.
The degree of linguistic diversity found in the Muisca realm becomes evident from
observations of chroniclers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Unfortunately,
almost nothing is known about varieties spoken in the Boyacá and Cundinamarca high-
lands, other than Muisca itself. The only specimen of Duit, the language of Boyacá, is a
fragment of a catechism published and analysed by Uricoechea (1871), who reports that
this was only a sample of a larger document to which he had access. He, furthermore,
affirms that it was written in the language of Duitama, which in his opinion was different
from that of Tunja, the capital of Boyacá. It is unfortunate that the Duit document used
by Uricoechea was never located after his death.
Uricoechea’s Duit was a distinct language, clearly related to Muisca, but probably
not on a level of mutual intelligibility. An interesting element of Duit is the frequent
occurrence of r, a sound rarely found in Muisca. Correspondences between Duit r, on
the one hand, and Muisca s [s, š] or z [ts ], on the other, occur; e.g. Duit sir, Muisca sis(y)
[sis() ∼ šis()] ‘this’; Duit pcuare, Muisca pquahaza [pkw ahats a] ‘lightning’. Constenla
Umaña (1984: 87) furthermore observes a coincidence of dialectal r with standard
Muisca ch [ty ], as can be distilled from place names and local borrowings of the native
language into Spanish. For instance, in the Spanish–Muisca vocabulary contained in
the anonymous manuscript no. 158 of the Colombian National Library (see below) the
Muisca version of the name of the town of Zipaquirá is given as Chicaquicha.21 As we
shall see, the treatment of r is also an element of differentiation between the sources for
the Muisca language itself.
Another interesting observation made by Uricoechea (1871: xlii) concerns the ex-
istence around 1600 of a mixed dialect of Spanish and Muisca, which he calls jitano
(‘gipsy’). He provides a few examples, such as hicabai for ‘horse’ (Spanish caballo)
and zebos for ‘lover’ (Spanish mancebo). Unfortunately, no source is mentioned for
Uricoechea’s jitano data.
2.9.1 Sources
Of the many grammatical studies dealing with the Muisca language mentioned in the
historical sources only three are known to have survived. One of these studies is the
work of a Dominican and scholar of the Muisca language, Bernardo de Lugo (1619);
the two others have no known authors. Lugo’s work has been the subject of a modern
facsimile edition with an introduction by Alvar (1978). The two anonymous gram-
mars belong to a different tradition from Lugo’s. One of them was sent to Madrid in
1789 by Mutis (cf. section 2.2) and was kept as manuscript no. 2922 in the Library
of the Royal Palace in Madrid, together with a Spanish–Muisca vocabulary (cf. Ostler
1999). Most of the contents of the Royal Palace Library grammar were published by
Lucena Salmoral (1967, 1970); the vocabulary by Quesada Pacheco (1991). A much
earlier publication by Quijano Otero (1883) was apparently based on a copy of the
same manuscript that remained in Colombia until it was lost. In 1970, after its partial
publication by Lucena Salmoral, the manuscript of the Royal Palace Library grammar
21 The ending -quirá, so far unexplained, is highly frequent in Boyacá and Cundinamarca (e.g.
Chiquinquirá, Moniquirá, Raquirá). As Constenla Umaña points out, it has often mistakenly
been identified with the word quica (also recorded as quyca) ‘place’, ‘town’.
became lost as well, while being transferred from Madrid to Salamanca (López Garcı́a
1995: 20).22 The other anonymous work is kept as manuscript no. 158 in the National
Library of Colombia. Apart from a grammar, it contains an extensive vocabulary and
religious texts. It is available in print in an edition of the Instituto Caro y Cuervo
(González de Pérez 1987) and certainly constitutes the most important extant source on
Muisca.
The authorship of the two anonymous grammars has been the object of much spec-
ulation. A candidate for the authorship of either one of the manuscripts is the Italian
Jesuit Joseph Dadey (1576–1660), known in his time as the foremost authority on the
Muisca language. The history of the three Muisca grammars and their interrelations is
discussed in González de Pérez (1980, 1987); see also Ostler (1994).
Several works on Muisca date from the nineteenth century. Uricoechea’s Muisca
grammar and vocabulary of 1871 is based on a compilation of elements from the two
anonymous manuscripts. Adam (1878) presents an interesting study of Muisca word
formation and syntax, based on Uricoechea, and Middendorf (1892) a grammatical
overview of the language. Acosta Ortegón (1938) is useful because it contains an exten-
sive Muisca–Spanish vocabulary. It, however, must be used with utmost care due to the
author’s highly personal and erratic interpretation of the symbols found in the original
Muisca sources. For the following succinct discussion of the Muisca facts, we will refer
to and draw from a substantial body of linguistic literature that appeared in the 1980s
and 1990s. Constenla Umaña (1984) presents a modern interpretation of the Muisca
sound system. Morphological and syntactic aspects of the Muisca language are treated
in Ostler (1993, 1994) and, in a historical-comparative perspective, in Ostler (2000).
Translated and annotated specimens of colonial texts written in the Muisca language
are found in Ostler (1995, 1999). A further study dealing with Muisca is López Garcı́a
(1995).
2.9.2 Phonology
The orthography that was developed for Muisca during the colonial period diverged in
several respects from general Spanish usage in accordance with the necessities of the
language. For the recovery and interpretation of the sounds of Muisca, Lugo’s work is of
particular importance. It contains three symbols not found in the anonymous grammars:
<c−h>, < h> and <>. Lugo’s symbol <c−h> is represented as <ch> in the other
sources.23 A passage in the National Library grammar (González de Pérez 1987: 72)
suggests that the sound it stood for was not a palatal affricate as in Spanish, but rather a
22 Thanks to Christiane Dümmler, a photocopied version of the manuscript is in existence.

23 Except for the section on numerals in the National Library manuscript (González de Pérez 1987:
161–3). This section seems to have been directly inspired by Lugo’s work.
palatalised stop [ty ] (cf. Constenla Umaña 1984: 75–9).24 It should be noticed, however,
that Lugo uses both the symbols <c−h> and <ch> (cf. Ostler 1995: 134). In spite of
some obvious misspellings and inconsistencies in the use of the two symbols at issue,
Lugo shows a clear preference for the use of <ch> before (e.g. in chi- ‘our’, chiê
‘we’) and of <c−h> before any other vowel (e.g. in c−huenha ‘bad’, c−hq ‘priest’).
Ostler notes a number of exceptions in which <c−h> precedes , such as c−hic−hua ‘to
learn’ and c−hibc−ha ‘Chibcha’. Still, it may be argued that <ch> could have been a palatal
affricate (as in Spanish), whereas <c−h> represented some other sound, for instance, [ty ].
Lugo’s symbol <h> is replaced by <z> in the anonymous grammars (where Lugo’s
c−huenha becomes chuenza). It probably represented an alveodental affricate [ts ], as
Constenla Umaña (1984: 79–85) argues.25
Lugo’s symbol <> represented a vowel reportedly intermediate between [e] and [i].
On the basis of comparative considerations and the phonetic descriptions of the time,
Constenla Umaña (1984: 93–7) assigns it the value of a high central vowel []. In the other
sources <> has been replaced by <y>; thus, Lugo’s c−hq becomes chyquy.26 When
</y> follows a labial consonant in writing, a symbol is always inserted; e.g. in
musca / muysca ‘human being’. It may have represented a non-syllabic labial element
subsidiary to the realisation of the high central vowel (/mska/ [mw ska]). The fact that
Lugo chose to use a special symbol for the high central vowel turned out felicitous in
that it avoids confusion with the high front vowel [i] and its non-syllabic correlate [y].
Both could be written as well as <y> in colonial Spanish sources, as in fact they
were in Lugo.
Muisca had three simple stop consonants in the labial, alveolar and velar articulatory
positions: [p], [t] and [k], respectively. For the [k] three different spellings were in use:
<c>, <q> and <qu>. Lugo used <q> before <> and before <h> (e.g. c−hq ‘priest’,
qhic−ha ‘ten’), but, conforming to the Spanish orthography, he used <qu> before <e>
and , and <c> elsewhere. Before other vowels <qu> represented a labialised velar
sound [kw ], as in hbqsquâ ‘I do’. In the National Library grammar <qu> [k] also
appears before <y> (Lugo’s <>), and <q> does not occur by itself; for its treatment
of Lugo’s <qh> see below.
24 The passage (our translation) reads: ‘The pronunciation of the syllables cha, che, chi, cho, chu
should not be done with the tongue as a whole but just with the tip of it.’
25 The awkwardness of Lugo’s representation of the complex obstruents [ty ] and [ts ] is reminiscent
of the way in which la Carrera sought to describe comparable sounds in Mochica (by means of
the symbols <cɥ> and <tzh>, respectively; cf. section 3.4).
26 The word chyquy ‘priest’ originally denoted representatives of the native religion, but was
subsequently also used for Roman Catholic clergymen. Its Spanish corruption jeque ‘sheikh’
presents an interesting case of linguistic interaction. In colonial New Granada native priests
were usually referred to as mohán.
In addition to the three plain stops, Muisca had a complex obstruent, both in a plain
and in a labialised version. It was usually written <pq(u)>, as in pqua [pkw a] ‘tongue’,
pqueta [pketa] ‘silly’ and pquyquy [pkk] ‘understanding’. The plain version occurred
before [e], [i] and [], the labialised version before [a] and [o]. This sound may have
represented a coarticulated stop ([pk], [pkw ]) and is mentioned in the National Library
grammar as one of the special sounds (pronunciaciones particulares) of the language
(González de Pérez 1987: 72; cf. also Constenla Umaña 1984: 74). Notwithstanding the
fact that many other exotic consonant clusters were found in Muisca, there are good
reasons to assign a special status to this combination. At least in some lexical items
the presumed coarticulated stop was a reflex of *ku-, as Muisca has pk(w) V where other
Chibchan languages have kw V or kuwV (Constenla Umaña 1989: 43–4). Compare, for in-
stance, Muisca pqua, Chimila kw á:ʔ, Cuna kw apinni [kw a:bin], Uw Cuwa (Tunebo) kùwa
‘tongue’; Muisca pquaca, Uw Cuwa kw ı́ka ‘arm’; Muisca pquyhyxio, Uw Cuwa kw asáya
‘white’; Muisca pquyquy ‘understanding’, Cuna kw ake [kw a:ge] ‘heart’; Muisca fapqua
‘chicha’, Uw Cuwa bákw a (Huber and Reed 1992). The presence of a coarticulated stop
is limited to Muisca and Duit. It has not been found in other Chibchan languages.
Six symbols that were used in the transcription of Muisca have been interpreted as rep-
resenting fricatives: , <f>, <s>, <x>, <g> and <h>. Constenla Umaña (1984:
74) observes that and <f> were never used contrastively. These symbols may have
referred to voiced [β] and voiceless [ϕ] bilabial fricatives, respectively, presumably al-
lophones of a single phoneme. It should be observed that <f> was only used before
a vowel symbol, whereas occurred in any position, before another consonant as
well as word-finally. Lugo practically limited the use of <f> (as an alternative for )
to the position before (e.g. fuc−ha ‘woman’, but cubun ‘language’), whereas the
other sources extended the use of <f> to other prevocalic positions as well (e.g. fac
‘outside’, fihista ‘breast’). As it seems, some orthographic normalisation occurred to the
extent that <f> became used mainly (but not exclusively) in root-initial position before
a vowel.27 The identification of and <f> as identical elements is challenged by
the existence of a word-initial cluster <bf>, which is found in the word bfue ‘beam’.
Possibly, this cluster may have to be reinterpreted to contain an internal vowel [βϕue].
The symbols <s> and <x> represented sibilants (presumably [s] and [š], respec-
tively). Constenla Umaña (1984: 86) considers them not to be contrastive. The symbol
<x> was used optionally before and <y> (e.g. xie ‘who?’, bxy ‘I carry’), whereas
<s> could occur in all positions (e.g. saca ‘nose’, soco ‘bring!’, sisy ‘this’, muysca
‘human being’). Although in many lexical items (e.g. sie ∼ xie ‘river’, ‘water’; also
‘who’) the two symbols can be used interchangeably, in other cases there seems to be
a preference for either one. Word pairs such as siu ‘rain’ versus xiun ‘sweat’, and sua
27 Today f is widely used in place names of Chibchan origin, such as Facatativá and Fusagasugá.
‘sun’ versus xua ‘dew’ do suggest an opposition, albeit of a limited functional load. In
Lugo <x> is mainly, and fairly consistently, found before .
The symbol <g> is interpreted by Constenla Umaña (1984: 88–90) as a voiced velar
fricative [γ ], historically derived from a Chibchan voiced velar stop *g; e.g. gye [γ e]
‘excrement’ (cf. Chimila ga:, Kogui gai). The assumption that <g> was a fricative is
based on a probable symmetry with the labials (<b/f>) and on the pronunciation of the
corresponding symbol in Spanish. As in Spanish, <gu> rather than <g>, was written
before <e>, and, in Lugo, also before <>; e.g. in gue ∼ gu ‘to be’, guity- ‘to
whip’.28 Even though the regular realisation of <g> was allegedly a fricative, a stop
allophone may have occurred instead after a nasal, for instance, in the verbal future
ending -nga.
With the complex symbol <gu> we touch upon an insufficiency of the colonial Muisca
orthography because an identical sequence was used to represent a bilabial glide [w] or a
labialised voiced velar fricative [γ w ], e.g. in gue [γ w e ∼ we] ‘house’, gui ‘wife’ [γ w i ∼
wi]. In such cases the morphophonemic behaviour of the lexical item in question must be
considered in order to recover the correct form. For instance, the first-person possessed
form of ‘house’ is zue [ts we] ‘my house’, not *zgue [ts γ e], as might be expected if the
velar element were prominent. Lugo, who used diacritics, appears to have indicated the
presence of a labial element by a circumflex accent on the following vowel (guê, guı̂ ),
although not consistently. The question whether the velar element was pronounced at
all in such cases remains open for discussion. Lugo occasionally used the spelling -guâ
for the interrogative suffix [wa]. Some Chibchan cognate relations, such as Muisca gua
‘fish’ (Cuna ua, Chimila wa:ŋgra:, Kogui uaka), suggest that a velar fricative was not
necessarily always represented in <gu>.29
All colonial sources agree that the symbol <h> represented an aspiration. In con-
tradistinction to <gu>, the combination <hu> was not normally used to denote a labial
approximant [w], as in the orthography of so many other Amerindian languages during
the colonial period, e.g. hui ‘inside’ was pronounced [huy ∼ huwi], not *[wi]. The
Muisca aspiration occurred prevocalically, but characteristically also between two like
vowels. Sequences of identical high vowels separated by <h> may have counted as
single vowels. This can be deduced from the fact that the tense–aspect suffix -squa,
28 The vocabulary of the National Library grammar mentions a related verb root uity- [wit], which
has the meaning ‘to whip/chastise oneself.’ This unique correlation does not prevent us from
following the general opinion that guity- was pronounced [γ it], not [γ w it] nor [wit]. The shape
of the prefixes that accompany guity- supports this view.
29 Constenla Umaña (1984: 98) mentions the example of the root gua- ‘to kill’ as a case where a
velar fricative could have been retained (by comparison with Guatuso kua:, also Kogui gw áši).
However, the root for ‘to kill’ in Muisca is gu-, rather than gua-. The confusion is probably due
to Lugo (1619: 77–8), who translates the verb for ‘to feed’ gua-squâ as ‘to kill’, ‘to say’, glosses
which correspond to gu-squâ; but see p. 70, where he translates it correctly. In the Muisca stem
(b)gu- ‘to kill’ a velar fricative was indeed present.
otherwise only occurring after monosyllabic roots ending in a vowel, was also regularly
found after roots that ended in such a sequence, e.g. b-chuhu-squa ‘to wash’, b-chihi-
squa ‘to write’, ‘to paint’, tyhy-squa ‘to sit down’.30 This situation suggests a special
class of aspirated vowels. In Lugo’s grammar the <VhV> sequence is relatively in-
frequent, omission of its first vowel being the rule, as, for instance, in shûhâ ‘eight’,
qhûma ‘big’, thpqua- ‘to wound’ (in the vocabulary of the National Library grammar:
suhuza, cuhuma, b-tyhypqua-, respectively) and bhacûca ‘needlessly’ ( fahacuca in the
vocabulary published by Quesada Pacheco 1991). In some items Lugo hesitates between
notations of the types <hV> and <hVhV>, as in the postposition bhôhôhâ ∼ bhôhâ
‘with’ (bohoza), or inserts an <h> where others do not have it, as, for instance, in thh-
‘to love’ (b-tyzy-).
The nasals <m> and <n> were both very frequent. The symbol <r>, which presum-
ably represented a vibrant, is occasionally found in Lugo, but it is nearly absent in the
other sources, who replace it with <ch>; e.g. (Lugo) erq [erk], (González de Pérez
1987: 286) yechyc [ety k] ‘other’.31 At least in borrowings from Spanish it survived, as
can be deduced from a case like raga ‘dagger’ (Spanish daga). There were no laterals
in Muisca.
In addition to the vowel </y> (see above), the sources of the Muisca language
record five vowels that were similar to their Spanish counterparts: a, e, i, o, u. The vowel
symbols and can refer both to syllabic [i], [u], and to non-syllabic [y], [w].32
An analysis of the lexical and grammatical data brings to light the necessity to distinguish
between the two possibilities in writing, as their realisation is not entirely predictable.
For instance, the spelling ja of the word for ‘firewood’ (also found as ia, cf. Uw Cuwa
réya) in the vocabulary accompanying the National Library grammar (González de
Pérez 1987: 273) strongly suggests the presence of a non-syllabic approximant [ya].
By contrast, the word for ‘illness’ iu must be interpreted as polysyllabic [iyu] on the
basis of its morphophonemic behaviour.33 This option appears to be confirmed by the
1612 Vocabulary, in which the form at issue is transcribed as iü, suggesting that the two
vowels were pronounced separately (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 62). In the Royal Palace
Library grammar published by Lucena Salmoral (1967: 67) the past participle of the verb
m-u- ‘to spin’ is explicitly written as üisca, again suggesting that the vowel sequence
30 The ending -squa is also found after the verbaliser -go-, e.g. in muysy-go-squa ‘to dream’
(cf. Adelaar 1995a). In the Muisca vocabularies all non-stative verbs are presented with either
the ending -squa or -suca.
31 The word erq is found in one of the sonnets that accompany Lugo’s grammar (Ostler 1995:
136).
32 In word-initial position, is often replaced with its orthographic variant <v>, especially
when a full vowel [u] is represented.
33 The verb iu- ‘to be ill’ takes the imperfective suffix -suca, not its alternative form -squa. Since
the latter is preferred after monosyllabic roots ending in a vowel, the use of -suca suggests a
polysyllabic structure for the root iu (cf. Adelaar 1995a).
Table 2.6 Inventory of Muisca consonant phonemes
Bilabial Alveolar Palatal Velar Coarticulated labiovelar Glottal
Stops p t k pkw / pk
Affricates c ty / č
Fricatives β/ϕ s (š) γ h
Nasals m n
Vibrant r
Glides w y
Table 2.7 Inventory of Muisca vowel phonemes
Front Central Back
High i u
Mid e o
Low a
Aspirated versus plain
may have been polysyllabic [uwi]. Finally, it is likely that gui [γ w i ∼ wi] ‘wife’ and ui
[uy ∼ uwi] ‘left side’ were distinct not only in writing, but also in pronunciation.
A putative inventory of the Muisca consonant phonemes is shown in table 2.6. It con-
tains the phonemes proposed in Constenla Umaña (1984) expanded with our additions.
The vowels of Muisca are shown in table 2.7.
Consonant clusters frequently occur both in word-initial and -final position (cf.
Constenla Umaña 1984: 100–1). Most (but not all) of the initial clusters owe their
existence to the presence of a prefix, in particular the verbal prefix b-/m-, which can
indicate transitivity, and the personal reference markers z- ‘first person singular’ and
m- ‘second person singular’, which indicate both possessor and subject. These personal
reference markers are also found as ze-/zy- and um-, respectively, making it clear that
if an additional vowel was not always present, it was at least recoverable.34 In (59) the
prefix ze- is given in its full form, whereas m- is short.
(59) m-hu-za-c ze-guque

2S.SG-come-NE-AL 1S.SG-say.PA
‘I thought that you had not come.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 257)
34 Lugo writes h- for the first-person prefix. Remember also that um- is frequently represented
as vm-; in our discussion of Muisca grammar, we shall write um- throughout.
The prefix b-/m- is frequently found before other consonants. Although there seems
to be no vowel that can be recovered, certain combinations with b-, in particular, are
awkward to pronounce if no vowel is inserted (see also above for the unusual case of
bfue).35 Some examples of clusters involving b-/m- are given in (60). The function of
the prefix will be treated later.
(60) b-so- ‘to eat (herbs, leaves)’

b-ca- ‘to eat (maize, meat, fruit, etc.)’
b-chichua- ‘to learn’
b-hu- ‘to carry’
m-nypqua- ‘to hear’, ‘to understand’
Word-final consonant clusters are frequently found in genitives which precede their
heads. When the genitive consists of a noun with a final vowel a, that vowel may be
suppressed. As a result, a consonant cluster can end up in word-final position, e.g.
in (61).
(61) muysc chimy [muysca ‘human being’]

human.being.G flesh
‘human flesh’ (González de Pérez 1987: 210)
2.9.3 Grammar
In a review of previous syntactical claims concerning the Muisca language Ostler (1994)
concludes that Muisca is a strict SOV language. The auxiliary verb gue/gu follows the
main verb. Both adjectives and numerals follow the noun they modify, while demon-
stratives and genitives precede the noun they modify. Muisca has postpositions and case
suffixes. All these features are characteristic for most of the Chibchan languages that we
have discussed until now.
From a morphological point of view Muisca is a complex language that uses both
prefixes and suffixes. The prefixes are mainly related to personal reference and valency
(passive, transitive–intransitive). Nominalisation, verbalisation, negation, interrogation,
topicalisation, mood, tense, aspect, case and degree (of adjectives) are indicated by
means of suffixes. Other morphological processes found in Muisca are root suppletion,
internal vowel change and the suppression of final vowels, as in (61). Some parts of the
verbal conjugation, in particular the present and past participles, the so-called second
supine, and the imperative can be highly irregular.
35 Spanish colonial grammarians often tolerated consonant sequences which their modern suc-
cessors prefer to split by inserting shwa-type vowels; for a similar example in Araucanian see
chapter 5.
The Muisca verbal lexicon comprises a formal division between transitive and in-
transitive verbs. This division is made visible by the conjugational behaviour of the
verbs, and in most cases also by the shape of the verb stem itself. Many transitive verb
stems in Muisca contain the prefix b-/m-; see also (60). If the transitive verb stem is
part of a transitive/intransitive verb pair, its intransitive counterpart does not have the
b-/m- prefix. Speaking generally, the m- allomorph is found before vowels and nasals,
whereas b- occurs in clusters with non-nasal consonants. It has been argued that, since
m- is the prevocalic allomorph (where no influence from the phonological environment
is expected), it also constitutes the more basic form of the prefix (Ostler 2000: 288).
Transitive–intransitive verb pairs differentiated by b-/m- are exemplified in (62) and
(63). The latter also exhibits a root vowel change.
(62) to- ‘to split’ [intransitive]

b-to- ‘to split’ [transitive]
(63) na- ‘to go’ [intransitive]
m-ny- ‘to take along’ [transitive]
Transitive verb stems that are not paired with intransitives may contain the b-/m-
prefix, although many of them do not. All transitive verbs lose their b-/m- prefix in the
imperative, and in several participial and gerund forms (64). Some intransitive verbs
also have an initial b-/m- element, which behaves as if it were part of the root and is
never lost. Intransitive verbs of any type take an additional prefix a- in the imperative
form (65) and occasionally also in one of the participles.
(64) b-quy- ‘to do’ [transitive]

quy-u ‘do!’ [transitive imperative]
quy-ia ‘having done’ [transitive past participle]
(65) bgy- ‘to die’ [intransitive]
a-bgy-u ‘die!’ [intransitive imperative]
Examples (66) and (67) illustrate the case of a transitive–intransitive pair with an ir-
regular imperative form, where it can be seen that the prefix a- serves to avoid homonymy
between a transitive and an intransitive form. The most common imperative ending is
-u (plural -u-ua). For negative commands the negative future is used.
(66) b-ga- ‘to make’, ‘to cause to become’ [transitive]

so ‘make!’, ‘cause to become!’ [transitive imperative]
(67) ga- ‘to become’ [intransitive]
a-so ‘become!’ [intransitive imperative]
There are other formal strategies to distinguish transitive from intransitive verbs. The
latter may take a suffix -n-, not found in the former, e.g. miu- ‘to crumble (transitive)’
versus miu-n- ‘to crumble (intransitive)’.
A number of Muisca verbs are stative. They refer to existence or position and may
encode number or shape of the theme. Most of these verbs end in -ne, e.g. zo-ne ‘to be lo-
cated (singular)’, puy-ne ‘to be located (of liquids)’ (Ostler and González forthcoming).
The majority of Muisca verbs, however, are active. Active verbs are conjugated for tense.
They can take either one of the characteristic endings -squa and -suca, which is the form
by which they are normally found in the colonial dictionaries. The endings -squa and
-suca indicate imperfective aspect in finite verbs, which can then be interpreted as present
or (ongoing) past-tense forms.
(68) ze-bquy-squa
1S.SG-do-IA
‘I do’, ‘I was doing.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 81)
(69) ze-guity-suca
1S.SG-whip-IA
‘I whip’, ‘I was whipping.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 84)
As we have noted before, the choice of -squa is phonologically determined (see

also Adam 1878). For -suca there is no such restriction. Since it is added to all active
verb roots that cannot take -squa, it appears to have a default distribution. In a few cases
-suca has been found with a root that normally takes -squa, allegedly with a frequentative
meaning (70), (71).
(70) ze-hu-squa36
1S.SG-come-IA
‘I come.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 332)
(71) ze-hu-suca
1S.SG-come-IA
‘I come often.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 332)
It may be observed that examples (70) and (71), originally from the National Library
grammar, seem to be incompatible with a statement made in the same source, namely,
36 (70) and (71) are entries in González de Pérez’s edition of the vocabulary of the National Library
grammar, where they appear as zchusqua and zchusuca, respectively. Elsewhere in the same work
(González de Pérez 1987: 98, 121) we find zehusqua with the meaning ‘to come’. We assume
that zchusqua and zchusuca, not attested in any other source as far as we know, are miswritings
for zehusqua and zehusuca, respectively. Uricoechea (1871: 204), who must have used the same
source, writes zuhusqua/zuhusuca in accordance with a pronunciation rule formulated in the
National Library grammar (González de Pérez 1987: 140).
that ze-hu-squa serves as the frequentative counterpart of the defective verb i-xyquy ‘I
come’ (González de Pérez 1987: 121).
A frequentative meaning also obtains when -suca is added to a stative stem (72), (73).
(72) i-sucu-n37
1S.SG-be.there-ST
‘I am there.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 261)
(73) i-sucu-n-suca
1S.SG-be.there-ST-IA
‘I am there frequently.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 261)
Some verbs, such as -na ‘to go’, can have a present-tense interpretation, even when
the imperfective suffix is lacking. If there is an imperfective suffix, it has a frequentative
meaning, even though it is -squa.
(74) i-na
1S.SG-go
‘I go’, ‘I went.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 123)
(75) i-na-squa
1S.SG-go-IA
‘I go often.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 123)
The indicative future tense of verbs is formed by adding -nga to those verbs that can
take -squa in the present tense, and -nynga to those that can only take -suca; for a historical
phonological explanation of this phenomenon see Ostler and González (forthcoming).
Stative verbs change -ne to -ne-nga (76). The future form of the verb ‘to be’ is nga.
(76) muysca-c ze-gue-ne-nga

man-AL 1S.SG-be-ST-F
‘I will be a man (person).’ (González de Pérez 1987: 127)
The past tense has no specific ending. Verb roots which end in -a- normally take
an (optional) suffix -o [w] (77); some roots (including a few in -a-) take -quy (∼-que)
(78); the others remain unaltered.38 Before the negative suffix -za most roots remain
unaltered (79).
37 There was probably no difference in use between the endings -n and -ne (∼-ny) (Ostler and
González forthcoming).
38 The velar stop in -quy (∼-que) may also appear in other forms of the paradigm, namely in the
imperative and past participle. From a historical point of view, it can be considered as a part of
the root (Ostler and González, forthcoming).
(77) ze-mnypqua(-o)
1S.SG-hear/understand-PA
‘I have heard/understood.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 98)
(78) um-gui boza um-caquy-oa
2P.SG-wife with 2S.SG-fight.PA-IR
‘Did you fight with your wife?’ (González de Pérez 1987: 356)
(79) ze-gu-za [ze-guquy ‘I said’]
1S.SG-say.PA-NE
‘I did not say.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 115)
Interrogation and negation are indicated by adding the suffixes -ua [wa]/-o39 and -za,
respectively, to a verb form. The future tense has a special negative ending -zi-nga (not
*-nga-za). The auxiliary verb gue/gu has as its interrogative and negative counterparts
ua/o and nza, respectively; the corresponding future forms are nnua and nzinga. A longer
and more explicit negation of the verb ‘to be’ is ma-gue-za. It includes a negative prefix
ma- of limited productivity.
(80) hycha-n i-na-zi-nga

I-TO 1S.SG-go-NE-F
‘I will not go.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 335)
(81) chie nnua
we be.F.IR
‘Shall we be?’ (González de Pérez 1987: 78)
(82) chie nzinga
we be.NE.F
‘We shall not be.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 79)
Muisca has three nominalisations or relative verbs which have been interpreted tradi-
tionally as participles (agentives) of the present, future and past. With all three, the b-/m-
prefix is lost. The present participle can be formed by adding a suffix -sca, very often
accompanied by a vowel change in the root (83). This suffix -sca can only be added to
roots that have the phonological characteristics allowing the presence of the imperfec-
tive marker -squa (see above). The other roots, namely, those that take the imperfective
marker -suca, are treated differently. They receive either a suffix -suca (transitives) (84),
or -uca (intransitives) (85).
39 The distribution of -ua in relation to -o is not entirely clear; it may have been a case of free
variation (Ostler and González forthcoming). The marker -o is reminiscent of the interrogative
marker -o in Ika.
(83) b-quy ‘to do’ qui-sca ‘(he) who does’

m-o- ‘to bathe [transitive]’ o-esca ‘(he) who bathes (someone)’
o- ‘to bathe [intransitive]’ o-esca ‘(he) who bathes (himself)’
b-ca- ‘to eat’ qui-esca ‘(he) who eats’
(84) b-xin- ‘to sew’ xin-suca ‘(he) who sews’
(85) cubun- ‘to speak’ cubun-uca ‘(he) who speaks’
Some present participles are quite irregular in their formation, allowing, in a few cases,
an additional distinction between a frequentative and a non-frequentative meaning. Some
irregular forms coincide either with the future, or with the past participle (86), (87). In
(86) the regular formal opposition is taken over by a frequentative contrast. A future
form (sienga) is used both for present and future, whereas the expected present form
(siesca) is interpreted as a present frequentative.
(86) na- ‘to go’ sie-nga ‘(he) who goes’, ‘(he) who will go’
sie-sca ‘(he) who goes often’
(87) sucun- ‘to be’ suz-a ‘(he) who is’, ‘(he) who has been’
The future participle, with a few exceptions, takes the same endings as the future
indicative (-nga, -nynga). The past participle generally ends in -a or -ia. There are
many irregular formations, and the final consonant of a stem preceding -a is often not
predictable.40 The past participle has an additional function. It can be used as a hortative
(a so-called ‘second imperative’) with the possibility of marking the subject for all
persons and number (88). A third-person subject remains unmarked, but it is possible to
distinguish between transitive and intransitive forms by adding the prefix a- to the latter
(89). Present participles can also be used as hortatives; they convey progressive rather
than punctual aspect meaning.
(88) chi-quy-ia
1S.PL-do-PA.AG
‘(we) who did’, ‘(we) having done’, ‘Let us do!’
(González de Pérez 1987: 82)
(89) za-ia [b-za-‘to place’]
place-PA.AG
‘(he) who placed it’, ‘Let him place it!’ (González de Pérez 1987: 104)
40 Considering the fact that the consonants preserved in past-participle endings are also found in
so-called irregular past-tense forms and imperatives, one may conclude that they are part of
original stems, which appear in a truncated form in the present tense; cf. Ostler and González
(forthcoming).
(90) a-za-ia [za- ‘to take a place’]

NT-place-PA.AG
‘(he) who took a place’, ‘Let him take a place!’
When a sentence is introduced by an interrogative pronoun, its main verb must be a

participle, rather than a finite verb (91). (Note that baz-a is a past participle of the verb
m-a- ‘to bring’.) This does not hold when the interrogative pronoun is in an oblique case
or is followed by a postposition (92); cf. Ostler (1994: 221–2).
(91) ipqua fuyz-o ma-baz-a [fuyze ‘all’]

what all-IR 2S.SG-bring-PA.AG
‘What things did you bring?’ (González de Pérez 1987: 132)
∅-cuquy
(92) sie-c-o m-∅ [b-cu- ‘to buy’]
who-AL-IR 2S.SG-T-buy.PA
‘From whom did you buy it?’ (González de Pérez 1987: 193)
Passive resultative participles can be formed from at least part of the transitive verbs.
The shape of these participles resembles that of stative verbs, and is characterised by a
prefix a- and a suffix -ne, attached to the past-tense stem (93); cf. Ostler and González
(forthcoming).
(93) ia a-chihiquy-ne
already 3S-write-SN
‘It is already written.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 126)
The grammars of the Muisca language mention the existence of two so-called
‘supines’. Examples of use are rare. The first supine has subject marking (personal
reference) and a b-/m- prefix if applicable. It is derived from the root by adding a suffix
-ioa [yowa ∼ yuwa];41 e.g. ze-b-quy-ioa ‘in order for me to do’. The second supine is
formally related to the present participle, with which it shares most of the irregularities.
It can be obtained by substituting -ca for -suca or -sca, e.g. guity-ca ‘(in order) to beat’,
cf. guity-suca ‘(he) who beats’; qui-ca ‘(in order) to do’, cf. qui-sca ‘(he) who does’
(González de Pérez 1987: 110).
The passive in Muisca is formed by means of a prefix n-, added to a transitive root
deprived of its (possible) b-/m- prefix. All indicative tense forms, all originally active
participles, as well as the first supine can be passivised. The subject (patient) of a passive
form is identified by means of a personal reference prefix which precedes n-; the agent
41 The pronunciation [yuwa] is suggested by the fact that Lugo writes a diacritic on the u, as in
a-guit-yûa ‘for him/them to beat’ (Lugo 1619: 48–9). The National Library grammar has -ioa.
cannot be expressed. A special prefix a-, identical in form to a third-person subject

marker, accompanies the passive marker, except when the preceding subject marker
already ends in a. This a- prefix of the passive construction is absent before participles
whose subject–patient is third person (also in their hortative function). If we assume that
a- is part of the passive formation, the third-person subject marker of the passives may
be interpreted as a zero marker throughout.42
(94) chi-a-n-quy-squa
1S.PL-PS-PS-do-IA
‘We are being done’. ‘It is being done to us.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 111)
(95) m-a-n-quy-ioa
2S.SG-PS-PS-do-SP
‘for you to be suffered’, ‘so that it may be done to you’
(96) ∅-a-n-quy-nga
3S-PS-PS-do-F
‘He/it will be done.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 112)
(97) ∅-n-quy-ia
3S-PS-do-PA.AG
‘(he) who was done’. ‘Let him/it be done!’ (González de Pérez 1987: 113)
Some passive formations are irregular, as is the case of ucan- ‘to know’, where n-
is infixed, rather than prefixed, e.g. chi-a-u-n-cane ‘we were known’. Compare also
cha-nn-isty ‘I was seen’ from m-isty- ‘to see’ (cf. Ostler 2000: 284), where a vocalic
onset of the root is compensated by doubling of the passive prefix.
Personal reference marking in Muisca is morphological and consists of prefixation.
Two sets of personal prefixes have to be distinguished minimally. They are summarised
in table 2.8 together with the syntactically free personal pronouns.
The roots contained in the case for third-person personal pronouns are demonstratives,
rather than personal pronouns. They represent the three usual degrees of distance (near
speaker / near addressee / remote).
The form of the first-person-singular prefix exhibits an interesting variation. It appears
as i- before alveolar and palatal consonants (e.g. i-chuta ‘my son’, i-nyquy ‘my brother’)
42 Historically, the a- prefix is probably identical to the homophonous third-person prefix. Ostler
(2000: 285) shows that a was a third-person singular pronoun in Proto-Colombian Chibchan. If
we analyse a- synchronically as part of the passive formation, no more than two sets of personal
reference markers have to be distinguished.
Table 2.8 Personal reference in Muisca
Set 1 Set 2 Personal pronouns
1 pers. sing. z- / i- / Ø- cha- hycha

1 pers. plur. chi- chi- chie
2 pers. sing. m- ma- mue ∼ muy*
2 pers. plur. mimi- mie
3 pers. a- Ø- sis(y) / ys(y) / as(y)
* Word-final high vowels in monosyllabic words are normally

followed by -e; the form muy [mw ] is found before words with
an initial vowel, as in muy um-boi ‘your cloak’.
and as z(e∼y)- elsewhere (cf. González de Pérez 1987: 75).43 The latter is found as
z- before vowels (e.g. z-ue ‘my house’) and as ze- (Lugo: h-) before consonants (e.g.
ze-boi ‘my cloak’), although z- is often written instead of ze-. The National Library
grammar indicates that the prefix ze- was usually left out before a b-/m- prefix, e.g.
b-quy-squa ‘I do’ instead of ze-b-quy-squa (González de Pérez 1987: 87). However, this
last practice is rarely reflected in the examples. When the prefix z- precedes ia [ya] or io,
the semi-vowel i is lost, e.g. in z-an-suca ‘I flee’, from ian- ‘to flee’. The presence
of the second-person-singular prefix m- eliminates a following b-/m- prefix, as in
m-iohoty-suca ‘you drink’, from b-iohoty- ‘to drink’; this prefix can be preceded by u in
order to facilitate its pronunciation in clusters. The third-person prefix a- is merged with
a following high vowel, following the rules a + i > e, a + y > a; a + u > o, e.g. epqua
(< a + ipqua) ‘his belongings’; ata (< a + yta ‘his hand’); oba (< a + uba) ‘his face’
(González de Pérez 1987: 140).
The division of labour that obtains between Set 1 and Set 2 prefixes is of particular
interest. The indicative tenses and first supine (in -ioa) of the active verbs select Set
1 prefixes to indicate a subject, and Set 2 prefixes to indicate a first- or second-person
object (98). The simultaneous indication of subject and object is limited to the combina-
tions chi-a- (third-person subject and first-person-plural object) and mi-a- (third-person
subject and second-person plural object) (99).44 If any other combination of participants
involving a first- or second-person object is to be expressed, the object is indicated mor-
phologically by means of a prefix, whereas the subject can be expressed by a noun or a
full pronoun. A third-person object is morphologically zero.
43 There is a striking parallel with the Cholón language (see section 4.11), where the same alter-
nation is found in the third-person-plural prefix i-/či-.
44 It may be possible to analyse these combinations as contractions of chi(e) a- and mi(e) a-,
respectively. One would expect a final -e to be omitted before a vowel.
(98) Pedro cha-guity

Pedro 1O.SG-beat.PA
‘Pedro beat me.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 143)
(99) Pedro-z mi-a-guit-ua [guity- ‘to beat’]
Pedro-EU45 2O.PL-3S-beat.PA-IR
‘Did Pedro beat you (plural)?’ (González de Pérez 1987: 143)
Stative verbs in -ne behave like the active verbs in that their subject is expressed by
means of Set 1 prefixes. By contrast, the irregular verb ha- ‘to say’ (as in cha-ha-sugue
‘I say’, ma-ha-sugue ‘you say’, etc.) takes Set 2 prefixes for subject reference. The
participles or relative verbs (including when used as ‘second imperatives’) also take
Set 2 prefixes that refer to a subject; see (88) and (91). Objects can only be indicated by
means of a free pronoun or noun (100).
(100) Dios gue chie ma-quy-ia46

God be we LP-make-PA.AG
‘God is the One who made us.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 143)
Passive verbs take Set 2 prefixes for the specification of their subject–patient; see
(94)–(96). True imperatives do not take prefixes; an object can only be indicated by
means of a free pronoun (101).
(101) hycha gu [b-gu- ‘to kill’]

I kill.IM
‘Kill me!’ (González de Pérez 1987: 143)
Nouns can take both sets of prefixes. As we have seen in some of the cases mentioned
previously (a-uba, i-chuta), Set 1 prefixes are used to indicate a possessor. By contrast,
Set 2 prefixes refer to the subject of a predicative construction. They are attached to the
noun or adjective which is used predicatively.47
(102) cha-muysca cho gue

1S.SG-man good be
‘I am a good man.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 142)
45 The element -z (Lugo -h) is described as an ‘adornment’ in the Royal Palace Library grammar
(Lucena Salmoral 1967: 56). It is, in fact, unexplained (cf. Ostler 1994: 213). In some contexts
it appears to express the meaning of ‘also’, ‘too’, e.g. fa-z a-hu-za ‘he has not come today (fa)
either’ (González de Pérez 1987: 322).
46 A prefix ma- (homophonous with second-person-singular ma-) can be added to participles of
the verb ‘to do’ with no other semantic effect than ‘elegance’ (González de Pérez 1987: 144).
47 In the original the prefix cha- is written separately.
The case-marking strategies of Muisca are extensively treated in Ostler (1993). When
expressed by free lexical items, the subject and the object of a verb are not marked for
their respective roles. These are made explicit by word order. Ostler (1993: 8) illustrates
this with the following example.
(103) Pedro Juan a-b-gû

Pedro Juan 3S-T-kill.PA
‘Pedro killed Juan.’ (Lugo 1619: 94–5)
Oblique case is marked by suffixes or postpositions. Three case suffixes -c(a), -n(a),
and -s(a) are of central importance. Ostler (1993: 9) characterises their basic local
meanings as Goal, Location and Path, respectively. With the case suffix -c(a) the emphasis
is on movement. With -n(a) rest in location is meant, but it can also refer to a source, in
particular when the name of a place is mentioned (106).
(104) gua-c a-sy-ne [sy-ne ‘to roam’]

mountain-AL 3S-roam-ST
‘He is out roaming through the mountains.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 301)
(105) ta-s ze-mi-squa [mi- ‘to pass’]
field-PT 1S.SG-pass-IA
‘I walk through the field.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 290)
(106) chunsa-n fac48 a-iane [ian- ‘to flee’]
Tunja-L outward 3S-leave.PA
‘He left Tunja.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 227)
Characteristic of the Muisca language is the existence of fused forms of personal

pronouns and case markers. The personal reference markers in these combinations co-
incide with the Set 2 prefixes; they are followed by an element -ha- and a case marker.
The third-person forms do not contain -ha- and are based on the deictic element y-. A
further set of fused forms is based on Set 1 prefixes followed by an element -hu- and a
case marker. Ostler (1993: 11) identifies this -hu- element with the adverb hui ‘inside’.
Again the third-person forms are special.49
An overview of the fused forms is given in table 2.9.
The forms in the three upper rows represent straightforward combinations of person
and case, the forms in the three lower rows indicate physical nearness (‘with’, ‘at’,
‘among’). The following examples are discussed in Ostler (1993: 10). In (109) hui-na
has no prefix, because it is preceded by a full noun as a possessor (suetiba).
48 In the original text: uac.

49 The existence of these fused combinations of person markers and case markers is reminiscent
of a similar phenomenon in the Tupi–Guaranı́ languages. Like Muisca, these languages have a
fair amount of idiosyncratic case marking governed by verbs.
Table 2.9 Inventory of Muisca pronoun and case combinations (based on Ostler 1993)
1 pers. sing. 1 pers. plur. 2 pers. sing. 2 pers. plur. 3 pers.
Goal chahac chihac mahac mihac yc

Location chahan chihan mahan mihan yn
Path chahas chihas mahas mihas ys
Goal zuhuc chihuc muhuc mihuc hoc
Location zuhuin(a) chihuin(a) muhuin(a) mihuin(a) ahuin(a), bon
Path zuhus – muhus – hos
(107) bo-n i-zo-ne

3P.presence-L 1S.SG-be.there-ST
‘I am at his disposal.’ (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 50)
(108) zu-hui-n a-na
1P-presence-L 3S-go.PA
‘He went away from me.’ (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 80)
(109) suetiba hui-na fac chi-a-b-ta
devil presence-L outside 1O.PL-3S-T-take.PA
‘He took us out of the power of the devil.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 350)
Ostler (1993: 9) notes that the third-person allative pronoun y-c can be used as a sort
of proclitic complement of the verb, even when it is preceded by the real complement
noun phrase.
(110) gata y-c cu [b-cu-‘to blow’]

fire that-AL blow.IM
‘Blow on the fire!’ (lit. ‘The fire, blow on it!’) (Uricoechea 1871: 70)
The grammars and vocabularies of the Muisca language contain a wealth of infor-
mation concerning the derived uses of the three basic case markers, which are highly
varied and idiosyncratic. Ostler (1993: 13–15) analyses their behaviour in connection
with seventeen representative verbs. Some of the examples he mentions are:
(111) pquapqua i-zy-s ∅-b-za-squa [zye ‘hair’]

hat 1P.SG-hair-PT 1S.SG-T-locate-IA
‘I put a hat on my head.’ (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 85)
(112) muysca cho-c ze-ga-squa
man good-AL 1S.SG-become-IA
‘I become a good man.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 269)
Uricoechea (1871: 68–73) offers an extensive list of Muisca verbs and the case com-
plements they govern. The choice of complements and verbs can be highly idiomatic,
as is illustrated in (113)–(115).
(113) cha-ha.c a-quib-go [y-c quib-go- ‘to take leave of’]

1P-AL 3S-leave-FA.PA
‘He took leave of me.’ (Quesada Pacheco 1991: 58)
(114) cha-ha.s a-fihiza-n-suca [y-s fihiza-n- ‘to be heavy’]
1P-PT 3S-heavy-NT-IA
‘(The load) is heavy on me.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 295)
(115) Dios yê h-u-c a-b-gâ [ho-c b-ga- ‘to teach’; ie ‘road’]
God way 1P-presence-AL 3S-T-cause.to.be.PA
‘She taught me the way of God.’ (Lugo 1619: 116)
Muisca has a rich array of postpositions, mostly derived from body-part terms. These
postpositions can be combined with the case markers in order to further specify the
relation they convey. They can also take possessive personal prefixes. Examples of
such postpositions are fihista ‘chest’ (‘on’), uba ‘face’ (‘before’, ‘in front of’) and inta
‘substitute’ (‘in place of’). The comitative–instrumental postposition bohoza and those
postpositions referring to a beneficiary (-san, uaca) are not normally combined with
other case markers.
The genitive relationship is expressed in different ways with the sole common charac-
teristic that a possessor must precede the head. If the possessor is a full personal pronoun
referring to one of the participants in the speech act, the corresponding possessive prefix
is added to the head noun, e.g. muy um-boi [you 2P.SG-cloak] ‘your cloak’. When the
possessor is not a participant in the speech act (that is, when it is neither first, nor second
person), no possessive prefix intervenes, but the noun referring to the possessor may
undergo formal changes. One of these changes is the elimination of a final vowel a, as
we have seen in muysc chimy ‘human flesh’ and in muysc cubun ‘language of man’.
Alternatively, it is possible to replace the suppressed a by a high vowel u or y.
(116) ze-pab-u chuta [paba ‘father’]

1P-father-G son
‘my father’s son’ (González de Pérez 1987: 73)
(117) i-chut-y gui [chuta ‘son’]
1P-son-G wife
‘my son’s wife’ (González de Pérez 1987: 73)
The loss of final e following a high vowel has also been recorded. It may have to
do with the fact that the e itself was originally added by phonological rule, rather than
being part of the inherited form. Example (120) illustrates the use of a postposition in a
genitive construction.
(118) su cubun [sue ‘Spaniard’, ‘bird’]

Spaniard.G language
‘Spanish’ (González de Pérez 1987: 73, 138)
(119) i ie [ie ‘smoke’]
smoke.G road
‘chimney’ (González de Pérez 1987: 137)
(120) xi uaca-ua [xie ‘who’]
who.G for-IR
‘for whom?’ (González de Pérez 1987: 288)
Finally, a suffix -s can be added as a genitive marker. This option has been attested
with the words cha ‘man’, ‘male’ and guecha [wety a] ‘uncle on mother’s side’.
(121) cha-s gue

man-G house
‘the man’s house’ (González de Pérez 1987: 73, 137)
Relative clauses in Muisca are mainly constructed by means of participles. Ostler

(1993: 24–5) observes that Muisca occasionally encodes oblique case relations in a
relative clause. The pronoun–case combination y-n ‘in it’ was used to mark a relativised
element as locative (122), whereas a rarely attested verbal prefix u- ‘with it’ could do
the same for an instrumental relativised element. As far as the latter is concerned, Ostler
draws attention to a formally and semantically similar construction in the Rama language
of Nicaragua (Craig 1991).
(122) guê -n c−ha-su h-a h-ı̂pqua gu

house it-L 1S.SG-be-PA.AG 1P-belonging be
‘The house in which I live is mine.’ (Lugo 1619: 106–7)
The possibilities of verbal complementation in Muisca are numerous. They consist in

the addition of suffixes or postpositions, some of them similar to the ones operating in
the case system, to specific forms of the verbal paradigm. The element -xin, exemplified
in (123), is added to a participle in order to express a simultaneous event which is real;
the element -san is used in the same way to express a hypothetical event (124); -nan,
affixed to a finite verb, denotes a condition (125). For a full inventory of the possibilities
see Ostler (1993: 27–8).
(123) cha-qui-sca-xin
1S.SG-do-PR.AG-SM
‘when I am doing . . .’ (González de Pérez 1987: 91)
(124) cha-quy-nga-san
1S.SG-do-F.AG-HY
‘if I would have to do . . .’ (González de Pérez 1987: 91)
(125) ze-b-quy-nga-nan
1S.SG-T-do-F-CD
‘if I have to do . . .’ (González de Pérez 1987: 90)
A complement of the verb gu- ‘to say’, ‘to think’, ‘to believe’ is formed by adding
the allative case marker -c(a) to a finite verb, if it is negative, and to a participle, if it is
positive. The former possibility was illustrated in (59) (m-hu-za-c ze-guque ‘I thought
you had not come’); an example of the latter is (126).
(126) Pedro huca-c ze-guque

Pedro come.PA.AG-AL 1S.SG-say.PA
‘I thought Pedro had come.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 257)
2.9.4 Lexicon
An interesting feature of the more basic verbs of the Muisca lexicon is the fact that
some of them appear to be semantically underspecified. Uricoechea (1871: 73) observes
that the transitive verb zebtascua (b-ta-) ‘does not mean anything by itself’. Only in
combination with a locative adverb or complement does it acquire a meaning, e.g. hui
b-ta- translated as Spanish meter ‘to put inside’ or encarcelar ‘to lock up in gaol’.
Uricoechea gives many examples of such combinations, which suggest that the verb
means something like ‘to act upon an object with force so as to affect its location in space’
(‘to throw’). However, it is certainly difficult to fit in all the idiomatic uses Uricoechea
mentions, such as Doctrina y-s b-ta ‘I failed to attend religious training’. Clearly, some
sort of force or violence is implied, because ‘to place’, ‘to put’ is preferably translated
by b-za-, a verb with an equally wide spectrum of idiomatic possibilities. The verb
b-ga-, another case of low semantic specification, can best be translated as ‘to provide
someone or something with a state or characteristic’ (compare French rendre). But
again, it is not easy to relate this broad interpretation to the meaning of the expression
ho-c b-ga- ‘to teach’, illustrated in (115). The existence of such idioms, which seem
reminiscent of slang expressions in present-day European languages, is typical for the
Muisca language. There is a remarkable contrast with Andean languages further south,
such as Aymara, Mapuche and Quechua, where this sort of idiomatic expressions are
practically non-existent.
At the same time, intransitive verbs of motion and position, and transitive verbs of
location may differ lexically according to the number of actors involved or the shape of
the theme. For instance, the intransitive verb gu- indicates ‘to be in motion (of several
people)’, as in:
(127) fac chi-gu-squa

outside 1S.PL-be.in.motion-IA
‘We go outside.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 316)
(128) hui chi-gu-squa
inside 1S.PL-be.in.motion-IA
‘We go inside.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 258)
The same verb can be used in connection with mass actors, such as water:
(129) fac a-gu-squa

outside 3S-be.in.motion-IA
‘It flows out (of water).’ (González de Pérez 1987: 317)
If there is only one actor the verb mi- is preferred, as in:
(130) hui ze-mi-squa

inside 1S.SG-be.in.motion-IA
‘I go inside’, ‘I enter.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 258)
(131) sua-z guan a-mi-squa
sun-EU hanging 3S-be.in.motion-IA
‘The sun goes up.’ (lit. ‘The sun goes hanging.’)
As we saw before, the transitive verb for ‘to put’, ‘to bring in a position’ is b-za-.
However, when the object is plural pquy- is preferred.
(132) guan ∅-b-za-squa

hanging 1S.SG-T-put (singular object)-IA
‘I hang (one).’ (González de Pérez 1987: 214)
(133) guan z-∅∅-pquy-squa
hanging 1S.SG-T-put (plural object)-IA
‘I hang (several).’ (González de Pérez 1987: 214)
The examples (127)–(133) also nicely illustrate the use of spatial adverbs in Muisca.
The usual expressions for ‘to sit’ and ‘to lie’ only differ by means of the case suffix of
their shared complement, hicha ‘earth’. The number of people sitting or lying is relevant
for the choice of the verb.
(134) hicha-n i-zo-ne

earth-L 1S.SG-be (one person)-ST
‘I sit.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 196)
(135) hicha-n chi-bizi-ne
earth-L 1S.PL-be (several persons)-ST
‘We sit.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 196)
(136) hicha-s i-zo-ne
earth-PT 1S.SG-be (one person)-ST
‘I lie (down).’ (González de Pérez 1987: 171)
Transitive verbs of eating differ according to what is eaten. The following possibilities
are mentioned in the vocabularies (e.g. González de Pérez 1987: 215–16): b-so- ‘to eat
(any sort of food, in particular leaves and herbs)’; b-gy- ‘to eat (bread, potatoes, roots);
b-ca- ‘to eat (maize, meat, cheese, fruit, biscuits, candies)’; b-gamy- ‘to eat (honey, lard,
salt, sauce)’; b-iohoty- ‘to drink’, ‘to eat (gruel)’, b-gyia- ‘to chew’, ‘to eat (sugar-cane)’.
The Muisca sources contain ample evidence of loan words from Spanish, such as fin
‘wine’ (Spanish vino) and raga ‘dagger’ (Spanish daga). Verbs are incorporated in their
infinitive form in -r, followed by the verb b-quy- ‘to do’.
(137) castigar ma-n-quy-nga [Spanish castigar ‘to punish’]

punish 2S.SG-PS-do-F
‘You will be punished.’ (González de Pérez 1987: 217)
The demonstratives in Muisca appear to be based on a straightforward system en-

coding three degrees of distance sis(y) ‘this’, ys(y) ‘that’, as(y) ‘that (over there)’. The
corresponding local adverbs (implying rest) are sinaca ‘here’, ynaca ‘there’ and anaca
‘over there’. For deictic manner adverbs we find sihic and (h)ysquy ‘thus’, which may
reflect a similar distinction. In addition, there are directional adverbs, si(e) ∼ xi(e) ‘in
this direction’, ysi ‘in that direction’ and asi ‘in that direction (over there)’. However, an
adverb that appears to be semantically opposite to si(e) is ai, which means ‘away from
the speaker’ or ‘forward’, e.g. in ai b-ta- ‘to throw (something) away’ against si b-ta-
‘to throw (something) over here’.
Interrogative pronouns are heterogeneous in form: xie ∼ sie ‘who’, ipqua ‘what’,
epqua-n ‘where (rest)’, epqua-c ‘where (goal)’, fi- ‘how many’, fica ‘how many (of time
units)’, ‘how long ago’, fes ∼ bes ‘which’, ‘when’, hac ‘how’. All must be followed by
an interrogative marker -o/-ua when used interrogatively.
The Muisca numerals reflect a vigesimal system. The ten first units are ata ‘one’,
boza ‘two’, mica ‘three’, muyhyca ‘four’, hyzca ‘five’, ta(a)50 ‘six’, cuhupqua ‘seven’,
suhuza ‘eight’, aca ‘nine’, ubchihica ‘ten’. The list presented here has been compiled
on the basis of González de Pérez (1987) and Quesada Pacheco (1991) in an endeavour
to overcome the gaps and orthographic inconsistencies found in all these sources with
respect to numerals. The numbers from ten to nineteen are formed on the basis of the
root quihicha ‘foot’ followed by the respective unit, e.g. quihicha ata ‘eleven’. The word
for twenty is gue-ta, based on a root gue [we]; forty is gue-boza, sixty is gue-mica, etc.
Lugo mentions two series of ordinal numbers. Units of time can combine with numerals
in order to refer to past units; e.g. zocam ‘year’, zocam-bo-na ‘two years ago’, zoca-
mi-na ‘three years ago’. For days the suffix -na suffices: mi-na ‘day before yesterday’,
muyhyca-na ‘the day before the day before yesterday’, etc. According to the vocabulary
of the National Library grammar it is possible to count back using separate expressions
until twenty days before the moment of speaking.
Kinship terms in Muisca involve distinctions of gender of the referent (e.g. brother
versus sister), gender of the person from whose viewpoint the relationship is consid-
ered (e.g. sibling of man versus sibling of woman), and relative age (e.g. elder versus
younger sibling). There is no distinction between son and daughter, both being called
chuta. Father’s brother and mother’s sister are called father (paba) and mother (guaia),
respectively, but there are separate terms for mother’s brother (gue-cha, lit. ‘house-man’)
and father’s sister (paba-fucha, lit. ‘father-woman’).
2.9.5 A Muisca text

Virtually all Muisca texts known to us belong to the Roman Catholic religious domain.
They can be found as appendices to all three grammars that have been preserved. An
exception to the primacy of religious liturgy are two sonnets that accompany Lugo’s
grammar, extolling his talents as a specialist of the Muisca language. These sonnets
have been analysed and translated by Ostler (1995). A part of the remaining texts have
been published and analysed in Ostler (1999).
As an illustration of Muisca text we will reproduce and analyse the Lord’s Prayer as
given in the catechism accompanying the National Library grammar (González de Pérez
1987: 342; also in Ostler 1999).
50 The vocabulary of the National Library grammar provides an indication that the pronun-
ciation of the word for ‘six’ indeed involved a sequence of two like vowels, as it writes
quihichata â ([kihity ataʔa]) for ‘sixteen’ (González de Pérez 1987: 240). Lugo has only ta
for ‘six’.
1. chi-paba guate-quyca-n zon-a

1P.PL-father high-country-L be.there-PR.AG
‘Our Father who art in Heaven,’
The past and present participles of zo(n)- ‘to be there (of one person)’ are both zon-a
(González de Pérez 1987: 107, 109). The part following chi-paba is a relative clause
with a nominalised verb (zon-a).
2. um-hyca a-chie chi-gu-squa

2P.SG-name 3P-glory 1P.PL-say-IA
‘Hallowed be thy name.’
The expression a-chie chi-gu-squa, literally, ‘we say its glory’, is given as a translation
of Spanish reverenciar ‘to hallow’. So the phrase reads: ‘We hallow thy name.’
3. um-quyca chi-muys huca

2P.SG-country 1P.PL-towards come.PA.AG
‘Thy Kingdom come.’
The postposition -muysa (here shortened to -muys) indicates motion towards a person,
indicated by means of a possessive prefix. The form huca is a past participle of hu- ‘to
come’, used as a hortative with a third-person subject. Literally, the text reads: ‘May thy
country come towards us.’
4. um-pquyquy çielo-na quy-n-uca guehesca sinca-nsie a-quy-n-ynga

2P.SG-will heaven-L do-NT-PR.AG like here-out.of 3S-do-NT-F
‘Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.’
The verb is quy-n- ‘to happen’, ‘to be done’, ‘to be’ (as in sua-z a-quy-n-suca ‘it is
sunny’), the non-transitive pendant of b-quy- ‘to do’. The present participle quy-n-uca is
used in a relative clause. The word guehesca occurs twice in the prayer with the meaning
‘as’, ‘like’. The closest form attested in the grammars and vocabularies appears to be
guesca ‘the size of’, as in mue m-guesca ‘your size’ (González de Pérez 1987: 321).
The word for ‘here (non-motion)’ is sinaca; it appears as sinca in the present version.
The ending -n-sie ∼ -n-xie indicates movement away from a place towards the speaker
(cf. Ostler 1993: 13); Lugo (1619: 119) mentions the expression xinaca nxi ‘from
here’.
5. sua-s puynuca chi-hu-cu ma-ny-sca chi-fun ba chi-hu-cu n-u

day-PT every 1P.PL-presence-AL 2S.SG-give-PR.AG 1P.PL-bread
today 1P.PL-presence-AL give-IM
‘Give us this day our daily bread.’
The phrase sua-s puynuca (with sua ‘day’ in the perlative case) is a fixed expression
‘daily’. The verb forms ma-ny-sca (present participle) and n-u (imperative singular) are
both derived from the transitive verb m-ny- ‘to give’. The form chi-hu-cu is a variant of
chi-hu-c ‘to us’. The word ba ‘today’ is usually written fa.
6. nga chi-chubia a-apqua um-u-zi-nga

and 1P.PL-debt 3S-be.enough 2S.SG-say-NE-F
‘And forgive us our trespasses.’
The root apqua ‘enough’ is preceded by a third-person subject marker a-, possibly
separated from it by a boundary-marking glottal stop. Originally, a- in apqua is a prefix
itself, considering the fact that pqua- occurs as a verb root with a similar meaning ‘to
reach’, ‘to be enough’. The form um-u-zi-nga is derived from gu- ‘to say’, which has
imperative and participle forms uz-u, uz-a without an initial g. However, considering
that the corresponding third-person form is a-gu-zi-nga, the reason for the loss of initial
g appears to be the shape of the second-person prefix (u)m- in this case. At the same
time, the presence of a vowel u in the prefix um- shows that a consonant has been deleted
immediately after the prefix. Otherwise, a form *m-u-zi-nga would be expected. The
expression a-apqua (ze-)gu-squa-za means ‘to forgive’ (literally ‘not to say it matters’).
7. chie chi-huihi-n a-chubia gue a-apqua chi-gu-squa-za guehesca

we 1P.PL-power 3P-debt be 3S-reach.to 1P.PL-say-IA-NE like
‘As we forgive those who trespass against us.’
The form hui-hi-n, equivalent to hui-na, is found with meanings such as ‘in the power
of’, or referring to the creditor of a debt (Ostler 1993: 11). The expression a-chubia gue
can be translated as ‘he who has a debt’.
8. pecado-ca chi-bena-n-zi-nga nzhona a-chie um-ta-zi-nga

sin-AL1S.PL-roll-NT-NE-F so.that 3P-light 2S.SG-throw-NE-F
‘And lead us not into temptation.’
The intransitive verb bena-n- is translated as ‘to roll’, ‘to fall from a state’, ‘to fall into
the mud’; its transitive counterpart is m-ena- ‘to wrap’. Initial b in verb roots is lost after
the transitive b-/m- prefix, which itself then appears as m-. The form nzhona ‘because’,
‘so that’ is normally written nzona. The word a-chie has been interpreted in different
ways. Ostler (1999: 57) reads it as chie ‘first-person plural object’, an interpretation that
fits the context well. This option is furthermore supported by an alternative version of
the Lord’s Prayer, which reads chie û um-ta-zi-nga ‘do not let go of us’ (from u b-ta-
‘to let go of’). However, chie ‘we’ is not normally found with a prefixed element a-.
By contrast, the combination a-chie (with the third-person possessive prefix) occurs
frequently in expressions referring to ‘light’, ‘clearness’, ‘honour’ and ‘blessing’ (see, for
instance, a-chie gu- ‘to revere’, ‘to honour’ in line 2 of the Prayer; a-chie gue ‘(he/she is)
blessed’; and a-chie-c b-chiby- ‘to look at it in the light’). A possible interpretation could
then be ‘do not cast away the light (or his blessing), so that we may not roll into sin’.
Perhaps, a-chie b-ta- ‘to cast (away) its light’ can be interpreted as an expression ‘to
show the (wrong) way’, ‘to (mis)lead’, because the semantically underspecified verb
b-ta- is predominantly used in fixed expressions (see section 2.9.4). The negative future
(um-ta-zi-nga) has the value of a negative imperative.
9. nga hataca chi-san um-pquan-ynga-co.

and always 1P.PL-behalf 2S-keep.watch-F-EM
‘But deliver us from evil.’
The literal translation is: ‘And please be sure to always keep watch on our behalf.’ The
element -co is translated in the National Library grammar as ‘take care that you . . .’,
‘do not forget to . . .’; Spanish: ‘mirad que . . .’ (González de Pérez 1987: 160).
2.10 Tunebo (Uw Cuwa)

The Chibchan people formerly known as Tunebo now prefer to use their own ethnic
denomination Uwa or U wa (‘people’); their language is called Uw Cuwa (‘people’s
tongue’). Uw Cuwa is the closest living relative of Muisca and other extinct languages
of the highlands of Boyacá and Cundinamarca. But even though Uw Cuwa is in relative
terms the closest living relative of Muisca, it is not in absolute terms closely related to
it. Its sound system is very different from that of Muisca and much less complex.
The present-day Uwa are established mainly on the northern slopes of the Sierra
Nevada del Cocuy, a high mountain massif situated in the northernmost section of the
department of Boyacá, which borders on Venezuela. The dialects spoken in this area
are known as Cobarı́a and Tegrı́a and together have the largest number of speakers. A
second group of Uwa is located further west in the departments of Santander and Norte
de Santander near Agua Blanca, and a third one in the tropical lowlands of Arauca
and Casanare near a place called Barro Negro. The dialect differences are said to be
important. Some Uwa are established in Venezuela. In most sources the estimations
of the number of Uw Cuwa speakers oscillate between 1,800 and 3,600. Arango and
Sánchez (1998) calculate the number of ethnic Uwa in Colombia at approximately
7,000.
Table 2.10 Uw Cuwa (Tunebo) consonant inventory (from Headland 1997)
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Labio-velar Glottal
Voiceless stops t k kw ʔ
Voiced stop b
Fricatives s š h
Nasals m n
Vibrant r
Oral semi-vowels w y
Nasal semi-vowel w̃
Uricoechea (1871) published a list of words in what he calls the Sı́nsiga language,
which was spoken near the town of Chita in Boyacá. The exemplified language was
Tunebo (Uw Cuwa) beyond any doubt. Chita is situated south of the Sierra Nevada
del Cocuy massif. If Uricoechea’s information is representative, it may mean that the
Uwa once occupied a larger part of the Andean highlands and that they may have had a
highland origin themselves. As agriculturalists, the Uwa take advantage of the different
climatological altitude levels of the mountain slopes. They give a high importance to
purification rituals, which make contact with non-Uwa (who are considered impure)
difficult. Until the 1980s the Uwa opposed the introduction of writing and schooling
(Headland 1997: 6). At present (2001) one of their main concerns is the increased
activity of oil prospectors in their traditional territory.
Among the early work on Uw Cuwa, Rochereau (1926, 1927) is of particular im-
portance. More recent studies by Headland (1977, 1997) are based on the Cubarı́a and
Tegrı́a dialects. The consonant inventory of Uw Cuwa, according to Headland (1997),
is represented in table 2.10.
Not only is the consonant system of Uw Cuwa limited in size, the nasal consonants do
not occur in initial position. This may be the reason for the great frequency of b and r in
initial position. The glottal stop can only occur after the first vowel in a word. Consonant
clusters are limited to syllable boundaries. Nouns normally end in a vowel a, which can
be suppressed in specific syntactic environments.
Uw Cuwa has five vowels: a, e, i, o, u. The location of stress is contrastive. Headland
(1997: 10) explicitly states that several additional contrasts can play a role in the first
syllable of a word. They include glottal closure, aspiration and vowel length. There is also
mention of a high tone, which does not necessarily coincide with the stress. Meléndez
Lozano (2000b: 704) gives examples of minimal pairs contrasted by an ascending and
a descending tone, such as rúka ‘man’s nephew by sister’s side’ versus rùka ‘clay pot’
(rúca versus rúuca in the transcription of Headland 1997: 168). He adds that the vowel
with descending tone is phonetically long and that the contrast may be one of vowel
length, rather than of tone. The status of tone in Uw Cuwa clearly requires additional
research.
As other Chibchan languages, Uw Cuwa is predominantly verb-final. The language has
no morphological personal reference markers at all (cf. Ostler 2000: 184). The personal
pronouns, asa ‘I’, isa ‘we’; baʔa ‘you (sing.)’, ba: ‘you (pl.)’, are used as subject,
object and possessor without any further specification, a situation that is reminiscent of
Cuna and the Chocoan languages. Oblique case is indicated by means of suffixes and
postpositions. The goal of a motion verb, such as bi- ‘to go’, remains unmarked. In
transitive sentences the actor is marked by an ergative suffix -at:
(138) bónit-at eb yá-ka-ro

mouse-E maize eat-PN-DV
‘The mouse is eating the maize.’ (Headland 1997: 41)
The genitive marker -ay can be used to form possessive pronouns that are not in a
dependent position.
(139) ir éya is-áy-ro

food that we-G-DV
‘That food is ours.’ (Headland 1997: 20)
Non-interrogative verb forms normally take a declarative marker -ro (138) for specific
events or -kw ano for general statements. The marker -ro is also added to nouns and
adjectives in predicative constructions to replace the copula (139). If the sentence is
interrogative, an interrogative marker (-ka or -ki for present, -ya or -yi for past) takes
the place of the declarative marker.51 A negation marker -ti- precedes the declarative
marker when required.
Tense formation in Uw Cuwa is subject to a complex set of morphophonemic rules
(cf. Headland 1997: 27–9). Number, which is not normally indicated, is sometimes
reflected by root-internal alternations (140). In other cases number of object and subject
are encoded lexically (141).
(140) yeʔʔn-hák-ro yin-hák-ro

lift.SG-PA-DV lift.PL-PA-DV
‘He/she rose up.’ ‘They rose up.’ (Headland 1997: 26)
(141) kw ik- eʔʔsu-
‘cut (one)’ ‘cut (several)’ (Headland 1997: 27)
The numeral system of Uw Cuwa shares several of the complexities of the Muisca
numerals, which is evidence of the cultural environment that once united both peoples.
51 The endings in -i can be used for greater friendliness (Headland 1997: 52–3).
Uw Cuwa distinguishes cardinal numbers, ordinal numbers and special expressions for
counting days. Single units are counted in relation to a decimal unit that follows, not
to the preceding one. These decimal units are called kes(a) ‘foot’ (compare Muisca
quihicha, which has the same meaning). A literal translation of (142) would be ‘two tens
and one to the third foot’.
(142) ukási bukáy bawóy kes úbisti52

ten two third foot one
‘twenty-one’ (Headland 1997: 21)
2.11 Yukpa and Magdalena valley Cariban

The Yukpa (or Yuco), are speakers of a complex of closely related Cariban dialects. They
inhabit the Sierra de Perijá, west of Lake Maracaibo, on both sides of the Colombian–
Venezuelan border. The Yukpa are the northern neighbours of the Barı́ and were formerly
also known as the Motilones mansos ‘tame Motilones’. The number of Colombian Yukpa
has been calculated at 1,500 (Robayo Moreno 2000), and is matched with an equal
number in Venezuela (Jaramillo Gómez 1987b). Arango and Sánchez (1998) give a
figure of about 3,500 for Colombia alone, presumably all speakers of the language.
Robayo Moreno (2000) distinguishes two dialect groups in Colombia, Iroka and
Sokorpa, corresponding to the two principal protected areas (resguardos) that were set
apart for the Yukpa in that country. The data presented show significant phonetic variation
even within each of these areas. The Venezuelan varieties of Yukpa have been classified
into four groups by Durbin and Seijas (1975). These are, from north to south, Japreria,
Macoita–Rionegrino, Pariri–Wasama–Shaparu and Irapa, leaving a fifth dialect, Viakshi,
unclassified.
On the basis of mutual intelligibility Durbin (1985) concludes that the Yukpa group
consists of two languages, namely, Japreria and a dialect continuum comprising all the
other Yukpa varieties (Yukpa). He states that the closest relatives of the Yukpa group
are extinct languages once spoken along or near the Venezuelan coast, such as Chayma,
Cumanagoto and Tamanaco. The Yukpa, in turn, are the closest known linguistic relatives
of the Opón–Carare group of the Magdalena river valley (department of Santander,
Colombia).
Durbin and Seijas (1975) reconstruct the consonant inventory of the Yukpa proto-
language, which is represented in table 2.11 below. They emphasise the fact that not all
52 The cardinal pendant of bawóy ‘third’ is baya ‘three’. Stress is not consistently indicated in
the examples of the source. Here it has been derived from the entries in the dictionary and
the assumption that the rules according to which stress is written are the same as in Spanish
orthography.
2.11 Yukpa and Magdalena valley Cariban 113
Table 2.11 Proto-Yukpa consonants (after Durbin and Seijas 1975)
Obstruents p t č k ʔ
Fricatives s š h
Nasals m n
Vibrant r
Glides w y
distinctions occur in all of the present-day dialects (especially the s/š contrast and the
glottal stop) and indicate the Shaparu dialect as the most conservative.
Some of the Colombian dialects have a retroflex affricate [č.], which corresponds to
[r] or [] elsewhere. In general, the Colombian dialects appear to have innovative sound
oppositions not found in Venezuela. Consonant clusters, presumably due to previous
vowel loss, are frequent in these dialects.
(143) Iroka: woč.epa ‘woman’ (Robayo Moreno 2000: 712)

Sokorpa: woepa ‘woman’ (Robayo Moreno 2000: 713)
(144) Iroka dž uš.č.u ‘skin’ (Robayo Moreno 2000: 712)
Irapa šuru ‘skin’ (Durbin and Seijas 1975: 74)
Durban and Seijas reconstruct six vowels, a, e, i, , o, u, which can be either oral,
or nasal. The examples suggest that the functionality of the nasal contrast is limited.
In Japreria the vowel has a value which is different from those in the other dialects.
Japreria is high central [ı̈], whereas in the other dialects it is high back unrounded [ɯ].
Historically, there is no correspondence between the two sounds.
Although it is plausible to assume, given the close lexical similarity, that the Yukpa
language complex may be similar to the Cariban languages further east, very little
has been published so far about its morphology and syntax. The available information is
lexical and phonological. Durbin and Seijas (1975: 75) note that the relational-possessive
suffix (-r , -n , etc.), which is found in other Cariban languages, such as Galibi (cf. Hoff
1968), has been reduced to glottal stop or zero. Only the Shaparu dialect has retained a
consonant for that suffix.
(145) Japreria, Irapa ∅
-pána-∅ ear-RL ‘someone’s ear’
Macoita, Rionegrino, -pána-ʔʔ
Wasama, Pariri
Shaparu -pána-t
When body parts are referred to outside the context of a person to which they belong,
a prefix y( )- is added to the root as in (Iroka) y -pána [dž pa:na] ‘ear’ (Robayo Moreno
2000). Constenla Umaña (1991: 60) distils several other typological considerations from
the scanty data. Yukpa is an SVO language, in which genitives and demonstratives
precede the head noun, whereas numerals and adjectives follow the head. Leaving aside
the genitive word order, this is the same pattern as the one found in the Chibchan
languages.
The survival well into the twentieth century of indigenous groups in the Opón and
Carare river areas in the Colombian department of Santander constitutes unequivocal
proof of the advance of Cariban-speaking peoples along the Magdalena valley. Separate
word lists for Opón and Carare were published by von Lengerke (1878), and further
(undifferentiated) Opón–Carare material was collected in 1944 by Pineda and Fornaguera
(1958). The latter source is also presented in Landaburu (1998). It includes an account
of a deadly feud between the Opón and the Carare, which brought both groups to the
verge of extinction in 1914. Durbin and Seijas (1973a) report that there must have been
at least five speakers in 1944, one of whom was in his twenties.
Durbin and Seijas (1973a) noted considerable differences between the Opón and
Carare lists of von Lengerke, on the one hand, and the Opón–Carare lists of Pineda and
Fornaguera, on the other. The latter seems to represent a divergent dialect with respect
to the other two. An interesting feature of this dialect is the widespread occurrence of
a suffix -id /-in /-iny , which may be historically identical to the relational-possessive
suffix of other Cariban languages, e.g. in potá-id ‘mouth’ (Macoita Yukpa póta-ʔ )
and in paná-iny ‘ear’ (Macoita Yukpa pána-ʔ ). In several respects Opón–Carare is
more conservative than Yukpa. It conserves the Cariban root *tuna in tuná-iny ‘water’,
where Yukpa varieties have kúna(-ʔ), and the r in yor-id ‘tooth’, where Yukpa has
yi(-ʔ), y or d ž ʔ; cf. also Pineda Giraldo’s comparative word list in Landaburu (1998:
531–5).
The existence of a Cariban speaking group in an Inter-Andean setting, such as the
Magdalena valley, opens the possibility of a wider distribution of Cariban peoples in
the area. For several nations of great historical importance, namely, the Colima, the
Muzo, the Panche, the Pantágora and the Pijao, a Cariban linguistic affiliation has often
been proposed. All these peoples have long been extinct, except for the Pijao of the
department of Tolima. In 1943 Pijao word lists were collected in the municipality of
Ortega by Alicia and Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff, as well as by Roberto Pineda Giraldo
and Milcı́ades Chaves (Durbin and Seijas 1973b). The Pijao language is now considered
extinct as well.
Durbin and Seijas (1973b) suggest that all these languages should be left unclassi-
fied, because the extremely limited data do not provide enough evidence for a Cariban
affiliation. This is certainly true of Panche, for which there are almost no data. The main
reason to assume a Cariban affiliation for Panche is the existence of a large number of
place names in -aima, -oima and -ima, which are highly suggestive of Cariban toponymy
2.12 Arawakan languages of the Caribbean coast 115
in Venezuela and the Guyanas.53 The Panche terms acaima ‘important personage’and
colima ‘cruel assassin’, mentioned by Durbin and Seijas (1973b: 51), show that this end-
ing was also used for human beings. Similar features can be found in the Muzo–Colima
and Pijao domains.54 The Colima, Muzo and Pijao word lists contain a few items of
basic vocabulary that point at a Cariban connection (cf. Constenla Umaña 1991: 62–3).
It appears possible to detect a common sound innovation in the three languages, when
some of these lexical items are compared to their counterparts in other Cariban languages,
such as Galibi (Hoff 1968).
(146) Pijao: tána Galibi: tu:na ‘water’

Pijao: tápe Colima, Muzo: tapa Galibi: to:pu ‘stone’
The Cariban elements found in Colima, Muzo and Pijao do not suggest a specific
relationship with Opón–Carare and Yukpa. They may reflect an older Cariban invasion
of the Magdalena valley, or they may represent conservative traits that have not been
preserved in the northern languages. For instance, the Pijao word for ‘moon’ núna
is found in many Cariban languages, but not in Opón–Carare and Yukpa, where it is
kanó-ny and kúnu, respectively (Durbin and Seijas 1973b: 49).
2.12 Arawakan languages of the Caribbean coast

Two closely related Arawakan languages are located in the area separating the northern
Andes from the Caribbean coast, Guajiro and Paraujano. With more than 300,000
speakers Guajiro or Wayuunaiki (‘language of the Wayuu people’) may very well be
the fastest growing indigenous language of the area covered by this book. Its original
homeland is the Guajira peninsula, shared by Colombia and Venezuela. The Guajiro
language can be subdivided into two main dialects, a northern peninsular dialect called
arribero or winpum in ‘towards the waters’ and a southern inland dialect called abajero
or wopum in ‘towards the roads’ (Pérez van Leenden 2000).
A large part of the Guajira peninsula belongs to Colombia and, consequently, a ma-
jority of the Guajiro people used to reside in that country. However, this situation has
been reversed in the past decades. A vigorous colonisation process is taking place in
the Venezuelan state of Zulia towards the shores of Lake Maracaibo and the town of
Maracaibo itself. Alvarez (1994: 10) records the following increase in the statistics of
the Guajiro speakers in Venezuela: 16,793 in 1950; 52,000 in 1982; 179,318 in 1992.
This last figure covers more than 50 per cent of the present-day indigenous population
53

The ending -im is used as an augmentative in several Cariban languages of the Guyanas, e.g.
in Trio (Eithne Carlin, personal communication).
54 Personal names, which occur abundantly in the historical sources, are rarely exploited in linguis-
tic reconstruction. The Muzo area, for instance, is characterised by a great incidence of personal
names in -pı́, e.g. Boquipı́, Quinancepı́ (Rodrı́guez Baquero 1995).
in Venezuela. The Colombian Guajiro have been calculated at 144,000 (Arango and
Sánchez 1998). The spectacular growth in the number of Venezuelan Guajiro is dif-
ficult to explain by natural increase alone. Immigration from Colombia and statistical
underexposure in the past may provide an explanation.
By contrast, Paraujano or Añún is on the verge of extinction. The Paraujano (‘beach
people’, from Guajiro palauhe ‘from by the beach’) inhabit the coast and islands between
Maracaibo and the Guajira peninsula. The last speakers of the language live in villages
of pile-dwellings located in the Lagoon of Sinamaica, north of Maracaibo.55 In the 1980s
only a few aged people continued to speak the language (Patte 1986). Alvarez (1994)
estimates the number of Paraujano speakers at less than a dozen.56
As a consequence of the Caribbean background of Guajiro and Paraujano, they do
not share many typological features with the languages of the Andean and Chibchan
spheres. Together with Lokono, the Arawakan language of the Guyanas, and the extinct
Arawakan languages of the Caribbean islands, Guajiro and Paraujano constitute a north-
ern, Caribbean branch of the Arawakan language family (Payne 1991a), referred to by
Payne as Ta-Arawak on the account of the shape of the first-person prefix, which is ta-
(or da-) in these languages. This feature separates Guajiro and Paraujano from eastern
Colombian Arawakan languages, such as Achagua and Piapoco, which use the more
widespread Arawakan marker nu- for that purpose.
In relation to Lokono and the Arawakan languages of the Lesser Antilles (St Vincent,
Dominica), Guajiro is phonologically innovative. At least one innovation, the devel-
opment of *k to glottal stop in intervocalic position, has affected borrowings from
Spanish, e.g. pa:ʔa ‘cow’ (from Spanish vaca). Some of the first Amerindian words
borrowed by the Spaniards after their occupation of the Caribbean islands, as well as
terms recorded in Hispaniola by the sixteenth-century chronicler Fernández de Oviedo,
have a shape that could be derived directly from Guajiro (cf. Taylor 1978: 123). It sug-
gests that Guajiro must have been closely related to Taı́no, the extinct native language
55 It is to settlements like those of the Paraujano that the country owes its name of Venezuela
(‘Little Venice’).
56 Durbin and Seijas (1973a), also Durbin (1985: 349), mention a third Arawakan language in
the northern Colombian Andes, Hacaritama, allegedly a close relative of Guajiro. Hacari-
tama was the name of the sixteenth-century inhabitants of the province of Ocaña in the
department of Norte de Santander (online information 2001 ‘Reseña histórica de Ocaña’
http://www.cocota.com/histcult/resea.htm). A word list collected near the town of Hacarı́ (La
Palma) was published by Justiniano Páez in 1936. Rivet and Armellada (1950) elaborate on the
context in which this list was collected: in 1912 a settlement of agricultural workers was at-
tacked and all but wiped out by (Barı́?) Indians. Consequently, the police detained three Guajiro,
who were travelling through the area. They probably provided the data for Páez’s ‘Hacaritama’
list, which is clearly Guajiro. The real affiliation of the Hacaritama language, if it ever existed,
remains undetermined.
Table 2.12 Guajiro consonant inventory (Alvarez 1994;

Mansen and Captain 2000)
Stops p t k ʔ
Affricate č
Fricatives s š h
Nasals m n
Flap l []
Trill r [rr]
Glides w y
of Hispaniola, even when compared to other documented Arawakan languages of the

Caribbean.
(147) Spanish ajı́ < *ašı́ Guajiro hašı́ ‘hot pepper’

cf. Lokono hači (< *háth i)
(148) Spanish aje < *áše Guajiro háiši ‘sweet potato’
h
cf. Lokono haliči (< *hálit i)
The existing linguistic literature on the Guajiro language is substantial. We shall only
mention a few studies, such as Celedón (1878), Holmer (1949), Hildebrandt (1963),
Olza and Jusayú (1978), Jusayú and Olza (1981, 1988), Goulet (1981), Alvarez (1985,
1993, 1994, 1996), Mansen and Captain (2000), and Mosonyi and Mosonyi (2000).
For Paraujano see Patte (1978, 1981, 1989). The Guajiro language is taught at the
universities of Riohacha (Colombia) and Zulia (Maracaibo, Venezuela). There have
been several standardisation efforts, and the language benefits from an official status
in the state of Zulia, Venezuela. The following short overview of characteristics of the
Guajiro language is based mainly on Alvarez (1994).
The sound system of Guajiro is relatively limited and straightforward. The consonants
are shown in table 2.12.
In our presentation of Guajiro we follow the habit of writing l and r for two vibrants
that are characteristic of the language. The sound symbolised by l has been described as a
combination of a slightly retracted Spanish r with a lateral sound. It is, in the terminology
of Ladefoged (1975), a flap, rather than a tap. In order to produce this sound, the tip of
the tongue is at first folded backwards and then projected against the upper alveolars
before reaching a rest position (cf. Alvarez 1994: 61–2). The sound written r is a trill,
comparable to Spanish rr and the corresponding sound of Barı́, Damana and Chocoan.
The alternation between l, r and t plays an important role in Guajiro morphophonemics.
This morphophonemic alternation extends to loan words, where l is replaced by t in
syllable-final position, e.g. p :tp ra, Spanish pólvora ‘gunpowder’ (Taylor 1978: 125);
katsu:na, Spanish calzón ‘trousers’.
Guajiro has six vowels, which can either be short or long: a, e, i, o, u, . The is a
high central vowel. Vowel length is contrastive. Guajiro has a predictable pitch accent.
Vowel length and accent are not interrelated. Word-final vowels, for instance, whether
long or short, can but need not be accented. The accent rules are described in Alvarez
(1994: 13–37). If the first syllable is heavy (that is, if it ends in a long vowel, a diph-
thong or a consonant), it is accented. If it is light (that is, if it ends in a short vowel),
the second syllable is accented. If the first syllable ends in a glottal stop, that sylla-
ble is not counted for the assignment of the accent. In that case the second syllable is
accented when it is heavy. If it is light, the accent moves to a third syllable when avail-
able. Alvarez considers initial CV ʔ- sequences to be extrametrical syllables (cf. Hayes
1982).
(149) átpana: ‘rabbit’

ayáʔʔlaha: ‘to buy’
aʔʔyaláha: ‘to cry’ (Alvarez 1994: 15)
Apparent exceptions, such as eiʔráka: ‘to threaten’ and eikkáhawa: ‘to transport’
may be re-analysed as regular e-ʔiráka-: and e-ʔikáha-wa:, respectively (Alvarez 1994:
32–3). Such an analysis is justified by the morphological structure of the forms in
question. They contain the ‘zero person’ prefix a- (e-/o-) followed by a root with an initial
glottal stop (-V: and -wa: are allomorphs of the infinitive ending). A comparison with
the related forms ni-ʔirák -in ‘he threatens’and ni-ʔikáha:-in ‘he transports’ (ni- ‘3rd
person masculine’; -in ‘present’) reveals the existence of a glottal stop in the underlying
root.
The word order of the Guajiro language is verb-initial with a preference for VSO
order. Adjectives and the possessor in a genitive construction follow the noun they
modify. In a comparison of word order in several northern Arawakan languages, Wise
(1991) observes that Guajiro is the only language that has verb-initial word order.
In an environment, such as Colombia, where almost all the indigenous languages
are verb-final, this is quite remarkable. In Guajiro, non-verbal elements that occur in
sentence-initial position, including interrogatives and adverbs, normally function as
predicates (there is no copula). Such predicative elements can be followed by a rel-
ative or a subordinate clause in a sort of cleft construction (150). The tense and as-
pect markers and gender-number markers (see below) of the subordinate verb are then
transferred to the predicate (151).57 An example with a fronted interrogative pronoun
is (152).
57 The same holds for Paraujano (Patte, cited in Alvarez 1994: 105).
(150) u:holu ta-s-e:-ka

chicha 1S.SG-drink-DE-DF
‘It is chicha I want to drink.’ (Alvarez 1994: 97)
(151) tay-e:-či o-ʔʔuna-ka maikoʔʔu-min
I-F-S.MS ZP-go-DF Maicao-AL
‘I am the one who will go to Maicao.’ (Alvarez 1994: 96)
(152) hara-l-e:-r p-a:pira-ka ya:
which-FE-F-O.FE 2S.SG-warn-DF Q
‘Whom (feminine) are you going to warn?’ (Alvarez 1994: 103)
One of the most common ways to indicate negation is by means of the negative verb
nnoho-lu-.58 It is followed by a verb with the subordinative ending -in; tense, aspect and
gender-number markers are added to the negative verb (153).
(153) nnoho-l-e:-či ta-sa-k-in kami:r

not.be-MS-F-O.MS 1S.SG-greet-TS-SU Camilo
‘I shall not greet Camilo.’ (Alvarez 1994: 98)
From a morphological point of view, Guajiro is a complex language, even by Andean

standards. The morphological devices are prefixation, suffixation and root reduplication.
The suffixes may number more than a hundred all together. The prefixes are limited
both in number and in function. Most of them are personal reference markers, which
can either refer to the subject of a verb, or to the possessor of a noun. One prefix
indicates non-specified personal reference (‘zero person’). Two other prefixes, ka- and
ma-, indicate possession (‘having’) and non-possession (‘not having’), respectively. All
prefixes consist of a consonant and a short vowel (zero person consists of a vowel alone).
The vowels are variable and can be either non-high (basically a) or high (basically ).
Both are subject to different types of fusion (with an adjacent vowel) or harmony (with a
non-adjacent root vowel). An intervening consonant can also influence the choice of the
prefix vowel, depending on whether it is coronal (alveolar and palatal) or not (Alvarez
1990, 1994: 39–59). The rules of fusion and harmony are quite opaque.
Guajiro personal prefixes and pronouns encode person, number and gender, as
represented in table 2.13.
Two types of possession, alienable and inalienable, are distinguished. Nouns can
be marked for inalienable possession by the addition of a personal-reference prefix
(154). If the possession is alienable a special relational form of the noun must be used.
Relational forms normally contain one of a set of special suffixes (155). The existence
of such relational suffixes is frequent in the Amazonian region, in Central America and
58 The initial n in nnoho-lu- represents a syllabic nasal necessary to account for the fact that the
first (and not the second) o in this form is accented [nnóhou . . . ].
˚
Table 2.13 Personal prefixes and pronouns in Guajiro (based on

Jusayú and Olza 1988; Alvarez 1994; Mansen and
Captain 2000)
Prefixes Pronouns
Singular Plural Singular Plural
1 pers. tawa- taya waya

2 pers. p - h - pia hia
3 pers. masc. n - na- nia naya
3 pers. fem. h - ∼ s -* hia ∼ šia*
zero pers. a-
* The s - and šia forms of the 3 pers. fem. are characteristic of the abajero
dialect.
in Mesoamerica. In the Andean region it is limited to a few languages (Atacameño,

Mochica). For a detailed treatment of relational forms in Guajiro see Alvarez (1996).
(154) ta-ye:
1P.SG-tongue
‘my tongue’ (Alvarez 1994: 87)
(155) ta-kulu:t-se [kulu:lu‘cloth’]
1P.SG-cloth-RL
‘my cloth’ (Alvarez 1994: 67)
In a genitive construction, in which the possessor follows the possessed, the latter is
referred to by a noun with a possessive prefix (156).
(156) n -ši kami:ru

3P.SG.MS-father Camilo
‘Camilo’s father’ (Alvarez 1996: 31)
In Guajiro the subject and object roles remain unmarked. There is a set of relational
stems that function as oblique case markers. They can take possessive personal-reference
prefixes, forming a possessive phrase with their complement (157).
(157) a-tunku-ši59 kami:r hu-luʔʔu t si-ka-l

ZP-sleep-S.MS Camilo 3P.FE-inside the.FE hammock.DF.FE
‘Camilo sleeps in the hammock.’ (Alvarez 1994: 125)
59 ‘To sleep’ is -tunka- (infinitive a-tunka-:); the vowel change (a > u) is triggered by the high
vowel in the suffix. Mosonyi (1993: 176) notes an unrounded vowel in atúnküshi tayá [a-tunk -ši
taya].
Alternatively, a relational stem can take a zero person prefix and cluster syntactically
with the verb. The logical complement of the relational stem is then raised to argument
position (either subject or object), and the relational stem takes gender-number marking
(see below) in agreement with the raised complement. For instance, in (158) t s i-ka-l
‘the hammock’ can be seen as the direct object of -tunka a-luʔu ‘to use something to
sleep in’.
(158) ta-tunka a-luʔʔu-lu t si-ka-l

1S-sleep ZP-inside-O.FE the.FE hammock.DF.FE
‘I sleep in the hammock.’ (Alvarez 1994: 163)
Finally, the relational stems can be affixed to nouns (159).
(159) pi-pia-luʔʔu [pi:či ‘house’; relational form: -pia]

2S.SG-house-inside
‘in your house’ (Alvarez 1994: 63)
One of the most remarkable features of Guajiro is its gender–number system, which
comprises three categories, masculine singular, feminine singular and plural. The fem-
inine singular is in reality the least marked category and does not exclusively refer to
female beings. A more appropriate qualification may be ‘non-masculine non-plural’.
These three categories are encoded morphologically by means of a set of markers that
emerge in various agreement positions in the sentence, as well as lexically. Demon-
stratives, personal pronouns (third person only), nouns marked for definiteness, verbal
subject prefixes and possessive prefixes (third person only), the (suffixed) object of a
transitive verb in a non-present tense, and the (suffixed) subject of a non-transitive verb
must be specified for gender–number. Some of these uses are illustrated in (160)–(163);
see also (157).
(160) t mayaht-ka-l60 [mayahl ‘young lady’]

the.FE young.lady-DF-FE
‘the young lady’ (Alvarez 1994: 129)
(161) ta-sa-k-e:-či pia
1S.SG-greet-F-O.MS you
‘I shall greet you (man).’ (Alvarez 1994: 100)
(162) hašiči-s tare:sa
be.angry-S.FE Teresa
‘Teresa is angry.’ (Alvarez 1994: 93)
60 In Mansen and Captain’s description (2000) of the Colombian abajero dialect this ending is
described as -ka-t.
(163) koʔʔu=koʔʔu-t-ši: tepiči-ka-na na-la-irua

silent-TS-S.PL child-DF-PL DC.PL-DT-PL
‘Those children are silent.’ (Alvarez 1994: 81)
Examples (157) and (160) furthermore exemplify the use of prenominal definite
articles: t (feminine), či (masculine) and na (plural). When following a noun, they are
interpreted as proximate demonstratives: ‘this’, ‘these’ (Jusayú and Olza 1988). Other
demonstrative pronouns are derived by the affixation of one of the elements -la/-ra, -sa
and -(y)a, which express an ascending scale of remoteness, e.g. na-la ‘those’ in (163)
exemplifies the use of -la/-ra with the lowest degree of remoteness. Example (163),
furthermore, contains a plural marker -irua, which functions independently from the
gender–number system.
Another remarkable feature of the Guajiro language is the existence of two competing
verbal conjugation types. The first type involves the use of personal reference prefixes,
which identify the subject. If the verb is transitive, an object can be specified by means
of gender–number suffixes under certain restrictions. This type of conjugation has been
called prefixal (Hildebrandt 1963) or synthetic (Alvarez 1994). In the second conjugation
type, the subject of the verb is expressed by means of a free pronoun, located after the
verb in accordance with the word-order rules of the language. The verb may carry
gender–number suffixes, but these refer to the subject (not to the object) of the verb.
This type of conjugation has been characterised as analytic. Guajiro makes a formal
distinction between active and stative verbs. Stative verbs cannot take any personal
reference prefixes. As a result they can only be used in the analytic conjugation. Active
verbs that are used in the analytic conjugation must fill their prefix position with a
‘zero person’ marker. The difference between the two conjugation types is illustrated in
(164) and (165) with an active transitive verb (‘to buy’). The first example illustrates the
analytic type, whereas the second exemplifies the synthetic type.
(164) a-yaʔʔla-h-e:-či pia či ka:ʔʔula-ka-i

ZP-buy-TS-F-S.MS you the.MS goat-DF-MS
‘You will buy the he-goat.’ (Alvarez 1994: 115)
(165) p-yaʔʔla-h-e:-či či ka:ʔʔula-ka-i
2S.SG-buy-TS-F-O.MS the.MS goat-DF-MS
‘You will buy the he-goat.’ (Alvarez 1994: 115)
The division of labour between the synthetic and analytic conjugations is based on
the syntactic environment in which the verb occurs. In subordinate clauses active verbs
are conjugated synthetically, whereas stative verbs are in the analytic construction. In
main clauses, however, a more elusive situation obtains. The synthetic conjugation is
limited to transitive verbs with a definite object, whereas the analytic conjugation can be
used under any circumstances. It means that transitive verbs without a definite object,
along with all intransitive and stative verbs, are conjugated analytically. When a verb is
transitive and its object is definite, the two conjugation types are in competition.
The numerous morphological devices of Guajiro include the formation of a passive
(suffix -na/-n ). Interestingly, Guajiro exhibits a proliferation of pseudo-passive con-
structions, in which not the patient but some oblique complement is raised to the subject
position. The nature of its function is made explicit by the presence of a relational stem
with a zero person prefix. Example (166) illustrates the use of such a pseudo-passive
construction, in which an original comitative complement plays the subject role. The
construction is part of a relative clause. The comitative function is indicated by a re-
lational stem with zero person prefix a-ma: ‘with’. The agent is introduced by another
relational stem: -tuma ‘by’.
(166) t-eʔʔr -in t mahayl a-yonna-h-na-ka-l a-ma:

nu-tuma kami:r
1S.SG-see-PR the.FE young.lady ZP-dance-TS-PS-DF-FE
ZP-with 3P.SG-by Camilo
‘I saw the girl that has been danced with by Camilo.’ (Alvarez 1994: 127)
Several types of root reduplication occur in the Guajiro language. Their functions
and shape are reminiscent of those of the reduplication types found in Quechua (see
chapter 3) and in Mapuche (see chapter 5). Alvarez (1994: 75–86) describes one type
of reduplication in detail. A large group of stative verbs consisting of a root followed by
a thematic suffix -ta- refer to bodily positions, attitudes, etc. Plurality of subject can be
expressed by the root in reduplicated form, followed by a thematic suffix -l - or any of
its allomorphs (-lu-, -r -). The allomorph -luis required after rounded back vowels.
(167) waya-ta- ‘to be stretched’, ‘to be spread out’

waya=waya-l- ‘to be stretched (several)’, ‘to be spread out (several)’
(168) koʔʔu-ta- ‘to be silent’
koʔʔu=koʔʔu-lu- ‘to be silent (several)’
The Guajiro language contains a number of interesting neologisms. The word for
‘horse’, a very important animal in Guajiro society, is ama. This word originally had
the meaning of ‘tapir’, which is now called lanta (from Spanish danta). The word for
‘aeroplane’ is presented and analysed in (169).
(169) ka-tna-s-ka-l
OS-arm-FE-DF-FE
‘she who has arms’ (Alvarez 1994: 129)
Guajiro has a fully developed decimal system. The unit numbers are: wane ‘one’,
piama ‘two’, ap n in ‘three’, pienči ‘four’, haʔra(l)i ‘five’, aipirua ‘six’, akaraiši
‘seven’, meki:sal ‘eight’, meki:e:tasal ‘nine’,61 poʔlo: ‘ten’ (Celedón 1878; Jusayú
and Olza 1988). In multiples of ten hiki:, rather than poʔlo:, is used. The multiplier
precedes hiki:, as in pienči hiki: ‘forty’. When added to tens, units receive the allative
marker -m in and follow poʔlo: or hiki:. Numerals may take gender affixes. They precede
the noun they modify.
2.13 Timote–Cuica
At the time of the arrival of the Spaniards, the area of the present-day Venezuelan high
mountain states of Mérida and Trujillo was inhabited by relatively highly developed
agriculturalists, who were speakers of the Timote–Cuica language family. They produced
a diversity of cultivated plants, such as maize, potatoes and cotton on agricultural terraces
situated on the high Andean slopes. The chronicler Juan de Castellanos (1589) described
some of the customs and religious practices of these people in his Elegı́as de Varones
Ilustres de Indias (Part II: Elegı́a III) in an account of the conquest of the Trujillo
area. The area was first penetrated by Spaniards in 1548, and the main city Mérida was
founded in 1558 (Wagner 1967). According to tradition, the Cuica people of the Trujillo
region received the newcomers peacefully, in contrast with the more warlike Timote,
who inhabited the area of Mérida.
There is no certainty about the question whether Timote and Cuica were different
languages or dialects of one language. In view of the geographic situation some local
variation could be expected. Cuica was spoken in the Andes from Humocaro in the
state of Lara to Jajó at the Trujillo–Mérida state border. In the southeast it included the
area of Boconó and Niquitao, and in the northwest it included the area west of Valera
(Betijoque, Escuque), not far from Lake Maracaibo. The Timote language occupied the
central valley of the Motatán and Chama rivers from the town of Timotes to the area
of La Grita in Táchira state. In the northwest Timote place names can be found on the
slopes descending towards Lake Maracaibo (Mucujepe, Torondoy). South of Mérida,
the Timote area included the area of Mucutuy and Mucuchachı́.
After the Spanish occupation, the remaining Indian population was concentrated in
a number of special villages. Their descendants have survived until today, but their
languages were gradually lost until they became extinct at some moment in the first half
of the twentieth century. Most of the information on the Timote and Cuica languages
was gathered by local scholars, such as Tulio Febrés Cordero, Amı́lcar Fonseca and
José Ignacio Lares at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was brought together
and discussed in an insightful article by Rivet (1927). Jahn (1927) provides ample
anthropological data on the area, including more word lists. Some of Jahn’s vocabulary
and sentences correspond quite closely to Fonseca’s Cuica examples, reproduced in Rivet
61 Mosonyi and Mosonyi (2000) have akaratši ‘seven’, mek:isat ‘eight’, mekiʔetsat ‘nine’.
(1927). Jahn (1927: 326), however, identifies his own data as Timote, insisting that Cuica
and Timote were in fact one language.
Although the Timote and Cuica languages are considered extinct, information dated
1977 (from Merrill Seely) that has appeared in recent editions of the Ethnologue (e.g.
Grimes 1996) refers to a language allegedly spoken in the locality of Mutús above
Pueblo Llano in the state of Barinas. Pueblo Llano is a high mountain town, situated in
the state of Mérida (not Barinas), off the Mérida–Barinas road. The matter calls for urgent
action because an indigenous language preserved in that area would almost certainly be
a variety of Timote, originally the dominant speech in the region. The word Mutús is
reminiscent of the prefixed root Mucu, a characteristic element of Timote toponymy (e.g.
Mucuchı́es, Mucubajı́, Mucurubá, Mucujún, etc.). It may have been a word for ‘people’,
‘community’ or ‘village’, and it is so frequent that a well-known Venezuelan scholar,
Julio C. Salas, saw it as a suitable replacement for the name Timote (Rivet 1927: 140).
Even though the Timote and Cuica materials are very limited and mainly lexical in
nature, a thorough analysis of what is available and a comparison with other languages
of the area could be rewarding. At first sight, there is no similarity whatsoever with the
surrounding Arawakan, Cariban and Chibchan languages. Rivet attempted to compare
Timote and Cuica vocabulary items with Páez and a series of highly divergent languages
of the Chibchan family. Some interesting lexical similarities emerge, but no overall
picture. Rivet (1927: 148) himself emphasises that Timote–Cuica must be considered to
be an independent family. Rivet also traced some of the morphological characteristics
of Timote and Cuica. A striking feature of these languages is the existence of a set of
prefixes that seem to convey gender and number distinctions. These prefixes appear to
function in an agreement system. Consider the following examples from Mucuchı́ and
Mirripú Timote.
(170) mi-snún mi-ndok

CL-woman CL-old
‘old woman’ (Rivet 1927: 144)
The prefix mi- is interpreted by Rivet as a generic or collective prefix. The form
mi-snún can be compared to ču-snú ‘woman’. The latter form contains a prefix ču-,
which may have an individualising function since it is opposed to ti- ‘plural’.
(171) ču-sep
CL-Spaniard
‘a Spaniard’ (Rivet 1927: 145)
(172) ti-sep
PL-Spaniard
‘the Spaniards’ (Rivet 1927: 144)
According to Rivet, the Cuica prefixes kas- and kus- (less frequently ka- and ku-) are
used for masculine and feminine human beings, respectively. Jahn (1927: 403) interprets
the prefix kus-/ku- as a first-person possessive prefix ‘my’, and ka- as a second-person
possessive prefix. This interpretation is problematic, considering that an ‘I’ and ih ‘you’
(see below) can also function as possessive markers. A possible solution could be that
the use of ka(s)- and ku(s)- as possessive markers may have been limited to (human)
relatives. The Cuica data appear to contain evidence both for a gender, and a possessive
interpretation.
(173) kas-taita kus-man

MS/2P-father FE/1P-mother
‘the father’ (or ‘your father’) ‘the mother’ (or ‘my mother’)
(Rivet 1927: 145)
(174) ka-šik ku-šik
MS/2P-sibling FE/1P-sibling
‘brother’ (or ‘your sibling’) ‘sister’ (or ‘my sibling’) (Rivet 1927: 145)
Double marking or repetition of (the same) prefixes is not unusual, as can be seen in
(175).
(175) kus-ku-šik
FE/1P-FE/1P-sibling
‘the sister’ (or ‘my sister’) (Rivet 1927: 145)
An extremely frequent nominal prefix in Cuica is kiu-. It also occurs as ki-, in par-
ticular before k or h followed by a rounded vowel, and as kiuk-. It may be related to a
demonstrative kiu in Timote. Interestingly, kiu(k)- is sometimes found with borrowed
roots (Rivet 1927: 144–5, 147).
(176) kiu-pa ‘road’

ki-hutn, kiu-hutn ‘dog’
kiu-misa ‘table’ [Spanish mesa]
kiuk-mis ‘cat’ [old Spanish miche]
Suffixes are less frequent than prefixes. Rivet found a diminutive suffix -is and an
augmentative -č in Cuica.
(177) kču-is
bird-DI
‘small bird’ (Rivet 1927: 146)
(178) kiak-č
Indian-AU
‘tall Indian’ (Rivet 1927: 147)
Rivet identified the personal pronouns an and ih for first and second person, respec-
tively. These elements can precede a noun in order to identify its possessor. Example
(179) is from Mucuchı́ Timote, (180)–(182) are from Cuica.
(179) an koipú
I hat
‘my hat’ (Rivet 1927: 146)
(180) an kamo heu euntz
I five be child
‘I have got five children.’ (Rivet 1927: 146)
(181) ih kiu-tsaos
you CL-corncob
‘your corncobs’62 (Rivet 1927: 146)
(182) ma-pé ti-t-kinak ih eunts heup63
how.many-IR PL-PL-son you child be
‘How many children do you have?’ (Rivet 1927: 146)
Verbal morphology is poorly represented in the data. It appears to be rudimentary.

One of the few clear cases is an imperative prefix ma-. The element ok in (184) has
been interpreted as a third-person pronoun (Jahn 1927: 403). It may also have had an
aspectual function. Example (183) is from Mucuchı́ Timote, (184) from Cuica.
(183) ma-fam šumpiú

IM-bring water
‘Bring water!’ (Rivet 1927: 146)
(184) ku-šik ok na kfok
FE/1P-sibling he/she sweep house
‘My sister sweeps the house.’ (Rivet 1927: 145)
Word order in Cuica and Timote appears to be SVO, as could be seen in (184) and in
the example (185) from Mucuchı́ Timote.
62 The translation of this example is plural, even though ‘corncobs’ has more expectedly also been
recorded as ti-tsaos.
63 A difference in use between heu and heup (‘there is’) could not be derived from the examples.
(185) mi-n-gué tikasé tis-kainak64 [kué ‘hawk’; Spanish gallina ‘hen’]

CL-EU(?)-hawk seize PL-hen
‘The hawk seized the hens.’ (Rivet 1927: 144)
Oblique case relations are indicated by means of prepositions, some of which are also
used adverbially. The use of (u)du in (186) and in (187) illustrates this. Example (187)
is from Cuica; (186) may be Cuica as well (see above the remark on Jahn’s data).
(186) an nišı́ du k(u)-šundók

I live with FE/1P-wife
‘I live with my wife.’ (Jahn 1927: 408)
(187) ti-kšoi teuk udu
PL-youngster go together
‘The boys go together.’ (Rivet 1927: 144)
Adjectives can either follow or precede the noun they modify; the former option
appears to be the more usual one, as the following Cuica examples show.
(188) kiu-hutn toi

CL-dog fat
‘the fat dog’65 (Rivet 1927: 147)
(189) nisisi ku-neu ksoy
beautiful FE-girl youngster
‘a beautiful girl’ (Rivet 1927: 148)
The materials are quite explicit for as far as numerals are concerned. The system is
decimal. From six on, the number names are morphologically composed: ‘one’ karı́;
‘two’ xem ∼ xen; ‘three’ šut ∼ sut ∼ hisxut (Timote), šuent (Cuica); ‘four’ pit (Timote),
pitı́ (Cuica); ‘five’ kabó ∼ kabok (Timote), kamó (Cuica); ‘six’ kasum ∼ kaksún ∼ kapsún
(Timote), katseunt (Cuica); ‘seven’ mai-xem ∼ mai-xén (Timote), ma-en (Cuica); ‘eight’
mai-xut ∼ mai-sxut (Timote), mabi-šuent (Cuica); ‘nine’ mai-pit (Timote), mabi-pita
(Cuica); ‘ten’ tabı́s. Multipliers precede the tens; units follow the tens, e.g. hisxut tabı́s
‘thirty’, tabı́s hisxut ‘thirteen’. Numerals precede the nouns they modify.
From a phonological point of view the languages are remarkable for their word-
initial consonant clusters, e.g. in (Cuica) trindu ‘flower’, (Cuica) kču ‘bird’, (Cuica)
stots ‘blood’, (Timote) klef ‘rainy season’. This phenomenon is more conspicuous in
Cuica than in Timote. Loan words from Spanish, often heavily transformed, are found
in both languages; e.g. Timote ti-fuix ∼ ču-fués ‘green peas’ (Spanish arveja), Cuica kiu-
trikú ∼ kiu-trik ‘wheat’ (Spanish trigo). An interesting word which suggests a borrowing
64 The prefix tis- is a variant of ti- ‘plural’ (possibly a double marker).

65 Fat puppies, called mucuchı́es, are a speciality of the region.
2.14 Jirajaran 129
relation with Quechua is Cuica fotuto ‘a musical instrument’ (compare Quechua pututu
‘shell-trumpet’). The German conquistador Niklaus Federmann also reported the use of
a shell-trumpet called botuto during his voyage to the interior of Coro in 1530 (López
1985: 62). It was used as a war signal among the Jirajaran Ayamán.
2.14 Jirajaran
The Jirajaran language family is represented by several peoples who lived in a moun-
tainous region in western Venezuela now covered by the states of Lara and Falcón and
surrounding areas. Separated from the Caribbean coast only by the peaceful (Arawakan)
Caquetı́o, the Jirajarans suffered the full impact of predatory European colonisation dur-
ing the first half of the sixteenth century. Best known among the Jirajaran groups were
the Jirajara (referred to as Xidehara in Federmann’s account), the Ayamán (or Ayomán),
reputed for their small size, and the Gayón. In spite of the violent events to which they
fell victim during the sixteenth century, the Jirajarans, who were known for their brav-
ery, managed to survive until the twentieth century. Some data of Jirajara, Ayamán and
Gayón were collected during the first decades of the twentieth century, mainly by Oramas
(1916) and Jahn (1927). The town of Siquisique, in the north of Lara, is the centre of the
area where the last Jirajara data were collected. The last Ayamán speakers were found in
1910 in San Miguel de los Ayamanes, a small village near Aguada Grande, also in the
north of Lara. The last Gayón speakers lived near Bobare, north of Barquisimeto, but
a larger community of Spanish-speaking Gayón, el Cerrito, was located near Quibor,
south of that city, at the beginning of the twentieth century. Jahn (1927) contains word
lists of the three languages.
Constenla Umaña (1991) presents some of the typological characteristics of the
Jirajaran languages. Unlike Timote–Cuica, the Jirajaran languages use case suffixes
or postpositions, as in (190) from Jirajara.
(190) an-güi fru-ye

1S-go Siquisique-AL
‘I go to Siquisique.’ (Oramas, in Constenla Umaña 1991: 58)
The interpretation of an- as a first-person marker is tentative. Other instances of

first-person subject and possessor contain a prefix a-, e.g. a-papušán ‘my arm’ (Jahn
1927: 380). If the interpretation of an- as a first-person marker is correct, it would be
homophonous with the first-person pronoun in Cuica. The free pronouns for first and
second person are oh and moh, respectively (Jahn 1927: 385).
According to Constenla Umaña’s observations, the word order is VO in transitive
clauses and SV in intransitive clauses, which seems to indicate a general order SVO.
Genitives and numerals precede a head noun, whereas adjectives follow it. In genitive
constructions the head noun receives a possessive prefix, as in (191) from Ayamán.
(191) špašiú ye-mún

bow 3P-string
‘bow-string’ (Jahn 192: 382)
Typologically, the Jirajaran languages seem to be closest to the Chibchan languages.

However, the data are far too limited to say anything substantial about their genetic and
typological characteristics.66 Some lexical similarities with Timote–Cuica can be noted,
e.g. Ayaman sı́p, Timote ti-sép ‘firewood’; Ayamán -kı́ng(e), Timote kéun ‘to sleep’;
Ayamán -ñamı́ ‘to eat’, Timote nam ‘to eat (meat)’.
2.15 Páez (Nasa Yuwe)

Here we will use the imposed name Páez for the ethnic group (the alternative would
be Nasa), and the native name Nasa Yuwe for the language. While the first efforts to
write a catechism in Nasa Yuwe date from 1630, the first major vocabulary collected
for the language dates from the middle of the eighteenth century (cf. Uricoechea 1871).
The autodenomination Nasa Yuwe (‘people mouth’) for the language follows a familiar
pattern (compare runa simi for Quechua; cf. chapter 3); while originally the word nasa
may have meant ‘animate being’ it now refers to ‘Páez Indian’ (Nieves Oviedo 1991a:
107). While many sources give a figure of 38,000 Páez, Nieves Oviedo (1991a: 108) cites
a figure from 1989 of 94,670 members of the group, and Pachón (1987) cites a figure
of 80,000. Pachón indicates that the Páez population is under strong pressure both from
exceptionally high infant mortality and from military conflicts. Despite strong pressure
from the colonial period onwards to move into organised villages, the Páez have always
preferred to live dispersed among the areas of cultivation. They occupy an ecologically
very diverse territory, ranging in altitude from 500 to 3,000 metres.
There are a number of Nasa Yuwe dialects, which are described separately in Nieves
Oviedo (1991e). Most of these are very similar, but the Paniquitá dialect is sufficiently
different that some authors have classified it as a separate language. The Swadesh list
of basic vocabulary included in Nieves Oviedo (1991e) shows, however, that a large
majority of the core lexical items of the Paniquitá dialect are sufficiently similar to those
of the other dialects (particularly, it seems, to those of the Toribı́o variety, but this needs
to be studied more systematically) to classify Paniquitá as a slightly divergent dialect of
Nasa Yuwe. From the phoneme inventories presented in Nieves Oviedo (1991b, c, d) it
appears that the Paniquitá dialect together with the Caldono dialect has preserved the
full range of Nasa Yuwe phonemes, unlike the Munchique and Toribı́o dialects, so that
it may be a conservative variety.
66 Jahn (1927: 274) and Acosta Saignes (1953) mention a possible connection between Jirajaran
and the Betoi language family, formerly spoken in the Colombian lowlands, east of the Andes.
One of the Betoi subgroups is called Jirara and the (probably mistaken) identification may be
based on a confusion of the two names.
Table 2.14 Caldono Páez obstruents (following Nieves Oviedo 1991c)
Labial stop Alveolar stop Alveolar affricate Velar stop
Plain p t c k
Aspirated ph th ch kh
Palatalised py ty cy ky
Palatalised aspirated pyh tyh cyh kyh
Prenasalised mb nd n dz ŋg
Prenasalised palatalised m by n dy n dzy ŋgy
The colonial period was characterised by fierce armed resistance against Spanish
colonisation, but in the eighteenth century Catholic missionaries paved the way for
permanent submission of the Páez to Spanish domination. From 1910 to 1920 there were
rebellions involving both the Páez and the Guambiano. Since the nineteenth century the
Páez have started to learn Spanish, and now many are fully bilingual, particularly in the
Caldono region (Nieves Oviedo 1991e: 1). In Pachón (1987) it is claimed that 74 per cent
of the around 80,000 Páez are bilingual in Nasa Yuwe and Spanish, and 26 per cent are
monolingual Nasa Yuwe speakers. However, the native language is under strong political
and demographic pressure. At the same time it is very much alive and is supported by
strong native organisations such as the CRIC (Consejo Regional Indı́gena del Cauca),
founded in 1972. The future of Nasa Yuwe is linked to the currently highly uncertain
future of rural Colombia.
The Swadesh list (cf. Nieves Oviedo 1991e) shows some Spanish borrowings, such
as rupa ‘cloth’ (< ropa) and n deka ‘grease’ (< manteca). There are also some Quechua
borrowings, such as alku ‘dog’ (< Ecuadorian Quechua aly ku), atal y ‘chicken’ (see
section 4.15), and possibly misy ‘cat (< Ecuadorian Quechua misi, ultimately from
Spanish miche), as well as tata ‘father’ and mama ‘mother’, which alternate with Nasa
Yuwe terms.
The phoneme system of Nasa Yuwe is characterised by a highly regular but extensive
series of consonants and vowels (Nieves Oviedo 1991c: 131). In the occlusive consonants
there are labials, alveolar stops, alveolar affricates and velars, which can be [± aspirated],
[± palatalised] and [± prenasalised] (table 2.14). Labiovelars [kw ] and other labialised
consonants occur but are not usually counted as phonemes in the inventories.
The feature of palatalisation also plays a role in the continuants (table 2.15).
The vowel system likewise is complex but highly regular. It contains a four vowel
series, which can be plain, nasal, long, glottalised and aspirated (table 2.16).
There is dialect variation in the distribution of these consonantal and vocalic features,
e.g. ic(h) ‘nose’ in Munchique–Tigres is pronounced as ˜ c(h) in Toribı́o and in Caldono.
Nasa Yuwe syllable structure is relatively simple: two prevocalic consonants are al-
lowed, followed by a vowel and one or two (only the Toribı́o variety) consonants (Jung
Table 2.15 Caldono Páez continuants (following Nieves Oviedo 1991c)
Labial Alveolar Glottal
Plain fricatives s h
Palatalised fricatives: voiceless ϕy sy hy
Palatalised fricative: voiced βy
Nasals m n
Palatalised nasal ny
Lateral l
Palatalised lateral ly
Glides w y
Table 2.16 Caldono Páez vowels (following Nieves Oviedo 1991b)
Oral Nasal
High Mid High High Mid High
front front Low back front front Low back
Plain i e a u ı̃ ẽ ã ũ
Long i: e: a: u: ı̃: ẽ: ã: ũ:
Glottalised iʔ eʔ aʔ uʔ ı̃ʔ ẽʔ ãʔ ũʔ
Aspirated ih eh ah uh ı̃h ẽh ãh ũh
1989: 37; Nieves Oviedo 1991c; Yule Yatacué 1991b). However, even in the Toribı́o
variety, single morphemes can only end in one consonant. Biconsonantal clusters result
from the addition of the first-person suffix -th or the third-person suffix -k (Nieves Oviedo
1991c: 129):
(192) a. ikh -th ‘I killed it.’ VCC

th eŋ g-th ‘I watched it.’ CVCC
tw ak-th ‘I cut it.’ CCVCC
b. am b-k ‘He threw it.’ VCC
tun d-k ‘He tied it.’ CVCC
In other varieties than Toribı́o an epenthetic vowel -u is placed after the biconsonantal
sequence: am b-ku ‘he threw it’ and pan d-th u ‘I swept’.
Many roots are monosyllabic, such as e: ‘blood’ and kpiʔ sy ‘thunder’, but bi- and
trisyllabic roots such as cmeh me ‘butterfly’ and kw enesa ‘lightning’ occur as well. Rojas
Curieux (1991a: 20) also gives examples of quadrisyllabic roots, but it needs to be seen
whether these are not compound forms. Stress may be contrastive, but is not systemati-
cally indicated in the sources.
There are a number of general phonological realisation processes: (a) in word-final

position stops are aspirated (neutralising the opposition between plain and aspirated stops
in that position); (b) in word-initial position prenasalisation is weakened or disappears
altogether; (c) there is free variation between [u] and [o]. In addition, in specific dialects
we find all kinds of phonological variation, the most interesting of which concerns
depalatalisation before i in Toribı́o. Bilabial palatal fricatives are optionally labialised
in this variety before i:
(193) ϕy ic > ϕic ∼ ϕw ic ‘guinea-pig’
From Yule Yatacué’s (1991a) and Nieves Oviedo’s (1991a) account a clear picture of
verbal and nominal morphology arises. It can be deduced that there are a few prefixes
(marking causative and reflexive), a set of verbal vowel suffixes marking aspect, and a
set of enclitic tense, mood, negation, person and number markers:
(194) ah -yaʔ p-me-ku-th

cook-IC-NE-RM-1S.SG.DV
‘I was not going to cook.’ (Yule Yatacué 1991a: 174)
(195) k-deh -e-k
CA-sleep-IA-3S.SG.EV.DV
‘He made him sleep.’ (Yule Yatacué 1991a: 186)
(196) k-mem-u-th
CA-sing-IA-1S.SG.DV
‘I made him sing.’ (Yule Yatacué 1991a: 187)
In addition, there is a proclitic preverb marking joint action. When this preverb occurs
it carries the tense and person marking:
∅-k n deh
(197) ih -∅
do.with-AO-3S.SG.EV.DV sleep
‘He slept together (with X).’ (Yule Yatacué 1991a: 186)
(198) ih -ku-th k-mem-u
do.with-RM-1S.SG.DV CA-sing-IA
‘I made him sing together (with X).’ (Yule Yatacué 1991a: 187)
Jung remarks that in addition to verbal negation there is nominal negation, marked
with yuh pa:
(199) β y u β y a-c-me: yuh pa

money appear-PR-NE not
‘There really is no money.’ (Jung 1989: 305)
Rojas Curieux provides some intriguing examples in which person markers occur on
the object noun rather than on the verb:
(200) th uw-aʔ s uy-∅∅-th aʔ w

hedgehog-AC.SG see-AO-1S.PL.DV
‘We saw the hedgehog.’ (Rojas Curieux 1991a: 35)
(201) th uw-cy a-ʔ s-th aʔ w uy
hedgehog-PL.S-AC.SG-1S.PL.DV see
‘We saw the hedgehog.’ (Rojas Curieux 1991a: 35)
The relatively free clitic character of the person markers in Nasa Yuwe is confirmed
by Nieves Oviedo’s (1991a: 129–33) analysis of nominal predication. She shows that
the above contrast between (200) and (201) should be analysed in terms of focus, on the
basis of the following examples:
(202) misy -aʔ karlos-aʔ s waʔ ky -ku-k

cat-TO Carlos-AC.SG bite-RM-3S.SG.EV.DV
‘The cat bit Carlos.’ (Nieves Oviedo 1991a: 129)
y ʔ ʔ y
(203) mis -ku-k karlos-a s wa k
cat-RM-3S.SG.EV.DV Carlos-AC.SG bite
‘It was the cat that bit Carlos.’ (Nieves Oviedo 1991a: 129)
y ʔ ʔ y
(204) mis -a karlos-ku-k wa k
cat-TO Carlos-RM-3S.SG.EV.DV bite
‘It was Carlos that the cat bit.’ (Nieves Oviedo 1991a: 129)
When there is no particular focus on any of the participants in the sentence, the
tense, person and mood markers are attached to the verb. Otherwise, however, they are
attached to the focused constituent. In one of Nieves Oviedo’s analyses (1991a: 132–3),
the focused constituent constitutes the true predicate of the sentence in all cases.
Person marking is closely linked both to a gender distinction (for the first and second
persons), the active/stative distinction (for the third person) and to epistemic modality (for
all persons). Rojas Curieux (1991a) gives the following minimal pair for the active/stative
distinction:
(205) wala-∅∅-aʔ
be.tall-AO-3S.SG.ST.DV
‘He is tall.’ (Rojas Curieux 1991a: 40)
(206) wala-∅∅-k
be.tall-AO-3S.SG.EV.DV
‘He grew.’ (Rojas Curieux 1991a: 40)
Table 2.17 Person markers in Nasa Yuwe (based on Rojas Curieux

1991a, b; Nieves Oviedo 1991a; Jung 2000)
Direct Inferential Interrogative/

Pronoun knowledge knowledge no knowledge
1 sing. masc. an d y -t h (u) -nha -tkaʔ

1 sing. fem. ũʔ kw e -t h (u) -nha -tkaʔ
2 sing. masc. in dy -ŋg(u) -ŋga -ŋgaʔ
2 sing. fem. i ʔ kw e -iʔ kw e -kw e -kw eʔ
3 sing. stative ty a -aʔ (∼ -haʔ ) -na -naʔ
3 sing. active ty a -k(u) -ka -kaʔ
1 plur. kw eʔ sy -t h aʔ w -nhaʔ w -tk h aʔ w
2 plur. iʔ kw esy -iʔ kw e -kw e -kw eʔ
3 plur. stative ty aweʔ sy -taʔ -ty na -ty naʔ
3 plur. active ty aweʔ sy -ty (i) -ty na -ty naʔ
Depending on the stativity of the predicate, -aʔ or -k(u) is chosen. Most verbs will
take one of the two markers, while there is a subset of predicates like wala- ‘be tall/grow’
that can take either.
Jung (1989) shows that with nominal predicates, the use of a copula marks a possibly
temporary state:
n y ʔ
(207) d i h-aʔ wala kan dzy -aʔ
road-TO very bad-3S.SG.ST.DV
‘The road is very bad.’ (Jung 1989: 75)
(208) n dy iʔ h-aʔ wala kan dzy ũs-aʔ
road-TO very bad be-3S.SG.ST.DV
‘The road is very bad at the moment.’ (Jung 1989: 75)
Table 2.17 contains the full array of the person markers.

The category ‘Inferential knowledge’ corresponds to knowledge that the speaker has
no direct access to, to supposed or inferred events, while the category ‘Interrogative/no
knowledge’ corresponds to knowledge that the speaker has to discover, most often by
asking a question. In the paradigm in table 2.17 the vowel u generally corresponds with
‘Direct knowledge’, the vowel a with ‘Inferential knowledge’, and the vowel aʔ with
‘Interrogative/no knowledge’. Further analysis will have to reveal whether or not the
exceptions to this imply that we can separate the categories of person and epistemic
morphosyntactically. (The short forms in table 2.17 are used after a vowel, -haʔ after a
glottalised vowel. Note that the endings corresponding to second person feminine and
plural are identical.)
Turning briefly to word order, Rojas Curieux (1991a) notes that all determiners precede
the noun except the adjective. Personal pronouns preceding the noun indicate pronominal
possession. While adjectives follow the noun, qualifying adverbs tend to precede the
verb.
(209) ty a an dy heʔn dz alku kh ũcy

that I two dog black
‘those two black dogs of mine’ (Rojas Curieux 1991a: 25)
Often there is an SOV order, in which the object is marked -(a)ʔ s ‘singular object’
or -ty i ‘plural object’. Ordinarily the subject is not marked, although it can be marked
comitative and topic, in examples such as the following:
∅-th aʔ w
(210) ny akh -th ẽh -yakh -aʔ tata-ʔ s ϕy ity -∅
brother-older-C-TO father-AC.SG wake.up-AO-1S.PL.DV
‘My brother and I woke my father up.’ (Rojas Curieux 1991a: 26)
Nonetheless, as Rojas Curieux (1991a: 27) notes, clausal order is rather free and the
object can follow the verb as well. The object marker can be attached both to direct
objects and to indirect objects, as well as to the causee in causative constructions, as
shown by the following contrast:
(211) nasa yuwe-aʔ s piya-na ũs-th u

nasa yuwe-AC.SG learn-N be-1S.SG.DV
‘I am learning Nasa Yuwe.’ (Jung 1989: 74)
ʔ ʔ ʔ ʔ ʔ ʔ
(212) hwan-a ũ kwe- s nasa yuwe- s ka:-piya- h-na ũs-a
Juan-TO I.FE-AC.SG nasa yuwe-AC.SG CA-learn-T-AG
be-3S.SG.ST.DV
‘Juan is teaching me Nasa Yuwe.’ (Jung 1989: 74)
In addition to the comitative case and object markers, there are a number of other case
markers as well, mostly relating to a complex locative system (Jung 1989: 188–95):
(213) -hı̃: ‘on behalf of’, ‘for (benefactive)’

-hu ‘away from’
-ka ‘upward to’
-kh e ‘downward to’
-na ‘towards’
-su ‘through’, ‘among’
-te ‘neutral’,‘towards’
-uy ‘across’, ‘in front of’
There is a set of question words morphologically related to indefinite and negative

universal quantifiers (Jung 1989: 306):
(214) bakacy bakacy -pa bakacy yuh pa ‘when/ever/never’

kı̃h kı̃h -pa kı̃h yuh pa ‘what/something/nothing’
kim kim-pa kim yuh pa ‘who/someone/no one’
ma: ma:-pa ma: yuh pa ‘which/anyone/no one’
m-te: m-te:-pa m-te: yuh pa ‘where/somewhere/nowhere’
The existence of an indefinite marker -pa suggests that the nominal negator yuh pa
is itself morphologically complex. Notice that m-te: is also morphologically complex,
containing the locative marker -te:. Through reduplication of the question word the
referent may be extended: k˜ h =k˜ h -pa ‘many things’, m-te:=m-te:-pa ‘everywhere’.
Subordination is achieved primarily through verb nominalisation. In embedded
clauses the verb is in final position and no topic is allowed (Jung 1989: 238). Nom-
inalised clauses can occur in the same main clause positions as noun phrases. Infinitive
complements are marked with -yaʔ and generally precede the main verb, which is some-
times best analysed as a modal or aspectual auxiliary. Notice there is no case marking
in these complements:
(215) yat-te ka:-piya-ʔ h-yaʔ takh -e-ʔ -ty

house-L CA-learn-T-IF begin-IA-CU-3S.PL.EV.DV
‘They begin teaching them in the house.’ (Jung 1989: 242)
In addition to a nominaliser for expected events -waʔ h, and a participle marker for
realised events -ny i, there is an unspecified nominaliser -sa that has the remarkable
feature that it can be both subject- (216) and object-oriented (217). With nouns (218), it
indicates the person with a certain property:
(216) ka:-piya-ʔ h-sa

CA-learn-T-N
‘teacher’ (Jung 1989: 247)
(217) ka:-piya-ʔ h-ny i-sa
CA-learn-T-SN-N
‘what has been taught’ (Jung 1989: 247)
(218) nasa-sa
Páez-N
‘someone who is a Páez’ (Jung 1989: 247)
This marker can be used to form relative clauses.

(219) ka:-piya-ʔ h-yaʔ paʔ h-sa-ty ty ã: ka:-piya-ʔ h-ny i-ty

hy paʔ ka-c-me:-tkh aʔ w
CA-learn-T-IF come-N-AC.PL that CA-learn-T-SN-AC.PL
accept-PR-NE-1S.PL.IR
‘We don’t accept the teachings of those who have come to teach us.’67
(Jung 1989: 248)
For samples of analysed and translated text in Páez see Nieves Oviedo (1991e) and
Jung (2000).
2.16 Andaquı́ and the languages of the Upper Magdalena valley

From a historical point of view, the Andaquı́ people are famous for the merciless guerrilla
war which they were able to sustain against the Spanish colonial administration for almost
250 years. In literature they have often been presented as identical to the inhabitants of the
Upper Magdalena valley region at the time of the conquest (see, for instance, Rivet 1924).
In that perspective, they would have superseded the people responsible for building the
sculptures and monuments at the archaeological site of San Agustı́n in the proximity of
the Magdalena headwaters. A careful study of the rich historical documentation relating
to the Upper Magdalena region carried out by the historian Juan Friede (1953) has
brought to light a more complex reality.68
At the time of the conquest the Upper Magdalena region was inhabited by several
ethnic groups with a more or less egalitarian social structure. Best known among these
groups were the Timaná and the Yalcón.69 In times of danger they would unite with
neighbouring peoples, such as the Guanaca and the Páez. The Spaniards, who were
initially well received, experienced this during the great uprising which led to the death
of the conquistadores Añasco and Ampudia in 1543. Unfortunately, the extraordinary
bravery of the Upper Magdalena Indians was matched by poor military strategy (massive
noisy attacks in closed formation, always during daytime; inefficient weapons), so that
the Spaniards soon subjugated them. They founded the towns of Timaná and La Plata
and divided the Indians according to the encomienda system.70 Forced to defend them-
selves against aggressive neighbours, such as the Pijao, the impoverished encomenderos
67 By using an interrogative form in a non-interrogative context an individual speaker can take

distance from a habit characteristic for the group to which he or she belongs (Jung 1989:
123–4).
68 An important part of Friede’s conclusions are based on the visita (‘inspection’) of Timaná,
conducted by the Spanish colonial authorities in 1628.
69 It is not likely that these groups were direct descendants of the sculptor people of San Agustı́n.
Most authors emphasise the differences in religion, burial habits and social organisation.
70 Encomienda: trust estate granted to colonists by the Spanish kings.
2.16 Andaquı́ and the Upper Magdalena valley 139
repeatedly moved and relocated the local Indians which they were supposed to protect,
ruthlessly exploiting their work force and using them as scouts or porters. This process led
to the virtual disappearance of the local tribes during the second half of the seventeenth
century. In their misery and despair, many Indians fled the Upper Magdalena region
and found a hiding place on the eastern Andean slopes and in the adjacent Amazonian
lowlands.
The attacks by the Andaquı́ Indians began at the beginning of the seventeenth century.
(One of their first exploits was the destruction of the town of Simancas on the Upper
Caquetá about 1600.) The habitat of the Andaquı́ Indians included a huge jungle area,
bordered by the Caquetá river in the south and west, its tributary the Caguán in the
east, and the Upper Magdalena highlands in the north. During the seventeenth century
they frequently raided the Upper Magdalena region with its dwindling population, in
particular, the area of San Agustı́n and the valley of the Suaza, an eastern tributary of the
Magdalena. Soon the entire population of the Suaza river valley had to be removed, as
it was too exposed to the attacks of the Andaquı́. In the eighteenth century the Andaquı́
turned their attention to the missionary settlements on the Caquetá river. Many of them
were destroyed and abandoned. During the nineteenth century the Andaquı́ slipped into
oblivion. Today, only some place names, such as Belén de los Andaquı́es on the Pescado
river (near Florencia), remind us of their existence. There are no known speakers of the
language left.
The identity of the Andaquı́ Indians is problematic. They may have had an Amazonian
origin, a conclusion which is favoured by their extraordinary adaptation to the jungle
habitat. In contrast to the sixteenth century-Upper Magdalena Indians, their fighting
techniques were excellent. Perfect knowledge of the tropical jungle environment, am-
bushes, night attacks, efficient weapons and the use of intelligence guaranteed their
success as guerrilla fighters. Military expeditions that were launched against them in-
variably turned into disaster. Most striking of the Andaquı́ is their total rejection, if not
contempt, of everything Spanish, including the religion and its representatives, and their
hatred of Indians willing to live under Spanish rule. Their doggedness suggests that they
might have been descendants of refugees from the highlands, who would have had good
reasons for being so intransigent. Even during the worst periods of the Andaquı́ war,
they were probably not numerous (possibly less than a thousand).
The original languages of the Upper Magdalena region have long become extinct.
Through an analysis of the information on language use supplied by the colonial docu-
ments, Friede (1953) concludes that in 1628, apart from Quechua and Spanish, at least
two Amazonian and four local languages were spoken in the Upper Magdalena area.
One local language originated from the valley of the La Plata river, one from the area
of Pitalito and San Agustı́n (the upper reaches of the Magdalena), one from the area of
Timaná and one from the upper Suaza valley. All that is known of these languages are
family names and place names mentioned in the colonial documents relating to the area
(Friede 1952).
For the Andaquı́ language there are two sources. An anonymous list of some twenty
pages of words and expressions, sent to Madrid by Mutis, was published in the Catalogue
of the Royal Library in 1928. A second word list was collected by the priest Manuel Marı́a
Albis in 1854 (Albis 1860–1). Given the size and the nature of the material, a systematic
study of it should make it possible to reconstruct some aspects of the language. An
article by Rivet (1924) is based on Albis’s list and is mainly geared at demonstrating a
Chibchan affiliation for Andaquı́. This is not convincing, but if the alleged Páez cognates
alone are considered, some interesting parallels emerge.
Possible shared cultural terms are the words for ‘cotton’ (Andaquı́ guahuahi; Páez
wewe; cf. Rivet 1924) and ‘sweet potato’ (Andaquı́ kagá; Páez kaʔ ka ∼ kaʔ ga ‘potato’; cf.
Jung 2000: 142). Among body-part terms we may mention the words for ‘ear’ (Andaquı́
chunguahé; Páez th ũwa; cf. Rivet 1924) and ‘tongue’ (Andaquı́ shonaé; Páez th une; cf.
Rivet 1924). Compare also the verbs ‘to sit’ (Andaquı́ caya-, coaya-; Páez katy , kacy ‘to
sit’) and ‘to sleep’ (Andaquı́ bonda-, da-; Páez n deh ).
The general aspect of Andaquı́ words is very different from what is found in Páez. Long
words, mainly consisting of open syllables, predominate. The only frequent syllable-final
consonant is -n. The Madrid word list includes a few unusual symbol combinations, the
value of which can only be guessed. Most conspicuous is fsrr, e.g. in fsrragua ‘a type
of liana’ and fsrrixa ‘agave fibre’. Morphologically, the language combines prefixation
and suffixation. Person of subject can be indicated by means of prefixes, e.g. ka- ‘second
person’ as in:
(220) ninga ca-mimi

I 2S-love
‘Do you like me?’ (Anonymous 1928: 181)
Modal categories, nominalisation and possibly some parts of personal reference are
indicated by means of suffixes. The second-person imperative marker is -zá.
(221) fsrrajono-zá
lie.down-2S.IM
‘Lie down!’ (Anonymous 1928: 185)
Nouns and adjectives frequently contain a lexical suffix with an unidentified function,
e.g. -hi or -(h)é (cf. guahua-hi, chungua-hé and shona-é above). Case is indicated by
means of suffixes, as in cogo ‘house’, cogo-ra ‘(go) home’.
The numeral system is weakly developed. This would speak in favour of an Amazo-
nian origin considering that Andean languages generally have fully developed decimal
systems. Friede, cited by Taylor (1999), attributes a mixed origin to the Andaquı́, which
he assumes to have consisted of elements of Cofán, Pijao and Tucanoan peoples. The lex-
ical similarities with Páez suggest that the original languages of the Upper Magdalena,
which were neighbours of Páez and may have been related to it, should not be rejected
as a possible component.
2.17 Barbacoan languages

The Barbacoan languages occupy a relatively large, fragmented area in southern Colom-
bia and the Ecuadorian coastal provinces. There are five living languages, Cayapa,
Colorado, Cuaiquer, Guambiano and Totoró, although the last one is moribund. The
three first languages are now more often referred to by their native names, which are
Chapalaachi, Tsafiki and Awa Pit, respectively. Cha palaachi is spoken by some 4,000
Chachi or Cayapa Indians in the province of Esmeraldas (Ecuador), near the Cayapas
river (Vittadello 1988). The Tsachila or Colorado, who speak Tsafiki, number about
2,000. They inhabit the area of Santo Domingo de los Colorados and Quevedo in the
western part of the Pichincha province (Ecuador).
The Cuaiquer or Awa are established in the department of Nariño (Colombia) on
the upper Telembı́ river and in the area of Altaquer and Ricaurte, between Túquerres
and Tumaco. Several decades ago a substantial number of Awa migrated to Ecuador,
where they mainly reside in the western part of the province of Carchi. In Colombia
the number of Awa has been calculated at approximately 13,000 (Arango and Sánchez
1998), in Ecuador at 1,600. The Awa are known for practising secrecy with respect to
their language and cultural identity. Curnow and Liddicoat (1998) estimate that only a
limited percentage of the Awa continue to speak the language, but reliable figures are
not obtainable.
Guambiano and Totoró are spoken in an area to the east and northeast of Popayán in
the department of Cauca (Colombia). Together with the extinct Coconuco they are also
known as the Coconucan languages. There are 20,000 Guambiano (Arango and Sánchez
1998), who live mainly in the resguardos of Guambı́a and Quisgó, near the market town
of Silvia. The language is well preserved in Guambı́a, but less so in Quisgó. Due to the
growth of their population, many Guambiano now live in areas outside their original
resguardos, also in the neighbouring department of Huila. Totoró is a resguardo to
the south of Silvia, on the Popayán–La Plata road. Only four out of 3,600 indigenous
Totoreños are said to still know the language, but there has been a strong wish to recover
the original cultural identity (Pabón Triana 1995a). Guambiano, Totoró and Coconuco
(originally spoken in Coconuco and Puracé) are very closely related, and are probably
better treated as dialects of one language.
The affinity of the Coconucan languages and the other Barbacoan languages was first
recognised by Brinton (1891). This observation soon became obscured when Beuchat
and Rivet (1910b) reclassified the Coconucan languages with neighbouring Páez and
Paniquita, treating them together as a subgroup of Chibchan. The remaining Barba-

coan languages, in turn, were classified as yet another subgroup of Chibchan. Curnow
(1998) sees as one of the possible causes of this confusion the circulation of a word
list of the so-called ‘Moguex’ language, which in reality represented a mix of Páez and
Guambiano expressions. The resulting confusion affected all subsequent classificatory
efforts, including those of Loukotka (1968), Greenberg (1987) and Kaufman (1990),
until Constenla Umaña (1991) drew attention to the obvious lexical similarities that
link Guambiano with the other Barbacoan languages. In earlier work Constenla Umaña
(1981) had already rejected the Chibchan connection and the alleged close relationship
between Coconucan and Páez. Curnow and Liddicoat (1998) have elaborated lexical and
phonological, as well as some morphosyntactic correspondences between the Barbacoan
languages, substantiating Constenla’s findings in a convincing way. Constenla Umaña
(1991), as well as Curnow and Liddicoat (1998), propose a division of the Barbacoan
languages in two subfamilies: a northern group comprising Awa Pit and the Coconucan
languages, and a southern group consisting of Cha palaachi and Tsafiki. The languages
of the southern group are very closely related. The northern group is somewhat less
close. One of the phonological differences between the two groups is that the northern
group has retained word-final obstruents, where the southern group has lost them.
The confusion surrounding the linguistic affinity of the Guambiano has occasionally
lead to treating them as a sort of historical ‘mystery’ people (cf. Vásquez de Ruı́z 1988:
31–6). However, in view of their linguistic connections to the west and southwest, it
is likely that they may have been a remnant of the people, represented by the Pubenza
federation, which dominated the Popayán area at the arrival of the Spaniards. The neigh-
bouring Guanaca people of the colonial period have also been suggested as possible
relatives of the Guambiano. Further south, the Pasto Indians, still a numerous group in
the area between the town of Pasto and the Ecuadorian border, almost certainly spoke
a Barbacoan language, although they are Spanish speakers now. The Cara language
spoken in the northern Ecuadorian Andes before the introduction of Quechua may also
have belonged to the Barbacoan family, but the evidence so far is not conclusive (see
chapter 3, section 3.9.1).
In terms of overall description of the Barbacoan languages much remains to be done.
For Awa Pit there is a reference grammar in dissertation form (Curnow 1997) and
descriptive studies by Calvache Dueñas (1989, 2000) and Obando Ordóñez (1992).
Several studies of a limited scope discuss aspects of Guambiano phonology and grammar
(Branks and Branks 1973; Long 1985; Vásquez de Ruı́z 1988, 1994, 2000; Triviño
Garzón 1994). Studies on Tsafiki (Moore 1966) and Cha palaachi (Lindskoog and Brend
1962; Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964; Vittadello 1988) contain first approaches to the
grammar of these languages. Moore (1962) and Curnow and Liddicoat (1998) address
the issue of phonological and lexical reconstruction.
Table 2.18 Guambiano consonant inventory (based on

Vásquez de Ruı́z 2000)
Labial Alveolar Palatal Retroflex Velar
Stops p t k
Affricates c č č.
Fricatives s š š.
Nasals m n ny
Laterals l ly
Vibrant r
Glides w y
A characteristic of the Barbacoan vowel systems is the lack of a contrast between o

and u; such a contrast is only found in Tsafiki. Guambiano distinguishes five vowels: a,
e, i, , u. The is described as either a high (Branks and Branks; Long), or a mid (Vásquez
de Ruı́z) central vowel. Tsafiki distinguishes five vowels, a, e, i, o, u, and Cha palaachi
four: a, e, i, u. Furthermore, Cha palaachi has a length contrast. Nasalised vowels occur
phonetically in Tsafiki, but they may reflect the presence of a syllable-final nasal, rather
than an inherent feature of the vowel itself.
The inventory of vowels in Awa Pit is controversial. Calvache Dueñas (2000) dis-
tinguishes five vowels, a, e, i, , u, with a functionally marginal nasality contrast and a
non-distinctive voice contrast. Curnow (1997: 38–45) distinguishes four voiced vowel
phonemes, a, i, , u, while interpreting the sound [e] as an allophone of a, i and . He
also distinguishes three voiceless high vowels, i, , u, and demonstrates the contrastive
˚ ˚ ˚
character of the voice opposition by means of minimal pairs such as tu ‘shoulder bag’
˚
and tu ‘to be in a place’. Vocalic nasality, restricted to vowels and diphthongs occurring
in word-final position, is attributed to the presence of a velar nasal phoneme ŋ. Curnow,
furthermore, explains that Awa Pit has sequences of like vowels (e.g. in paas ‘two’, pii
‘river’), and that other vowel sequences do not necessarily merge into a diphthong, for
instance, in au [a(γ )u] ‘we’ (but saw [ts aw] ‘field’).
The consonant inventories of Guambiano, Awa Pit, Tsafiki and Cha palaachi are
represented in the tables 2.18–2.21.
Long (1985) distinguishes three additional consonant phonemes in Guambiano: kw ,
ž, and ʔ. The sound combination kw is interpreted as kuV by Vásquez de Ruı́z; ž may
be an allophone of č. The case of ʔ seems to reflect a real difference of observation,
however. It occurs in interrogative expressions such as makúʔ ‘do you eat?’. Vásquez de
Ruı́z (1988) has final zero in these cases. Guambiano stops and affricates can be subject
to voicing and fricativisation depending on their position in a word form.
Table 2.19 Awa Pit (Cuaiquer) consonant inventory

(based on Curnow 1997)
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar
Stops p t k
Voiceless fricatives s š
Voiced fricatives z ž
Lateral fricative l

Lateral approximant l
Nasals m n ŋ
Glides w y
Table 2.20 Tsafiki (Colorado) consonant inventory (based on

Moore 1966)
Voiceless stops p t k ʔ
Voiced stops b d
Affricates c
Fricatives ϕ s h
Nasals m n
Laterals l
Vibrants r
Glides w y
As we have seen, the velar nasal in the Awa Pit consonant inventory (Curnow 1997)
compensates for the absence of a nasality contrast in the vowels. A palatal nasal [ny ]
occurs but is analysed as a nasal+glide sequence ny. The phoneme l varies between

[h], [x] and [ l ], either within or between dialects. Several dialects only have [h] ∼ [x],

instead of the lateral fricative, hence the sounds in question have also been categorised
as a velar or glottal fricative (e.g. in Calvache Dueñas 2000). Awa Pit has affricates ([ts ],
[č]), which can be analysed as allophones of s and š (Curnow 1997: 29–32). When found
intervocalically, they are to be interpreted as ambisyllabic sequences (ts, tš); Calvache
Dueñas prefers to treat them as separate phonemes. Geminated stops also occur in
Awa Pit. Stops that are not geminated are subject to a set of allophonic rules, such as
voicing between a voiced consonant and a voiced vowel, and voicing combined with
fricativisation between vowels. Word-internal intervocalic /t/ is realised as [r].
In Tsafiki the phonemes c and s have palatal allophones [č] and [š] before high vowels.
The vibrant r is sometimes pronounced [dr] in word-initial position. The consonants b
and d are preglottalised in word-internal position. Frequently, voiceless consonants are
Table 2.21 Cha palaachi (Cayapa) consonant inventory (based on

Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964; Vittadello 1988)
Voiceless stops p t ty k ʔ
Voiced stops b d dy g
Affricates c č
Voiceless fricatives f s š x
Voiced fricative β
Nasals m n ny ŋ
Laterals l ly
Glides w y
preaspirated in word-internal position. If the phonological context should not automat-

ically account for all the cases of preaspiration, it may be necessary to add additional
series of preaspirated stops and fricatives to the inventory. The status of the glottal stop
is uncertain. A characteristic feature of Tsafiki is that stress is phonemic, e.g. in meráno
‘to hear’ and mérano ‘to wait’ (Moore 1966: 96).
From a general typological point of view, the Barbacoan languages belong to the cen-
tral Andean sphere, rather than to the Chibchan domain (cf. Constenla Umaña 1991). The
influence of Quechua in the area must have been a relatively recent phenomenon, which
may go back approximately to AD 1400 (cf. chapter 3). Therefore, the Central Andean
characteristics of Barbacoan may be attributed either to an earlier period of interaction
or to genetic connections. Curnow and Liddicoat (1998: 387) observe the following
similarities in the grammatical typology of the Barbacoan languages. All the Barbacoan
languages are verb-final (SOV). Modifiers (adjectives, adverbs) precede their heads.71
The main morphological device is suffixation. Prefixes occur in Cha palaachi and in
Tsafiki, but to a limited extent. The Barbacoan languages are case-marking languages of
the nominative–accusative type. Nominative is zero, but accusative case is marked with
a suffix (although all languages reserve this for human or definite objects). In most cases,
the accusative markers have locative functions as well. Curnow and Liddicoat emphasise
the lack of cognacy between the accusative markers in the Barbacoan languages, which
suggests a relatively recent development. All these characteristics are reminiscent of the
situation in Quechua and in Aymaran. The locative–accusative marker -ta of Awa Pit is
even formally similar to the corresponding case suffix in Quechua, e.g. Awa Pit pastu-ta
[pastura], Quechua pastu-ta ‘to Pasto’. The genitive case marker of Awa Pit coincides
with conservative Quechua dialects in two of its allomorphs (-pa, -p), e.g. in santos-pa
71 Calvache Dueñas (2000: 108) holds that Awa Pit has noun–adjective order. In Guambiano both
orders are possible, although the adjective–noun order is the preferred one (Long 1985: 19).
kužu ‘Santos’s pig’, a-p ‘my’, ‘mine’, ‘our(s)’ (Curnow 1997: 124–5); cf. section 3.2 on
Quechua. To this list we could add the prominent position of switch-reference and the
richly developed nominalisation strategies of the southern Barbacoan languages.
On the other hand, it should be observed that the Barbacoan languages also share
typological phenomena with the Chibchan languages. An example is the existence of
declarative and interrogative markers and their intimate coalescence with verbal flection.
Constructions involving auxiliary verbs and nominalisation are also well represented in
Guambiano, Tsafiki and Awa Pit.
A typological element that is characteristic for the Barbacoan family in particular is
the way speech act participants are encoded. All the languages make a basic distinction
between speaker and non-speaker. The verbal inflection reflects this distinction, rather
than the usual division into first, second and third person. Number distinctions are
often reserved for first person. In Guambiano verbal inflection encodes three person and
number categories: speaker singular, speaker plural and non-speaker. In (222), (223)
and (224) three forms of the auxiliary verb ‘to be’ are illustrated. The forms ku-r and
k-er (with endings -r and -er) refer to a first person singular and plural, respectively.
For second and third person only one option is available, namely k -n (with ending -n).
Example (225) illustrates the use of the ending -n with a second-person subject, but with
a different auxiliary verb, wa- ‘to sit’.72
(222) na-pé empresa-yu kw aly -ı́p-ik ku-r73

I-TO factory-L work-N-AJ.SG be-SR.SG
‘I am working in the factory.’ (Vásquez de Ruiz 1988: 120)
(223) na-m misák k-er
I-PL people be-SR.PL
‘We are Guambianos.’ (Triviño Garzón1994: 609)
(224) un´ yáu-wan má-p-ik k -n
child meat-AC eat-N-AJ.SG be-NS
‘The child is eating the meat.’ (Vásquez de Ruiz 1988: 69)
(225) ny i purá kw ac-´ p wa-n
you maize husk-N sit-NS
‘You are (sit) husking maize.’ (Vásquez de Ruiz 2000: 159)
In Tsafiki, Cha palaachi and Awa Pit the distinction between speaker and non-
speaker is equally important. Furthermore, there is the additional complication that a
72 According to Vásquez de Ruı́z (1988), the pronoun n y i can also be interpreted as third person,
when the subject is located at a short distance of the addressee. It refers to a close non-speaker,
rather than to the addressee in particular.
73 Note that p is a voiced fricative [β] intervocalically and a voiceless fricative [ϕ] in word-final
position.
second-person subject has to be classified with the speaker category in an interrog-

ative context. In Tsafiki the speaker suffix -yo-/-yu- is used in first-person subject
declarative forms (226) and in second-person subject interrogative forms (227); second-
person declarative and third person are indicated by a zero form (228). Additionally,
there is a special suffix -i- for first-person subject interrogative (Dickinson 1999, 2000;
Curnow MS).
(226) anó ϕi-yo-ʔʔé

banana74 eat-SR-DV
‘I ate.’ (Moore 1966: 100)
(227) anó ϕi-yú-n75
banana eat-SR-IR
‘Did you eat?’ (Moore 1966: 100)
(228) anó ϕı́-wiya-∅ ∅-ʔʔe
banana eat-almost-NS-DV
‘He almost ate.’ (Moore 1966: 100)
In Cha palaachi we find the same opposition in ruku-yu ‘I am a man’, ‘are you a
man?’, ruku-de:-yu ‘we are men’, as opposed to ruku-βe ‘you are a man’, ‘he is a man’,
ruku-de:-βe ‘you/they are men’ (Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964: 123). The suffix -de:-
is a plural marker.
Personal reference in the strict sense is not indicated morphologically in any of the
Barbacoan languages. Free pronouns are used instead. In addition to the basic pronouns
that refer to subject, there may be special pronouns to be used in the object role, as
well as possessive pronouns. Possessive pronouns may have different shapes depending
on whether they are used attributively or independently (and as predicates). In all the
Barbacoan languages the pronominal system distinguishes first, second and third person,
as well as number. Awa Pit has distinct pronoun inventories for subject, object/beneficiary
and possessor. The suffixes that characterise the object pronouns appear to have only that
function. Although the subject and object pronouns are marked for number (singular
or plural), this is not he case of the possessive adjectives. A plural possessor is either
indicated by means of the corresponding singular form, or by the plural nominative.
74 In Tsafiki and Chapalaachi the word for ‘banana’ (Tsafiki anó, Cha palaachi panda) coincides
with the word for ‘food’ in general. The concept ‘to eat’ without a specified object is translated
as anó ϕi- and panda fi-, respectively. Compare the use of Mandarin Chinese fàn ‘rice’ as an
unspecified object in ch˘ fàn ‘to eat’.
75 Note that syllable-final n in Tsafiki normally serves to indicate nasality in the preceding vowel
[ϕiyũ´]. This observation and the notation of a glottal stop in the declarative suffix -ʔe are based
on Moore (1961, 1962).
Table 2.22 Awa Pit pronouns (based on Curnow 1997: 86, 94)
Nominative Accusative Possessive
1 pers. sing. na na-wa a-p

1 pers. plur. au au-m za –
2 pers. sing. nu nu-wa u-p
2 pers. plur. u u-m za –
3 pers. sing. us us-a payny a
3 pers. plur. uspa uspa-tuza –
Table 2.23 Cha palaachi pronouns (based on Lindskoog and

Lindskoog 1964)
Personal Adjectival Independent

pronouns possessive pronouns possessive pronouns
1 sing. i in in-či
1 plur. la-la la-la-ʔ la:-či
2 sing. nyu n y u-ʔ n y u-či
2 plur. n y u-l y a n y u-l y a-ʔ n y u-i-či
3 sing. ya ya-ʔ ya-či
3 plur. ya-la ya-la-ʔ ya-i-či
The following examples illustrate the use of some of these forms. The endings -w and
-y refer to speaker (subject) and non-speaker, respectively.
(229) ap yal au yal

1.G house we house
‘my house’, ‘our house’ ‘our house’ (Curnow 1997: 124)
(230) uspa uz-puta-y
they sit-S.PL.NS-NS
‘They are sitting.’ (Curnow 1997: 185)
(231) nu-ne na-wa pak-pyan-tu-y
you-TO I-AC cure-know-IA-NS
‘You are curing me.’ (Calvache Dueñas 2000: 111)
(232) na-na uspa-tuza tt kyan-na-ta-w
I-TO they-PL.AC cut throw-PL.O-PA-SR.S
‘I stabbed them.’ (Curnow 1997: 183)
The difference between adjectival and independent possessive pronouns is found in

Cha palaachi, as shown in table 2.23. The genitive markers -ʔ and -či, which can be
recognised in the pronominal forms, are also used to indicate a genitive relation between
nouns.
(233) kuča-ʔʔ panda
dog-G food
‘the dog’s food’ (Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964: 122)
(234) kuča-či
dog-G
‘the dog’s’, ‘belonging to the dog’ (Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964: 122)
Tsafiki is exceptional in that it encodes a gender distinction in the first-person pronoun.

The pronoun la ‘I’ is used by men, whereas women use čih ké. For children’s use there is
yet another form: če. Each of these elements forms its possessive counterpart by adding
the genitive marker -či. For the plural (‘we’) there appears to be no distinction because
Moore (1966) recorded a single form, čih ke-lá, for both men and women.
Both Cha palaachi and Tsafiki have an extensive verbal morphology. They both have
a rich variety of suffixes that indicate different types of verbal subordination. Many of
these subordination types allow for a further distinction between subordinate verbs that
have the same subject as the verb to which they are subordinate and those that do not
have the same subject. Since personal reference is not normally visible in a subordinate
verb, the alternation of ‘same subjects’ and ‘different subjects’ must help the listener to
keep track of the role of the actors in a succession of events. The situation in Tsafiki, for
instance, is reminiscent of the use of switch-reference in Ecuadorian Highland Quechua
(see chapter 3). Since the latter is not typical for Quechua as a whole, the influence of a
South Barbacoan substratum may be suspected. Consider the following examples from
Tsafiki.
(235) há-namin-nan pinı́ kirá-yo-ʔʔe
come-SM.SS-AD76 snake see-SR-DV
‘While I was coming, I saw a snake.’ (Moore 1966: 102)
(236) há-nasa-nan pinı́ kirá-yo-ʔʔe
come-SM.DS-AD snake see-SR-DV
‘I saw a snake, while it was coming.’ (Moore 1966: 102)
(237) wálpa ϕi-h čún ká-yo-ʔʔe
hen eat-F.SS catch-SR-DV
‘I caught the hen in order to eat it.’ (Moore 1966: 101)
∅-na-ʔʔe
(238) anó ϕi-h sá waré-∅
food eat-F.DS cry-NS-PR-DV
‘He is crying so that someone else might eat.’ (Moore 1966: 101)
76 The element -nan [nã] is translated as ‘also’ (también).

Tsafiki is the only Barbacoan language in which an unambiguous system of grammat-

ical classifiers has been recorded. They refer to shape and are used both with numerals
and with adjectives. When used with adjectives they are followed by a suffix -n (that is,
vowel nasalisation). The classifier -de, which refers to long objects, illustrates the use
of classifiers in (239) and (240).
(239) palu-dé anó

two-CL banana
‘two bananas’ (Moore 1966: 99)
(240) ná-de-n anó
child-CL-AJ banana
‘small banana’ (Moore 1966: 99)
As we anticipated, Guambiano has an elaborate system of auxiliary verbs. These

auxiliary verbs are inflected for person and number, whereas the (nominalised) verbs
they accompany can carry different types of aspectual distinctions. Guambiano has a
series of auxiliary verbs that refer to bodily positions; one of them, wa- ‘to sit’, was
illustrated in example (225). Other positional auxiliaries are paš.a- ‘to stand’, cu- ‘to
lie’, meka- ‘to hang’ (241). These verbs can also be used as existential verbs ‘to be
somewhere’ (Spanish estar), as in (242).
(241) yé-wan yaná-m-ik paš.á-n

potato-AC sell-F-N stand-NS
‘I will sell the potatoes.’ (lit. ‘It stands to sell the potatoes.’)
(Triviño Garzón 1994: 614)
(242) ul-pé káw-yu cu-n
snake-TO grass-L lie-NS
‘The snake is in the grass.’ (Long 1985: 28)
Awa Pit, Cha palaachi and Tsafiki often use the verb stem ‘to do’ (*ki-) with nouns,
adjectives and Spanish loan roots in order to create new verbs (cf. Curnow and Liddicoat
1998: 403). An example from Cha palaachi is (243).
ŋbi ke-nu
(243) iŋ
spittle do-IF
‘to spit’ (Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964: 80)
Among the morphological characteristics of the southern Barbacoan languages we

may mention a morphological passive in Cha palaachi, the existence of an extensive set
of nominalisations (comparable to Quechua) and the use of verbal prefixes. Tsafiki has
the following nominalisations: agentive in -min, infinitive in -no, stative participle in -ka
and instrumental in -nun.
2.18 Kamsá 151
(244) músika ke-nún

music make-IS.N
‘something to make music with’ (Moore 1966: 103)
Verbal prefixes have different functions. Cha palaachi has two prefixes de-, one with
the meaning ‘to finish doing something’ and one with the meaning ‘plural subject’. The
prefix ma(n)- ‘repetition’ has an equivalent in Tsafiki, where it is man- (compare man
‘one’).
(245) anó man-ϕi-∅ ∅-ʔʔé

food RP-eat-NS-DV
‘I ate again.’ (Moore 1966: 104)
A very interesting prefix is Tsafiki pe-, which indicates help or joint action (246).
(246) pe-ayudái-de [Spanish ayudar ‘to help’]

AS-help-IM.NS
‘Help!’ (Moore 1996: 104)
(247) pe-hı́-čina-yo-ʔʔe
AS-go-F-SR-DV
‘I will go with you/him.’ (Moore 1996: 104)
2.18 Kamsá
The language called Kamsá (Kam nč.á) or Sibundoy has often been identified with the
language of an ethnic group known historically by the Quechua name of Quillacinga
(‘moon-nose’). For the time being, Kamsá is best treated as a linguistic isolate, as former
associations with the Chibchan family have proved unsubstantial. The Quillacinga were
a highland people, settled in the area northeast of the town of Pasto. The present-day
Kamsá, who according to Arango and Sánchez (1998) number approximately 4,000
people, inhabit the valley of Sibundoy between Pasto and Mocoa at the upper reaches
of the Putumayo river. They share the area with their more numerous neighbours, the
Quechua speaking Inga (cf. chapter 3), who may be (Quechuanised) descendants of
the Quillacinga. The Indians of the area are known for their persistent struggle against
monopolistic missionary activity during most of the twentieth century. The history of
oppressive domination by the Capuchin mission among the Kamsá and the Inga is told
by Bonilla (1972).
The Kamsá language with its extraordinarily complex morphology has only been
described to a limited extent, most of the published work available so far being phono-
logical or on special topics, such as the structure of discourse (Howard 1977a, b). A
text collection with a phonological introduction has been published by Monguı́ Sánchez
Table 2.24 Kamsá consonant phonemes (based on Howard 1979)
Labial Alveolar Palatal Retroflex Velar
Voiceless stops p t k
Voiced stops b d [n d] g [ŋg]
Voiceless affricates c č č.
Voiceless fricatives (ϕ) s š š. x
Nasals m n ny
Laterals l ly
Vibrant r [ř]
Glides w y [dž ]
(1981). An encouraging aspect of Kamsá studies is the active participation of members

of the Kamsá community itself (Juajibioy Chindoy 1962; Juajibioy Chindoy and Wheeler
1973; Jamioy Muchavisoy 1992, 1995). Meléndez Lozano (2000c) provides a short ty-
pological sketch of the language, partly based on unpublished sources. Regrettably, we
have not been able to locate a dictionary of the language.
According to Howard (1979), Kamsá distinguishes six vowels (a, e, i, , o, u). The
is a high central vowel. An inventory of the consonant phonemes is represented in
table 2.24.
The inventory in table 2.24 calls for some observations. The special realisations of r
and y (given between square brackets) occur, respectively, in word-initial position (e.g. in
rála [řála] ‘money’, from Spanish real ) and after n (e.g. in bomı́nyi [bomı́ndž i] ‘eye’). The
Kamsá language has been particularly receptive to borrowing from Spanish, a fact which
has profoundly influenced the sound system as it is today. The sound [ϕ] (alternatively
[β]) may be treated as a preconsonantal allophone of either p or b if borrowings from
Spanish are not counted (e.g. in skonúϕta [skonúϕta ∼ skonúβta] ‘nine’). In borrowings
it replaces Spanish f (e.g. in ϕlako-xéma ‘slim’, from Spanish flaco ‘slim’ and -xema
‘old’), a fact which justifies its status as a separate phoneme. In native words the voiced
stops d and g are found after nasals (e.g. in n dóny e ‘no’, ϕceŋ gá ‘black’). They have
additional fricative allophones ([ð], [γ ]) that occur in other environments, but only
in loan words, e.g. the root-initial d in xa-deman dá-na77 ‘to demand’, from Spanish
demandar. From the viewpoint of the native sound system, the clusters n d and ŋ g may
very well be treated as unit phonemes, due to their frequent occurrence in word-initial
position. In some well-established loan words, such as n deólp ‘suddenly’, from Spanish
de golpe (Monguı́ Sánchez 1981), a nasal element that was not even there originally has
been introduced.
77 The frame x(a)- . . . -na is characteristic for infinitives in Kamsá.

2.18 Kamsá 153
Table 2.25 Kamsá personal reference markers

(after Meléndez Lozano 2000c)
1 pers. sing. c(i)-, s( )-, i-

1 and 3 pers. dual bo-, b -, bn-
1 pers. plur. exclusive ϕc(i)-, ϕs( )-
1 pers. plur. inclusive and 3 pers. plur. mo-, m( )-
2 pers. sing. ko-, k( )-
2 pers. dual š.o-, š. -, š.n-
2 pers. plur. š.mo-, š.m( )-
A characteristic feature of the Kamsá language are its consonant clusters. Up to three
consonants (rarely even four) can be found in medial and initial position, e.g. in šknená
‘wooden plate’, x ϕcbeč.ána ‘to carry a child’, ŋ goϕšná ‘green’ (Howard 1979: 89). The
place of the accent is contrastive. It can be either on the last or on the penultimate vowel
of a word.
Typologically, Kamsá differs from any other language in the area by its abundant use of
prefixes. Nevertheless, prefixation is not the only morphological device of the language.
Case and number with nouns, as well as several verbal categories, are indicated by means
of suffixes. A set of eighteen classifiers based on shape (e.g. -bé for round objects, -č.e
for oval objects, -ϕxa for rigid cylindrical objects, -xa for flexible cylindrical objects, -š.á
for hairy and/or composed elements, -ye for liquids) can be suffixed to demonstrative
pronouns, numerals and adjectives (cf. Meléndez Lozano 2000c: 136). They also occur
as suffixes with nouns; e.g. in flor-š.á ‘flower’, from Spanish flor, and in eskardoná-č.e ‘an
insect’ (Howard 1979: 88), presumably from a local Spanish word escardona (compare
escardar ‘to weed’).
Howard (1977a) distinguishes eight distinct slots of affixes that can precede the verbal
root in narrative discourse. The functions of the prefixes occurring in these slots belong to
the domain of narrative type (historical versus legendary event), evidentiality (presence
and/or participation of the speaker in the event), personal reference, movement, tense
and aspect. Mood (imperative, contrary-to-fact, potential), negation and interrogation
are also expressed by means of prefixes. Meléndez Lozano (2000c) lists nine modal
prefixes (including negative and evidential) and ten aspectual prefixes. He reports the
personal reference markers used for identification of the subject (based on Juajibioy
Chindoy and Wheeler 1973), as indicated in table 2.25.
His enumeration does not contain any markers referring to a third person singular.
The non-singular third-person markers coincide with non-singular first-person markers.
Howard (1977a: 7) gives o- for third-person-singular subject. However, many third-
person-singular subject forms occurring in her examples seem to lack this prefix,
suggesting that a third-person-singular subject marker can be zero as well. A num-

ber of examples presented by Howard (1977a) contain unambiguous evidence of the
fact that person-of-object is encoded in the verb form. Combinations of third-person
markers are illustrated in (248) and (249). Note that the number of the subject marker
is determined by the total number of participants.
(248) i-mo-xawiyána
3O.SG-3S.PL-say
‘They said to him.’ (Howard 1977a: 58)
(249) i-bo-xawiyána
3O.SG-3S.D-say
‘He said to him.’ (Howard 1977a: 59)
A first-person-singular object is characterised by the presence of a prefix š.-, as in

(250) and (251).
(250) š.-mo-č-c-obá
1O.SG-3S.PL-F-PR-kill78
‘They are going to kill me.’ (Howard 1977a: 58)
(251) š.-ko-č-at-obená-ye
1O.SG-2S.SG-F-UF-have.power-CN
‘You will not be able (to move) me.’ (Howard 1977a: 59)
In addition, the sequence k-bo- indicates first-person subject combined with second-
person object.
(252) k-bo-č-c-obá
2O.SG-1S.D-F-PR-kill
‘I shall kill you’ (Howard 1977a: 58)
Nominal case is represented by some twenty-two different suffixes or postpositions

(Meléndez Lozano 2000). Subject and object remain unmarked. Possessive constructions
are formed by means of the genitive marker -be. The genitive expression precedes its
head.
(253) áč.-be bc-taitá

I-G big-father
‘my grandfather’ (Monguı́ Sánchez 1981: 29)
78 The identification of the affixes in the examples remains provisional, considering the lack of
an overall grammatical study. The prefix č(a)- ‘intention’ (Meléndez Lozano 2000) is here
glossed as F ‘future’; the prefix -at- is glossed as ‘unfulfilled’ in Howard (1977b: 276), -ye as a
‘continuative’ (cf. Howard 1977a: 9). The interpretation of -c- as ‘progressive’ is also tentative.
Kamsá has a copula verb ‘to be’, as illustrated in (254). Number is indicated both on
the subject and on the nominal predicate.
(254) kem š. š.ó-ŋ g m-n dm´ n obon´ -ŋ g

this infant-PL 3S-be fat-PL
‘These little children are fat.’ (Monguı́ Sánchez in Meléndez Lozano 2000c)
Nouns are marked for number. There are distinct suffixes for singular, dual and plural.
These are singular -(n)a or -(n)á, dual -(a)ta, and plural -( )ŋga.79 Some nouns do not
take a singulative suffix (Juajibioy Chindoy and Wheeler 1973, in Meléndez Lozano
2000c). The distinction is also reflected in the free personal pronouns, e.g. in ač.(e) ‘I’,
b n dáta ‘we (dual)’, s n dáta ‘we (dual inclusive)’, b´ ŋga ‘we (plural)’.
2.19 Esmeraldeño
Esmeraldeño or Atacame, a language of the Ecuadorian coastal region survived until
the second half of the nineteenth century. Together with Chapalaachi (see section 2.17
Barbacoan), it is the only language of the Ecuadorian coast of which we have some
knowledge. All other languages, including the language of the island of Puná, have
disappeared long ago without leaving any documentation of importance. In the nine-
teenth century the Esmeraldeño language was spoken in the western part of Esmeraldas
province on the lower course of the Esmeraldas river valley (called Chinto in Esmer-
aldeño). The possibility that it may have been a remnant of a language of wider extension
in the Ecuadorian Pacific region cannot be excluded.
W. B. Stevenson, the British secretary to the president of the Audiencia in Quito, visited
the area at the beginning of the nineteenth century (Stevenson 1825). He reports that
the language was in use in the coastal port of Esmeraldas, a town with a predominantly
negroid population. According to local tradition, a shipload of African slaves had landed
in the area after a shipwreck, killed the native men and settled with the women. Thanks to
these women, the language was preserved. Stevenson also observes that the inhabitants
of the neighbouring town of Atacames spoke Spanish. For a more historical account
of African–Amerindian relations in the Ecuadorian Pacific area, which date back to
the sixteenth century, see Phelan (1967). The zambos (of mixed Indian–black origin) of
Esmeraldas managed to maintain a factual independence throughout the colonial period.
The only data on the Esmeraldeño language were collected by J. M. Pallares in 1877.
They were published in Wolf (1892), and subsequently reproduced and discussed in
Seler (1902: 49–64) and in Jijón y Caamaño (1941: 424–539). Constenla Umaña (1991:
85–7) notes a number of typological particularities. Object and subject tend to follow
the verb; the genitive follows its head; adjectives can occur both before and after the
79 The ending -ŋg is obviously a variant of -ŋga.

noun they modify. He observes that these syntactic features are unusual for the region
and suggestive of contact with Mesoamerica. A similar influence has been proposed by
archaeologists with regard to the local pre-Columbian culture of La Tolita (Willey 1971:
295; cf. Constenla Umaña 1991: 87).
According to the available data, the Esmeraldeño vowel system consisted of five vow-
els (a, e, i, o, u). However, Jijón y Caamaño draws attention to the great amount of
vocalic variation, which may point at the existence of a three-vowel system (a, i, u),
rather than a five-vowel system. He suggests that the language may have had nasal
vowels and reports that there was a special vowel sound, written àà or áá, which
was limited to the ending of the past participle (e.g. in yatáále ‘finished’). The ac-
cent is often indicated with a diacritic (by Seler in particular), suggesting that stress was
contrastive.
The consonant inventory comprised voiceless and voiced stops (p, t, k; b, d, g); a
voiceless affricate (ch); voiceless and voiced fricatives (f, s, sh, j, h; v); nasals (m, n);
vibrants (r, rr); laterals (l, ll); and glides (w, y). The interpretation of these symbols
remains uncertain. It is doubtful if the symbol v represented a separate sound, because it
frequently alternates with b. A contrast between h and j is also unlikely, as they appear to
be in complementary distribution. The symbol h is found (very seldom) in word-initial
position, whereas j mainly appears inside a word. Internal clusters of two consonants
(including geminates) are frequent, often as a result of vowel suppression. The palatal
lateral ll [ly ] is often found in syllable-final positions (as in Quechua), e.g. in allki ‘pain’.
Jijón y Caamaño’s morphological analysis of the Esmeraldeño language has to be used
with great care because of methodological deficiencies. (Many forms are overanalysed.)
He has, nonetheless, managed to expose a number of interesting facts concerning this
little known language and its relations to neighbouring languages.
The Esmeraldeño language uses both prefixes and suffixes. Personal reference and
case are indicated by means of suffixes. The suffixes -s(a) and -va refer to first and
second person, respectively. They indicate a possessor with nouns, and either a subject
or an object with verbs. In some verb forms subject and object markers can occur in
combination. When -sa indicates nominal possession a preceding vowel is normally lost
(except with monosyllabic roots); the same may occur with long verb bases (e.g. bases
of more than two syllables). The suffix -sa can be stressed, but this does not seem to be
always the case. A suffix referring to a third-person possessor is -e or -é (Seler 1902:
61; Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 450).
(255) mil-sá [mil-e ‘(someone’s) heart/stomach’]

heart/stomach-1P
‘my heart’, ‘my stomach’ (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 539)
(256) mul-va [mula ‘eye’, ‘face’]

eye-2P
‘your eye’ (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 450)
(257) ene-sá
eat-1S
‘I eat.’ (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 509)
(258) peli-va
row-2S
‘You are rowing.’ (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 524)
(259) pisko-vá-s
sell-2S-1O
‘Sell it to me!’ (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 524)
The form in (259) appears to have an imperative interpretation. Regular imperatives

are indicated with special endings, e.g. -ma for second person singular and -aja for first
person plural.
(260) kuli-ma
rise-2S.SG.IM
‘Stand up!’ (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 509)
(261) naka atarai-ti-aja [Spanish atarraya ‘casting-net’]
let.us.go net-V-1P.PL.IM
‘Let us go and throw out the nets!’ (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 502)
Jijón y Caamaño observes that many verb forms are apparently used ‘impersonally’
as they do not contain any indication of personal reference at all. He also notes the
absence of free personal pronouns. This may be due, of course, to the deficient nature of
the material. A very frequent suffix, which occurs both with verbs and with adjectives,
is -le. Its function may be to indicate a state or situation.80
(262) akolinshe-le
be.indebted-ST
‘I am indebted.’ (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 502)
(263) uba-le
die-ST
‘He/she died’, ‘dead’ (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 505)
80 Instead of akulinshe-le (∼akolinshe-le) one also finds akulinshe-le-ne ‘I am indebted’. It is used

with both first- and with third-person subjects; Seler (1902: 61) suggests that -lené indicated
present tense.
(264) úvve karó-le

water red-ST
‘red-coloured water’ (Seler 1902: 55; Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 510)
Some adjectives obligatorily contain the suffix -le. This is the case, in particular, of
a group of adjectives that have the canonical shape vi-/bi- . . . -le, as in vi-kó-le ‘dirty’,
vi-shú-le ‘cold’, vi-se-le ‘good’, bi-ga-le ‘bad’.
Negation is indicated by means of a prefix ba-; the frame bal- . . . -ka indicates negative
possession, as in (265):
(265) bal-di-ka
NE-hand-OW
‘one-handed’ (lit. ‘having no hand’,
‘with a hand missing’) (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 428)
Esmeraldeño nouns frequently contain classifying prefixes which refer to shape. Par-
ticularly common are the prefixes mu- ‘indivisible bulky object’, ra- ‘protruding ele-
ment’, ta- ‘long object’, and vi(l)- ‘skin’, ‘wrapping’. These elements are either used
to reinforce basic semantic concepts, or to distinguish between related concepts. Words
referring to protruding body parts are normally preceded by ra-, e.g. ra-rapo ‘hair’,
ra-rap-sá ‘my hair’, ra-ak-sá (Seler: re-ac-sá) ‘my ear’, ra-an-sá ‘my tongue’, ra-au-sá
‘my nose’ (Seler: re-au-sá). A contrastive use of the classifying prefixes can be observed
in the following pairs (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 435–6).
(266) ra-tuna vil-tuna

protruding.element-mouth.area wrapping-mouth.area81
‘beard’ ‘lips’
(267) di-sa ta-di-sa (Seler: ta-dı́-ssa)
hand-1P long.object-hand-1P
‘my hand’ ‘my arm’
(268) ta-kel-sá mu-kil-sa
long.object-bone-1P bulky.object-bone-1P
‘my back’ ‘my bone’
Case relations are indicated in a heterogeneous way. Both case suffixes and preposi-
tional elements are used; in (269) and (270) the suffix -ra refers to location (‘in’), but tun
81 The attested word for ‘my mouth’ is vil-to-sá (Seler 1902: 54).
is translated as ‘in front of’. The prepositional status of tun is related to the possessed–
possessor order noted above. (The case marker -ra is similar to the postvocalic allomorph
of directional -ta in Awa Pit, cf. section 2.17.)
(269) ama túshe quı́am-ra

there be house-L
‘He is there in the house’. (Seler 1902: 61)
(270) tun kian-sa
front house-1P
‘in front of my house’ (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 517)
Cases of noun incorporation have been attested:
(271) nuts-tate-aja
carry-pole-1S.PL.IM
‘Let us carry poles!’ (Jijón y Caamaño 1941: 481)
The genetic relations of the Esmeraldeño language have been the object of some spec-
ulation. Seler (1902) suggested a relationship with the Yaruro linguistic isolate of the
Venezuelan lowlands, emphasising that the evidence was insufficient. This suggestion
was followed by Loukotka (1968), who brought both languages together in a Paleo–
Chibchan branch within his Chibchan family. In 1941 Jijón y Caamaño had already
compared Seler’s evidence and found no more than two good lexical look-alikes, uwi
‘water’ and taha ‘foot’ (Yaruro ta), as well as a number of vaguely resembling lexical
pairs. Although Jijón y Caamaño was seldom reluctant to accept highly controversial
proposals of cognation, he found the evidence too weak in this case. Instead, he com-
pared Esmeraldeño words with their equivalents in Chibchan languages and a series of
Colombian and Ecuadorian languages which he thought related to Chibchan. A short
inspection of the proposed shared lexicon shows that the resemblances are convincing
only for so far as Cha palaachi and Tsafiki, the two Barbacoan neighbours of Esmer-
aldeño, are concerned. The similarities with these languages, particularly with Tsafiki,
are astonishing and indicate that intensive borrowing must have occurred. (A genetic
origin for these similarities is less likely because Esmeraldeño is otherwise very different
from Barbacoan.) The shared lexicon mainly consists of plant and animal names, but it
also includes some basic lexicon (‘hand’, ‘firewood’). In (272) a number of shared or
possibly related items in Esmeraldeño and Tsafiki are presented; the items in (273) are
found in the three languages.
(272) Esmeraldeño Tsafiki

amane amán, amana ‘now’
bule bolı́ ‘gourd’
di téde ‘hand’ [cf. Tsafiki nedé ‘foot’]
duka du ‘hill’, ‘mountain’
kinke kı́nki ‘tick’
matra mátara ‘iguana’
nata náh ta ‘shad (a fish: Sp. sábalo)’
para pára ‘wild boar’
pep-le peh pé ‘fan (for fire)’
vara báro ‘a bird of prey (Sp. gallinazo)’
ware wálan ‘macaw’
(273) Esmeraldeño Tsafiki Chapalaachi
chula čiwı́la čily a ‘pineapple’
dó to tu ‘earth’
kuve kuwá kuwa ‘cotton’
muripe moló mulu ‘bean (Sp. frijol)’
ta-páke pah kı́ pahki ‘bamboo species
(Sp. guadua)’
piama pinı́ piny e ‘snake’
sheve sábe sabe ‘rubber’ [cf. Spanish jebe]
walpa wálpa waly apa ‘chicken’ [Quechua waly pa]
The word for ‘bamboo’ ta-páke is remarkable because it contains the classifying
prefix for long objects in addition to a shared root. If the Esmeraldeño word for ‘tree’
tá(k)te is analysed in the same way, its second element may be compared to te, which
means ‘firewood’ in both Tsafiki and Cha palaachi. Conversely, the Esmeraldeño word
for ‘firewood’ chite can be compared to Tsafiki čidé and Cha palaachi či ‘wood’, ‘tree’;
in addition, it contains an element te, which may be the same as the one found in
tá(k)te. Apart from the inevitable waly pa, Quechua loans were almost non-existent in
Esmeraldeño.82 Of particular interest is the word sheve ‘rubber’, which is found as jebe
in modern Andean Spanish. The evidence seems to indicate that this very common word
was borrowed from an Ecuadorian coastal language, be it Esmeraldeño or not.
The past linguistic contacts of Esmeraldeño deserve more attention than they have
received so far, particularly, in the light of processes of creolisation. Given the historical
background, the possibility of African influences should be taken into consideration.
82 Interestingly, all Quechua dialects north of Cañar (as well as Awa Pit) have reflexes of ataly pa
(< *atawaly pa) for ‘chicken’. The fact that the languages of the Ecuadorian Pacific area have
reflexes of waly pa suggests a different Quechua loan source.
2.20 The eastern Colombian lowlands 161
Finally, a few interesting lexical coincidences can still be mentioned, namely, the words
for ‘fire’ mu (cf. Culli mu) and ‘to die’ uba (cf. Kamsá -oba-na). Rivet (1942) mentions
a small number of lexical similarities with Yurumanguı́.
2.20 Overview of the languages of the eastern Colombian lowlands

In the northwest of South America, as well as further south, the contrast between the
Andean cordilleras and highlands and the eastern lowlands with their tropical climate
is no less than dramatic. Roughly speaking, this is reflected in the distribution of ethnic
groups and languages as migrations tended to be confined to either one of the two regions.
In the eastern lowlands of Colombia, watered by the Amazon and Orinoco rivers and their
numerous tributaries, natural borders play a less important role than in the Andes, so that
long distance migrations were not unusual. As a result, many lowland languages belong
to families of considerable extension, and some individual languages are separated from
their closest relatives by a distance of thousands of kilometres. A striking example is
provided by a group of Cariban speakers which inhabited the department of Caquetá in
southeastern Colombia (now in Amazonas and Guaviare). The closest living relatives
of their language, called Carijona (also Guaque, Hianacoto or Umaua, possibly clan
names; cf. Durbin and Seijas 1973c), are the languages of the Trio and the Akuriyo in the
border region of Brazil and Surinam (Meira 2000). Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to
view the division between the Andes and the eastern lowlands as impermeable. It is likely
that groups of Andean origin were forced into the pre-Andean foothills and lowlands on
several occasions, and, vice versa, the occupation of Andean river valleys, such as the
Magdalena valley, by Amazonian peoples has been attested beyond reasonable doubt.
In the preceding sections we have discussed several lowland languages which appear
to have an Andean origin, namely, Uw Cuwa (section 2.10), Kamsá (section 2.18), and
possibly Andaquı́ (section 2.16). One small family and an isolate, which are located
near the Andes without substantial eastward extensions, are further candidates for such
a background. Additional research is needed in order to establish their possible genetic
connections. The Betoi family (cf. Constenla Umaña 1991; Zamponi 1996) consisted of
several closely related languages or dialects (Airico, Betoi, Ele, Jirara, Lolaca, Situfa,
etc.), located in the Colombian departments of Arauca and Casanare and in the Venezue-
lan state of Apure. There is a small group of Spanish-speaking survivors. The Cofán
or Ai-ngae language is spoken by a strong ethnic group inhabiting a border area in the
western part of the Colombian department of Putumayo and the Ecuadorian province
of Sucumbı́os (Borman 1976; Constenla Umaña 1991). The Cofán number well over a
thousand, but their language still lacks a grammatical description.
A further linguistic isolate, located in the Sierra de la Macarena in the department of
Meta, is Tinigua (cf. Tobar Ortiz 2000). It is the last surviving language of a small family,
which further comprised Pamigua and Majigua. The language had long been considered
lost until two aged speakers were discovered about 1990. According to tradition, the
Tinigua migrated into their present territory from the Yarı́ river in the department of
Caquetá, where they were neighbours of the Huitotoan peoples until the beginning of
the twentieth century.
The Guahiboan language family is mainly confined to the savannah-like area known
as the Colombian llanos with extensions into neighbouring Venezuela. With more than
20,000 people the Guahibo or Sikuani are the largest native group in eastern Colom-
bia. Their territory covers most of the department of Vichada and parts of the depart-
ments of Arauca, Casanare, Guainı́a and Meta. Some 5,000 Sikuani live in Venezuela
(Ardila 2000). The Guahiboan family further includes three smaller languages: Cuiba,
Guayabero and Hitnü or Macaguane. Guayabero is the most divergent language with
respect to the other three; it is spoken along the Guaviare river in the departments of
Meta and Guaviare. Sikuani and Cuiba form a dialect continuum (Queixalós 1993). The
Guahiboan family has been strongly influenced by neighbouring Arawakan languages.
However, a genetic relationship, as assumed by Loukotka (1968), is unlikely.
The Arawakan languages once had an important presence in eastern Colombia. The
Achagua people inhabited the Meta region in the Colombian llanos. A grammar and
vocabulary of the Achagua language was published during the colonial period (Neira
and Ribero 1762). Today a group of a few hundred speakers survive along the Meta
river, mainly between Puerto López and Puerto Gaitán (department of Meta). Achagua
is closely related to Piapoco (c. 4,000 speakers). The Piapoco live near the banks of
the Guaviare and Meta rivers and in the area between these two rivers (departments of
Meta and Vichada). The extinct Maipure language of Vichada, known from colonial
documents, for a time gave its name to (part of) the Arawakan family (Payne 1993).
More Arawakan languages are found in the Amazonian southeastern part of Colombia.
The most important one from a numerical point of view is Curripaco in the department
of Guainı́a (7,000 speakers). In neighbouring Brazil this language is known as Baniva
do Içana. A related but distinct language is Baniva del Guainı́a (Gómez-Imbert 2000;
Landaburu 2000b). It is closely related to the Yavitero language in Venezuela, which
has recently become extinct. Mosonyi (2000) notes specific lexical similarities between
Baniva–Yavitero and the Guajiro language (see section 2.12). The Cabiyarı́ and Tariana
languages in the department of Vaupés (the latter mainly in Brazil) are surrounded by
Tucanoan languages and are subject to language shift. Yucuna is spoken in Amazonas
on the lower Caquetá. Finally, the language of the Resı́garo, who were all but extermi-
nated during the rubber boom, was still spoken in the 1970s by individuals in a mixed
community of Bora and Huitoto in the Peruvian–Colombian border area (Allin 1976).
Two languages of the Saliban family, Piaroa and Sáliba, are spoken in the northern
llanos of Colombia. They are clearly, though not closely related. The Piaroa, who live
in a border area in the department of Vichada, are much more numerous in Venezuela
2.20 The eastern Colombian lowlands 163
(c. 10,000). The Sáliba colonised the valley of the Meta river during colonial times. Their
language acted as a general medium of communication in the Jesuit missions of the Meta,
Orinoco and Vichada valleys during the seventeenth century (Triana y Antorveza 1987:
172–3). A linguistic isolate of the Venezuelan llanos with occasional extensions into
Colombia is Yaruro or Pumé. Two other isolates from that area, Guamo and Otomaco,
have long been extinct.
The language family known as Makú–Puinave is found in the Amazonian southeast
(Guainı́a, Guaviare and Vaupés). The Puinave language, which has several thousand
speakers (mostly in Guainı́a), is mainly known from word lists (cf. Landaburu 1998).
The name Makú is applied to a number of small tribes, some of which continue to
live in isolation. The Nukak of Guaviare are such a group. The speakers of Kakua and
Hupda (or Yuhupde) can be found in the Vaupés region, in an area mainly occupied by
Tucanoan peoples. The Kakua act as servants to several Tucanoan groups (Meléndez
Lozano 2000d). Martins and Martins (1999) consider Kakua and Nukak to be variants of
the same language. The Hupda–Yuhupde language extends into adjacent areas of Brazil.
The Makúan languages are tonal. They have a system of contours of nasal consonants
which can be pre- and postoralised. This is reminiscent of the Ge languages in Brazil
(e.g. Kaingang) and the Harakmbut language in Peru, although there seem to be no
lexical correspondences.
The Tucanoan languages are spoken in a large discontinuous section of the Amazonian
region, extending from the foothills of the Andes well into Brazil. Traditionally, two
subfamilies are distinguished: Western Tucanoan and Eastern Tucanoan. Among the
Western Tucanoan languages Siona acquired the status of a lengua general during the
colonial period. It was used as a missionary language for the missions of the Putumayo
river (Triana and Antorveza 1987: 171–2). Today only a few hundred speakers remain,
mainly on the Putumayo, where it forms the border between Colombia, Ecuador and
Peru. In addition to Siona, Wheeler (2000) lists the languages Angutero (or Pioje),
Koreguaje–Tama, Makaguaje, Orejón, Secoya (Ecuadorian and Peruvian varieties) and
Tetete as Western Tucanoan. All these languages are very closely related, and some
differ at the dialect rather than at language level. The Koreguaje and Tama together form
a somewhat divergent group and are difficult to separate linguistically. They occupy
areas on the Orteguaza and Caguán rivers adjacent to the Upper Magdalena highlands
(see section 2.16), where many of them were transferred as workers during the colonial
period. Koreguaje is considered to be a tonal language (Rodrı́guez González 2000).
The Eastern Tucanoan languages occupy a major portion of the department of Vaupés
and a small part of Amazonas. More groups are found in northwestern Brazil. A
unique feature of this area is that its population is almost entirely indigenous. Eastern
Tucanoan peoples are exogamic and marry outside their own ethnolinguistic group.
There has been extensive work on the Vaupés region with respect to language contact and
multilingualism (Sorensen 1967, 1985; Jackson 1983; Aikhenvald 1999). In view of the
large number of tribal groups and names, there is some confusion regarding the ex-
act inventory of languages. Ardila (1993) and Gómez-Imbert (2000) distinguish fifteen
Eastern Tucanoan languages in Colombia: Bará (or North Barasana), Barasana (or
Taiwano), Carapana, Cubeo, Desano, Guanano, Macuna, Piratapuyo, Pisamira, Siri-
ano, Tanimuca (or Letuama), Tatuyo, Tucano, Tuyuca and Yurutı́. With more than 6,000
speakers each (Arango and Sánchez 1998), Cubeo and Tucano are the largest Tucanoan
languages; Pisamira has only a few dozen speakers. The Eastern Tucanoan languages
are typical Amazonian languages. They have contrastive tone, suprasegmental nasality
and elaborate nominal classifier systems.
The Boran and the Huitotoan languages are spoken mainly in the Colombian depart-
ment of Amazonas, between the Caquetá and Putumayo rivers, and in adjacent parts of
Peru. They are now generally considered related (Aschmann 1993). A linguistic isolate
found in the same area is Andoque (on the Aduchi river near Araracuara on the Caquetá).
This region is the area most hit by the excesses of rubber exploitation at the beginning
of the twentieth century. It led the Andoque people to near extinction and decimated
the Bora and the Huitoto. The Boran group comprises the languages Bora, Miraña and
Muinane (Patiño Rosselli 2000). The Bora, the most numerous group, are mainly settled
in Peru. The Huitotoan group consists of the languages Huitoto, Nonuya and Ocaina (the
latter mainly in Peru). In Bora tonal contrast is exploited for the expression of grammat-
ical distinctions. Huitoto has several dialects (M n ka, Murui, N pode). All indigenous
languages of the area have rich systems of nominal classifiers.
The Leticia triangle, a part of Colombian territory situated between the Putumayo and
the Amazon rivers, has speakers of Cocama, Ticuna and Yagua, three languages which
have their main population of users in the neighbouring countries (Brazil and Peru).
A virtually undocumented linguistic isolate is Yurı́ (on the Puré river in the Brazilian–
Colombian border area of Amazonas). The language has long been considered extinct,
but there have been recent reports of speakers (Arango and Sánchez 1998; Patiño Rosselli
2000).
The richest source of information on Colombian lowland languages is again González
and Rodrı́guez (2000). In addition, there are grammatical studies of several individual
languages: Achagua (Meléndez Lozano 1989, 1998; Wilson 1992), Andoque (Land-
aburu 1979), Barasano (Jones and Jones 1991), Bora (Thiesen and Weber forthcom-
ing), Guayabero (Tobar Ortiz 1989), Sikuani (Queixalós 1985, 1998, 2000), Tanimuca–
Retuarã (Strom 1992), Tariana (Aikhenvald 2003), Tatuyo (Gómez-Imbert 1982), Ticuna
(Montes Rodrı́guez 1995) and Yagua (Payne and Payne 1990).
3
The Inca Sphere
The term ‘Inca Sphere’ is used to cover the area that falls within the limits of
Tahuantinsuyo, ‘the Empire of the Four Quarters’, at the moment of its greatest ex-
tension under the Inca ruler Huayna Capac (c. 1520). It roughly coincides with the
sphere of predominance of the Middle Andean civilisation before its destruction at the
hands of Spanish conquerors in 1532–4. Speaking in modern terms, and from north
to south, the Inca Sphere includes the Andean and Pacific regions of Ecuador, Peru,
Bolivia, northern Chile and northern Argentina. (The languages of the Pacific region
of northern Ecuador were discussed in chapter 2, whereas information on the Quechua
variety spoken in Colombia is found in the present chapter.)
As we have indicated in the introductory chapter, the Middle Andean civilisation did
not attain its greatest radiation until shortly before the European invasion. During the
Middle Formative (800–400 BC) the predominance of Chavı́n de Huántar as a centre
of cultural influence remained confined to portions of what is now central and northern
Peru (Lumbreras 1974: 57–93). The period between 100 BC and AD 600 was marked
by political disintegration, whereas the artistic production reached its highest peak in
the history of the area with the development of the regional cultures of Paracas, Nazca
and Mochica. After the decline of these local cultures, the influence of Pachacamac,
situated just south of Lima at the mouth of the Lurı́n river, and Tiahuanaco on
the Bolivian altiplano became strongly felt throughout the area. The site of Huari
(AD 700–1100), situated near Ayacucho in the mountains of central Peru, is thought
to have been the capital of an empire based on military conquest (Isbell and Schreiber
1978), an interpretation which is not universally accepted, however (Shady Solı́s 1988).
This ‘imperial’ phase was followed by a further period of political disintegration, again
characterised by local cultural developments. Among them were the Chancay culture,
located in the lower valley of the Chancay river, north of Lima, and the Chimú king-
dom, a continuation of the earlier Mochica society with its capital at Chanchán near
present-day Trujillo.
The eventual unification of the entire Middle Andean area was achieved by the Inca
lords of Cuzco. Their conquests began in the early fifteenth century and continued until
166 3 The Inca Sphere
PANAMA VENEZUELA
G
UY
SURINAME
AN
A
COLOMBIA
PASTO
ESMERALDEÑO CARA
ES
Quito
NO AC
QUIJO
CHOAMP
MANTA PANZALEO
CANELO
C
PURUHÁ
HUANCA- CAÑAR
VILCA
PALTA
PUNÁ 2
1 CHIRINO
3 4 R. B R A Z I L
6 nón
Mara
CH AC H A
TALLÁN 5
7
SECHURA
OLMOS
Cajamarca HIBITO
MOCHICA CULLI CHOLÓN
Trujillo PANATAGUA
QU
QUINGNAM
EC
P E R U
HU
QU
A
EC
Lima JAQARU
HU
Cuzco
A
A
Y
II
U I NA
M
RA
A
PUQ
N
AY
CO B O L I V I A
U
RU
MA
LI
RA
CHIPAYA Potosí
PA
CHANGO
R
A
G
HUMAHUACA
U
A
ATACAMEÑO
Y
E
Explanation of language names

LULE
A
indicated by numbers
IT
Tucumán
L
1 Malacato
GU
TONOCOTÉ
2 Rabona, Bolona, Xiroa
DIA
I
3 Tabancale
4 Patagón
H
ARGENTINA
5 Sácata
URUGUAY
6 Bagua
C
7 Copallén
Map 3 The Inca Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous languages in the sixteenth
century
3 The Inca Sphere 167
before the arrival of the Spanish invaders in 1532. Ecuador was one of the last areas
to be conquered. The Incas practised a policy of forced migration. Recently conquered
nations from the confines of the empire were replaced by loyal subjects from other
areas. The populations so established were called mitmaq in Quechua (in a Hispanicised
form mitimaes). Opinions differ over the importance which is attached to the effect of
the mitimaes upon the development of the native languages. Populations of outlying
areas, such as the Cañar of the Ecuadorian inter-Andean valley (modern Azuay and
Cañar) and the Chacha of the Chachapoyas region in the northeastern highlands of Peru,
were taken to the area surrounding Cuzco (Brundage 1967). So far, there have been no
reports of traces of their original languages that might have been preserved in Cuzco
Quechua.
Before he died in the town of Cajamarca, the Inca ruler Huayna Capac divided the
empire between his two sons. The northern part, with Quito as its capital, was given to
Atahuallpa, the son of an Ecuadorian mother of the Puruhá nation. Huascar, the official
heir, received Cuzco and the south. The civil war that soon broke out between the two
brothers was to become a stroke of luck for the conqueror Francisco Pizarro, a native
of Trujillo in Extremadura, Spain. After a successful surprise attack, he imprisoned
Atahuallpa in Cajamarca and had him tried and executed on a dubious charge of treason.
In the meantime, from his prison, Atahuallpa himself had ordered the assassination
of his rival Huascar. The power vacuum that emerged from these events permitted the
Spaniards to gain control of the Inca’s subjects and territory in less than two years. It
meant the end of Andean civilisation as a separate entity and the beginning of profound
transformations, not least in the linguistic domain.
After Spanish power had become consolidated, the former Inca domain was ruled by
a viceroy, who kept his residence in Lima. The Indian population suffered a demographic
decline of dramatic proportions, which continued throughout most of the colonial period.
Three of the principal Andean languages, Quechua, Aymara and Puquina, acquired the
status of ‘general languages’ (lenguas generales) to be used in the administration and for
religious purposes. Quechua, already an official language during the final period of Inca
administration, was by far the most important one, followed by Aymara. Puquina and a
score of other local languages gradually fell into disuse. The use of the great Andean
languages for purposes of religion and administration of justice was encouraged until
their interdiction by the Bourbon rulers in 1770 (Rivarola 1990: 108). Notwithstanding
a short revival of the Quechua language during the early times of independence at the
beginning of the nineteenth century, the prestige of the Andean languages declined
dramatically, and they gradually became confined to rural areas. However, in spite of
their low social appreciation, both Quechua and Aymara have preserved a substantial
number of speakers until today.
3.1 The languages and their distribution

The present-day linguistic situation in the central Andes is dominated by the presence of
two native language families, Quechuan and Aymaran. As to genetic depth and the nature
of internal differentiation, they are comparable to the Romance or Slavic languages in
Europe. Historically and also numerically, Quechuan is by far the most important of
the two with an estimated number of speakers ranging between 8.5 million (Cerrón-
Palomino 1987a) and 10 million (Itier 1997). The number of Aymaran speakers has
been estimated between 2 and 3 million speakers (Briggs 1992).1
In Andean everyday speech, the Quechuan family (locally called Quichua in Ecuador
and Argentina) is referred to as a ‘language’. Its numerous local varieties are traditionally
called ‘dialects’, although they may differ considerably. Speakers of different Quechua
dialects often have a difficult time understanding each other. If the dialects are not closely
related, there may be no mutual comprehension at all. Quechua speakers are strongly
aware of dialect differences which permit local groups to identify themselves as natives
of a particular village or area to the extent that quechua is often interpreted as a generic
term for any linguistic variety used by Indians, rather than as a language name (hence
expressions such as ‘la quechua aymara’ referring to Aymara or varieties of Quechua
influenced by Aymara). It will be shown that at least some of the linguistic diversity
within the Quechuan family is not recent and probably dates back to the beginning of
our era. Therefore, many linguists now prefer to speak of ‘Quechuan languages’, rather
than of ‘Quechua dialects’. The question remains: how many Quechuan languages are
there?
Even though Quechua is being pushed back by Spanish in many areas, some of
its major varieties, such as Ancash Quechua, Ayacucho Quechua, Bolivian Quechua,
Cuzco Quechua and Ecuadorian Quechua, are quite viable. In the Andean countries
Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru, Quechua is the main native language. Bilingual educa-
tion programmes and official recognition, albeit half-hearted, have enhanced linguistic
awareness and provided a certain stimulus for the preservation of the language.
The area in which varieties of Quechua are spoken nowadays is not continuous and
has a protracted shape extending along the Andean cordilleras from the departments of
Caquetá, Nariño and Putumayo in southern Colombia to the province of Santiago del
Estero in the lowlands of northern Argentina. It also includes parts of the Ecuadorian and
Peruvian lowlands to the east of the Andes. In the Quechua-speaking areas of Argentina,
Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador, the introduction of Quechua occurred at the cost of
local native languages. At several points, however, the Quechua linguistic domain is
1 Recent census data indicate that 8,000,000 is a more realistic figure for the number of Quechua
speakers (Chirinos Rivera 1998, 2001). For the number of Aymara speakers 2,000,000 is probably
close to reality.
1 COLOMBIA
2
Quito
3
ECUADOR
.
nR
Marañó
B R A Z I L
Chiclayo 4 Cajamarca
P E R U
5 Huancayo
Lima
6
Cuzco
7 BOLIVIA
La Paz Santa Cruz

Arequipa 8
de la Sierra
9
Explanation of
language names
C
indicated by numbers PARAGUAY

1 Awa Pit
2 Cha'palaachi
H
3 Tsafiki 10
4 Mochica(†) Antofagasta
I
5 Pacaraos Quechua
6 Jaqaru and Cauqui
7 Callahuaya
L
8 Uchumataqu Santiago
11
9 Chipaya del Estero
E
10 Atacameño(†)
11 Quechua dialects of
Catamarca and La Rioja(†)
AYMARA ARGENTINA
QUECHUA I
QUECHUA II
Aymara and Quechua II:
overlapping area
Map 4 The Inca Sphere: approximate distribution of indigenous languages in the mid twentieth
century
intersected by areas where other languages are predominant. One of these intermediate
areas, where Aymara is the main language, lies to the east and south of Lake Titicaca in
Bolivia and Peru. Another such area is situated in the northern Peruvian Andes (in the
departments of Amazonas, Cajamarca, La Libertad and Piura; in the province of Pallasca,
department of Ancash) and in the adjacent Andean region of Ecuador (province of Loja).
In this extensive area Quechua is present only locally, the predominant language now
being Spanish. It does not mean, however, that the area is less ‘Indian’ than those where
Quechua is predominant.2 The native languages of northern Peru, now all extinct, showed
themselves resistant to the process of Quechuanisation. Instead, they directly gave way
to Spanish somewhere between the eighteenth and the twentieth centuries. The outlines
of their original distribution can be recovered through a study of the local toponymy (cf.
Adelaar 1999). In other areas, such as the highlands of Ecuador, northwestern Argentina
and much of Bolivia, Quechua did replace the local languages.
Aymaran, the second native language family in importance of the Inca Sphere region,
has been the subject of much terminological confusion. It has been known by two
different names, Jaqi and Aru. The term Jaqi, to be pronounced [háqe], was introduced
by Hardman (see, for instance, Hardman 1978b). It has the meaning of ‘man’, ‘human
being’ in the languages belonging to the family, and most US authors prefer it. The other
name, Aru, is from Torero (1970). It is the predominant term for ‘language’ or ‘speech’
in the Aymaran languages and is used in Peru and in several European countries.3 Our
choice of the term ‘Aymaran family’ is inspired by the earlier tradition and by Cerrón-
Palomino (1993), who also points at a discrepancy in the terminology connected with
the two linguistic groupings. The internal differentiation of Quechuan is by no means
less important than that of Aymaran. Yet, Aymaran has been treated as a ‘family’ (with
languages), whereas Quechuan is seen as a ‘language’ (with dialects).4
The Aymaran family has two living branches of unequal size. The southern branch
accounts for a large majority of the Aymaran speakers. It consists of the Aymara language
itself, which is distributed over three countries (Bolivia, Chile and Peru). The Aymara
linguistic area is situated along the shores of Lake Titicaca, except for its western end.
Away from the lake, the main extensions of Aymara are towards the south, southeast
2 The nineteenth-century geographer and naturalist Antonio Raimondi (cited in Alvarez-Brun

1970) used the absence of Quechua in the province of Pallasca, in contradistinction to its presence
in other Ancashino provinces further south, as a criterion for the non-Indian character and higher
level of culture of that area. This argument is still often heard in northern Peru.
3 Hardman (1978a, b) rejects the term ‘Aru’ because it is often used for referring to the sound of
animals in the Aymara language.
4 We shall not follow the habit of referring to Jaqaru and Cauqui as Central Aimara or Tupino (Tupe)
Aimara, and to Aymara itself as Southern Aimara or Collavino Aimara (cf. Cerrón-Palomino
1995a: 104). To us, Aymara is a language within the Aymaran family. It does not include the
other varieties.
and southwest. They include some areas which come close to the Pacific coast, in the
departments of Moquegua and Tacna in southern Peru, and in the region of Tarapacá in
northern Chile. In Bolivia, parts of the departments of Cochabamba, Oruro and Potosı́
are Aymara-speaking.
The northern branch of the Aymaran family is mainly confined to a number of villages
belonging to the municipality (distrito) of Tupe, situated in the province of Yauyos
(department of Lima, Peru). It comprises two linguistic varieties, Jaqaru and Cauqui.
Jaqaru is spoken by some 725 speakers in the villages of Tupe, Aiza and Colca, and in the
coastal localities to which Tupinos have migrated (Pozzi-Escot 1998).5 Cauqui speakers
are found in the villages of Cachuy, Chavı́n and Canchán. Their number is estimated at
11 (in 1998). Cauqui is nearly undocumented.
Traditionally, the term Cauqui has been used to refer to the northern branch of Aymaran
in its totality (kawki means ‘which place?’ in Aymaran). Locally, however, the use of the
term Cauqui as a name for the language appears to be restricted to the Cachuy variety
(Hardman 1966, 1983a). There have been conflicting reports on whether or not Cauqui
constitutes a separate language. A comparison of the Cauqui and Jaqaru versions of
a quatrilingual text elaborated by Belleza, Ferrell and Huayhua (1992) suggests that
the differences do not exceed the level of mutual intelligibility. Therefore, Cauqui is
sometimes referred to as Jaqaru of Cachuy (e.g. in Belleza Castro 1995).
Historical sources, toponymy and loan words bear witness to the original extension of
the Aymaran languages. Their pre-Inca expansion must have been nearly as impressive
as that of Quechua during the colonial period. There is evidence of Aymaran presence
in most of what is now southern and central Peru and in all of the Bolivian highlands.
A document of 1600 for the instruction of Catholic priests, which was published by
Bouysse-Cassagne (1975), shows the predominant position of Aymara in Alto Perú
‘Upper Peru’, as Andean Bolivia was then called.
Once the Aymaran languages occupied strongholds in what is now southern Peru and
Bolivia, they began to influence the surrounding languages. Loan words in the Tacanan
languages of the Bolivian lowland forest region (Girard 1971; Fabre 1995) and in the
Mapuche language of Argentina and Chile show specific Aymara influence. The centre of
radiation for such influence was clearly the Bolivian altiplano. The lending language was
Aymara, not (Proto-)Aymaran, which identifies the process of borrowing as relatively
recent.
Numerically, the other native languages of the central Andean region are not nearly
as important as those belonging to the Quechuan and Aymaran families, and most of
them are extinct. In Ecuador, three languages of the Barbacoan family remain in use
5 Hardman (1983a) gives a number of 2,000 speakers for Jaqaru, including some 300 outside the
community.
on the western side of the Pacific Andean range. There are hardly any data on the other
languages once spoken in that area, except for the extinct Esmeraldeño or Atacame
language (see section 2.19).
The southern sector of the eastern slopes of the Ecuadorian Andes is inhabited by the
Jivaroan Shuar. The Shuar linguistic area is concentrated in the provinces of Zamora-
Chinchipe and Morona-Pastaza. Historically, Jivaroan-speaking groups may have inhab-
ited the province of Loja in the southernmost part of the inter-Andean valley (Gnerre
1975). Further north, the eastern slopes and rainforest are inhabited by speakers of
Quechua, which has replaced earlier local languages (languages of the Zaparoan family,
among others).
The original native languages of the Ecuadorian inter-Andean valley are all extinct.
They are also virtually undocumented, except for numerous place names and a few lexical
items mentioned in Spanish colonial sources. Some more lexical items and possible
substratum elements can be found in the modern dialects which together constitute
Ecuadorian Highland Quechua. For the pre-Quechuan languages of highland Ecuador
Barbacoan and Mochica affinities have been proposed (except for Palta and Malacato,
which are usually assigned to the Jivaroan language family). The language of the Cara
in the northern section of the inter-Andean valley has been associated with Barbacoan,
those of the Cañar and the Puruhá in its central part to Mochica. It is doubtful if the
scanty information on these languages will ever permit us to confirm any such proposals.
Much interpretation of the available linguistic data (mostly toponymy) is due to the work
of Jijón y Caamaño (1940–5) and Paz y Miño (1936–61).
The coast and mountains of northern Peru exhibited a mosaic of languages, which are
now all extinct or probably so. What remains is Quechua in those areas where it became
firmly rooted (near the town of Cajamarca and further north near Bambamarca; in a few
villages in the provinces of Chachapoyas and Luya in the department of Amazonas; and
in the area of Cañaris and Incahuasi in the interior highlands of the province of Ferreñafe,
department of Lambayeque). There is evidence that Quechua never became widespread
in the region. Early Spanish chroniclers, such as Garcilaso de la Vega (1609: Book 7,
chapter 3) confirm this (cf. Torero 1986).
The languages of northern Peru are somewhat better documented than those of the
Ecuadorian highlands. Best known is the Mochica language (also called Muchic or
Yunga) of the coastal region near Chiclayo. Mochica became extinct around the middle
of the twentieth century, although some individuals are said to remember words and
sentences. A rather substantial amount of premodern grammatical and lexical descriptive
material on the Mochica language awaits updating and reinterpretation in a contemporary
framework (see section 3.4).
For the Culli language, formerly spoken in the extensive highland area between the
coastal town of Trujillo and the Marañón river, and for the Sechura and Tallán languages
of coastal Piura, short word lists are available (cf. Torero 1986; Adelaar 1988). Several
other extinct languages have been identified in the department of Cajamarca, mainly on
the basis of local toponymy (Torero 1989, 1993a). Although the final disappearance of
these languages may have been relatively recent, most of them are not even known by
name, nor are they mentioned in any known historical documents.
A particularly complicated linguistic situation was once found along the tropical
banks of the Marañón near Jaén and Bagua, as is shown in an anonymous document of
1570 entitled Relación de la tierra de Jaén (Rivet 1934; Torero 1993a). The presence
of the river and the moderate elevation of the Andes at this point constituted favourable
conditions for trade, which apparently had attracted populations from different parts
of the Amazon basin (including the Carib-speaking Patagón). The incursions of the
Jivaroan Aguaruna may have eliminated most of the small ethnic groups once living in
this region, who disappeared without leaving a trace.
The original language situation of the Andean highlands situated to the east of the
Marañón is not clear. The people of the Chachapoyas region in the department of
Amazonas probably had a separate language, usually referred to as Chacha (Taylor
1990a). It may have extended as far south as Bolı́var (formerly Cajamarquilla) in the de-
partment of La Libertad. Still further south, in the province of Pataz (La Libertad), there
is the possibility of the former presence of Hibito and Cholón speakers. The province
of Pataz harbours at least one Quechua-speaking community, La Macañı́a in the district
of Urpay (Vink 1982).
Along the coast of Peru, from the Trujillo region downward, at least one other non-
Quechuan language was spoken. Rivet (1949) called it Quingnam on the basis of a
mention by the Augustinian friar Calancha (1638). The view that Quingnam was a
separate language (and not a dialect of Mochica, for instance) long remained open to
doubt. It has lately received new support (Torero 1986). Judging from the absence of any
reference to Quingnam in the vocabularies included in Bishop Martı́nez Compañón’s
pictographic encyclopaedia of the region (Martı́nez Compañón 1985 [1782–90]), it
appears that this language had already become lost from memory towards the end of
the eighteenth century. It may have extended as far south as Lima, where it would have
competed with the local Quechua and possibly with Aymaran.
Until the twentieth century, the highlands of central Peru have been the undisputed
domain of Quechua. It includes the Andean parts of the departments of Ancash, Huánuco,
Pasco and Junı́n. In the north of Ancash the boundary separating the province of Pallasca
from the rest of the department marks the division between the former Culli (now
Spanish-speaking) linguistic area and the area of Ancash Quechua.
The high mountain valleys of the department of Lima, which carry their waters to
the Pacific Ocean, have also been predominantly Quechua. Here, however, the influ-
ence of Aymaran languages is visible as well, both through borrowing and as a result
of substratum. The northern branch of the Aymaran family is situated entirely in this
area, in the province of Yauyos. There have been reports dating from the beginning of
the twentieth century of Aymaran-speaking communities as far north as Canta in the
valley of Chillón (Hardman 1966). Sixteenth-century sources (Santo Tomás 1560a, b)
indicate that Quechua was the predominant language of the coastal plain of Lima, but
some Aymaran toponymy is suggestive of a more complex language situation. This ob-
servation also holds to a higher degree for the area of Huarochirı́ and San Damián de
Checas further inland. This area was the home of an early colonial manuscript written in
Quechua, attributed to the environment of the idolatry fighter Francisco de Avila (see sec-
tion 3.2.11). It depicts a situation in which both a local form of Quechua and an Aymaran
language seem to have coexisted. Cult terms, such as auquisna and chaycasna,6 referring
to the celebrations dedicated to Pariacaca and Chaupiñamca, the two main deities of the
Huarochirı́ region, and the names of mythical heroes, such as Collquiri and Tutayquiri,
are either Aymaran, or have Aymaran endings. It suggests that an Aymaran language
was used for hieratic purposes. At present, Spanish is the dominant language in the area
of Huarochirı́. The Hispanicising influence that radiates from the Lima agglomeration
is cornering the native languages in remote areas of the department of that name, such
as Cajatambo, Checras and Yauyos.
The southern Andes of Peru, also known as the trapecio andino (‘Andean trapezium’),
are widely recognised as the most authentically Indian region of Peru. Its Quechua-
speaking area covers the Andean parts of the departments of Apurimac, Arequipa,
Ayacucho, Cuzco, Huancavelica and (very marginally) Ica. The greater part of the Puno
department and the province of Sánchez Cerro in Moquegua are also Quechua-speaking.
Aymara is found in Puno (provinces of Huancané, Chucuito and Juli), Moquegua
(province of Mariscal Nieto) and in the department of Tacna (province of Tarata).
Historical sources and toponymy point toward the presence of Aymaran languages
in most of the area of southern Peru that is now Quechua-speaking. In the Relaciones
geográficas de Indias of 1586 (Jiménez de la Espada 1965) these languages are referred
to as hahuasimi (Quechua hawa simi ‘outer languages’). The name suggests that this
category included languages of different affiliations. However, lexical clues provided by
the same source have permitted the identification of at least some of these languages as
members of the Aymaran family (Torero 1970).
In his description of the customs of different populations living in the former Inca em-
pire, the chronicler Guaman Poma de Ayala (1615) indicates that an Aymaran language
was spoken not only in the region situated to the southeast of Cuzco (in the Collasuyo
administrative quarter), but also southwest of the Inca capital (in the Cuntisuyo adminis-
trative quarter). Among other areas, he may have referred to Collaguas, which coincides
6 Probably from Aymaran *awki-s(a)-na ‘of our father’ and *č.ayka-s(a)-na ‘of our mother’.
with the higher reaches of the Colca river basin in the department of Arequipa, once
a stronghold of the Aymara nation, but entirely Quechuanised today. For a critical as-
sessment of the sources from which our knowledge of the colonial language situation in
southern Peru was derived, as well as the way they have been interpreted, see Mannheim
(1991: 43–7, 249–50).
In the southernmost part of the Peruvian Andes and on the coast there is again evidence
of languages that were neither Quechuan nor Aymaran. Historically, the most widespread
of these languages was Puquina. The classification of the Puquina language as a ‘general
language’ during the early colonial period is somewhat surprising in view of its rapid
extinction and the relatively poor state of its documentation. Concentrations of Puquina
toponymy are found in the area between the town of Arequipa and the Peruvian–Chilean
border, along the western and northern shores of Lake Titicaca and on some of its islands
(Taquile, Amantanı́). The peninsula of Capachica and the neighbouring village of Coata
at the western extremity of the lake were among the last strongholds of Puquina. The
so-called Coli language of the Moquegua region (Julien 1979) may have been a dialect
of Puquina or a language related to it. Puquina contains quite a few Quechua borrowings,
but it does not share the extreme lexical and typological coincidence of the Quechuan and
Aymaran families. Its pronominal system is suggestive of a genetic connection with the
Arawakan language family of the Amazonian lowlands. Some of the Puquina lexicon, or
rather, that of one of its dialects (cf. Torero 1987), survives in the Callahuaya language,
a professional language used by traditional healers of the area of Charazani in Bolivia.
Alongside Puquina, there is the Uru–Chipaya or Uruquilla language family (Torero
1987, 1992). Following de Créqui-Montfort and Rivet (1925–7), several authors
(Kingsley Noble 1965; Greenberg 1987) have failed to distinguish between the Uru–
Chipaya family and Puquina (see section 1.7). This misunderstanding is partly due to
the fact that one of the Uru–Chipaya-speaking groups, the Chipaya, have been known
to refer to themselves as ‘Puquina’ or ‘Buquina’ (Olson 1964; Wachtel 1990: 607–8).
However, there is unequivocal evidence that two separate families exist, for which we
shall maintain the usual denominations Puquina and Uru–Chipaya. The Uru–Chipaya-
speaking people stood apart, culturally and economically, from the sedentary Aymara
population that surrounded them. They used to make a living off the lakes by fishing,
hunting and processing totora-reed. The social and religious characteristics of the Uru–
Chipaya people were those of outsiders with respect to Andean society, although the
Chipaya adopted the agriculture-based way of life of their Aymara neighbours. So far,
three Uru–Chipaya languages have been identified: Chipaya, spoken in an altiplano
village near the Chilean border in the department of La Paz, Bolivia; Uru of Iruitu,
spoken in a Bolivian community near the place where the Desaguadero river reaches the
southern shore of Lake Titicaca; and Uru of Ch’imu, formerly spoken in a lake-shore
township near Ichu, east of Puno (Peru).
The Andean region of Bolivia is divided between Quechua and Aymara-speaking

areas. The distribution of the two languages exhibits a complicated pattern because the
linguistic boundary is not clear-cut everywhere (Hosókawa 1980; Albó 1995). Aymara
is the predominant language in most of the departments of La Paz and Oruro. The area
of La Paz situated north of Lake Titicaca is shared by Quechua and Aymara speakers. A
similar situation prevails in the protruding northern sector of the department of Potosı́
(norte de Potosı́). There are also Aymara-speaking communities in the department of
Cochabamba. Quechua has an even wider distribution in Bolivia than Aymara. It is
spoken in most of Cochabamba, Potosı́ and Sucre, and in substantial areas of La Paz.
The region of Tarija in the south has become Hispanicised.
Virtually nothing is known about the languages that may have been spoken in the
Bolivian highlands before Aymara and Quechua became the main languages there. The
names of local ethnic groups, such as the Lı́pez and the Chicha, were preserved, but
they have not been associated with any particular non-Quechuan or non-Aymaran lan-
guage. The reason for our ignorance is that the Bolivian highlands probably became
Aymaranised several centuries before the expansion of the Incas began. In some lo-
cations, there were pockets of Puquina and Uruquilla (Uru–Chipaya) speakers outside
their traditional habitat. They may have been the result of mitimaes-like migrations.
However, the presence around 1600 of alleged Uruquilla speakers in the remote Lı́pez
region in the western part of the department of Potosı́ (Bouysse-Cassagne 1975) points
towards the survival of a local language which may or may not have been Uru–Chipaya.
Both Ibarra Grasso (1958) and Loukotka (1968) mention the existence of Atacameño
(Kunza) speakers in the southwestern corner of Bolivia, a claim that has not so far been
corroborated. A former extension of the Atacameño language into the area of Lı́pez
finds some support in the local toponymy.
In northern Chile, parts of the coastal strip in the regions of Antofagasta and Tarapacá
were inhabited by the Chango people, who lived from the sea and, according to tradition,
entertained a social relationship with the Uru on the altiplano (Wachtel 1990). Some
words recorded by Bresson in 1875 from Chango established near the town of Paposo
could easily be identified as pertaining to the Araucanian language of central and south-
ern Chile (d’Ans 1977). Nothing is known about the original language of the Chango,
who reportedly became extinct as a result of a tidal wave. It is possible that the Chango
adopted the Araucanian language in their contacts with Chilean fishermen further
south.
The Chilean province of Antofagasta belonged to Bolivia until the Nitrate War of
the 1870s. In its higher Andean parts, Quechua coexisted with the local Atacameño
language, equally known as Kunza or Lican Antai. Atacameño was already mori-
bund at the end of the nineteenth century. The language is almost certainly extinct
now, but its memory is kept alive by the local descendants of its speakers. The
Atacameño lexicon is relatively well documented, but a grammatical description of

the language is sadly lacking. The extent to which Quechua is spoken in the region
in question has not been fully investigated. There have also been rumours of Quechua
speakers in the Chilean–Argentinian border region much further south (province of
Atacama).
Like most of the Bolivian highlands, northwestern Argentina adopted the Quechua
language. It survives in two distinct non-contiguous areas: the lowland province of
Santiago del Estero and the western, cordilleran part of the provinces of Jujuy and
(probably) Salta. According to de Granda (1993), the autochtonous population of Jujuy
and Salta became fully Hispanicised. He attributes the presence of Quechua speakers in
that area to secondary migrations from Bolivia. Santiagueño Quechua is now the most
thriving Quechua dialect in Argentina. Its survival is an interesting case, because the
province of Santiago del Estero never seems to have been dominated by the Incas. It
appears that Spanish colonial presence in the Santiago region was initially represented
by Quechua-speaking Indians originally from different parts of the former empire (Bravo
1993). For a while, Quechua was used throughout the northwest of Argentina, in the
present-day provinces of Catamarca, Jujuy, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero and
Tucumán, where it partly replaced the local languages Kakán and Tonocoté. In Catamarca
and La Rioja, a Quechua dialect (locally called Quichua) survived at least until the first
decades of the twentieth century (Nardi 1962), and may still be spoken locally. In central
Argentina, Quechua influence extended as far south as Córdoba during the colonial
period.
The presence of the pre-Quechuan languages of northwestern Argentina is more
clearly delineated than that of Bolivia. Aymara speakers are mentioned by most authors
dealing with the language situation in the departments of Jujuy and Salta (e.g. Klein
1985: 706). However, since no exact locations are indicated, one may ask the ques-
tion whether the alleged Aymara speakers are indigenous to the area. In the Andean
region of northwestern Argentina, Diaguita (Kakán) was probably the non-Quechuan
language with the widest extension. The Diaguita linguistic area, which included parts
of Catamarca, La Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero and Tucumán also extended into
northern Chile, filling the intermediate area between the oases of the Atacama desert
and the Araucanian domain. Nevertheless, Spanish explorers found considerable lin-
guistic variety on their journey southward through northern Chile. They also report that,
as soon as the area of present-day Santiago in central Chile was reached, the natives all
spoke one language: Araucanian.
The Diaguita language did not cover all of what is now northwestern Argentina.
The influence of Atacameño extended onto the high plain (puna) of western Jujuy and
Salta. The valley of Humahuaca in the centre of Jujuy province probably had its own
language. In the provinces of Tucumán and Santiago del Estero the Diaguita shared the
area with the Tonocoté, who were under pressure from the nomadic Lule. As it appears,
Lule was remotely related to the Vilela language of the Bermejo river basin further
east, now remembered by only a handful of speakers in the province of Chaco (Lozano
1977). The native population of Santiago del Estero was referred to as the Jurı́, an ethnic
group whose linguistic affiliation has not been determined. Probably, it was a cover
term for both the Lule and the Tonocoté, as the distinction between these groups was
gradually lost in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The phonological substratum
that can be discerned in Santiagueño Quechua may be attributed to the Diaguita (Nardi
1979), but it is also reminiscent of the Guaicuruan languages and Vilela for its uvular
obstruents.
A section about the distribution of the languages of the central Andes cannot be con-
cluded without mentioning the one language that is difficult to locate on a conventional
language map. The Inca rulers and the members of their extended family are said to
have used a private or secret language (lengua particular) to which the subjects of their
empire had no access. Its existence is mentioned by Garcilaso de la Vega (1609) and
Cobo (1653), among others. Cerrón-Palomino (1998) analyses a number of lexical items
reported by Garcilaso to belong to this language. They are mainly personal names, titles
and place names, for which Garcilaso could find no ready explanation within his native
Quechua. In one case Garcilaso de la Vega (Book 2, chapter 11) offers a translation when
he says that Cuzco (qusqu), the name of the Inca capital, meant ‘navel of the earth’ in the
secret Inca language (although this explanation is not generally accepted). In connec-
tion with most of Garcilaso’s examples Cerrón-Palomino concludes that a Quechua or
Aymara etymology remains the most likely option. Cobo’s contribution to the problem
(Book 12, chapter 3) is significant because he transmits the words of a direct descendant
of the Inca family, who reports that the secret language of the Inca was spoken by the
Indians of Pacaritambo, the mythical place of origin of the Inca clan west of Cuzco
(cf. Cerrón-Palomino 1998: 417–18).
There have been many efforts to connect the language of the Incas with Quechua, or
with Aymara, or with Puquina, in spite of the fact that all three languages were widely
used in the empire, and none of them seemed fit to act as a secret language. Of course,
the secret language may have been a divergent dialect of one of these languages. The
publication of a complete version of the chronicle of Juan de Betanzos (1551 [1987])
has provided new fuel to the discussion. It contains the text (with a translation) of an
Inca song commemorating a victory of the Incas over the Sora people in the southern
part of the present-day department of Ayacucho. This very short and cryptic text has
been interpreted as Puquina by Szemiński (1990), as Aymaran by Torero (1994a), and
as Aymaran with Puquina elements by Cerrón-Palomino (1998). The latter author refers
to a statement by the chronicler Murúa (1613) that the secret language of the Incas was
neither Quechua nor Aymara.
3.2 The Quechuan language family

In the late 1520s, when reconnoitring the coast of Ecuador and northern Peru, Francisco
Pizarro and his men set foot in the Inca city of Túmbez. The Spaniards, whom the
Indians called ‘Viracochas’ (wiraquča) after one of their principal gods, were pleased
to find a relatively easy language that could serve as a means of communication almost
everywhere in the new land they had decided to penetrate. Betanzos, who was one of the
first Spaniards to write about the events accompanying the destruction of the Inca dynasty,
reports that local natives, mostly Tallán Indians, were trained in Spanish during those
first years in order to serve as interpreters for the newly discovered language (Betanzos
1987: 269). Most notorious among them, a certain Felipillo, became instrumental in the
process and subsequent execution of the Inca Atahuallpa, reportedly because he had
taken an interest in one of the emperor’s wives and feared the consequences of that
relationship (Hemming 1973: 82, 558; Betanzos 1987: 284–5).
At first, the language of the Inca administration was referred to as the ‘General
Language of the Inca’ (la lengua general del Inga). The Santo Tomás grammar of 1560
(see section 3.2.4) is said to contain the first mention of the name Quechua in print
(Cerrón-Palomino 1987a: 32). There are no indications that the term was already in use
before the Spanish invasion, but neither is there any reason to assume that Santo Tomás
would have been the inventor of it. Actually, he wrote Quichua, a spelling that may have
reflected the pronunciation used in the Lima region.
The name Quechua was possibly derived from a native term referring to the temperate
altitude zone roughly situated between 2,500 and 3,500 metres and to its inhabitants
(*qič.wa, modern Cuzco Quechua qh iswa).7 The initial consonant q of this word, a
uvular stop or fricative, triggers the lowering of the adjacent high vowel i to a mid [e].
Hence Quechua instead of Quichua. At present, the name of the language is no longer
associated with the climatic term (if ever it was). In most Quechua dialects the language is
referred to as kičwa, whereas Spanish speakers say either Quechua [kéčuwa], in Peru and
Bolivia, or Quichua [kı́čuwa], in Ecuador and Argentina. Another term for the Quechua
language which seems to have emerged during the colonial epoch is runa simi ‘language
of man/people’ (with as dialectal variants nuna šimi in central Peru and runa šimi in
Ecuador). Further discussion of the origin of the names for the Quechua language can
be found in Cerrón-Palomino (1987a: 31–7) and in Mannheim (1991: 6–9).
Modern denominations meant to designate specific Quechua dialects are Huanca for
the dialects of the Huancayo–Jauja area in the department of Junı́n in central Peru, Inga
7 There is an alternative explanation. The chronicler Cieza de León (1553: Part I, chapter 90)
informs us about an ethnic group called the Quichua, who were established in the present-day
department of Apurimac. Garcilaso de la Vega (1609: Book III, chapters 11 and 12) refers to
them as Quechua and situates them in the northeastern part of Apurimac. Neighbours of the
Quichua/Quechua were the Aimara, who probably gave their name to the Aymara language.
or Ingano for the dialect of Caquetá and Nariño in Colombia, and Cuzco for the dialect
of Santiago del Estero in Argentina8 . In Ecuador we also find inga šimi ‘Inca language’
and yanga šimi ‘useless language’. Most other dialects are referred to in the linguistic
literature by means of a geographic epithet, such as the name of a town, a province or a
country (Cuzco Quechua, Ancash Quechua, Bolivian Quechua, etc.). In the present-day
Andean society it is a common practice to refer to speakers of the different Quechua
dialects as if they were all speakers of the same language.
The picture of the complex Quechua dialect situation that emerged from system-
atic field research conducted in the course of the twentieth century was primarily a
static one. The dialects were identified with agrarian regions, provinces or even single
communities. They were linked to a clear and specific geographic context. However
authentic such a geographic constellation may have seemed, it was itself the product
of poorly documented demographic developments, migrations, language shift, failed
attempts at linguistic unification and centrifugal tendencies intended to reinforce local
identity. Little is known about the antiquity of the events that led to the existence of
the modern Quechua dialects. Reconstructed chronologies of phonological changes are
mostly relative, seldom absolute. Only a relatively well-documented dialect, such as
Cuzco Quechua, can be followed in its historical development over the last 450 years
(see Mannheim 1991).
3.2.1 The Quechua homeland

For a long time linguists and historians were misled in their search for the original
homeland of Quechua. Until the 1960s, it was usual to associate the spread of the Quechua
language with the military expansion of the Incas. The Quechua homeland was thought
to have been situated in the immediate neighbourhood of the Inca capital Cuzco, a view
reflected in the work of Mason (1950), Rowe (1950b), McQuown (1955) and Loukotka
(1968). McQuown lists the names of scores of undocumented languages (mostly names
of towns or traditional administrative divisions) intended to fill the alleged vacuum of
what was to become the Quechua linguistic domain. The language map accompanying
Loukotka’s classification of the languages of South America (Loukotka 1968) shows
the Quechua homeland as a small patch of land extending westward from Cuzco. The
remainder of the Quechua-speaking areas, considered to be a linguistic terra incognita,
are indicated in white.
The above view was motivated, in particular, by statements of early colonial chroni-
clers emphasising the situation of prevailing multilingualism in the former Inca empire.
Garcilaso de la Vega (1609: Book 7, chapter 3) explicitly refers to Quechua as the
court language of Cuzco, which at the time of the Inca rulers was used as a general
8 The speakers of Santiago del Estero (Santiagueño) Quechua are called cuzqueros.
language ‘from Quito to the kingdoms of Chile and Tucumán’. According to Garcilaso,
the Incas imposed it on their subjects, who originally spoke a multitude of languages
(‘each province has its own language different from the others’). The impressions of
the Spanish and indigenous chroniclers, who were witnesses of Inca society before it
became radically reorganised as a result of colonial rule, are not to be dismissed lightly.
The issue is how to interpret their statements. The alleged multilingualism can bear on
the coexistence of several languages, but also on the dialectal fragmentation within a
language. In the case of the former Inca empire it seems to point at the internal frag-
mentation of Quechuan and Aymaran, alongside the existence of several unrelated local
languages.
Even during the colonial period there was a certain awareness of the dialectal dif-
ferences within the Quechua linguistic domain. Some of it is already reflected in Santo
Tomás’s grammar and dictionary of 1560 (see section 3.2.4). In 1571 Pedro Pizarro
(1986: 75) wrote that the language spoken by the Xauxas and Guancas (the modern
Huanca dialects of Jauja and Huancayo) differed from standard general Quechua ‘as
does the language of the Portuguese from that of the Castilians’ (cf. Torero 1974: 144).
In 1700 Juan de Figueredo published a vocabulary of what he called the Chinchaisuyo
language, a sort of collective term for the Quechua dialects of central and northern
Peru. The name Chinchaisuyo referred to the northern administrative quarter of the Inca
empire.
The importance of the central and northern Peruvian Quechua dialects for the recon-
struction of the linguistic past of the central Andes became apparent after the publication
of an article by Ferrario (1956). Soon, the Quechua dialect situation became a major topic
of interest for linguists concerned with that language. Two pioneering studies (Parker
1963; Torero 1964) provided a classification of the principal varieties of Quechua on
the basis of genetic principles. What emerged was a two-fold division of the Quechua
dialect complex, reflecting a case of genetic branching of much greater antiquity than
the Inca expansion. Central Peru, particularly the valleys carrying the headwaters of the
Andean rivers on the Pacific side of the continental divide in the present-day department
of Lima, turned out to exhibit the greatest dialectal complexity. On this basis, Torero
(1970: 248) identified the coast and sierra of central Peru as the homeland of Proto-
Quechua. Initially, he dated the first split and expansion of Quechuan some time before
AD 880 on lexico-statistic grounds. In Torero (1984: 382–3), however, he considered
an earlier period for the first expansion of Quechuan, during the first half of the first
millennium, as more realistic.
The traditional indigenista ideology advocated by the Cuzco Language Academy
(Academia de la lengua quechua) considers the Cuzco variety of Quechua as the pure
and legitimate heir of the Inca language (quechua legı́timo). In that perspective, the other
Quechua dialects are thought to be ‘degenerate’ or ‘mixed with Spanish’, a view that has
its roots in the colonial period. Since Cuzco was the home of many descendants of the
Inca nobility, it acted as a stronghold of Inca tradition opposed to the growing cultural
influence emanating from Lima, the Ciudad de los Reyes ‘City of the Magi’, the seat
of the Spanish viceroy. Not surprisingly, Cuzco Quechua gradually became a symbol
of Andean identity, as the Quechua standard language or lengua general (see section
3.2.2) fell into disuse. The alleged superiority of Cuzco Quechua is one of the factors
that seriously hampered the identification of the Quechua homeland.
Alternative hypotheses for an original Quechua homeland in the eastern forest areas
were proposed by Lathrap (1970: 176–9) and by Stark (1985a). Neither one of these
proposals has the potential of explaining the complex dialect situation that exists in the
Quechua-speaking regions of the Peruvian Andes. For a more detailed discussion see
Hartmann (1979: 287–9) and Cerrón-Palomino (1987a: 336–41).
3.2.2 Historical overview of the colonial period

The language of the Inca administration at the arrival of the Spaniards was a variety
of Quechua. Little is known about the exact nature of the Inca language and its degree
of unification. One of its characteristics appears to have been the voicing of stops after
nasals. This is attested by the shape of some of the earliest loan words which found their
way from Quechua into Spanish, e.g. cóndor ‘condor’, tambo ‘halting-place’, ‘inn’,
Inga ‘Inca’ and huaranga ‘a thousand men (administrative unit)’. Voicing of this sort
is now mainly found in Colombia, in Ecuador and in the northern Peruvian Quechua
dialects of Cajamarca, Chachapoyas (Amazonas), Ferreñafe (Lambayeque) and Lamas
(San Martı́n). Voicing of stops after nasals was also a feature of the Quechua spoken
in the sixteenth century on the central coast of Peru near Lima (cf. Cerrón-Palomino
1990). The latter may have been fully or nearly identical to the Inca general language.
Shortly after the Spanish authority in Peru became firmly established, a debate arose
about whether the indigenous languages constituted acceptable tools for evangelisation.
Although the Indian population had diminished severely as a result of civil war and
epidemics, the Spaniards in Peru, still no more than a handful, were overwhelmingly
outnumbered. There was no question of using Spanish in contacts with the Indians, a
language which only very few of them could understand. Catholic priests and members
of religious congregations in the newly conquered territories, many of whom knew
Quechua well, spoke strongly in favour of using Quechua in the propagation of the
Catholic faith. Their pleadings convinced the Spanish king Philip II (cf. Rivarola 1990:
134).
An important landmark in the history of Quechua was the Third Lima Council (Tercer
Concilio Limense) of 1583, where it was decided to translate the religious texts referred
to as Doctrina christiana y catecismo para instrucción de los indios (‘Christian doctrine
and catechism for the instruction of the Indians’) into Quechua and Aymara (Ricardo
1584). A committee in charge of the translation selected the Quechua orthography and
vocabulary to be used. It created a new standardised form of Quechua, in which certain
phonetic complications of the southern Peruvian dialects were disregarded in order to
gain a wider acceptance (Mannheim 1991: 142). As a result, the difference between the
velar and uvular stops was ignored, a procedure which is in line with the loss of that
distinction in the Ecuadorian branch of Quechua and in some of the northern Peruvian
dialects. The resulting standard language appears to have been in use well into the
seventeenth century (Itier 1991).
Gradually, however, the use of this Quechua lengua general as a countrywide vehicle
of communication became obsolete. Cuzco Quechua emerged as the most successful
local variety. It is exemplified by a substantial dramatic literature (see section 3.2.11).
The Quechua renaissance was supported mainly by the descendants of the Inca nobility,
established in the Cuzco region, and by the local clergy. It received a fatal blow at the
end of the colonial period, in 1780–81, when José Gabriel Tupac Amaru, an alleged
descendant of the Inca dynasty, and other Indian leaders rose against the Spaniards. The
suppression of the rebellion and the execution of its leaders was followed by an active
policy directed against the position of Quechua and other Indian languages from the side
of the colonial rulers (Mannheim 1991: 74–6).
The abolition of Quechua official use at the end of the eighteenth century was the
result partly of efforts to suppress upcoming nationalist sentiments, and partly of the
centralist ideology favoured by the Bourbon administration in Madrid. Its representatives
were reluctant to maintain traditional privileges and customs. National independence of
the Andean republics soon followed, but it was brought about by a military campaign
headed by two non-Indian leaders, Simón Bolı́var and José de San Martı́n (although the
latter had partly Indian roots). The Indian population, having lost the initiative and its
leadership thirty years earlier, played practically no part in the independence movement
and showed itself unable to take advantage of it. Whatever protection the Indians and their
culture may have received from the Spanish colonial system, most of it was lost once the
Andean nations were independent. The role of Quechua as a means of communication
fell back to local purposes, its prestige lower than it had ever been before.
In their national aspirations, the independent Andean states followed the European
model. Spanish became the sole official language and a cornerstone of national identity
and cohesion. In many areas Quechua began to give way to Spanish. There was no room
any longer for either linguistic or cultural diversity. However, a reappraisal of native
values was to be achieved gradually during the twentieth century (see section 3.2.12).
3.2.3 Dialect situation

As a result of descriptive work carried out since the late 1960s, dialectal diversity
within the Quechua linguistic domain is particularly well documented. It is a field of great
IMBABURA
COLOMBIA
Quito
COTOPAXI
Salasaca
E C U A D O R
CHIMBORAZO
CAÑAR
Cuenca
TUMBEZ Iquitos
Tumbez Saraguro
S
AMAZONA
PIURA
LORETO
Piura
CA
Moyobamba
JA
Cañaris Chachapoyas
M
AR
LAMBAYEQUE Lamas
C
B R A Z I L
A
Chiclayo Cajamarca SAN MARTÍN

P E R U
LA LIBERTAD
Trujillo Pucallpa
Pallasca
ANCASH
HUÁNUCO
Huaraz
UCAYALI
Huánuco
Cajatambo PASCO
Cerro de Pasco
Paccho San Pedro de Cajas
Pacaraos Tarma
Quechua I: JUNÍN
LIMA Jauja Concepción MADRE DE DIOS
Huaylas-Conchucos Huancayo
Lima Chongos Bajo
Laraos
CA
Alto Pativilca– Pto. Maldonado

HUANCAVELI
Alto Marañón– Yauyos Huancavelica C U

I A
Z C
Alto Huallaga Ayacucho O
Yaru Cuzco
Abancay
A
O L I V
Y
Jauja-Huanca APURIMAC
A
Ica
C
ICA
U
Huangáscar-Topará
CH
PUNO Apolo
O
Coata
Quechua IIA:
B
A R E Q U I PA Puno
Ferreñafe (Cañaris)
Arequipa A
U
Cajamarca
UEG
Lincha
MOQ
Moquegua
TACNA
Quechua IIC: Tacna
Quechua IIB:
Ayacucho
Ecuadorian Quechua
(Highlands and Oriente) Cuzco
Chachapoyas Collao (Puno) CHILE
San Martín (Lamas) Northern Bolivian (Apolo)
Map 5 Approximate distribution of Quechua dialects in Peru and adjacent areas

theoretical interest, due to the complex character of the phonological and morphological
facts and the often subtle formal and semantic shifts that separate the numerous dialects.
Dialect differences appear to function as markers of local or regional identity.
From a genetic and classificatory point of view, the Quechua dialects must be divided
into two main branches. One of them has been termed Quechua B (in Parker 1963),
Quechua I (in Torero 1964), or Central Quechua (Mannheim 1985a, Landerman 1994).
It occupies a compact and continuous area in the central Peruvian highlands, including
the Andean parts of the departments of Ancash, Huánuco, Junı́n and Pasco (with the
exception of the province of Pallasca in northern Ancash), some of the Andean parts of
the department of Lima and a few districts in the departments of Huancavelica, Ica and
La Libertad.
Quechua B or I constitutes a heavily fragmented dialect complex with a number of
clear common features. A more refined subdivision into five subgroups is proposed in
Torero (1974). These subgroups are the following:
a. Huaylas–Conchucos consists of the Quechua-speaking areas of Ancash,
except for the province of Bolognesi in the south; it also includes the
provinces of Marañón and Huamalı́es in the north of the department of
Huánuco and a small Quechua-speaking pocket near Urpay in the depart-
ment of La Libertad.
b. Alto Pativilca–Alto Marañón–Alto Huallaga includes the remainder of the
Quechua-speaking area of the department of Huánuco; the province of
Bolognesi in Ancash; and a part of the province of Cajatambo, as well
as the district of Ambar (province of Huaura), both in the department of
Lima.
c. Yaru includes the Andean sector of the department of Pasco; the northern
sector of the Quechua-speaking area in the department of Junı́n (provinces
of Junı́n, Yauli and Tarma); parts of the provinces of Cajatambo, Huaura
and Oyón in the department of Lima; the districts Alis and Tomas in the
province of Yauyos, also in the department of Lima.
d. Jauja–Huanca includes the remainder of the Quechua-speaking area of
Junı́n; and the district of Cacra in the province of Yauyos (Lima).
e. Huangáscar–Topará includes the districts of Huangáscar, Chocos and
Azángaro in the province of Yauyos (Lima); the district Chavı́n de Topará
in the province of Chincha (Ica); the districts of Tantará, Aurahuá and
Arma in the province of Castrovirreyna (Huancavelica).
The second branch, Quechua A or II, has a much wider extension and comprises all the
remaining varieties of Quechua located both to the north and to the south of the central
Peruvian dialect area. It also includes the Quechua dialects spoken in the Amazonian
lowlands to the east of the Andean cordilleras and, most probably, the Quechua dialect(s)
once spoken on the central Peruvian coast between Huaura and Cañete. The different
‘general languages’ all belonged to this group.
Speaking in general terms, the twofold classifications originally proposed by Parker
and Torero are almost identical. However, Torero’s classification includes a further
subdivision of Quechua II into the three subgroups Quechua IIA, Quechua IIB and
Quechua IIC.9 Although very closely related, both Quechua IIB and Quechua IIC ex-
hibit distinct characteristics that make it possible to decide whether a particular dialect
is to be included or not in either subgroup. The case of Quechua IIA is more problem-
atic. It was meant to include two dialect areas in northern Peru in the departments of
Cajamarca (provinces of Cajamarca and Bambamarca) and Lambayeque (mainly in the
districts of Cañaris and Incahuasi in the cordilleran sector of the province of Ferreñafe),
as well as a number of village dialects in the department of Lima in central Peru. These
are the dialects of Laraos, Lincha, Madeán and Viñac in the province of Yauyos, the
southeasternmost part of the department of Lima, and, further north, the dialect spoken
in the community of Pacaraos in the higher reaches of the Chancay river valley (province
of Huaral).
The dialects that were assigned to Quechua IIA occupy an intermediate position
between Quechua I and the rest of Quechua II. Taylor (1979a) gives it the status of a
separate division, calling it Quechua III. The difficulty with the classificatory status of
Quechua IIA is that it does not constitute a unity. The northern dialects of Cajamarca
and Ferreñafe share characteristics of both Quechua IIB and Quechua I. The dialects of
Yauyos hold a similar position between Quechua IIC and Quechua I. Pacaraos has so
much in common with the Quechua I dialects, by which it is partly surrounded, that some
authors prefer to associate it with Quechua I (Parker 1969d: 191–2). Alternatively, it
could be considered as a separate branch of the Quechuan family on a par with Quechua I
and II. The resemblances between Pacaraos Quechua and Quechua II, which motivated
its initial classification as a Quechua IIA dialect, should be attributed to morphological
and lexical conservatism rather than to its alleged membership of that group (cf. Adelaar
1984).
Quechua IIB includes the dialects of the Ecuadorian highlands and oriente (the east-
ern lowlands); the Colombian Quechua dialect usually called Inga or Ingano (Caquetá,
Nariño, Putumayo); the dialects spoken in the Peruvian department of Loreto in the
Amazonian lowlands (which are, in fact, extensions of the varieties spoken in the
Amazonian region of Ecuador); the Lamista dialect spoken in the area of Lamas (depart-
ment of San Martı́n, Peru); and that of Chachapoyas and Luya (department of Amazonas,
9 Henceforth, we shall refer to the dialect branches of the Quechua family by means of the termi-
nology of Torero’s classification (Quechua I, II), because it allows for a further subdivision of the
Quechua II branch.
Peru). Some extinct varieties are also assignable to Quechua IIB: both the ‘coastal’ dialect
described by Santo Tomás in 1560 and the variety of Quechua used in the aforementioned
manuscript from Huarochirı́ (of 1608) have lexical and morphological characteristics
that are strongly suggestive of a Quechua IIB affiliation. Ecuadorian and Colombian
Quechua have undergone a profound transformation affecting much of the complex
morphology inherited from Proto-Quechua, which has been preserved in the more con-
servative dialects of Peru and Bolivia. Most conspicuous for this process are the loss
of the personal reference markers indicating possession with substantives and of those
specifying the patient in verbs. The relatively recent character of the morphological
transformation that took place in the Ecuadorian–Columbian branch of Quechua IIB
can be deduced from the fact that not all varieties belonging to it were affected in an
equally radical way. An example of such conservatism is the dialect spoken along the
Pastaza river in the department of Loreto in Peru (Landerman 1973).
Quechua IIC presently includes all the dialects situated to the southeast of a linguistic
boundary which coincides with the administrative division between the departments of
Junı́n and Huancavelica in central Peru. It comprises the best-known and most pres-
tigious dialects outside Ecuador, which are used by substantial numbers of speakers:
Ayacucho Quechua, Cuzco Quechua and Bolivian Quechua. The Argentinian dialect
of Santiago del Estero and the extinct variety of Catamarca and La Rioja in the same
country also belong to the Quechua IIC branch. Ayacucho Quechua covers the Andean
parts of the departments of Ayacucho and Huancavelica, as well as the western and
northwestern sections of Apurimac (provinces of Andahuaylas and Chincheros) and
Arequipa (provinces of Caravelı́, Condesuyos and La Unión). Cuzco Quechua includes
the Andean regions of the departments of Cuzco, as well as parts of Apurimac (provinces
of Abancay, Antabamba, Cotabambas, Grau and Aymaraes), Arequipa (provinces of
Arequipa, Castilla, Caylloma and Condesuyos), Moquegua (province of Sánchez Cerro)
and Puno (provinces of Azángaro, Carabaya, Huancané, Lampa, Melgar, Puno, Sandia,
San Antonio de Putina and San Román).10
The traditional division between Ayacucho Quechua and Cuzco Quechua has to do
with the existence of glottalised (ejective) and aspirated consonants, which do occur
in the latter but not in the former. However, the Cuzco Quechua dialect area is far
from homogeneous. The dialectal variants of Arequipa and Puno exhibit cases of lexical
and morphological borrowing from Aymara not found in the Cuzco variant. The central
Apurimac variant of Cuzco Quechua (provinces of Abancay, Antabamba and Aymaraes)
maintains several phonological and lexical features connecting it to Ayacucho Quechua
(Landerman 1994; Chirinos Rivera 1998).
10 The data concerning the distribution by provinces of Ayacucho and Cuzco Quechua in Apurimac,
Arequipa and Puno are mainly from Chirinos Rivera (1998), who also recognises a further
division between Cuzco and Collavino (Puno) Quechua.
Bolivian Quechua is spoken in the Bolivian highlands (departments of Cochabamba,

Sucre and Potosı́, parts of Oruro and most of La Paz north of Lake Titicaca), and in ad-
jacent areas of Argentina (provinces of Jujuy and Salta). Together with Cuzco Quechua,
it is often referred to as a single Cuzco–Bolivian dialect because both varieties share the
contrast of plain, glottalised and aspirated stops and affricates. From a morphological
point of view, however, Bolivian Quechua is very different from Cuzco Quechua. It has
been reported that the Quechua spoken on the northern Andean slopes in the department
of La Paz is phonologically more conservative than both Cuzco Quechua and the rest of
Bolivian Quechua (Stark 1985b). Hence, a distinction is made between a northern and
a southern Bolivian variant.
Larraı́n Barros (1991) mentions the presence of Quechua speakers in the Chilean
province of Antofagasta, in the Atacama desert oases of Ayquina, Cupo, Toconce and
Turi. There are no specific data on this dialect, but it is likely to be an extension of the
Bolivian variety of Quechua.
The Quechua-speaking area of Santiago del Estero in Argentina is not contiguous with
Bolivian Quechua. It is mainly concentrated in the hot lowlands bordering the banks of
the Salado river. The verbal morphology of Santiagueño Quechua shares a number of
very specific innovations with Bolivian Quechua. Phonologically, however, Santiagueño
Quechua is rather different from Bolivian Quechua. Unlike the latter, it lacks glottalised
and aspirated consonants. It is reminiscent of the northern Peruvian dialects because it
preserves a remnant of the s–š distinction, which otherwise is not found in Quechua IIC
(see section 3.2.5). The characteristics of Santiagueño Quechua were almost certainly
derived from different dialectal sources (cf. Adelaar 1995b).
The Quechua dialects are best viewed as a ‘dialect chain’ in the definition provided
by Kaufman (1990). However, the opposition between the two main groups Quechua
I and Quechua II is more fundamental. It seems to reflect an initial split at the level
of Proto-Quechua. The distinction between the two groups primarily rests on lexi-
cal and morphological facts. Phonological diversity is rampant in both groups, and
much of it can only be interpreted as a result of developments posterior to the initial
split.
Although the lexical differences between Quechua I and Quechua II are quite real, their
distribution seldom reflects a clear-cut division between the two groups. For instance, the
Quechua II verb root for ‘to go’ ri- corresponds to Quechua I aywa-. However, Quechua
I Huanca, which borders on Quechua IIC Ayacucho, has li-, a reflex of *ri-. It may be
the result of dialect interference, but it can also be explained by assuming an innovative
substitution of aywa- for *ri- that would have occurred in Quechua I without reaching
the outlying Huanca area.11
11 The verb aywa- is reminiscent of Aymara aywi- ‘to go (several)’.

Morphological arguments come the closest to providing unequivocal criteria for as-
signing a dialect to either one of the two subgroups. Morphological criteria tend to occur
in bundles, although there is never a full coincidence. Best known among them is the
shape of the first-person marker for subject and possessor. It is -y (nominal and verbal)
or -ni (exclusively verbal) in most of Quechua II; e.g. waska-y ‘my rope’, wata-y-man
‘I could tie (it)’, wata-ni ‘I tie (it)’. In Quechua I, it is marked both on verbs and on
nouns by the lengthening of the preceding vowel (symbolised as -:); e.g. waska-: ‘my
rope’, wata-:-man ‘I could tie (it)’, wata-: ‘I tie (it)’. The dialect of Pacaraos (cf. section
3.2.9) has its own distinctive first-person marker -ý. It consists of a segment -y that
attracts stress to the preceding vowel when it occurs in word-final position. Landerman
(1978) reports that some transitional Quechua IIA dialects, such as Lincha, combine the
markers -ý (for nouns) and -ni (for verbs).12
Some further morphological criteria that can contribute to distinguishing between
Quechua I (QI) and Quechua II (QII) are:
a. The shape of the marker referring to identical subjects in the switch-
reference system (cf. section 3.2.6) is -r (or its reflex) in Quechua I. It is
-špa (or its reflex) in Quechua II. Huallaga Quechua (QI) has both forms,
-r being used alone and -špa with optional personal reference markers
(Weber 1989). Pacaraos Quechua (cf. section 3.2.9) has -špa, although its
morphology follows Quechua I in most other respects.
b. The shape of the locative case marker is -pi (or its reflex) in most of
Quechua II. It is -č.aw13 (or its reflex) in Quechua I and in Pacaraos
Quechua. The element č.aw is obviously related to the root *č.awpi ‘mid-
dle’, ‘centre’, of which reflexes are found in both dialect branches. It is
also found in Quechua II punčaw (< *punč.aw) ‘day’ (cf. QI Huanca pun
‘day’, QI northern Junı́n hukpun ‘the other day’).
c. The shape of the ablative case marker is -manta (or its reflex) in most of
Quechua II. In Quechua I, we either find -pita, or reflexes of *-piq(ta).
Pacaraos Quechua has both -piq and -piqta in free variation.
d. The shape of the first-person patient marker in verbs is -wa- in most of
Quechua II. It is -ma(:)- in Quechua I and in some Quechua IIA dialects
(Ferreñafe, Pacaraos).
e. In most Quechua II dialects, the verbal and nominal personal reference
markers, which are used for subject, object and possessor, are pluralised
12 There are several conflicting hypotheses concerning the reconstruction of the Proto-Quechua
first-person marker (Torero 1964; Proulx 1969; Landerman 1978; Cerrón-Palomino 1979; Taylor
1979a; Adelaar 1984).
13 The symbol č. refers to a voiceless retroflex affricate; its non-retroflex alveo-palatal counterpart
is indicated as č (see section 3.2.5).
externally, by means of suffixes that must follow these markers. Quechua I

and Pacaraos lack a morphological means to indicate plurality of possessor
with substantives. Plurality of subject in verbs (or, occasionally, plurality
of object) is indicated internally, by means of suffixes that have their lo-
cus between the verb root and the personal reference markers. In several
dialects the choice of plural markers depends on their co-occurrence with
aspect markers. Some combinations of aspect and plural are indicated by
fused (portmanteau) markers.
f. Quechua I dialects and Pacaraos Quechua have productive verbal deriva-
tional suffixes that mark the direction of a movement, viz. -rku- ‘upward
movement’ and -rpu- ‘downward movement’. A fossilised -rqu- (or its
reflex) is found both in Quechua I and Quechua II dialects with a recon-
structed meaning ‘outward movement’ (e.g. in QI yarqu- ‘to leave’, QI/II
hurqu- ‘to take out’). Likewise, the meaning of *-yku- has been recon-
structed as ‘inward movement’. Reflexes of *-rqu- and *-yku- are found
throughout the Quechua dialects, but with modified meanings.
g. Many Quechua dialects distinguish two past tenses. Whereas one refers to
any event in the past, the other has the connotation of surprise or previous
lack of knowledge on the part of the speaker. It is marked by reflexes of
*-ny aq in Quechua I and in Pacaraos, and by reflexes of *-šqa in most of
Quechua II (see further section 3.2.6).
h. The one important phonological distinction that separates Quechua I (and
Pacaraos) from Quechua II is the treatment of a sequence of low vowels
separated by a palatal glide, viz. *-aya-. It has been retained in most of
Quechua II, whereas in the former dialects it became -a:-. As a result, a
phonemic length distinction exists in the Quechua I dialects which has ac-
quired further applications, including cases of long high vowels (-i:-, -u:-).
It has been assumed that Proto-Quechua had embryonic vowel quantity
in lexical roots, such as pu:ka- ‘to blow’, and in the first-person marker
(Torero 1964). However, if it is true – as seems to be the case – that the QI
first-person marker (-a:, -i:, -u:) originated from stressed word-final *-áy,
*-ı́y, *-úy (as in present-day Pacaraos Quechua), this would further reduce
the number of long vowels to be reconstructed for Proto-Quechua (Adelaar
1984).14 The existence of distinctive vowel length is now the most salient
characteristic of Quechua I as opposed to Quechua IIB and Quechua IIC,
where it does not occur.
14 It should be emphasised that the reconstruction proposed here is by no means generally

accepted.
Although the validity of the initial subdivision of the Quechuan family into two main
branches has been questioned on phonological grounds (Mannheim 1991: 176), it will
be clear from the above that the morphological and lexical evidence favouring such
a division is abundant. Nevertheless, it may not be possible to accommodate all the
existing Quechua dialects into either one of the two branches.
3.2.4 Quechua studies

Quechua is among the Amerindian languages that have received major scholarly attention
from the beginning of Spanish rule in Peru until the present century (see also chapter 1).
In the context of the present work we can do no more than highlight some of the most
important writings on Quechua. For a survey of the older literature on Quechua one can
consult Rivet and de Créqui-Montfort’s extensive Bibliographie des langues aymará et
kičua (1951–6).
Spanish clerical grammarians established the tradition of Quechua studies. However
impressive their pioneering work may have been from the start, its value has greatly
increased now that modern field data on Quechua have become available. Language is the
one element in Andean culture that has remained relatively stable. The confrontation of
sixteenth- and seventeenth-century grammars and dictionaries with phonologically and
semantically more accurate modern material permits a much more precise interpretation
than hitherto possible.
The Dominican Domingo de Santo Tomás was among the leading figures of the
first decades of the Spanish administration. He often sided with the Indians in cases
of mistreatment and oppression by European colonists, and provided Las Casas with
material for his famous polemics (Duviols 1971: 88). Santo Tomás’s grammar and
lexicon of the general language of Peru (1560a, b) provide a description of Quechua older
than that of many European languages. From a dialect-geographic point of view, Santo
Tomás draws from heterogeneous sources. He describes an archaic Quechua, probably
identical to the extinct coastal dialect or to the language of the Inca administration,
larded with elements taken from central Peruvian dialects. The first Quechua study to
appear after Santo Tomás is an anonymous work published by Antonio Ricardo in 1586.
It is best known through a modern edition of Aguilar Páez (1970).
A landmark in the Spanish grammar tradition in relation to Quechua is Diego González
Holguı́n’s Gramática y arte nueva de la lengua general de todo el Perú llamada lengua
qquichua o lengua del Inca (New Grammar of the General Language of all of Peru, called
the Qquichua Language or Language of the Inca) of 1607, followed by an extensive
dictionary (1608) by the same author. Both works describe the ancestor of present-day
Cuzco Quechua, thus reflecting a shift in the centre of gravity of what was left of Inca
society to the ancient Inca capital. Together with Bertonio’s grammar and dictionary
of the Aymara language (cf. section 3.3), González Holguı́n’s study of the Quechua
language has stood as a model for much later work on Quechua and the other Andean
languages.
During the eighteenth century the colonial grammar tradition in relation to Quechua
became less prominent, although there are some notable exceptions dealing with
Ecuadorian (e.g. Velasco 1787).
After the Andean republics became independent, many studies of the Inca language
came from the outside. Important nineteenth-century contributions to the study of
Quechua were made by a Swiss, von Tschudi (1853), and, above all, by the German
Middendorf (1890a, b, c, 1891a). Middendorf’s Die einheimischen Sprachen Perus (The
Indigenous Languages of Peru) contains a dictionary and grammar of Cuzco Quechua,
an edition of the play Ollantay and a collection of poetry. Luis Cordero, one of Ecuador’s
former presidents, published a Quichua–Spanish dictionary in 1892.
Among the Quechua studies of the first half of the twentieth century figures an interest-
ing collection of animal fables in the dialect of Tarma (Vienrich 1906). Markham (1911:
230–4) published a Quechua myth in translation, a fragment of the now well-known
Huarochirı́ document guarded in the Spanish National Library in Madrid. A series of
texts in different Peruvian dialects by Farfán (1947–51) and an elaborate dictionary of
Cuzco Quechua (Lira 1941) also deserve a mention.
In the initial phase of the dialectological tradition which developed in the 1960s,
Parker’s work, published in a preliminary form (Parker 1969–71), comprises a great
deal of reconstruction of both the A and B branches of Quechua and, above all, a useful
Proto-Quechua lexicon (Parker 1969c). Torero published several studies linking the
results of his dialectological findings to Andean ethnohistory (1968, 1970, 1974, 1984).
Dialectological studies of a regional dimension were carried out by Nardi (1962) for
Argentina, by Cerrón-Palomino (1977a) for the Huanca area, by Taylor (1984) for the
Yauyos region, and by Carpenter (1982) and Stark (1985a) for Ecuador.
Other dialectological work concerns particular morphemes or morphological cate-
gories, exemplified by a series of articles focusing on the personal reference system
(Taylor 1979a; Cerrón-Palomino 1987c; Weber 1987b: 51–75). The grammatical char-
acteristics of the language of the Huarochirı́ manuscript constitute another fruitful area
of interest (e.g. Dedenbach 1994). For work dealing with syntactic issues in particu-
lar dialects, see, for instance, Wölck (1972) for Ayacucho Quechua, Muysken (1977)
for Ecuadorian Quechua, Weber (1983) for Huánuco Quechua, Hermon (1985) for
Ecuadorian and Ancash Quechua, Lefebvre and Muysken (1988) for Cuzco Quechua,
and Van de Kerke (1996) for Bolivian Quechua. Examples of work dealing with phono-
logical issues are Cerrón-Palomino (1973a, b, 1977b, 1989a), Escribens Trisano (1977),
Solı́s and Esquivel (1979) and Weber and Landerman (1985). It goes without saying that
the above enumeration is by no means complete.
The Quechua linguistic family is particularly rich in overall descriptions, the earliest
modern one being Parker’s grammar of the Ayacucho dialect. It appeared first in Spanish
(Parker 1965), then in English with a hitherto unsurpassed dictionary supplement (Parker
1969a). Almost contemporaneous with the former is a concise grammatical description
of the Quechua I dialect of Llata in the province of Huamalı́es in the northern part of
the department of Huánuco (Solá 1967). The basis for a description of Ancash Quechua
(QI) was laid by Swisshelm of the Benedictine congregation at Huaraz (Swisshelm
1971, 1972, 1974). Partial descriptions of Amazonas Quechua (QIIB), as spoken in
the community of Olto (Chachapoyas), and of the dialect of the Pastaza river, which is
located in Peru but belongs to the Ecuadorian branch of Quechua IIB, were provided by
Taylor (1975, 1994) and by Landerman (1973), respectively.
For Bolivian Quechua, the earliest generation of modern descriptive work includes
Lastra’s study of Cochabamba Quechua (1968). For Colombia, we could add Levinsohn’s
description of Inga (1976), written in a rather technical tagmemic framework. The
Argentinian Santiago del Estero dialect has been treated in a traditional way by Bravo
(1956).
Of particular importance to Quechua studies is the year 1976, it being the date of pub-
lication of a series of six grammars and dictionaries commissioned by the Peruvian gov-
ernment (Cerrón-Palomino 1976a, b; Coombs, Coombs and Weber 1976; Cusihuaman
1976a, b; Park, Weber and Cenepo 1976; Parker 1976; Parker and Chávez 1976; Quesada
Castillo 1976a, b; Soto Ruiz 1976a, b). These accessible and easily available works deal
with six dialect varieties selected to become regional standards after the officialisation of
Quechua in 1975: Ancash–Huaylas (QI), Ayacucho–Chanca (QIIC), Cajamarca–Cañaris
(QIIA), Cuzco–Collao (QIIC), Junı́n–Huanca (QI) and San Martı́n (QIIB). These de-
scriptions were designed to serve a normative purpose, and several of them have a
polylectal character. Although the initiative is praiseworthy, one should add that some
of the descriptions show the signs of a hasty completion. For highly interesting dialects
such as Cajamarca, Cuzco and Huanca, they represent a half-way resting-place, rather
than a terminus. A comparative study of Quechua morphology (Wölck 1987) was based
on the data provided by these six descriptions.
Grammatical descriptions of Peruvian dialects posterior to the 1976 series of Peruvian
reference grammars are Adelaar (1977) for the dialects of Tarma and San Pedro de
Cajas (QI Yaru) and Weber (1989) for Huánuco (QI Alto Pativilca–Alto Marañón–Alto
Huallaga). One may add Taylor (1982a, b, 1994) on Ferreñafe Quechua (QIIA) and
Adelaar (1982, 1986a) on Pacaraos Quechua. For Bolivia and Ecuador, descriptive work
includes a grammar of Bolivian Quechua by Herrero and Sánchez de Lozada (1978) and
a reference grammar of the Ecuadorian Imbabura dialect (Cole 1982).
One of the most widely used Quechua–Spanish dictionaries is Lara (1971). Although
it does not contain an explicit indication of the geographic provenance of the items
included, it is based mainly on Bolivian and Cuzco Quechua. It is remarkably useful
when reading and translating Quechua texts. A very extensive dictionary (Weber et al.
1998) deals with the lexicon of Huánuco Quechua.
State-of-the-art books are scarce in the field of Quechua studies. One book intended to
serve that purpose is Büttner (1983). It contains a good survey of older work on Quechua.
Cerrón-Palomino’s Lingüı́stica quechua (1987a) is the reflection of years of academic
teaching experience in almost every aspect of Quechua studies. It is particularly useful
for its insightful and equitable treatment of the existing literature. See also Cerrón-
Palomino’s extensive survey of Quechua studies in Revista Andina (Cerrón-Palomino
1985). Books dealing with historical developments surrounding the Quechua language
are Torero (1974) and Mannheim (1991). The latter work describes the fate of the Cuzco
dialect in colonial and republican times.
The 1980s brought a growing interest in the social factors that can contribute to the
survival of the Quechua language. Policies of standardisation, whether successful or not,
and several ambitious projects in bilingual education have given a renewed impulse to
Quechua studies. An example of a study dealing with the Puno experimental project for
bilingual education and its effects upon language maintenance by Quechua speakers is
Hornberger (1988).
At the time of our writing, there are no journals specifically dedicated to Quechua
studies, as there are none dealing with Andean languages in general. The journal Papers
in Andean Linguistics (1972–5) has remained a short-lived experiment. Articles on
Quechua have appeared, inter alia, in Allpanchis (Cuzco), Amerindia (Paris), Bulletin
de l’Institut Français d’Etudes Andines (Lima, Paris), Indiana (Berlin), International
Journal of American Linguistics (Chicago), Latin American Indian Literatures Journal
(Pennsylvania), Lexis (Lima) and Revista Andina (Cuzco). The absence of specialised
journals is somewhat compensated by the frequent appearance of compilation works on
Quechua and on the central Andean languages in general (e.g. Cerrón-Palomino 1982;
López 1988; Cerrón-Palomino and Solı́s 1990; Cole, Hermon and Martı́n 1994).
For an introductory survey of texts and literary production in Quechua see
section 3.2.11.
3.2.5 Phonology15
For an evenly balanced treatment of Quechua phonology, it is best to take the recon-
structed phoneme inventory of Proto-Quechua as a starting-point. Roughly speaking,
15 In our discussion of Quechua language data the following orthographic conventions are used.
Mid vowels are written i, i:, u, u: when adjacent to a uvular consonant. The symbol q represents
any uvular consonant, although its realisation may vary according to the dialect exemplified. The
possibilities that obtain are a voiceless or voiced stop, and a voiceless or voiced fricative. There is
no phonemic contrast between (plain) uvulars, except in Cuzco Quechua, where a voiceless stop
and fricative are contrastive between vowels, as in waqay ‘to cry’ versus wax.ay (< *waqyay ‘to
call’). The symbol n is used both for alveolar and for velar nasal allophones. The former occur
before vowels, the latter in word-final position and before resonants. Before other consonants,
articulatory assimilation is the rule. Phonemic contrast between alveolar and velar nasals (as in
Chachapoyas and in northern Junı́n/Tarma) is peripheral or exceptional.
the phonological characteristics of the modern dialects can be derived from the Proto-
Quechua system by assuming regular sound change. A notorious exception is the exis-
tence of a contrast between plain, glottalised and aspirated stops and affricates in Cuzco
and Bolivian Quechua, and of a similar contrast between plain and aspirated stops in
highland Ecuadorian Quechua.
Orr and Longacre (1968) assumed that the three-way distinction between plain, glot-
talised and aspirated consonants had been inherited from an alleged Proto-Quechumaran
through the intermediate stage of Proto-Quechua. Within the Quechuan family, how-
ever, this distinction is limited to the subset of the QIIC dialects adjacent to the Aymara
linguistic area. Lexical correspondences are frequently inconsistent with respect to glot-
talisation and aspiration between dialects and even internally, within the same dialect
(e.g. Cuzco Quechua riku- ‘to see’ but rikh u-ri-‘to appear’, both from the same root riku-,
against Arequipa Quechua rikh u-, rikh uri-). Likewise, it has been shown that the corre-
spondences between Ecuadorian aspirated stops, on the one hand, and Cuzco–Bolivian
glottalised and aspirated stops on the other, are not systematic (Torero 1984). As a result,
the presence of glottalised and aspirated stops and affricates in Cuzco–Bolivian is often
seen as the effect of language contact between these dialects and Aymara, which has the
same contrasts. The expansion of glottalisation and aspiration into the native Quechua
lexicon was partly explained by a mechanism of iconicity elaborated in Mannheim and
Newfield (1982); see also Mannheim (1991: 177–207). Ecuadorian aspiration has been
interpreted as a case of Cuzco adstratum, dating from the short period of Inca occupation,
possibly in combination with a putative legacy of the area’s pre-Quechuan languages.
There is no clear evidence that glottalised and aspirated stops and affricates belonged to
the Proto-Quechua phoneme inventory.
Reconstructions of the Proto-Quechua sound system are given in Torero (1964) and in
Parker (1969b). The differences between the two reconstructions reside in the treatment
of liquids, vibrants and long vowels. Parker reconstructs the consonants *l and *ř,
whereas Torero does not. On the other hand, Torero reconstructs vowel length, whereas
Parker only posits short vowels. As it appears now, *l and vowel length were marginally
present in Proto-Quechua; *ř was an allophone of *r, which later developed into a
distinctive phoneme. It is interesting to observe that the palatal lateral *l y is a frequent
speech sound, whereas its plain alveolar counterpart l remains marginal in most dialects.
Proto-Quechua has a three-vowel system, consisting of an unrounded front vowel
i, a rounded back vowel u and a low central vowel a. If a length distinction did exist
at all, it must have been marginal. The phonetic realisation of the vowels i and u was
variable. When adjacent to the uvular consonant q, they were pronounced as mid vowels
[e], [o]. They were high vowels [i], [u] elsewhere. Given the situation in the modern
dialects, it is likely that this allophonic lowering also occurred before clusters consisting
of a resonant (ly , n, r) and q, e.g. Cuzco Quechua sunqu [sɔŋqo] ‘heart’; pirqa [pεrqa]
‘wall’.
Table 3.1 Proto-Quechua consonants
Labial Alveolar Palatal Retroflex Velar Uvular
Voiceless Stops p t k q
Affricates č č.
Fricatives s š h
Voiced Nasals m n ny
Laterals (l) ly
Vibrants r (ř)
Glides w y
Table 3.2 Proto-Quechua vowels
Back Central Front

Short Long Short Long Short Long
High u (u:) i (i:)

Low a (a:)
The Proto-Quechua vowels and their rather wide range of allophonic realisations
have been preserved in a majority of the present-day dialects. At the same time, close
contacts with the dominant Spanish language led to the introduction of mid vowels
(e, o) in cases where the phonological environment does not predict it. For present-
day bilingual speakers, Quechua has a five-vowel system.16 Although it is true that in
Quechua borrowings from Spanish the mid vowels are replaced by high vowels in root-
final position (e.g. nasi-, na:si- ‘to be born’ from Spanish nace ‘he/she is born’; platu,
pla:tu ‘plate’ from Spanish plato), they are often maintained elsewhere, as in mesa,
me:sa ‘table’ from Spanish mesa.
Dialects in which the uvular stop lost its uvular character almost without exception
have annulled the allophonic lowering rule. It illustrates the synchronic dynamism that
characterises the relation between the use of mid vowels and the presence of a uvular
consonant. The velar and uvular stops *k and *q have merged into k in all Quechua IIB,
e.g. Proto-Quechua *qul y qi [qɔly qe] ‘money’, Ecuadorian (Chimborazo) Quechua kul y ki
[kuly ki]. In QI Huanca the uvular became a velar fricative or a glottal stop, locally evolv-
ing into vowel length or zero, and the high vowel was then restored, e.g. Proto-Quechua
16 In literature and everyday imitation Quechua speakers are often represented as substituting high
vowels for mid vowels in their pronunciation of Spanish words (siny uř for señor ‘Sir’, etc.). In
reality, most speakers of Quechua have learned to master the distinction between high vowels
and mid vowels, except in word-final position.
*suqta [sɔqta] ‘six’, Jauja [suxta], Huancayo [suʔta ∼ su:ta]. In dialects that do not have
uvulars, the mid vowels are almost exclusively confined to borrowed lexicon.
Long vowels (a:, i:, u:) are found in Quechua I and in Pacaraos Quechua. When
part of a lexical root, long vowels are most often the product of relatively transparent
sound changes if not of borrowing or onomatopoeic formations.17 The role of vowel
length in the verbal conjugation and, to a lesser extent, in nominal possessive marking
is considerably more complex. It can have a clear morphemic value, as in the case of
the first-person marker (e.g. Tarma Quechua wayi ‘house’, wayi-: ‘my house’), or it can
fulfill less tangible functions emerging at morpheme boundaries. For instance, in Tarma
Quechua ismikta:-či- ‘to cause to stumble’ vowel length is triggered by the trisyllabic
structure of the root ismikta-; compare wata-či- ‘to cause to tie’ from wata- ‘to tie’,
where this is not the case.
Long mid vowels (e:, o:) occur in most dialects that have vowel length. They often
occur in loans, where they reflect the stressed vowel of a Spanish model, e.g. Tarma
Quechua ke:da- ‘to stay’, ‘to become’ from Spanish queda ‘he/she stays’. In the Callejón
de Huaylas (Ancash) long mid vowels often occur as reflexes of the diphthongs ay and
aw, as in we:čo(:) from *wayčaw ‘a tyrant-flycatcher (Agriornis montana)’. Some of the
Huánuco dialects exhibit optional lowering of long high vowels in word-final position
(e.g. ni: ∼ ne: ‘I say’; miku: ∼ miko: ‘I eat’); cf. Solá (1967), Toliver (1987) and Weber
(1989).
In linguistic work related to Quechua the diphthongs aw, ay, uy, iw and iy are virtually
always analysed as consisting of a vocalic peak and a consonantal coda. Hence the
frequent observation in literature that the language has no vowel sequences. It is the
statement of a convention, rather than of a fact, because the theoretical argumentation
necessary to motivate this choice is seldom provided.18
In virtually all modern literature on Quechua, sequences consisting of two full vowels
are analysed as if separated by a glide consonant, e.g. Quechua IIC suwa ‘thief’, tiyay
‘to sit’; QI San Pedro de Cajas (northern Junı́n) rawu ‘snow’, wayi ‘house’. Similarly, as
in the case of the diphthongs, the possibility of analysing such sequences as containing
an automatic (non-phonemic) transition has not been duly explored.19 Vowel sequences
do occur, however, in the Argentinian dialect of Santiago del Estero, which suffered the
loss of intervocalic *w and, therefore, contains sequences of like vowels. The vowels in
such sequences are articulated separately or as a long vowel with a descending tone, for
instance, in (*tawa >) taa [táʔa], [tâ:] ‘four’ (Kirtchuk 1987).
17 Weber and Landerman (1985) have proposed an analysis of the Quechua long vowels as se-
quences of /V/ + /h/, an interpretation which can be defended from a strictly synchronic
perspective.
18 Howkins (1973) is one of the few examples of an interpretation in terms of vowel sequences.
19 An exception is found in one of Cerrón-Palomino’s earliest works (Cerrón-Palomino 1967).
Vowel fluctuation between i and a is widely attested in the present-day Quechua dia-
lects, most frequently in root-final position. Examples are Pacaraos wawi, other Quechua
wawa ‘(woman’s) child’; Tarma pani, Cuzco pana ‘(man’s) sister’. In other cases, such as
warmi ‘woman’ alongside warma ‘child’, ‘youngster’ in Ayacucho and Cuzco Quechua,
the choice of the vowel is contrastive, and no fluctuation occurs. Fluctuation between a
and u (Quechua I kanan against Cuzco Quechua kunan ‘now’) is less frequent.
Vowel loss occurs occasionally, e.g. in Cajamarca wanči- ‘to kill’ from *wany u-či-
‘to kill’, ‘to cause to die’. Several sorts of phonetic reduction, including vowel loss,
drastically transformed the phonological appearance of QIIB Chachapoyas Quechua
(Taylor 1975, 1994). It appears to be connected with a shift from penultimate to ini-
tial word stress, which has occurred in some of the other northern Peruvian dialects
as well.
Among the consonants, the series of stops and affricates, *p, *t, *č, *č., *k, *q have
been affected by a number of shared or partially shared changes that can be characterised
as voicing, fricativisation and the introduction of a contrast between plain, glottalised
and aspirated stops (sometimes referred to as laryngealisation). In addition, the affricates
and the uvular stop *q suffered further modifications.
Voicing is widely found in the northern Quechua dialects, that is, in Ecuador and in
northern Peru (both in Quechua IIB, and in the Cajamarca and Ferreñafe dialects of the
QIIA subbranch). It affected, in particular, stops and affricates following a nasal, as in
the following forms from Cajamarca.
(1) *anča > andž a ‘very’

(2) *punku > pungu ‘door’
The sixteenth-century lengua general of the Inca administration and the presumed
‘coastal’ dialect described by Santo Tomás (1560a, b) knew voicing as well (cf. sec-
tion 3.2.2). Among the Quechua varieties assignable to the Quechua IIB subdivision,
only the language of the early seventeenth-century Huarochirı́ document shows no traces
of voicing.
Some central Peruvian Quechua I dialects (Tarma in the province of Tarma, Junı́n;
Paccho in the province of Huaura, Lima) exhibit voicing of the grave stops *k and *p.
The conditions under which this change took place are most peculiar. As can be seen in
the following examples from Tarma, it affected prevocalic non-initial consonants unless
they were preceded by a nasal.
(3) *ly učka- > lučga- ‘to slip’

(4) *uč.pa > uč.ba ‘ash’
(5) *apa- > aba- ‘to carry’
(6) *manka > manka ‘pan’
In some Tarma Quechua suffixes, stops became voiced after a nasal as well, e.g.
-guna ‘nominal plural’ (< *-kuna), as in wayi-n-guna ‘his/her/their houses’. The same
occurred with the initial consonant of the verb ‘to be’ ga- (< *ka-).
Geographically, the Tarma and Paccho dialects are far apart. Leaving aside their
behaviour in relation to voicing, they coincide with neighbouring varieties, not with
each other. The simultaneous occurrence of a sound change under such highly specific
conditions in two totally different places cannot easily be explained.
As we saw before, laryngealisation (glottalisation and aspiration) of stops and af-
fricates does not seem to be the product of regular sound change. These sounds are
generally considered exotic elements in Quechua, although they do occur as well in
Quechua roots not borrowed from an Aymaran language. Laryngealised stops and af-
fricates are found in a subgroup of the Quechua IIC dialect subdivision, which comprises
Cuzco Quechua and the Bolivian varieties. Their presence can have a sound-symbolic
meaning. As a rule, no more than a single laryngealised stop or affricate can occur in
a Quechua word. If it does, it must be the first prevocalic stop or affricate in the root.20
Quechua suffixes do not normally contain laryngealised stops or affricates.21
In the Ecuadorian central highlands, aspirated stops (not affricates) occur along with
plain stops. In the northern highlands (province of Imbabura) the reflexes of aspirated
*p and *k are fricative f and x, respectively:
(7) *paki- ‘to break’ > (Pichincha) ph aki-

> (Imbabura) faki-
(8) *qipa ‘afterwards’ > (Pichincha) kh ipa
> (Imbabura) xipa
Fricativisation (consonant lenition or weakening) is prominent in the dialects of the

Cuzco region and in Bolivia. This change has affected stops and affricates in syllable-
final position. Its output varies both geographically and dialect-internally on the basis
of the phonological environment; examples (9) and (10) are from Cuzco Quechua.
(9) *aptay > haxw t’ay ‘to carry with a handle’

(10) *upyay > uxyay ∼ uxay ‘to drink’22
20 Colonial sources, such as González Holguı́n (1608), suggest that this has not always been the
case, e.g. tantta ‘bread’ (presumably [tant’a]), instead of modern t’anta.
21 An exception would be the progressive aspect suffix -čh a- in Grau, Apurimac (Torero 1964); cf.
Ayacucho -čka-, Cuzco -sya-, -ša-. In the subdialects of Puno and Arequipa, suffixes borrowed
from Aymara preserve the glottalised and/or aspirated stops of the donor language, e.g. in tiy-
th api-či- ‘to cause to live together’, from Quechua tiya-či- ‘to cause to reside’ and the Aymara
suffix -th api- ‘together’.
22 The palatal glide is optionally lost in Cuzco Quechua after a velar or a uvular fricative.
Mannheim (1991: 55–6) observes a correlation between syllable-final weakening, on

one hand, and the introduction of glottalisation and aspiration in syllable-initial positions
on the other. Nevertheless, Stark (1985b) reports that the northern Bolivian Quechua
variety of Apolo (province of Franz Tamayo, La Paz, Bolivia) was not affected by
syllable-final fricativisation, although it has glottalised and aspirated stops. Landerman
(1994) makes the same observation for eastern Apurimac.
In Cuzco Quechua, syllable final *p loses its labial character in suffixes. Its reflex is
a uvular fricative, which can no longer be distinguished from the homophonous reflex
of *q:
(11) *muna-pti-n > muna-qti-n [munax.tiŋ] ‘if he/she wants it’

(12) *runa-p > runa-q [runax.] ‘of a man’
The different orthographies currently in use for Cuzco Quechua and the Bolivian
dialects do not systematically reflect the newly formed fricative distinctions that obtain
in syllable-final and intervocalic positions.
In Ecuadorian Quechua consonant lenition only affects the (merged) velar and uvular
stops:
(13) *pusaq > pusax ‘eight’

(14) *pač.ak > pačax ‘hundred’
The Proto-Quechua distinction between the affricates č and č. has been preserved
unmodified in the southern half and in the extreme north of the Quechua I territory
(all of Junı́n, province of Pasco in Pasco, province of Yauyos in Lima, and province of
Sihuas in Ancash), in the Quechua IIA dialects of Ferreñafe, Cajamarca and Yauyos,
and in Quechua IIB Amazonas. Of the remaining dialects, several, such as Ayacucho
and Huánuco Quechua, have lost the distinction.
(15) *č.aki > čaki ‘foot’

*čaki > čaki ‘dry’
In Cuzco and Bolivian Quechua, the old distinction between the two affricates is
reflected by the presence of glottalisation in one of the members of the minimal pair just
exemplified.
(16) *č.aki > čaki ‘foot’

*čaki > č’aki ‘dry’
However, there is no question of a regular change, as can be seen in example (17)

where *č is reflected without glottalisation.
(17) *čaka > čaka ‘bridge’

In Puno Quechua the old distinction between retroflex *č. and alveopalatal *č is partly
preserved in the fricative reflexes of these sounds that occur in syllable-final position
(Cerrón-Palomino 1986: 407–8).
(18) *ačka > aškh a ‘many’

(19) *wič.qay > wisq’ay ‘to close’
In part of the Quechua I dialects (and in Pacaraos), there has been a tendency to
enlarge the difference between the two affricates (which, admittedly, is not always
easy to perceive). In much of the northwestern part of the Quechua I area (Ancash,
northern and western Huánuco, provinces of Cajatambo, Huaral, Huaura and Oyón
in Lima, province of Daniel Carrión in Pasco), the alveopalatal affricate became an
alveolar affricate (c) or fricative (s), e.g. Callejón de Huaylas caki, Pacaraos saki
‘dry’.
Subsequently, in most of Ancash, western Huánuco and in Cajatambo the retroflex af-
fricate was advanced to the articulatory position of the former alveopalatal, e.g. Callejón
de Huaylas čaki ‘foot’. In dialects where the affricates did not undergo the full sequence
of fronting shifts, the resulting gap was filled up by the introduction of an alveopalatal
affricate (č) from other sources. As a result, the dialects of Yanahuanca (Daniel Carrión,
Pasco) and Picoy (Huaura, Lima) distinguish three affricate positions: č., č and c (Escobar
1967, Creider 1967).
An opposite development can be observed in the province of Concepción in the
department of Junı́n. In that subdialect of QI Huanca, the alveopalatal affricate č has
become a retroflex (e.g. *čaka > č.aka ‘bridge’), thus creating the space for a further
change of *ly to č (see below). For an extensive treatment of this phenomenon see
Cerrón-Palomino (1973a, 1989a).
Of all consonants in the stop–affricate series, the uvular stop *q has proven the least
stable. It may be the case that Quechua expanded into areas where this sound had not
been in use previously (for a discussion of this issue see Cerrón-Palomino 1990). QIIA
Cajamarca and QI Callejón de Huaylas are among the few dialects that have preserved
the uvular stop unmodified. In the Quechua IIB dialects *q merged with *k into present-
day k [k]. In Cuzco Quechua and in the Bolivian and Argentinian dialects, it was affected
by syllable-final fricativisation (see above). In Bolivia, the plain (non-glottalised, non-
aspirated) uvular became a fricative in other positions as well.
The reflex of *q is also a uvular fricative in Ayacucho Quechua, in Pacaraos Quechua
and in the Quechua I dialects of northern Junı́n. In the area of Tarma and Jauja its uvular
character became less prominent, leading eventually to a merger with the glottal fricative
*h. In the northeastern sector of Quechua I (Huánuco), the modern realisation of *q is
usually a voiced stop (often written as g).
The loss of intervocalic *q was reported for Pachitea Quechua in Huánuco by Toliver
(1987). However, as we have seen before, the most drastic transformation of the ancient
uvular stop can be observed in the Huanca dialects of Huancayo and Concepción in
southern Junı́n. There, the uvular stop at first became a glottal stop. In some local
varieties it then turned into vowel length (internally and when syllable-final) or zero (in
most other environments). In the village of Chongos Bajo the effect of the glottal stop is
preserved after a nasal n by the fact that the latter is represented by its velar allophone
in the combination nʔ [ŋʔ ∼ ŋ]; in this case, the presence of the glottal stop itself is
redundant.
(20) *sinqa > sinʔa [siŋʔa ∼ siŋa] ‘nose’
In the town of Chupaca, the loss of the glottal stop was total in this case. It also
triggered the loss of the preceding nasal, the combination being replaced by a glide
(Cerrón-Palomino 1989a: 72–3).
(21) *sinqa > siya ‘nose’
Several verbal suffixes with an internal *q (particularly, -šqa ‘past participle’,

-rqa- ‘past tense’, and -rqu- originally ‘outward movement’, now several other mean-
ings) show a tendency to lose the q element in a large number of dialects. One finds
either synchronic variation (Ayacucho -r(q)u-, -r(q)a-, Ecuador -r(k)a-), complete loss
(Tarma -ru-, -ra-, -ša), or obligatory presence of q (Ancash, Pacaraos, Puno -rqu-, -rqa-,
-šqa/-sqa). It may mean that the variation is traceable to the proto-language. A simi-
lar case with an internal *k is -yku- (originally ‘inward movement’, now several other
meanings), which alternates with -yu- (or even -y-) in many dialects.
The two sibilants *š and *s have remained distinct in all Quechua dialects except
in most of the Quechua IIC branch and in the Colombian Ingano dialect, where the
two sounds have merged into s. The realisation of *š is alveopalatal [š] throughout the
dialects maintaining the distinction, except in Quechua I Huanca where it is a retroflex
or apical [š.]. Additionally, the Huanca dialects have [š] before i and in a limited number
of proper names (e.g. šanti, Spanish Santiago ‘St James’). Quechua IIC Santiago del
Estero is different from the other Quechua IIC dialects in that it retains the distinction
between an alveodental and an alveopalatal fricative after i before a consonant (cf. de
Reuse 1986), as in (22):
(22) a. *iškay > iškay ‘two’

b. *ismuy > ismuy ‘to rot’
The fate of the alveodental *s has been much more varied than that of its alveopalatal
counterpart. In Pacaraos and in most of the Quechua I dialects (e.g. Ancash, northern
Junı́n) *s became a glottal fricative (h) word-initially; in syllable-final position *s was

retained everywhere.
(23) *sara > hara ‘maize’
Word-medially, after a nasal consonant, *s became h in northeastern Ancash, and zero

in Callejón de Huaylas and Tarma/northern Junı́n, but it was retained in several other
Quechua I dialects (e.g. in Huanca).
(24) *kumsay > kumhay, kunhay ‘to push’

kumay
The Quechua I dialect of Jauja (Junı́n) retains s in lexical items where all other
Quechua dialects have h or a reflex of *h.
(25) sana ‘upper part’

(compare Cuzco hanaq)
(26) sampiy ‘to cure’
(compare Cuzco hampiy)
The unique cases of s-retention in Jauja have been attributed to hypercorrection (Parker
1971: 59–60; cf. Cerrón-Palomino 1989a: 28). It should be observed, however, that
several lexical items with initial h, such as hatun ‘big’, are never found with s instead
of h, not even in Jauja.
The changes affecting *s allow for several exceptions. Initial s was preserved in
a number of words with negative connotations (siki ‘buttocks’, sakwa- ‘to have sex-
ual intercourse’, supi- ‘to break wind’, supay ‘devil’, ‘evil spirit’, suwa ‘thief’) and,
rather persistently, in a few additional lexical items not belonging to the taboo sphere
(sapi ‘root’, sinqa ‘nose’). This phenomenon may be related to a mechanism of sound-
symbolism still productive in Tarma (northern Junı́n) Quechua. It involves the frica-
tives s, š, and h in lexical sets characterised by the presence of a pejorative member
with s, a hypochoristic member with š, and a neutral member with h (Adelaar 1977:
290–2).
Some lexical items are notorious for exhibiting irregular reflexes of the sibi-
lants. The numeral ‘one’ and the verb ‘to come’ appear as huk (or its reflex) and
hamu-, respectively, in most of the Quechua IIC dialects, which otherwise preserve initial
s. However, a sibilant appears in Ecuadorian Quechua (šux, šamu-) and in the Argentinian
Santiago del Estero dialect (sux, but amu-). In Quechua I, we find huk and šamu- for
these items. A similar confusion surrounds the words for ‘name’ (QI northern Junı́n huti;
QI Huancayo, š.uti; QI Jauja, QIIC suti; QIIB šuti); and ‘young lady’ (QI northern Junı́n,
eastern Ancash hipaš; QI Callejón de Huaylas, QIIB San Martı́n šipaš; QIIC sipas).
The palatal resonants *l y and *ny have been subject to depalatalisation (to l and n,
respectively) in a number of Quechua I dialects. Surprisingly, the two changes do not
always coincide. Ancash Quechua, for instance, maintains palatal l y but has changed *ny
to n, whereas the opposite obtains in Pacaraos Quechua. Other dialects, such as Tarma
Quechua, have undergone both depalatalisations. As in the case of the sibilants, there
appears to be a close relationship between the historical process of depalatalisation and
the rise of sound-symbolic mechanisms. In Tarma Quechua, the palatal resonants are
now used as the hypochoristic counterparts of the non-palatals; an interesting example
is (27):
(27) *ly any u > ly anu ‘thin’

> ly any u ‘very thin’
If the sound changes were automatic, both consonants should have been de-
palatalised. In this case, however, one depalatalisation suffices to open the possibility
of a hypochoristic back-formation (l y any u ‘very thin’). Whether or not *l y remained
unmodified for this reason remains a matter of speculation, but the example certainly
illustrates the fact that depalatalisation is far from being a change without exceptions.
Furthermore, the impact of depalatalisation must not be overestimated, because minimal
pairs involving a palatal and a non-palatal nasal were rare in Proto-Quechua, whereas
non-palatal *l was confined to just a few lexical items, if it occurred at all.
In the Argentinian Santiago del Estero dialect the palatal lateral *l y has become
a voiced alveopalatal fricative [ž]. The same has occurred in many Ecuadorian and
northern Peruvian dialects, where either the fricative or an affricate [dž ] is found. Both
in Argentina and in Ecuador these changes illustrate an incipient sprachbund as they
seem related to parallel developments in the local Spanish.
(28) *ly aki ‘sorrow’ > (Imbabura) žaki

> (Cajamarca) dž aki
(29) *aly qu ‘dog’ > (Cotopaxi) ašku
> (Cajamarca) adž qu
A rather unusual development of *l y is attested near Concepción in the depart-

ment of Junı́n. There the palatal lateral became a voiceless alveopalatal affricate č
(Cerrón-Palomino 1989a: 42–3, 60–1). A similar development was observed in Salasaca,
in Ecuador (see section 3.2.8).
(30) *qily ay ‘money’ > (Concepción) ičay

(Huancayo) ily ay
All Quechua dialects have an alveodental flap r. In addition, most dialects have a
slightly affricated retroflex vibrant ř, which is regularly used to represent the Spanish
rolled r or rr in loan words. This sound may also function as a distributional variant
of the flap r in native words. This is the case in Ayacucho Quechua word-finally (e.g.
in yawar [yawař] ‘blood’), and in San Pedro de Cajas (northern Junı́n) Quechua word-
initially, e.g. in rumi [řumi] ‘stone’. Bolivian Quechua, like several varieties of Bolivian
Spanish, has a voiced alveodental fricative [z] in word-initial position, instead of the
retroflex, e.g. in rumi [zumi] ‘stone’. The distribution of ř in Ayacucho Quechua has led
to a marginal phonemic opposition between r and ř in cases like arpas (Spanish arpa)
‘harp’ and yawař-pa ‘of the blood’ (Parker 1969a). The dialect of Pacaraos exhibits the
unusual case of a phonemic opposition between a flap r and a trilled rr in word-initial
position (see section 3.2.9).
The most radical change affecting the vibrants is the lateralisation found in Quechua I
Huanca (Concepción, Huancayo and Jauja) and in some of the neighbouring Yauyos
dialects (Cacra, Hongos).
(31) *rimay ‘to speak’ > (Chongos Bajo) limay

(32) *qunqur ‘knee’ > (Chongos Bajo) un?ul
All Huanca dialects have acquired new r-like sounds, e.g. in yawař ‘blood’. They are
probably due to borrowing from one of the neighbouring non-lateralising dialects, such
as Ayacucho. The *r > l change may have had a wider distribution in early colonial
times.23
The nasal consonants *n and *m have been preserved without major modifications in
the modern Quechua dialects, except for Cuzco Quechua and Bolivian Quechua where
they are no longer distinguished in syllable-final position. Traditionally, all nasal allo-
phones in syllable-final position that are not pronounced [m] are assigned to a phoneme
/n/ and are written n regardless of the differences in pronunciation. Before a word bound-
ary, before glottal stop (in the Huanca dialects), before resonants, and, in some dialects,
before fricatives as well, a velar allophone [ŋ] occurs. Elsewhere, the articulation point
of a syllable-final nasal is assimilated to that of the following consonant. The treatment
of [m] before a labial stop is not uniform. Some authors write m, e.g. čampa ‘piece of
grass-cover’, wasi-m-pa ‘of his house’. Others write m within a root and n at morpheme
boundaries; still others write n in both cases. In most dialects, the labial character of m is
lost before a labial resonant (m, w), e.g. Ayacucho Quechua qam [x.am] ‘you’, but qan-
man [x.aŋmaŋ] ‘to you’. The dialects of the Tarma region (northern Junı́n) have developed
23 The name of Lima, the Peruvian capital, is a case in point. It was derived from the expression
*rimaq ‘the one who speaks’, ‘an oracle’. The name of the river Rimac, which flows through the
city, reflects the pronunciation of a more conservative dialect. Although the old town of Lima
was situated on the coastal plain, its name may have become known in the pronunciation of the
Jauja dialect, where it would have been approximately [limax].
a marginal distinction between alveodental [n] and velar [ŋ] before the glides y and w,
e.g. [wanyay] ‘to use guano’ (Andean Spanish guanear), [waŋyay] ‘to strike a blow’.
Proto-Quechua and most modern dialects exhibit a straightforward syllable-structure
of the CV(C) type, with the sole exception that word-initial syllables are (C)V(C). Long
vowels are structurally equivalent to a VC sequence. Quechua has few constraints on
the occurrence of consonant clusters at syllable boundaries. This situation is particularly
evident in the conservative central Peruvian Quechua I dialects, where over a hundred
combinations are permitted. As a result of consonant lenition in syllable-final position,
the number of combinations has been reduced substantially in Cuzco Quechua and in
Bolivian Quechua.
Word-final consonant clusters and medial clusters of more than two consonants are not
allowed. A connective element -ni- serves the purpose of avoiding impossible consonant
sequences in nominal morphology (see the discussion of the possessive markers in
section 3.2.6 for an example). Its use, however, is not entirely restricted to nouns, and it
appears to have played a role within the history of the verbal personal reference system
as well. The connective -ni- is also used after long vowels, as in the following example
from Chupán in northern Junı́n, where it separates recurrent instances of the first-person
subject marker - : in a verb form:
(33) tarpu-pa:ku-:-nı́-:
sow-PL-1S-EU-1S
‘We (exclusive) sow.’
In most Quechua dialects stress is assigned to the penultimate vowel of each polysyl-
labic word form and thus provides an easy phonology-based criterion for word delimita-
tion. Exceptionally, in interjections and emphatic expressions, stress can be word-final,
e.g. in alaláw ‘how cold!’. In Tarma and the dialect of northern Junı́n word-final stress
can occur as a result of the elision of a final syllable.
(34) aywa-mu-ra-ygi ∼ aywa-mu-rá-y

go-H-PA-2S
‘You came.’
In the Quechua I dialects stress is maintained in word-final position when the long
vowel morpheme referring to first-person subject or possessor is immediately followed
by a word boundary. (Length oppositions not connected with the first-person morpheme
are normally neutralised in word-final position, in which case stress is regularly assigned
to the penultimate syllable.) Example (35) illustrates the use of a first-person marker in
Huanca; cf. also (33).
(35) wási ‘house’

wası́-: ‘my house’
In Pacaraos Quechua (see section 3.2.9) stress is phonemic. It may lie either on the
penultimate or on the final syllable. Word-final stress in Pacaraos is either due to the
elision of a final syllable, for instance, in akšú-k, from akšú-kta (potato-AC), or to a
word-final occurrence of the first-person marker -ý. Otherwise, penultimate stress is
predominant.
More complex, non-penultimate stress patterns, involving word-initial stress and
stress dependent on syllable structure, are found in QI Ancash and in QI Cajatambo
(cf. Torero 1964: 461; Parker 1976). The northern Peruvian dialects QIIA Ferreñafe
(Escribens 1977) and QIIB Amazonas (Taylor 1975; Chaparro 1985) also have deviant
stress patterns, as had the sixteenth-century coastal dialect described by Santo Tomás.
For the dialect of Huaraz (department of Ancash) the following stress pattern is de-
scribed (Torero 1964). Syllables can be either long (CVC, CV:) or short (CV). If a word
contains a long syllable which is not word-final, the latter is stressed. If there are several
non-final long syllables, either the last one, or the one which has a long vowel can be
stressed, or stress can be distributed over several long syllables. If there are no non-final
long syllables, the first syllable is stressed or the final syllable when it contains a long
vowel.24
3.2.6 Grammar
Quechua is essentially agglutinative. Its morphological structure is almost entirely based
on the use of suffixes and is extremely regular. Vocalic alternations, including length
and quality alternations, occur to a limited extent in part of the dialects. There are no
prefixes25 and compounds are exceptional.
Syntactic constructions in Quechua are basically head-final (except for relative clauses
which may follow their antecedents). Constituent order in main clauses is basically free,
but there is a certain preference for the order subject–object–verb, which is required
in dependent clauses. Possessive relations are indicated both on the head and on the
dependent nominal. Case relations are marked by special suffixes which are attached at
the end of the noun phrase. Quechua is a nominative–accusative language. Nominative
case is not marked.
Equations and other constructions involving a nominal predicate contain the copula
verb ka- ‘to be’, which in other contexts has the meaning ‘to exist’. In most dialects,
the third-person copula ka-n ‘he/she/it is’ is left out so long as it is not needed for
24 Whether or not an Ancash-type accentuation pattern reflects that of Proto-Quechua is a matter

of debate. Against this view, advocated by Torero (1964), we may argue that the essentially
penultimate stress of Pacaraos Quechua provides a plausible explanation for the development
of the first-person markers in both branches of the Quechua linguistic family, hence it is likely
to have been inherited from Proto-Quechua.
25 Ecuadorian Quechua has an element ila- ‘step-’, which could be interpreted as a prefix.
carrying other suffixes. There is no straightforward passive, nor is there an overt distinc-
tion between transitive and intransitive verbs. Special verbal endings, nominalisation,
case marking and the so-called independent or sentential suffixes (see below) take the
place of conjunctions, which are virtually non-existent in the language, unless they are
borrowed from Spanish. However, some deictic expressions may function as sentence
organisers in conditional and correlative constructions. They are also used to indicate the
relation between sentences in a discourse, e.g. čay-qa (that-TO) ‘but’; čay-mi (that-AF)
‘therefore’, ‘so’.
Adjectives are similar to nouns in their syntactic behaviour. It is not always easy to
distinguish between the two categories. In an example such as (Ayacucho Quechua) rumi
wasi ‘stone house’, rumi can be interpreted either as a noun ‘stone’, or as an adjective
‘made of stone’. The main criterion for establishing the difference is that a noun can func-
tion by itself as the subject in a sentence, whereas real adjectives can only act as subjects
when followed by an element that indicates their status as an independent item; an ele-
ment frequently so used is ka-q ‘(the one) that is’, e.g. in hatun ka-q ‘the (a) big one’.
The original morphological complexity of Quechua has been preserved remarkably
well in most of the dialects (including dialects which are on the verge of extinction,
such as Pacaraos Quechua). As an exception to this, the Ecuadorian and Colombian
dialects (including the Ecuadorian and northern Peruvian jungle dialects) exhibit a rather
simplified morphology. For instance, the possessive markers on nouns are no longer used
there. Compare (36) from Ecuador to (37) from Ayacucho, Cuzco or Huancayo.
(36) kam-pax wasi

you-G house
‘your house’
(37) wasi-ki
house-2P
‘your house’
From a formal point of view, most Quechua suffixes are easy to identify. There exist
a few portmanteau suffixes occurring at the end of a verb form, which refer to specific
combinations of tense, mood and person. Personal reference marking in verbs involves
two speech-act participants, the subject and a direct or indirect object. The object par-
ticipant must be human. Some combinations of subject and object reference in verbs
involve the use of suffixes that have different meanings from those which they convey
when considered independently from those combinations.
Apart from the somewhat complex cases just mentioned, each instance of a suffix
corresponds to a particular meaning. However, the exact semantic nature of the verbal
derivational suffixes and their pragmatics are often difficult to determine. Some suffixes
have different meanings depending on the contexts in which they occur. Combinations
of suffixes may convey special meanings even in cases where the suffixes involved are
not contiguous. Some suffix meanings are clear and straightforward, but others are quite
subtle and can be mastered by a non-native speaker only with difficulty. The use of the
verbal derivational suffixes exhibits a remarkable variety throughout the dialects. This
circumstance constitutes an obstacle for communication among Quechua speakers of
distinct areas and is one of the main reasons why the different Quechuan varieties are
usually treated as linguistic entities in their own right. The morphological transparency
which emanates from most descriptions of Quechua is no more than a matter of ap-
pearance. Short grammatical labels or one-line characterisations of the meaning of a
suffix generally hide a complex reality. The order in which suffixes occur in a verb
form is essentially fixed, although more than one option may be available in some
parts of the suffix inventory. Descriptive studies differ in the extent to which they suc-
ceed in capturing the rules that govern suffix order in Quechua. For an admirably thor-
ough analysis of the different order options in a Quechua dialect (Ayacucho) see Parker
(1969a).
Morphology plays a very dominant role in Quechua. Several functions which in other
languages are assigned to intonation, to word order or to lexical expressions (function
words) are indicated by means of morphological markers in Quechua. There exists a
special set of affixes that can be attached to verbal, as well as to nominal expressions.
They also occur with expressions which are neither verbal nor nominal. In the litera-
ture the members of this set are referred to as independent suffixes, sentential suffixes,
class-free suffixes or enclitics. Independent suffixes cannot occur in every position in
the sentence. With a few exceptions, subordinate clauses and noun phrases with a hi-
erarchically organised inner structure function in their totality as bases of attachment
for the independent suffixes. The combination of a nominal predicate and the copula
verb ka- ‘to be’ can contain no more than a single locus for the attachment of in-
dependent suffixes. In such constructions independent suffixes are normally attached
to the nominal predicate even though the latter precedes the copula, as is very often
the case.
The functions of the independent suffixes include data source, polar question marking
(-ču)26 , topic or contrast (-qa), notions such as ‘still’ or ‘first’ (-raq), ‘already’ (-ny a),
‘even’, ‘too’ (-pas, -pis, -si) and ‘on the other hand’, ‘as you know well’ (-taq). In com-
bination with interrogative expressions (wh-words), the independent suffixes acquire
special meanings. Negation is indicated by the combination of an independent suffix
following the negated element and a lexical expression (mana in statements, ama in
26 The shape of the suffixes listed here is a reconstructed form, which may emerge differently in
some dialects. Henceforth, this will be the case whenever there is no reference to a particular
dialect.
exhortations) that occurs before it. In most dialects the independent suffix used in nega-
tions (-ču) is identical to that which marks a polar question; in Tarma, for instance, we
find:
(38) ali-ču
good-IR
‘Is it good?’
(39) mana-m ali-ču
not-AF good-NE
‘It is not good.’
In Huanca the independent suffix marking a polar question has a special form, different
from the one used in negations (40).
(40) tanta-kta-čun apa-mu-nki

bread-AC-IR carry-H-2S
‘Will you bring bread?’ (Cerrón-Palomino 1976a: 232–3)
(41) mana-m tanta-kta-ču
no-AF bread-AC-NE
‘No, not bread.’ (Cerrón-Palomino 1976a: 232–3)
A similar situation obtains in Ancash Quechua where the interrogative suffix is -ku,
as opposed to -cu (< *-ču) in negative expressions (Parker 1976: 148–9).
The independent suffixes that indicate data source are usually referred to in the lit-
erature as evidentials or validators. The data source system is primarily based on a
three-way distinction. The validity of the source from which the information was drawn,
either through personal witness, hearsay, or conjecture is consistently marked in most
declarative sentences. The contrast is illustrated in (42) in examples from northern
Junı́n/Tarma.
(42) mana-m ali-ču mana-š ali-ču mana-č. ali-ču

not-AF good-IR not-HS good-IR not-DU good-IR
‘It is not good (I know).’ ‘It is not good (I heard).’ ‘It is not good
(I guess).’
In most Quechua dialects the validators have syllabic, as well as non-syllabic allo-
morphs. The syllabic allomorphs (-mi; -ši, -si; -č.i, -či, -ča27 ) occur after a consonant, a
diphthong, or a long vowel; the non-syllabic allomorphs (-m; -š, -s; -č., -č) occur after a
short vowel.
27 The forms with final i occur in the Quechua I dialects except in Huanca. The a variant occurs in
the other dialects.
Table 3.3 The Quechua four-person

system
Speaker Addressee
1 + −
2 − +
3 − −
4 + +
Validators tend to select the first available unit of attachment in a sentence. However,
the presence of another independent suffix, such as the topic marker -qa or the additive
marker -pas, -pis, -si28 (‘too’, ‘even’), causes a validator to move to the next available
unit. It is also possible to mark out a particular constituent of the sentence as the answer to
a question by attaching a validator to it. For that purpose, the validator can move further
to the right. This combination of facts may lead to the impression that the configuration
of a topic marker and a validator represents some sort of a topic–comment structure. This
impression is invalidated by examples such as the following sentence (from Ayacucho),
in which there is no topic marker; the validator remains attached to the first constituent,
in this case, the topic:
(43) kay-mi qiqa

this-AF chalk
‘This is a (piece of) chalk.’
Nominal morphology comprises devices for case, number and personal reference
marking. Personal reference markers identify the possessor of a noun in relations of
genuine possession or in any other relation between two nominal entities envisaged as
such. A four-term personal reference system, similar to that which obtains in Aymara
(Hardman et al. 1988: 18; cf. also section 3.3.4), is found in the conservative central
Peruvian Quechua I dialects. It can be described in terms of the presence (or absence) of
a speaker and an addressee, the two main participants in the speech act (see table 3.3).
The fourth person refers to a group of people including both the speaker and the
addressee. In practice, it takes the place of a first-person-plural inclusive as it is found in
other native American languages. By contrast, Quechua I first-person markers may refer
either to the speaker, or to a group of people including the speaker but not the addressee.
In most Quechua I dialects, the first-person-plural exclusive possessor with nouns is not
morphologically distinct from the first-person-singular possessor. The distinction can be
28 The affix -si is found in a number of Quechua I dialects, along with one or both of the other
forms which occur throughout the main branches of the Quechua family.
made explicit by adding a lexical expression of the possessor, as in (44) and (45) from
northern Junı́n:
(44) wayi-:
house-1P
‘my/our (exclusive) house’
(45) nuqa:-kuna-pa wayi-:
I-PL-G house-1P
‘our (exclusive) house’
In verbs the difference between a first-person-plural exclusive and a first-person sin-

gular is indicated by means of a verbal plural marker (see below).
The proto-forms underlying the Quechua second, third and fourth nominal person
markers are -(y)ki, -n and -nčik, respectively. They or their reflexes are found in all
present-day dialects, except those that no longer mark personal reference on nouns. By
contrast, the first-person ending is variable (see section 3.2.3). Consonant-final stems
are followed by the connective element -ni- in order to permit the attachment of personal
reference markers, as in (46) from Ayacucho or northern Junı́n.
(46) mikuy-ni-ki
food-EU-2P
‘your food’
In virtually all Quechua dialects noun plurality can be indicated by means of the
plurality marker -kuna. Although the marking of plurality is not an obligatory procedure
in Quechua, the suffix -kuna can be used with any noun referring to a set of individualised
items. There is no distinction between count and non-count nouns.
(47) mikuy-kuna
food-PL
‘foodstuffs’, ‘sorts of food’, ‘livestock’
Along with the straightforward process of noun referent pluralisation here described,
most Quechua II dialects have developed (or maintained) a system of number marking
that is accessory to personal reference marking. The affixes in question pluralise a
possessor, a verbal subject, or a verbal object. Both types of plurality (noun referent
plurality and personal reference plurality) are kept apart consistently.
The southern Quechua IIC branch exhibits the most elaborate system of personal
reference number marking. There are separate endings for second-person plurality
(-čik, -čis29 ) and for non-second-person plurality (first- and third-person -ku). These
29 The endings in -s (-čis and -nčis) are found in Quechua IIC, except Ayacucho. They may either
co-occur with reflexes of -čik and -nčik, or be the only option as is the case in Cuzco Quechua.
suffixes do not take the place of the regular person markers but follow them.30 Two
plural markers may occur in a sequence, but combinations of -ku and -kuna are avoided.
Consider (48), (49), (50) from Ayacucho:
(48) wasi-ki-čik-kuna
house-2P-PL.2-PL
‘your (plural) houses’
(49) wasi-y-ku
house-1P-PL.1/3
‘our (exclusive) house(s)’
(50) wasi-y-kuna
house-1P-PL
‘my houses’, ‘our (exclusive) houses’
In the northern Quechua II dialects (Cajamarca, Amazonas) personal reference num-

ber is marked differently. Reflexes of *-l y apa ‘all’ and *-sapa ‘each’ are found instead
of -ku and -čik. In Ecuadorian Highland Quechua the marker -kuna corresponds to both
-ku and -kuna of the southern Quechua II dialects.
Case marking plays an important role in Quechua nominal morphology. Case is
marked on the final word of a noun phrase or a relative clause when preceded by its an-
tecedent. Only the subject, a nominal predicate and some adverbial expressions (mostly
referring to time) occur without a case marker. Furthermore, the accusative case marker
is optionally absent in the context of a nominalised verb. Case markers are limited in
number, more specific spatial relations being paraphrased by means of body-part nouns
or special positional nouns.
Most case-marking suffixes vary in shape across the dialects, albeit not all in an
equally radical way. The accusative case marker indicates a direct object, an indirect
object or a deliberately selected geographic goal. Its shape is -ta, but some dialects
(Huanca, Pacaraos, colonial Cuzco Quechua) provide evidence of an allomorph -kta
after (short) vowels, which undoubtedly goes back to Proto-Quechua. In a similar way,
the genitive case marker is -pa in most dialects but is subject to allomorphic variation in
some conservative dialects (Huanca, Cuzco). Huanca -p and Cuzco Quechua -q, as well
30 The fourth-person ending -nčik (-nčis) could be interpreted as a compound ending due to its
partial similarity with the pluraliser -čik (-čis). From a synchronic point of view, such an in-
terpretation is defendable for Quechua IIC (and for some Quechua IIB dialects). Historically,
however, -nčik goes back to Proto-Quechua, whereas there is no evidence of such antiquity
for the pluraliser -čik, which does not occur in Quechua I. It seems plausible to assume that
both endings took their origin from the lexical element *čika ‘size’, albeit at different times
(cf. Cerrón-Palomino 1987a: 205).
as Bolivian Quechua -qpa, occur after (short) vowels and reflect an original postvocalic
allomorph *-p. In the Quechua IIB branch -pa is sometimes replaced by reflexes of
the benefactive case marker -paq. In Ecuador *-pa and *-paq have merged as -pax
(< *-paq). In addition, the benefactive marker -paq remains in use in virtually all dialects,
including those exhibiting the -pa/-paq alternation. Both the accusative (in Quechua II)
and the genitive case markers (in Quechua I) are used for indicating adverbial use of
adjectives.
The genitive case marker occurs on the dependent (possessor) member of a possessive
construction, whereas the (possessed) head is marked for third person. Only when the
possessor is a pronoun can the head be marked for first, second or fourth (inclusive)
person under a condition of agreement. It follows that in a full possessive construc-
tion the members are obligatorily double-marked; cf. the examples (51) and (52) from
Ayacucho.
(51) runa-pa wasi-n

man-G house-3P
‘a person’s house’
(52) qam-pa wasi-ki
you-G house-2P
‘your house’
Spatial case marking is limited to a general indication of the direction of a motion or

the absence of it. The locative case marker indicates location in rest regardless of the
nature of the position with respect to the case-marked object. The shape of the locative
marker is not dialectally uniform. It is -pi in most of Quechua II and -č.aw (or its reflex)
in Quechua I (cf. section 3.2.3). Some dialects, in the area of Yauyos (department of
Lima) use -pa, rather than either -pi or -č.aw for locative. This practice could be due to
language contact, judging from the fact that in Aymara the genitive and locative case
markers coincide as well (cf. section 3.3.6).
Two case markers can be used to indicate motion towards a goal. It is one of the
functions of the accusative marker -(k)ta and the principal function of the ‘allative’
marker -man. The functional demarcation between the two markers does not always
coincide in the dialects. For -(k)ta to be used the subject must be human or humanised,
the action must be deliberate and the goal must have a fixed position. Non-human subjects
and moving or non-local goals require the use of -man. The examples (53) and (54), also
from Ayacucho, illustrate this.
(53) yaku-man ri-ni

water-AL go-1S
‘I go for water (wherever I can find it).’
(54) kay ny an-qa ayakuču-man ri-n

this road-TO Ayacucho-AL go-3S
‘This road goes to Ayacucho.’
The directional use of the two case markers just discussed is extended metaphorically
to the function of indirect-object marking. In the southern Quechua II dialects there is
a tendency to use -man for indirect objects and -(k)ta for direct objects, whereas the
central Peruvian Quechua I dialects use -(k)ta for both purposes.
A special directional case marker -kama conveys the meaning ‘until’ both in a temporal
and in a spatial sense. This marker is related to the verb kama- ‘to fit’, ‘to animate’ (a
religious concept).
The concept of separation (‘ablative’) is indicated by means of a case marker which is
variable in shape. Most Quechua II dialects have -manta (or reflexes of it). The Quechua I
dialects use (reflexes of) -pita, -piq and -piqta (cf. section 3.2.3).
There can hardly be any doubt that the element ta in -manta, -pita and -piqta is histo-
rically related to the accusative marker -(k)ta, whereas man, pi (possibly also piq) can
be traced to the allative and locative case markers, respectively. From a synchronic point
of view, the inner structure of the ablative case marker is no longer relevant. Along
with its main function of referring to separation, it can convey other meanings such as
a topic of conversation or reflection (‘about’), or it can mark the second member in a
comparison.
There is no special case marker for the concept of motion through a space (‘perlative’).
For this purpose the genitive is used in some Quechua I dialects, and a combination -n-ta
in southern Peruvian Quechua II, as in Ayacucho:
(55) urqu-n-ta ri-n

mountain-3P-AC go-3S
‘It goes through the mountains.’
Another case marker which plays a central role in Quechua grammar is -wan. It
refers to the instrumental or comitative case (‘with’), but has the additional function of
coordinating two noun phrases (‘and’). The coordinating function of -wan is compatible
with other case markers. Interestingly, the instrumental and coordinative functions of
-wan cannot be separated easily. Of two noun phrases in a coordinative construction only
one must be marked with -wan, whereas the other need not be expressed lexically, as in
the following example from Tarma:
(56) punu-či-ma-ra-ygi xuk wamra-ta-wan

sleep-CA-1O-PA-2S another girl-AC-IS
‘You made me sleep with another girl.’ (lit. ‘You made me and
another girl sleep.’)
The instrumental case marker is frequently used to identify the causee in causative
constructions, in particular when the causative verb has a transitive base, as in (57) from
Ayacucho:
(57) parqu-či-ni čakra-ta pedru-wan

irrigate-CA-1S field-AC Peter-IS
‘I have the field irrigated by Peter.’ (Soto Ruiz 1979: 340)
There are a small number of other case markers, not found in every dialect of Quechua.
A frequent marker is -rayku ‘for the sake of’. Likeness is expressed by means of a case
marker -naw (-nuy, -nu:) in Quechua I. In Quechua II the notion of ‘like’ is expressed
by means of the adverb (or postposition) hina. Another widespread marker is -pura
‘among’.
As a consequence of their limited number, most Quechua case markers are multi-
functional. For each grammatical case a list of uses is required. Sequences of case
markers occur to a limited degree. Most often they involve either the genitive marker
(e.g. Ayacucho bisinti-pa-ta ‘to Vincent’s’, Parker 1969a: 44), or the instrumental marker
-wan in its coordinative and comitative functions. In addition, the case markers -kama
and -naw can also be found in combinations. In combination with specific categories
of nominalisation, the case markers show a tendency towards acquiring specialised
functions (see below).
Nominal suffixation is not limited to case, number and personal reference. Some
Quechua IIC dialects, such as Ayacucho, have diminutive and, occasionally, augmenta-
tive affixes (Parker 1969a: 60):
(58) wasi-ča
house-DI
‘little house’
(59) wasi-su31
house-AU
‘big house’
Virtually all Quechua dialects have nominal derivational suffixes referring to own-
ership in a very broad sense. A very common suffix is -yuq (-ni-yuq after consonants,
diphthongs and long vowels), to be translated as ‘owner of’, ‘having’, or ‘belonging to
a place, a community’:
31 The suffix -su is said to be derived from the ending -azo in the local Spanish (e.g. perrazo ‘a
huge dog’). If this is true, it is probably the sole morphological element borrowed from Spanish
into Ayacucho Quechua. It has not been reported in other dialects.
(60) wasi-yuq
house-OS
‘house owner’, ‘someone who has a house’
Other frequent suffixes are -sapa ‘owner of many’, ‘owner of something big’ and
-nti(n) ‘including’, ‘with . . . and all’. In some of the central Peruvian dialects (Huánuco,
Pacaraos) a suffix -nnaq or -:naq conveys the meaning ‘without’, ‘owner of none’. It
was also found in colonial Cuzco Quechua, and it may, therefore, be reconstructed for
the common proto-language. Example (61) is from Pacaraos.
(61) wawi-:naq
child-LA
‘childless’, ‘having no children’
Definiteness is not a general morphological category in the Quechua languages. How-
ever, the Huanca dialects have developed an affixed definite article, comparable to those
found in Rumanian or Swedish. The suffixal character of this marker of definiteness
makes it unlikely that its existence could be explained through the contact with Span-
ish. Formally, the Huanca definite marker has been derived from *ka-q, the agentive
nominalised form of the verb ka- ‘to be’. In the Chongos Bajo subdialect of Huanca its
reflexes are -ka: between consonants, -ka in word-final position and vowel length (-:)
after non-final short vowels, e.g.:
(62) wamla-kuna-ka
girl-PL-DF
‘the girls’
A characteristic feature of many Andean languages is the existence of a suffix referring
to limitation, which marks a noun as trivial, limited in number or size, or close in
distance to the speaker. The Quechua suffix which has this function, -ly a (-la, -la:-), may
originally have been an independent suffix. It became part of the nominal morphology
and, in Quechua I, also part of the verbal morphology. There are rather complex rules
determining the location of -ly a in relation to case, number and personal reference
markers in nouns. Whatever the status of this suffix, its semantic interpretation is stable.
In Andean Spanish it is characteristically reflected by the expressions no más or nada
más ‘no(thing) more’.
As in many other native American languages, the verb constitutes the richest part of
the morphology in Quechua. Verbal morphology is contained within a general frame-
work of formal restrictions, which are the following. All verb roots end in a vowel.32 They
32 In dialects that distinguish vowel length root-final low vowels can be long underlyingly. In verbs
showing this characteristic length surfaces whenever the phonological context permits it, e.g.
(Tarma) č.a:-šun ‘we shall reach’, but č.a-nki ‘you (shall) reach’.
do not occur by themselves but must be followed by at least one suffix that qualifies
the verb as a syntactically usable unit. Suffixes that can fulfil this function are per-
sonal reference (subject) markers, whether or not in combination with tense and mood
markers.
A verbal root may be followed either by one, or by a string of affix extensions, which
all share the formal peculiarity of ending in a vowel. Like roots, these extensions cannot
occur word-finally but must be followed by one of the endings required to assure the
syntactic use of the verb form.33 These root-extending affixes are commonly referred to
as derivational or modal suffixes in the literature on Quechua. Although they are subject
to shared formal restrictions (most of them are either CV or CCV), they represent a
wide array of functions and meanings ranging from changes in syntactic valence and
argument structure to subtle semantic and pragmatic shifts. As a rule, there is a one-to-
one relation between form and function, but certain combinations of suffixes can acquire
new and idiosyncratic meanings. Combinations of a verbal root and a derivational suffix
may become lexicalised as idiomatic units.
Tense, mood and personal reference markers occupy the final block in a Quechua verb
form. Full verb forms must contain one of the suffixes in question or a combination of
several. For the Quechua IIB and IIC dialects the number markers are to be added to the
above list, as they operate in close connection with the personal reference markers. The
place of tense and mood markers can also be occupied by nominalising and subordinating
(switch-reference) affixes.
In Quechua verbs personal reference is built on the same distinctions as for their
nominal counterparts. It consists of a four-term system based on the inclusion of speaker
and addressee. However, an additional dimension is brought in through the fact that not
only the subject, but also a (human) object can be identified for person. Third-person
objects remain unexpressed, as in (63) and (64) from Ayacucho:
(63) miku-nki-ču
eat-(3O-)2S-IR
‘Do (did) you eat?’, or ‘Do (did) you eat it?’
(64) riku-n-ku
see-(3O-)3S-PL
‘They see (him/her/them/it).’
First-, second- and fourth-person objects that are expressed in the verb form can
have either an indirect or a direct-object function depending on the semantics of the
verb base. There are four endings involving subject reference only and an additional
33 The single exception may be the serial verb yal y i- ‘to exceed’ in Ecuadorian Quechua, which
occurs uninflected in comparative constructions.
Table 3.4 Subject conjugation in Ayacucho Quechua
Present Future Imperative
1 pers. subject wata-ni wata-saq

2 pers. subject wata-nki wata-nki wata-y
3 pers. subject wata-n wata-nqa wata-čun
4 pers. subject wata-nčik wata-sun wata-sun
five combinations that involve object marking as well. These combinations were called
transiciones (‘transitions’) by the Spanish colonial grammarians, a term still used in
many of today’s traditional-style grammars.34 The subject endings are relatively stable
throughout the paradigms referring to tense and mood. The imperative mood and the
future tense both have special portmanteau endings. The Ayacucho Quechua subject
paradigms of the verb wata- ‘to tie’ in table 3.4 illustrate this.
Non-future, non-imperative subject endings resemble the nominal possessive endings.
However, in Quechua IIC dialects, such as Ayacucho, first- and second-person subject
endings differ from the possessive endings in all tenses of the indicative mood.
(65) wata-r(q)a-ni uma-y

tie-PA-1S head-1P
‘I tied.’ ‘my head’
(66) wata-r(q)a-nki uma-yki
tie-PA-2S head-2P
‘You tied.’ ‘your head’
In Quechua I there is no such difference between the first-person endings, and in many
of these dialects the second-person subject ending coincides with the possessive ending
in the past tenses. The examples (67) and (68) from northern Junı́n illustrate this point:
(67) wata-rá-: umá-:

tie-PA-1S head-1P
‘I tied.’ ‘my head’
(68) wata-rá-y(ki) umá-y(ki)
tie-PA-2S head-2P
‘You tied.’ ‘your head’
34 According to our information, the term transiciones appeared for the first time in the anonymous
grammar published by Antonio Ricardo in 1586. Starting from González Holguı́n (1607), the
transitions are subject to a numbering system, which is still in use here and there. This numbering
system fails to distinguish between the combinations 3S-10 and 3S-40.
Of the five endings that conjointly refer to a subject and an object (1S-2O, 2S-1O,
3S-1O, 3S-2O, 3S-4O) four consist of potentially discontinuous sequences of suffixes,
the intervening element being either a tense marker, a nominaliser or a subordinator.
The second component of these combined endings is always identical to one of the
subject endings, although it need not convey the latter’s usual meaning. The shape
of this second component varies in accordance with the tense, mood or nominalisation
paradigm in which it occurs. The initial component in the combination remains the same
in all paradigms, leaving aside predictable morphophonemic variation if any. When the
initial component is -ma(:)- (in Quechua I, Pacaraos and Ferreñafe) or -wa- (in most
of Quechua II), its function as a first-person object marker is transparent whenever the
subject is second or third person. (The examples (69)–(74) are from Ayacucho Quechua.)
(69) muna-wa-nki
want-1O-2S
‘You want me.’
(70) muna-wa-n
want-1O-3S
‘He/she wants me.’
However, the first-person object marker -ma(:)-/-wa- can also co-occur with a fourth-
person subject marker, in which case the result is a semantically irregular sequence
referring to a third-person subject acting upon a fourth-person object.
(71) muna-wa-nčik
want-1O-4S
‘He/she wants us.
The second-person subject ending can co-occur with an internal suffix -su- (Quechua I
-šu-). The resulting combination refers to a third-person subject acting upon a second-
person object.
(72) muna-su-nki
want-3S.2O-2S
‘He/she wants you.’
The combinations 2S-1O, 3S-1O, 3S-2O and 3S-4O mentioned above are found both
in Quechua I and in Quechua II dialects. The combination 1S-2O is a rather divergent
case. If it exists at all at the morphological level, it is either indicated by means of the
suffix -q or a reflex of it (in Quechua I), or by -yki (in most of Quechua II). For the
future tense there is a special portmanteau ending common to most dialects (*-šqayki >
Ayacucho -s(q)ayki).
(73) muna-yki
want-1S.2O
‘I want you.’
(74) riku-s(q)ayki
see-1S.2O.F
‘I shall see you.’
Several dialects situated at the periphery of the Quechua linguistic area have to a cer-
tain extent regularised the paradigms relating to personal reference marking (Cajamarca,
Ferreñafe, Bolivian Quechua and Santiago del Estero), or lost part or all of it (Ecuador).
As a consequence of this regularising tendency, the suffix -su- became a straightforward
second-person object marker in Ferreñafe (Taylor 1994). The same occurred in Santiago
del Estero (Alderetes 1994), as illustrated in (75)–(76).
(75) tapu-su-ni
ask-2O-1S
‘I ask you.’
(76) tapu-su-n-ku
ask-2O-3S-PL
‘They ask you.’
In Quechua I number is indicated by means of derivational suffixes which are inserted

between the root and the personal reference endings (cf. section 3.2.3). In southern
Quechua I dialects there are several pluralisers, whose selection is determined by the
presence of other suffixes, especially aspect suffixes. (The examples (77)–(80) are from
Tarma Quechua.)
(77) wata-ba:ku-n
tie-PL-3S
‘They tie (it).’ (without aspect marker)
(78) wata-rga-ya-n
tie-PL-PR-3S
‘They are tying (it).’ (with progressive aspect)
(79) wata-ra-:ri-n
tie-PF-PL-3S
‘They have tied (it).’ (with perfective aspect)
Normally, the internal pluralisers refer to the number of the subject, but incidentally
they can also indicate the number of an object. Pluralisation of object may occur when
both subject and object are explicitly marked in the verb form and the object is not
third person. Forms with an internal pluraliser and explicit object marking are therefore
ambiguous.
(80) čay-la-ta ni-ba:ku-x lapa-y-ta

that-DL-AC say-PL-1S.2O all-2P-AC
‘I say that to all of you.’
The Quechua IIC dialects use the same strategy for pluralising verbal personal refer-
ence markers as is found in the nominal conjugation. It has the advantage of providing
an easy way of distinguishing between number of subject and number of object. The
pluraliser -čik (-čis) is reserved for second-person subjects and objects, whereas the plu-
raliser -ku is used for first- and third-person subjects, as well as for first-person objects.
(The examples (81)–(82) are from Ayacucho Quechua.)
(81) muna-su-nki-ku
want-3S.2O-PL.3S
‘They want you.’
(82) muna-su-nki-čik
want-3S.2O-PL.2S
‘He/she/they want(s) you (plural).’
In forms such as (81) and (82) it is not possible to indicate morphologically that both
the subject and the object of the verb are plural. As a rule, the indication of plurality of a
first or second person is considered more essential than that of a third person. Ambiguity
can be removed by the addition of a noun containing a plural marker.
When plural marking is applied to first-person endings, the resulting forms refer to
an exclusive first-person plural. These forms stand in contrast with the fourth-person
category which can only denote an inclusive ‘we’. Ecuadorian Quechua, however, lost
the distinction between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural, as the original inclu-
sive (fourth-person) developed into a general first-person plural combining both func-
tions. As a result, the modern Ecuadorian personal reference system is based on a
three-way person distinction and a two-way number distinction, as in most European
languages.
The Quechua finite verb permits a three-way mood distinction involving indicative,
optative and imperative. The number of tense distinctions within the indicative mood
can vary according to the dialects, the richest system (of seven tenses) being found in
Ancash Quechua. The optative (also called conditional or potential) has two tenses in all
dialects. There are no tense distinctions in the imperative. Nevertheless, a future-tense
form which is not accompanied by an evidential suffix can be interpreted as a polite
command or recommendation.
Verbs that do not belong to any of the three mood options listed above are either
subordinated or nominalised. Subordinate verb forms are marked for switch-reference
and could well be considered as a fourth mood if it were not for their non-finite character.
All Quechua dialects exhibit a sharp distinction between realised and non-realised
events. The future tense refers to non-realised events, as do the imperative and the present
optative. In the indicative mood, future tense is required for any event that takes place
after the moment of speaking. All dialects have an unmarked or present tense and at
least one past tense.
In the unmarked present tense the subject personal reference endings are added to
the verb stem directly. In the remaining tenses (except for the future), a tense-marking
suffix precedes the subject endings. Additionally, most Quechua dialects have one or
two compound tenses based on a combination of nominalisations and the auxiliary verb
ka- ‘to be’.
The most common marker for plain past tense can be reconstructed as *-rqa-. It is
illustrated in the following examples from Ayacucho Quechua, where it contrasts with a
habitual past-tense form. The habitual past tense consists of the agentive nominalisation
form in -q and the verb ‘to be’.
(83) miku-r(q)a-ni
eat-PA-1S
‘I ate (it).’
(84) miku-q ka-ni
eat-HB be-1S
‘I used to eat (it).’
In Ayacucho Quechua, as in several other dialects, there are good reasons for consid-
ering the habitual past a separate tense. As the third-person subject form of the verb ‘to
be’ in its copula function is regularly deleted, the pluralising suffix -ku is added directly
to the nominalised form, thus emphasising the finite verb character of the construction.
When combinations of subject and object markers occur, these are normally distributed
over both components of the construction, as in (86) (Parker 1969a: 49).
(85) riku-q-ku
see-HB-(be.3S-)-PL.3S
‘They used to see (him/her/it).’
(86) riku-su-q ka-nki
see-3S.2O-HB be-2S
‘He used to see you.’
The existence of a special tense category denoting surprise or lack of previous aware-
ness on the side of the speaker (cf. section 3.2.3) has become an areal phenomenon,
especially since it was borrowed into Andean Spanish. It has been conveniently labelled
sudden discovery tense.35 With regard to Ayacucho Quechua, it is also referred to as
the narrative past because it often denotes a plain past tense in narratives (ending
-sqa). However, sudden discovery is not necessarily confined to the past. It may refer to
the present, and even to the future, when the unpredictable outcome of an experiment is
involved. Due to its range of meanings, the status of sudden discovery as a tense is some-
what debatable. An English translation for the sudden discovery category is ‘it/he/she
turned out (to be)’.
Other tenses found in some of the dialects are a recent past (in Ancash Quechua)
and a perfect comparable to the present perfect tense of English (e.g. in Pacaraos, see
section 3.2.9).
The two tenses of the optative refer to the possibility of an event in the near future,
and to an event that has failed to take place in the past, respectively. Formally, they are
alike, except for the fact that the latter is followed by the third-person past-tense form
of the verb ‘to be’, kar(q)a, which in this case functions as a lexical past-tense marker.
(The examples (87)–(88) are from Ayacucho Quechua.)
(87) maqa-nki-man
hit-2S-PO
‘You could hit (him/her).’
(88) maqa-nki-man ka-r(q)a
hit-2S-PO be-3S.PA
‘You could have hit him/her (but you didn’t).’
Subordinate verb forms are morphologically marked as such in Quechua. They nor-
mally refer to events which are either prior to, or simultaneous with the main event in
the sentence. Although the exact nature of the relation between the two verbs (cause,
condition, temporal background) is left undetermined, a further specification can be
obtained through the addition of aspect markers and independent suffixes. The addition
of the independent suffix -pas (-pis, -si) ‘even’, ‘also’ adds a concessive meaning to the
subordinate verb. A progressive aspect marker indicates simultaneousness; a negation in
combination with the independent suffix -raq ‘still’, ‘first’ denotes previousness of the
main event (‘before . . . ing’). In some dialects, borrowed Spanish conjunctions (espe-
cially si ‘if’) may precede a subordinate verb form.36 The exact semantic interpretation
35 The term ‘sudden discovery tense’ is from Adelaar (1977: 94). In the linguistic literature similar
categories, as in Turkish for instance, have been referred to as the ‘inferential past’ (Comrie,
personal communication).
36 Subordinate verb forms have often been interpreted as cases of nominalisation. There is a good
argument for not following this line. Although direct objects preceding a nominalised verb form
may occur without the accusative case marker -(k)ta, this is never the case with subordinate verb
forms.
of a subordinate verb is to a high degree dependent on the meaning of the main verb
which it accompanies. The following sentence, taken from a popular legend concerning
the town of Tapo, near Tarma, illustrates this fairly well:
(89) mana čiwaku pla:nu-nči-ta aspi-pti-n-qa tapu-m limaq ka-n-man ka-ra

not blackbird map-4P-AC erase-DS-3S-TO Tapo-AF Lima be-3S-PO be-3S.PA
‘If the blackbird had not erased our map, Tapo would have been Lima
(viz. the nation’s capital).’
The main point of interest in relation to subordinate verbs in Quechua is the existence
of an explicit switch-reference mechanism. Most Quechua dialects have a subordination
marker, such as -pti-, which indicates a change of subject. The use of this marker must
be accompanied by an indication of the grammatical person of the subject. This is
understandable because the subjects of the two verbs involved are not the same. In
Ecuadorian Quechua, however, different subject marking is not accompanied by any
personal reference morphology (cf. the case of Tsafiki in section 2.17). The verb form
shows that the subjects are different but not to what grammatical person they belong. The
Ecuadorian different subject marker -(x)pi may have been derived from a combination
of the agentive nominalisation in *-q with the locative case marker -pi, rather than from
*-pti- (in spite of the resemblance).
The shape of the same subject marker differs according to the dialects (cf. sec-
tion 3.2.3). The most common markers are -r (-l) in Quechua I and -špa- (-spa) in
Quechua II.
Switch-reference is of utmost importance for the structure of Quechua discourse.
After a first introduction, the main protagonists in a narrative are not again explicitly
mentioned but are expected to be identified through a correct interpretation of the switch-
reference forms. In order to help this process of interpretation, a subordinate verb which
resumes the content of the previous sentence is often used to introduce a new sentence.
The presence of switch-reference markers permits the hearer to establish whether or not
the subject of the previous sentence is still in focus. Consider the following passage in
a narrative from San Pedro de Cajas (Adelaar 1977: 408–9):
(90) čawra-q’ na:-ši čaka-ra-ya-n.

then-TO already-HS become.dark-CN-PR-3S.
čaka-ru-pti-n-ši na: laso:ču-nuy yapay č.a-ru-n alqu-q’ kurba:ta-ku-š’.
become.dark-PF-DS-HS already at.eight-CP again arrive-PF-3S
dog-TO necktie-V-SN
‘At that time, they say, it was already getting dark. When it had
become dark, at about eight o’clock, the dog arrived again, wearing
a necktie.’
Additional subordination markers occur in some dialects. The ending -štin (or -stin)
indicates simultaneousness with same subjects. Some Quechua I dialects have a negative
subordinator, -nni or -:ni; cf. also Pacaraos Quechua miku:ni ‘without eating’.
Nominalisation has a place at the core of Quechua grammar.37 Nominalised verbs
in Quechua exhibit the syntactic and morphological characteristics of nouns, while re-
taining a substantial part of the complex verbal morphology as well. Externally, they
can be marked for case (as nouns are), whereas internally they can take case-marked
complements (as verbs do). Personal reference markers are either verbal (when an ob-
ject is involved) or nominal (when a possessive or pseudo-possessive relation to the
event is expressed). With nominalised verbs the subject and possessive markers are for-
mally the same and cannot always be distinguished on the basis of their function and
meaning.
The flexibility of the Quechua nominalisation system is enhanced by its faculty to
combine with case affixes and, to a lesser extent, aspect markers. Potentially, each
combination of a nominalisation with a particular case category yields a specific class of
complement clauses. These configurations complement the rather limited possibilities in
terms of semantic specification that are provided by the subordinative (switch-reference)
categories.
Quechua dialects differ in the number of nominalisers they use, but a minimal system
of four nominalisations is found throughout the family. One category of nominalisation
(ending -y) refers to the event in abstracto and, occasionally, to its result or a generic ob-
ject in the widest sense. It has the characteristics of an infinitive. Personal reference with
infinitives is typically nominal (pseudo-possessive), and there are no tense distinctions,
as in (Ayacucho):
(91) miku-y kawsa-y

eat-IF live-IF
‘to eat’, ‘food’ ‘to live’, ‘agricultural products’
The infinitive is frequently used with the accusative case marker -(k)ta and an auxiliary
verb. Verbs such as ati(pa)-‘to be able’, muna- ‘to want’, yač.a-/yača- ‘to know how to’
and (the reflexes of) qal y a.yku- (QI)/qal y a.ri- (QII) ‘to begin’ are frequently used as
auxiliaries, as illustrated by (92)–(93) from Tarma:
(92) rima-y-ta xala.yu-ru-n

speak-IF-AC begin-PF-3S
‘He began to speak.’
37 For a detailed study in a generative context see Lefebvre and Muysken (1988).
Although grammatically the infinitive functions as the object of the auxiliary verb,
the resulting construction as a whole has several characteristics of a compound verb.
Subject and object markers may be distributed over both components of the con-
struction. For instance, the ventive (hither) marker -mu- may appear on the auxiliary
verb, although from a semantic point of view it belongs to the event denoted by the
infinitive.
(93) yarba-y-ta xala.ya-mu-ra38

descend-IF-AC begin-H-3S.PA
‘He began to descend’. ‘He began to come down’.
In Ecuador, the -y infinitive was replaced by the instrumental nominalisation in -na

(see below). It has been retained, however, for the exclusive purpose of the auxiliary
construction just outlined.
Forms that result from other nominalisation strategies refer to participants or items
involved in the event denoted by the base verb. They can also refer to a place, time or
means, or to the fact of the event itself. The nominalisation in -q is usually referred
to as the agentive. Agentive forms are subject-centred. They refer to the subject of an
event denoted by the base verb. Tense distinctions are not relevant. The agentive can
be used to construct relative clauses in which the subject is identical to the antecedent.
With verbs of motion it may indicate a goal. Agentive nominalisation also constitutes the
basis of the habitual past tense (see above). (The examples (94)–(95) are from Ayacucho
Quechua.)
(94) pukly a-q

play-AG
‘one who plays’, ‘a player’
(95) pukly a-q ri-saq
play-AG go-1S.F
‘I shall go and play.’
Forms resulting from instrumental nominalisation in -na are everything but subject-
centred. They refer to events not yet realised. As such, they may either denote a means,
a place, a time in the future, an object to be affected, the necessity of an event, or plainly
the fact that it will occur. Instrumentals are frequently used in relative clauses in which
the subject is not identical to the antecedent. When used by itself, the instrumental
38 Actually, the root ‘to descend’ is yarbu-. The sentence is a rare example of a case in which a
vowel modification rule (u > a) is copied from an auxiliary verb onto the infinitive which it
accompanies. The alternative option in which the infinitive retains its original vowel u is more
common (cf. Adelaar 1977: 117).
nominalisation may refer to an obligation. Examples (96)–(99) from Tarma Quechua

illustrate different uses of instrumental (future) nominalisation.
(96) xu-x miku-na-n-guna-ta

give-HB eat-FN-3P-PL-AC
‘They used to give (them) their victuals.’ (lit. ‘their things to eat’)
(97) mana-m musya-ra-ču yanu-ku-na ga-na-ta
not-AF guess-3S.PA-NE cook-CU-FN be-FN-AC
‘He did not suspect that there would be a way (means) of cooking them.’
(98) čay xišya-y-xa asta39 wanu-na-n-gama nuna-č.u:-xa ga-n
that be.ill-IF-TO until die-FN-3S-LI man-L-TO be-3S
‘That illness remains in a man until (the moment) he dies.’
(99) aywa-na-:
go-FN-1S
‘I must go.’
One of the most important applications of the instrumental nominalisation is its com-
bination with the benefactive case suffix -paq. This combination refers to a purpose
clause, as in (Ayacucho):
(100) yanapa-wa-na-yki-paq
help-1O-FN-2S-B
‘. . . so that you might help me’
Alongside -na, an archaic form -nqa was preserved in colonial Cuzco Quechua. In
Ecuadorian Quechua, a reflex of *-nqa is still used today in the local equivalent of the
-na + -paq construction just described (for an example see section 3.2.8 on Salasaca
Quechua). Interestingly, this construction has become involved in an extension of the
switch-reference system. It is now used for purpose clauses in which the subject is the
same as that of the main clause. The different subject function has been taken over by
the original third-person imperative ending -čun. As we mentioned before, Ecuadorian
subordinate verbs lack personal reference marking. (For a parallel situation in Tsafiki,
see section 2.17.)
The applications of the stative nominalisation in -šqa (-sqa, -ška, -ša) are largely
the same as those of its instrumental counterpart, the difference being the fact that
statives refer to events that are realised either previously, or simultaneously with re-
gard to the main event. As a rule, forms resulting from nominalisation in -šqa are not
39 The particle asta (from Spanish hasta ‘until’) is often found in combination with the limitative
case marker -gama (-kama in most other dialects), which has essentially the same meaning.
Table 3.5 Valency-changing suffixes in Quechua
-či- ‘causative, permissive transitiviser’ (adds a new

agent argument)
-ku- ‘reflexive’
-na(ku)- ‘reciprocal’
-ka(:)- (QI) ‘medio-passive’, ‘no control’
-na(:)- (QI), -naya- (QII) ‘experiencer’ (transfers a need or desire to an object)
-pa(:)- (QI), -pa- (QII) ‘applicative transitiviser’ (adds a new object)
-ra(:)- (QI), -raya- (QII) ‘state or prolonged event’
-wši- (QI), -ysi- (QII) ‘accompanied action transitiviser’ (to help someone
perform an action)
subject-centred. (Nevertheless, subject-centred statives do occur sporadically with in-

transitive bases.) Example (101) from Tarma illustrates the use of a stative participle.
(101) lapa-n waxta-č.u xampi-nči-guna-m kanan-xa xunxa-ša

all-3P slope-L medicinal.plant-4P-PL-AF now-TO forget-SN
‘On all the slopes our medicinal plants are now forgotten.’
Stative participles are frequently found in compound tenses, where they occasionally
acquire an active (subject-centred) meaning. This is the case of the experiential past in
Pacaraos Quechua, illustrated in (102).
(102) rika-pu-šqá-s(u) ka-nki

see-LS-SN-IR be-2S
‘Have you ever seen it?’ ‘Did you ever get to see it?’
The derivational or modal affixes that operate as extensions of the verb root together
constitute the richest and most complex part of Quechua morphology. As we anticipated,
they make up a very heterogeneous set from a semantic and a functional point of view.
Some can function as valency-changing affixes; see table 3.5.
The following examples illustrate the use of these suffixes. The examples (110a, b),
illustrating the suffix -ysi-, are from the Ayacucho dialect; the others exemplify the
dialect of San Pedro de Cajas in northern Junı́n.
(103) a. wanu- ‘to die’ wanu-či- ‘to kill’, ‘to cause to die’
b. maqa- ‘to beat’ maqa-či- ‘to make (someone) beat’
‘to have (someone) beaten’
(104) a. mayla- ‘to wash’ mayla-ku- ‘to wash oneself’
b. wanu- ‘to die’ wanu-či-ku- ‘to kill oneself’,
‘to commit suicide’
(105) a. maqa- ‘to beat’ maqa-naku- ‘to beat each other’

b. maqa-či-naku- ‘to have each other beaten’
(106) a. miku- ‘to eat’ mika-na(:)- ‘to provoke hunger’
(impersonal subject)
b. mika-na-y ‘hunger’
(107) a. punu- ‘to sleep’ punu-ka(:)- ‘to fall asleep’
b. laqa- ‘to stick’ laqa-ka(:)- ‘to get stuck to someone’
(108) a. ayku- ‘to laugh’ ayku-pa(:)- ‘to laugh at’, ‘to smile at’
b. muna- ‘to want’ muna-pa(:)- ‘to desire’, ‘to long for’
(109) a. wila- ‘to warn’ wila-ra(:)- ‘to be in a state of having
been warned’
‘to be in a state of having
announced’
b. rirka- ‘to look’ rirka-ra(:)- ‘to observe’, ‘to watch’
c. hita- ‘to throw’ hita-ra(:)- ‘to lie down’
(110) a. apa- ‘to carry’ apa-ysi- ‘to help someone carry’
b. puri- ‘to walk’ puri-ysi- ‘to accompany’
Two derivational extensions are closely linked with the personal reference system.
The ventive or cislocative suffix -mu- (‘hither’) either denotes a psychological approach
experienced by the speaker, or any motion directed towards the location of the speaker.
In this function -mu- is obligatory to the extent that it cannot be left out without arousing
the suggestion of a motion away from or neutral with regard to the speaker’s location.
In narratives the notion of ‘speaker’s location’ may acquire a derived interpretation, as
it can represent a location which the speaker has in mind, viz. a place focused in the
narrated event, as in (Ayacucho):
(111) apa-mu-y apa-y

carry-H-2S.IM carry-2S.IM
‘Bring it (here)!’ ‘Take it away!’
If -mu- is found in a verb which cannot be interpreted as a verb of motion, the

action is supposed to be carried out at an indicated place and to have consequences for
the speaker. The suggestion may be that of a circular effect which emanates from the
speaker; example (112) is from Tarma Quechua:
(112) čay-č.u:-mi ulxu ga-y-ta yač.a-ka-mu-nxa

that-L-AF man be-IF-AC know-RF-H-3S.F
‘(I will send my son to the Army.) There he will learn how to be a man.’
The benefactive suffix -pu- is used in many Quechua dialects, in combination with
personal reference markers otherwise referring to object, for the purpose of encoding a
beneficiary, as in Ayacucho (113):
(113) čura-pu-sayki
keep-BN-1S.2O.F
‘I shall keep it for you.’
In Cuzco Quechua, -pu- has acquired the additional function of a reversive (back to
original state) or an itive (motion away from the scene). In the latter case, it functions as
the semantic opposite of -mu-.
Aspect systems are more or less well developed in virtually all Quechua dialects. In
Quechua IIC, the progressive aspect marker is reconstructed as *-čka- (possibly from
*-č.ka-). It is still found as such in Ayacucho Quechua, as well as (very seldom) in the
seventeenth-century variety of Quechua used in the manuscript of Huarochirı́ (akin to
Quechua IIB). Modern reflexes of the progressive aspect marker are Cuzco -sya- or -ša-,
Bolivian Quechua -sa- and Santiago del Estero -ška-. The progressive aspect marker
in Quechua I dialects is either -yka(:)- or its reflex -ya(:)-. In Ecuadorian Quechua,
progressive aspect meaning is conveyed by -ku- (also -xu-), originally a marker of the
reflexive category.
More complex aspect systems are found in Quechua I, in particular, in the Huanca
dialects and in northern Junı́n (including Tarma). In these dialects, reflexes of the suffix
*-rqu- (-ru-, -ʔ(lu)-, -:(lu)-) operate as a perfective40 counterpart of the progressive
marker -ya(:)-. Both aspect categories are mutually exclusive and stand in opposition
to the unmarked forms which have a habitual or general truth value. In the dialects
of the province of Tarma, aspect marking is mutually exclusive with negation at the
sentence level. In some northern Quechua I dialects (Huánuco, eastern Ancash) a suffix
-ski- occupies a place in the aspect system comparable to that of *-rqu- in southern
Quechua I.
Directional affixes referring to the semantic categories ‘outward’ (*-rqu-), ‘inward’
(*-yku-), ‘upward’ (*-rku-) and ‘downward’ (*-rpu-) can be reconstructed, at least for
Quechua I, on the basis of such word sets as yarqu- ‘to leave’, yayku- ‘to enter’, yarku-
‘to climb’ and yarpu- ‘to descend’. The suffixes -rku- and -rpu- are still used productively
to express direction in many varieties of Quechua I. The suffixes -r(q)u- and -y(k)u- are
used in most Quechua dialects but have acquired new functions.
The remaining derivational extensions mainly bring about semantic additions to the
verb root, often resulting in lexicalised verb–suffix combinations. Some semantic addi-
tions are straightforward, for instance, that of -(y)kač.a(:)- (QI)/ -(y)kača- (QII), which
conveys the meaning ‘up and down’, ‘back and forth’ or ‘hesitatingly’. But the semantic
40 The use of the perfective aspect in southern Quechua I is reminiscent of the use of perfective
verbs in Slavic languages such as Russian.
additions of other verbal extensions are elusive and difficult to define. The meaning of
-ri- ‘inchoative’ is a case in point. Additionally, some of the suffixes with straightforward
semantic applications have derived meanings, which belong to the pragmatic level and
are often hard to translate.
The order in which the verbal extension suffixes appear when combined is basi-
cally fixed. Some combinations of suffixes, however, are so infrequent that it would
seem rather artificial to speak of fixed-order classes. Certain valency-changing suf-
fixes (particularly, causative -či- and the reflexive and reciprocal markers) tend to dis-
play different order options with corresponding differences in interpretation. In other
cases, the existence of different order options may be of no semantic consequence
(see, for instance, the discussion of Ayacucho Quechua verbal suffix order in Parker
1969a). When the order position of a suffix is fixed, as is the case of pluralisers and
aspect markers in Quechua I, for instance, it need not reflect the logical semantic
build-up of the verb form as such. In what follows, the Tarma Quechua forms (77)–
(79) are expanded with the causative marker -či-. The ordering of the suffixes is quite
unexpected.
(114) wata-či-ba:ku-n
tie-CA-PL-3S
‘They have it tied.’
(115) wata-rga-ya:-či-n
tie-PL-PR-CA-3S
‘They are having it tied.’
(116) wata-ra-:ri-či-n
tie-PF-PL-CA-3S
‘They (eventually) had it tied.’
In the examples (114)–(116) the presence of an aspect marker relocates the pluraliser
to the left of the causative suffix. The exact location of the pluraliser is furthermore
determined by the choice of the aspect marker. It follows the perfective but precedes
the progressive aspect marker, even though the two aspect markers make up a mutually
exclusive set (as we saw before).
An interesting but widely neglected aspect of Quechua morphology is the existence
of several types of root reduplication both in the verbal and in the nominal sphere. In
Tarma Quechua, different types of verbal reduplication refer to simulated action (‘to
act as if’), frustrated intention (‘to try without success’), eagerness (‘cannot wait to
do something’) and resulting condition. Nominal reduplication may denote dispersed
units, distributed qualities, pronoun plurality, ‘every’ and again resulting condition.
An example of nominal reduplication denoting a resulting condition based on the
adjective rakta ‘thick’ is:
(117) rakta-y=rakta-y-ta-m xagu-ra-ya-:

thick-IF=thick-IF-AC-AF clothe-ST-PR-1S
‘I am dressed warmly.’
3.2.7 Characteristics of the Quechua lexicon

Most modern Quechua dialects have assimilated relatively large amounts of borrowed
vocabulary from Spanish. At the same time, however, a comparison with early colonial
texts shows a remarkable continuity in the native lexicon. Most lexical items that were in
use in the sixteenth century are still in use today. The loans have enriched the Quechua
lexicon, rather than substituted obsolete native terms. Only in certain culturally sensitive
domains, such as religion, social and political organisation, and kinship terms, has the
original native lexicon become much reduced.
An interesting peculiarity is the rather limited number of native roots in many do-
mains of Quechua vocabulary. Quechua roots can have a wide spectrum of semantic
applications, leaving the impression of a certain lack of semantic differentiation. This is
counterbalanced by the richness of the derivational morphology, which is available for
the expression of all sorts of semantic distinctions in an ad hoc way. Quechua narrators
have no stylistic prejudice against repetitions of same vocabulary items within a given
discourse. This fact may have slowed down the formation of new vocabulary in the
language.
The area in which the aforementioned scarcity of items is most conspicuous is that of
the verbs. Quechua verb roots are not formally categorised for the distinction transitive–
intransitive. Several verb roots, such as paki- ‘to break’ or tikra- ‘to turn’, can be used
both transitively and intransitively. Disambiguation, if necessary, is left to the derivational
morphology and the syntax.
A typical example of root economy in Quechua is the absence of a basic verb for the
notion ‘to kill’. In order to express this notion, there is no alternative but to use the regular
causative derivation of the verb ‘to die’, wany u-či-. That wany u-či- is still synchronically
a derived base is corroborated by the potential insertion of additional affixes between
the root and the causative marker -či-. Also from a semantic point of view, wany u-či-
preserves its original composite structure. It can be interpreted not only as a causative
‘to kill’, but also as a permissive ‘to let die’. On the other hand, Quechua has several
non-composite roots denoting specific ways of killing, for instance, (Ayacucho) sipi- ‘to
murder’, naka- ‘to butcher’.
A remarkable case of low semantic differentiation is the verb of communication
ny i- (ni- in most contemporary dialects). Although it is usually associated with the
meaning ‘to say’, it covers a wide range of interpretations varying from ways of saying
(‘to answer’, ‘to ask’, ‘to tell’) to ways of thinking (‘to ponder’, ‘to intend’, ‘to consider
as’). The verb ny i- is the only Quechua verb that can and must be accompanied by a direct
quotation, which accordingly can refer either to a spoken message, or to the content of
a thought. Its gerund form (QIIC ni-spa, QI ni-r) regularly marks the end of a direct
quotation, regardless of whether the main verb in the sentence is also ny i- or some other
verb of communication.
The wide range of semantic interpretations covered by ny i- has probably favoured
the introduction (especially with bilingual speakers) of Spanish loan verbs referring to
particular subinterpretations of ny i-, e.g. pinsa- ‘to think’ or kontesta- ‘to answer’.
Although the noun inventory of Quechua is less frugal than the verbal lexicon, it was
not free of conspicuous gaps that may have stimulated the introduction of loan words.
An interesting example is the word for ‘animal’, Spanish animal, one of the earliest
loans from that language into Quechua. Apparently, Quechua speakers lacked a generic
term referring to any animal, but would use enumerations of specific animals, followed
by ima ‘et cetera’, or cover terms referring to all creatures (including men) living in a
particular geographical environment or climatic zone.
In Quechua morphology and syntax, there are mechanisms for the formation of ab-
stract terms, but such terms are not often used. For instance, instead of referring to
‘heroic deeds’ in general, Quechua speakers would rather speak of the fact that a partic-
ular person acted heroically on a particular occasion. Institutional terms were also few
in number. Typical concepts such as ‘war’ or ‘peace’ are hard to translate into Quechua.
Instead of saying ‘a war breaks out’, traditional Quechua speakers would rather say ‘an
enemy has appeared’.
Like many verbs, nouns may also cover an unusually wide range of semantic interpre-
tations. A typical example is the word for ‘town’ (Quechua I marka, Quechua II l y aqta).
It refers to any geographically defined community of people, ranging from a tiny hamlet
to a nation. Originally, the term l y aqta also referred to the sanctuary that secured the
social cohesion of the community. Curiously, Quechua speakers have not felt the need
to borrow Spanish terms in order to narrow down the meaning of marka/l y aqta. A par-
allel case is pača, which can mean ‘world’, ‘earth’, ‘space’, ‘time’, or ‘circumstances’,
depending on the context.
Quechua often makes no formal distinction between a group and its members; the
word ayl y u, for instance, refers to a traditional Andean lineage group but also to anyone
of its individual members. In a modern context this same word is frequently interpreted
either as ‘family’, or as ‘a relative’. Names of places and terms referring to topological
conditions in general are often used to denote people or any other living beings associated
with these places, without the addition of a particular suffix. For instance, the ancient
Colla (qul y a) people had their capital at a town called Hatun Colla (hatun qul y a) ‘Great
Colla’, near modern Juliaca. In Pacaraos the local autonym paqraw is used for the village,
as well as for its inhabitants. In Ayacucho Quechua the term sal y qakuna (plural of sal y qa
‘high altitude zone’) is used to denote all living creatures that have their habitat in that
area.
In contrast to the general tendency of economy, the Quechua lexicon is remarkably
rich in some particular semantic domains, such as verbs referring to forms of carrying
and holding. In Ayacucho Quechua, the verb roots amu- ‘to hold in the mouth’, apta-
‘to hold or carry a handful’, asta- ‘to transport (going back and forth)’, marqa- ‘to carry
in the arms’, mil y qa- ‘to hold on the lap’, ‘to carry in a skirt’, puqtu- ‘to carry with both
hands’, qipi- ‘to carry on the back’ and wantu- ‘to carry among four (as of a litter)’
all refer to ways of carrying or holding, in addition to the general terms for ‘to carry’,
apa-, and ‘to hold’, hapi-. Another richly differentiated area is verbs referring to postures
of the body.
Kinship terminology in Quechua distinguishes gender of owner, rather than gender
of referent. The classic examples are the words for ‘child’, ‘son’ or ‘daughter’. These
words differ according to whether the relationship to the father or the mother is referred
to (čuri for ‘father’s child’; wawa for ‘mother’s child’; only Cuzco Quechua and Ecuado-
rian Quechua have separate terms for ‘father’s daughter’: ususi and uši, respectively). In
the case of siblings, both the gender of the owner and of the referent are differentiated
(Ayacucho Quechua wawqi ‘brother’s brother’, turi ‘sister’s brother’, ny any a ‘sister’s
sister’, pani ‘brother’s sister’). On the other hand, in the terms for ‘father’ and ‘mother’
only the referent is differentiated for gender. The elaborate, traditional kinship termi-
nology of Quechua became reduced as a result of the introduction of Christianity and
European-style family relations. The once socially and ritually important distinctions
between woman’s relatives and man’s relatives have all but disappeared.
The Quechua numeral system is decimal. The basic numerals do not have a trans-
parent etymology. There are two competing terms for ‘four’, which are distributed
geographically; for all the other numerals a single term is available, although the shape
of the term for ‘one’ is subject to variation. The Quechua numerals (in a reconstructed
form) are huk/suk/šuk ‘one’, iškay ‘two’, kimsa ‘three’, tawa (Quechua II) or č.usku
(Quechua I) ‘four’, pičqa ‘five’, suqta ‘six’, qanč.is ‘seven’, pusaq ‘eight’, isqun ‘nine’,
č.unka ‘ten’, pač.ak ‘hundred’ and waranqa ‘thousand’. Unit numbers are added to larger
entities by means of the ending -(ni)yuq ‘having’, as in č.unka iškay-ni-yuq ‘twelve’.
Spatial deictic systems in Quechua either consist of two, or of three terms. The
proximate and non-proximate terms kay ‘this’ and čay ‘that’ (or their reflexes) are found
throughout all dialects. The Quechua IIB dialects lack a third term, ‘that one over there’,
which is present in a variable form in the other dialects (Ayacucho, Tarma wak; Ancash
taqay; Bolivian Quechua haqay, etc.). Pacaraos Quechua is exceptional in having a six-
term system, in which differences of altitude play a role (cf. section 3.2.9). Although
spatial deictics can be used anaphorically, their use in relation to time is limited. For
instance, the proximate spatial deictic kay must be replaced by the root kanan or kunan
(‘now’, ‘present-day’) when temporal reference is in order (Cuzco Quechua kunan
p’unčay ‘this day’, ‘today’). Interrogative pronouns vary according to type of refer-
ent (person, thing, place, time, etc.) even when used attributively (e.g. Tarma Quechua
pi: nuna ‘which person?’, pi: ‘who?’; may marga ‘which town?’, may ‘what place?’; but
ima ‘what?’). Almost all Quechua dialects have complex deictic expressions that fulfil
the function of independent pronouns (e.g. Huanca may-č.u kay-č.u:-pis ‘everywhere’,
literally ‘anywhere and here as well’; Tarma ima ayga ‘all kinds of’, literally ‘what and
how many’). There are interrogative and deictic verbs denoting expressions such as ‘to
do what?, ‘to say what?’, ‘to act thus’.
Quechua has root names for the basic colours ‘black’ yana, ‘white’ yuraq, ‘grey’ uqi,
‘red to brown’ puka and ‘yellow’ qil y u. The words for ‘blue’ (QIIB San Martı́n ankaš;
QIIC Cochabamba ankaš, anqas) and ‘green’ (QIIC Cuzco, Cochabamba q ’umir) have
been replaced by Spanish loan terms in many of the dialects.
Compounds in Quechua resemble hierarchically organised noun phrases in that they
are always head-final. Since such noun phrases may lack internal case marking, it is not
easy to establish criteria applying exclusively to compounds. However, the existence of a
few rare cases of phonetic adjustment and semantic specialisation constitute unequivocal
evidence that Quechua indeed has compounds, e.g. Tarma Quechua xarabač.a ‘naked’
(from xara ‘skin’ and pač.a ‘belly’) and pačamanka ‘earth-oven’ (from pača ‘earth’ and
manka ‘pot’).
Synonyms play an important role in Quechua folk poetry and song texts, due to the
practice of difrasismo, a widespread stylistic device in native American languages. Some
words that are frequently found in poetry have canonical synonym counterparts, as is the
case of kuya- ‘to love’, ‘to pity’. It is frequently resumed by means of its near synonym
wayl y u-, a verb which is seldom used outside that context. However, native synonyms are
scarce due to the general paucity of Quechua vocabulary items. Therefore, already in the
seventeenth century, synonyms were taken from the official Quechua language to match
dialect forms (Itier 1992). In a modern context, Spanish is the language that provides
synonyms when no Quechua items are available, as is illustrated by the following lines of
a song interpreted by the well-known charango41 player Jaime Guardia from Ayacucho.
(The verb diqa- [dex.a], from Spanish dejar, has the same meaning as the native saqi-
‘to leave’, ‘to abandon’.)
(118) kay kuya-q-ni-ki-ta saqi-rpari-spa-yki

kay wayly u-q-ni-ki-ta diqa-rpari-spa-yki
this love-AG-EU-2P-AC leave-LB-SS-2S
‘. . . leaving behind the one here who loves you’ (twice)
41 The charango is a musical instrument resembling a small guitar.

Onomatopoeic roots make up an important part of the Quechua lexicon and contribute
greatly to the richness of expression of the language. Unfortunately, onomatopoeic words
are often not considered as real words, a reason why they are not included in most of
the dictionaries. For instance, in northern Junı́n Quechua (San Pedro de Cajas) we find:
ha:kal=ha:kal-ya- ‘to pant’, parara- ‘the sound of engines’, pirpi-l y a=pirpi-r ‘moving
like an arrow’, puqlulu- ‘the sound of heavy rain’, qič.ič.i- ‘the sound of static electricity’,
quč.uč.a- ‘the sound of gnashing teeth’, qur=qur-ya- ‘to coo (as pigeons do)’, and many,
many more.
3.2.8 A sketch of an Ecuadorian Quechua dialect (Salasaca)

Salasaca is a group of comunidades in the province of Tungurahua, central Ecuador, that
together form a clearly defined ethnic group, the Salasacas. This group is recognised as
separate from neighbouring groups, and is often claimed to be a direct descendant of a
community of Bolivian mitimaes in the popular tradition. However, the dialect spoken
in Salasaca, though characteristic, closely resembles that of neighbouring groups in
Tungurahua and the province of Cotopaxi.
The Quechua dialects of Ecuador are morphologically, syntactically and lexically
quite similar. The main differences lie in a number of morphophonological processes
that have affected the affixes in particular. While a southern dialect such as Cañar is
rather conservative, Salasaca Quechua has undergone most of the processes involved.
We will illustrate different morphosyntactic features of Ecuadorian Quechua, as
well as the phonological characteristics of central dialects such as Salasaca Quechua,
with a presentation and analysis of a folk tale, Miži ačku diablomunda ‘The terrible
devil dog’.
1. ny awba-ga kawsa-ška šux čolo kay sixsiwayku ny an-bi

first-TO live-SD.3S one cholo this Sigsihuaico road-L
‘In earlier days a white man lived on the road to Sigsihuaico.’
2. čolo-ga awatero ga-ška
cholo-TO water.guard be-SD.3S
‘This man was a water guard.’
3. šux ph unža yaku larka th uni-ška-da hapi-rga
one day water ditch cave.in-SN-AC catch-PA.3S
‘One day the irrigation ditch caved in.’
While in sentences 2 and 3 we have verb-final word order, the regular pattern in most
Quechua varieties, sentence 1 shows a different pattern with the verb following the topic.
Case marking is constituent final: locative -bi in sentence 1 and accusative -da in 3. We
notice the use of a -ška tense glossed as ‘sudden discovery’ in sentences 1 and 2, followed
by past-tense -rga in 3. For the third person there is no overt subject agreement in either
past tense, but there is in the present. Appositive nominal expressions such as sixsiwayku
nyan in sentence 1 and yaku larka in sentence 3 are also head-final. Sentence 2 contains
an example of the copula, gain this variety of Quechua (ka- in Peruvian Quechua).
In sentence 3 there is a case of a nominalisation, very frequent in Quechua, with the
resultative nominaliser -ška (homophonous with the tense marker).
4. či-munda ni-ška
that-AB say-SD.3S
‘Therefore he said:’
5. ima-munda larka-ga th uni-gu-n-ža kay sixsiwayku čaka-bi-ga
what-AB ditch-TO cave in-PR-3S-DL this Sigsihuaico bridge-L-TO
‘“Why is the ditch at the Sigsihuaico bridge caving in?”’
We notice in sentence 5 that question words tend to be fronted, and that ele-
ments marked with topic -ga can occur both at the beginning and at the end of the
utterance.
6. čay žužu tuta čapa-ki-ga, ačku-ga rumi siki-bi siri-gu-ška ni-n

that tender night watch-DS-TO, dog-TO stone bottom-L lie-PR-SD.3S
say-3S
‘That evening while he was keeping watch, there was a dog lying asleep
at the bottom of a stone, they say.’
7. yaku-ga th uni-ša gulun munda-ška
water-TO cave.in-SS boink heap.up-SD.3S
‘Pouring in, the water came down with a bang.’
In sentence 6 we have the different subject adverbial subordination marker -ki

(< *-kpi, Peruvian Quechua -pti), and in 7 the same subject marker -ša (<*-špa).
In sentence 6 furthermore, we notice the progressive marker -gu- (< *-ku-, Southern
Peruvian Quechua -čka-).
8. či-munda čolo-ga ni-ška

that-AB cholo-TO say-SD.3S
‘Then the man said:’
9. kay ačku-ga šux miži-ku-ma-čari
this dog-TO one terror-DI-EM-DU
‘“This dog must be a devil.”’
10. awatero-ga upaža-wa kuču-ya-ška
water.guard-TO quietly-DI near-TF-SD.3S
‘The guard came closer quietly.’
We notice an emphatic marker -ma in sentence 9, possibly from -mi+ari, and a

diminutive -wa in 10, probably from wawa ‘child’. The ablative -munda is often attached
to demonstratives that function as narrative sequencers, throughout the story.
11. či-munda-ga sumirru-da žuxši-či-ška

that-AB-TO hat-AC leave-CA-SD.3S
‘Then he took off his hat.’
12. šux rosariyo-da kunga-munda žuxši-či-ška ačku-mun čura-či-nga-bux
one rosary-AC neck-AB leave-CA-SD.3S dog-to put-CA-FN-B
‘He took a rosary from his neck to put in on the dog.’
13. ačku-ku-ga hatari-ška
dog-DI-TO get.up-SD.3S
‘The dog jumped up.’
14. či-munda-ga čolo-da kati-ša puri-ška-ža-mi
that-AB-TO cholo-AC follow-SS walk-SD.3S-DL-AF
‘Then he just walked following the man.’
Very widespread is the same subject purposive -nga-bux in sentence 12; its different
subjects pendant is -čun.
15. kayi-ndix tuta ačku-ga sweny o-bi šita-ška čolo-mun

next.day-IN night dog-TO dream-L throw-SD.3S cholo-AL
‘The next night the dog appeared to the man in a dream.’
16. ny uka kunga-munda kay rosariyo-da žuxši-či-ba-y
I neck-AB this rosary-AC leave-CA-CS-IM.2S
‘“Please take this rosary off my neck.’
17. mašna kučki-da ni-ngi
how.much silver-AC say/want-2S
‘How much money do you want?’
In sentence 16 we notice that possession in Ecuadorian Quechua is not marked with

person markers on the possessed noun, but with a preposed pronoun, marked genitive for
all persons but the first. The suffix -ba, possibly derived from Peruvian Quechua -pu-wa
‘benefactive + first-person object’, is used to soften imperatives and to mark deference.
Sentence 17 shows the use of the verb ni- ‘say’ in the meaning of ‘want’, which derives
from its use in a verbal periphrastic construction (‘I say I’ll eat’ becomes ‘I want to eat’;
cf. Muysken 1977).
18. baul kučki-da ni-ki-biš ku-ša-ža-mi

trunk silver-AC say-DS-AD give-F.1S-DL-AF
‘Even if you want a trunk of silver, I’ll give it to you.’
19. uku hunda-da ni-ki-biš mašna-da ni-ki-biš ny uka-ga ku-ša-ža-mi

room full-AC say-DS-AD how.much-AC say-DS-AD I-TO
give-F.1S-DL-AF
‘Even if you want a room full, whatever you want, I’ll give you.”’
20. ačku-ga sweny o-bi šina-mi ni-ška
dog-TO dream-L thus-AF say-SD.3S
‘The dog said in the dream.’
The use of the verb ku- ‘give’ in sentences 18 and 19 without object marking ex-
emplifies the much reduced object marking in this variety of Quechua, either com-
pletely gone or reduced to the first-person object marker -wa. As in many Quechua
varieties, the combination of additive -biš (Peruvian Quechua -pas/-pis) and the ad-
verbial subordinator yields an indefinite or even concessive interpretation (‘even
though’). We see in sentence 19 that question words double as indefinite quantifiers.
In sentence 19 the adjective (presumably) hunda ‘full’ follows the noun uku ‘room’
(as it does in English, for that matter), but in general attributive adjectives precede
nouns.
21. utun maki ga-ša-mi mana pudi-ška rosariyo-da žuxši-či-nga-bux

stump hand be-SS-AF not can-SD.3S rosary-AC leave-CA-FN-B
‘Being stump-handed he could not take the rosary off.’
22. kayi-ndix ph unža awatero-ga ačku-da riku-ša ni-ška
next.day-IN day water.guard-TO dog-AC see-SS say-SD.3S
‘The next day the water guard, upon seeing the dog, said:’
23. ačku, ima-ša ny uka-da sweny o-či-ngi
dog what-SS I-AC dream-CA-2S
‘“Dog, with what in mind do you make me dream?”’
Sentence 21 contains an example of the innovative modal + infinitive combinations

in Ecuadorian Quechua, with -nga-bux used on the complement. While grammar books
describe Quechua as having both a negative adverb mana ‘not’ and a concomitant neg-
ative particle -ču on the verb, the latter is absent in sentence 21. In sentence 23 we
see the ease with which nouns, in this case a Spanish borrowing, are incorporated into
causative verbs with causative -či-. Notice finally the verbal use of the question word ima
‘what’.
24. bweno rosariyo-da žuxši-či-ša pero ny uka-mun kučki-da ku-ngi

good rosary-AC leave-CA-F.1S but I-to silver-AC give-F.2S
‘“Good, I will take off the rosary but you will give me money.”’
25. šina ni-ki-ga ačku-ga čay tuta-ža-dix kučki-da pay-bux wasi-bi

čura-ška
thus say-DS-TO dog-TO that night-DL-EM silver-AC he-G house-L
place-SD.3S
‘When the man had said this, the dog put the money in his house that
very night.’
26. kayi-ndix ph unža kučki-da riku-ša awatero-ga rosariyo-da
žuxši-či-ška
next.day-IN day silver-AC see-SS water.guard-TO rosary-AC
leave-CA-SD.3S
‘The next day the water guard, after seeing the money, took off the
rosary.’
In sentences 24–26 we see, as before, the very characteristic alternation of same subject
-ša/different subject -ki marking to indicate the perspective in the story, forever shifting
between the two protagonists. In sentence 24 we see two examples of the only category
of Spanish borrowings which is at all frequent, next to single nouns: bweno ‘good’ and
pero ‘but’, which serve as discourse markers. In sentence 25 there is an example of the
genitive marker -bux (Peruvian Quechua -pa), which has emerged through syncretism
with the benefactive (Peruvian Quechua -paq).
27. či kh ipa ačku-ga akapana tuku-ška

that after dog-TO whirlwind become-SD.3S
‘After that the dog became a whirlwind.’
28. gulun-ža ruru-ša kutupagzi-mun ri-ška
bang-DL make-SS Cotopaxi-AL go-SD.3S
‘With a bang it went to Cotopaxi.’
29. čašna-mi awatero riku tuku-ška
thus-AF water.guard rich become-SD.3S
‘Thus the water guard became rich.’
30. yaku larka-ga na kutin th uni-rga-ču
water ditch-TO not again cave.in-PA.3S-NE
‘And the water channel did not cave in again.’
In sentence 27 there is a postposition, kh ipa ‘after’. Location-specifying postpositions,

such as rumi siki-bi ‘at the bottom of the stone’ in sentence 6, are particularly frequent
in Quechua.
This story is typical of many similar tales, juxtaposing Christianity with paganism
(Cotopaxi is one of the sacred mountains, but had been transformed into a gate of hell
in the colonial period) and untamed nature with (agri)culture, and containing the motif
of a poor man making good.
Above we have limited ourselves to grammatical features. The text also exemplifies
many of the phonological characteristics of Salasaca Quechua. These include:
a. voicing of stops after vowels and sonorants across morpheme boundaries,
hence:
papa-ta > papa-da ‘potato-AC’
pantiyon-pi > pantiyon-bi ‘cemetery-L’
Notice that only affixes are affected productively by this rule, and even among the
affixes we have reciprocal -nuku (< *-naku), not *-nugu or *-nagu (though -nau in
fairly close-by Tena lowland Quechua), next to -rga (<*-rka) ‘past’, -nga (<*-nka)
‘infinitive’, etc.
b. raising of /a/ to [i] or [u]:
-man > -mun
-manta > -munda
-pak > -pux
-rak > -rix
-paš > -piš
-tak > -tix
This rule is obligatory in affixes, but applies optionally in affixed lexemes as well:
kayi-ndix (<*kaya-ntik) ‘next’ and ruru-ša (<*rura-špa) ‘making’.
c. optional, though very frequent, deletion of the final stop of the affix in
word-final position:
pay-pak > pay-bu ‘her/his’, ‘for her/him’
may-man > may-mu ‘where to’.
d. consonant cluster simplification in some affixes, yielding -kpi > -ki ‘dif-
ferent subject adverbial subordinator’, and -špa > -ša ‘same subject
adverbial coordinator’.
e. vowel cluster simplification, yielding miža-y > miži ‘terror’ and tuku-y >
tuki ‘all’, as well as wičay > iči ‘above’ and wira > ira ‘fat’.
f. the palatal ž is pronounced as a palatal affricate before voiceless stops,
yielding kužki > kučki and ažku > ačku.
3.2.9 A sketch of a Peruvian Quechua dialect (Pacaraos)

Pacaraos Quechua is spoken in the village of Pacaraos, a district capital situated near
the upper reaches of the Chancay river at an altitude of more than 3,000 metres (for
further details see Adelaar 1982, 1986a). The Chancay river waters the Pacific slopes of
the Andes. The district of Pacaraos, which comprises several more villages, is part of
the province of Huaral, belonging to the department of Lima.
Pacaraos lies on the border of a Quechua-speaking area (on the cordillera side) and a
Hispanicised area (the lower Chancay valley). The dialect known as Pacaraos Quechua
may be restricted to the village of Pacaraos itself, although not all communities in the
area have been checked for the existence of Quechua speakers and dialect affiliation. It
is not unlikely that the Pacaraos dialect speech community originally extended further
down the Chancay valley, possibly as far as the coast.
In the late 1970s most speakers of Pacaraos Quechua were women in their sixties
or older. The dialect may be moribund at the time of writing (1999), although some
villagers, in particular youngsters raised by their grandmothers, are likely to conserve a
passive knowledge of it.
Pacaraos Quechua holds an intermediate position between Quechua I and Quechua II,
but the grammatical similarity with the neighbouring Quechua I dialects is an obvious
fact. Apart from some unique grammatical features to be discussed below, it is the
lexicon of Pacaraos Quechua that holds a number of surprises. Some vocabulary items
(e.g. kunan ‘now’) appear to be typically Quechua IIC; others are reminiscent of Aymaran
(e.g. ačara ‘old’, uni- ‘to hate’, wilka ‘sun’), or are unique for Pacaraos (e.g. arapu- ‘to
answer’, čaqpa ‘clothes’, rapqa- ‘both’). The six-term deictic system, in which altitude
differences are encoded, has already been mentioned in section 3.2.7.
Phonologically, Pacaraos Quechua presents the particularity of a phonemic stress
distinction involving a choice between final and penultimate syllables. Final stress is a
characteristic of the first-person marker -y, as in tarpúy ‘I sow’, and of a number of other
suffixes that are subject to elision when in word-final position. Like Quechua I, Pacaraos
Quechua distinguishes between long and short vowels.
The uvular consonant q is always a fricative in Pacaraos. It is voiceless when ad-
jacent to a voiceless consonant and word-finally. Elsewhere, it is mainly voiced. A
unique feature of Pacaraos Quechua is the occurrence in native words of a vibrant op-
position (trill vs. tap) in prevocalic position, e.g. rraqak ‘girl’ versus rapqa-n ‘both
of them’. The trilled rr sounds very much like the equivalent sound in Castilian
Spanish.
In what follows, some characteristics of the Pacaraos dialect will be exemplified and
discussed by means of a fragment of a myth concerning a drought and subsequent famine.
These events are said to have occurred in pre-Christian times as a result of excessive
heat due to the simultaneous appearance of two suns. The story was told to the author
in 1979 by the late Mrs Lorena Córdova.
1. amru:na-qa . . . mana-š miku-y ka-rqa-s-a: say wata say wilka

yarka-rqa-mu-pti-n
famine-TO . . . not-HS eat-IF be.there-PA.3S-NE-EM that year that sun
rise-PF-H-DS-3S
‘Famine . . . there was nothing to eat that year, when those two suns
arose.’
Among the lexical elements to be mentioned in particular, wilka ‘sun’ (see above) is
not found in any other Quechua dialect; amru:na is from Spanish hambruna ‘famine’.
The non-proximate deictic say (< *čay) shows the effect of a regular change *č>
s, which Pacaraos shares with a number of QI dialects on the Pacific side of the
Andes.
The verb yarku- ‘rise’, ‘climb’ contains a petrified derivational suffix -rku- ‘upwards’.
Internal verbal suffixes that end in a rounded back vowel u change this vowel to a
before a small class of other internal verbal suffixes including the ventive -mu- ‘hither’,
as in the example given. The intervening suffix -rqu- ‘perfective aspect’ is affected
as well.
Unique for Pacaraos is the shape of the independent suffix -s-, which in combination
with the adverb mana marks a negative sentence. This suffix appears in its full shape
-su (< *-ču) when the phonological context requires it, that is, when it is not preceded
by a short vowel or followed by -a: (see below). When the allomorph -s occurs in word-
final position, the vowel preceding it is stressed. Since penultimate stress is the rule in
Pacaraos Quechua, the existence of a short form -s must be interpreted as the result of
the elision of a final vowel (u). This elision is optional, although the use of the short
form is preferred. The element -a: indicates emphasis and is frequently used in Pacaraos
Quechua.
The reportative independent suffix indicates a second-hand data source and appears in
its long form -ši when not preceded by a short vowel or followed by -a:. The alternation
-š/-ši is reconstructible for Proto-Quechua and bears no relationship to the alternation
described in the preceding paragraph. When the short allomorph -š occurs in word-final
position, the preceding vowel is not stressed.
Other affixes found in sentence 1 are the independent suffix -qa, which may delineate
a non-comment phrase, the infinitive marker -y, the past-tense marker -rqa-, the switch-
reference marker -pti- ‘different subject’ and the third-person subject marker -n. As
in several other dialects, the third-person subject marker is zero after the past-tense
marker -rqa-.
2. saki-rqa-š imá-p ayká-p hač.á-p imá-p wa:ká-p

dry-PA.3S-HS what-AD how.much-AD plant-AD what-AD cow-AD
‘Everything dried out, the plants, etc., and the cows as well.’
Sentence 2 contains several instances of the additive suffix -pa ‘even’, ‘too’. This
suffix has a short form -p, which is the product of elision, and the distribution of the
two forms is parallel to that of the allomorphs of -su (see above). Ima-p(a) ayka-p(a)
is a composite pronominal expression meaning ‘all kinds of’, ‘everything’; the second
instance of ima closes an enumeration and has the meaning of ‘et cetera’. Wa:ka is a
borrowing from Spanish (vaca).
3. wany u-ku-rqa-š animal-kuna

die-RF-PA.3S-HS animal-PL
‘The animals died.’
The use of the reflexive suffix -ku- can be explained in that the animals died for no
reason, without any social benefit to their owners. The suffix -kuna indicates nominal
plurality.
4. sawrá-q yanqa kay-naw učučaq wamra-kuná-p miku-y-piq-ši

wany u-rqu-n
then-TO in.vain this-CP little child-PL-AD eat-IF-AB-HS die-PF-3S
‘Then, in this way, even the little children died in vain for lack of food.’
The expression sawrá-q(a) is probably a contraction of *say ura-qa (ura ‘hour’,

‘time’, from Spanish hora ‘hour’). The independent suffix -qa (non-comment phrase
marker) exhibits the same phonological variation as -pa and -su. The proximate deictic
kay followed by the comparative case marker -naw ‘like’ behaves like an adverb here
(‘in this way’). The ablative case marker -piq or -piqta is used in an expression with
the infinitive of miku- ‘to eat’, mikuypiqta ‘without eating’, ‘for lack of food’ (literally,
‘away from eating’).
5. sawrá-q kay-kuna puny u-rka:č.a:-raq-su

then-TO this-PL sleep-PL.PR-PA.3S-IR
‘So were they asleep?’
When used without either one of the negative markers mana (in statements) and ama
(in exhortations), the independent suffix -su indicates a polar question. The verbal suffix
-rka:č.a:- is a portmanteau morpheme combining the function of a progressive aspect
(marker -yka:-) and a plural (marker -rka:-). As in most Quechua I dialects, a low vowel
located at the end of an internal verbal affix is automatically long in most open syllables.
The ending -raq is an alternative for -rqa (past tense + third-person subject).
6. keba: sin miku-y-piq kay-kuna puny u-ka-nqa

how without eat-IF-AB this-PL sleep-NC-3S.F
‘How do you expect them to fall asleep without eating?’
The expression keba: (from Spanish ¿qué va?), here without a question marker, is fol-
lowed by a future-tense form. It introduces a rhetorical question. The derivational suffix
-ka:- in puny ukanqa indicates non-controlled action, puny u-ka:- and puny u- relating to
each other more or less like ‘to fall asleep’ and ‘to sleep’ in English. The suffix -ka:-
appears here as -ka- because of its checked position within a closed syllable. The prepo-
sition sin ‘without’, a borrowing from Spanish, may have a disambiguating function,
favouring the interpretation ‘without eating’ for mikuypiq.
7. mana-m puny u-ka-n-su miku-y-piqtá-q

not-AF sleep-NC-3S-NE eat-IF-AB-TO
‘They did not fall asleep because they were hungry.’
The negative adverb mana is followed by the assertive independent suffix -mi/-m. The
distribution of its allomorphs is the same as that of the reportative -ši/-š (see above). The
suffix -qa (-´q) is required in a non-comment phrase located after the verb.
8. sawrá-q mana-š puny u-ka-rqu-ny aq-su wamra-kuná-q

then-TO not-HS sleep-NC-PF-SD.3S-NE child-PL-TO
‘So it turned out that they had not fallen asleep, the children.’
The portmanteau ending -ny aq marks the sudden-discovery tense and a third-person
subject. It is preceded by the perfective aspect marker -rqu-, which indicates immed-
iateness or, in this case, the (lack of) result of a previous development.
9. “may-č.aw-raq kanala ka-yka-n” ny i-n-ši

where-L-AN corn.toaster be-PR-3S say-3S-HS
‘“Where could the corn toaster be?” they would say.’
Interrogative expressions such as mayč.aw ‘where?’ (may ‘what place?’, -č.aw ‘locative
case’) can be followed by the independent suffix -raq ‘still’ for the purpose of indicating
that an answer is not likely to be obtained. The element -yka- represents the progressive
aspect marker -yka:- in a checked position. With the verb ka- ‘to be (there)’, progressive
aspect indicates a temporary position.
10. “kuy-č.aw ka-yka-n” ny a say-naw-pa-š wamra rima-rqu-rqa

that.over.there-L be-PR-3S already that-CP-G-HS child speak-PF-PA.3S
‘“It is over there”, a child had said.’
The deictic kuy indicates location at a distance within sight of the speaker and the
hearer. It stands in opposition to kay ‘this (near speaker)’ and say ‘that (near hearer or
anaphoric)’. The three far distant deictics are č.aqay ‘lower level’, č.uqay ‘same level’
and naqay ‘higher level’.
The form saynaw ‘such’ exemplifies a special type of use of the comparative case
marker -naw ‘like’. Whereas it normally functions as a deictic adjective, saynaw is
adverbialised by means of the genitive case marker -pa. The verb rimarqurqa illustrates
a combination of perfective aspect and past tense.
11. say o:ra-š mama-n wany u-si-raq miku-na-m-paq

that time-HS mother-3P die-CA-PA.3S eat-FN-3S-B
‘At that moment, its mother killed it in order to eat it.’
The borrowed term o:ra (also ura, cf. above, from Spanish hora ‘hour’) is used for
time in general. Time expressions need not take a case marker. The form maman contains
a third-person possessive marker -n; number of possessor is not indicated in Pacaraos
Quechua. The derivational suffix -si- (< *-či-) marks a causative construction. The
combination of -na ‘future nominaliser’ and -paq ‘benefactive case’ indicates a goal;
-m is a phonologically conditioned allomorph of the third-person subject marker -n.
12. payla-wan-ši yanu-raq say wamrá-k

cooking.pan-IS-HS cook-PA.3S that child-AC
‘She cooked that child in a large cooking-pan.’
The instrument is indicated by means of the case marker -wan. The accusative marker
-kta indicates a direct object. Word-finally, it appears in its form -k, preceded by a short
stressed vowel. The distribution of -kta and -k is similar to that of the allomorphs of the
suffixes -pa, -qa and -su (see above). Additionally, the accusative case marker has an
allomorph -ta after consonants or long vowels.
The example sentences to be treated below constitute a necessary supplement to the
above text fragment in that they contain references to the speech participants.
13. ly amá-y ka-pti-n kanta-q ka-y, kunan mana-m kanta-y-su

llama-1P be.there-DS-3S sing-HB be-1S, now not-AF sing-1S-NE
‘When I had llamas, I used to sing. Now I don’t sing any more.’
The suffix -y, preceded by a stressed vowel when in word-final position, refers to the
speaker. It may either indicate a first-person possessor, or a first-person subject. The
combination of an agentive nominalisation (suffix -q) and the verb ka- ‘to be’ indicates
a past habitual.
14. ny uqá-q huk-la-m-a: rima-mu-rqá-y, pi:=pi-ktá-p ny uqá-q rimá-y,

I-TO one-DL-AF-EM speak-H-PA-1S who=who-AC-AD I-TO speak-1S
“may-piqta-m ka-nki, ima-m huti-ki” lapa-n-ta-m-a: ny uqá-q
tapu-kú-y
what.place-AB-AF be-2S, what-AF name-2P all-3P-AC-AF-EM I-TO
ask-RF-1S
‘I spoke to you at once. I speak to everybody. I always ask everyone:
“Where are you from? What is your name?”’
The verb rimamurqáy ‘I spoke to you’ is an example of the unique way in which
Pacaraos Quechua expresses the combination of a first-person subject and a second-
person object. Except in the future-tense paradigm, this combination is indicated by
means of what is otherwise the ventive suffix -mu- and the first-person subject marker -ý
(if possible, with previous stress). The combined subject–object markers consist of
two parts that can be separated by other suffixes, in this case, by the past-tense
marker -rqa.
The suffix -la in hukla ‘at once’ normally refers to limitation (‘just’, ‘only’); huk is
a numeral ‘one’. Second-person markers are -nki (for subject) and -yki (for possessor);
the latter appears in a shorter form -ki after roots in i, such as huti ‘name’.
The reflexive suffix -ku- has a derived meaning ‘always’, ‘characteristically’ in tapukúy
‘I always ask’.
The root lapa- ‘all’ is compulsorily followed by a possessive personal reference
marker, in this case, the third-person marker -n. In neutral WH-questions, interroga-
tive pronouns or phrases are closed by the assertive validator -mi/-m. The combination
of the additive independent suffix -pa (-´p) following an interrogative root such as pi
‘who’ (pi: when not directly followed by a suffix) results in an indefinite pronoun ‘who-
ever’. The reduplication of pi(:) indicates that several people are addressed on separate
occasions.
15. qayan rrahu-kta-č.-a: puri-ri-rqa-yki, ny awi-kı́-k surumpi-šu.nki

yesterday snow-AC-DU-EM walk-PL-PA-2S, eye-2P-AC give.snow.
blindness-3S.2O
‘Yesterday you (plural) must have walked through the snow; your
eyes were snow-blind.’
The combination -šu- . . . -nki indicates a second-person object with a third-person

subject, the verb surumpi- having an impersonal subject. The derivational suffix -ri-
indicates plurality in verbs not marked for aspect. The second-person subject marker
-yki is used in the past-tense paradigm of the verbs. The independent suffix -č.i/-č. indicates
conjecture; the distribution of the two allomorphs is the same as in the case of -mi/-m
and -ši/-š.
16. altu-č.aw ka-yka-nqa-y-kama-m intrega-rqa-ma:-ny aq mamá-y,

high.parts-L be.there-PR-N-1S-LI-AF hand.over-PA-1O-SD.3S
mother-1P,
wa:ka-piq ša-mu-rqá-y kasara-q
cow-AB come-H-PA-1S marry-AG
‘While I was up in the mountains, my mother had given me away. I came
straight from the cows to get married.’
The combination of a first-person object and a third-person subject is illustrated in

intregarqama:ny aq. First-person object is indicated by -ma:- (for the long vowel see
above). The sudden discovery ending -ny aq implies a third-person subject, unless it is
accompanied by a conjugated form of the auxiliary verb ka- ‘to be’.
The word altu (from the Spanish adjective alto ‘high’) has come to mean ‘highlands’,
‘high mountains’ in Pacaraos Quechua. The nominalising suffix -nqa- combines with
progressive aspect and the case marker -kama ‘until’, ‘each’ in order to indicate simul-
taneousness of a dependent clause and a main clause (‘while’). The ablative marker -piq
is to be translated as ‘from’.
The verb šamu- ‘to come’ obligatorily contains the ventive suffix -mu- ‘hither’. In
Pacaraos Quechua, the defective root ša- and its ventive supplement can be separated by
other suffixes. The agentive nominalisation in -q can be used as a complement of motion
verbs, as is the case in sentence 16.
The following two sentences illustrate some more characteristic features of Pacaraos
Quechua. Sentence 17 contains the suffix -V:naq (-ni:naq after consonants) for ‘without’.
(There is also a verbal ending -V:ni ‘without . . . ing’.) The agentive form kariq is used for
a habitual past ‘they used to be’. The absence of an auxiliary verb implies a third-person
subject.
17. č.ina-:naq-la-m kay-č.aw ka-ri-q

female.animal-without-DL-AF this.place-L be.there-PL-HB
‘They (the rams) used to be here without ewes.’
In sentence 18 -sun (< *-čun) indicates a third-person imperative. The deictic č.aqay
involves reference to altitude level.
18. č.aqay-č.aw say wamra-kuna pukla-ri-sun

distant.lower.place-L that child-PL play-PL-3S.IM
‘Let those children play down over there!’
3.2.10 A Cuzco Quechua text fragment

The following text fragment is taken from the autobiographical history in Quechua
of Gregorio Condori Mamani (1977: 59). The recorded autobiographies of Gregorio
and his wife Asunta were translated and annotated by Carmen Escalante and Ricardo
Valderrama. For an English version see Gelles and Martı́nez (1996). The sample text
is part of a story that was told to Gregorio in prison by a fellow-inmate from Ccamara
(qamara). As the narrator explains, the people from Ccamara had a reputation for daring
exploits and cock-and-bull stories.
1. maskh a-ša-spa-tax.-si tari-ru-n hux hunt’a mut’i manka-ta hux.-ta-tax.

čičarron-ni-yux.-ta.
search-PR-SS-SQ-HS find-U-3S one full mote pot-AC one-AC-SQ
chicharrón-EU-OS-AC
‘While searching, he reportedly found a pot full of cooked corn and one
with pork meat.’
The words hux and hux. ‘one’, ‘other’ are equivalent in Cuzco Quechua. The Spanish
word chicharrón refers to over-roasted diced pork meat, which is considered a delicacy.
The word mut’i (Spanish mote) refers to cooked grains of corn. The function of the
suffix -ru- (∼ -rqu-) has been described for Cuzco Quechua as indicating a sudden event,
completion of an event, or an action performed with a sense of urgency (Cusihuamán
1976a). It can be combined with the progressive aspect marker -ša-. Therefore, it cannot
be interpreted as a (perfective) aspect marker, as is the case in Pacaraos and southern
Quechua I, where -r(q)u- and the progressive aspect marker are mutually exclusive. The
form hux.tatax. is used elliptically for hux. mankatatax.. The independent suffix -tax. marks
a sequence of sentences (‘and . . .’), often with the implication of a contrast (‘on the one
hand . . . , on the other . . .’). In the latter case, the use of -tax. favours elliptic constructions
as exemplified here.
2. mikh u-y-ta-tax.-si qaly a.yu-n.

eat-IF-AC-EM-HS begin-3S
‘And he began to eat.’
The verb qal y ayu- ‘to begin’ obligatorily contains the suffix -yu- (∼ -yku-), which
originally referred to inward motion. Other dialects have reflexes of qal y ari-, but qal y a-
never occurs by itself.
3. peru as-ta-wan-si čičarron-ta muna-n.

but a.little-AC-IS-HS chicharrón-AC want-3S
‘But he wanted more pork meat.’
The conjunction peru ‘but’ is from Spanish pero. The combination aswan (literally
‘with a little’) has the meaning of ‘more’. In the role of the object, here in apposition
with čičarronta, an accusative case marker -ta is inserted before -wan in accordance
with the regular affix order found in other contexts.
4. manka-kuna maskh a-ša-sqa-m-pi-tax.-si tari-ru-n manka-kuna-ta

čičarron hunt’a-ta.
pot-PL search-PR-SN-3S-L-SQ-HS find-U-3S pot-PL-AC chicharrón
full-AC
‘And while he was searching for (more) pots, he found (other) pots full of
pork chops.’
The combination of progressive aspect (-ša-), a stative nominaliser (-sqa) and the
locative case marker -pi is used to indicate simultaneousness (‘while . . .’). The form -m-
is the regular allomorph of the third-person marker -n before a labial consonant. The word
mankakuna lacks an accusative case marker, because it is the object of a nominalised
verb. The word hunt’a ‘full’ normally follows the product a container is filled with.
5. pero runa-x. ninri-n-manta-s čičarron-qa ka-sqa.

but people-G ear-3P-AB-HS chicharrón-TO be-SD.3S
‘But those pork chops turned out to be people’s ears.’
The word for ‘ear’ rinri is frequently found as ninri in Cuzco Quechua.
6. mut’i manka-kuna-tax.-si runa kiru-n ka-sqa.

mote pot-PL-SQ-HS people tooth-3P be-SD.3S
‘And the pots with cooked corn turned out to be people’s teeth.’
Note the absence of a genitive marker in runa kirun (instead of runax. kirun). The
final -n cannot be interpreted as an affirmative validator (-mi/-n), because the sentence
already contains the hearsay marker -si.
7. qamara mikh u-sqa-n manka-kuna-ta ñawi-pas salta-x.-rax.

qh awa-ša-x.ti-n-si, karu-manta-rax. uya.ri-ru-n korneta hina ly aki
qapa.ri-ka-mu-y-ta.
Ccamara eat-SN-3S pot-PL-AC eye-AD jump-AG-AN look-PR-
DS-3S-HS far-AB-AN hear-U-3S cornet like lament
shout-RF-H-IF-AC
‘As the (man from) Ccamara was looking at the pots he had been eating
from, with his eyes jumping out of their sockets, he heard sorrowful
cries like (the sound of) a cornet approaching from afar.’
The nominalised verb mikh usqan functions as a locative-based relative clause (‘from
which he had been eating’). The sentence contains several instances of the independent
suffix -rax. ‘still’, ‘first’, here glossed as ‘anticompletive’ (AN). It indicates an obstacle
to be taken before an event referred to in the context can take place: ñawipas saltax.rax.
‘although his eyes would come out first (before he was able to do so)’, karumantarax.
‘although the sound was coming from quite a distance (still to be bridged)’. The phrase
ñawipas saltax.rax. is not connected morphologically to the rest of the sentence. Such a
construction, reminiscent of a Latin ablativus absolutus (but without case marking), is
found in several Quechua dialects. The phrase l y aki qaparikamuy (literally ‘approaching
shouts of lamentation’) mirrors a compound. The reflexive suffix -ku- is lowered to -ka-
before the ventive suffix -mu-. For the structure of qapari- and uyari-, see the comments
on qal y ayu- in sentence 2; the element -ri- is otherwise interpreted as an inceptive. The
word hina ‘as’, ‘like’, ‘so’ functions as a postposition in this sentence.
8. pasa.x. qapa.ri-ka-mu-y wasi serka-pi-ny a ka-ša-x.ti-n-tax.-si,
qamara p’ita-spa wasi-x. moxineti-n-man taparaku hina
t’ipa-ru-ku-n.
everywhere shout-RF-H-IF house neighbourhood-L-CM be-PR-DS-
3S-SQ-HS Ccamara jump-SS house-G roof.beam-3P-AL moth like
cling-U-RF-3S
‘And when the approaching shouts were already everywhere near the
house, the (man from) Ccamara jumped into a roof-beam and clung
to it like a moth.’
The word pasax. ‘everywhere’, ‘always’, ‘too much’ is derived from the Spanish verb
pasar ‘to pass’. The ending -x. can be identified as the agentive nominaliser. The Quechua
word serka, from Spanish cerca ‘near’, has the meaning of a substantive (‘neighbour-
hood’), as has Quechua karu ‘distant place’, ‘distance’ (rather than just ‘far’).
9. hina-man-tax.-si waqa-yu-spa hayku-mu-n hux runa asufri-man

asna-ša-x., haqay nirax. čh aču th anta čaki maki-n-tax. hunt’a
yawar-ča-sqa ly aga-manta.
so-AL-SQ-HS cry-IT-SS enter-H-3S one man sulphur-AL smell-PR-AG
that resembling ragged ragged foot hand-3P-SQ full blood-FA-SN
wound-AB
‘And there a man came in, crying intensely, smelling of sulphur, ragged
in an awful way, his feet and hands covered in blood from wounds.’
The expression hinaman, literally ‘into like’, refers to motion into a situation (‘in
those circumstances’, ‘at that moment’, ‘there’). The suffix -yu- (∼ -yku-) indicates
intensity, one of its uses according to Cusihuaman (1976a), derived from its original
function as a marker of inward motion (cf. the comments on sentence 2). The phrase
asufriman asnašax. is a relative clause which contains a nominalised verb and follows
the antecedent. Note that the complement in ‘to smell of (something)’ is indicated by
means of the allative case (-man). The phrase haqay nirax., literally ‘resembling (nirax.)
that remote one (haqay)’, is an expression of exaggeration or high degree. The words
čh aču and th anta both have the same meaning ‘in rags’. The phrase čaki maki ‘feet and
hands’ behaves like a single noun. The words asufri and l y aga are borrowings from
Spanish (azufre, llaga).
10. kondenadu-tax.-si ka-sqa.

condenado- SQ-HS be-SD.3S
‘He turned out to be a damned soul.’
The notion of condenado refers to the souls of unburied deceased people, who roam
about terrorising the living. This is a frequent theme of the Andean oral tradition.
11. ly aki=ly aki-yu-ku-spa-tax.-si hux ratu-ča-ly a čičarron-ta

mikh u-ra-pu-n.
lament=lament-IT-RF-SS-SQ-HS one moment-DI-DL chicharrón-AC
eat-U-RS-3S
‘Lamenting continuously, he devoured the roasted pork meat in a
moment.’
The reduplication in l y aki=l y akiku- indicates an event which is particularly intense

and continuous as compared to the simple form l y akiku- ‘to be sad’, ‘to lament’. The
reflexive suffix -ku- is part of the verb form and cannot be omitted. The intensive suffix
-yu- is inserted in the verb form in order to preserve the preferred affix order -y(k)u-ku-.
Adverbial expressions are often followed by the suffix -l y a ‘just’, ‘only’. The verbal
suffix -pu- indicates either the presence of a beneficiary, or restitution to an original
state. The sequence -ra-pu-, consisting of the urgency suffix -r(q)u-, here lowered to -ra-
before -pu-, can be used to indicate violent seizure for the subject’s own benefit.
12. kiru mut’i-ta-pas hawas hank’a-ta hina t’ux.a-či-spa-rax.-si

mikh u-ru-ly a-n-tax..
tooth mote-AC-AD bean toasted.food-AC like burst-CA-SS-AN-HS
eat-U-DL-3S-SQ
‘And he also ate the tooth corn, making it burst like toasted beans.’
The word hawas ‘beans’ represents an early borrowing of Spanish habas. The old
Spanish aspiration (now lost) is preserved in the borrowed form. Types of food prepara-
tion are often expressed by means of compound-like sequences of substantives in which
the head noun specifies the sort of preparation whereas the modifier indicates the prod-
uct that has been cooked (literally, ‘bean toast’, rather than ‘toasted beans’). The verb
t’ux.a- (< *t’uqya-) ‘to burst’, ‘to explode’ refers to the characteristic sound of toasted
beans.
13. ny a manka-ta ly ax.wa-ša-x.ti-n-ny a-s muskh i-ru-n:

already pot-AC lick-PR-DS-3S-CM-HS smell-U-3S
‘When he was already licking the pots, he at once smelled something.’
In Southern Peruvian Quechua II the adverb ny a ‘already’ is obligatorily accompanied

by the homophonous independent suffix -ny a (here glossed as ‘completive’). Note the
use of the different-subject subordination marker -x.ti- in a sentence where only one
subject is involved. It may be either a mistake, or a sign that the distinction is no longer
actively used by the narrator.
14. “ima-tax. čay-ri asna-n madeha henti-man?”

what-SQ that-TO.IR smell-3S string people-AL
‘“What is it that smells of a string of people here?”’
The suffix -tax. follows WH-phrases when used interrogatively. The independent suffix
-ri indicates the topic in an interrogation. A Spanish expression madeja de gente ‘string
of people’ appears as madeha hente; its deeper sense remains unexplained. Gelles and
Martı́nez (1996: 66) translate it as ‘human hair’.
3.2.11 Literary production in Quechua

In pre-Spanish times Quechua was not a written language. Chroniclers of Inca history
and other early colonial accounts emphasise the absence of an indigenous writing system.
Knotted threads, called quipus (Quechua kh ipu), were used as a mnemotechnic device for
economic and administrative purposes. To this effect, the Incas maintained specialised
officials, the quipucamayoc (Quechua kh ipukamayuq). Entrusted with the keeping of
the quipus, the quipucamayoc relied on their memory in order to supply the additional
information the quipus could not convey. Contemporary witnesses praise the high per-
fection of quipu writing, which remained in use for local administration well into the
colonial period. However, hard evidence that the quipus could represent real language of
any form is lacking, in spite of claims to the contrary by some colonial authors.42 A set
of heraldic symbols, which were depicted on Inca tunics known as unku, have also been
interpreted as samples of an indigenous writing system. But again, there is no reliable
evidence that these symbols were related to language in any direct way.
Whatever literary production the Incas had was transmitted orally. Samples of such
literature are found in the work of Cristóbal de Molina (1574) and Guaman Poma de Ayala
(1615). Inca literary production has been the object of ill-fated attempts to categorise
it in terms of European literary genres, as a means to enhance the prestige of Andean
culture within an indigenista perspective. Most likely, the literary production of Inca
society mainly comprised myths and folk songs, as is still the case today in traditional
Andean society. Theatre performances, accompanied by chorals, have survived in a
traditional context. Best known is the cycle describing the death of Atahuallpa, the Inca
ruler executed by the Spaniards (Lara 1957; Meneses Morales 1987; Husson 2001).
Such performances, although heavily transformed, may have pre-Spanish roots.
42 The discussion about an alleged literary use of the quipus was revived after the discovery in
Italy of a manuscript attributed to Blas Valera, a dissident Jesuit and defender of the Indians
(Animato, Rossi and Miccinelli 1989). The authenticity of this manuscript remains disputed.
For a language of such importance as Quechua, surprisingly little text material has
survived from the colonial epoch. Without any doubt, the longest and most interesting
text belonging to that period is the Huarochirı́ manuscript (Taylor and Acosta 1987;
Salomon and Urioste 1991). This document was written before 1608 by local literate
Indians on behalf of the idolatry fighter (extirpador de idolatrı́as) Francisco de Avila,
who used it as an instrument for the eradication of native cults. De Avila was parish priest
in San Damián de Checas in the province of Huarochirı́, in the mountainous interior of
what is today the department of Lima. The Huarochirı́ manuscript contains an overview
of local mythology and interethnic relations, descriptions of rituals and celebrations, as
well as penetrating accounts of the interaction between Christian and native beliefs.
Theatre plays in Quechua became popular in Cuzco towards the end of the seventeenth
century. The themes treated were mostly religious (autos sacramentales, among other
work) and of European inspiration. Although the language was Quechua, the theatri-
cal form (metre, division into acts) was obviously Spanish. Best known among these
theatre plays is the Ollanta(y); for a recent edition see Calvo Pérez (1998a). It treats a
romanticised theme of Inca history, the love between Ollantay, an Inca general of humble
descent, and the Inca princess Cusi Coyllur. Indigenista intellectuals and admirers of the
Inca past have long claimed a pre-Columbian origin for the Ollantay. Obviously, such a
claim can only be upheld for the story underlying the play, not for the play itself. For a
detailed account of the colonial Quechua theatre tradition see Mannheim (1991).
After the Quechua language was banned from public use as a reaction to the Tupac
Amaru rebellion of the 1780s, Quechua literary production all but came to a standstill.
For a renewed interest in Quechua literature, we must await local indigenista movements
that came into existence in the early twentieth century. These movements were mostly
headed by mestizos, not by traditional Indians. Among those authors who wrote poetry
in Quechua as an expression of individual experience, we may mention the Cuzco
landowner Alencastre, also known under the pseudonym Kilku Warak’a, and Jorge Lira,
a Cuzco parish priest. In Ecuador, the landowners Luis Cordero and Juan León Mera
wrote Quechua poetry around the turn of the century. The Bolivian scholar Jesús Lara
published several anthologies of Quechua literature of all genres (see, in particular, Lara
1969). For a choice of theatre plays in Quechua dating from the early twentieth century,
authored by Nemesio Zúñiga Cazorla, see Itier (1995).
The bulk of twentieth-century Quechua literature, however, is traditional. It consists of
myths, traditional narratives, autobiographical accounts, songs and riddles. Some of these
texts represent blends of Andean traditions and elements imported from Europe. The last
three decades of the twentieth century have witnessed a huge production of anthologies
and compilations of traditional text in different Quechua dialects. To mention just a few
of them, the autobiography of Gregorio Condori Mamani (1977), an illiterate peasant
from Acopia (Cuzco), was taken down in writing by two anthropologists, Escalante and
Valderrama (cf. section 3.2.10). It is a story of endless suffering and great endurance,
mixed with optimism, which contains much unique cultural and anthropological informa-
tion. Among other valuable text material recorded by the aforementioned anthropologists
is a remarkably authentic account of the violent lives of cattle-hustlers from Cotabambas,
Apurimac (Escalante and Valderrama 1992). Howard-Malverde (1981) contains an ex-
tensive collection of myths and stories from Cañar (Ecuador). Weber (1987a) presents a
compilation of the popular Juan del Oso (John of the Bear) stories in different dialects.
Songs, in particular the highly popular huaynos, constitute an element of daily life in
the Andes. Song texts are modified and adapted according to changing circumstances
in the social and political environment. One of the largest anthologies of Quechua song
texts is La sangre de los cerros (urqukunapa yawarnin), compiled by Montoya et al.
(1987).
Few authors have attempted to write contemporary literary texts in Quechua. Even the
bilingual Peruvian author José Marı́a Arguedas (1911–69) wrote his novels in Spanish
and only some poems in Quechua.
3.2.12 Social factors influencing the future of Quechua

If seen as a unity, Quechua is the most widely spoken Amerindian language today. No
wonder that the issue of its future captures the attention of linguists, language planners
and educators both within the Andean region and elsewhere. In spite of the low social
status of Quechua, many inhabitants of Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru are aware of its
native, non-European origin, as opposed to Spanish, once the language of a foreign
colonising power and now of a foreign-oriented ruling class. In 1975, as a result of
a growing demand for a renewed recognition of national and indigenous values, the
Peruvian military government of Juan Velasco Alvarado issued a decree which put
Quechua on an equal level with Spanish, as the second national language. It was to
remain a symbolic act. The implementation of the decree was largely ineffective, but
it helped to enhance the prestige of Quechua in the eyes of its users. It also generated
a great deal of discussion on how to secure the future of Quechua and its many local
varieties.
Ever since, the situation in Peru has been marked by a tension between planners
and educators favouring the maintenance and standardisation of the local dialects, on
one side, and those looking for a solution in the sphere of linguistic unification, on
the other. As experts in the Quechua dialect situation (e.g. Torero 1974) observed
that many of the Peruvian varieties were mutually unintelligible, the Peruvian gov-
ernment decided to select six regional standards, Ancash, Ayacucho, Cajamarca, Cuzco,
Huanca and Lamas/San Martı́n, for which documentation projects were commissioned
(cf. section 3.2.4). This choice was rather artificial in the sense that much dialect diver-
sity existed within the domain of each of the regional standards, in particular Ancash,
Cajamarca, Cuzco and Huanca.43 Understandably, the regional standards never became
popular, unless they already enjoyed such a status before (Ayacucho, Cuzco).
Rather than government policy, initiatives in the context of international development
cooperation have been relatively successful in supporting and propagating the Quechua
linguistic heritage during the 1980s and 1990s, in particular, the Proyecto Experimental
de Educación Bilingüe (Experimental Project for Bilingual Education) with its two bases
in Puno and in Quito and, more recently, PROEIB Andes (Programme for Bilingual
Intercultural Education for the Andean Countries) in Cochabamba.
In Bolivia and in Ecuador, where the dialect differences are less outspoken, the devel-
opment of a local Quechua standard may have better prospects than in Peru. In Ecuador
broadcasting programmes in Quechua and a strong native identity feeling, coupled with
a relatively high degree of organisation, have stimulated linguistic unification. For his-
torical reasons standardisation programmes in Ecuador have been independent from
those carried out in Peru and Bolivia. As a result, orthographic usage in Ecuador for a
long time remained different from that in the other two Andean countries. For instance,
whereas the Quechua velar stop was officially written k in Peru and Bolivia, Ecuadorians
followed the Spanish habit of writing qu before the vowels i and e, but c elsewhere.44
The bilabial continuant, traditionally rendered by means of the combination hu, was
written w in Peru and Bolivia, but not in Ecuador, where it continued to be written hu.
Only since 1998 has the Ecuadorian spelling coincided with the Peruvian and Bolivian
practice (Howard MS).
The issue of how to incorporate conflicting interpretations of the vowel system into
a standard Quechua orthography has been the object of heated debate during the 1980s
and 90s, the central point of contention being whether mid vowels in the environment of
a uvular should be written i, u, or e, o, respectively. An argument frequently advanced
in favour of writing five vowels (a, e, i, o, u) phonetically is that the allophonic vowel
lowering is not entirely predictable; in Cuzco Quechua, for instance, sinqa ‘nose’ is
normally pronounced with a mid vowel [sεŋqa], whereas the pronunciation in purinqa
‘he will walk’ varies due to the presence of a morpheme boundary separating the root
from the ending [purŋqa ∼ purεŋqa]. Furthermore, in several present-day Quechua
dialects there are non-borrowed items that have acquired a mid vowel in a non-uvular
43 The Junı́n–Huanca standard described in Cerrón-Palomino (1976a, b) presents a synthetic vision

of the Huanca dialects spoken in the Mantaro river valley. Its name suggests that it is also valid for
the Quechua spoken in the northern part of the department of Junı́n (including the provinces of
Junı́n, Tarma and Yauli), which differs considerably from the rather innovative Huanca dialects.
As a result, northern Junı́n is not effectively covered by any of the six regional standards.
44 The Huánuco Quechua dictionary of Weber et al. (1998), who use c and qu for the velar stop,
constitutes an exception. Weber (personal communication 2000) notes a strong resistance against
the introduction of k for the velar stop at grassroots level in Peru.
environment (e.g. Ayacucho Quechua opa ‘dumb’; Santiago del Estero Quechua sera-
‘to sew’).
In spite of all efforts and good intentions, the development of the Quechua language
in Peru (and to a lesser extent in Bolivia and Ecuador) is far from hopeful. Throughout
most of the twentieth century the number of Quechua speakers in Peru remained stable
in absolute terms, whereas the national population was growing explosively. At the
same time, large parts of the country have undergone a language shift from Quechua to
Spanish, mainly along generation lines. The Quechua speakers’ wish for social mobility
for their children is often heard as an argument for not transmitting the language to
the next generation. Bilingualism, seen as an ideal by many language planners, often
proved to be a relatively short station between Quechua monolingualism and Spanish
monolingualism.
Most affected by this process of massive language shift were the Quechua I dialects
of the Central Andes of Peru. If in 1940 the percentage of Quechua speakers in the
highland sector of the department of Junı́n was still calculated at 75 per cent of the total
population (Rowe 1947), it had fallen to less than 10 per cent in 1993 (Pozzi-Escot 1998:
258). Many varieties of great historical interest, such as (most of) the Huanca dialects
and the dialects of Cerro de Pasco and Tarma, are nearing extinction. Quechua speakers
can still be found among the older generation, but there is little, if any transmission to
the young. At the final stage of the language’s existence most speakers tend to be women
of the eldest generation.
Chirinos Rivera (2001) reports on the distribution of languages in Peru at the distrito
(municipality) level on the basis of data borrowed from the 1993 census. It appears that
even in some of the most Hispanicised areas there are conservative communities which
retain a full use of the Quechua language. Examples are the district of Checras in the
province of Huaura (department of Lima) and the area of Andamarca, Santo Domingo de
Acobamba and Pariahuanca, east of Huancayo and Concepción (department of Junı́n).
In the 1980s and early 1990s, political instability and economic insecurity brought
profound changes to the Peruvian countryside. As a result, entire communities migrated
to urban areas, the Lima agglomeration in particular, as well as other coastal cities. The
department of Ayacucho became the epicentre of violence during this period and lost
25 per cent of its population, mostly through migration. These events were followed by
a process of back-migration between 1995 and 2000 with possible disruptive effects on
the language situation (Chirinos Rivera 2001: 74). Long considered to be a stronghold
of Quechua conservatism, rural Ayacucho and Huancavelica are also feeling the effect
of language shift to Spanish. From the linguistic perspective, the fate of the Quechua-
speaking masses now inhabiting the suburbs and shantytowns of Lima is not known,
but the neighbourhood of centres of Hispanicisation, such as Lima, has never been
favourable for the maintenance of Quechua (cf. von Gleich 1998). As observed quite
adequately by Cerrón-Palomino (1989b: 27), ‘Quechua (and Aymara) speakers seem

to have taken the project of assimilation begun by the dominating classes and made it
their own.’
3.3 The Aymaran language family

The languages of the Aymaran family (Aymara, Jaqaru and Cauqui) have been studied
somewhat less intensively than those of the Quechuan family with its countless geo-
graphic varieties. However, Aymara itself had the good fortune of being the object of
study of the Italian Jesuit Ludovico Bertonio, one of the most gifted grammarians of
the colonial period. Bertonio wrote two grammars (1603a, b) and a dictionary (1612a),
which are still highly relevant today. Another grammatical description from the colonial
period is Torres Rubio (1616).
In contrast to the name Quechua, there is no likely lexical etymology so far for the
name Aymara (also Aimara or Aymará). The term was almost certainly derived from an
ethnonym, the name of a native group occupying the southern part of the present-day
department of Apurimac (now Quechua-speaking). The name of the province of
Aymaraes (capital Chalhuanca), one of the administrative subdivisions of the depart-
ment of Apurimac, reminds us of this historical background.
It is not clear how the name Aymaraes came to be applied to speakers of the Aymara
language in general, but in 1567 it was an established practice, as can be deduced from
Garci Diez de San Miguel’s report of his inspection (visita) of the province of Chucuito
(Espinoza Soriano 1964: 14). Garci Diez describes the Aymara of Chucuito, southwest
of Lake Titicaca, as well-to-do cattle-raisers, who were relatively numerous. They shared
the area with the Uro, who were characterised as poor and dependent on fishery.45 Two
other professional groups, the silversmiths and potters, remain undefined ethnically. For
more discussion of the history of the denomination Aymara see Cerrón-Palomino (2000:
27–41).
Just as Quechua is also known as runa simi (cf. section 3.2), the Aymara language is
sometimes referred to as jaqi46 aru ‘language of man’. This denomination is not to be
confounded with that of its smaller relative the Jaqaru language, although, of course,
the two terms share a common etymology.
45 It is tempting to identify the Uros of the historical sources as Uru–Chipaya speakers (cf.
section 3.6). However, modern evidence shows that an Uro way of life depending on fishery and
lake products does not necessarily coincide with a separate ethnic background and linguistic
affiliation. Some typical ‘Uros’, such as the ones inhabiting the islands of the Bay of Puno, are
in fact Aymara speakers. For a detailed treatment of the problem see Wachtel (1978).
46 In the practical orthography developed for the Aymara language the velar fricative or glottal
spirant is represented as j, whereas the uvular fricative is written x (Martin 1988: 25–8, 33). One
should be reminded that Aymara j is the same sound as Quechua h.
B R A Z I L
Canta
RU
JAQA I
CAUQU
Lima P E R U
Tupe
Cachuy Ayacucho
Cuzco
CANCHIS
Chalhuanca CANAS
Nazca Conima
COLLAGUAS Puno
Compi
Arequipa
Chucuito
La Paz B O L I V I A
A Y Juli UCHUMATAQU
Carumas M A R
Moquegua Sitajara
A (Iru-Itu) Cochabamba
Tarata CARANGAS
Tacna Oruro San Pedro
Jopoqueri de Buenavista
Guallatire Morocomarca
CHIPAYA Potosí
Aymaran languages: AYMARA,
CAUQUI, JAQARU
C H
Salinas de Garci
UAY
Mendoza
Uru-Chipaya languages: CHIPAYA,
UCHUMATAQU (Iru-Itu)
AG
I L
Areas where a former presence of
R
Aymaran languages is attested by
PA
E
substratum, toponymy or historical

records
ARGENTINA
Map 6 Distribution of Aymaran and Uru–Chipaya languages
A modern basis for the study of both Aymara and Jaqaru was laid by Hardman and her
team of linguists of the University of Florida. Hardman’s grammatical study of Jaqaru
(1966, 1983a) was followed by a collective work on Aymara (Hardman, Vásquez and
Yapita 1974, 1988). Additional work includes Ebbing (1965) and Porterie-Gutiérrez
(1988). For Aymara as well, several language courses (e.g. Herrero, Cotari and Mejı́a
1978; Yapita 1991) and dictionaries have appeared. Examples of the latter are Büttner
and Condori (1984) for Peruvian Aymara; and Cotari, Mejı́a and Carrasco (1978), as well
as de Lucca (1987) for Bolivian Aymara. The only Jaqaru dictionary so far is Belleza
Castro (1995). The parallel structures of the Quechuan and Aymaran languages are
discussed in Cerrón-Palomino (1994a). Recent important publications which appeared
after the completion of this section are Cerrón-Palomino (2000) on the Aymaran family
as a whole and Hardman (2000) on Jaqaru.
3.3.1 Past and present distribution

Some aspects of the distribution of the Aymaran languages have been discussed in
section 3.1. Here we present additional, more specific information.
The original expansion of the Aymaran languages appears to have been comparable
in importance to that of the Quechuan languages, with the difference that it remained
limited to the central and southern parts of the former Inca empire. In northern Peru
and in Ecuador traces of Aymaran presence are sporadic at best. Notwithstanding the
fact that some local groups in Ecuador trace their ancestry back to Aymara-speaking
migrants (mitimaes) brought by the Incas, no substantial influence of Aymara has been
found in their present-day language. The use of čupika, an Aymara term for ‘red’, in the
Cajamarca dialect of Quechua is one of the very few documented cases of presumed
Aymara influence in northern Peru.47
Apart from the three Aymaran languages that survive today, other Aymaran languages,
or possibly dialects of those mentioned before, were spoken in several localities of the
department of Lima until the present century (Canta, Huantán, Miraflores). The lexicon
of the Quechuan dialect of Pacaraos (province of Huaral, Lima; cf. section 3.2.9) is
strongly influenced by an Aymaran language. The Quechua dialect presumably spoken
in the Lima region, which was described by Santo Tomás in 1560, also contained lexical
items unequivocally derived from an Aymaran language, e.g. hondoma ‘hot bath’, from
Aymara hunt’(u) uma48 ‘hot water’, ‘a hot drink’ (cf. Torero 1996). Aymaran toponymy is
found in the area of Lima, and also in the Mantaro valley region (department of Junı́n),
inhabited by the ethnic group known as the Huanca. The manuscript of Huarochirı́
(cf. sections 3.1, 3.2.11) contains several direct references to Aymaran-speaking groups
in the highland interior of Lima.
As we have seen before, evidence of the existence of Aymaran-speaking groups
throughout the south of Peru can be found in the Relaciones geográficas de Indias of the
sixteenth century (Jiménez de la Espada 1965). In these Relaciones a few words belong-
ing to the local hahuasimi languages are mentioned (cf. section 3.1). They clearly betray
an Aymaran origin, e.g. cabra ‘llama’ (Aymara and Jaqaru qawra ∼ qarwa); asqui ‘good’
(Aymara aski); cf. Torero (1970), Mannheim (1991). Guaman Poma (1615) specifically
refers to some Aymara-speaking areas, such as the highlands surrounding Pampachiri in
the province of Andahuaylas, and parts of the Huanca region. He, furthermore, provides
a number of Aymaran song texts, which have been analysed by Albó and Layme (1993;
forthcoming) and by Ferrell (1996). The latter author shows that Guaman Poma’s Aymara
47 One of the arguments advanced by Middendorf (1891b) in favour of the former presence of
Aymara in northern Peru is the frequent use of place names containing the element wari (as in
Huari, a town and province in Ancash). Wari means ‘vicuña’ in Aymara. However, wari was also
the name of the central deity in a religious cult situated in the central and northern highlands
of Peru. A relationship with Panoan wari or bari ‘sun’ has been suggested (Torero 1993b:
224).
48 The shape of this expression suggests contact with Aymara itself, not with one of the Aymaran
languages spoken in the province of Yauyos. These have hunč.’u, rather than hunt’u for
‘hot’.
was a separate linguistic variety, not to be confounded with any of the languages spoken
today. He calls it Aimara ayacuchano (‘Ayacucho Aymara’), considering that Guaman
Poma was a native of the Lucanas region in the south of the department of Ayacucho
(Ferrell 1996: 415).49
It is not certain to what extent Aymaran languages (or even Aymara) were dominant
in all of southern Peru, but their presence in at least some areas is hardly a matter of
discussion. One such area was the region of Collaguas (see section 3.1). Aymara to-
ponymy can also be found elsewhere in the Arequipa region, for instance, in the name
of some of Arequipa’s townships, e.g. Umacollo (uma quly u) ‘water-hill’, or of neigh-
bouring mountains, e.g. Chachani (čačani) ‘mountain of man (or male)’, Anuccarahui
(anuqarawi) ‘dog’s meeting place’. Toponyms of unmistakable Aymara origin can also
be found in the area of Cuzco, in particular, to the southeast of that city in the provinces
of Canas and Canchis, e.g. Tungasuca (tunka suka) ‘ten furrows’, Checacupi (č’iqa kupi)
‘left and right’, Vilcanota (wily ka-n(a) uta) ‘house at/of the sun’.
Aymara substratum is strongly present in the lexicon and the morphology of Quechua
dialects spoken in the departments of Puno and Arequipa. The Aymara influence is very
specific and includes the use of verbal derivational suffixes with their respective vowel-
suppression rules, albeit in an attenuated form (cf. Adelaar 1987; Chirinos and Maque
1996). This influence can only be explained by assuming a relatively recent language
shift from Aymara to Quechua after extensive bilingualism. It cannot be attributed to
borrowing alone.
An intertwined situation of Quechuan- and Aymaran-speaking groups can be recon-
structed for large areas of central and southern Peru, mostly areas where today only
Quechua survives (cf. Mannheim 1991). Close contact between Quechua and Aymara
speakers in situations where the use of either language has become linked to a partic-
ular social division or economic activity has been found in the Bolivian department
of La Paz north of Lake Titicaca. In these situations of language overlapping, either
Quechua may hold a higher prestige than Aymara, or the other way round; see Harris
(1974), cited in Briggs (1993: 4). Recent findings, e.g. near San Pedro de Buenavista,
province of Charcas, Potosı́, suggest that not all Aymara-speaking communities sur-
rounded by Quechua speakers have been identified so far (cf. Howard-Malverde 1995).
A meticulous account of the distribution of Aymara and Quechua speakers in Bolivia
in the 1990s (including detailed maps) can be found in Albó (1995). The maps which
are provided distinguish between areas where Aymara has been predominant tradition-
ally, areas of colonisation, areas where Aymara is giving way to either Quechua or
Spanish, etc.
49 Ferrell considers Ayacucho Aymara to be a manifestation of an alleged, more comprehensive

Cuzco Aymara. The reason for this classification remains unclear.
3.3.2 Homeland and expansion

The more than usual intensity of past language contact, as attested by Aymaran and
Quechuan, indicates that the proto-languages of both groups were spoken either in
contiguous areas, or in the same area in a situation of geographic intertwining (cf.
section 3.1). Since the homeland of the Quechuan languages has been assigned to the
coast and sierra of central Peru, the Aymaran homeland could not have been located too
far from it. And, as the Aymaran expansion, subsequently, went south, not north, it made
sense to look for an Aymaran homeland immediately to the south of that of Quechua.
Following this line of reasoning, Torero (1970) tentatively assigned Proto-Aymaran to
the coastal civilisation of Nazca and the interior Andean region of Ayacucho. At the same
time, he allowed for some overlapping in the province of Yauyos (department of Lima),
where archaic varieties of Aymaran and Quechuan have co-existed until the present day.
The geographic configuration delineated above is not incompatible with the alternative
hypothesis of an original Aymaran homeland further north, in the heart of central Peru
itself. This scenario would imply a partial displacement of the Proto-Aymaran population
by Quechuan speakers somewhere at the beginning of the present era. It is favoured by
the large number of Aymaran place names and borrowings in central Peru and the
intense contact that we must assume to have existed between the two language groups.
The subsequent expansion of Aymaran-speaking peoples, which may have taken place
between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, could have occurred either on their own
initiative, or under the pressure of Quechua-speaking people coming from the north.
The situation of dominance which the Aymara held in the Bolivian highlands until
1600 has already been mentioned. A comparison of the colonial evidence (Bouysse-
Cassagne 1975) with the present-day distribution of the Andean languages clearly shows
that Aymara must have become superseded by Quechua in large parts of the southern and
eastern highlands of Bolivia during the last four centuries. A similar process took place
in many parts of southern Peru. On their way south the Aymaran languages occupied the
place of other, previously present languages. For instance, in the central-eastern part of
the department of Moquegua (province of Mariscal Nieto, around the communities of
Carumas, Calacoa and Cuchumbaya) and in some areas north of Lake Titicaca Aymara
replaced local varieties of Puquina. However, since the beginning of the colonial period,
no further expansion of importance has been reported. Probably as a result of their
more homogeneous background, the present-day Aymara have developed a strongly
articulated ethnic identity, in contrast with most of the Quechua-speaking peoples that
surround them. The latter largely originated from different ethnic groups that became
Quechuanised.
At the arrival of the Spaniards, most of the Aymara were organised in chieftaincies,
some of which had succeeded in retaining a certain autonomy in spite of their subju-
gation by the Incas (cf. Tschopik 1946). Of particular historical importance was the
kingdom of the Lupaca, centred around the town of Chucuito, southwest of Lake
Titicaca. It is relatively well known thanks to Garci Diez de San Miguel’s report of 1567
(see section 3.3.1), which contains valuable data about the organisation of an Aymara
chieftaincy and its colonies in the coastal region. Shortly after the arrival in 1568 of the
first Jesuits in Peru, a mission of that Order was established at Juli in the Lupaca area.
Through the work of Bertonio, among others, the Lupaca dialect of Aymara became
representative of the language as a whole.
3.3.3 Internal variation in the Aymaran language family

As we have seen in section 3.1, the northern and southern branches of the Aymaran
linguistic family are separated by a considerable geographical distance. This separation
is not only geographical, it is also a matter of demography. The demographic factor makes
the comparison between the Aymara language, on one hand, and its two small northern
relatives Jaqaru and Cauqui, on the other, a rather unbalanced one. As the incipient
dialectological studies progress, new differentiating elements may emerge within the
Aymara domain itself. So far, a moderate amount of internal variation in terms of dialects
has been detected (Briggs 1993).
Jaqaru and Cauqui are characterised by unusually rich obstruent inventories, which
are identical for both varieties. The Aymara obstruent inventory, although relatively
complex, is less elaborate. All three languages distinguish between plain, aspirated and
glottalised obstruents. But, whereas Aymara has five different articulations (bilabial,
alveolar, velar and uvular stops; palatal affricates), Jaqaru and Cauqui have eight (the
abovementioned five; alveopalatal stops; alveolar and retroflex affricates). Furthermore,
Jaqaru and Cauqui have two sibilants (alveolar and palatal), whereas Aymara has only
one (alveolar). The status of the additional obstruent series in Jaqaru and in Cauqui,
either as cases of conservatism or as innovations, has been a topic of debate. As it stands
now, only the retroflex affricate series seems to bear out its conservative nature. The
velar nasal has phonemic status in Jaqaru, in Cauqui, and in a very limited number of
Aymara dialects (see below).
Most observations concur in suggesting that Jaqaru and Cauqui are mutually intelli-
gible to a great extent, and that the extent of the lexical, morphological and phonological
differences existing between them is limited (see section 3.1). Nevertheless, the distinct
nature of the two varieties is highlighted by Hardman (1975, 1978). She points, among
other things, at an innovative process of vowel harmonisation in suffixes that sets Jaqaru
apart from both Cauqui and Aymara. It is illustrated by object-marked verb forms such
as Jaqaru irp-k-utu ‘he takes me along’, in contrast with Cauqui irp-k-itu50 and Aymara
50 The use of an ongoing event marker -k- is required for present tense in the central Peruvian
members of the Aymaran family.
irp-itu (Hardman 1975: 440). Another example of this vowel harmony can be found
in the Jaqaru verbal nominalisation affix -nušu, e.g. in irp-nušu ‘to take along’, which
corresponds to Cauqui irp-nišu.
In her dictionary of the Jaqaru language, Belleza Castro (1995: 55–6) observes that the
alveolar affricate series of Jaqaru is regularly matched by the retroflex series in Cauqui,
e.g. Jaqaru haca-, Cauqui hač.a- ‘to cry’ (cf. Aymara hača-); Jaqaru c’a:ka, Cauqui
č.’a:ka ‘bone’ (cf. Aymara č’aka, č’ak h a). It does not mean, however, that the alveolar
affricate series is entirely absent from Cauqui (e.g. Jaqaru, Cauqui ac’iki ‘cold’). A
lexical feature of Cauqui is the use of a deictic pronoun uwa ‘that’, where both Aymara
and Jaqaru have uka (Belleza Castro 1995: 185). Unfortunately, only incidental data
are available for Cauqui. A substantial vocabulary and a grammatical overview of the
language would be needed in order to appreciate the correspondences. As long as this
condition is not met, any reconstruction of Proto-Aymaran will remain tentative.
Present-day dialectal variation in the Aymara language area has been studied in a
comprehensive manner by Briggs (1976, 1993); for a critical assessment of her work
see Cerrón-Palomino (1995a). In-depth studies of individual Aymara dialects are scarce,
except for the variety spoken in and around the Bolivian governmental residence city
La Paz. The Aymara of the department of La Paz in Bolivia lies at the basis of the most
authoritative and comprehensive studies of that language, such as Hardman et al. (1974,
1988), Herrero et al. (1978) and Yapita (1991). Porterie-Gutiérrez (1988) deals with
Peruvian varieties (that of Chucuito, in particular), and some work has been published
on the Chilean variety (Clair-Vassiliadis 1976; Poblete and Salas 1997; Salas and Poblete
1997). Dictionaries tend to combine lexical items from different localities, although the
selection is usually limited by national boundaries.
Briggs’s work contains a wealth of data concerning variation in the Aymara language
at all grammatical levels. On the basis of her findings, she proposes two classifications
of the geographic varieties of Aymara (Briggs 1993: 388–98). The first classification
distinguishes between northern Aymara (roughly coinciding with the varieties of the de-
partment of Puno in Peru and La Paz in Bolivia), southern Aymara (in the departments of
Oruro and Potosı́, Bolivia, and in northern Chile), and an intermediate group consisting
of the dialects spoken in the Peruvian departments of Moquegua and Tacna on the south-
western Pacific slopes. These dialects are said to have characteristics in common with
both the northern and the southern group, there being particularly important similarities
between the dialect spoken in the interior of Tacna (Tarata) and that of the Carangas area
in western Oruro (Briggs 1993: 401). The second classification proposed establishes a
contrast between a central (supposedly innovative) dialect group in the area surrounding
the city of La Paz and a peripheral dialect group comprising all the outlying areas.
Many cases of variation registered by Briggs seem to concern individual lexical items
and morphemes, rather than to reflect regular changes. Some cases, however, do indicate
systematic developments, such as the voicing of plain stops after nasals and laterals in
Salinas de Garci Mendoza in southern Oruro, for instance, in tunga ‘ten’ (< tunka),
ambara ‘hand’ (< ampara), and qal y -da- ‘to begin’ (< qal y -ta-); cf. Cerrón-Palomino
(1995a: 122).
As has been anticipated, there is one case of dialect variation that, in particular,
deserves the attention of historical comparative linguists, that is, the development of a
velar nasal in non-automatic environments.51 At least three Aymara dialect areas, Tarata
(in Tacna, Peru), Carangas (in Oruro, Bolivia) and the Aymara-speaking part of northern
Chile have preserved a first-person possessive and a first-person future subject ending
in -ŋ a, e.g. uta-ŋ a ‘my house’, sar-x.a-ŋ a ‘I shall go (home)’. They share this feature
with Jaqaru and Cauqui, where the same suffix is used. Both in Tarata Aymara and in
Jaqaru the sound ŋ is also found intervocalically in a small number of lexical items (e.g.
Tarata aŋ anu ‘face’, ‘cheek’; Jaqaru iŋ aca ‘servant’). In spite of the limited phonotactic
possibilities of the distinctive velar nasal – it only occurs between vowels, of which the
second one may or may not be suppressed – there seems to be no reason not to reconstruct
it for Proto-Aymaran.52
Already in the Lupaca variety described by Bertonio (1603a, b) most velar nasals had
been replaced by a velar fricative h. Other dialects eliminated the velar nasal with its
low phonemic load in different ways. The first-person possessive and first-person future
endings *-ŋ a were replaced by elements such as -ha, -x.a, -ny a and/or vowel length, and
exhibit considerable dialectal variation at this time.
Aspirated and glottalised obstruents are widely used in the Aymaran languages. Both
categories are held to represent features inherited from the proto-language. However,
although the presence of aspiration or glottalisation is stable in many lexical items and
affixes, it can be variable in others. Examples are the first-person non-future subject
marker -t h a and its homophone, the ablative case marker -t h a. These suffixes have lost
their aspiration in La Paz Aymara, whereas it has been retained in most other Aymara
dialects and in Jaqaru. The loss of aspiration brought about a formal coincidence of these
elements with the second-person non-future subject marker -ta and the nominaliser -ta,
but is, at the same time, responsible for the different morphophonemic behaviour of
51 An automatic environment would be the position before k within a root (e.g. in tunka ‘ten’),
where the nasal is velar by assimilation.
52 Cerrón-Palomino (1994a: 111; 1995a: 114–17) observes that the velar nasal sound is followed by
a velar fricative in several Aymara dialects (e.g. aŋ hanu ‘face’ in Guallatire, northern Chile; and a
first-person future marker -ŋ ha in Conima, Huancané, Peru). He also points at the correspondence
between Aymara manqh a [maŋqh a] ‘under’, ‘inside’ and Jaqaru maŋ a ‘below’, and concludes
that the nasal velar in Aymaran must take its origin from a preconsonantal allophone of the plain
nasal n. However, in view of such pairs as Jaqaru yaŋ a and Quechua yana ‘companion’, and
Jaqaru yaŋ -iši-, Quechua yana-pa- ‘help’, we are inclined to opt either for an inherited though
obsolescent distinction, or for a retraction of the alveolar nasal in intervocalic position before a.
the two pairs of suffixes. The aspiration, whether present or not, entails the loss of the
vowel -a in a suffix before certain independent suffixes,53 such as -wa, e.g. mun-t-wa
{mun(a)-th (a)-wa} ‘I want it’, but mun-ta-wa {mun(a)-ta-wa} ‘you want it’.
3.3.4 Salient features of the Aymaran language family

The Aymaran language family consists of languages which are structurally very similar
to Quechua. The similarities between the two groups are so obvious and so pervasive
that they can only be explained by a long period of shared history and complex mutual
relations. The structural similarities are not merely superficial. They consist of highly
specific semantic and syntactic parallels that, if not due to common origin, must be the
result of long and intensive bilingual interaction. More than 20 per cent of the lexicon that
can be reconstructed for the proto-languages of both families is either identical, or nearly
so. The reconstructed phoneme inventory of Proto-Aymaran is also partly identical to
that of Proto-Quechuan, although there are differences which deserve close attention.
It is remarkable, under these circumstances, that the languages of the Aymaran family
have managed to preserve two characteristics that set them apart not only from Quechua,
but also from the other known languages of the Andean region. These characteristics
belong to the domain of phonotactics and morphophonemics. Aymaran roots, both verbal
and nominal, must end in a vowel. In order to meet this condition, borrowed nouns with
a final consonant in the original language become Aymaranised by the addition of a final
vowel, regardless of whether the language borrowed from is Quechua, Spanish, or any
other. This process is still productive today, and it has been in existence in the Aymaran
languages for as long as evidence is obtainable by projection into the past.
(119) Proto-Quechua *pač.ak ‘hundred’ Aymara pataka

Jaqaru pač.aka54
Proto-Quechua *kuntur ‘condor’ Aymara kunturi
Jaqaru kúntiri
Spanish habas ‘beans’ Aymara hawasa
Jaqaru háwaša
The second characteristic concerns the allomorphic shape of roots and suffixes. Like
Quechua, the Aymaran languages are predominantly agglutinative, using suffixes almost
exclusively. Unlike Quechua, however, these suffixes are accompanied by rules leading to
the suppression of a preceding vowel or, under given circumstances, of vowels belonging
to the suffix itself. From a synchronic point of view, the vowel suppression rules are
seldom phonologically motivated. The following examples of derivation of the verb
53 For the notion of independent suffixes see sections 3.2.6 and 3.3.6.
54 The Jaqaru forms are from Belleza Castro (1995).
apa- ‘to bear’, ‘to carry’ illustrate the different behaviour of Aymara suffixes with an
initial s. The suffix -su- ‘outward motion’ must be preceded by vowel suppression, the
suffix -si- ‘reflexive’ has no such effect:
(120) ap-su- ‘to take out’

apa-si- ‘to take one’s share’, ‘to take for oneself’
The corresponding suffixes in Jaqaru are -šu- and -iši-, respectively. Both suffixes
trigger vowel suppression.
(121) ap-šu- ‘to take out’

ap-iši- ‘to take one’s share’, ‘to take for oneself’
It would be tempting to seek an explanation for the different behaviour of Aymara -si-
and -su- in the Jaqaru facts. However, this does not seem to be possible. The presence
of a suffix-initial vowel i in Jaqaru -iši- is due to innovative vowel harmony, which
could develop precisely in environments where the vowel was preserved at first (*apa-
ši- > ap-iši-). Some cases of vowel suppression may eventually be explained by other
diachronic developments that are not yet understood. From a phonological point of view,
it is significant that Aymara suffixes with an initial l y or y are never preceded by vowel
suppression and with other resonants only exceptionally so (Briggs 1993: 55–6).
The Aymaran vowel suppressions can produce spectacular sequences of consonants,
not separated by vowels even at the phonetic level. This occurs when several suffixes
triggering vowel suppression appear in a sequence. Consider the following example from
La Paz Aymara:
(122) hani-w hisk-t’-k-t-ti

{hani-w(a) hiskh (i)-t’(a)-k(a)-t(a)-ti}
not-AF ask-M-AN-1S-NE
‘I did not ask him.’ (Yapita 1991: 75)
The three suffixes -t’a-, -ka- and -ta trigger the suppression of a preceding vowel.
Additionally, the first-person subject suffix -ta loses its own vowel before independent
suffixes, such as -ti. This loss can be explained phonologically by the fact that -ta
originally began with an aspirated t h , as it still does in many dialects.55 The suffix -ti
itself exerts no influence on the preceding vowel. The aspiration of k h in hisk h i- is
also lost in the process. The suffix -wa loses its vowel because it marks the end of a
major preverbal constituent of the sentence. Although Aymara and Jaqaru differ in the
inventory of their suffixes and the nature of the accompanying morphophonemic rules,
vowel suppression plays a central role in both languages.
55 Aspiration is sometimes associated with vowel loss in the Aymaran languages.

Table 3.6 Jaqaru personal reference markers
Pronouns Possessive endings Imperative
1 pers. na -ŋ a -Vŋ a
2 pers. huma -ma -ma
3 pers. upa -ph a -pa
4 pers. hiwsa -sa -Vtna
In contrast, the structure of roots is relatively simple. Root-internal consonant clusters

may consist of two consonants at the most (although Jaqaru has some exceptions). Root-
initial clusters do not occur. In comparison to Quechua, Aymaran roots tend to contain
more open syllables. In Aymara the possibilities of clustering (that is, previous to the ap-
plication of any vowel suppression rules) are limited. When root-internal clusters contain
a stop, it is always the second member in the cluster. Clusters of stops and/or affricates
do not normally occur (Martin 1988: 44–7). Jaqaru is less restrictive in this respect.
In the domain of morphology, the Aymaran languages are characterised, among other
things, by a fourfold division of the category grammatical person, based on the inclusion
or non-inclusion of speaker and addressee, respectively (cf. Hardman et al. 1988: 18).
The system comprises four basic units: first person (+ speaker, – addressee), second
person (+ addressee, – speaker), third person (– addressee, – speaker), and fourth person
(+ addressee, + speaker). The Aymaran fourth person coincides with what is known in
linguistic literature as an inclusive first person plural. There are no specific endings for the
exclusive first person plural, which, apart from the optional presence of plural marking,
are the same as the first-person-singular endings. Each of the four units is represented
by specific underived morphemes, which surface in the shape of the personal pronouns,
in the nominal possessive endings and in parts of the verbal paradigm. Table 3.6 gives
a synopsis of the basic personal pronouns, possessive endings and verbal imperative
endings in Jaqaru (Hardman 1983a). (‘V’ indicates that the vowel preceding the suffix
is preserved; otherwise, suppression of the preceding vowel is required.)
Number distinctions do not play a fundamental role in the Aymaran personal reference
system. The three basically singular pronouns (1–3) can be pluralised by means of a
nominal plural marker: -naka in Aymara; -kuna (as in Quechua) in Jaqaru. In this way, a
secondary distinction is created between the inclusive fourth person and the (exclusive)
plural of the first person. The pronoun ‘we (exclusive)’ is na-naka in Aymara and na-kuna
in Jaqaru; ‘we (inclusive)’ is hiwasa in Aymara and hiwsa in Jaqaru. Possessive endings
cannot be pluralised, except periphrastically. Verbal endings have no plural counterparts
either, but it is possible to express the notion of plurality internally in the verb form, as
in Pichacani (Puno) Aymara laru-si-px.-t h -wa (laugh-RF-PL-1S-AF) ‘we (excl.) laugh
at him.’
3.3.5 Aymara phonology

The orthography currently in use for modern Aymara presents a number of distinct
elements, which have become widely accepted. It includes notations such as j for the
glottal (or velar) voiceless fricative, and x (sometimes also jj) for the uvular voiceless
fricative. Aspiration is either written as a double apostrophe (”) or as h. In our discussion
of Aymara (and Jaqaru) we continue to use the symbols that we have used so far, namely,
h for the glottal (or velar) fricative, x. for the uvular fricative, raised h for aspiration and
raised y for palatalisation, in order to help preserve the unity of the presentation and
facilitate the comparison with other Andean languages, such as Quechua.
The vowel system of Aymara is trivocalic and consists of a low vowel a and two high
vowels, front unrounded i and back rounded u. As in Quechua, the high vowels have mid
allophones in the environment of a uvular consonant.
Vowel length is distinctive. There are three long vowels, a:, i:, u:. Vowel length
plays a role in the morphology (see section 3.3.6). It can also, though seldom, be part
of the phonological makeup of root morphemes, in which case the vowel is almost
always a::
(123) čaka ‘bridge’ ča:ka ‘stem of the quinua’
A frequent source of vowel length in Aymara is the optional suppression of y between

same vowels in the sequences aya and uyu. Variation of the type aya ∼ a:, uyu ∼ u: has
been recorded from the sixteenth century onwards. Nevertheless, the forms with vowel
length have not succeeded in replacing those with internal y, which are still predominant
today.56
(124) contemporary Bertonio (1612a)

maya ∼ ma: maya ∼ maa ‘one’
tiyi ∼ ti: tiy ‘cave’
suyu ∼ su: suyu ∼ suu ‘parcel of land’, ‘share of work’
Long vowels are also found in compound expressions as a result of sandhi, when there
is a succession of vowels without an intervening consonant:
(125) hičh u:ru ‘today’ from hičh a ‘now’, uru ‘day’
The consonant inventory of Aymara is very similar to that of the Quechua II dialects
surrounding it (Cuzco Quechua, Bolivian Quechua). The consonant inventory of La Paz
Aymara is represented in table 3.7 (cf. Yapita 1991: xiv).
56 Both the existence of vowel length in Aymara and its use there are strongly reminiscent of the
Quechua I dialects. This is not the only respect in which Aymara resembles Quechua I, rather
than Quechua II (cf. Cerrón-Palomino 1994a).
Table 3.7 La Paz Aymara consonant inventory
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular
Plain p t č k q
Obstruents Aspirated ph th čh kh qh
Glottalised p’ t’ č’ k’ q’
Fricatives s h x.
Laterals l ly
Nasals m n ny
Vibrant r
Glides w y
Stress in Aymara is basically penultimate and has been described as non-phonemic

(Martin 1988: 43). Long vowels in word-final position attract stress, and hence they are
sometimes interpreted as sequences of like vowels. Indeed, such cases are usually the
product of a reduction, as in (126):
(126) sará:
{sara-V: < *sara-ŋa}57
go-1S.F
‘I shall go’
Deviations from these basic rules are not uncommon. When a word ends in a consonant
or a sequence of consonants, this is normally the result of syntactic vowel suppression
(see below). In those cases stress is on the final vowel. An exception is the second-person
imperative in La Paz Aymara, which ends in a consonant but has penultimate stress:58
(127) sára-m
go-2S.IM
‘Go!’
The vowel suppression rules of La Paz Aymara can be divided into those that
precede and those that follow the assignment of stress. As we saw (section 3.3.4),
morphophonemic vowel suppression has a long history in the Aymaran languages. It
occurs at word-internal morpheme boundaries, and stress is assigned afterwards.59 For
57 The form sara-ŋ a is preserved in the Aymara-speaking areas of interior Tacna (Peru) and
Carangas (Bolivia).
58 Briggs (1993: 80–3) observes that the final vowel of the second-person imperative ending -
m (<*-ma), which is normally absent, may be restored in some cases. It may lead to cases
of antepenultimate stress because the characteristic stress pattern of the imperative remains
unchanged (e.g. apá-ni-m ∼ apá-ni-ma ‘bring it here’).
59 Vowel suppression within the root is exceptional in Aymara. An example is waly aqi- ‘to boil’,
which is reduced to waly x.- in vowel suppressing derivations.
instance, in (128) the first root vowel is stressed, after the suffix -t(a) ‘first-person sub-
ject’ loses its vowel by suppression before the attenuating suffix -x.a, the root čura- ‘to
give’ loses its final vowel by suppression before -t(a), and stress is assigned to the next
available vowel on the left. In (129) the second-person subject suffix -ta does not lose
its vowel before -x.a, and, as it stands in penultimate position, it also bears the stress.
(128) čúr-t-x.a
{čur(a)-t(a)-x.a}
give-1S-TO60
‘I gave it.’
(129) čur-tá-x.a
{čur(a)-ta-x.a}
give-2S-TO
‘You gave it.’
In contrast, syntactically motivated vowel suppression affects the final vowel of any
major constituent of a sentence which does not occupy the final position in that sentence.
The final constituent, usually the verb, remains unaffected. Stress is assigned before
vowel suppression and, if present at all, it is positioned on the last vowel in the word
that is actually pronounced61 :
(130) kuná-t huk’amp-rák quly q mun-x.-tá-sti

{kuna-t(a) huk’amp(i)-Ø-rak(i) quly q(i)-Ø mun(a)-x.(a)-ta-sti}
what-AB more-Z-AD money-Z want-CM-2S-CT
‘And how much more money will you need?’ (Yapita 1991: 99)
Words consisting of more than two syllables that occupy a non-final position in a noun
phrase are also affected by the suppression of their final vowel:
(131) č’iyár úta

{č’iyar(a) uta}
black house
‘a black house’
Aymara, furthermore, has a morphosyntactic rule of vowel suppression, which affects

the final vowel of a nominal base (consisting of a bare noun, a noun followed by one or
60 The effect of the topic marker here has been characterised as ‘attenuation’ (Hardman et al. 1988:
280).
61 Aymara dialects may differ in the frequency and obligatory nature of syntactic vowel suppression.
Porterie-Gutiérrez (1988: 46) qualifies the loss of final vowels in the dialect of Chucuito as ‘very
common’ (très courant). In La Paz Aymara it is considered a standard practice (cf. Yapita 1991).
more nominal affixes, or a nominalised verb) and identifies it as the direct object of a
transitive verb or the geographic goal of a motion verb. In the literature, these forms are
referred to as ‘zero complements’ (e.g. Briggs 1993: 141–3). Zero complements nor-
mally precede the verb. They can be followed by independent suffixes, which themselves
lose their vowel due to the syntactic vowel suppression mentioned above:
(132) kh it-s suy-pača

{kh it(i)-Ø-s(a) suy(a)-pača}
who-Z-IR wait-DP.3S
‘He must be waiting for someone?’ (Yapita 1991: 51)
(133) uk sar-ta
{uk(a)-Ø sar(a)-ta}
that place-Z go-1S
‘I went there.’ (Yapita 1991: 35)
The following sentence exemplifies the use of kh iti ‘who’ in the subject role, where
there is no zero complement vowel suppression:
(134) kh iti-s uta-r sara-ni

{kh iti-s(a) uta-r(u) sara-ni}
who-IR house-AL go-F.3S
‘Who will go to the house?’ (Yapita 1991: 42)
It is often not possible to distinguish between zero-complement vowel suppression

and syntactically based vowel suppression, in particular when dealing with heads of noun
phrases not followed by independent suffixes.62 The word qul y q(i) in (130) is a case in
point. As can be seen from this example, as well as from k h it-s in (132), vowel suppres-
sion, both syntactically motivated and in its function as a zero complement, can produce
consonant clusters (including sequences of same consonants) in word-final position.
Cerrón-Palomino (1994a: 58–9) situates the issue of the zero complement in Aymara
within the context of a more general rule deleting the final vowel of preverbal com-
plements.63 In that perspective, the zero complement could be interpreted as a noun
unmarked for case which indicates a direct object or goal. It is true that the case markers
-na ‘genitive-locative’ and -ta/-t h a ‘ablative’ lose their vowel before any independent
62 The literature is silent about the relation between zero-complement vowel suppression and stress
assignment. Nevertheless, there is a general rule to the effect that in a (full) word form stress is
on the penultimate vowel but remains on that vowel when the final vowel is suppressed. There are
exceptions, such as the second-person imperative (e.g. sára-m ‘go!’), but the zero complement
is not among those exceptions.
63 Briggs (1993: 142) points at the occurrence of postverbal zero complements in some varieties
of Aymara. This should lead to a different formulation of the rule in question.
suffix, thus exhibiting a behaviour parallel to that of the zero complement. If not followed
by an independent suffix, that vowel is also lost due to syntactic vowel suppression (see
above). In contrast, the case marker -ru ‘allative’ does retain its vowel before independent
suffixes, as is illustrated in (135):
(135) tumasi-x. uta-ru-w waka-nak anaki-sk-i

{tumasi-x.(a) uta-ru-w(a) waka-nak(a)-Ø anaki-sk(a)-i}
Thomas-TO house-AL-AF cow-PL-Z herd-PR-3S
‘Thomas is leading the cows home.’ (Cerrón-Palomino 1994a: 59)
Although most affixes in Aymara begin with a consonant or a consonant cluster, there
are also a few highly frequent verbal suffixes with an initial vowel i, among others:
(136) -i ‘third-person non-future subject’

-iri ‘agentive nominaliser’
-it(a)- ‘first-person object’
This i-vowel replaces a preceding a, merges with a preceding i, and is eliminated by

a preceding u. This is illustrated in (137):
(137) ap-iri ‘carrier’ ap-i ‘he/she carries’ [apa- ‘to carry’]

hith -iri ‘slider’ hith -i ‘he/she slides’ [hith i- ‘to slide’]
qapu-ri ‘spinner’ qapu ‘he/she spins’ [qapu- ‘to spin’]
3.3.6 Aymara grammar

Aymara morphology is mainly based on the use of suffixes; it is transparent, as well
as regular. Compounds occasionally occur, but these are limited to some common ex-
pressions, such as hičh u:ru ‘today’, see section 3.3.5 (125), and in place names, as in
(138):
(138) umalsu ‘Umalsu’64 < uma hal-su ‘source’, ‘well’

[uma ‘water’; hala- ‘to run’; -su- ‘outward movement’]
Word order (modifier–head) and constituent order (predominantly SOV) are the same
as in Quechua. The inventory and the semantics of morphological categories, and even
syntactic constructions involving the use of several morphological markers, are strik-
ingly similar, even though in most cases there is no formal correspondence. As in
Quechua, there is a set of independent suffixes in addition to specific verbal and nominal
morphology.
Nevertheless, there are also some structural differences that deserve to be men-
tioned. Aymara suffix order is often less rigid than Quechua suffix order. Some of the
64 Umalsu is the name of a settlement in the northern part of the department of Moquegua (Peru).
functions reserved for independent suffixes in Quechua are expressed in Aymara within
the verbal paradigm. The verbal derivational morphology of Aymara is richer than that
of Quechua, especially with respect to categories of space. In Quechua the verbal system
of personal reference marking that encodes both subject and object can be maintained
in nominalisations and in subordinate verbs. This option is not found in Aymara, which
in such cases only has the possessive personal markers at its disposal. As a result, only
one participant can be indicated explicitly. In comparison to Quechua and Jaqaru, the
Aymara switch-reference system is in decay. The functions of the verb ‘to be’ in Aymara
are not represented lexically, as in Quechua, but morphologically.
Aymara has two distinct types of verbalisation which compensate for the absence of
a verb ‘to be’. One of these types is used in equations, the other one applies to locative
expressions. Equation (nominal predication) is indicated by lengthening the final vowel
of a noun or noun phrase.
(139) hanq’u-:-ny a
white-CV-IF
‘to be white’
(140) huma-x. kh iti-:-ta-sa
{huma-x.a kh iti-:-ta-sa}
you-TO who-CV-2S-IR
‘Who are you?’ (Yapita 1991: 90)
The lengthened vowel is retained before suffixes triggering vowel suppression. In

such cases length is not always perceived, but the vowel itself remains intact. In spite of
its morphological character, the use of this verbalisation by lengthening is very much
reminiscent of that of the copula ka- in Quechua.65 Equations are zero-marked when the
verb has a third-person subject and no affixes other than independent suffixes accompany
the predicate (141). Otherwise, the vowel length marker is required (142).
(141) hač’a-wa
big-AF
‘It is big.’
(142) hani-w hač’a-:-k-i-ti
{hani-w(a) hač’a-:-k(a)-i-ti}
not-AF big-CV-AN-3S-NE
‘It is not big.’ (Yapita 1991: 134)
65 In the province of Omasuyos, northeast of Lake Titicaca, Herrero et al. (1978: level 1: 126)
have recorded an allomorph -ya-, instead of vowel length, before morphemes that begin with
vowel length or consist of vowel length themselves; for instance, in yati-č-iri-ya-:-wa ‘I shall
be a teacher’, where vowel length indicates first-person subject future tense. This is confirmed
by Briggs (1993: 174) for the town of Compi (La Paz).
A striking parallel with Quechua is the habitual past tense, in which verbalisation by
lengthening is applied to agentive nominalisation forms in -(i)ri. (Compare the Quechua
agentive in -q followed by the copula ka-.)
(143) kuna ura-s uta-r hut-x.-iri-:-ta

{kuna ura-s(a) uta-r(u) hut(a)-x.(a)-iri-:-ta}
what time-IR house-AL come-CM-AG-CV-2S
‘At what time did you use to come home?’ (Yapita 1991: 89)
Locative and possessive verbalisation is brought about by adding a suffix -ka- to the
short form of the locative/genitive case marker -n(a). See the examples in (144) and
(145):
(144) aka-na aka-n-ka-

{aka-na} {aka-n(a)-ka-}
this.place-L this.place-L-LV
‘here’, ‘in this place’ ‘to be here’, ‘to be in this place’
(145) aka isi-x. huma-n-k-i-wa
{aka isi-x.(a) huma-n(a)-k(a)-i-wa}
this clothes-TO you-L-LV-3S-AF
‘These clothes are yours.’ (Yapita 1991: 88)
A further derivation, involving multiple verbalisations separated by a nominalisation,

is illustrated in (146).
(146) aka-n-k-iri-:-t-wa
{aka-n(a)-k(a)-iri-:-t(a)-wa}
this.place-L-LV-AG-CV-2S-AF
‘I belong here’, ‘I am a local person.’
In the early seventeenth century, Bertonio registered a verb cancaña (kanka-ny a).
This verb doubtless had a rather specific lexical meaning, ‘to be in essence’, beyond the
concept of a simple equation. However, according to Bertonio, jankoña (hanq’u-:-ny a)
and janko cancaña (hanq’u kanka-ny a), ‘whiteness’, ‘to be white’, were equivalent
constructions.66
66 Cerrón-Palomino (1994a: 78, 128) proposes a historical derivation of both the copula verbaliser
by lengthening and locational -ka- from the root *kanka-. However, Jaqaru (see section 3.3.10)
has -w(a)- for the copula verbaliser, whereas it expresses location in the same way as in Aymara.
In both languages, the two markers in question are formally far apart, so that derivation from
*kanka- is conceivable only by assuming a series of ad hoc changes. At the same time, it seems
plausible to assume that the root kanka- could have been derived from a hypothetical *ka-n-ka-
{ka-n(a)-ka-}‘to be in a state or place’ (*ka); cf. aka ‘this place’, uka ‘that place’.
As in Quechua, Aymara verbalisation comprises two more options, transformative

verbalisation (‘to become X’) and factitive verbalisation (‘to make something X’). The
suffixes that indicate these types of verbalisation are, respectively, -pta- and -ča-. The
latter is homophonous with its Quechua equivalent.
(147) wali-pta-ny a
good-TF-IF
‘to recover’
(148) uta-ča-ny a
house-FA-IF
‘to roof a house’
Aymara nouns can be marked for possessor. The first-person (‘my’) ending varies
between -ha and -x.a (or lengthening of a preceding vowel) in La Paz, and -ŋ a or -ny a
locally. The second-, third- and fourth-person endings are -ma, -pa, and -sa, respectively.
The plural marker -naka is optional and pluralises the referent noun. Unlike Quechua
-kuna, the Aymara plural marker normally precedes the possessive endings, although
the opposite order is also allowed.
(149) wawa-naka-ha wawa-ha-naka

child-PL-1P child-1P-PL
‘my children’ ‘my children’ (Briggs 1993: 127–8)
Possession as a characteristic (‘owner of ’, ‘having’) is expressed by means of a suffix

-ni (the semantic equivalent of Quechua -yuq). It is frequently found in place names
(Huancarani, Uyuni). Its use in numerals, where it connects digits, tens or hundreds to
larger units, is illustrated in:
(150) tunka paya-ni

ten two-OS
‘twelve’
(151) waranq pa: pataka-ni
{waranq(a) pa(y)a pataka-ni}
thousand two hundred-OS
‘2,200’ (Briggs 1988: 176)
Syntactic relations in the sentence are marked by case, except for the subject role
which remains unmarked. Case markers are added to the last element, normally the
head, of a noun phrase. Apart from the zero complement case marker (cf. section 3.3.5),
Aymara has an allative case marker -ru, which indicates an indirect object or a direction
(‘towards’); an ablative case marker -ta or -t h a, which indicates separation (‘from’);
an instrumental–comitative case marker -mpi (locally -nti) ‘with’; and a benefactive

case marker -taki ‘for’. Similarity is expressed by the morpheme -hama (e.g. in kun-
hama ‘how?’ from kuna ‘what?’). The suffixes -kama ‘until’ and -layku ‘because of’,
‘for the sake of’ are used as their Quechua counterparts -kama and -rayku (cf. section
3.2.6). Locative and genitive case are both represented by the marker -na. The possessive
construction is formed in the same way as in Quechua, that is, by doubly marking the
possessor and the possessed.
(152) hupa-n ph uča-pa-wa

{hupa-n(a) ph uča-pa-wa}
he/she-G daughter-3P-AF
‘She is his (or her) daughter.’ (Briggs 1988: 227)
Aymara verbal derivational morphology is rich in possibilities for expressing cate-

gories related to space. As in Quechua I, Aymara has a set of four verbal affixes denoting
the direction of a motion ‘inward’, ‘outward’, ‘upward’ and ‘downward’. This is illus-
trated in (153) with forms derived from the verb ira- ‘to carry small objects’:
(153) ira-nta- ‘to introduce small objects’, ‘to fail to recover invested money’
ir-su- ‘to take out small objects’
ir-ta- ‘to lift or pick up small objects’
ira-qa- ‘to put down small objects’, ‘to lower a price’, ‘to snatch away’
As can be seen, the suffixes -su- and -ta-67 suppress the preceding vowel, whereas
-nta- and -qa- do not.
These suffixes show a tendency to be used idiomatically. For instance, although the
verb irpa- ‘to lead’, ‘to conduct’ can be modified by the same four derivations, the derived
form irp-ta- usually has an idiomatic inchoative interpretation ‘to help someone on his
feet’, ‘to help someone make a start’. According to Cotari et al. (1978) and Büttner and
Condori (1984), the form preferably used for ‘to lead upwards’ is irp-kata- (see below
for the meaning of -kata-).
In addition to the four directional suffixes just mentioned, Aymara has several ver-
bal derivational affixes relating to space, among them, -kata- ‘motion across’, ‘frontal
motion’, -kipa- ‘contouring motion’, -naqa- ‘motion in several directions’, -nuku-
‘abandonment’, -nuqa ‘act of placing’, -ra- ‘separation’, ‘removal’, -tata- ‘dispersal’,
‘motion in all directions’, -t hapi- ‘concentration’, -x.ata- ‘location on top’. These are
illustrated in (154) on the basis of the root apa- ‘to carry’ (examples from England
67 Bertonio (1612a) records irusu- for ir-su-, and iruta- for ir-ta-. One may speculate that the
initial vowel recorded in the suffixes -usu- and -uta- could provide an explanation for the vowel-
suppressing behaviour of their present-day equivalents.
1988: 122–3). The examples provide an impression of the unpredictable character of

morphophonological vowel suppression.
(154) ap-kata- ‘to pick up and put at equal (higher) level’, ‘to transport’
apa-kipa- ‘to transport from one place to another’
ap-naqa- ‘to handle’, ‘to manipulate’
apa-nuku- ‘to abandon’ (also apa-muku-)
ap-nuqa- ‘to place on the floor’
apa-ra- ‘to confiscate’, ‘to snatch away’
apa-tata- ‘to disperse’, ‘to bring into disorder’
ap-th api- ‘to collect’, ‘to pick’
ap-x.ata- ‘to put on top’
The categories reflexive and reciprocal are both indicated by means of a suffix -si-,
which can be combined with the causative -ya-. Normally, the order in which the causative
precedes the reflexive-reciprocal suffix is the only one allowed in such combinations.
(155) isi- ‘to dress’

isi-nta-si- ‘to dress oneself elegantly’
isi-nta-ya- ‘to dress someone elegantly’
isi-nta-ya-si- ‘to have oneself dressed elegantly by someone else’
(Büttner and Condori 1984)
Some verbal roots, however, occur in a fixed combination with the suffix -si-. An
example of such a root is uny i- ‘to hate’, ‘to abhor’, where -si- is obligatorily present but
without conveying a clear reflexive or reciprocal meaning.68 In order to express causative
and reflexive meaning the suffixes -ya- and -sican be added to the verbal base uny i-si-
in the prescribed order, in which case repetitions of -si- are allowed.
(156) uny i-si-ya- ‘to make (someone) hate (someone)’

uny i-si-ya-si- ‘to make oneself hated (by someone)’
uny i-si-si- ‘to hate each other’
(Büttner and Condori 1984)
The suffix -ya- exhibits the same wide range of applications as its counterpart -či- in
Quechua, extending from causation to permission.69
68 Pacaraos Quechua has the expression uni-ku- ‘to hate’, obviously a case of borrowing from
Aymaran. In this form, the Quechua reflexive suffix -ku- plays the part of its Aymaran counterpart
-si-. It is a typical example of the sort of detailed correspondences that obtain between the two
language groups.
69 The verb yati-ča- ‘to teach’, from yati- ‘to know’ (cf. also yati-qa- ‘to learn’), has a spe-
cialised causative meaning. It stands in contrast with a regular and semantically less specific
Aymara has a ventive (‘hither’) suffix -ni-, which combines the apparently com-
plementary functions of ‘motion towards the speaker’ and ‘action performed in some
other place’. These uses are strikingly parallel to those of -mu- in Quechua (cf. Cerrón-
Palomino 1994a: 119–20). A good illustration of the second, less common, use is (157),
one of the examples in Bertonio (1603b), cited in Briggs (1993: 175). A modern version
of (157) is reflected in the bracketed transcription, which includes the usual vowel-
suppression rules.
(157) auqui-ha-na ut-pa-na manca-ni-tha

{awki-ha-n(a) ut(a)-pa-n(a) manq’a-n(i)-th a}
father-1P-G house-3P-L eat-H-1S
‘I went and had dinner at my father’s house’, ‘I am just coming back
from having dinner at my father’s house.’
The Aymara ventive is frequently used in combination with a suffix -wa- or -waya-
(∼-wa:-), which either indicates a separation, or an action performed in passing
(158). The combination of -ni- and -waya- can express a circular motion, as in
(159):
(158) iskwila-r sar-ka-sa-x. ihli:ša-ru-w manta-way-ta

{iskwila-r(u) sar(a)-ka-sa-x.(a) ihli:ša-ru-w(a)70 manta-way(a)-ta}
school-AL go-AN-SU-TO church-AL-AF enter-DT-1S
‘On my way to school I entered the church for a moment.’
(Cotari et al. 1978: Gram. 26)
(159) uma-mp wayu-ni-waya-:ta
{uma-mp(i) wayu-ni-waya:-ta}
water-CO carry.with.handle-H-DT-2S.F
‘You will also bring water on your way back.’ (Briggs 1988: 208)
The effect of an event on a person who is not directly involved in the action can be
defined either as positive (‘beneficiary’) or negative (‘detrimental’). These categories
are marked by the suffixes -rapi- and -raqa-, respectively. The endings that otherwise
encode the grammatical person of a direct or indirect object refer to a benefited or injured
person in combination with these suffixes.
yati-ya- ‘to cause to know’, ‘to inform’. England (1988: 98, 114), interprets -ča- as a root
causative, whereas -ya- is said to be flectional. The hypothesis is difficult to test, as there seem
to be no cases of verbal derivational -ča- other than yati-ča-. The normal function of the suffix
-ča- is to create transitive verbs from nouns (see above).
70 The sound š represents the sequence si(V) in a loan from Spanish (iglesia).
(160) hiwasa-tak kamis ala-rap-istu-x.a

{hiwasa-tak(i) kamis(a)-Ø ala-rap(i)-istu-x.a}
we (incl.)-B shirt-Z buy-BN-3S.4O-TO
‘He has bought us a shirt.’ (Yapita 1991: 38)
(161) naya-x. wawa-m sar-ta-ya-raq-sma
{naya-x.(a) wawa-m(a)-Ø sar(a)-ta-ya-raq(a)-sma}
I-TO child-2P-Z go-UW-CA-DM-1S.2O
‘I woke up your child (without you wanting it).’ (England 1988: 110)
The morphology of the Aymara verb includes two aspectual affixes. Their primary
function is to indicate completion, -x.a-, and non-completion, -ka-; both trigger sup-
pression of the preceding vowel. The use of these affixes is subject to interaction with
the category of pluralisation and, in the case of the non-completive, with negation as
well.71 When used by itself the non-completive suffix -ka- can be translated as ‘action
to be carried out by anticipation’. However, the suffix -ka- is most often found in neg-
ative sentences, where its presence is required although it has no particular semantic
contribution; see the examples (122) and (142) above. Another frequent use of -ka- is
in the combination -s-ka-, where the first element is identified as a (meaningless) affix
-si-, homophonous with the reflexive marker (England 1988: 111). The combination
-s-ka- indicates progressive aspect; see example (135) above. That the initial element is
to be identified with -si- becomes apparent when considering the plural form -si-p-ka-.
Example (162) is from Sitajara (Tacna).
(162) marmi-kama-w ut-ha-si-p-k-th a uta-ŋa-n

{marmi-kama-w(a) ut(a)-ha-si-p-k(a)-th a uta-ŋa-n(a)}
woman-among-AF stay-LS-PR-PL-AN-1S house-1P-L
‘We are only women living in my house.’72 (Briggs 1993: 185)
The completive suffix -x.a- can be translated as ‘already’, ‘completely’, ‘for good’. Its
presence, without any particular semantic contribution, is required after the pluraliser
-p-, which never occurs by itself.
(163) marka-ma-n-x. hunt’u-ki-y haka-p-x.-pača:-ta-x.a

{marka-ma-n(a)-x.(a) hunt’u-ki-y(a) haka-p-x.(a)-pača:-ta-x.a}
town-2P-L-TO hot-DL-AT live-PL-CM-DU-2S-TO
‘In your country, where you (people) live, it will be hot, I suppose.’
(Yapita 1991: 57)
71 The status of the aspectual affixes and their interaction with pluralisation and negation is remi-
niscent of the use of aspect in the Junı́n and Pasco dialects of Quechua I (sections 3.2.3, 3.2.6).
72 The verb ut-ha- ‘to live’, ‘to exist’ is derived from a root uta- (cf. uta ‘house’) and a vowel
suppressing suffix -ha-. A verb uta- with a similar meaning is found in Jaqaru (Belleza Castro
1995: 185).
Table 3.8 Aymara subject and subject–object paradigm for the

unmarked tense (Yapita 1991)
1 pers. subject (3 pers. object) čur-ta ‘I give it (to him/her).’

2 pers. subject (3 pers. object) čur-ta ‘You give it (to him/her).’
3 pers. subject (3 pers. object) čur-i ‘He/she gives it (to him/her).’
4 pers. subject (3 pers. object) čur-tan ‘We (incl.) give it (to him/her).’
1 pers. subject + 2 pers. object čur-sma ‘I give it to you.’
2 pers. subject + 1 pers. object čur-ista ‘You give it to me.’
3 pers. subject + 1 pers. object čur-itu ‘He/she gives it to me.’
3 pers. subject + 2 pers. object čur-tam ‘He/she gives it to you.’
3 pers. subject + 4 pers. object čur-istu ‘He/she gives it to us (incl.).’
Instead of -x.a-, the pluraliser can also be followed by -ka-, which in that case may
retain any of its regular functions. Since the pluraliser -p- is always followed by a vowel-
suppressing suffix, it does not make sense to try and determine the nature of a possible
vowel that would have been part of its form. However, there is some dialectal evidence that
the full form of the pluraliser was -pa- (Briggs 1993: 184). Bertonio (1603b) mentions
a verbal pluraliser -pisca- (Briggs 1993: 184; Cerrón-Palomino 1994a: 107), which is
reminiscent of the numeral ph isqa ‘five’. The relationship between this ancient plural
marker and the contemporary forms is not clear.
Personal reference marking and its interaction with tense and mood is one of the most
complex areas of Aymara morphology. Unlike Quechua, there is only a very limited
coincidence between verbal and nominal personal reference marking, although occa-
sionally additional historical correspondences can be traced. The ‘transitional’ endings,
which combine subject and object marking, are difficult to analyse. They may vary
according to tense and mood. Constitutive elements of the transitional endings never
become separated as in Quechua; they always occur as a block. Third-person objects
are not marked. In table 3.8 the nine possible endings based on the four-person system
introduced in section 3.3.3 are illustrated for La Paz Aymara with the unmarked tense
paradigm of čura- ‘to give’ (Yapita 1991: 34). Note that with the verb ‘to give’ the
object encoded in the transitional endings refers to the recipient, not to the gift. As in
Quechua, with verbs such as ‘to give’, an indirect, rather than a direct object, is en-
coded, because the former is more likely to coincide with one of the participants in the
speech act.
As can be seen in table 3.8, the 1S and 2S endings are formally identical in La
Paz Aymara, but most Aymara dialects do distinguish them by preserving the aspi-
ration (-t h a) of the 1S form (cf. section 3.3.4). All consonant-initial endings trigger
vowel suppression. For the behaviour of those endings that begin with a vowel i, see
section 3.3.5 (137).
The endings -tam and -tan are exceptions to the rule that Aymara words must end in
a vowel, at least underlyingly. It comes as no surprise that Bertonio and several present-
day dialects have vowel-final forms (-tama, -tana) instead. Another ending subject to
variation is -ista, which has been recorded as -itta in Bertonio and in the dialect of
Sitajara, Tacna (Briggs 1993: 196). The elements -it(a)- and -ist(a)- appear to represent
constant values for first-person and fourth-person object, respectively, throughout the
Aymara verbal paradigm.
The Aymara verb distinguishes two past tenses, both of which have been interpreted
as ‘remote’. The difference between the two tenses is defined in terms of evidentiality
(Hardman et al. 1988: 145–8). The so-called ‘near remote past’ (remoto cercano) refers
to events of the speaker’s personal recollection (often including surprise), whereas the
‘far remote past’ (remoto lejano) refers to events that the speaker could not possibly have
witnessed himself. According to Hardman et al. (1988), the remote past tenses of Aymara
occur frequently in the third-person-subject form (without object or with third-person
object), but much less often in any of the other persons or combinations of persons. This
is corroborated by the fact that the non-3S forms exhibit considerable variation in form,
both dialect-internally and cross-dialectally, a probable sign of insecurity on the part of
the speakers.
The formal aspects of the La Paz Aymara near-remote past-tense paradigm, as repre-
sented in Yapita (1991), can be summarised as follows. A suffix -a:na is substituted for
the vocalic ending of the 3S, 3S.1O, and 3S.4O forms of the unmarked tense (čura:na,
čurita:na and čurista:na, respectively). A vowel-preserving suffix -ya:- is inserted be-
fore all the other endings of the unmarked tense (e.g. 1S and 2S čuraya:ta, 1S.2O
čuraya:sma).
A more extensive use of the suffix -(a):na (instead of -ya:-) is found in Bertonio
(1603b) and in the present-day dialect of Morocomarca (Bustillos, northern Potosı́),
where it occurs in all combinations except 1S, 2S and 2S.1O (Briggs 1993: 218). Inter-
estingly, these varieties do not show a clear presence of the suffix -ya:-. In the 1S and
2S endings the markers -t h a and -ta are preceded by vowel length; the 2S.1O ending,
rather unexpectedly, is -ita:ta.73
The La Paz Aymara paradigm of the far-remote past tense is characterised by a vowel-
preserving ending -tayna in the third-person subject form; the 2S.1O, 3S.1O and 3S.4O
endings -ista, -itu and -istu become reduplicated to -ista:sta,74 -itu:tu, and -istu:stu,
respectively. All the other combinations insert a vowel-preserving suffix -ta:- (e.g. 1S
and 2S čurata:ta, 1S.2O čurata:sma).
73 In these endings, the presence of vowel length is based on the Morocomarca forms, as Bertonio
does not consistently indicate length.
74 Yapita (1991) gives -ita:sta instead of -ista:sta for far-remote 2S.1O, which is also the form
recorded in Huancané (Puno, Perú).
Table 3.9 Subject and subject–object endings for the

future tense in La Paz and Sitajara Aymara (Yapita
1991; Briggs 1993: 198)
La Paz Sitajara
1 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -: -ŋa, -:

2 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -:ta -ŋa:ta
3 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -ni -ni
4 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -ny ani -ny ani
1 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -:ma -ma:(ma)
2 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -ita:ta -itaŋa:ta
3 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -itani -itani
3 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -:tam -ŋata:ma
3 pers. subject + 4 pers. object -istani -stani
The endings of the future tense are quite different from those of the unmarked and
remote past tenses. In table 3.9 the endings of the future-tense paradigm are represented in
two dialect forms: La Paz Aymara and the conservative Sitajara dialect of Tacna, Peru.
All instances of vowel length in La Paz Aymara (length is represented segmentally)
appear to reflect sequences that once contained a nasal, still present in Sitajara.
The future-tense paradigm given by Bertonio (1603b) is similar to that of Sitajara
with the difference that the velar nasal ŋ is replaced by j [h]. Instead of -ny ani, Bertonio
has -tana, a form still found in several of the southern and western Aymara dialects. It
should be observed that the first-person future subject ending is etymologically identical
to the first-person possessive ending, whereas the second-person possessive ending is
etymologically identical to the second-person future object ending. The 1O and 4O
endings can easily be segmented into elements -ita- and -(i)sta-, respectively, with the
corresponding subject endings following them.
As in Quechua, the Aymara imperative paradigm comprises a full set of endings en-
coding all the options involving a second- or a third-person subject. Besides, future-tense
forms can be used in a hortative sense, thus compensating for the absence of specific first-
and fourth-person-subject endings. The imperative markers for second- and third-person
subject, variably vowel-retaining -m(a) and vowel suppressing -p(h) a(na), are subject to
some dialectal variation but are clearly reminiscent of the corresponding possessive
markers. The combination 2S.1O has a special ending, -ita; the 3S.2O combination is
indicated by a special ending -:tpa(n) or by the corresponding future-tense form (Briggs
1993: 200–4). The La Paz Aymara paradigm for second- and third-person-subject forms
of čura- is represented in table 3.10.
Again like Quechua (cf. section 3.2.6), Aymara has a potential mood, which is divided
into two tenses: present potential and past potential. These are referred to in Hardman
Table 3.10 Aymara subject and subject–object paradigm for the

imperative mood (Yapita 1991)
2 pers. subject (3 pers. object) čura-m ‘Give it to him/her!’

3 pers. subject (3 pers. object) čur-pa ‘Let him/her give it to him/her!’
2 pers. subject + 1 pers. object čur-ita ‘Give it to me!’
3 pers. subject + 1 pers. object čur-itpa ‘Let him/her give it to me!’
3 pers. subject + 2 pers. object čura-:tpa(n) ‘Let him/her give it to you!’
3 pers. subject + 4 pers. object čur-istpa ‘Let him/her give it to us (incl.)!’
et al. (1988) and in Briggs (1993) as the ‘desiderative tense’ (tiempo desiderativo) and
the ‘reproacher tense’ (tiempo reprochador), respectively. The formation of the present
potential is quite complicated. It appears to be the result of a merger of two earlier
paradigms, which are still partly kept apart in Bertonio (cf. Briggs 1993: 205–10). One
of these paradigms was characterised by the presence of an element -irik- or -irih-, the
other one by the element -s(a)-. Some dialects have -irik-s- or -iri-s- (La Paz) rather
than -irik-/-irih-. The personal endings of the -irik- paradigm coincide with those of the
unmarked tense. This can be seen in Bertonio and in some of the modern dialects (e.g.
Sitajara), where the -irik- paradigm has been preserved almost completely.
The -s(a)- element is followed by specific personal endings: -ma for second-person
subject, -p(h) a(na) for third-person subject (cf. the imperative paradigm), and -na for
fourth-person subject. A first-person-subject form in -a (ending -sa) has been recorded
in Ebbing (1965: 124) and Cerrón-Palomino (1994a: 113), but most modern dialects
now seem to prefer a form from the -irik- paradigm (-irista in La Paz Aymara). The
endings which encode a first-person or a fourth-person object are formed by inserting
the elements -ita- and -ista- before the -s(a)- affix. The second-person object is expressed
by -irik- forms.
The behaviour of -s(a)- in relation to the preceding vowel is that of a vowel-preserving
affix, except in the sequence -sna (4S). The suffixes -sma (2S) and -spa (3S) are vowel-
preserving even when following the object markers -ita- and -ista-. The fact that -sma
(2S) does not suppress a preceding vowel helps to avoid confusion with the 1S.2O ending
of the unmarked tense (čursma ‘I give it to you’, čurasma ‘You could give it to him/her’).
The paradigm of the past potential (or ‘reproacher tense’) is derived from the present
potential paradigm. In all forms except first-person subject, the suffix -(a):na of the
near-remote past tense is added to the corresponding present potential form.75 At the
same time, the vowel of the suffix -s(a)- is recovered. In the 4S form one element -sa- is
75 Cerrón-Palomino (1995a: 145) points at the similarity between the presence of the suffix -(a:)na,
restricted to third-person subject in most of present-day Aymara, and the use of the third-person
subject auxiliary verb kar(q)a in the past potential of Quechua.
Table 3.11 Subject and subject–object endings for the present and
past potential mood in La Paz Aymara (Yapita 1991)
Present potential Past potential
1 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -irista -iriska:ta

2 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -sma -sama:na
3 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -spa -sapa:na
4 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -sna -sa:na
1 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -irisma -iriskasama:na
2 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -itasma -itasama:na
3 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -itaspa -itasapa:na
3 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -iristam -iriskatama:na
3 pers. subject + 4 pers. object -(i)staspa -(i)stasapa:na
suppressed. In many dialects (including La Paz), the sequence -irik- or -iri-s- must be
followed by an element -ka- in the past potential.
The present and past potential endings for La Paz Aymara are listed in table 3.11.
Some examples are:
(164) kh a: anu-w hala-ni, ač-ha-rak-sta-s-pa

{kh a(y)a anu-w(a) hala-ni-Ø, ač(u)-ha-rak(i)-(i)sta-s-pa}
that dog-AF run-H-3S, hold.with.teeth-LS-AN-4O-PO-3S
‘That dog comes running, it may bite us!’ (Yapita 1991: 84)
(165) ma: iki-ny apa-si-ni-ki-sa-m-a:na
{ma(y)a iki-ny (a)-Ø apa-si-ni-ki-sa-m(a)-a:na}
one sleep-FN-Z carry-RF-H-DL-PO-2S-PA
‘You just could have brought yourself a bed.’ (Yapita 1991: 52)
Two further distinctions that are expressed in the Aymara verbal system belong to the
domain of evidentiality. A suffix -pača-, called ‘inferential’ (inferencial) in Hardman
et al. (1988), is used for referring to events of which knowledge is obtained by de-
duction, rather than by observation; a suffix -či-, referred to as the ‘non-involver’
(no-involucrador), indicates conjecture.76 Both suffixes are vowel suppressing; -pača-
can be inserted before the endings of the unmarked, the future and the near-remote tenses;
-či- can be combined with any tense of the indicative and optative moods (Hardman et al.
1988: 158, 165). After the suffixes -pača- and -či-, the 3S ending of the unmarked tense
consists in a zero marker. All other endings are those of the corresponding tenses and
moods, allowing for occasional morphophonemic adjustments. The suffix -pača- retains
76 Cerrón-Palomino (1994a: 114–15) points at the fact that this suffix could be historically related
to the conjectural independent suffix -č.i in Central Peruvian Quechua.
its final vowel except before i; -či- is optionally reduced to -s- before a vowel-suppressing
consonant, while it becomes -č- before i.77
(166) čur-pača-wa
{čur(a)-pača-Ø-wa}
give-IP-3S-AF
‘He/she must have given it.’ (Hardman et al. 1988: 149)
(167) ina-s sar-či
{ina-s(a) sar(a)-či-Ø}
maybe-AD go-DU-3S
‘Maybe he went.’ (Hardman et al. 1988: 150)
(168) ina-s kh iti-r čur-s-ta
{ina-s(a) kh iti-r(u) čur(a)-č(i)-ta}
maybe-AD who-AL give-DU-1S
‘Maybe I gave it to someone.’ (Yapita 1991: 35)
(169) kh iti-ru-w čur-pača:-ta
{kh iti-ru-w(a) čur(a)-pača:-ta}
who-AL-AF give-IP-2S
‘I must have given it to someone.’ (Yapita 1991: 35)
Verbal subordination in adverbial clauses can be indicated by the vowel-preserving

suffixes -sa and -sina. The descriptions vary as to the semantic distinction (if any)
between these two suffixes, which would have to do with evidentiality (see, for instance,
Briggs 1993: 286). The switch-reference dimension does not play a role, except in those
dialects which preserve the subordinator -ipana, which indicates that the subjects of the
subordinate and the superordinate verb are different. Originally, -ipana was the third-
person form of a fuller paradigm including four subject distinctions (1S, 2S, 3S, 4S).
According to Briggs (1993: 288), this paradigm, which is also mentioned in Bertonio,
is in full use only in the Aymara dialect of northern Potosı́ (Morocomarca), where it has
the following shape: 1S -iny ana, 2S -imana, 3S -ipana, 4S -isana. The varying central
elements (-ny a-, -ma-, -pa-, -sa-) coincide with the possessive personal endings of the
nouns. The full subject paradigm of the switch-reference marker is also preserved in the
related Jaqaru language, which may indicate that Proto-Aymaran had an elaborate switch-
reference system. In contrast to Quechua, Aymara subordinate verbs do not encode
person of object.
77 Hardman et al. (1988) and Yapita (1991) often do not coincide in the notation of vowel length in
the Aymara verbal paradigms. When referring to -pača-, Yapita always indicates length on the
final vowel a, except before -ya:- of the near-remote past tense, e.g. 3S future tense -pača:ni in
Yapita (1991: 34), but -pačani in Hardman et al. (1988: 165).
Table 3.12 Nominalising affixes in Aymara
-iri ‘agentive’
-ny a ‘infinitive’, ‘non-realised event’
-ta ‘stative’, ‘realised event’
-(:)wi ‘place or time’, ‘realised event’
The role of nominalisation in Aymara is similar to that in Quechua. The principal

nominalising affixes in Aymara are shown in table 3.12.
The -iri agentive is subject-centred and tenseless, as is its Quechua equivalent in -q.
In (170) ik-k-ir-pač is a nominalised verb form used as a relative clause.
(170) waw ik-k-ir-pač ič-su-ni-way-i

{waw(a)-Ø ik(i)-k(a)-ir(i)-Ø-pač(a) ič(u)-su-ni-way(a)-i}
child-Z sleep-IA-AG-Z-thus carry.a.child-OW-H-DT-3S
‘He went to pick up the child, asleep as she was.’ (Yapita 1991: 115)
Like in Quechua, the agentive can indicate the purpose of a motion verb, as in the
following example from Sitajara:
(171) um way-t-iri-w sara-ŋ

{um(a)-Ø way(u)-t(a)-iri-w(a) sara-ŋ(a)}78
water-Z carry.by.handle-UW-AG-AF go-1S.F
‘I shall go and fetch water.’ (Briggs 1993: 270)
The (vowel-preserving) nominalisation in -ny a has a much wider use than the Quechua
infinitive in -y, with which it otherwise shares many characteristics. It may refer to an
event in abstracto without any restrictions of time, participant identity, etc. It can also
express the complement of a modal verb, in which case its final vowel suffers zero
complement suppression as any nominal direct object would.
(172) č’uny u-č-iri-r uny -ha-ny mun-irista

{č’uny u-č(a)-iri-r(u) uny (a)-ha-n y (a)-Ø mun(a)-irista}
chuño-FA-AG-AL see-LS-IF-Z want-1S.PO
‘I should like to see the one who prepares chuño.’79 (Briggs 1988: 193)
78 The loss of the final vowel in sara-ŋ a remains unexplained.

79 Frozen and soaked potatoes. The form č’uny u-č-iri-r can be replaced by its zero complement
correspondent č’uny u-č-ir, in which case it refers to the process of chuño-making, rather than
to the person who makes it.
Nominalisation in -ny a further covers the abstract functions of the future-instrumental

nominalisation in -na which is found in Quechua.80 This includes the expression of future
or desired events, the indication of purpose, which also requires the use of the benefactive
case marker -taki, and the expression of obligation.
(173) naya-x. hupa-n iskuyla-r sara-ny a-p mun-ta

{naya-x.(a) hupa-n(a) iskuyla-r(u) sara-ny a-p(a)-Ø mun(a)-ta}
I-TO he-G school-AL go-IF-3P-Z want-1S
‘I want him to go to school.’ (lit.: ‘I want his going to school.’)
(Yapita 1991: 122)
(174) yati-qa-ny a-taki-w hut-ta81
{yati-qa-ny a-taki-w(a) hut(a)-ta}
know-DW-IF-B-AF come-1S
‘I have come to learn.’ (Briggs 1993: 279)
(175) sara-ny a-ha-wa
go-IF-1P-AF
‘I must go.’ (lit.: ‘It is my obligation of going.’) (Yapita 1991: 72)
As an alternative to the construction with the possessive marker, exemplified in (175),

it is also possible to reverbalise the infinitive by means of vowel lengthening. The person
to whom the obligation applies is then expressed by the subject marker (176). Still
another, more common, alternative involves the addition of the ownership suffix -ni to
the infinitive before reverbalisation takes place (177).
(176) naya-x. čura-ny a-:-t-wa

{naya-x.(a) čura-ny a-:-t(a)-wa}
I-TO give-IF-CV-1S-AF
‘I must give it to him/her.’ (Briggs 1993: 275)
(177) naya-x. apa-ny a-ni-:-t-wa
{naya-x.(a) apa-ny a-ni-:-t(a)-wa}
I-TO carry-IF-OS-CV-1S-AF
‘I must take it away.’ (Briggs 1988: 258)
Stative nominalisation is indicated by vowel-preserving -ta. It is used for referring

to any concrete entity affected or defined by a previous action. Both object-centred
(transitive) and subject-centred (intransitive) examples are found.
80 The array of functions represented by -ny a in Aymara is reminiscent of that of -na in Ecuadorian
Quechua.
81 The verb huta- ‘to come’ is used without the ventive suffix -ni- in La Paz Aymara. Bertonio
(1612a, II: 169) observes that huta- has a limited morphological valence, but mentions the
existence of huta-ni-tha ‘to come to where we are’.
(178) ph aya-ta-m naya-: manq’-t’a-si-:

{ph aya-ta-m(a)-Ø naya-ya manq’(a)-t’a-si-:}
cook-SN-2P-Z I-AT eat-M-RF-1S.F
‘I shall eat what you have cooked.’ (Yapita 1993: 122)
(179) manq’a-ta-:-ta-ti, hani-ča
eat-SN-CV-2S-IR, not-IR
‘Have you eaten, or not? (Cotari et al. 1978, part I: 220)
Nominalisation in -(:)wi is used for referring to a realised event, or to the place, time
or occasion of an event. It is often found in place names (Candaravi, Ilavi). Briggs (1993:
282) observes that the nominalising suffix -(:)wi is losing ground to -ta, particularly in
its non-local functions. There is no particular rule predicting the presence of the long
vowel; Briggs (1993) gives both -wi and -:wi as competing possibilities.
(180) naya-x. hupa-n ut-ha-:wi-p uny -h-t-wa

{naya-x.(a) hupa-n(a) ut(a)-ha-:wi-p(a)-Ø uny (a)-h(a)-t(a)-wa}
I-TO he-G stay-LS-LN-G-Z see-LS-1S-AF
‘I know the place where he lives.’ (Yapita 1991: 122)
(181) sar-naqa-wi-ni-:-ny a
{sar(a)-naqa-wi-ni-:-ny a}
go-DD-LN-OS-CV-IF
‘to have culture’, ‘to have good behaviour’82 (Hardman et al. 1988: 267)
Aymara differs from Quechua in the inventory and behaviour of its independent
suffixes. The evidentiality distinctions are expressed within the verbal paradigm, rather
than by independent suffixes. The independent suffix -wa, which expresses affirmation
or personal witness, is reminiscent of -mi in Quechua, but has no hearsay or conjectural
counterparts. However, -wa does interact with distinctions that are expressed in the verb.
It is not found with imperatives, nor does it co-occur with the non-involver forms in -či
(see above). In sentences containing a non-involver form there is, however, the optional
presence of an independent suffix -či, itself restricted to the sequences -či-m83 or -či-x.a
(Hardman et al. 1988: 287). As a matter of fact, the semantic value of non-involver -či
(and, for that matter, the independent suffix -či) is nearly identical to that of the Quechua
conjectural suffix -č.i/-ča.
Several independent suffixes, viz. -ki, -puni (∼ -pini) and -raki, can be inserted within
the verb, as well as follow it. In fact, in Hardman et al. (1988), the term ‘independent
suffixes’ (sufijos independientes) is reserved for this particular category, the remaining
82 Sar-naqa- (lit. ‘to walk back and forth’) conveys the meaning of ‘behaviour’, ‘lifestyle’, etc.
83 The suffix -m, of highly restricted use, is probably related to the Jaqaru hearsay marker -mna. A
suffix -mna in Aymara was recorded by Bertonio (cf. Briggs 1993: 257).
ones being termed ‘sentential suffixes’ (sufijos oracionales). The suffix -puni (∼ -pini),
like its Quechua homonym, can be interpreted as ‘always’, ‘definitely’; the suffix
-raki is translated as ‘even’, ‘more’, ‘else’, or ‘take care not to’. In (182) both -puni
and -raki are followed by the vowel lengthening that indicates the notion of a copula
‘to be’:
(182) inklisa-st kuna č’ama-puni-raki-:-spa-sti

{inklisa-st(i) kuna č’ama-puni-raki-:-spa-sti}
English-IR what difficult-EM-AD-CV-3S.PO-IR
‘And English, how difficult exactly would it be?’
(Hardman et al. 1988: 284)
In (183) -raki precedes the person and tense ending:
(183) naya-x. aymar yati.č-t’a-raki-:ma

{naya-x.(a) aymar(a)-Ø yati.č(a)-t’a-raki-:ma}
I-TO Aymara-Z teach-M-AD-1S.2O.F
‘I shall also teach you Aymara.’ (Yapita 1991: 98)
The limitative suffix -ki, equivalent to Quechua -l y a (‘just’, ‘only’), shares with the
two preceding affixes the ability to occur inside verbalisations, or be inserted within a
verb form; see example (165).
Aymara is rich in independent suffixes with an interrogative function. The suffix -ti
is used in negations, cf. (142), and in polar questions, cf. (179). It is the equivalent
of Quechua -ču. If the question consists of several alternatives, the second and further
alternatives are presented with -ča; see again (179). The topic, and sometimes also the
verb, in a pivotal question is marked with -sti; cf. (182).
Interrogative expressions containing WH-question words are followed by -sa (cf.
Quechua -taq); see (140) and (143) for examples. However, the same expressions, also
with -sa, can be found in negative sentences, where they indicate absolute negation (cf.
Quechua -pas, -pis, -si).
(184) hani-w makina-s kuna-s ut-ha-p-k-itu-ti

{hani-w(a) makina-s(a) kuna-s(a) ut(a)-ha-p-k(a)-itu-ti}
not-AF machine-AD what-AD exist-LS-PL-AN-3S.1O-NE
‘We have no machines, none whatever.’ (Hardman et al. 1988: 285)
The neutral function of -sa is to convey the meaning ‘too’, ‘also’. It is frequently
found in enumerations.
Aymara has several independent affixes that indicate emphasis, politeness or attenu-
ation. The topic marker x.a is also used as an attenuator (Hardman et al. 1988: 280), for
instance, in a request for understanding on the part of the hearer. Its use is extremely
frequent, and its presence is not always easily explained. The suffix -ya (usually -y
or -:) is also used for attenuation, for instance with imperatives with the meaning of
‘please!’.
Complex sentences in Aymara are often constructed by juxtaposition of non-
subordinate verbal clauses.84 The relation between the clauses can be made explicit
by the presence of independent affixes, the form of the verb in the first clause, and by
the presence of lexical elements. Yapita (1991) gives a number of interesting examples
of such constructions, some of which are represented in (185)–(187). The equivalent
of a relative clause can be constructed by means of a full verb containing the non-
completive suffix -ka-, followed by a demonstrative pronoun uka ‘that’, which, in turn,
is grammatically integrated into the main clause.85
(185) hupa qh uly -t-k-i uka yap sara-:

{hupa qh uly (i)-t(a)-k(a)-i uka yap(u)-Ø sara-:}
he plough-UW-AN-3S that field-Z go-1S.F
‘I shall go to the field that he has ploughed.’ (Yapita 1991: 123)
(186) hupa ut-h-k-i uka uta-kama-w sara-ny ani
{hupa ut(a)-h(a)-k(a)-i uka uta-kama-w(a) sara-ny ani}
he stay-LS-AN-3S that house-LI-AF go-4S.F
‘We shall walk until the house where he lives.’ (Yapita 1991: 123)
The topic marker -x.a is used after verbs in the potential tense and in the unmarked
non-involver tense to express a condition (‘if’).
(187) huta-ny a-puni-:-či-x.a, ina-s mariyanu-x. uta-r qh aru:ru-x. hut-či-ni

{huta-ny a-puni-:-či-Ø-x.a, ina-s(a) mariyanu-x.(a) uta-r(u) qh ar(a)-uru-x.(a)
hut(a)-či-ni}
come-IF-EM-CV-DU-3S-TO maybe-AD Mariano-TO house-AL
tomorrow-day-TO come-DU-3S.F
‘If it really should be urgent to come, Mariano may possibly come to
the house tomorrow.’ (Yapita 1991: 123)
As in Quechua, direct speech plays a major role in Aymara discourse. Direct speech
is obligatorily followed by a form of the verb ‘to say’ sa-, either in its subordinate form
84 For a fuller treatment of Aymara complex sentences see Dedenbach and Yapita (1994:
126–50).
85 The use of uka as a relativiser is reminiscent of similar uses of čay-qa in Cuzco Quechua and
hina in Puno Quechua.
sa-sa (188) or in one of its finite forms (189). The construction sa-sa sa- is parallel in
use and structure to Quechua IIC ni-spa ni-.
(188) hupa-x. apa-si-m sa-sa-w s-i

{hupa-x.(a) apa-si-m(a) sa-sa-w(a) s(a)-i}
he/she-TO carry-RF-2S.IM say-SU-AF say-3S
‘He/she said to me: Take it away!’ (Hardman et al. 1988: 314)
y
(189) kul aka-ha-x. huta-m s-itu-wa
{kuly aka-ha-x.(a) huta-m(a) s(a)-itu-wa}
sister-1P-TO come-2S.IM say-3S.1O-AF
‘My sister told me to come.’ (lit.: ‘My sister said to me: Come!’)
(Yapita 1991: 98)
The verb sa- ‘to say’, the equivalent of Quechua ni-, is the only fully conjugated verb
in Aymara that has a monosyllabic root.86 It is subject to the usual vowel-suppression
rules, which in this case generate consonant clusters in root-initial position. Some dialects
preserve these complex initials, but others (in particular, those of La Paz and Juli) tend
to modify the root by adding a prefixed element hi- or si-, whenever an initial consonant
cluster obtains (e.g. hista, sista instead of sta ‘I/you say’); in Bertonio (1603b) the
prefixed element is i-. The dialect of Jopoqueri (central Oruro, Bolivia) uses a root with
a long vowel, sa:-, to avoid initial clusters. See Briggs (1993: 229–38) for a detailed
discussion.
3.3.7 Aymara lexicon

Many of the observations that were made with regard to the lexicon of present-day
Quechua (cf. section 3.2.7) are valid for present-day Aymara as well. Although the
sixteenth-century native lexicon has been preserved remarkably well, some of the most
frequent items in present-day Aymara speech are of Spanish origin. These have been
integrated so well that most speakers will not immediately recognise them as borrowed
words. For instance, the word parla- ‘to speak’ was probably derived from an archaic or
regional (Catalan?) Romance term, which is not in use in present-day standard Spanish.
The word for ‘good’, wali, was probably derived from the Spanish expression vale ‘it is
OK’, ‘it holds’. The phonotactic rules of Aymara tend to change the shape of borrowed
words considerably (e.g. hawasa ‘beans’ from Spanish habas).
The remark that the number of lexical roots, especially verbs, is limited also holds
for Aymara. However, the derivational morphology of Aymara is considerably richer
still than that of Quechua, in particular, in the domain of spatial categories. Dictionaries
contain long lists of verb roots with derivational extensions that have acquired idiomatic
86 The cognate root of sa- in Jaqaru, saha-, consists of two syllables.

meanings. The availability of several verbalisation devices, which interact with nom-
inalisation processes and which sometimes can be used recursively, further stimulates
the formation of idiomatic expressions.
Even to a greater extent than Quechua, Aymara is exceptionally rich in lexical terms
referring to ways of carrying (cf. Tate 1981). The overall term for ‘to carry’ is apa-, as in
Quechua, but a number of other terms, exclusively Aymara in their majority, occur as
well.
(190) aču- ‘to carry with the teeth’

asa- ‘to carry open recipients’ (plates, vessels)
aya- ‘to carry something long’ (sticks, pencils)
hač’i- ‘to carry a handful’ (grain, rice)
harph i-, t’imph i- ‘to carry in apron or skirt’
iču- ‘to carry in the arms’ (children, small animals)
iqa- ‘to carry something flexible’ (cloth, rope)
ira- ‘to carry objects that fit in the hand’ (bread, fruit, money)
itu- ‘to carry something big with both hands’ (stone, cooking-pot)
kaly a- ‘to carry a large object, alone or with others’ (trees, tables)
ph ux.tu- ‘to carry with two hands’, ‘to carry a double handful’
(also in Quechua)
q’ipi- ‘to carry on the back’ (also in Quechua)
wayu- ‘to carry with a handle’ (baskets, buckets, suitcases)
Kinship terminology in present-day Aymara is rather similar to European kinship

terminology (cf. Pyle 1981). It distinguishes gender of referent, rather than gender of ego.
Unlike the case of Quechua, the terms for ‘son’, yuqa, and ‘daughter’, ph uča, are kept
apart. In the terms for ‘brother’ and ‘sister’, respectively, hila(ta) and kul y aka, gender
of ego is no longer indicated. However, Bertonio’s dictionary (1612a) gives evidence
of a more complex system, in which not only gender of ego, but also relative age play
a role. For instance, alu (Bertonio alo) is ‘younger brother of woman’, činki (Bertonio
chinqui) is ‘younger sister’, whereas kul y aka (Bertonio collaca) is translated as ‘elder
sister’. ‘Elder brother’ and ‘younger brother’ are listed as hila and sul y ka (Bertonio
sullca), respectively. Affinal kinship terms are well elaborated in present-day Aymara:
tul y qa ‘son-in-law’, yux.č’a ‘daughter-in-law’, lari ‘relative of wife’. Parents-in-law are
indicated by means of a vowel-suppressing suffix -č’i as in awk-č’i ‘father-in-law’ (from
awki ‘father’) and tayk-č’i ‘mother-in-law’ (from tayka ‘mother’).
The Aymara numeral system is decimal and parallel to that of Quechua in the way
complex numerals are formed; see above (150) and (151). From an etymological point
of view, however, the Aymara facts seem to betray a less elaborate system. The words
maya ‘one’, paya ‘two’ and pusi ‘four’ are exclusive to the Aymaran languages. A term
for ‘two human beings’ or ‘both’ is pa(:)ni. The words for ‘seven’ paqal yqu, and ‘eight’
kimsaqal yqu, contain the elements for ‘two’ pa(ya) and ‘three’ kimsa, respectively, which
leaves the element qal yqu as the possible remnant of an old word for ‘five’. The words
for ‘three’ kimsa, ‘five’ ph isqa, ‘six’ sux.ta, ‘ten’ tunka, ‘hundred’ pataka and ‘thousand’
waranqa, are shared with Quechua. Although the direction of borrowing is not traceable
in all cases, the added vowel in the word for ‘hundred’ (Quechua pač.ak) suggests a
Quechua origin.87 The word for ‘nine’ l y a(:)tunka can be interpreted as a reflex of
*l y al y a tunka ‘almost ten’; llalla tunca is the form listed in Bertonio (1612a).
The spatial deictic elements exhibit a fourfold distinction based on distance from the
speaker. The proximate term is aka ‘this’, the non-proximate term is uka ‘that’; for further
distance k h aya ∼ k h a: and k h uyu ∼ k h uri can be used, the latter indicating a greater
distance than the former. Substantive-like use of the demonstratives can be brought
about by consecutive verbalisation and nominalisation as in ak-i:ri ‘the one here’, ‘this
one here’. Local deictics are case-marked; e.g. aka-na ‘here’. Further combinations are
possible with the vowel-suppressing affixes -ha ‘size’ and -hama ‘like’ (e.g. ak h a ‘this
much’, ak h ama ‘like this’).
Temporal deixis consists of special elements that are obligatory in temporal expres-
sions, such as hičha ‘now’, which appears in hičhu:ru ‘today’, hičhayp’u ‘tonight’ (uru
‘day’, hayp’u ‘evening’), and qhara ‘tomorrow’, which is more often found as q haru:ru.
Some of these elements do not occur alone; cf. masu:ru ‘yesterday’ and walu:ru ‘day
before yesterday’.
Of the interrogative roots kama and kuna (meaning ‘what?’), the former is restricted
to derivations such as kam-sa- ‘to say what?’, kama-ča- ‘to do/happen what?’ and kamisa
‘how?’, whereas the latter occurs alone or in temporal expressions, such as kuna pača
‘when?’. Further interrogatives are kh iti ‘who?’, kawki ‘what place?’ and q(h)awqha ‘how
much?’, ‘how many?’. Several forms for ‘which?’ are derived from kawki by consecutive
verbalisation and nominalisation: kawki(:)ri, kawkni(:)ri. The latter form appears to be
derived from kawki-na ‘where?’ rather than from kawki itself (Briggs 1993: 93).
Aymara has root names for the colours: ‘black’ č’iyara, ‘white’ hanq’u, ‘grey’
č’ik(h) u, č’ix.i, ‘red to brown’ čupika, wila,88 ‘coffee brown’ č’ump(h) i, ‘yellow’ q’ily u
(cf. Quechua), ‘light blue’ sahuna, ‘dark blue’ larama, and ‘green’ č’ux.ny a.
As in Quechua, root reduplication plays a role in Aymara as well. Most frequent is the
reduplication of substantives in order to indicate a dispersed quantity, e.g. in qala=qala
87 The interpretation of the direction of borrowing is dictated by the fact that Aymara has no
nominal stems ending in a consonant, whereas conversely Quechua has many nominal stems
ending in a vowel. There is no reason why Quechua should lose such a vowel in the process of
borrowing.
88 The status of wila as an exclusive colour term cannot be upheld, because it also refers to ‘blood’.
In the related Jaqaru language ‘blood’ is the sole meaning of wila (Belleza Castro 1995: 196).
‘stony place’ (from qala ‘stone’). The existence of reduplicated elements which together
constitute a single root was already observed by Bertonio (1612a), as appears from his
commentary on the gloss of the word huarahuara [warawara] ‘star’ (author’s translation):
‘And it is not a repeated noun, such as calacala [qalaqala], which means “stony place”
or “heap of stones”, but it is a single noun. Maya huarahuara, one star.’
3.3.8 Literary production in Aymara

In the colonial period Aymara played a more modest role than Quechua, and only very
few texts have been preserved. Some remnants of the pre-Columbian oral tradition in
the form of song texts are found in the chronicle of Guaman Poma de Ayala (1615); see
section 3.3.1. As a lengua general, the Aymara language formed part of the Doctrina
Christiana programme of 1584 (see section 3.2.2). Bertonio (1612b), assisted by his
Aymara consultant Don Martı́n de Santacruz, published a Libro de la vida y milagros
de Nuestro Señor Iesu Cristo en dos lenguas, aymara y romance (Book of the Life
and Miracles of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Two Languages, Aymara and Spanish). A
specimen of this text in a modernised version can be found in the anthology of Aymara
literature published by Albó and Layme (1992), which furthermore contains several
good examples of traditional narratives, myths, etc., along with political discourse and
historical accounts.
As in the case of Quechua, most of contemporary Aymara literature is traditional, and
consists of myths, rituals, narratives, autobiographical accounts, song texts and riddles.
Several texts were recorded in the 1940s in Chucuito by the anthropologist Tschopik
(1948). One of the texts he collected was the autobiographical account of an Aymara
woman, named Manuela Ari, which was eventually published by Briggs and Dedenbach
(1995). It illustrates social injustice and the hardships of life on the altiplano. A collection
of stories entitled Jichha na: parlt’a (Now I Am Going to Tell), told by Elvira Espejo
Ayka (1994), an eleven-year-old girl from Qaqachaka (province of Avaroa, Oruro), was
published by Arnold and Yapita.
Finally, we should mention the production of the Proyecto Experimental de Educación
Bilingüe (Experimental Project for Bilingual Education), which operated in Puno during
the 1980s. This programme has generated several publications, among them, collections
of myths and folktale Wiñay Pacha (Eternal Time) I and II (López and Sayritupac 1985,
1990), and a compilation of song texts Qala Chuyma (Heart of Stone) (Paniagua Loza
1986).
3.3.9 Aymara sample text

The following sample text is an excerpt from a narrative relating the sufferings of
the altiplano Indians during the Chaco War (1932–5), between Bolivia and Paraguay. The
account, narrated by Esteban Yapu Mamani from La Paz, was first published in the
trilingual magazine Jayma (Community Field) in La Paz (1984–6) and, subsequently,

reprinted in Albó and Layme (1992: 120–4). The original orthography has been adapted
to the transcription used in the present work.
1. wali č’umi-raki-:n-wa.
{wali č’umi-raki-:n(a)-wa}
very forested-AD-3S.NR-AF
‘It was all covered with bushes there.’
The original transcription of sentence 1 has a short vowel in the verb form. Since the
other instances of the near-remote past ending -:na do contain an indication of vowel
length, we treat this as an oversight and restore the long vowel mark.
2. uma-t-x. sint-pin wany -kata-p-x.-ita-:n-x.a, ukh ama-rak manq’a-t-x.

awt-ha-p-x.-ita-:n-x.a.
{uma-t(a)-x.(a) sint(i)-pin(i) wany (a)-kata-p-x.(a)-ita-:n(a)-x.a, uk(a)-
hama-rak(i) manq’a-t(a)-x.(a) awt(i)-ha-p-x.(a)-ita-:n(a)-x.a}
water-AB-TO strongly-EM dry-PT-MA-CM-3S.1O-NR-TO,
that-CP-AD food-AB-TO hunger-LS-PL-CM-3S.1O-NR-TO
‘The lack of water made us terribly thirsty, and, likewise, the lack of
food made us suffer from hunger.’
The expressions uma and manq’a followed by the ablative case ending -t(a) must
be translated with the expression ‘for lack of’ (cf. Quechua mikuy-manta ‘for lack of
food’). The verbs wany -kata- ‘to become dry’ and awt-ha- ‘to be hungry’ are used with
an impersonal third-person subject. Both show idiomatic use of derivational affixes.
3. na-naka-x. č’ax.wa-ny hak’a-n-ka-p-x.a-ya-t-wa, uka-t-x. qh ux.uq-ir-x.

is.t’-x.a-p-x.a-rak-t-wa.
{na-naka-x.(a) č’ax.wa-ny (a) hak’a-n(a)-ka-p-x.a-ya-t(a)-wa, uka-t(a)-x.(a)
qh ux.uq(i)-ir(i)-x.(a) is(a).t’(a)-x.a-p-x.a-rak(i)-t(a)-wa}
I-PL-TO fight-IF nearby-L-LV-PL-CM-NR-1S-AF that-AB-TO
thunder-AG-Z-TO hear-CM-PL-CM-AD-1S-AF
‘We were close to where the fighting was, so we could even hear the
explosions.’
The near-remote suffix -ya:- does not contain a vowel-length marker in hak’a-n-ka-
p-x.a-ya-t-wa. This may be a consequence of the foreshortening effect produced by the
first-person subject marker -t(a). However, most sources do write vowel length in such
cases (see, in particular, Yapita 1991). The verb is.t’a- ‘to hear’ is derived from a root
*isa-, which is not found without a derivational affix.
4. uka-t nayra-qat č’ax.w-ir sultaru-w uny -s-ta-ni-p-x.-itu, q’ala

th anth a-w puri-ni-:na.
{uka-t(a) nayra-qat(a) č’ax.w(a)-ir(i) sultaru-w(a) uny (a)-s(i)-ta-ni-p
-x.(a)-itu, q’ala th anth a- w(a) puri-ni-:na}
that-AB first-LS fight-AG soldier-AF see-RF-UW-H-P-CM-3S.1O,
totally ragged-AF arrive-H-3S.NR
‘Then, soldiers who had been fighting earlier appeared before us, they
arrived totally in rags.’
The suffix -qata is restricted to the word nayra-qata ‘first’, ‘before’ exemplified here
(Briggs 1988: 200). The meaning of nayra is ‘eye’, ‘first’ or ‘ancient’. One could consider
the possibility that -ta in -qata was originally the ablative case marker (‘from’, ‘after’).
The verb uny -s-ta- ‘to appear before someone’ is here used transitively. It contains the
reflexive suffix -si-, which preserves a preceding vowel except in this particular case.
There is an alternative form uny a-si- without vowel suppression, which has the same
meaning.
5. na-naka-r uny -ha-sa-x. hača-raki-:n-wa.

{na-naka-r(u) uny (a)-ha-sa-x.(a) hača-raki-:n(a)-wa}
I-PL-AL see-LS-SU-TO cry-AD-3S.NR-AF
‘They even cried when they saw us.’
Note that the allative case, rather than the zero marker, is used with human
complements.
6. uka-t-x. sa-p-x.a-rak-itu-wa, kuna-ti pas-ka-:n uk-x.a.

{uka-t(a)-x.(a) sa-p-x.a-rak(i)-itu-wa, kuna-ti pas(a)-ka-:n(a) uk(a)-x.a}
that-AB-TO say-PL-CM-AD-3S.1O-AF what-IR happen-AN-3S.1O
that-Z-TO
‘Then, they told us more about what was happening over there.’
The word kuna-ti ‘what + interrogative suffix’ is used here as a connective element
introducing a complement clause. The clause is closed by uka, which summarises the
complement clause and identifies it as the direct object of the main clause (by zero mark-
ing). The verb pasa- ‘to happen’ is from Spanish pasar. Note the use of the incompletive
marker -ka-, which indicates an anticipated event.
7. t’aqh i-si-ta-naka-p-s awis-t’a-p-x.a-rak-ita-:n-wa.

{t’aqh i-si-ta-naka-p(a)-s(a) awis(a)-t’a-p-x.a-raki-ta-:n(a)-wa}
suffering-RF-SN-PL-3P-Z-AD inform-M-PL-CM-AD-3S.1O-3S.NR-AF
‘And they also informed us about how they had suffered.’
The verb awisa- ‘to inform’ is from Spanish avisar. The element -t’a- adds politeness.
When used as a verb, t’aqh i-si- ‘to suffer’ obligatorily contains the reflexive suffix -si-.
In sentences 4 to 7 we have followed the source edition, which speaks of the arrival of
several soldiers from the front. However, the use of the plural markers in this passage does
not preclude the alternative interpretation that only one soldier arrived. Plural markers
can apply to the object (if not third-person), as well as to the subject, and the text excerpt
presented here does not contain cases of verbal plural marking in which the object (‘us’)
is not encoded (cf. England 1988: 112).
8. čaku-n-x. wali uma-t hiwa-ny a-:n-wa.

{čaku-n(a)-x.(a) wali uma-t(a) hiwa-ny a-(:-)-:n(a)-wa}
Chaco-L-TO a.lot water-AB die-IF-CV-3S.NR-AF
‘In the Chaco one had to die for lack of water.’
Sentence 8 contains a reverbalised infinitive, which indicates obligation. The required
vowel length is not discernible, because the following near-remote marker -:na also
begins with a long vowel. See also sentence 10.
9. čh ux.-sa hani-w ina-k čh ux.u-rpaya-p-ka-:n-ti, ma:.ki-w

uma-nt-x.a-p-x.a-:n-x.a.
{čh ux.(u)-sa hani-w(a) ina-k(i) čh ux.u-rpaya-p-ka-:n(a)-ti, ma(y)a.ki-w(a)
uma-nt(a)-x.a-p-x.a-:n(a)-x.a}
urine-Z-AD not-AF in.vain-DL urinate-LB-PL-PR-AN-3S.NR-NE
at.once-AF drink-IW-CM-PL-CM-3S.NR-TO
‘Even urine they would not throw away just like that, they would drink
it on the spot.’
The suffix -rpaya- has been described as a marker of ‘multiple action’, ‘reversed
action’, as well as an intensifier (England 1988: 107; Briggs 1993: 168). In sentence 9
it seems to coincide with the meaning of Quechua -rpari- in verbs of abandonment (‘to
dispose of and leave behind’). The common expression ma:ki ‘at once’ is derivable from
ma(y)a ‘one’ and the delimitative suffix -ki ‘just’. Note the double occurrence of the
completive marker -x.a in the verb uma-nt-x.a-p-x.a-:n(a). This is a common phenomenon
due to the fact that the second occurrence of the suffix is part of the plural marking,
whereas the first instance indicates completive aspect (‘eventually’, ‘in the end’). See
also the sentences 11, 13 and 15, and England (1988: 112).
10. uka-t-sti, pastu-s manq’a-ny a-ki-:-n-wa.

{uka-t(a)-sti, pastu-s(a) manq’a-ny a-ki-(:-):n(a)-wa}
that-AB-CT grass-AD eat-IF-DL-CV-3S.NR-AF
‘But then, it was also necessary to eat grass.’
11. kuriya-naka, th anth a sapatu-nak-s manq’-x.a-p-x.a-ki-ya-t-wa.
{kuriya-naka, th anth a sapatu-nak(a)-s(a) manq’(a)-x.a-p-x.a-ki-ya-t(a)-wa}
belt-PL ragged shoe-PL-Z-AD eat-CM-PL-CM-DL-NR-1S-AF
‘We ended up eating belts and old shoes.’
The word kuriya-naka lacks both zero complement marking and the additive suffix
-sa, which would mark its coordination with t h ant h a sapatu-nak-s. A possible association
with pastu-s in sentence 10 would also require the presence of the additive suffix. Here
we interpret the forms kuriya-naka and t h ant h a sapatu-nak-s as coordinated objects on
the basis of the Spanish translation accompanying the text.
In the original text, a long vowel is written in the element -ki- of the verb manq’-x.a-
p-x.a-ki-ya-t-wa. Since there seems to be no motivation for a long vowel, we have left it
out. For the shortness of the vowel in -ya:- see the commentary on sentence 3.
12. um th aqa-sa-x. luqh i-w tuk-x.a-p-x.a-:n-x.a.

{um(a) th aq(h) a-sa-x.(a) luqh i-w(a) tuk(u)-x.a-p-x.a-:n(a)-x.a}
water-Z search-SU-TO mad-AF become-CM-PL-CM-3S.TO
‘Searching for water, people eventually went mad.’
13. um th aqh a-sa-x. uraq p’iya-p-x.a-:n-x.a, hani-pini-w
uma-x. ut-h-iri-:-k-i-ti.
{um(a) th aq(h) a-sa-x.(a) uraq(i) p’iya-p-x.a-:n(a)-x.a, hani-pini-w(a)
uma-x.(a) ut(a)-h(a)-iri-:-k(a)-i-ti}
water-Z search-SU-TO earth dig-PL-CM-3S.NR-TO, not-EM-AF
water-TO exist-LS-AG-CV-AN-3S-NE
‘Searching for water, they dug into the earth, but there was never any
water to be found.’
The reverbalised agentive form in the verb form ut-h-iri-:-k-i-ti indicates a habit-
ual past. A third-person-subject habitual past without reverbalisation is illustrated in
sentence 14.
14. uma-layk uraq p’iya-s ma.nta-sa-x. haqi-mp-pača-ki-w čh aqh -x.-iri.

{uma-layk(u) uraq(i) p’iya-s(a) ma.nta-sa-x.(a) haqi-mp(i)-pača-ki-w(a)
čh aqh (a)-x.(a)-iri}
water-cause earth dig-SU enter-SU-TO man-CO-IN-DL-AF
get.lost-CM-AG
‘Digging into the earth for the sake of water and entering the pits, it
even happened that men disappeared.’
The verb manta- ‘to enter’ contains a non-productive root ma- ‘to go’ (Jaqaru
maha-), which is obligatorily accompanied by a derivational suffix (here -nta- ‘in-
ward motion’). The common combination -mp(i)-pača- is discussed by Briggs (1988:
208). It indicates inclusion and consists of the coordinative marker -mpi (Quechua
-wan) and the inclusive marker -pača (Quechua -nti-), which indicates total inclusion.
The suffix -pača also conveys the meanings ‘(it)self’ and ‘inferential knowledge’ (see
above).
15. ma: hila.ta-x. pitrulyu uny -ha-raki-tayna, uk uma-sa-s

hiw-x.a-p-x.a-raki-:n-wa.
{ma(y)a hila.ta-x.(a) pitrulyu uny (a)-ha-raki-tayna, uk(a) uma-sa-s(a)
hiw(a)-x.a-p-x.a-raki-:n(a)-wa}
one brother petrol see-LS-AD-3S.FR, that-Z drink-SU-AD
die-CM-PL-CM-AD-3S.NR-AF
‘They say one of our comrades even found petrol, and then he drank
it and died.’
The word hilata ‘brother’ may have been derived from hila- ‘to grow’; an alternative
term for brother is hila (originally ‘elder brother’). There is no ready explanation for the
absence of zero complement marking in petrulyu; possibly the fact that the (underlying)
vowels on both sides of the word boundary were identical may have caused confusion.
3.3.10 The Jaqaru language89

As we noted in passing, the sound system of the Jaqaru language is highly complex.
The vowel system is similar to that of Aymara and Central Peruvian Quechua. It com-
prises three vowels (a, i, u) with additional distinctive length. As in the neighbouring
languages, the high vowels are subject to obligatory lowering in a uvular environment.
Non-obligatory lowering is found in other environments. The status of length has been
a matter of debate. Although it has been general practice to classify the vowels as plain
(short) versus long, Hardman (1983a, b) proposes a distinction between plain (short) and
extra-short vowels. In this approach, the plain vowels correspond to the longer option in
pairs differentiated by length, whereas extra-short vowels (ă, ı̆, ŭ) represent the shorter
option in such pairs. Cerrón-Palomino (1994b) criticises this analysis on empirical and
general linguistic grounds. He prefers to treat the shorter vowels as plain and the longer
ones as long in pairs differentiated by length. Even though Hardman’s approach may
seem unusual from a general linguistic point of view, it should be observed that if in a
minimal pair differentiated by length one of the elements is a lexical item shared with
Quechua, it often, though not always, has the longer vowel option. Compare in (191)
Quechua čaki ‘(to) dry’, and in (192) Quechua kaka ‘maternal uncle’.90
89 The main sources of the grammatical information given in this paragraph are Hardman (1966),
Hardman (1983a) and Belleza Castro (1995). It should be noted, however, that our analysis of
the Jaqaru data may differ from the one given in these sources.
90 Our own observation of Jaqaru speech indicates that the vowels can be pronounced long, even
when they are not part of a minimal pair differentiated by length (e.g. nar-ma [na:rma] ‘laugh!’,
ut-ma [o:tma] ‘your house’). The matter requires further investigation.
Table 3.13 Jaqaru consonant inventory
Alveolar
Labial affricates Alveolar Alveopalatal Palatal Retroflex Velar Uvular
Plain p c t ty č č. k q
Obstruents Glottalised p’ c’ t’ ty ’ č’ č.’ k’ q’
Aspirated ph ch th tyh čh č.h kh qh
Fricatives s š h
Nasals m n ny ŋ
Laterals l ly
Vibrant r
Glides w y
(191) čăk-k-i čak-k-i (Hardman 1983a, b)

{čăk(i)-k-i} {čak(i)-k-i}
čak-k-i ča:k-k-i (Cerrón-Palomino 1994b)
{čak(i)-k-i} {ča:k(i)-k-i}
look.for-SM-3S dry-SM-3S
‘He is looking for it.’ ‘It is drying.’
(192) kăka kaka (Hardman 1983a, b)
kaka ka:ka (Cerrón-Palomino 1994b)
‘uncle’ ‘wing’
The Jaqaru consonant inventory (cf. also section 3.3.3) is shown in table 3.13.91
Although all these consonants are attested, some exhibit a low frequency of occur-
rence. Of the alveolar affricates only the glottalised affricate is found in word-initial
position (e.g. c’irara ‘black’; Aymara: č’iyara). The aspirated affricate čh is limited to
word-internal position (in ičh u ‘straw’; Aymara: hičh u). For the limited distribution of
the velar nasal see section 3.3.3. Initial liquids and r in Aymara cognates and Quechua
loans are usually matched by a nasal in Jaqaru; for instance, in ny aki ‘sadness’ (Quechua
l y aki), nuri ‘inside’ (Quechua I ruri) and nura- ‘to do’ (Aymara lura-, Quechua I rura-).92
Vowel suppression is common in Jaqaru. Both morphophonemic and syntactically
based rules are represented (cf. sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.5). Interestingly, vowel suppression
91 Hardman (1983a) and Belleza Castro (1995) use different spellings for the alveolar affricate
series (respectively, tz and ts, etc.), for the alveopalatal series (tx and ty, etc.) and for the retroflex
series (cx and tr, etc.). Both authors use Peruvian Spanish spellings for the palatal series (ch,
etc.), as well as for the (alveo)palatal nasal, lateral and fricative (ñ, ll, sh) and the velar fricative
( j). The velar nasal is written nh. Aspiration is written “ by Hardman and h by Belleza Castro.
92 Surprisingly, Jaqaru also has a number of words with initial l and ly , such as ly uqaly a ‘boy’,
possibly a loan from Aymara or from an extinct Aymaran language.
can also affect vowels inside a root or ending, in contrast to Aymara, where this is
exceptional. Furthermore, non-contiguous, as well as contiguous affixes can exert an
influence upon the shape of a morpheme (Hardman 1966: 32–9; 1983a: 55–72). Vowel
suppression in Jaqaru is dominated by a bewildering variety of ad hoc rules, which are
much more difficult to formulate in general terms than in the case of Aymara. In the
following example the word for ‘fox’ atuqu is subject to root-internal vowel suppression,
whereas kuntiri ‘condor’ has root-final vowel suppression (but compare kuntri-wšqa in
example (198) below).
(193) amur aruma atqu-qa sa-k-i kuntir-ha

{amur(u) aruma at(u)qu-qa sa-k-i93 kuntir(i)-ha}
well night fox-TO say-SM-3S condor-AC
‘At midnight the fox says to the condor: . . .’ (Farfán 1952: 80)
The way in which vowel suppression takes place, as well as its occurrence or non-
occurrence, can lead to differences in interpretation of the resulting forms. In (194) the
first-person possessive suffix and the first-person-subject future marker (both -ŋ a) do not
exert the same influence on the preceding root (Hardman 1966: 33; 1983a: 56). In (195)
the absence of vowel suppression before the possessive marker -ŋ a indicates object
function (zero complement) under specific conditions. The suffix -ŋ a itself must be
followed by a word-boundary, and the preceding substantive base can only be extended
by a limited number of affixes (Hardman 1966: 89; 1983a:148). For the possessive
markers see section 3.3.4.
(194) iŋac-ŋa iŋca-ŋa

{iŋac(a)-ŋa} {iŋ(a)ca-ŋa}
serf-1P hire.a.serf-1S.F
‘my serf’ ‘I will hire a serf.’
(195) tat-ŋa tata-ŋa
{tat(a)-ŋa} {tata-ŋa}
father-1P father.Z-1P
‘my father (subject)’ ‘my father (object)’
Some of the Jaqaru case markers are identical to those of Aymara, namely, -hama
‘comparative’, -kama ‘limitative’, -na ‘locative-genitive’, -ru ‘allative’, -taki ‘benefac-
tive’ and -t h a ‘ablative’. The accusative case can remain unmarked, or it can be indicated
by a functional absence of vowel suppression (195) or by a special (vowel suppressing)
marker -ha (193)(196). The latter can be reduced to an aspiration and indicates object
93 The full form of the verb ‘to say’ is saha but the root in inflected forms is sa-.
or goal of motion in emphatic use. Obviously, additional research is needed to obtain a

full understanding of accusative marking in Jaqaru.
(196) kh uly -ha want-š-i-s-na uht-qh -tna

{kh uly (u)-ha want(a)-(i)š(i)-i-s(a)-na94 uht(a)-qh (a)-t(a)na}
log-AC carry.on.the.shoulder-RF-SU-4S-SU come-RP-4S
‘Carrying a tree trunk we come back.’ (Hardman 1966: 93)
The instrumental-coordinative case is indicated by two different markers, -(w)šqa and

-mina. The former indicates association with the subject, whereas the latter is used for
association with the object. The longer form -wšqa is attached to roots, whereas -šqa is
found after other suffixes.
(197) hayt’-w-utu mam-ča-ŋ-mina-wa

{hayt’(a)-w-utu mam(a)-ča-ŋ(a)-mina-wa}
leave-PV-3S.1O mother-DL-1P-IS-AF
‘He left me alone with my mother.’ (Hardman 1966: 93)
(198) miš-uru atuqu tiŋku-w-i kuntri-wšqa95
{miš-uru atuqu tiŋku-w-i kunt(i)ri-wšqa}
one-day fox meet-PV-3S condor-IS
‘One day fox met condor.’ (Farfán 1952: 79)
In addition to the regular case markers, Jaqaru uses a number of spatial nouns, which
form a compound with the substantive root to which they are attached. These spatial
nouns can, but need not, be followed by a case marker.
(199) uč.uŋs-nuri-t-qa hanwa-w-i

{uč.uŋs(a)-nuri-t(h a)-qa han(a)wa-w-i}
hole-inside-AB-TO appear-PV-3S
‘It appeared from inside a hole.’ (Hardman 1966: 86)
As in Aymara, the Jaqaru verb has a considerable number of derivational affixes

referring to space, direction or manner. They normally suppress a preceding vowel.96
Some of them, such as -kata- ‘extending action, motion across’, -kipa- ‘turning mo-
tion’, -šu- ‘outward motion’, ‘completion’ and -t’a- ‘at once’ have cognate equivalents
in Aymara. Others, such as -kusu- ‘as one goes’, -qh asa- ‘holding, maintaining’ and
94 Instead of wanta-, Belleza Castro’s dictionary (1995) lists wantu-; cf. Quechua wantu- ‘to carry
on a litter’.
95 Since the distinction between the velar and alveolar nasals is contrastive in Jaqaru, we use the
symbol ŋ for any constant velar nasal, even in environments where assimilation plays a role.
96 The only exceptions are the suffixes that begin with a sequence -rC-.
-qh ul y u- ‘beginning’ are particular to Jaqaru. The four main directions are indicated by
the affixes -uru- ‘inward motion’, -šu- ‘outward motion’, -pta- ‘upward motion’ and
-naca- ‘downward motion’.
(200) hayr-kus-k-i-wa
{hayr(a)-kus(u)-k-i-wa}
dance-as.he.goes-SM-3S-AF
‘He dances as he goes (while going).’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 95)
(201) ir-qh as-k-i-wa
{ir(a)-qh as(a)-k-i-wa}
carry-holding-SM-3S-AF
‘He is holding it.’ (Hardman 1966: 51)
(202) kuntiri-qa97 say-pta-w-ata
{kuntiri-qa say(a)-pta-w-ata}
condor-TO stand-UW-PV-RM.HS.3S
‘The condor got on his feet.’ (Farfán 1952: 81)
The valency-changing suffixes -iši- ‘reflexive, reciprocal’ and -ya- ‘causative’98 are
cognate with their Aymara equivalents. Remarkable is the absence in Jaqaru of a ventive
(‘hither’) marker, considering its omnipresent and obligatory character in Aymara and
in the surrounding Quechuan dialects.99
Plural marking is optional and emphatic. It can be indicated by the suffix -rqaya- and
may refer either to the subject, or to the object.
(203) nura-rqay-ma
{nura-rqay(a)-ma}
work-PL-2S.IM
‘Work (you folks)!’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 158)
(204) hayč-kh a-rqay-sa-ŋa-na
{hayč(a)-kh a-rqay(a)-sa-ŋa-(a)na}
beat-M-PL-PO-1S-PA
‘I could have killed them.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 158)
97 Hardman (1966: 105, 1983a: 170) explains that the behaviour as to vowel suppression of an
element preceding the suffixes -qa and -wa is determined by the characteristics of the element
itself; compare the effect of -qa in example (193). Clearly, more information is needed concerning
the apparently unpredictable behaviour of nominal roots before these suffixes. The absence of
vowel suppression in (202) may possibly also be attributed to Farfán’s unsystematic orthography.
98 The dictionary of Belleza Castro (1995) contains several cases of causative derivation in -aya-
with suppression of the preceding root-final vowel if it is not -a-. In some cases, forms in -ya-
and in -aya- coexist, e.g. naki-ya- ‘to make (it) burn’, but naká-y-k-iri ‘arsonist’.
99 Cerrón-Palomino (2000) notes the use of a marker -ni- (as in Aymara) in combination with the
future tense in Jaqaru. This coincides with our own preliminary observations.
The formation of the indicative mood in Jaqaru involves the use of the affixes -k- and
-w-, which respectively indicate simultaneousness and previousness.100 Both markers
suppress a preceding vowel except for -w- when it is itself followed by a consonant. The
use of these affixes is interrelated with that of a marker -qh (a)- referring to repetition
or restitution. The latter can either precede the simultaneous event affix or follow the
previous event affix. In combination with a verb not otherwise marked for tense, subordi-
nation or nominalisation, the presence of -k- is interpreted as present tense, whereas -w-
refers to past tense. There is also the option of an unmarked form which neither contains
-k- nor -w-. It is not very frequent, except in verbalised expressions and in verbs with
the repetition marker -qh (a)-; cf. Hardman (1983a: 91) and example (196) above.
The ‘transitional’ verbal endings that indicate person of subject and object in Jaqaru
are formally related to their Aymara counterparts, but they present an additional option.
The ending -ušta is reserved for a subject in the second person acting upon an object
in the fourth person ‘you–us’. (Conversely, 4S.2O does not exist.) One might expect
this 2S.4O combination to be logically excluded given the fact that the fourth person
has been interpreted as the sum of the first and second persons (cf. section 3.3.4). In a
discussion of the personal reference systems of the Aymaran languages, Hardman (1975:
448) contrasts this characteristic Jaqaru combination with the situation in Aymara, where
her consultants considered it a ‘semantic impossibility.’101 The ending -ušta is related
to Aymara -ista, which is used to indicate the transition 2S.1O (‘you–me’). The latter
combination is expressed in Jaqaru by means of an ending -uta, possibly a cognate of -ita
of the Aymara imperative paradigm. Also worth mentioning is the ending -ima, which
indicates a first-person subject and a second-person object (Aymara -sma). The Jaqaru
non-future indicative personal reference paradigm is represented in table 3.14.
In addition to the unmarked tense just introduced, Jaqaru has two remote tenses, a
near-remote past and a far-remote past. The distinction between the two is again reflected
by the presence of the markers -k- (in the near remote) and -w- (in the far remote). If the
subject is third person and there is no morphologically encoded object, the ending can
either be -ana or -ata. The latter is used for information from hearsay and in combinations
with the repetitive marker -q h (a)- (only allowed after -w-). If the subject is either not third
person, or it is part of an explicit subject–object transition, the endings in table 3.14 are
used with the following additions. An element -Vh- with a harmonically variable vowel
is inserted after the markers -k- or -w-, and before the personal endings. This element is
obligatory if the personal ending begins with a consonant (1S, 2S, 4S and 3S.2O), and
optional if it begins with a vowel (1S.2O, 2S.1O, 2S.4O, 3S.1O, 3S.4O). In contrast, the
100 The common denominations for these two markers are ‘present’ and ‘past’ (Hardman 1966,
1983a; Belleza Castro 1995). These denominations do not seem adequate because both markers
can occur in other temporal contexts as well.
101 Speakers of Cauqui do accept the combination, but a formal difference between 2S.4O and
2S.1O is maintained only in the future tense (Hardman 1975).
Table 3.14 Subject and subject–object

endings of the unmarked tense in
Jaqaru (Hardman 1966, 1983a)
1 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -th a

2 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -ta
3 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -i
4 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -tana
1 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -ima
2 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -uta
2 pers. subject + 4 pers. object -ušta
3 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -utu
3 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -tama
3 pers. subject + 4 pers. object -uštu
latter five personal endings must be followed by the suffix -ana, which retains its initial
vowel before a pause but loses it when followed by other suffixes. Retention of the initial
vowel of -ana means that the final vowel of the personal endings is suppressed, thus
eliminating the contrast between second- and third-person subjects in the transitions at
issue.102
(205) ily -w-ih-ima-n-wa

{ily (a)-w-ih-ima-(a)n(a)-wa}
see-PV-RM-1S.2O-RM-AF
‘I remember that I looked after you.’103 (Hardman 1983a: 97)
(206) iša-w ily -kh -k-ah-tam-ty i
{iša-w(a) ily (a)-kh (a)-k-ah-tam(a)-ty i}
not-AF see-suddenly-SM-RM-3S.2O-NE
‘He/she had not seen you.’ (Hardman 1983a: 97)
As in Aymara and Quechua, the future tense has special endings which cannot be pre-
dicted from their non-future counterparts. When contrasting it with the Sitajara paradigm
presented in section 3.3.6 (table 3.9), one observes that the future paradigm in Jaqaru
has m where conservative Aymara has ŋ, except for the first-person marker, which is -ŋ a
in both languages.
The non-transitional subject endings for first, third and fourth persons cannot
be analysed any further. The fourth-person ending is furthermore identical with its
non-future counterpart. As for the other endings, some generalisations can be made.
102 This unusually complicated piece of grammatical description is based on Hardman (1983a:
96–9), which differs substantially from the earlier Hardman (1966: 57–9).
103 According to Hardman, the element -Vh- adds the notion of personal remembrance in those
cases where its presence is optional.
Table 3.15 Subject and subject–object

endings of the future tense in Jaqaru
(Hardman 1966, 1983a)
1 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -ŋa

2 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -mata
3 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -ni
4 pers. subject (3 pers. object) -tana
1 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -mama
2 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -utumata
2 pers. subject + 4 pers. object -uštumata
3 pers. subject + 1 pers. object -utuni
3 pers. subject + 2 pers. object -matama
3 pers. subject + 4 pers. object -uštuni
Third-person subject endings that do not involve a second-person object are formed
by adding the 3S future ending -ni to the corresponding non-future endings. The
non-transitional second-person subject ending and the transitional endings involving
a second-person object are characterised by the insertion of an element -ma- before the
corresponding non-future ending (with loss of -i- in the case of 1S.2O -ima > -mama).
Finally, the transitional endings involving a second-person subject are formed by adding
the non-transitional second-person ending -mata to the corresponding non-future end-
ings in which the final -a- is replaced by -u-.
It should be observed that the longer future endings are subject to all sorts of vowel
suppression, so that they rarely, if ever, occur in their full form. For instance, suffix-initial
-u- is only preserved after the suffix -k h (a)- ‘suddenly’, otherwise -štumata, -štuni,
-tumata and -tuni are found (with suppression of the preceding vowel). The fourth-
person ending is -tna before a pause, but -tan- or -tana- elsewhere. The first-person
suffix -ŋ a preserves the preceding vowel, possibly as a disambiguating device vis-à-vis
the possessive ending; cf. example (194). It retains its own vowel only before a pause.
The third-person ending -ni always retains its full shape, preserves the preceding vowel
before a pause, but eliminates it elsewhere.
(207) ily -štuni-wa

{ily (a)-(u)štuni-wa}
see-3S.4O.F-AF
‘He will see us.’ (Hardman 1983a: 101)
(208) aru-ni ar-ni-wa
{aru-ni} {ar(u)-ni-wa}
call-3S.F call-3S.F-AF
‘He will call him.’ ‘He will definitely call him.’ (Hardman 1983a: 100)
The imperative paradigm presents the complication of having distinct forms for use
in negative and affirmative constructions whenever the ending involves a second-person
subject. In a negative construction the endings of the non-future indicative are used:
(209) han hayt’-ta-ty i

{han(i) hayt’(a)-ta-ty i}
don’t leave-2S-NE
‘Don’t leave him!’ (Hardman 1983a: 103)
The affirmative imperative ending for (non-transitional) second-person subject is -ma.

It suppresses the preceding vowel before a pause, but preserves it, losing at the same
time its own vowel, before other affixes. The other 2S endings can be derived from the
future endings by eliminating final -ta. The 3S endings in -ni can be derived from their
future counterparts by replacing -ni with the (vowel-suppressing) ending -ph a; 3S-2O
has the same ending as its future equivalent (-matama). The 4S ending -tana is kept apart
from its non-imperative counterparts by preserving a preceding vowel. All trisyllabic
endings lose their middle vowel (-matma, -utma, -uštph a, etc.) before a pause, but an
initial vowel u is generally preserved.
(210) pur-šu-q ily -uštma

{pur(i)-(u)šu-q(a) ily (a)-uštma}
arrive-SU.SS-TO see-2S.4O.IM
‘Come and see us when you arrive!’ (Hardman 1983a: 104)
The Jaqaru potential is based on the equivalent of the Aymara -sa- paradigm; cf. section
3.3.6. (table 3.11). The non-transitional subject endings are -sa (1S), -sama (2S), -sph a
(3S) and -sana (4S). The transitional forms involving a second-person subject can be
derived from the future forms by substituting -sama for -mata. The transitional forms
that involve a third-person subject ending -ni in the future tense can be derived from
the latter by substituting -sph a for -ni. Interestingly, the combinations 1S.2O and 3S.2O
have unanalysable endings: -štama and -masama, respectively. Preceding vowels are
preserved before -sph a, -sama and -sana but suppressed before the other endings. The
past tense of the potential (cf. Aymara) can be derived from it by adding -(a)na in
combination with a few formal adjustments. The subject endings of this paradigm are
-saŋ a-na (1S), -sama-na (2S), -sapa-na (3S) and -sana (4S), the last one being identical
to the non-past form. In both potential paradigms suffix-initial -u- is seldom effectively
present.104
104 Hardman (1983a: 106) observes that this has only been found to be the case after the root
aty ama- ‘to warn’, which is then reduced to aty m- (e.g. aty m-uštusama-na ‘you should have
warned us’).
Jaqaru has a well-developed system of verbal subordinate markers involving switch-

reference. The switch-reference system comprises a derived subject (‘same subject’)
subordination marker -ušu, as well as a full set of markers referring to specific persons
and combinations of persons that can be used to indicate a different subject in the
subordinate verb with respect to the superordinate verb. Object marking is possible but
not obligatory. The combination of a third-person subject and a second-person object
(3S.2O) lacks a specific morphological expression.
The subordinate forms with subject marking are formed according to a pattern -i-P-
na, in which P represents the nominal possessive marker, except that the third-person
morpheme -pa occurs without aspiration. (This pattern coincides in principle with the
Morocomarca Aymara paradigm discussed in section 3.3.6.) First- and fourth-person
objects can be indicated by substituting -utu- and -uštu-, respectively, for the element -i-.
The 1S.2O transition is indicated by the ending -imamana. All subordination endings
are subject to different types of vowel suppression, in particular those affecting their
initial vowel.
Switch-reference is clearly relevant when the third-person subject ending -i-pa-na
is contrasted with the same subject form in -ušu. It is the situation where the switch-
reference mechanism attains its maximum functionality in a discourse. However, if the
verbs in the construction share a non-third-person subject, both subordinate forms, either
with or without person-of-subject marking, can be used. The use of the derived subject
marker with referentially identical third-person subjects is exemplified in (211). For a
case of its use with second persons see (210) above. Example (212) shows that, when the
subjects are identical but not third person, explicit subject marking in the subordinate
verb is also possible.
(211) ath a tašk-ušu im-iri ma-k-i

{ath a tašk(a)-ušu im(a)-iri ma-k-i}
seed receive-SU.SS sow-AG go-SM-3S
‘After receiving the seed, he goes sowing.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 169)
(212) misa-s(a) išp-i-s-na uht-qh a-tn(a) ak-h a
{misa-s(a) iš(a)p(a)-i-s(a)-na uht(a)-qh a-t(a)n(a) ak(a)-ha}
Mass-4P hear-SU.4S.SU come-RP-4S here-AC
‘After hearing our Mass, we came back here.’ (Hardman 1983a: 120)
The Jaqaru subordination markers can be combined with the marker -k- to indicate
simultaneousness (213). The element -k-ata- indicates simultaneousness in a remote
unwitnessed past (214).
(213) hayr-k-i-ŋa-n-qa
{hayr(a)-k-i-ŋa-n(a)-qa}
dance-SM-SU-1S-SU-TO
‘while I am dancing . . .’ (Belleza Castro 1995:129)
(214) uk-nur-n(a) hayr-k-ata-p-na nak-šu-w-ata
{uk(a)-nur(i)-n(a) hayr(a)-k-ata-(i)-p(a)-na nak(i)-šu-w-ata}
that-inside-L dance-SM-RM-SU-3P-SU burn- OW-PV-3S.RM.HS
‘He burned them all, while they were dancing inside.’
(Hardman 1983a: 122)
In Jaqaru it is possible to express an infinitive-like nominalisation function of the verb

by using its root without any specific ending. The verbs ma- ‘to go’ and sa- ‘to say’ have
extended forms (maha, saha) for this function.
(215) kumpari, na-ps hum-hama-w hac mun-k-th a

{kumpari, na-ps(a) hum(a)-hama-w(a) hac(a) mun(a)-k-th a}
compadre I-AD you-CP-AF sing.N want-SM-1S
‘Compadre,105 I also want to sing like you.’ (Hardman 1966: 116)
As in Aymara, the agentive nominaliser ends in -iri. As in the case of the third-person
subject marker -i, the final vowel of the morpheme preceding the affix is lost. (Compare
Aymara where in such a case u is retained, but other vowels are lost.)106 In its main
function of indicating a subject-centred deverbal noun, the agentive marker is preceded
by the marker of simultaneousness -k- when referring to a specific activity that is taking
place or has taken place. If the event is either non-specific, or still to occur, -k- is absent.
(216) niwni-k-ir-mna ily -utu

{niwni-k-ir(i)-mna ily (a)-utu}
steal-SM-AG-HS see-3S.1O
‘They say they saw me stealing.’ (Hardman 1966: 78)
(217) niwn-iri haqi
{niwn(i)-iri haqi}
steal-AG person
‘a thievish person’, ‘a thief’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 122)
The marker of stative nominalisation is -ta, as in Aymara (218). When explicitly

referring to present tense or to an event simultaneous with the action denoted by the
105 Compadre (Spanish): the godfather of one’s child.

106 The verbs ma- ‘to go’ and sa- ‘to say’ either form their agentives on the basis of the extended
root (mah-iri, sah-iri), or two special forms, ma-li and sa-li, are used.
main verb, the sequence -k-ata is used instead. It can be analysed as containing the marker
-k- of simultaneousness followed by an element -(a)ta, which is probably identical with
-ta (219).
(218) ima-ta
sow-SN
‘what has been sown’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 70)
(219) miši-w-k-ata-p-th a wal-naqa-ya-rqay-k-i
{miši-w-k-ata-p(h a)-th a wal(a)-naqa-ya-rqay(a)-k-i}
cat-CV-SM-SN-3P-AB run-DD-CA-PL-PR-3S
‘Because he is a cat, they persecute him.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 90)
For non-realised events the nominaliser -nušu is used. Purposive clauses are indicated
by a combination of -nuš(u) and -taki (‘benefactive case’).
(220) pal-nušu
{pal(u)-nušu}
eat-FN
‘something to eat’, ‘food’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 131)
(221) pal-nuš-p-taki
{pal(u)-nuš(u)-p(h a)-taki}
eat-FN-3P-B
‘in order for him to eat’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 124)
Copula verbalisation in Jaqaru is realised by means of a segmental suffix -w(a)- (cf.

Hardman 1983a: 177–9). This suffix always has the shape -w- except before certain
suffixes that require a preceding vowel (for instance, third-person subject future-tense
-ni). An illustration has been given in (219). Example (222) contains a sequence of the
verbaliser -w(a)- and the marker of previousness -w-; (223) illustrates the use of the
copula verbaliser with a noun marked for instrumental case.
(222) amru-(w-)w-ata
{am(u)ru-w(a)-w-ata}
good-CV-PV-3S.RM.HS
‘It turned out to have been good.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 187)
(223) ipi-m-šqa-w-k-ta
{ipi-m(a)-(w)šqa-w(a)-k-ta}
paternal.aunt-2P-IS-CV-SM-2S
‘You are with your paternal aunt.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 187)
Belleza Castro reports the existence, as in Aymara, of a verbaliser -ka- used after
the truncated form of the locative case marker -n(a) in order to indicate location:
(224) punu-n-ka-ni-wa107
{punu-n(a)-ka-ni-wa}
Puno-L-LV-3S.F-AF
‘He will be in Puno.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 122)
Negation in Jaqaru is indicated in a way similar to that in Aymara, with the differ-
ence that there are three negative adverbs, instead of one. The most common negative
adverb iša is found in declarative sentences (206) and in combinations with adjectives
(iša amuru ‘not good’, iša hiw-iri ‘immortal’). The element hani (cf. the Aymara gen-
eral negation marker hani) is reserved for prohibitive expressions (209). Full negative
sentences furthermore must contain the independent suffix -ty i (cf. Aymara -ti), which
is also used to mark polar questions. Subordinate clauses take the negation marker
maty i. The notion ‘without’ can be indicated morphologically with nouns by means
of the suffix -wiši and with subordinate same-subject verbs by means of the suffix
-maya.
(225) kasra-w-th a maty i tat-p-psa mun-k-utu-p-na

{kas(a)ra-w-th a maty i tat(a)-p(h a)-psa mun(a)-k-utu-p(a)-na}
marry-PV-1S not father-3P-AD want-SM-1O-3S-SU
‘I married her although her father did not want me.’
(Belleza Castro 1995: 107)
(226) pal-maya ma-w-qh -i
{pal(u)-maya ma-w-qh (a)-i}
eat-NE.SU go-PV-RP-3S
‘He left without eating.’ (Belleza Castro 1995: 108)
Jaqaru has a rich array of independent affixes. The affixes -qa ‘topic marker’, -ty i
‘interrogative-negative’ and -wa ‘affirmative’ are similar in use to the cognate affixes in
Aymara (see the preceding pages for examples). The interrogative marker -sa is used
with interrogative pronouns to emphasise that they are used as interrogatives. This is
also one of the functions of -sa in Aymara. Note that all aspirated consonants preceding
107 The verbaliser -ka- should be kept apart from the marker of simultaneousness -k-. When
combined, both are realised as -k- (as a result of vowel suppression) so that only one suffix
may appear to be present, e.g. ika-n-(k-)k-th a ‘I am in Ica’ (example from Belleza Castro 1995:
122).
-sa become unaspirated, even when separated from -sa by another morpheme (Hardman
1966: 99).
(227) kawki-ta-w-ta-sa
{kawki-t(h) a-w(a)-ta-sa}
what.place-AB-CV-2S-IR
‘Where are you from?’ (Hardman 1966: 98)
The additive suffix -psa is reminiscent of Quechua -pas. It also has similar functions.
Along with its usual meaning ‘also’, ‘too’, it is used with interrogative roots to indicate
indefiniteness.
(228) qači-psa
who-AD
‘whoever’, ‘anyone’ (Belleza Castro 195: 135)
(229) qači-psa hal-ur-p-ty i
{qači-psa hal(a)-ur(u)-p(h a)-ty i}
who-AD fall-IW-3S.IM-NE
‘Let no one enter!’ (Belleza Castro 195: 135)
Other independent suffixes are -aši ‘maybe’, -ha ‘of course!’, ‘now I see!’, -il y i
‘emphatic’, -iši ‘I remember’, -kasa ‘already’, -kh a ‘furthermore’, -mna ‘they say’, -ra
‘still’, and -sk h a ‘once again’. The suffixes -aši and -iši are only found after other
independent suffixes (which then lose their final vowel). The suffix -k h a is frequently
found after -r(a)- (230).
(230) mam-ŋa sa-w-utu-r-kh a-wa “iqu, hani ma-ta-ty i kh uw-ha”

{mam(a)-ŋa sa-w-utu-r(a)-kh a-wa “Iqu, hani ma-ta-ty i kh uw(a)-ha”}
mother-1P say-PV-3S.1O-AN-AD-AF girl, don’t go-2S-NE
that.place-AC
‘My mother said to me furthermore: “Girl, don’t go there!” ’
(Belleza Castro 1995: 158)
The Jaqaru lexicon has undergone a considerable influx of Quechua loans, most of
which are from the central Peruvian dialects. An example of Quechua influence are the
numerals. In accordance with the rules of Aymaran word structure, the Jaqaru numerals
for ‘seven’, ‘eight’ and ‘nine’ present an added final vowel, which is not found in Quechua
and which betrays the latter as the lending language.
(231) qanč.isi ‘seven’ Central Peruvian Quechua: qanč.is

pusaqa ‘eight’ Quechua: pusaq
isquña ‘nine’ Quechua: isqun
The other Jaqaru numerals are either cognate to the Aymara ones (maya ‘one’,
paha ‘two’, puši ‘four’), or shared with both Aymara and Quechua (kimsa ‘three’,
pičqa ‘five’, suhta ‘six’, č.uŋ ka ‘ten’, pač.aka ‘hundred’, waraŋ qa ‘thousand’). Units
are added to tens with the possession marker -ni, as in Aymara; e.g. č.uŋ k-maya-ni
‘eleven’ (< 10 + 1). Complex numbers are subject to different sorts of internal vowel
suppression.
An interesting phenomenon is the presence of remnants of sound-symbolism, which
is also visible in Quechua loans. In the word ty ahša ‘small’ (from Central Peruvian
Quechua takša) and in uty uty ulyqu ‘goblin’ (compare Central Peruvian Quechua učuk
ulyqu ‘little man’) the palatal character of the alveopalatal stop appears to indicate small-
ness, as is also the case in other sorts of palatality in the neighbouring Quechua dialects
(cf. section 3.2.5).
In addition to basic vocabulary shared with other Aymaran languages, there are also
a substantial number of words which are exclusive to Jaqaru (and possibly Cauqui).
Examples are karma(ha) ‘man’ (Aymara čača), uhara ‘maize’ (Aymara tunqu), wasa-
‘to go’ (Aymara sara-), il y a- ‘to see’ (Aymara uny a-), palu- ‘to eat’ (Aymara manq’a-),
and many others. The interrogative pronouns in Jaqaru present considerable differences
vis-à-vis their Aymara counterparts, as in qači ‘who’ (Aymara k h iti), quwa ∼ qusa
‘what’ (Aymara kuna), qačwira ‘which’ (Aymara kawk(n)i:ri), alongside similarities, as
in qamiša ‘how’ (Aymara kamisa).
3.3.11 Jaqaru sample text

The following animal story was collected by J. M. B. Farfán in the late 1940s from a
storyteller called Vicente Casanova (Farfán 1952: 80–1). It is entitled ‘The guinea-pig
and the fox.’ Farfán collected Jaqaru narratives long before the first modern study of
the language appeared. Like most early observers of the Jaqaru language, he did not
succeed in rendering the complex sounds of the language consistently. In what follows,
we shall try and supply a modernised version which follows the original text as faithfully
as possible.
1. miš-uru-wa tiŋŋku-w-i atuqu k’uyty u-wšqa may qa:q-na

{miš-uru-wa tiŋku-w-i atuqu k’uyty u-wšqa may(a) qa:q(a)-na}
one-day-AF meet-PV-3S fox guinea.pig-IS one rocky.peak-L
‘One day a fox and a guinea-pig met on a rocky peak.’
The element miš- is a combinatorial variant of maya ‘one’ which is used in a compound
with uru ‘day’; when preceding a noun as a modifier, maya is realised as may by vowel
suppression. The long vowel in qa:qa (from Quechua qaqa) is our rendering of a long
vowel in Belleza Castro (1995) and a plain vowel in Hardman (1983a); the last vowel of
qa:qa is lost before the locative marker (-na) in final position. The root tiŋ ku- is a loan
from Quechua.
2. atqu-wa katu-w-i k’uyty -h a sa:ma-th a pal-nuš-p-taki

{at(u)qu-wa katu-w-i k’uyty (u)-ha sa:ma-th a pal(u)-nuš(u)-p(h a)-taki}
fox-AF catch-PV-3S guinea.pig-AC back-AB eat-FN-3P-B
‘The fox caught the guinea-pig by the back in order to eat him.’
Concerning pal-nuš-p-taki: any suffix loses its vowel and aspiration before -taki;
-nušu loses its final vowel before the person marker -ph a; root-final vowels are lost
before -nušu.
3. k’uyty u-qa sa-w-i atuq-h a “hani hayč-kh -uta-ty i

{k’uyty u-qa sa-w-i atuq(u)-ha hani hayč(a)-kh (a)-uta-ty i}
guinea.pig-TO say-PV-3S fox-AC don’t beat-M-2S.1O-NE
‘The guinea-pig said to the fox: “Don’t kill me!”’
The combination hayč-kh (a)- (lit. ‘to beat suddenly’) has the meaning ‘to kill’. Farfán
uses the form atuxa, which we have interpreted as atuq-h a; the accusative marker -ha
merges with the last consonant in the root after suppression of the latter’s final vowel,
resulting into an aspirated -qh -.
4. pan-sa hira aqh i-ru

{pan(i)-sa hira aqh i-ru}
two.people-4P let’s.go cave-AL
‘“Let us go the two of us to a cave!’
The form pani is a special form for ‘two people’, from paha ‘two’ and possibly the
possession marker -ni; it loses its final vowel before the person marker -sa. The form
hira functions syntactically as a verb form, hence the complement in -ru.
5. kh uwa-n-k-i-wa yaŋ ŋ-ŋ ŋ-taki k’uyty u ANTCHAQAXA”

ŋa yak-nušu-ŋ
{kh uwa-n(a)-k(a)-i-wa yaŋ(a)-ŋa yak(a)-nušu-ŋ(a)-taki k’uyty u
}
that.place-L-LV-3S-AF companion-1P give-FN-1P-B guinea.pig very
more. robust-AC
‘There are my companion(s), so that I can give you a more robust
guinea-pig.”’
Our subdivision of this sentence differs from that in Farfán, who has a comma after
kh uwa-n-k-i-wa; it seemed more logical to connect this form with yaŋ -ŋ a, than with the
word referring to the cave. As we have seen, the element -k- can either be interpreted as a
locative verbaliser -k(a)-, as a marker of simultaneousness -k-, or as a sequence of both;
here we have opted for the first solution. The nominaliser -nušu retains its final vowel
before the first person possessive marker -ŋ a. The form transcribed as antchaqaxa and
translated as ‘más fuerte’ (‘more robust’) by Farfán could not be analysed. It may either
contain the elements anca ‘much’ and -č.aqa ‘more’, or the word anč.ač.i ∼ anč. h ač. hi
‘(too) many’, followed by the accusative marker -ha (as suggested by Cerrón-Palomino,
personal communication). In either case the quantifier would have been extracted from
the noun phrase.
6. atqu-qa anc’-šu-w-i k’uyty -h a katu-t-h a irp-nuš-p-taki qunca-p-n

uk-h a
{at(u)qu-qa anc’(a)-šu-w-i k’uyty (u)-ha katu-t(a)-ha irp(a)-nuš(u)-
p(h a)-taki qunca-p(h a)-n(a) uk(a)-ha}
fox-TO let.go-OW-PV-3S guinea.pig-AC seize-SN-AC lead-FN-3P-B
brother.of.male-3P-G there-AC
‘The fox set free the guinea-pig that had been captive, so that he might
lead him to the place where his brothers were.’
The form katu-t-h a is here interpreted as accusative, but an ablative interpretation

(katu-t-th a ‘from a captive state’) would also make sense. The genitive–locative marker
-na in final position suppresses the vowel and the aspiration of the possessive third person
marker -ph a; the vowel of -na itself is suppressed by the initial vowel of the root uka
that follows it; the combination -n(a) uka refers to ‘the place of’; uka with a short (or
extra-short) vowel refers to a place (‘there’).
7. u:ka-t-qa k’uyty u-qa hal-ru-w-i uč.uŋ ŋsa-ru haypta-w-i

{u:ka-t(h a)-qa k’uyty u-qa hal(a)-(u)ru-w-i uč.uŋsa-ru haypta-w-i}
that-AB-TO guinea.pig-TO fall-IW-PV-3S hole-AL disappear-PV-3S
‘Then, the guinea-pig entered into a hole and disappeared.’
According to Hardman (1966: 7, 1983a: 131), the demonstrative pronoun ‘that’ is

u:ka (or uka if extra-short vowels are accepted), it being distinguished from uka ‘there’
by vowel length; Belleza Castro (1995) observes no length distinction between the
two demonstratives; instead of u:ka-t-qa, u:ka-th a (without topic marker) would be an
alternative reading for Farfán’s ukatxa. The derived verb hal-ru- is usually found as
hal-uru-; the interpretation ‘to enter’ betrays the original meaning of hala-, ‘to run’, still
found in Aymara. The verb haypta- can possibly be analysed as derived from haya ‘far’
and -pta- ‘upward movement’, ‘to begin’; since this is not a productive formation with
noun roots, we treat haypta- as an underived root.
8. atqu-qa haruqa-w-i naray-k-ušu

{at(u)qu-qa haruqa-w-i naray(a)-k-ušu}
fox-TO remain-PV-3S wait-SM-SS.SU
‘The fox remained waiting.’
The verb haruqa- is recorded as harwaqa- in Belleza Castro (1995).
9. k’uyty u anc haya haypta-w-i

{k’uyty u anc(a) haya haypta-w-i}
guinea.pig very long.time disappear-PV-3S
‘The guinea-pig disappeared for a very long time.’
Note that anca (Quechua anča) belongs to the common lexicon of Aymaran and
Quechuan. The usual interpretation of haya is ‘far’, but it also has a temporal meaning.
10. u:ka-th a anc’-šu-w-i atuq naray-k-iri-ru qal-uña uk-sana-th a

qa:qa-tha
{u:ka-th a anc’(a)-šu-w-i atuq(u) naray(a)-k-iri-ru qal(a)-uña
uk(a)-sana-th a qa:qa-th a}
that-AB let.go-OW-PV-3S fox wait-SM-AG-AL stone-DI
there-topside-AB rock-AB
‘Then, from a rock up there, he dropped some little stones on the fox,
who was waiting.’
The suffix -uña suppresses the final vowel of the preceding root and expresses the
concept of a diminutive; as a full form, uña means ‘pup’ or ‘recently born animal’ both in
Jaqaru and in Central Peruvian Quechua. The spatial root -sana enters into composition
with a preceding noun and means ‘above’, ‘on top of’; when a case marker follows it,
-sana eliminates the preceding vowel; -sana is also found in Quechua (for instance, in
the Huarochirı́ manuscript; see sections 3.1 and 3.2.11).
11. k’uyty u ar-k-i atuq-h a sa-šu “qa:qa-wa hal-k-i”

{k’uyty u ar(u)-k-i atuq(u)-ha sa-(u)šu qa:qa-wa hal(a)-k-i}
guinea.pig call-SM-3S fox-AC say-SS.SU rock-AF fall-SM-3S
‘The guinea-pig called to the fox and said: “The rock is falling.”’
In the word sa-šu ‘saying’, the root-vowel is preserved as a consequence of its minimal
CV shape; as after most roots, -ušu loses its preceding vowel; sa-šu accompanies verbs
of communication in order to introduce direct speech.
12. sa-k-i atuq-h a kat-nuš-p-taki qa:qa

{sa-k-i atuq(u)-ha kat(u)-nuš(u)-p-taki qa:qa}
say-SM-3S fox-AC hold-FN-3P-B rock
‘He tells the fox to hold the rock.’
13. u:ka-th a k’uyty u ma-w-i ay-iri ly uq’a čahly a kat-nuš-p-taki
{u:ka-t h a k’uyty u ma-w-i ay(a)-iri ly uq’a čahly a kat(u)-nuš(u)-p(h a)-taki}
that-AB guinea.pig go-PV-3S carry.sticks-AG stick lathing
sustain-IS-3P-B
‘Then, the guinea-pig went to fetch sticks and ladders in order to
support it.’
Both Belleza Castro (1995) and Farfán (1961) have ly uq’i and čahra for ly uq’a and
čahly a, respectively; the word čaqly a is also found in Aymara and in Quechua; its most
common meaning refers to the lathing used on roofs.
14. atqu-qa kat-k-ušu-wa haruqa-w-i qa:q-h a

{at(u)qu-qa kat(u)-k-ušu-wa haruqa-w-i qa:q(a)-ha}
fox-TO sustain-SM-SS.SU-AF stay-PV-3S rock-AC
‘The fox stayed behind, supporting the rock.’
After the present-tense marker -k- the subordinator -ušu retains its initial vowel.
Instead of haruqa-, Farfán has haruyqa-. Note the position of qa:q-h a outside the scope
of the subordinate clause to which it grammatically belongs.
15. u:ka-th a k’uyty u ma-w-qh -i akiš-kama-ya

{u:ka-t h a k’uyty u ma-w-qh (a)-i akiš(a)-kama-ya}
that-AB guinea.pig go-PV-RP-3S now-LI-LS
‘And the guinea-pig went away again until today.’
The affix -ya in akiš-kama-ya is limited to this particular form; it can be left out.
3.4 The Mochica language

Mochica is the only language of the Peruvian coastal region that has survived long enough
to become documented in a substantial way. Its linguistic area was centred around the
modern towns of Chiclayo and Lambayeque, and the historic town of Zaña, in the coastal
plain of northern Peru. According to Fernando de la Carrera Daza (1644), parish priest
of Reque and the author of the only colonial grammar of the language that has been
preserved, there were also groups of Mochica speakers in the highlands east and north
of the nuclear region, in the modern departments of Cajamarca and Piura, including
a colony of mitimaes (see the introduction to this chapter) near the town of Balsas in
the Marañón river valley. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the existence of the
Mochica language had become reduced to two coastal villages in the neighbourhood of
Chiclayo: Eten and Monsefú. When the German scholar Middendorf stayed in Eten in
the 1880s, he still had the opportunity to work with bilingual, as well as monolingual
speakers. About the middle of the twentieth century it was no longer possible to obtain
more than fragmentary data from semi-speakers. At present, at the beginning of the
twenty-first century, the language is almost certainly extinct.
The Mochica language has been known by several names, most of which are ambigu-
ous or misleading. Carrera (1644) and Martı́nez Compañón (1985 [1782–90]) called it
Yunga, which is a Quechua word for low altitude areas with a temperate climate, for the
populations living there and for their languages. Middendorf (1892) opted for the names
Muchik (mentioned by the Augustinian chronicler Antonio de la Calancha in 1638) and
Chimu with a reference to the kingdom of Chimú or Chimor, which had its capital at
Chanchán, just north of Trujillo, and which was subjugated by the Incas in about 1470
(Rowe 1948). The name Mochica or Muchic is reminiscent of the name of the indige-
nous community of Moche south of Trujillo. However, Cerrón-Palomino (1995b: 41)
argues against a relationship between the language name Mochica and the town name
Moche. The surroundings of Trujillo, including Chanchán and Moche, belonged to the
linguistic area of Quingnam, another language mentioned by Calancha. Quingnam was
also referred to as the ‘Fisherman’s language’ (la lengua pescadora or la lengua yunga
pescadora).108 Very little is known about this language of which neither a grammar, nor
a dictionary has been preserved.109 Calancha suggests that it was in use all along the
central Peruvian coast as far south as Carabayllo (near Lima), which was as far as the
former kingdom of Chimor had extended.
In a detailed analysis based on Carrera’s and Calancha’s affirmations and on a docu-
ment of 1638 published by Ramos Cabredo (1950), Torero (1986) defines the linguistic
area of the Mochica language as the coastal region extending between the Rı́o la Leche
and the town of Motupe, to the north, and the Chicama river valley with the town of Paiján,
to the south. The southernmost part of this region, situated between the Jequetepeque (or
Pacasmayo) and Chicama rivers apparently was a contact area where both Mochica and
Quingnam competed due to a northward expansion of the Chimú kings. On the north side,
Mochica bordered on the Sechura language and the language of the oasis of Olmos, the
latter known from specific mentions in colonial sources (Cabello Valboa 1586; Calancha
1638). The Sechura language survived until the nineteenth century (Rivet 1949).
108 It has been suggested that the ‘Fisherman’s language’ was a language distinct from Quingnam
(Rabinowitz 1983), but this view is rejected in Torero (1986) on the basis of an analysis of the
phrasing in Calancha’s text.
109 The Trujillan scholar Zevallos Quiñones (1989, 1992) has studied the lineage names of the
indigenous elites of Lambayeque and of the Trujillo region. His data show a marked lexical
and phonetic contrast between the two areas.
For the time being, the Mochica language must be considered as a language isolate,
notwithstanding the fact that several authors have tried to connect it to other languages.
Jijón y Caamaño (1941: 6) has proposed a genetic relationship with the extinct (and
virtually undocumented) Cañar and Puruhá languages of the Ecuadorian highlands.110
Relations of Mochica with Mayan, with Mapuche, and with Uru-Chipaya (Stark 1972a)
have been suggested as well.
The Mochica language is well known for its unique exotic sound system, which has
generated even more exotic orthographies (especially Carrera Daza’s). From a structural
point of view, it is notoriously different from both Quechua and Aymara, the influence in
either direction being limited to a few loan words from Quechua and vice-versa (Cerrón-
Palomino 1989c). It lacks both the morphological complexity and the rigid regularity of
the major Andean languages.
3.4.1 The sounds of Mochica

The reconstruction and the recovery of the Mochica sound system are problematic.
The various scholars of the language have developed and used different notations. Both
Carrera Daza and Middendorf went a long way towards explaining the value of their
symbols, but neither of them succeeded in eliminating all doubts as to the pronuncia-
tion of these symbols, their observations often being very far apart from each other. A
very helpful comparison of the sources, enriched with personal observations obtained
in 1929, is found in Lehmann’s notes, published by Schumacher de Peña (1991). The
much awaited field notes collected by Brüning in 1904–5 are kept in the Ethnographic
Museum of Hamburg in unpublished form (Cerrón-Palomino 1995b: 66–7). An addi-
tional complication for the interpretation of the original Mochica sound system is the
fact that several crucial phonological developments occurred between the seventeenth
and nineteenth centuries, which makes it hazardous to use the more recent data for the
interpretation of the older materials. Furthermore, there remains the question whether
the dialect that survived in the Eten–Monsefú area was representative of the language
as a whole.
The seventeenth century Mochica sound system has been the object of several mod-
ern reconstructions (Hovdhaugen 1992; Cerrón-Palomino 1995b; Torero 1997), but
the results are not at all concurrent.111 Since the exact pronunciation of the Mochica
sounds remains a matter of speculation, the examples in the following pages are repre-
sented in their original orthography. In the section on grammar, grammatical forms and,
110 The only suggestive similarity which Jijón y Caamaño indicates between Mochica and Cañar
is a single word, Mochica nech [neč] ‘river’, recorded as necha in Cañar.
111 A new comparative study of the Mochica lexicon preserved in the different sources is Salas
(2002). It contains a discussion of the sound system.
occasionally, lexical items will be given in Carrera Daza’s seventeenth century orthogra-
phy, followed by a slash ‘/’ and Middendorf’s transcription whenever there is a difference.
The oldest known specimens of the Mochica language are found in a religious text-
book, Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum, by Gerónimo de Oré (1607). Its spelling does
not cast much light on the complexities of the language. Carrera Daza’s Arte de la
lengua yunga, best known through Altieri’s commented re-edition of 1939, is funda-
mental for understanding the phonological and morphosyntactic characteristics of the
language. Villareal (1921) incorporates Carrera Daza’s grammar and presents the data
in a reorganised but often erratic way. Middendorf (1892) is based on contemporary
data, although Carrera Daza’s Arte provided the framework for part of the elicitation.
Carrera Daza distinguishes six vowels in Mochica: <a>, < e>, , <o>, 
and <œ>.112 The latter is the object of an impressionistic description to the effect that
“it begins as an e and ends as an u, in such a way that there are two vowels in one”.113
Furthermore, Carrera Daza uses a diacritic to indicate length. It remains restricted to a
few roots and to the ending -ô, which is part of the genitive construction:
(232) ûtzh
‘big’
(233) aiu-ng-œn-ô
that-G-PL-AJ
‘belonging to those’
Torero (1986, 1997) points out that Carrera Daza’s symbol does not always
refer to a full vowel. It may indicate a non-syllabic glide as in example (233), and it
may either indicate or emphasise the palatal nature of an adjacent consonant, as in ñaiñ
‘bird’ (/ny any /) or çio ‘he, it’ (/sy o/). According to this author, vowel sequences and true
diphthongs did not occur in seventeenth century Mochica, given the fact that non-nuclear
 can always be interpreted either as a consonant, or as a palatality marker, whereas
non-nuclear is not found.
Middendorf (1892) distinguishes eleven plain vowels, two ‘impure’ vowels and four
diphthongs. Although one can assume that some of these distinctions are liable to be
eliminated by reanalysis, this is not possible in a number of cases where minimal pairs are
provided. Reanalysis leading to elimination may be possible in the case of the diphthongs
(ai, ei, oi, ui) if one considers the second element to be a palatality marker, as does Torero
(see above). It should be observed, however, that in nineteenth century Mochica, the
112 Villareal (1921) uses the symbol <æ>, whereas Altieri’s 1939 edition of Carrera Daza’s gram-
mar has capital <Æ> alternating with standard <œ>. For reasons of transparency we will only
use the latter symbol in our examples.
113 ‘Tiene principio de e y fin de u, de manera que son dos vocales en una’ (Altieri 1939: 11).
palatality distinction no longer had the significance which it had two centuries earlier.
Middendorf emphasises the distinct, almost separated pronunciation of the elements that
make up a diphthong. As it appears, the fact that i functioned as a palatality marker did
not mean that its presence was merely an orthographic device.
The two ‘impure’ vowels, which Middendorf writes ä and ů respectively, are discussed
by that author in great detail, with the confession that he never managed to pronounce
them properly. Middendorf’s characterisation of the impure vowels is essentially the
same as that of Carrera Daza’s for the symbol <œ> with the difference that the ‘u’
element is said to be more strongly represented in the vowel ů, and more weakly so, if
at all, in the vowel ä. The vowel ů is relatively infrequent and seems to be restricted to
roots with a preference for initial and pre-labial positions, whereas no such restrictions
apply to ä. However, there is at least one minimal pair: äp ‘hot pepper’ versus ůp ‘salt’
(cf. Torero 1997: 125). These two words are clearly kept apart in Lehmann’s phonetic
notation (Schumacher de Peña 1991): ‘hot pepper’ œ̂p, ‘salt’ ūŭp. Carrera Daza only
recorded the word for ‘salt’ as œp.
The high frequency of one of the so-called impure vowels (viz. Carrera Daza’s <œ>
corresponding to Middendorf’s ä), which occurred in endings presumably unstressed as
well as in roots, leads to the question whether indeed this vowel represented a single
phoneme. Mochica morphophonemics includes a rule of vowel loss in unstressed open
syllables which always affects precisely that vowel. It would not be far-fetched to assume
that the Mochica vowel inventory included a schwa-type vowel which may have been
the product of a neutralisation of several full vowels, rather than an allophone of œ/ä
alone.114 This mechanism of vowel loss is illustrated in (234):
(234) ñofœn ñofn-œr-ô

man man-G-AJ
‘man’ ‘belonging to the man’
(235) mit-apœc mit-apc-o-iñ
bring-AG bring-AG-AR-1S.SG
‘one who brings’ ‘I am in the habit of bringing.’ (lit. ‘I am one who
brings.’)
Middendorf’s inventory of plain vowels (Middendorf 1892: 48–51) includes four

long vowels ā, ı̄, ō and ū, which are matched by four ‘normal’ vowels a, ı̆, ŏ,115 and u.
Additionally, there are two more short vowels ă and ŭ. The pronunciation of ă is said to
be like a in German before doubled consonants, whereas ū is said to be similar to u in
114 Torero (1997: 125) speaks of a vocal de apoyo ‘support vowel’.

115 The symbols ı̆ and ŏ are not consistently employed by Middendorf; in most of his grammar he
replaces them with i and o.
Table 3.16 Mochica vowels as represented in Carrera Daza (1644)

and Middendorf (1892)
Carrera Daza a, â e i o, ô u, û oe
Middendorf a, ā, ă e (ē) ı̄, (i), ı̆ ō, (o), ŏ u, ū, ŭ ä, ů
English ‘but’. No length distinction is reported for the front mid vowel e.116 It is doubtful
whether all these options were indeed distinctive. However, the length distinction seems
to have been functional, considering the minimal pairs recorded by Middendorf (cf.
Cerrón-Palomino 1995b: 81–2):117
(236) pok pōk

‘to enter’ ‘to be called’
(237) rak rāk
‘mountain-lion’ ‘excrement’ (Middendorf 1892: 54)
The vowel symbols used by Carrera Daza and Middendorf are summarised in
table 3.16. The vowel symbols used by Middendorf which are not presented as part
of his inventory are given in parentheses.
The intricacies of the Mochica consonant inventory motivated Carrera Daza to in-
troduce several new symbols and combinations of existing symbols, such as <cɥ>,
<tzh> and <xll>. Their interpretation continues to be a matter of debate, in particular
because the sounds they represent were subject to change during the last centuries of
the language’s existence. Hovdhaugen (1992) and Torero (1986, 1997) have established
a correlation between palatal and plain consonants, which covers most of the system,
except for the labial series and the vibrants. The occurrence of a palatality contrast in the
velar series is defended in Torero (1986, 1997). The areas of the consonant system that
were most affected by change during the period between the seventeenth and nineteenth
centuries were the laterals and the sibilants. The laterals partly developed into velar
fricatives; a crucial sibilant contrast disappeared.
Carrera Daza appears to have represented the Mochica consonants quite adequately,
but, as in contemporary Spanish, competing symbols and symbol combinations some-
times referred to a single sound. The absence of comments on the pronunciation of
a symbol may be held to indicate phonetic similarity with the corresponding Spanish
sound. This is of particular importance for the sibilants.
116 Although no long ē is foreseen in Middendorf’s phonetic introduction, he does, inconsistently,
use that symbol in his examples (for instance in kēn ‘half’, Middendorf 1892: 62).
117 At least in one case, a long vowel in Middendorf is matched by a more complex sequence
in seventeenth-century Mochica: Carrera Daza piiœc [piyək] ‘to give’ versus Middendorf pı̄k
(cf. Torero 1997: 120).
The symbols for voiceless labial consonants and <f> were probably pronounced
as in Spanish, although the fricative f may have been bilabial, rather than labiodental. In
the nineteenth century, f had developed an optional voiced allophone in intervocalic and
syllable-final positions; e.g. cɥ œfœt ‘snake’ (Villareal 1921: 17) is represented as ćhuvet
or tsůvät in Middendorf. A remarkable fact is the absence of the glide or semi-vowel [w]
in seventeenth century Mochica. In loans from Quechua or Spanish, [w] or [β] of the
original language were consistently replaced by <f>, e.g. faccɥ a ‘poor’ (Villareal 1921:
21) from Quechua wakča, and fak ‘ox’ (Middendorf 1892: 60) from Spanish vaca. As
in most countries where a Spanish writing tradition prevails, Carrera Daza wrote <qu>
for the velar stop before e and i, but <c> elsewhere. Seventeenth-century Mochica
apparently had no velar fricatives.
The nasal series comprised four positions: bilabial <m>, alveodental <n>, palatal
<ñ> and velar <ng>. Carrera Daza also uses the velar nasal symbol when the velar
character of the sound can be derived from environmental restrictions, as in çengque
‘throat’ (Altieri 1939: 80). The vibrant series presumably included a trilled <rr> and a
tap <r>, a contrast that does not seem to have been distinctive.118 Both <rr> and <r>
are found in word-initial, medial and final position. The glide y (often written , see
above) was a consonant phoneme in Mochica.
In the alveodental series two sounds were recorded, voiceless <t> and voiced <d>.
The status of <d> is somewhat problematic, as it did not occur in word-initial position
but mainly in suffixes and at the end of morphemes. If it was a voiced stop, it would
have had neither velar nor labial counterparts. The lack of comments in the sources
concerning its pronunciation suggests that it was in most instances pronounced as in
Spanish, in which case it may have been a fricative.
The sibilants and their corresponding affricates were characterised by a contrast be-
tween a palatal articulation, on the one hand, and what were possibly apical and dental
articulations on the other. The palatal sibilant and affricate were written <x> [š] and
<ch> [č], respectively, as was the common usage in many parts of the Spanish realm.
The non-palatal sibilants were indicated by means of the symbol sets <s>, <ss>, and
<c>, <ç>, <z>, respectively. Torero (1997: 109–12) assigns an apico-alveolar inter-
pretation (presumably as in Castilian Spanish) to the <s>, <ss> set, which mainly rests
on the fact that Carrera Daza’s comments do not suggest otherwise. Cerrón-Palomino
(1995b: 103–5) prefers a retroflex interpretation. Both authors coincide in assigning
an (alveo)dental value to the <c>, <ç>, <z> set. The real phonetic nature of these
two sets of symbols may very well always remain unknown, because the assumed con-
trast was lost after Carrera Daza’s time. Torero further analyses the sequences <ci>,
118 Remember, however, the case of the Quechua dialect of Pacaraos (section 3.2.9.), which exhibits
a non-predictable contrast between r and rr, even though minimal pairs are lacking.
Table 3.17 Sibilants in seventeenth-century

Mochica (following Torero 1997)
Plain Palatal
Dental c, ç, z [s] ci, çi, iz [sy ]

Apical s, ss [ş] x, ix [š]
<çi>, <iz> as representing the palatal counterpart of the dental sound represented by
the <c>, <ç>, <z> set. This is plausible because in Carrera Daza the palatality marker
 is frequently found in that environment, but never in the immediate vicinity of
<s>, <ss>. Taking a further step, Torero then interprets the palatal sibilant <x> as
the palatal counterpart of <s>, <ss>. His analysis of the sibilants is represented in
table 3.17.
The coincidence of the presumed apical and dental series led to a reordering of the
palatality distinction. This becomes evident in Middendorf’s work, where the symbols
s and ss can be accompanied by i when s, ss corresponds to <c, ç, z> in Carrera
Daza.
(238) çiad-eiñ (Villareal 1921: 12) siad-eiñ, ssiad-eiñ (Middendorf 1892: 89, 91)
sleep-1S.SG
‘I sleep’
The affricate <tzh>, one of the new symbol combinations introduced by Carrera
Daza, corresponds with an alveodental affricate [ts ] in nineteenth- and twentieth century
Mochica. There would be no reason to assume that the seventeenth-century affricate
recorded by Carrera Daza was anything else than [ts ], had he not himself underscored
the exotic properties of the sound represented by his symbol <tzh>. Carrera Daza’s
orthography also suggests something more complex than [ts ]. Where other authors stick
to the alveodental interpretation, Torero (1997) holds that <tzh> must be interpreted as
an apico-alveolar affricate, which would indeed have been an exotic sound to the ears
of a colonial Spaniard.119 The subsequent disappearance of the apical–dental contrast
would then have affected the affricate <tzh> as well, reducing it to a more ‘normal’
alveodental affricate [ts ].
The sequence <tzh> is also found in combination with the palatality marker ,
for instance in cuntzhiu ‘overhanging lock of hair’ (Villareal 1921: 14). Hovdhaugen,
119 An apico-alveolar affricate [tş ], traditionally written as ts, is found in Basque. One cannot
expect Carrera Daza to have been familiar with it.
who takes <tzh> to be dental rather than apico-alveolar, treats the <tzhi> combination
as its palatal counterpart [cy ],120 but Torero (1997: 115) suggests that it may rather
be the palatal counterpart of the stop t. Whatever solution is chosen, the sound was
presumably an affricate since Middendorf (1892: 59) recorded kunzio for the word in
question.
One of the most intriguing symbols in Carrera Daza’s work is <cɥ>, which is reported
to represent a sound similar to, but distinct from the affricate symbolised by <ch> [č],
hence the ‘reversed’ h. In the seventeenth century it was found in all positions, including
the word- and syllable-final positions, e.g. in lecɥ ‘head’. Although several instances
of original <cɥ> had become ch by the end of the nineteenth century, the sound in
question was still clearly present in the time of Middendorf, who represents it as ćh. He
describes the sound as an alveodental stop followed by an ‘ich-laut’ [tç ] (Middendorf
1892: 51). Carrera Daza’s <cɥ> is interpreted as a palatalised alveodental stop [ty ]
by Cerrón-Palomino (1995b: 96), as a palatalised palatal affricate [čy ] by Hovdhaugen
(1992) and as a palatalised velar stop [ky ] by Torero (1986, 1997). The latter somewhat
remarkable interpretation is based on the argument of homorganity in consonant clusters.
As a matter of fact, <cɥ> was favoured over <ch> after a velar stop during the process
of borrowing the Quechua word wakča ‘poor’. The latter became faccɥa [fakty a ∼
fakky a], not *faccha [fakča], in Mochica. Furthermore, nasal consonants could be velar
before <cɥ>, suggesting assimilation to the initial sound of an affricate with a velar
initial element, as in (239):
ɥu (Villareal 1921: 12) kangchu (Middendorf 1892: 59) ‘jaw’

(239) cangcɥ
However, there are counterexamples, such as (240), where no assimilation to the velar
position has been recorded.
ɥo (Villareal 1921: 12) kůncho (Middendorf 1892: 61) ‘meat’

(240) cœncɥ
Seventeenth-century Mochica had a remarkable system of laterals, in which the op-

positions of voice and palatality played a central role. One of the special symbols in-
troduced by Carrera Daza, <xll> has been identified as a voiceless palatalised lateral
[l y ] (Torero 1986).121 It contrasted with a voiced counterpart <ll> ly . Between the sev-

enteenth and the nineteenth centuries the voiceless sound developed into a palatalised
velar fricative [ç], written ’ by Middendorf (241), whereas the voiced sound remained
unchanged (242).
120 For reasons of notational uniformity, we substitute [cy ] for Hovdhaugen’s [ţş].
121 Hovdhaugen interprets this symbol as a palatalised alveopalatal fricative [šy ].
(241) xllaxll (Villareal 1921: 44) ’ai’ (Middendorf ‘silver’

1892: 62)
(242) llapti loc (Villareal 1921: 26) llapti jok (Middendorf ‘sole of
1892: 59) the foot’
Carrera Daza’s grammar does not contain evidence of the existence of a pair of non-
palatal laterals parallel to the palatal ones. Only one lateral <l> is attested. In many
cases this lateral developed into a velar fricative j [x] between the seventeenth and the
nineteenth centuries; cf. (242), and the examples in (243):
(243) a. la (Villareal 1921: 24) jā (Middendorf ‘water’

1892: 63)
b. col (Villareal 1921: 14) koj (Middendorf ‘horse’
1892: 60) (< * ‘llama’)
In other cases, however, the lateral was preserved (244). On this basis and for reasons of
symmetry, one may assume, with Torero (1986), that there may have existed a contrast
between voiced and voiceless plain laterals as well, one of which developed into a
velar fricative, whereas the other did not. Since there is no direct evidence for such a
development, it must remain a matter of speculation.
(244) loqu-eiñ (Villareal 1921: 26) lok-eiñ (Middendorf 1892: 184)

want 1S.SG
‘I want’
Table 3.18 presents an overview of the principal consonant symbols and symbol
combinations used by Carrera Daza and Middendorf and their possible values at different
stages of their development.
3.4.2 Mochica grammar

Mochica is predominantly a suffixing language with a rather loose morphological struc-
ture. Grammatical relations are indicated by case or postpositions. There are no affixes
indicating the grammatical person of the possessor. The genitive case form of per-
sonal and demonstrative pronouns is used for that purpose. As in Aymara and Quechua,
modifiers precede the head. Irregular forms, including those involving ablaut and root
substitution, are common. As a result of the way in which the language was documented,
it is no longer possible to obtain a full picture of these irregularities. Furthermore, the
sources show a certain amount of insecurity where vowels are concerned. Very often,
alternative possibilities are presented as equivalent, without a suggestion of semantic or
pragmatic differences that could have played a role.
Table 3.18 Overview of the consonant symbols in the

Mochica grammars of Carrera Daza (1644) and
Middendorf (1892)
Carrera Daza Middendorf Possible phonetic values

(1644) (1892) and historical development
p p p
f f, v f, ϕ > v, β
t t t
d d ð, θ
c, ç, z s, ss s
tzh ts tş , ts > ts
s, ss s, ss ş > s
ch ch č
x š š
cɥ ćh ky , ty , tç > ty , tç
c, qu k k
xll ’ l y > ç

ll ll ly
l l l
l j l, l > x

r, rr r, rr r, rr
m m m
n n n
ñ ñ ny
ng ng ŋ
i,y i y
Several characteristics of Mochica are reminiscent of the Mayan languages. The

language has a system of numeral classifiers and a fully developed passive. Passive
constructions are often preferred over active constructions, the agent being expressed
in the genitive case or, with some nouns (mainly kinship terms), by a special agentive
case marker. Many substantives have two forms, a possessed (relational) form and a
non-possessed (absolute) form.
One of the most remarkable features of Mochica is the use of verbal personal reference
markers that can either be suffixed to the verb stem itself, or follow the element preceding
the verb stem. They indicate the person of the subject, whereas person of object is not
expressed in the verb form. Although these personal reference markers are not formally
related to the independent personal pronouns, their combined use as subject markers is
considered ungrammatical (Villareal 1921: 6). In example sentence (245), the marker
for first-person singular -eiñ is attached to the root met ‘to bring’. Alternatively, it can
be located after the element which precedes the root, in this case the object pup ‘wood’
(246):
(245) met-eiñ pup mäiñ an ai-näm

bring-1S.SG wood I.G house make-F.SP
‘I bring wood in order to build my house.’ (Middendorf 1892: 160)
(246) pup eiñ met mäiñ an ai-näm
wood 1S.SG bring I.G house make-F.SP
‘I bring wood in order to build my house.’ (Middendorf 1892: 160)
Alternatively, the personal pronoun moiñ ‘I’ is located before the root met from which
it is separated by either one of the elements e, fe or ang. The grammatical descriptions
do not provide information as to a possible semantic difference between these three
options, which are all translatable as ‘I bring’ (247):
(247) moiñ é met xllac122 or moiñ fe met xllac or moiñ ang met xllac
I be bring fish
‘I bring fish.’ (Altieri 1939: 51)
The invariable elements e, fe and ang are described as equivalents of the verb ‘to be’
and can be used as such in combination with a free pronoun (248):
(248) moiñ e or moiñ fe or moiñ ang

I be
‘I am.’ (Villareal 1921: 5)
Mochica also has a conjugated verb chi conveying the meaning ‘to be’.123 In combi-
nation with this verb, the use of the independent pronoun as subject is rejected. When
followed by the element -pa, the conjugated forms of the verb ‘to be’ obtain the meaning
of ‘to have’ (249):
(249) chi-ñ124 chi-ñ-pa

be-1S.SG be-1S.SG-have
‘I am.’ ‘I have.’ (Villareal 1921: 5, 100)
Finally, the notion ‘to be’ can be expressed by locating a personal reference marker
directly after a full pronoun. In that case the use of the independent pronoun in
122 The element e is often, but not always, found as é in Carrera Daza (Altieri 1939).
123 The verb chi is mainly used in a copula function. For existential ‘to be’ loc/lok is preferred.
124 For the suppression of the vowel in -eiñ see below.
Table 3.19 Personal reference in Mochica (Altieri 1939: 19–21)
Pronouns
Affixes Nominative Genitive
1 pers. sing. -eiñ moiñ mœiñ[-ô]

1 pers. plur. -eix mœich mœich[-ô]
2 pers. sing. -az tzhang ∼ tzha tzhœng[-ô]
2 pers. plur. -az-chi tzhœich ∼ tzha-chi tzhœich[-ô]
3 pers. sing. (close) -ang mo mu-ng[-ô]
(neutral) çio çiu-ng[-ô]
(far) aio aiu-ng[-ô]
3 pers. plur. (close) -œn-ang mo-ng-œn mu-ng-œn[-ô]
(neutral) çio-ng-œn çiu-ng-œn[-ô]
(far) aio-ng-œn aiu-ng-oen[-ô]
combination with the corresponding personal reference marker does not appear to be
problematic (250):
(250) moiñ eiñ

I 1S.SG
‘I am.’ (Villareal 1921: 5)
Interrogative sentences of the disjunctive type provide the only context in which the
personal reference markers occur in a sentence-initial position, e.g. in (251) and (252),
without having to be preceded by any other element. It follows from this that the Mochica
personal reference markers cannot be considered to be bound affixes in the strict sense,
although they do behave as such when they occur after a verb stem (see below).
(251) as ton-od tsäng ef

2S beat/kill-PA you.G father.RL
‘Did you beat your father?’ (Middendorf 1892: 136)
(252) ang funo-ćhäm
3S eat-PR
‘Is he/are they eating?’ (Middendorf 1892: 95)
The personal reference system of Mochica is based on three persons and two numbers.
Personal pronouns exist for first and second persons singular and plural. For third-person
demonstrative pronouns are used. In third-person forms and in nouns in general, plurality
is expressed optionally by means of the suffix -œn/-än. In table 3.19 the personal reference
markers are represented in their affix shape, along with the corresponding free pronouns
(including demonstratives for third person) in their nominative and genitive forms. The
short forms of the genitive pronouns are used as modifiers in noun phrases and as agents
in passive constructions. The long forms in -ô /-ō are used in predicative constructions
with ‘to be’.125
As shown in table 3.19, the vowel of the first-person suffixes -eiñ, -eix/-eiš can be
suppressed by a preceding vowel, as in chi-ñ ‘I am’, funo-iñ ‘I eat’ (funo ‘to eat’). The
vowel of the second-person suffix -az/-as is unstable; it is alternatively found as -œz/-äs
or -ez/-es, and it is also affected by suppression after another vowel, e.g. chi-z ‘you are’,
funo-z ‘you eat’. Note that the velar nasal preceding the pluralising suffix -œn in the
nominative forms (in mo-ng-œn, for instance) is not part of the postvocalic realisation
of that suffix. With other vowel-final roots, such as çiorna/ssiorna ‘(someone) alone’,
a hiatus is preferred before -œn: çiorna œn/ssiorna-än. In the genitive forms, however,
-ng- is the normal postvocalic realisation of the marker for that case (here accompanied
by ablaut).
Although Mochica has no general case marker for objects – they are indicated in the
same way as subjects –, some pronouns do have a special form for that purpose. A first-
person-plural accusative or dative object (‘us’) is indicated by ñof; the demonstratives
have object forms moss, çioss/ssioss and aioss, respectively.
Case marking in Mochica is constructed around the nominative–genitive distinction.
The remaining case markers have been analysed as postpositions, which are either added
to the nominative or to the genitive form.126 It should be observed, however, that this
is the traditional view, and that some of the elements which are directly added to the
‘nominative’ root, such as -len ‘with (comitative)’, -mœn/män ‘as’, ‘following’, -na
‘through’ (adverbialiser), -(ng)er ‘with (instrumental)’, -(n)ich ‘from’, -pœn/-pän ‘as’,
‘in the function of’, -tim ‘for the sake of’ and -totna ‘towards’ may be case suffixes,
rather than postpositions127 (cf. Middendorf 1892: 125–6).
(253) ssiung fanu-len128

he.G dog-C
‘with his dog’ (Middendorf 1892: 98)
(254) peñ-o-pän ang ak-äm
good-AR-CP be say-PS
‘He is held to be good.’ (Middendorf 1892: 100)
125 The existence of forms with and without -ô motivated Carrera Daza to declare that there were
two genitives in Mochica (Altieri 1939: 15–16).
126 There is one preposition pir ‘without’. It is followed by substantives in their relational form
(e.g. pir chiçœr ‘without judgment’, from chiçœc ‘judgment’, ‘understanding’).
127 The allomorphs with an initial nasal are postvocalic; -totna may be related to tot ‘face’.
128 Middendorf (1892: 55) mentions a case of -len following the short form of the genitive (in
fanu-ng-len ‘with the dog’).
One postposition, the benefactive marker -pœn/-pän, follows the ‘long’ genitive case
form, expanded with the element -ô.
(255) mo cɥ ɥilpi ang mœiñ ef-ei-ô-pœn

this blanket be I.G father-G-AJ-B
‘This blanket is for my father.’ (Altieri 1939: 13)
The postpositions that follow the ‘short’ genitive form all have to do with location in
space. The marker -nic/-nik indicates location or motion towards ‘in’, ‘at’, whereas -lec/
-lek refers to a less specific location ‘near’, ‘at’ (256). Several substantives have special
locative forms in which an ending -Vc/-Vk, with an unpredictable vowel i, e or œ/ä, is
added directly to the root, e.g. en-ec/en-ek ‘at home’ (cf. an ‘house’), mœcɥ -œc/mäch-äk
‘in the hands’ (cf. mœcɥ /mäch ‘hand’). These cases are said by Middendorf (1892: 96)
to take their origin in the combination of genitive stems followed by -nic/-nik, a conclu-
sion which in our view remains open for discussion. The remaining postpositions that
follow genitive stems indicate spatial positions in relation to an object. Several of them
are derived from body part names and contain the element -Vc/-Vk (257), e.g. lecɥ œc/
jechäk ‘above’ (cf. lecɥ /jech ‘head’), lucɥ œc/juchäk ‘among’, ‘between’ (cf. locɥ /joch
‘eyes’), tutœc/tutäk ‘before’, ‘in front of’ (cf. tot ‘face’). The postpositions capœc/kapäk
‘on top of’, ssecœn/ssekän ‘below’ and turquich/turkich ‘behind’ are less easy to
analyse.
(256) pedro-ng-lec
Pedro-G-L
‘at Pedro’s’ (Villareal 1921: 110)
(257) chap-e jech-äk129
roof-G head-L (above)
‘on top of the roof’ (Middendorf 1892: 97)
The shape of the genitive of Mochica nouns is partly unpredictable. In wordlists (e.g.
Middendorf 1892: 58–64; Villareal 1921: 9–44) the genitive ending is added to each
entry. According to Middendorf (1892: 52–4), -œr-ô/-är-ō is found after voiceless stops,
nasals and part of the affricates (ts, ch). After other consonants -ei-ô/-ei-ō is found. The
genitive ending after vowels is -ng-ô/-ng-ō. The plural suffix -œn-/-än- is inserted before
the genitive suffixes -œr-/-är- and -ei-, but after -ng-.
(258) mūd-ei-ō mūd-än-ei-ō

ant-G-AJ ant-PL-G-AJ
‘belonging to the ant’ ‘belonging to the ants’ (Middendorf 1892: 53)
129 Villareal (1921: 110) an-i cɥ ap-œ lecɥ -œc ‘above the roof of the house’.
(259) chelu-ng-ō130 chelu-ng-än-ō

hawk-G-AJ hawk-G-PL-AJ
‘belonging to the hawk’ ‘belonging to the hawks’ (Middendorf 1892: 53)
Instead of -ei-ô, Carrera often has -ii-ô. This is frequently the case after roots ending
in palatal consonants; e.g. çiœiz/ssiäs ‘word’, genitive çiœiz-ii-o (Altieri 1939: 69).131
However, genitives in -ii-ô were also recorded with roots not ending in a palatal conso-
nant (e.g. far/farr ‘celebration’, genitive far-ı̀i-o), whereas -ei-ô has been found after a
palatal consonant; e.g. eiz/eis ‘child (relative)’, genitive eizi-ei-o (eis-i-ō in Middendorf
1892: 56).
Middendorf also gives a number of exceptions and irregular forms, such as rak-ei-ō
from rak ‘mountain-lion’, pe-ng-ō from pei ‘grass’ and pojod-ei-ō from poj ‘spleen’.132
The word col/koj for ‘horse’ (originally ‘llama’) has two irregular options for the genitive:
col-ui-ô and col-ung-ô (Altieri 1939: 15). The interrogative pronouns eiñ ‘who’ and ech
‘what’ have special genitive forms: iñ-ô/iñ-ō and ich-ô/ich-ō (Altieri 1939: 22).
As we anticipated, the element -ô/-ō, traditionally described as a component of all
genitive endings, is absent from genitive nouns modifying another noun in a possessive
construction, in genitive nouns referring to the agent of a passive construction and before
postpositions (except benefactive -pœn/-pän, see above). Middendorf (1892: 52) points
out that -ô was not only stressed and long, but that it was also pronounced separately. It
may be assumed that -ô was a grammatical element of its own, indicating, among other
things, the predicative character of a genitive noun. The ‘short’ endings of the genitive
are -œr/-är, -e and -ng, respectively.
(260) mœiñ ef-e cɥɥ ilpi-ss

I.G father-G blanket-RL
‘my father’s blanket’ (Villareal 1921: 71)
(261) ñi-ng jā
sea-G water
‘the water of the sea’ (Middendorf 1892: 55)
(262) mo an ang aio ñofn-är ef-ei-ō
this house be that man-G house-G-AJ
‘This house belongs to that man’s father.’ (Middendorf 1892: 56)
(263) ćhuvet-är rrān-äd.o
snake-G bite-SN
‘bitten by a snake’ (Middendorf 1892: 55)
130 In Carrera Daza (Altieri 1939: 83) the word for ‘hawk’ is recorded as cɥ elû.
131 The diacritic on the ending -ô is often left out in Carrera Daza’s grammar.
132 In Carrera Daza (Altieri 1939: 81) pol, polod-ei-o.
(264) nech-är-nik
river-G-L
‘in(to) the river’ (Middendorf 1892: 96)
As we anticipated, a number of kinship terms which form their genitive in -ei-ô/

-ei-ō also have a special case ending -en to indicate the agent in a passive construction
(265). The agentive form of eiñ ‘who’ is iñ-in (Altieri 1939: 22) or iñ-en (Middendorf
1892: 133).
(265) uxllur-en eiñ xllip-quem [xllip-co ‘call’, ‘address’]

nephew-GA 1S.SG speak-T.PS
‘I am called by my nephew.’ (Altieri 1939: 16)
The formation of relational substantives, also referred to in the literature as the ‘sec-
ond nominative’ (Middendorf 1892: 56), often involves a suffix -s or -ss, as in cɥ ilpi-ss;
cf. (260). The agentive nominalisation in -(V)pœc/-(V)päk can be made relational by
adding -œss/-äss, e.g. chi-co-pœc-œss ‘someone’s creator’ (from chi ‘to be’ and -co/
-ko ‘transitiviser’; cf. Altieri 1939: 14). Of many bisyllabic substantives which end in
-Vc/-Vk, a relational counterpart is obtained by changing the final stop into -r; e.g.
ñeñ-uc/ñeñ-uk ‘toy’ (from ñeiñ ‘to play’), relational ñeñ-ur (Middendorf 1892: 57;
Villareal 1921: 33). A third possibility to form relationals is by the addition of -Vd,
e.g. col-œd/koj-äd from col/koj ‘horse’.
With typically possessed nouns, the relational form may be the more basic one,
whereas the absolute form is more marked. Such nouns often have the ending -quic/-kik
in the absolute, which is either absent, or replaced by -Vng in the relational.
(266) a. ef-kik ‘father’ (absolute) ef ‘father’ (relational)

b. pol-kik ‘heart’ (absolute) pol-äng ‘heart’ (relational)133
(Middendorf 1892: 57)
The relational and absolute forms of substantives need not be etymologically related.
This appears to be the case with the word mecherrœc/mecherräk ‘woman’ (absolute) in
relation to ssonœng/ssonäng ‘wife’ (relational).
Adjectives in Mochica precede the substantive they modify. In that case they are often
followed by a suffix -o (-io after vowels), which is not to be confounded with the marker
-ô/-ō of the extended genitive. Carrera Daza’s grammar also contains many cases of -o
with adjectives in a predicative position (267). When the adjective acts as a modifier, the
plural marker -œn/-än is attached to the modifying adjective rather than to the modified
133 Villareal (1921: 37) translates the word polquic as ‘stomach’ or ‘will’.
substantive, in which case it precedes -o (268). When the substantive is in the genitive
case, the plural marker remains on the substantive (269).
(267) mœich eix ûtzh-o

we 1S.PL tall-AR
‘We are tall.’ (Altieri 1939: 32)
(268) ūts-än-o nepät
big-PL-AR tree
‘high trees’ (Middendorf 1892: 65)
(269) ūts-o nepät-än-är-ō
big-AR tree-PL-G-AJ
‘belonging to high trees’ (Middendorf 1892: 65)
The suffix -o is also found after substantive roots that are used attributively before
another noun.
(270) mecherrœc-o ñaiñ

woman-AR bird
‘a female bird’ (Villareal 1921: 33)
Adjectives can be turned into abstract nouns by adding the suffix -œss/-äss, as in
peñ-œss ‘goodness’ from peñ ‘good’. Such nouns are always relational.
The verbal system of Mochica presents a rather hybrid picture, in which suffixes,
prefixes, as well as adverb-like elements play a part. The preterit is formed by the
addition of a suffix -(V)da- (-da- after vowels), to which the personal reference mark-
ers are attached. When the personal reference markers are moved to a position which
precedes the verb (see above), the resulting preterit stem ends in -(V)d, e.g. met-ed
(bring-PA). The future tense of the verb met ‘to bring’ is formed by means of a prefix t-
followed by (partially reduced) personal reference markers and subsequently by the root.
In seventeenth-century Mochica the second-person plural marker was split into a prefix
and a suffix part (Altieri 1939: 34).134 Both the preterit and the future are represented in
table 3.20.
A remote past tense can be expressed by adding the suffix -top, but only with a
third-person subject.
(271) ssiu-ng kapäk jům-top

that-G upon die-RM
‘On that (the Cross) He died.’ (Middendorf 1892: 158)
134 In nineteenth-century Mochica this was no longer the case, as can be seen in the example
t-äs-chi tem (F-2-PL love) ‘you (plural) love’ (Middendorf 1892: 80).
Table 3.20 Mochica preterit and future tenses (Altieri 1939)
Preterit Future
1 pers. sing. met-eda-iñ ‘I brought.’ t-iñ-met ‘I shall bring.’

1 pers. plur. met-eda-ix ‘We brought.’ t-ix-met ‘We shall bring.’
2 pers. sing. met-eda-z ‘You brought.’ t-œz-met ‘You shall bring.’
2 pers. plur. met-eda-z-chi ‘You brought.’ t-œz-met-chi ‘You shall bring.’
3 pers. sing. met-eda-ng ‘He brought.’ t-œng-met ‘He shall bring.’
3 pers. plur. met-ed-œn-ang ‘They brought.’ t-œng-met-œn ‘They shall bring.’
Another paradigm which may be formed synthetically is the desiderative. It is formed

by inserting -ma- between the root and the personal reference markers, as in met-ma-iñ
‘may I bring!’ As an alternative, Middendorf mentions an analytic construction with the
element mang indicating desiderative, which is used in the same position as the elements
e, fe and ang (see above); e.g. moiñ mang tem ‘may I love!’
The imperative ending for second person is -an (plural -an-chi). When the verb root
ends in a vowel (e.g. xllipco/’ipko ‘to call’), the ending is -n (xllipco-n/’ipko-n).
(272) met-an mullu

bring-2S.IM egg
‘Bring eggs!’ (Middendorf 1892: 149)
(273) met-an-chi pei
bring-2.IM-PL grass
‘Bring (plural) grass!’ (Middendorf 1892: 150)
It is also possible to locate an element an before the verb root. The resulting construc-
tion has an imperative meaning and can be translated as ‘Come and . . . !’ (274). Although
this preverbal element an has been interpreted as an instance of the imperative marker
(Middendorf 1892: 140), there seems to be no reason to assume that the two markers an
share a common origin. As a matter of fact, an is also found before the so-called ‘supine’
ending in -(V)d (see below). In that case the interpretation of the resulting construction
is ‘Go and . . . !’ (275).
(274) an funo
2S.IM eat
‘Come and eat!’ (Villareal 1921: 105)
(275) an funo-d
2S.IM eat-SP
‘Go and eat!’ (Villareal 1921: 103)
The adverbial elements ca/ka and piñ can be postponed to a verb form, either alone
or in combination, in order to add additional shades of tense. The element piñ indicates
transposition of an event to the past (276), whereas ca indicates directedness towards
the future (277).
(276) met-eiñ piñ met-eda-ix piñ

bring-1S.SG PA bring-PA-1S.PL PA
‘I was bringing.’ ‘We had brought.’ (Villareal 1921: 51)
(277) chi-da-iñ ca
be-PA-1S.SG F
‘I would have been.’ (Altieri 1939: 31)
The adverbial element chœm/chäm indicates obligation (278). It must not be con-
founded with the affix -cɥ œm/-ćhäm, which is said to indicate progressive aspect in
combination with polite respect, as illustrated in (279).
(278) chi-jx chœm135

be-1S.PL OB
‘We must be.’ (Altieri 1939: 30)
ɥœm-ang136
(279) ciad-a-cɥ
sleep-EU-PR.CS-3S
‘You are asleep.’ (Villareal 1921: 90)
The passive is formed morphologically by adding to the verb root either one of the
suffixes -œr/-är∼ -er or -œm/-äm ∼ -em. With non-derived verb bases both endings are
used indistinctly, although -Vr is usually presented as the first option.137 Passive verbs
are conjugated as any other verb. The choice of the vowel appears to be free, although
the ‘impure’ vowel is preferred when the passive suffix occurs in word-final position,
e.g. in (281).
(280) zoc-œrr-eiñ pong-er tœp-œr-eiñ lactu-ng-er

throw-PS-1S.SG stone-IS beat-PS-1S.SG hide-EU-IS
‘They throw at me with stones and beat me with hides.’
(lit.: ‘I am being thrown at with stones and beaten with hides.’)138
135 The sequence ijx is an orthographic variant of iix.

136 In this example a euphonic vowel (copying the root vowel) is inserted.
137 A further alternative is -(V)p, as in ai-ep ‘to be made’.
138 This example sentence was left untranslated by Carrera Daza and considered untranslatable by
Villareal (1921: 98). It could be interpreted with the help of the verb lexicon in Middendorf
(1892: 102). There is no ready explanation for the semantic question involved by ‘beating with
hides’. Possibly, a leather whip was meant.
(281) mœiñ e met-œr ca lena peiñ pol-er mœiñ ssonäng

I.G be bring-PS F along good heart139 -IS I.G wife
‘I would be pleased to bring along my wife.’ (lit.: ‘By me
would be brought along with pleasure my wife.’) (Villareal 1921: 98)
Verbal derivational morphology is weakly developed in Mochica. However, at least

two suffixes appear to be productive, ‘transitiviser’-co-/-ko- and ‘applicative’ -c-/-k-
(also -ec-/-ek- or -œc-/-äk-). The transitiviser, which may or may not have a causative
interpretation, is often found in combination with passive, in which case the resulting
portmanteau marker is -quem-/-kem-.
(282) faiñ-ko
lie-T
‘to cheat someone’ (Middendorf 1892: 148)
(283) funo-kem-eiñ
eat-T.PS-1S.SG
‘I am being fed.’ (Middendorf 1892: 148)
The applicative suffix may cause ablaut in a root to which it is attached, as in the case
of met ‘to bring’.
(284) mit-c-an moiñ xllac

bring-AP-IM.2S I fish
‘Bring me some fish!’ (Villareal 1921: 30)
(285) xllipqu-ec-an mœiñ eiz
call-AP-IM.2S I.G son
‘Call my son for me!’ (Villareal 1921: 30)
Nominalisations in Mochica include an agentive, a stative and an instrumental nom-

inalisation, as well as an abstract verbal noun. The agentive is formed by the addition
of the affixes -(V)pœc/-(V)päk. The connective initial vowel of the suffix appears after
consonant-final stems. In Carrera it is a (286), less frequently œ (especially in roots with
a suffix extension). Middendorf (1892: 141) provides a more complex picture including
cases of harmony between the root vowel and the connective vowel (287a), as well as
absence of the latter (287b).
139 The form pol-er is derived from pol-quic/pol-kik ‘heart’ with elimination of the absolute affix
-quic/-kik.
(286) a. fel ‘sit’ fil-apœc ‘one who sits’ (Villareal 1921: 22)
b. ai ‘make’ ai-apoec ‘the creator’ (Villareal 1921: 9)
(287) a. pui ‘ascend’ pui-upäk ‘one who ascends’ (Middendorf 1892: 140)
b. fol ‘breed’ fol-päk ‘one who breeds’ (Middendorf 1892: 140)
The agentive nominalisation is frequently followed by an affix -o, which may be the
same as the one found with adjectives (see above). The resulting form is interpreted as
‘being in the habit of . . . ing’ and functions simultaneously as a verb stem. The main
vowel of the agentive suffix can then be suppressed:
(288) ai-apäk-o ‘in the habit of making’ (Middendorf 1892: 113)

ai-ap(ä)k-o-iñ ‘I am in the habit of making.’ (Middendorf 1892: 113)
Forms resulting from stative nominalisation, usually called ‘participles’ in the lit-
erature, refer to accomplished events. They have passive meaning when the verb
base is transitive but active meaning when it is intransitive. Stative nominalisation
is indicated by the ending -(V)d-o. Its connective initial vowel is found after conso-
nants and tends to harmonise with the root vowel, although there are several cases
where such harmony is not found. No harmony is observed in roots with an inter-
nal vowel i, where the connective vowel can be either a or œ/ä. Middendorf (1892:
142) points to the fact that stative participles are formally related to the preterit stem
(ending -(V)d-a, see above), where he finds a similar inconsistency in the choice
of the connective vowel. As a matter of fact, the final vowel of the preterit end-
ing -(V)d-a- is often replaced by o (289). The articulated character of the ending
-(V)d-o is shown by the fact that a plural marker can be inserted between the two
components (290).
(289) met-ed.o met-ed.a-iñ ∼ met-ed.o-iñ

bring-SN bring-PA-1S.SG
‘brought’ ‘I brought.’ (Villareal 1921: 52–3)
(290) jům-äd-än-o
die-SN-PL-SN
‘those who have died’ (Middendorf 1892: 144)
Stative participles can be used in combination with verbs ‘to be’ in order to indicate
an accomplished event. The homophony (and possible identity) of the participle and
preterit forms can lead to ambiguity in the interpretation of such constructions in relation
to periphrastic verb forms. With transitive verb stems, a periphrastic construction will
be interpreted as active if the verb is in the preterit, whereas it will be passive if the verb
is in its participle form.
(291) moiñ e tem-ed.o moiñ e tem-ed.o

I be love-PA I be love-SN
‘I have loved.’ ‘I have been loved.’ (Middendorf 1892: 136)
Stative participles play an important role in the formation of relative clauses. Carrera
Daza mentions sentence (292) as an example of how relative clause constructions should
look like in Mochica.
(292) œnta-zta f(e) queix Limac tœ-d.ô ñofœn

not-NE be return Lima go-SN man
‘The man who went to Lima has not yet returned.’140 (Altieri 1939: 19)
Instrumental nominalisation consists in adding a suffix -ic/-ik or -uc/-uk to a

consonant- final verb root. The relational form corresponding to these nominalisations
ends in -ir/-ur (cf. the case of ñeñ-uc/ñeñ-ur ‘toy’, which was mentioned before). In
some cases, both vowel options co-occur yielding different meanings (293):
(293) man-ik ‘cup’, ‘drinking-vessel’ man-uk ‘dining-room’

[from man ‘eat’, ‘drink’] (Middendorf 1892: 109)
Abstract events are referred to by forms in -i(z)çœc/-issäk. Middendorf (1892: 110)

gives examples of the use of -i(z)çœc/-issäk both with verb roots and with adjectives
followed by the affix -o and the verb chi- ‘to be’. The relational counterpart of this affix
likewise ends in -r: -i(z)çœr/-issär.
(294) a. jům-issäk ‘death’ from jům ‘die’ [<*lœm]

b. tärräk-o chi-ssäk ‘slowness’ from tärräk ‘slow’ [< *tœrrœc]
(295) œnta f(e) ezta iñ aj-içœr œzta mo ef-quic
not be NE who.G make-N.RL NE this father-A
‘This Father is of no one’s making.’141 (Altieri 1939: 87)
Mochica is rich in non-finite subordinate verb forms, traditionally referred to as

gerunds and supines. The ending -nœm/-näm, with occasional ablaut in the root (e.g.
mit-nœm from met ‘to bring’) indicates a purpose ‘in order to’; cf. examples (245)–
(246) above. The ending -(V)scœf/ -(V)skäf indicates an event that has been completed
before the main event (‘after . . . ing’); -(V)lœc/ -(V)läk and -(V)ssœc/-(V)ssäk indicate
140 In Carrera Daza’s text the first part of this sentence is subdivided as œntaz taf queix. It must have
incited Villareal (1921: 39) to include a non-existing verb tafqueix ‘to return’ in his word list.
In reality, we are dealing with a contraction of two negative markers œnta and ezta, followed by
an abbreviated form of fe ‘to be’ (cf. Middendorf 1892: 117). The verb ‘to return’ is queix/keš
(Middendorf 1892: 87).
141 Iñ is the (short) genitive of eiñ ‘who’; aj- is an alternative way of writing for ai- ‘to make’.
simultaneousness (‘while . . . ing’). Finally, -(f)uno, -(f)unta and -(f)un can indicate a
negative subordination (‘without . . . ing’).142
(296) mœiñ ef ang lœm-œd.o, tzhang Limac chi-lœc

I.G father.RL be die-SN you Lima be-GR
‘My father died while you were in Lima.’ (Villareal 1921: 102)
Particularly intriguing because of their often irregular formation and their ability to
express the active–passive distinction are the supines that indicate the complement of
verbs of motion (including the hortative particle an ‘go and . . . !’; see above). The verb
met ‘to carry’ has an active supine tet and a passive supine tinipœd/tinipäd. Most other
verbs form their active supine in -(œ)d/-(ä)d, -(V)p-œd/-(V)p-äd being a frequent option
for the passive. Both the syntax and the limited choice of the postconsonantal vowel
suggest that there is no close relation with the preterit and the stative participle in these
cases.
(297) an tin-ip-œd ñof faichca

go.and bring-PS-SP we.AC firewood
‘Go and have us brought firewood!’ (Villareal 1921: 103)
(298) xllon-quic ang ta tet
food-A 3S come bring.SP
‘He has come to bring (you) food.’ (Altieri 1939: 60)
Mochica has a system of numeral classifiers which refer to tens and, to a lesser extent,
hundreds of a specific class of objects. There are no numeral classifiers for units. The
first four numerals have free forms (including genitives), as well as bound forms which
are used in combination with the classifiers or as multipliers of other numerals.
Even though there is a special word for ‘ten’, as shown in table 3.21, the usual way
to count in tens was by combining the bound forms of the numerals (or full forms when
bound forms are lacking) with a numeral classifier referring to ten units of a particular
subclass of nouns. For instance, pong was used for (tens of) people, animals and reeds,
and ssop for (tens of) coins or time units (day, year). The classifier cɥ oquixll/choki’ was
used for (tens of) fruits and ears of maize.
(299) çoc-pong cɥ ɥ elû

four-CL.10 hawk
‘forty hawks’ (Altieri 1939: 83)
(300) na-ssop xllaxll
one-CL.10 money
‘ten reales’ (Altieri 1939: 82)
142 The forms with initial f occur after o (e.g. funo-funta ‘without eating’).
Table 3.21 Numerals 1 to 10 in Mochica (Altieri 1939: 82)
Nominative Genitive Bound
‘one’ onœc onc-œr-o na-

‘two’ aput* apt-ur-o pac-
‘three’ çopœt çopt-œr-o çoc-
‘four’ nopœt nopt-œr-o noc-
‘five’ exllmœtzh exllmœtzh-œr-o
‘six’ tzhaxlltzha tzhaxlltzha-ng-o
‘seven’ ñite ñite-ng-o
‘eight’ langœss langœss-œr-o
‘nine’ tap tap-œi-o
‘ten’ çiœcɥ çiœcɥ -œi-o
* The Altieri edition mentions the form atput (genitive apt-ur-o)

alongside aput. All the other sources only have aput.
(301) pak-choki’ mang

two-CL.10 maize
‘twenty ears of maize’ (Middendorf 1892: 130)
The word for ‘hundred’ palœc/paläk could be combined with the bound forms of the
numerals, yielding na-palœc ‘100’, pac-palœc ‘200’, etc. In order to count ‘hundreds of
fruits or crops’ there was a special numeral classifier chiœng/chiäng.
(302) pak-chiäng ćhun

two-CL.100 gourd
‘two hundred gourds’
In addition to the classifiers for tens and hundreds there are also classifiers for pairs.
The classifier luc/luk was used for counting fruits and crops, whereas felœp/feläp was
used for domestic fowl and vessels. The word cœss was recorded by Carrera Daza
as a classifier for counting time in tens of days, e.g. exllmœtzh cœss ‘fifty days’
(Altieri 1939: 84). In Middendorf’s time the word käss apparently had lost its deci-
mal meaning. It was still combinable with bound numerals but with the meaning of
‘day’ rather than ‘ten days’. Other lexical items referring to time, such as ši ‘month’
and fūr ‘year’, could also be combined with the bound numerals (e.g. nok-fūr ‘four
years’).
The Mochica numeral system also included a word for ‘thousand’ cunô/kuno. Com-
plex numerals involving the addition of units to tens, tens to hundreds, etc., were con-
structed by means of the connector allo, e.g. ñite palœc allo na-pong allo onœc ‘711’
(Altieri 1939: 83).
3.4.3 Mochica sample texts

The Mochica texts that have been preserved from the colonial period are all religious
texts pertaining to Roman Catholic faith and practice. It is likely that all these texts were
translated into Mochica from Latin or from Spanish, although they certainly provide
a good impression of the structure of the language. A substantial corpus of such texts
can be found in Carrera Daza’s grammar of 1644 (Altieri 1939), and some have been
transposed into a nineteenth century version by Middendorf (1892). Middendorf also
included a few short sample texts on the daily life of the Mochica people at the end of
the nineteenth century. In what follows we will first present the Lord’s Prayer in Carrera
Daza’s seventeenth-century version of Mochica, and subsequently a short text about
fishing practices recorded by Middendorf.
The Lord’s Prayer
1. mœich ef, ac az loc cuçia-ng-nic
we.G father.RL that 2S be heaven-G-L
‘Our Father who art in heaven.’
The relativising element ac is explained by Middendorf (1892: 105) as a form of

the verb ac/ak ‘to look’, which he associates with the habit of the Mochica people to
introduce sentences with the word ak-an ‘(now) look!’ However, since ac is followed by
the second-person subject marker -az, we must conclude that ac has become part of the
clause and that it functions as a relative clause marker.
2. tzhœng oc mang lic-œm mœcha

you.G name.RL be.DE make.PS holy
‘Hallowed be thy name.’
The noun oc/ōk must be in its relational form, which apparently is identical to the
absolute form (if such a form indeed exists). The expression lic mœcha means ‘to
worship’ (Villareal 1921: 26).143
3. piyc-an ñof tzhœng cuçia-s

give-2S.IM we.AC you.G heaven-RL
‘Thy kingdom come.’
The Mochica text literally says: ‘Give us your heaven!’
4. ei-œp-ma-ng tzhœng pol-œng mœn

do-PS-DE-3S you.G will-RL as
‘Thy will be done.’
143 The Quechua verb muča- ‘to worship’, ‘to kiss’ is probably related to mœcha; the direction of
borrowing may have been either way.
The verb ei-œp is a variant of ai-ep, the passive of ai ‘to make’.
5. mo œiz-i capœc cuçia-ng-nic mœn

this earth-G on.top.of heaven-G-L as
‘On earth as it is in heaven.’
6. aio in-eng in-eng-ô mœich xllon piyc-an ñof allô mo-lun
that when-G when-G-AJ we.G food.RL give-2S.IM we.AC also this-day
‘Give us this day our daily bread.’
The form in is an interrogative root meaning ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘which’. The expression
in-eng in-eng-o is translated as ‘habitual’ in Middendorf’s translation of the Prayer. The
form xllon/’on is the relational form of xllon-quic/’on-kik ‘food’.
7. efqu-ec-an ñof ixll-œss

forgive-AP-2S.IM we.AC sin-RL
‘And forgive us our trespasses.’
The verb efco/efko is glossed as ‘to save’, ‘to free’ by Middendorf; -co may be the
transitivising suffix. The suffix -œss may be the same as the one used with adjectives to
form abstract relational nouns (cf. peñ, peñ-œss).
8. aie acan aix efco xllangmu-ss-ei-o mœich, çio mœn

like that 1S.PL free enemy-RL-G-AJ we that like
‘As we forgive those who trespass against us.’
The expression aie kan is discussed in Middendorf (1892: 159); it means ‘in the same
way as . . . ’; the element kan is frequently used to introduce correlative constructions. In
sentence 8 acan also has a correlative function, in which it interacts with çio. The initial
vowel in acan may be due to interference with the verb ac/ak ‘to look’; cf. sentence 1. The
element aix is a variant of the personal reference marker eix. The form xllangmu-ss-ei-o
can be translated as ‘those (the sins) of our enemies’.
9. amoz tocœn ñof xllangmu-ss-e mœllœc-zœr-e-nic nam-nœm

do.not let we.AC enemy-RL-G talk-N.RL-G-L fall-F.SP
‘And lead us not into temptation.’
The negative adverb amoz/amoss is used in negative imperatives, in which case the
verb that follows has no imperative ending -an. The verb tocœn ‘to let’ is listed as tokn
by Middendorf (1892: 90). The verb mœllœc ‘to talk’, ‘to reason’ is listed as muillk,
můllk and mälläk (Middendorf 1892: 88, 162). The ending -(i)zœr/-issär indicates an
abstract deverbal noun in its relational form. A literal translation would be: ‘Do not let
us fall into the enemy’s talk!’
10. lecɥna-n efco ñof piss-i-nqu-ich

rather-LS free-2S.IM we.AC bad-G-L-AB
‘But deliver us from evil.’
The word lecɥ na/jechna ‘more’ (cf. lecɥ /jech ‘head’) is used as a modifier with
adjectives. The form in -n (lecɥ na-n) may have been used in an adverbal function,
since it conveys the meaning of ‘rather’. The verb efco may be read as efco-n, where
-n is the postvocalic imperative marker.144 The analysis of the form pissinquich ‘(to
free) from evil’ is problematic. It contains the root piss ‘bad’ and the ablative marker
-ich. The intervening element has been interpreted as -ing- (cf. Middendorf 1892: 172),
in a possible parallelism with another form, i’i-ng-ich ‘(to free) from sin’ mentioned
by the same author (p. 168). Nevertheless, the form pissinquich is repeated several
times in Carrera Daza’s explanation of the Lord’s Prayer, so that an error is not likely.
In the same context, the expression infierno-ng-niqu-ich ‘from inside hell’ contains a
sequence of the locative affix -nic and the ablative marker -ich, suggesting a similar
analysis for pissinquich (from piss-i-niqu-ich with a syncopated vowel); the element -i-
preceding -n(i)c may represent a genitive case marker. Middendorf himself is in doubt
as elsewhere he transcribes the form in question as pissän-k-ich (p. 105) without further
explanation.
A conversation about fishing (Middendorf 1892: 186–7)

1. amoch kotsk-äd ssiāj, māch-näm ’ak
let.us.go throw-SP fishing-net catch-F.SP fish
‘Let us go and throw out the net, in order to catch fish!’
The form amoch is a defective verb with the meaning ‘let us do/go’. Its complement
is expressed by the supine of the following verb. The verb kůtsk ‘to send’, ‘to throw’
(<*cœtzhc-) is recorded in Middendorf’s verb list (1892: 86–91). A verb māćh ‘to seize’,
‘to catch’ is also recorded in that list.
2. män ang chi oš ’ak

here 3S be many fish
‘There is a lot of fish here.’
3. tarr siet-an ang chi ñāss ssió fe
more far-DG 3S be nice that be
‘Further away that is where the best place is.’
144 Alternatively, one may interpret the final -n in lecɥ na-n as a cliticised imperative marker an.
Whether or not this is a realistic interpretation requires further research.
We tentatively analyse the suffix -an as an adverbial degree marker.
4. tsák-an ssiāj ñi-nek

carry-2S.IM net sea-L
‘Carry the net into the sea!’
The verb ‘to carry’ is listed as tsak (<*tzhac-) in Middendorf’s verb list. The post-
position nek is a variant of nik ‘in’, ‘into’; a genitive stem marker is lacking in the word
for ‘sea’ ñi.
5. pok-an tarr siet-an ni-ng-nek

enter-IM.2S more far-DG sea-G-L
‘Go further into the water!’
The word ni translated as ‘water’ is probably the same as ñi ‘sea’.
6. min änta ang māch-är ’ak

here not 3S catch-PS fish
‘Fish cannot be caught here.’
7. män ang chi kochkoch
here 3S be seaweed
‘There is seaweed here.’
8. akop täk-p-ang ssiāj
already withhold-PS-3S net
‘The net is being withheld.’
The adverb ak means ‘already’; akop appears to have the same meaning. The verb
täk-p could not be found in the word lists; because of its shape it appears to be a passive,
and so it is translated by Middendorf; the verb tůk ‘to go’ does not fit this context.
9. orronch-an ssiāj
pull.out-2S.IM net
‘Pull out the net!’
The verb ‘to pull’ is recorded as orrnch in Middendorf’s verb list.
10. māch-an mo sop

catch-2S.IM this knot
‘Get hold of this knot!’
11. ’tan lok esta tuij-u-näm
not want NE come.out-EU-F.SU
‘It (the net) does not want to move.’
The verb tui’ (from *tuxll) ‘to come out’ is recorded in Middendorf’s verb list. The
second u in this verb form is a euphonic extension of the root. The elements tan and
esta are both part of the negation. The apostrophe in ’tan suggests that Middendorf
considers this form to be an abbreviated variant of the negative adverb änta. The verb
lok ‘to want’ lacks a third-person subject marker here; its complement is indicated by
the future supine in -näm.
12. amoch orronch-äd isk-är-tot-än

let.us.go/do pull.out-SU all-G-with-PL
‘Let us pull all together!’
The form isk- is from issäk (<*izçœc) ‘all’, genitive issk-är-ō. The marker -tot indi-
cates ‘in combination with’, ‘in the company of’, ‘with’. Normally, it does not follow a
genitive stem (Middendorf 1892: 98).
13. akop tuij-m-ang ssiāj

already come.out-VE-3S net
‘The net is already out.’
The verb tuij is the same as tui’; see sentence 11. The analysis of the verb form is
problematic because it contains an unexplained derivational affix -m(e)-, which is also
found elsewhere in the same text (Middendorf 1892: 187): tuij-me-ko-näm ‘in order to
make (the blood) come out’.
14. mokats (mukaits) mo ’ak-än

take this fish-PL
‘Take these fish!’
The verb mokats or mukaits (<*mucaitzh, Altieri 1939: 44) is a defective imperative
form with the meaning ‘take!’
15. amoss nam-ko uij-e kapäk

do.not fall-T earth-G upon
‘Do not drop them on the ground!’
According to Middendorf (1892: 63), the genitive of the noun uij is uij-är-ó,145 not
*uij-ei-ō; however, a genitive interpretation seems to be the only one possible. From a
historical point of view, the word uij (<*œiz) ‘earth’, ‘dust’ is remarkable because of the
change *z > j, which is not attested elsewhere. Apart from Middendorf, all published
sources, including Lehmann, recorded a sibilant in this form.
145 The notation -ó is clearly equivalent to -ō.

16. chimpo-n sop mov, ma-näm mäich

take-2S.IM three corvina146 , eat-SU we
‘Take three corvinas for us to eat!’
Middendorf’s verb list contains a verb chimp ‘to take’; also chinp ‘to lay apart’, ‘to
separate’; the form in the text suggests that the element -o was part of the root. Sop is
a short form for sopät ‘three’. Ma-näm is the future supine of man ‘to eat, drink’ (also
man-anäm).
17. llollek ’ak t-ı̄š eiš poj

other fish F-1S.PL1S.PL sell
‘The other fish we shall sell.’
The verb poj (<*pol) means ‘to sell’; the sentence apparently contains double personal
reference marking in a future construction (t-iš-poj).
18. iñ eiñ lok ma-näm ’ak

who who want eat-SU fish
‘Who wants to eat fish?’
The repetition of the interrogative pronoun (e)iñ ‘who’ indicates a plural. As in

sentence 11 the verb lok lacks a third-person subject marker.
19. chuken e toij ñi-ng-e-nek-ich

just.now be come.out sea-G-EU-L-AB
‘They have just now come out of the sea.’
The verb toij is the same as tui’; see 11–13. The first vowel e in ñi-ng-e-nek-ich can
only be a euphonic extension.
20. chipan chi-ng siam

still be-3S alive
‘They are still alive.’
In this sentence chi ‘to be’ is used as an auxiliary with the root siam ‘to live’.
21. kǒtsk-an ja ’ak kapäk, tem ang jům änta

throw-2S.IM water fish on.top.of, so.that 3S die not
‘Throw water upon the fish, so they will not die!’
The form kŏtsk is an orthographic variant of kotsk / kůtsk (see also the first sentence
of this text). A genitive stem marker is lacking before kapäk. The root tem (from tem
146 Corvina: a type of fish popular in Peru (Sciaena gilberti). In one of Middendorf’s word lists
mōv is listed as cachema fish (Cynoscion analis).
‘to love’, ‘to ask for’) is used as a conjunction in combination with the negative marker
änta.
22. amoss tokan ’ang-nek

do.not leave sun-L
‘Do not leave them in the sun!’
A genitive marker is lacking here before -nek; a common alternative is the expression
’ang-ik ‘in the sun’.
3.5 Puquina and Callahuaya

In spite of the fact that Puquina was recognised as a ‘general language’ during the
initial part of the colonial period, it rapidly became extinct without being adequately
documented. The Puquina linguistic area covered a relatively large but fragmented ter-
ritory, exposing the main reason for its decline. Successive invasions, in particular of
Aymara-speaking peoples, had broken the unity of the Puquina nation long before the
Spaniards reached Peru. In the first half of the fifteenth century the most important
Puquina-speaking group were the Colla, who had their centre of power west of Lake
Titicaca in the present-day department of Puno. During their expansion, the Incas subju-
gated the Colla, who fiercely resisted submission. The chronicler Cabello Valboa (1586)
relates how the Incas sealed their victory as the Colla king Colla Capac was taken to
Cuzco and sacrificed to the Sun (cf. Torero 1987). Afterwards, a series of new rebellions
weakened the position of the Colla even further.
Our knowledge of the distribution of the Puquina-speaking peoples is based on two
sources of information: toponymy and colonial documents. Torero (1987) concludes that
the Puquina language was predominant in three areas: (i) the altiplano and mountains
surrounding Lake Titicaca, with the exception of its Aymara-speaking southwestern
shore; this area includes Charazani, home of the Callahuaya practitioners of traditional
medicine, who conserve a professional language with a Puquina lexical basis, and two of
the principal islands of the lake, Amantanı́ and Taquile; (ii) the region between Arequipa
and Tacna on the Pacific side of southern Peru (the area of the historical Coli people);
and (iii) an area in the Bolivian highlands situated between the towns of Sucre and
Potosı́. There are indications, however, that the Puquina were cosmopolitan enough
not to remain confined to these areas. The colonial church at Andahuaylillas, not far
from Cuzco, contains a multilingual wall inscription in five languages, one of which is
Puquina.
It is not sure when the Puquina language eventually disappeared. The last mentions
of its existence date from the years shortly before the independence of Peru and concern
the area east of Arequipa. This is also the region where the Puquina toponymy is most
conspicuous: place names ending in -baya, -coa and -laque (e.g. Socabaya, Calacoa,
Matalaque) are diagnostic of Puquina presence. Interestingly, the mountainous interior

of the department of Moquegua today harbours an Aymara-, a Quechua- and a Spanish-
speaking area. All three have predominant Puquina toponymy.
The only grammar of Puquina known to have existed was that of Alonso de Barzana
of 1590. Unfortunately, it has not survived. The principal source for the language is
a religious text, Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum, published in Naples by Gerónimo de
Oré (1607). It contains prayers, instructions for confession and catechisms in Quechua,
Aymara, Puquina, Guaranı́ and Mochica. A first analysis of the Puquina material was
made by de la Grasserie (1894), who published a vocabulary, grammatical notes and
transcribed texts. A second attempt is Torero’s unpublished doctoral dissertation of 1965.
A vocabulary and a historical study of the Puquina language have appeared in Torero
(1987), some grammatical notes and comparative remarks in Torero (1992). Most of
the analytic observations on Puquina in this section have been inspired by Torero’s
work.147
A comparison with the Callahuaya language makes it clear that Puquina must have
been subdivided into rather divergent local varieties. One such dialect provided the basis
for most of the lexicon of Callahuaya, its morphology being derived from that of the
surrounding Quechua. The variety underlying the Callahuaya lexicon was certainly not
the Puquina known to Oré but rather a sister dialect of it. For instance, whereas many
Puquina words begin with a consonant cluster consisting of s followed by a stop, the
corresponding Callahuaya words do not exhibit that initial s, as in Puquina sper ‘four’,
Callahuaya pily ; Puquina scana ‘silver’, Callahuaya qena. In other cases, the two lan-
guages may have been more similar than the sources suggest. Present-day Callahuaya
distinguishes between velar and uvular articulation positions, and has a contrast be-
tween plain, aspirated and glottalised stops. Although Oré’s material is ambiguous in
this respect, it is probable that the variety of Puquina with which he was familiar knew
such distinctions too. There are several spellings suggesting the existence of differ-
ent stops and fricatives in the velar–uvular area, e.g. <c>, <qu>, <k>, <h>, <g>,
<gh>, <x>.
Even though the distinction between the front vowels e and i, and between the back
vowels o and u may not have had a heavy functional load, there is reason to assume that
these contrasts were distinctive, as is illustrated by se e [seʔe] ‘heart’ versus sipi- ‘to
beat’, and so ‘two’ versus suma- (∼çuma-) ‘to live’. Cases such as se e (∼sehe, ∼see)
‘heart’, gui in ‘like’, and qui illa- ‘to think’ suggest the presence of an intervocalic
glottal stop. Consonant clusters of two consonants in initial and final position, and of
three consonants in word-internal position occur, but the pronunciation of such sequences
147 Torero (2002) contains a detailed analysis of Puquina, which became available after the com-
pletion of this chapter.
(e.g. mocsca- ‘to bring together’) is open to different interpretations. Nasal consonants
sometimes occur after a consonant in word-final position, either suggesting a vocalic
realisation, or the presence of an unwritten schwa-type vowel. This can be the case
when the instrumental case suffix -m ‘with’ or a rare genitive suffix -n (only attested in
Dios-n Yglesia ‘God’s Church’) are added to a base ending in a consonant.148 The stops
k (<c>/<qu>) and p tend to become voiced (or even reduced to an approximant [w] in
the latter case) in intervocalic position, as will be illustrated in some of the examples that
follow. The fact that in some lexical items either only <s>, or only <ç> occur in initial
position leaves open the possibility that there may have been two distinct sibilants ([s],
[š]) as in seventeenth-century Cuzco Quechua.149 For the remainder, the sound inventory
of Puquina may have been similar to that of Aymara and Quechua.
Not surprisingly, the Puquina lexicon contains several borrowings from both these
languages. Some of the borrowed items underwent important phonological adaptations,
e.g. Puquina macu [maku] ‘king’, Aymara maly ku, and Puquina suca [suka] ‘youngest’,
Aymara suly ka, Cuzco Quechua suly k’a. However, in other cases of lexical similar-
ity Puquina may have been the source language, as in Aymara layqa ‘witch’ from
Puquina reega (Callahuaya reqa ‘cat’, ‘witch’). The Aymara interrogative stem k h iti
‘who’, which is absent from the sister language Jaqaru, is reminiscent of Callahuaya
kh i: ‘what’ (Puquina qui-) and Callahuaya ki, k h iru ‘who’. (The element -ti could be
associated with the Aymara negative marker.)
From a morphosyntactic point of view the Puquina language is somewhat different
from the surrounding Andean languages. Although the main morphological device of
the language is suffixation, there is a set of possessive pronominal elements which are
confined to a position before the head noun. These elements are free forms, rather than
prefixes, because they may be separated from the noun by an adjective, as in (303)
and (304):
(303) no atot hucha-nch [Aymara, Quechua hucha ‘guilt’]

1P.SG great sin-DV
‘It is my great sin.’ (Oré 1607: 164)
(304) po coma hucha
2P all sin
‘all your sins’ (Oré 1607: 164)
148 The normal genitive construction is by juxtaposition following the order modifier–modified. The
two parts of the construction are optionally separated by a possessive pronoun chu ‘his/her/its’
(Torero 1994a).
149 In contradistinction to the transcription of other Andean languages, such as Muisca, Mochica,
Cholón and Allentiac, the (infrequent) symbol <x> clearly did not refer to [š] in Puquina (cf.
Torero 1995).
Table 3.22 Puquina personal and possessive

pronouns
Personal pronouns Possessive pronouns
1 pers. sing. ni no
2 pers. pi po
3 pers. chu chu
1 pers. plur. señ señ
However, with some adjectives the reverse occurs (305):
(305) puta po hucha sisqu-eno Dios

all 2P sin know-AG God
‘God, who knows all your sins’ (Oré 1607: 167)
Personal and possessive pronouns in Puquina are reminiscent of the prefixes used for
personal reference in most of the Arawakan languages. This is one of the main reasons
why Puquina has occasionally been presented as genetically related to Arawakan, the
lexical similarities being very limited (cf. Torero 1992). Table 3.22 shows the personal
and possessive pronouns of Puquina.
The pronouns for first person singular, second and third person can be compared to the
personal reference prefixes in Arawakan languages. For instance, in Iñapari (Madre de
Dios, southeastern Peru) the singular personal reference prefixes nu-, pi- and ru- indicate
first, second person singular and third person feminine, respectively (Parker 1995).
Person of subject and object are indicated in the suffix part of the verb form in a system
of transitions typologically reminiscent of Aymara and Quechua. In the examples (306)
and (307) a first- and a second-person subject are indicated by means of the suffixes
-qu(i) ∼ -gu(i) and -p(i) ∼ -u(i)- ∼ -v(i), respectively.
(306) ni-ch baptiza-gu-ench yqui-m chuscu-m Spiritu.sancto-m men-ùt

I-E baptise-1S.SG-DV father-CO son-CO holy.spirit-CO name-L
‘I baptise (you) in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit.’ (Oré 1987: 37)
(307) quiñ too-pi, raago aya-y inque atago aya-y
what150 bring-2S man child-IR or woman child-IR
‘What do you bring (to the church), a boy or a girl?’ (Oré 1607: 69)
150 The interrogative stem ‘what’ is generally found as quiñ when used independently. In combi-
nations it is qui-; e.g. quigui ‘how’.
The addition of a suffix -s- before the subject marker generates an inverse relation in
which the original subject marker refers to an object and the actor becomes third person:
(308) apa pampacha-gue-s-p-anch [Quechua pampača- ‘to forgive’]

not forgive-F-I-2O-DV
‘He will definitely not forgive you.’ (Oré 1607: 167)
(309) patero-s cha-que-s-c-anch
father-E scold-F-I-1O.SG-DV
‘The Father will scold me. ‘ (Oré 1607: 167)
As in Quechua, a special first-person subject ending obtains in the future tense:

-(gui-)na:
(310) ni-cha co apa qui.illa-su ata-gui-na

I-E this not think-SN ask-F-1S.SG.F
‘I will ask you about what you have not thought of.’ (Oré 1607: 167)
The imperative mood has endings -ta for second- person and -anta for third-person
subject; the transition of a second-person subject with a first-person object has the ending
-suma:
(311) ama scalli-ta [Quechua ama ‘do not’]

do.not be.afraid-2S.IM
‘Do not be afraid!’ (Oré 1607: 167)
(312) Dios huacaycha-s-p-anta [Quechua waqayča- ‘to protect’]
God protect-I-2O-3S.IM
‘May God protect you!’ (Oré 1607: 167)
(313) catalla-suma no ha-rèy151
listen-2S.1O.IM 1P.SG son-VO.MS
‘Listen to me, my son!’ (Oré 1607: 166)
Declarative predicates are normally followed by a suffix -(a)nch or -(e)nch, as in

(303), (306) and in (308)–(309). (The vowel alternation is not yet well understood.) The
absence of this suffix entails an interrogative interpretation of the predicate, as can be
deduced from the interaction of questions and answers in (314):
(314) cuhaña-pi cuhañe-qu-ench

believe-2S believe-1S.SG-DV
‘Do you believe?’ ‘I do’. (Oré 1607: 126–7)
151 The form ha-rèy probably contains a vocative element -re, used for addressing men; women
are addressed with -ye. A more regular alternative for ha-rèy is haya-re (Oré 1607: 173).
Number is indicated in the verb form, as can been seen in (315) and (316):
(315) quiñ hata-i Yglesia-huananac

what want-3S Church-AB
‘What does he/she want from the Church?’ (Oré 1607: 69)
(316) quiñ hata-nu-y Yglesia-huananac
what want-PL-3S Church-AB
‘What do they want from the Church?’ (Oré 1607: 70)
The use of derivational suffixes, in the case of the causative, can be illustrated by
pairs such as halla- ‘to die’ and halla-na- ‘to kill’ (de la Grasserie 1894: 9, 16); yti- ‘to
receive’ and yt-na- ‘to hand over’ (Oré 1607: 223).
The most frequent nominalisations are characterised by the suffixes -(s)so∼-(s)su
‘stative participle’ (310) (317), -no ‘infinitive’ (318), and -eno (with suppression of a
previous non-high vowel) ‘agentive’ (319).
(317) no hucha pampacha-sso asch-anta

1P.SG sin forgive-SN be-3S.IM
‘Let my sins be forgiven!’ (Oré 1607: 127)
(318) viñaya çuma-no [Aymara wiñaya ‘eternal’]
eternal live-IF
‘eternal life’ (Oré 1607: 70)
(319) regah coa uppall-eno meñ chat-eno-ui Padre yna Visitador yna
witch idol worship-AG man denounce-AG-2S Father either Visitador or
‘Have you denounced the witch and the idolater to the Father or to the
Visitador?’ (Oré 1607: 172)
In sentence (319) there may be two instances of the agentive morpheme. As illustrated
in chatenoui (from chata- ‘to denounce’, ‘to accuse’; Aymara and Quechua č’ata-), the
second-person subject affix in its form -ui [wi] is often found attached to what is formally
an agentive nominalisation. Tentatively, this form may be interpreted as a habitual past,
or a general preterit. The gloss ‘either . . . or . . . ’ for yna is a context-bound translation;
if it is correct, the expected case marker must have been suppressed. Alternatively, yna
may itself be interpreted as a case marker (-na is ‘locative case’).
Subordination with identical subjects is frequently indicated by a suffix -tahua (or
-rahua), as in (320). (The example suggests vowel suppression before the reflexive suffix
-sca-, as so often occurs in the Aymaran languages; cf. section 3.3.4).
(320) ca po sehe sip-sca-tahua a-ta

now 2P heart beat-RF-SU.SS say-2S.IM
‘Now say, while beating yourself on the breast: . . . !’ (Oré 1607: 127)
Puquina has a rich system of case markers, consisting of suffixes and postpositions,
some of which can be combined. The direct object is not marked for case, but the language
has an ergative case marker -s (∼ -sa), which is attached to a noun or a pronoun referring
to the actor of a transitive construction (321).
(321) ñu-s baptiza-s-pi

who-E baptise-I-2O
‘Who baptised you?’ (Oré 1607: 167)
The examples (306) and (309)–(310) contain further instances of ergative construc-
tions. However, the ergative marker found in (306) and (310) is -ch(a), rather than -s,
and the two may not have exactly the same function. Torero (1987: 358) analyses -ch as
a marker of a second-person object encoded in a combination with a first-person subject.
A suffix -ch also marks ablative case, which could provide yet another interpretation for
these cases.
(322) po caru-ch pacari-eno Iesus po haya coha-na-ssuma

[Quechua paqari- ‘to appear’]
2P womb-AB appear-AG Jesus 2P son see-CA-2S.1O.IM
‘Show us to your son Jesus, who came forth from your womb!’
(Oré 1607: 401)
Other frequent case markers are -m ‘instrumental–comitative’, ‘coordinative’ (306),

-(u)t ‘locative’ (306), -na ‘locative’, -guta ‘allative’ and -gua ‘benefactive’. The plural of
nouns is marked with -gata or -cuna (from Quechua -kuna). Topics can be emphasised
with -ghe or -x (possibly the same suffix), indefiniteness and concatenation (‘also’, ‘too’)
with -hamp.
The existence of the Callahuaya language has been attested in the area surrounding
the town of Charazani in the province of Bautista Saavedra (department of La Paz).
Girault (1984: 24) mentions Curva, Chajaya and Khanlaya as communities where the
language is used. A different name for the language is Machaj juyay [mač’ax huyay]
‘language of the fellow-countrymen’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968). Callahuaya is not used
for daily communication but in curing rituals by professionally trained healers. These
healers are Quechua speakers but master the Callahuaya language as a second language
in the context of their training. By tradition, only male Callahuaya can become healers,
and there are no indications that the language was ever used as anyone’s mother tongue.
Only a few older healers still know how to speak it (Muysken 1997b: 428).
There is an extensive ethnographic literature on the Callahuaya people and their curing
practices (Bastien 1978; Girault 1984; Rösing 1990). Among the authors that have
supplied extensive information on the Callahuaya lexicon in particular we may mention
Oblitas Poblete (1968), Girault (1989) and Aguiló (1991). Observations on Callahuaya
phonology and grammar can be found in Stark (1972b) and in Muysken (1997b).
The main characteristic of Callahuaya stressed in literature is the fact that it combines
Quechua morphology with a vocabulary that is predominantly Puquina. The following
two examples cited in Muysken (1997b: 431) illustrate this:
(323) č’ana-či-rqa-yki isna-pu-na-yki-pax

call-CA-PA-1S.2O go-RS-FN-2S-B
‘I had you called so that you can go.’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968: 44)
(324) mi:-qa ly aly i oxa-ku-x-mi ača-n
human.being-TO well eat-RF-AG-AF be-3S
‘The man is a very greedy eater.’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968: 40)
In (323) and (324) all the suffixes are from Quechua (cf. section 3.2.6 ). In contrast,
the roots can be associated with lexical items found in Puquina (Torero 1987): č’ana- ‘to
call’, ‘to shout’ (Puquina cha-); isna- ‘to go’ (Puquina es-); mi: ‘human being’ (Puquina
meñ, miñ); oxa- ‘to eat’ (Puquina occa-, oxa-, uxa-); ača- ‘to be’ (Puquina ascha-, acha-).
The only remaining root ly aly i is reminiscent of Quechua aly i(n) ‘good’.
Stark (1972b: 206) reports that in a basic vocabulary list of 200 words, 70 per cent of
the vocabulary is from Puquina, 14 per cent from Quechua, 14 per cent from Aymara
and 2 per cent from Uru–Chipaya. In a less selective perspective, many Callahuaya
lexical items are not relatable to any of these languages. A Tacanan influx has been
suggested (Muysken 1997b), but even then there are items that remain unaccounted for.
It should be emphasised that only a fraction of the Puquina lexicon is known, so that
possible similarities with Callahuaya are inevitably missed. Albó (1989) observes that
Callahuaya has native terms for several objects and animals that were introduced through
contact with the Spaniards, a situation not normally found in the other Andean languages.
The replacement of common words, even if of foreign origin, underscores the character
of Callahuaya as a secret professional language.
When comparing Puquina and Callahuaya vocabulary items, it is difficult to detect
regular sound correspondences. Words may be either the same, or formally related in
a non-systematic way. Borrowed roots are sometimes extended with a (non-Quechuan)
suffix of unknown function, such as -naxa, as in čani-naxa ‘price, measure’ (Quechua
čani) and intente-naxa- ‘to understand’ (Spanish entender). This suffix also occurs
in non-borrowed roots as a verbaliser (e.g. in latais-naxa- ‘to be absent’ from latais
‘absent’). The existence of suffixes such as -naxa and -sti (e.g. in ph oqo-sti ‘white’,
cf. ph oqo ‘ripe’, ‘full’) suggests that not all pre-Quechuan morphology has been
replaced.
The formal basis of Callahuaya morphology takes its origin in the variety of Quechua
spoken in the provinces of Bautista Saavedra and Muñecas. It is defined as Northern
Bolivian Quechua in Stark (1985b) and is more similar to Cuzco and Puno Quechua than
to mainstream Bolivian Quechua. A conservative feature of this dialect is that it pre-
serves syllable-final stops and affricates which have become fricatives in the surrounding
dialects. At least one verbal suffix attested in Callahuaya (-ra- ‘one by one’, cf. Stark
1972b: 211) is originally an Aymara suffix, which is also found in Puno Quechua, a
Quechua variety with a powerful Aymara substratum (cf. Adelaar 1987).
The data presented by the different authors, in particular Oblitas Poblete (1968) and
Girault (1989), are far from identical. The discrepancies in question may reflect separate
local traditions. Girault’s material is of particular interest because it exhibits a number of
innovations in the pronominal and possessive personal reference systems (cf. Muysken
1997b). One of these innovations concerns a tendency to switch the second- and third-
person markers. The other innovation consists in the presence of a separate class of
possessive modifiers, which are reminiscent in function, though not in form, of the
Puquina possessive modifiers.
According to all sources, the second-person pronoun in Callahuaya is ču:, a form which
coincides with the third-person pronoun chu in Puquina, suggesting that it replaced the
original second-person pronoun pi of that language. In Girault’s data the Callahuaya
third-person pronoun is čuynin, reflecting a combination of the stem ču: ∼ čuy and the
Quechua third-person possessive ending -(ni)n. For the same purpose, Oblitas’s examples
consistently feature a pronoun or demonstrative stem hiru.152 It is likely that this shift
in function of the Puquina third-person pronoun may have triggered the confusion
between second- and third-person endings attested in Girault’s materials.
Apart from a few minor differences, the endings of the Callahuaya verbal paradigm
are consistent with those of the Quechua verbal paradigm. Muysken (1997b) points at
two Callahuaya sample phrases in Girault (1989: 149) where an original second-person
ending -nki occurs with a third-person subject. Both, however, contain the form ačapunki
(presumably from ača- ‘to be’). Additional data are needed in order to establish whether
this is a regular verb form, or a form with a special (non-verbal?) status.
A Callahuaya genitive construction involving two nouns is consistent with the
Quechua model, which combines head and dependent marking, except that the third-
person ending of a possessed substantive has a special allomorph -an occurring after
consonants, which is not attested in Quechua (where it is -nin). The genitive case marker
is either -pax or -x.153
(325) Petruču-(pa)x atasi-n

Pedro-G woman-3P
‘Pedro’s wife’ (Girault 1989: 147)
152 In addition to hiru, Oblitas Poblete also mentions the forms čuynin and piči. The latter may
reflect the Puquina second-person marker pi, in which case a full swap would have occurred.
153 It is not clear whether Callahuaya makes a distinction between syllable-final x (velar) and
x. (uvular), as does Cuzco Quechua. Therefore, we write x everywhere.
Table 3.23 Possessed nouns in Callahuaya (following Girault

1989: 145)
1st person 2nd person 3rd person

Plain Emphatic Plain Emphatic Plain Emphatic
usi: usi:ku usin usinku usiki usikiči

ka:ni ka:niku ka:nin ka:ninku ka:ki ka:kiči
ly oqeni ly oqeniku ly oqenin ly oqeninku ly oqenki ly oqenkiči
(326) Pawluču-(pa)x ly oqen-an

Pablo-G bull-3P
‘Pablo’s bull’ (Girault 1989: 147)
When a noun is marked for person of possessor without being part of a genitive
construction, or when it is part of a genitive construction in which the modifying element
is a free pronoun, both the head and the modifier take special endings. These endings
have their origin in different varieties of Quechua, but the corresponding functions do
not coincide. The result is a complete split between pronominal and nominal possessive
constructions.
The possessive endings of Callahuaya denote person, not number. A first-person is
indicated by vowel length, by -ni or by -i; a second-person by -n, by -nin or by -in; a
third-person by -ki. The endings -i and -in are found after stems ending in -n, whereas
-ni and -nin are found after any other stem ending in a consonant or a long vowel. Vowel
lengthening and -n are reserved for stems that end in a short vowel. The elements -ku and
-či, corresponding to the Quechua pluralisers -ku and -čik/-čis, respectively, can be added
to the person markers but only for emphasis. They no longer indicate plural. The suffix
-ku accompanies first- and second-person markers, whereas -či is found with third-person
markers. The resistance against plural marking is reminiscent of the situation in Puquina,
which lacks a number distinction in possessives (except for first-person). Table 3.23
contains examples of personal reference marking with the nouns usi ‘house’, ka: ‘tooth’
and l y oqen ‘bull’.
The reversal of second- and third-person markers in Callahuaya must be relatively
recent, because it is not found in the Lord’s Prayer presented in Girault, nor in the version
reproduced by Oblitas Poblete (1968: 33):
(327) mini:-ki wak’a-naxa-sqa ača-čun

name-2P believe-LS-SN be-3S.IM
‘Thy Name be hallowed!’ (Girault 1989: 19)
Table 3.24 Personal and possessive pronouns in Callahuaya (following

Girault 1989: 144–5)
Possessive pronouns Possessive pronouns

Personal pronouns Set 1 Set 2
1 pers. sing. nisi nisip nisixta

plur. nisinčex nisinčix
2 pers. sing. ču: čunikix ču:xta
plur. ču:kunas ču:kunaxta
3 pers. sing. čuynin čuninku čuninkux
plur. čuyninkunas čuninkux
The possessive pronouns in Callahuaya are made up of non-Quechuan pronominal

stems and Quechua endings. The exact composition of these forms is not regular and
either reflects different stages in the development of Quechua, or a different dialectal
origin. There are two sets, a prenominal set reminiscent of the Puquina possessive
modifiers, and an independent set, which is not confined to the prenominal position
(compare English ‘my’ versus ‘mine’). Only the second set allows a number distinction.
Table 3.24 contains an overview of the Callahuaya personal pronouns and the two sets
of possessive pronouns.
The first-person pronoun nisi reflects Puquina ni ‘I’. It contains an element -si also
attested in other Callahuaya words such as atasi ‘woman’ (Puquina atago). Possibly, -si
reflects the ergative case marker -s of Puquina. The possessive sets contain two origi-
nal genitive endings corresponding to different stages in the development of Quechua,
namely -p and -x. The concatenation of a genitive and an accusative marker (-ta) is
found in Quechua but has a very different syntactic function. It brings into evidence the
amount of restructuring that has occurred in Callahuaya. Not all the forms represented
in table 3.24 are attested in Oblitas Poblete (1968). Oblitas gives nisinčis instead of both
nisinčex and nisinčix.154 Furthermore, the Quechua plural marker -kuna is not followed
by the Spanish plural marker -s, as is the case in Girault’s data.
Among other points in which Callahuaya differs from Quechua, we may mention the
fact that the accusative case marker -ta is often omitted in direct objects (especially
in Girault’s data). Negation is indicated by means of a negative marker u:, which has
no formal counterpart in Puquina. Syntactically, u: behaves like the Quechua negative
particle mana.
154 The vowel contrast represented in nisinčex and nisinčix may possibly be related to different
articulations of the following fricative (as in Cuzco Quechua). Since we have no specific
information on this point, we follow Girault’s orthography.
Table 3.25 Callahuaya consonant inventory (based on Stark 1972b)
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular
Plain stops/affricates p t č k q
Aspirated stops/affricates ph th čh kh qh
Glottalised stops/affricates p’ t’ č’ k’ q’
Fricatives/sibilants s š h [x]
Nasals m n ny
Vibrant r
Laterals l ly
Glides w y
(328) tutas u: tutas

cold not cold
‘cold’ ‘of moderate temperature’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968: 82, 139)
155
(329) hikutawan u:-ču hata-wax hata-y-ni:-ta
also not-IR love-2S.PO love-IF-1P-AC
‘So you could not care for my affection any
more?’ (Oblitas Poblete 1968: 43)
An overview of the Callahuaya phonemes can be found in Stark (1972b). Oblitas

Poblete (1968) presents a traditional but relatively precise inventory. The transcription
in Girault (1989) is inaccurate, but his publication contains a recorded tape which gives
a good impression of the pronunciation of Callahuaya. All authors agree that Callahuaya
has a five vowel system with distinctive vowel length (a, e, i, o, u; a:, e:, i:, o:, u:). The
consonant inventory, which is very similar to that of Bolivian and Cuzco Quechua, is
represented in table 3.25.
As a commentary to the consonant inventory in table 3.25, one may observe that a
palatal sibilant š, in opposition to s, is not convincingly attested. Furthermore, Girault’s
data point at the existence of a glottal stop that occurs between same vowels, for instance,
in ji’i [hiʔi] ‘llama’. In this respect Callahuaya would agree with Puquina, although the
items in which the alleged glottal stop occurs are usually not the same. There is no precise
information about a possible lowering effect of uvular consonants on high vowels, as
found in Quechua and Aymara, but several examples suggest that such an effect may
play a role.
As a further illustration of the lexical relationship between Puquina and Callahuaya
the principal numerals in both languages are given below. Note that the Callahuaya words
155 The first-person marker -ni: corresponds to -ni in Girault (1989).

for the numbers five and higher are very different from their Puquina counterparts. The
etymology of these Callahuaya forms is not known.
Puquina: hucsto (‘one’), so (‘two’), cap(p)a (‘three’), sper (‘four’), tacpa (‘five’),
chichu (‘six’), stu (‘seven’), quinas (‘eight’), checa (‘nine’), scata (‘ten’)
Callahuaya: uksi ∼ uxsi (‘one’), su: ∼ so: (‘two’), kapi (‘three’), pily (‘four’), čisma
(‘five’), taxwa (‘six’), qaxsi (‘seven’), wasa (‘eight’), nuki (‘nine’), qh oča
∼ x.oča (‘ten’), tikun (‘one hundred’).
3.6 The Uru–Chipaya languages

The speakers of the Uru–Chipaya language family are often believed to belong to one
of the oldest population layers of the Bolivian and Peruvian altiplano. Traditionally,
they have been associated with an aquatic habitat and a lifestyle of fishing and hunting
characteristically found along the shores and on the islands of the lakes Titicaca and
Poopó, as well as along the Desaguadero river, which connects the two lakes (cf. Wachtel
1978). However, lifestyle and language did not necessarily go together. About 1600,
Uruquilla was the name used for the Uru–Chipaya languages, although it may have
covered some other language groups as well. Uruquilla-speaking groups were found
scattered over the western part of the Bolivian altiplano from Lake Titicaca to the area
of Lı́pez in the south of the department of Potosı́ (cf. Bouysse-Cassagne 1975). Not all
Uruquilla speakers mentioned in the colonial sources shared the typical aquatic lifestyle.
In Zepita (province of Chucuito, Puno, Peru) a community of relatively prosperous
farmers spoke Uruquilla but did not differ in their ways from their Aymara-speaking
neighbours (Torero 1987). The term Uro (Uru) was used mainly for referring to groups
who remained attached to the aquatic way of life, thus resisting their incorporation into
the Spanish system of domination. One such group were the Ochosuma, who occupied
the Desaguadero region, and of which the Iru Itu community (see below) may be a
remnant. Another name for the Uru is Kot-suñ (from qota ‘lake’ and suny i ‘people’).
Today, communities that have preserved or adopted the Uru way of life are mostly
Aymara speakers. This is the case with the Uru who live on reed islands in the Bay of
Puno (Peru) and of the Murato communities located near Lake Poopó (department of
Oruro, Bolivia). The Murato have preserved some vocabulary originally from an Uru
language, as can be seen in the Murato oral testimonies published in Miranda Mamani
et al. (1992).
The Uru–Chipaya peoples (see also the map in section 3.3) have been the object
of extensive anthropological studies (Vellard 1954, Wachtel 1990). Unfortunately, the
description of their languages has not fared nearly so well. So far, there is no published
grammar, nor a dictionary of any of the Uru–Chipaya languages. The only Uru–Chipaya
language still viable today is Chipaya. It is spoken by an agricultural community of
some 1,000 people in the villages of Santa Ana de Chipaya and Ayparavi in the Bolivian
department of Oruro (province of Atahuallpa), including an increasing number of mi-
grants in northern Chile and in the town of Oruro. The Uru language of Iru Itu (also
Iruitu, Irohito) is spoken in a township, which was originally part of a larger commu-
nity called Ancoaqui. It is located in the district (cantón) of Jesús de Machaca in the
Bolivian department of La Paz (province of Ingavi). When Vellard studied this com-
munity in the 1940s he witnessed a major crisis due to a lowering of the water level in
the lake, which led to a disintegration of the community. The Uru were forced to leave
their native village for other places, where several married Aymara-speaking partners.
The Uru language was already close to extinction by then. A subsequent rehabilita-
tion of the water level made it possible for most Uru to return, and since then their
community has achieved a remarkable comeback (Ticona and Albó 1997). Today, one
fluent speaker remains, as well as a number of semi-speakers. Nevertheless, there is a
wish to revitalise the language, which is now preferably referred to as Uchumataqu ‘our
speech’ or ‘the speech of the Desaguadero area (Ochosuma)’. At the time of writing
(2002) Muysken was conducting descriptive research on the language in response to the
educational aspirations of the community. A third Uru language was formerly spoken
in the village of Ch’imu (or Ts’imu), a township of Ichu, situated on the shore of Lake
Titicaca a few kilometres east of Puno. This variety was discovered and studied in 1929
by the German Americanist Lehmann. His elaborate notes are kept in the Library of
the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin. Some lexical data from these notes have been
published by Torero (1992), who claims that Uru of Ch’imu is the most divergent of the
three Uru–Chipaya languages.156 Finally, Olson (1964: 313) mentions a fourth variety of
Uru spoken on the Isla del Sol (‘Sun Island’) in Lake Titicaca, presumably in the 1960s.
Some lexical items of this dialect, collected by de Lucca, are reproduced in Olson (1965:
37–8).
Documentation on the Uru–Chipaya languages is relatively recent. Uhle visited the
area in 1894 and left substantial lexical material on both Chipaya and Uchumataqu, as
well as a grammatical sketch of the latter language. They are preserved in manuscript
form in the Library of the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin. Métraux (1935–6, 1936)
provided data on both languages, as did Posnansky (1915, 1934). For Uchumataqu we
may also mention Polo (1901) and an unpublished vocabulary by Lehmann (1929). One
of the richest sources for Uchumataqu is Vellard (1950, 1951, 1967). It consists of short
narratives, and words and phrases, written down with great phonetic detail and provided
with glosses, as well as some grammatical notes. Nevertheless, they are hardly sufficient
to obtain a clear picture of the morphosyntax of the language. The current research by
156 Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino and Peter Masson are planning a publication of these materials, to
be entitled El Uru de la Bahı́a de Puno (Puno Bay Uru).
Table 3.26 Chipaya consonant inventory (based on Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
Labial Alveolar +affr* Apical Palatal Retroflex Velar +lab** Postvelar +lab
Plain p t c č č. k kw q qw
obstruents
Glottalised p’ t’ c’ č’ č.’ k’ q’
obstruents
Aspirated ph th ch čh č.h kh qh
obstruents
Fricatives s ş š š. h hw x*** xw
Nasals m n ny ŋ
Laterals l ly
Lateral l

fricative
Vibrant r
Glides w y
* affr. = affricate
** lab. = labialised
*** We follow Cerrón-Palomino and Olson in writing the postvelar or fortis velar fricative (and its
labialised counterpart) as x (xw ), not x. (x.w ).
Muysken has not provided a better view of it. A comparison of the Vellard materials
with the data collected by Uhle is probably the best basis for further analysis.
There have been several attempts to study and document the Chipaya language. In
the 1960s, Olson collected extensive lexical material. Part of it is included in two ar-
ticles designed to present evidence for a putative genetic relationship of Uru–Chipaya
with the Mayan languages in Mesoamerica (Olson 1964, 1965). (For the reception of
Olson’s views on this see section 1.7.) A third article (Olson 1967) deals with Chipaya
syllable structure and contains a discussion of its phoneme inventory. In the 1980s,
Porterie-Gutiérrez also brought together a substantial amount of Chipaya material, but
the publication of it was prevented by her untimely death. An annotated and translated text
belonging to this material was published posthumously by Howard (Porterie-Gutiérrez
1990). In 2001, Cerrón-Palomino began a new research effort geared at the documenta-
tion of Chipaya. The Chipaya data presented in the following pages are largely based on
his results obtained so far (Cerrón-Palomino MS). A comparison with Uchumataqu will
be made when relevant and possible. The two languages are clearly related, although
probably not mutually intelligible (Torero 1992: 181). See Olson (1965: 37–8) for a list
of 87 obvious cognates, in which most pairs show only minor phonetic differences.
The consonant inventory of the Chipaya language is presented in table 3.26.
The consonant inventory in Olson (1967) differs from the one presented in table 3.26
by the fact that the aspirated consonants and the lateral fricative (lh) are interpreted as
sequences of consonants, rather than as unit phonemes. He characterises the fricatives

in the postvelar column (x, xw ) as ‘fortis velars’. The palatal and the apical fricatives are
treated as allophones of a phoneme /s./ which occurs as palatal [š] after high vowels and
as a backed alveolar [s.] elsewhere. Olson (1967: 300), furthermore, noted the use of a
glottal stop in women’s speech; for instance, in oqaʔa ‘I am going’ (as against oqač.a
in men’s speech). This usage did not seem to be continued by the younger generation,
however.
Cerrón-Palomino notes an absence of restrictions upon the use of aspirated and glot-
talised consonants within a root. They occur initially in a syllable but this need not be
the first syllable in the root (e.g. in toth i ‘cow’s horn’, kunt’ı́ş ‘to be sure’). Furthermore,
glottalised and aspirated consonants can co-occur in the same root (e.g. in ph anč’u ‘soft’,
č.’ik h a ‘equal’). Considering their great frequency in native roots, there appears to be no
reason to assume that glottalisation and aspiration are borrowed features in Chipaya.
Note that glottalisation and aspiration are not contrastive in the labiovelar and
labiopostvelar stop series. According to Cerrón-Palomino, it may be due to a recent
simplification of the system because free variation between labialised and non-labialised
aspirated consonants is still observed in roots such as qh aş ∼ qhw aş ‘water’. In addition,
the same variation can be found in the alveodental stop series (e.g. in th atş ∼ t hw atş
‘to pile up’). These examples suggest that the labial element may have had the status
of a segmental phoneme, rather than that of a feature of the consonant with which it is
associated. At present, the loss of labialisation seems to have become a general tendency
in the language.
Nasal contrasts are maintained in syllable-final position, even that between alveoden-
tal n and velar ŋ, as in lanş ‘to touch’ and laŋş ‘to work’. The glide consonant w is
often realised as a fricative [β], especially when in contact with front vowels (e.g. siwi
[siwi ∼ siβi] ‘winter’). Both elements are reminiscent of the situation in the Aymara of
northern Chile (cf. section 3.3.3).
In comparison to Aymara and Quechua, the articulation point of the postvelars in
Chipaya is less retracted and does not normally reach the uvular range. This can make it
difficult to recognise the distinction between velars and postvelars. Nevertheless, there
is an ample choice of minimal pairs illustrating the contrast:
(330) kara ‘wide’ qara ‘comb’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)

(331) k’oru ‘bowl’ q’oru ‘a type of hat’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
The consonant inventory of Uchumataqu, as established by Muysken (MS), is similar

to Cerrón-Palomino’s Chipaya inventory but for the absence in the former of the apical
and retroflex series (ş; č., č.’, č.h , .š). In addition, the alveolar affricate series is only
represented by plain c; the velar nasal (ŋ ) and the labialised postvelars (qw , xw ) are
lacking; and glottalised p’ and t’ occur very seldom. Possibly, the situation of near
extinction in which the Uchumataqu language has found itself for decades may be
responsible for a reduction of the sound system, but it could also be the result of earlier
developments.
Both Chipaya and Uchumataqu have a five-vowel system with distinctive vowel length
(a, e, i, o, u; a:, e:, i:, o:, u:).157 The contrast of high and mid vowels in Chipaya is
illustrated in the following examples:
(332) uwa ‘food’ owa ‘knee’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)

(333) hikş ‘road’ hekş ‘to appear’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
The contrast is also retained in the environment of a postvelar consonant. In con-

tradistinction to Aymara and Quechua, the automatic lowering of high vowels is either
minimal, or does not occur at all in that environment:
(334) qh uča ‘potsherd’ qh oča ‘foot’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)

(335) qh iny a ‘crippled’ qh eny a ‘slow’, ‘dull’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
The difference between short and long vowels is illustrated in (336) and (337):
(336) uš.a ‘north’ u:ša ‘sheep’ [Spanish oveja] (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)

(337) qaş ‘to talk’ qa:ş ‘to cry’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
Vowel length in Chipaya is often the result of contractions, which seem to occur
frequently in the language; for instance, we:n ‘night’ corresponds to Uchumataqu wiyani
(cf. Olson 1965: 37–8). It may provide an explanation for the relatively low functional
load of the length distinction.
Cerrón-Palomino notes that after lateral and velar fricatives, as well as after aspirated
consonants, vowels tend to be voiceless when the following consonant is also voiceless,
e.g. l oki [loki] ‘mud’, t h utş [thutş] ‘to spit’. In Olson (1967) such voicelessness is

˚ ˚
generally interpreted as the manifestation of a syllable-final fricative.
Chipaya accepts clusters of two consonants in word-initial and word-final position.
Most characteristic are the word-initial clusters consisting of a sibilant which is either
followed by a bilabial stop or nasal, or by a velar or postvelar stop. Their occurrence
is reminiscent of Puquina (cf. section 3.5). In these clusters the opposition between the
sibilants s, ş and .š remains intact:
(338) skara ‘hat’ şkara ‘toad’ š.kati ‘nearby’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)

(339) smoya ‘mosquito’ şmali ‘strong’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
157 For Uchumataqu Uhle mentions a sixth vowel, underlined e, reported to sound like the vowel
in German ä. Its occurrence still needs to be studied in the word lists he collected.
Word-final clusters can be part of a truncated root (for instance, in hikş ‘road’, from
*hikşa; compare hikşa-l y a ‘little road’). More often they are the result of suffixation, for
instance, when the infinitive marker -ş is added to a verb root. Before -ş root-final vowels
are suppressed (except when preceded by a sequence of more than one consonant).
(340) qulu ‘salt block’ qul-ş ‘to salt’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)

(341) wiya ‘dream’ wiy-ş ‘to dream’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
As can be deduced from the example of the infinitive marker, vowel suppression
is a common procedure in Chipaya, in which respect it resembles Aymara. Although
in Chipaya word stress is characteristically located on the penultimate syllable, it may
remain on the last syllable when the vowel of a word-final syllable is suppressed. A
comparison with Uhle’s data shows that the infinitive marker was originally syllabic
(-ča), hence an example such as (342) in which stress is on the final syllable:
(342) uşı́n-ş [<*uşı́n-ča] ‘to play’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
Within noun phrases the final vowel of the modifying element, which precedes the
head, is also subject to truncation; compare the situation in Aymara:
(343) oş ph eta [oş(a) ph eta]

nose opening
‘nostril’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
In Uchumataqu, Muysken (MS) recorded consonant clusters of even greater com-

plexity than those found in Chipaya but notes that these tend to become simplified in
the speech of the present generation of semi-speakers.
The principal morphological device of Chipaya is suffixation. The overall picture,
however, is rather different from that in the neighbouring languages. Nominal morphol-
ogy is relatively elaborate and comprises a distinction between feminine and masculine
gender, as well as a fair number of case markers. Subject and object are not marked for
case. Personal possession is indicated by means of free pronouns marked for genitive
case. In a verb phrase person, gender and number of the subject can be specified by
means of clitic elements. These elements are normally attached to a non-case-marked
expression that accompanies the verb (preferably the object or an adverb, occasionally
the subject). Verbal suffixes indicate tense, aspect, mood and evidentiality. The shape
of tense/aspect suffixes is to a certain extent again determined by person, gender and
number of the subject. The preferred word order in Chipaya is subject–object–verb and
within the noun phrase modifier–head.158
158 In Uchumataqu there are a few instances of the reversed order (head–modifier), e.g. in xaús
wı́ri ‘anus’ (xaús ‘hole’, wı́ri ‘buttocks’); see Muysken (2000: 102).
The main strategy to indicate feminine gender in nouns is by the addition of a suffix
-i. This suffix replaces an original stem-final vowel, if present (344):
(344) aşnu ‘donkey’ aşn-i ‘female donkey’ [Spanish asno]

(Cerrón-Palomino, personal communication)
Final -i is often elided when preceded by a single consonant (345), except when such an
elision would lead to the coincidence of a feminine form with its masculine counterpart.
This is the case, for instance, in Spanish proper names ending in a consonant (346).
(345) u:ša ‘sheep’ u:š-i ∼ u:š ‘ewe’ [Spanish oveja]

(346) huwan ‘John’ huwan-i ‘Joan’ [Spanish Juan]
The demonstratives ti: ‘this’ and ni: ‘that/he’, as well as the numeral ci: ‘one’, have
special feminine forms: ta:, na: and ca:, respectively.
The markers of the genitive case with nouns are also sensitive to gender. When used as
modifiers, masculine nouns take š., whereas feminine nouns replace their final -i with -a.
(347) kuč-š. kh uny i kuč-a kh uny i [kuči ‘pig’, Old Spanish coche]
pig-G.MS ear pig-G.FE ear
‘pig ears’ ‘sow ears’ (Cerrón-Palomino, personal communication)
According to Cerrón-Palomino (personal communication), pronouns (both mascu-

line and feminine) have a special genitive case marker -(i)š., which has the function of
indicating the agent in a passive construction. (The long allomorph -iš. is found after
the personal pronoun stems wer ‘I’ and am ‘you’, which end in a consonant.) With
demonstrative pronouns a genitive of possession is also formed in this way.
When used independently or predicatively, all genitives of possession (whether nom-
inal or pronominal) are followed by an element -ta, which is sensitive to the gender
distinction; for instance, in (348):
(348) ni:-š.-ta ni:-š.-t-i

that-G-N that-G-N-FE
‘his one’ ‘his female one’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
The personal pronouns wer ‘I’ and am ‘you’ have special genitive forms we-t(a) and
am-ta, respectively, for both attributive and predicative possessive use. The short form
we-t is used as a prenominal modifier (349). The final element -ta is again subject to the
gender distinction (350).
(349) we-t čuwa

I-G plate (Cerrón-Palomino, personal communication)
‘my plate’
(350) we-ta we-t-i
I-G.N I-G.N-FE
‘(it is) mine’ ‘(it is) my female one’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
In a verb phrase with a third-person subject, gender is reflected in the choice of the
clitic that accompanies the verb. In the following examples the clitic elements -(i)š. for
masculine, and -(i)l for feminine, are attached to the adverb maxny a. The element -ki-,
which accompanies the future-tense marker -a-, is used with all persons except first
singular and plural (exclusive). It is not sensitive to gender.
(351) ni:-nak-ki maxny a-š. th ax-a-ki-č.a159

that.MS-PL-TO early-MS sleep-F-F.NS-DV
‘They (those men) will sleep early.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
(352) na:-nak-ki maxny a-l th ax-a-ki-č.a
that.FE-PL-TO early-FE sleep-F-F. NS-DV
‘They (those women) will sleep early.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
Although in the context illustrated in (351) and (352) the sole function of -(i)l and
-(i)š. is to distinguish gender, they can have other functions as well. The element -(i)l
is used with the first person singular and plural exclusive, and with the third person
feminine singular and plural; -(i)š. is used with the first person plural inclusive, with
the second person plural, and with the third person masculine singular and plural. A
special clitic -(i)m, akin to the second-person-singular pronoun am, is used in verb
phrases with a second-person-singular subject. (The long forms -il, -im and -iš. occur
after consonant-final personal pronouns.)
The use of the first and second persons singular is illustrated in (353) and (354).
Note that the required enclitics are attached to the subject of these sentences as no other
constituents are available.
(353) wer-il sat-a-č.a

I-1 run-F-DV
‘I shall run.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
(354) am-im sat-a-ki-č.a
you-2.SG run-F-F.NS-DV
‘You (singular) shall run.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
159 Cerrón-Palomino reports that the ending -ki-č.a is pronounced [kš.] in non-careful speech, in
which case stress is located on the vowel immediately preceding it.
If a sentence contains a direct object, the latter often carries the clitic element:
(355) Luwisitu-ki t’anta-š. lul-ny i-č.a

Luisito-TO bread-3.MS eat-CU.3.MS-DV
‘Luisito is in the habit of eating bread.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
Although the preferred word order is subject–object–verb, other order options are al-
lowed as well. As a result, a sentence such as (356), in which the object carrying the
clitic follows the verb, is acceptable.
(356) Luwisitu-ki lul-ny i-č.a t’anta-š.

Luisito-TO eat-CU.3.MS-DV bread-3.MS
‘Luisito is in the habit of eating bread.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
If there is no other stem to which the clitic element can be attached, it may also
occur as a proclitic with the verb itself. Example (357) illustrates the use of a proclitic
corresponding to a first person plural inclusive.160
(357) š.-lik-la
4-drink-4.IM
‘Let us drink!’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
Cerrón-Palomino notes that the use of clitics indicating subject reference could be
entering a phase of obsolescence. Present-day speakers tend to omit them without af-
fecting the acceptability of the utterance. He observes, furthermore, that the location of
the clitic in the sentence can have a focalising function.
As we anticipated, the shape of the tense–aspect markers is also partly determined by
the person and the number of the subject, thus generating complicated patterns of con-
cord. These concord patterns may differ in accordance with the tense–aspect paradigm
involved. Consider the use of the element -ki- in the future-tense paradigm (see above).
As an additional illustration, the paradigm of the unmarked present tense is reproduced in
table 3.27. It contains a suffix -u- in forms with a first-person-singular subject, whereas
in all other person–number combinations the corresponding slot remains empty. The
exemplified phrase contains an adverb şina ‘alone’ followed by the delimitative suffix
-ly a ‘only’ (a suffix presumably borrowed from Quechua, where it has the same shape
and meaning). This adverb also carries the enclitic that indicates person, gender and
number. The exemplified verb is t h ax- ‘to sleep’.
Table 3.27 suggests that there is no formal difference between singular and plural
in the third person. However, other tense–aspect paradigms have different forms for
singular and plural in the third person feminine. Such, for instance, is the case in the
160 Muysken reports that Uchumataqu also allows proclitic subject markers.
Table 3.27 Unmarked present tense in Chipaya (from Cerrón-Palomino, MS).
1 pers. sing. şina-ly a-l th ax-u-č.a ‘I sleep alone.’

plur. (excl.) şina-ly a-l th ax-č.a ‘We (excl.) sleep alone.’
2 pers. sing. şina-ly a-m th ax-č.a ‘You (sing.) sleep alone.
plur. şina-ly a-š. th ax-č.a ‘You (plur.) sleep alone.’
3 pers. masc. sing. şina-ly a-š. th ax-č.a ‘He sleeps alone.’
masc. plur. şina-ly a-š. th ax-č.a ‘They (men) sleep alone.’
3 pers. fem. sing. şina-ly a-l th ax-č.a ‘She sleeps alone.’
fem. plur. şina-ly a-l th ax-č.a ‘They (women) sleep alone.’
4 pers. plur. (incl.) şina-ly a-š. th ax-č.a ‘We (incl.) sleep alone.’
past-tense (completive) paradigm illustrated below:
(358) na:-ki maxny a-l th ax-čin-č.a

that.FE-TO early-3.FE sleep-PA.3.FE.SG-DV
‘She slept early.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
(359) na:-nak-ki maxny a-l th ax-či-č.a
that.FE-PL-TO early-3.FE sleep-PA.3.FE.PL-DV
‘They (those women) slept early.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
The element -č.a, which we have glossed as a declarative marker, is also found after
a noun or adjective in verbless equational clauses, such as (360):
(360) am qh oya qh ay-čuka ew-č.a

you house buy-FN new-DV
‘The house that you are going to buy is new.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
The declarative marker -č.a is almost certainly related to the very characteristic ending
-čay of Uchumataqu. Muysken (2000) discusses its function in that language and finds
that it is used in declarative and exhortative sentences, as well as in yes/no questions and
in some wh-questions. It is not used in imperatives and in infinitival complements. Like
its Chipaya equivalent, the element -čay is also found affixed to nouns and adjectives.
An example of a declarative sentence in Uchumataqu is:
(361) wı́r-il xála k’áyă pé.k u-čay161

I-1 llama buy want-PN.1.SG-DV
‘I want to buy a llama.’ (Vellard 1967: 14)
161 In examples taken from Vellard we have tried to respect his phonetic notation. The apostrophe
(as in pě.k’-u-čay ‘I want’) is reproduced in a slightly different way in order to avoid confusion
with the glottalisation sign.
Vellard (1951: 37–9) presents some partial Uchumataqu verb paradigms. They sug-
gest a structure comparable to that of Chipaya (see also Muysken 2000). The Chipaya
examples given in Olson (1967) contain evidential elements referring to hearsay and
probability that appear to fill the slot of the tense–aspect markers (e.g. ap-š.-ki-č.a ‘he
is following, they say’; e:kt-qal-č.a ‘he surely had hungered’).162 Olson (1965: 33) also
notes causative formations such as t-xaw-un- ‘to cause to shout’ from qh aw- ‘to shout’.
A reflexive marker -s- is recorded by Cerrón-Palomino in the form peka-s- ‘to love each
other’ (cf. Aymara -si-). These examples make it clear that the verbal morphology of
Chipaya still holds a number of areas to investigate.
Cerrón-Palomino mentions several verbal affixes that are used as nominalisers. Verbs
such as pek(a)- ‘to want’ can be used with infinitive complements containing the affix -ş
(362). Note the absence of an infinitive marker in a parallel construction in Uchumataqu
(361).
(362) ni:-ki čh išwi-š. lul-ş pek-č.a

he-TO meat-3.MS eat-IF want-DV
‘He wants to eat meat.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
There are several other nominalising affixes, -čuka ‘potential’, -ny i ‘agentive’, -či and
-ta ‘resultative’, which can be used to form relative clauses and complement clauses.
Relative clauses and complement clauses precede the noun or the verb, respectively,
on which they depend. Their internal order is subject–object–verb. Note, however, that
the (human) subject of an embedded complement clause can be extracted to a position
preceding the (non-human) subject of the main clause, as illustrated in (360); a further
example is (363):
(363) am kula lul-či ana wali-č.a [Spanish vale ‘it is worth’; Aymara
you quinoa eat-SN not good-DV wali ‘good’]
‘The quinoa you have eaten is not good.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
A complement clause without subject extraction is illustrated in (364):
(364) am-ki wer čh išwi lul-či şiş-č.a

you-TO I meat eat-SN know-DV
‘You know that I have eaten meat.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
Relative or complement clauses containing the nominaliser -či, as exemplified in

Cerrón-Palomino (MS), follow the pattern of main clauses in that their subjects are not
162 The source does not offer any morpheme glosses for these forms.
marked for case. If the nominaliser is -ta (compare Aymara -ta) the agent of the clause
can take (possessive) genitive case marking:
(365) we-t qam-ta qh oya qac-či-č.a

I-G live-SN house be.lost-PA.3.MS-DV
‘The house where I used to live got lost.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
Chipaya has a special nominaliser -i expressing the action goal of verbs of motion (a
function which in Aymara and Quechua is fulfilled by the agentive nominalisation). Less
immediate goals can be expressed by the combination -ş-xapa (infinitive + benefactive
case).
(366) wer-naka lul-i-l oq-a-č.a

I-PL eat-GO-1 go-F-DV
‘We will go and eat.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
(367) wer-ki laŋŋ-ş-xapa th on-čin-č.a
I-TO work-IF-B come-PA.1-DV
‘I have come in order to work.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
Chipaya has an active switch-reference system operating in subordinate clauses. The

endings used for this purpose have a double function. They specify the identity of
the subject of a subordinate verb in relation to the verb to which it is subordinated
(same or different), and they contain an indication of the temporal relationship of the
two verbs (simultaneous or consecutive). The following examples illustrate the use of
switch-reference with simultaneous events; the endings are -kan for same, and -nan for
different subjects. It has not been determined yet whether or not the element -ş- in (368)
is to be seen as a part of the switch-reference marker. We assume that in (369) the element
-š. corefers with the third-person subject of the main clause.
(368) ni:-ki čh išwi lul-ş-kan tik-či-č.a

he-TO meat eat-?-SM.SS die-PA.3.MS-DV
‘He died while he was eating meat.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
h
(369) wer-š. u:ša kon-nan we-t hila-ki t on-či-č.a [Aymara hila ‘brother]
I-3.MS sheep kill-SM.DS I-G brother-TO come-PA.3.MS-DV
‘When I was killing the sheep, my brother arrived.’
(Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
Example (370) illustrates the use of switch-reference (different subjects) between

verbs referring to consecutive events. The ending -tan indicates that the subordinate
event is previous to the one expressed by the main verb.
(370) th uny i qat-tan waxta th on-čam-č.a

sun fall-PV.DS town come-PA.2.SG-DV
‘When the sun had fallen, you came to the village.’
(Cerrón-Palomino, MS)
Apart from the genitive (see above), the Chipaya case system comprises an
instrumental–comitative -(š.)tan, illative -(š.)kiş, ablative (also in comparisons) -kiştan,
two locatives -kiş and -kin, perlative -nuš. and benefactive -xapa. Cerrón-Palomino re-
ports that where there is a choice the shorter forms are used with feminine nouns.
The benefactive must be preceded by a genitive marker. (The same may hold for the
instrumental–comitative and illative endings.) There are some additional case markers
of Quechua origin.
The two locative case markers are distinguished as follows: -kiş is used when the
location referred to coincides with that of the speaker (371). If not, -kin is used (372).
(371) wer-ki urur-kiş qam-u-č.a

I-TO Oruro-L.PX live-PN.1.SG-DV
‘I live here in Oruro.’ (Cerrón-Palomino, personal communication)
(372) wer-ki urur-kin qam-u-č.a
I-TO Oruro-L.DT live-PN.1SG-DV
‘I live in Oruro (not here).’ (Cerrón-Palomino, personal communication)
The Uchumataqu case markers only partly resemble their Chipaya counterparts, e.g.
comitative -stá(ni), instrumental -stá ∼ -ná, ablative -kistani, allative -kı́(na) and perla-
tive -nis. Illative is -wı́nta ∼ -wintáni and locative is -(kos)tá (Vellard 1967: 27; Muysken
2000). Other locative endings are (with motion) -ki (kwás-ki ‘into the water’) and -nik
(uhč-nik ‘into the fire’) and (without motion) -na/-nu (kwás-na, kwás-nu ‘in the water’,
Vellard 1967: 4–5). Some Uchumataqu examples are given below:
(373) wı́r-il ó¸kwa-ča ki-stáni

I-1 go-DV he-C
‘I go with him.’ (Vellard 1967: 28)
(374) wı́r-il wát ta-kı́na ó¸kwa-čay
I-1 village-AL go-DV
‘I go to the village.’ (Vellard 1967: 29)
(375) wı́r-il wát ta-kistani pı́ča-čay
I-1 village-AB come-DV
‘I come from the village.’ (Vellard 1967: 29)
(376) wát -nis ó¸kw-á-čay
village-PT go-F-DV
‘I shall go through the village.’ (Vellard 1967: 29)
The personal pronouns of Chipaya are wer ‘I’, wer-naka ‘we (exclusive)’, uč.um-
naka ‘we (inclusive)’, am ‘you (singular)’, am-č.uk ‘you (plural)’, ni: ‘he’, ni:-naka
‘they (masculine)’, na: ‘she’, na:-naka ‘they (feminine)’; the Uchumataqu pronouns are
wir/wer ‘I’, učum(i) ‘we (exclusive)’, am ‘you (singular)’, am-čuka ‘you (plural)’, ni
‘he’, ‘she’, ni-naka ‘they’. For the inclusive first person Vellard (1951: 16) gives a form
wáq pa čúmi, probably from waqpača ‘all’ and učumi ‘we’. The pluraliser suffix -naka
coincides with Aymara and may be a borrowed element.
The interrogative pronouns hék ‘who’, čul(ũ) ‘what’, ksı́m ‘where’ and kasút ‘when’

were recorded by Vellard (1967) for Uchumataqu; cf. Chipaya hek ‘who’ (Porterie-
Gutiérrez 1990) and č.h ulu ‘what’ (Olson 1965: 31).
Vellard (1951, 1967) recorded a full decimal set of numerals for Uchumataqu: ţi
‘one’, pı́šk i ‘two’, čé.p i ‘three’, páxk u pı́ki ‘four’, táx s núko. ‘five’, táx-t-núko. ‘six’,
tõ.´ko. ‘seven’, kõ.´ko. ‘eight’, sár-núko. ‘nine’ and kalu/kalo. ‘ten’. Chipaya has preserved
only four of its original numerals: ti: ‘one’ (Olson 1965: ch i:), piška ‘two’, čh ep ‘three’,
paqpik ‘four’; the remaining numbers are borrowed from Aymara. There is a special term
for ‘two people’: Uchumataqu pı́kiltá(ni) (Vellard 1967), Chipaya pukultan (Porterie-
Gutiérrez 1990). Vellard, furthermore, mentions the existence of an ancient numeral
system recorded near Tiahuanaco, which in the 1940s was known to some of the Uru.
Some of its components bear a resemblance to Aymara, others to Uchumataqu.
Olson (1964: 313) reports that in his unpublished vocabulary of Chipaya 33 per
cent of the items are loans from Aymara, Quechua and Spanish. We may assume that a
similar figure holds for Uchumataqu. A high percentage of borrowings does not surprise,
considering the sociolinguistic situation. There seem to be cases, however, where Uru–
Chipaya must have been the giving language. Aymara speakers in Solajo near Carumas
(Moquegua, Peru) use a verb lul(u)- ‘to eat’, which is similar in form to the Uru–Chipaya
term (Chipaya lul-).163 It has not been found in other Aymaran dialects. Furthermore,
it would be a mistake to limit the attention to the three languages mentioned above.
Uru–Chipaya also has some vocabulary in common with Puquina and with Mosetén,
e.g. Chipaya şiş-, Uchumataqu šiš-, Puquina sisca ‘to know’; Uchumataqu tára, Mosetén
(Sakel 2003) t y ãrãʔ ‘maize’. For more cases of Uru–Puquina contact see Torero (1992).
3.7 The Atacameño language

The people of the Atacama desert in northern Chile have attracted the attention of
travellers and scientists by their relatively isolated position and the impressive natural
setting that surrounds their picturesque old villages. The habitat of the Atacameños is
situated in the Chilean region of Antofagasta, between the river Loa (east of Calama)
and the border with Argentina and Bolivia, which is marked by a series of 6,000 metre
163 Recorded by the author during fieldwork in Moquegua in 1984.

high volcanoes. The main oasis San Pedro de Atacama is dominated by the Licancabur
(‘the mountain of the community’, by which San Pedro is understood). Most Atacameño
villages, such as Cámar, Peine, Socaire, Sóncor, Tilomonte, Tilopozo and Toconao, are
situated to the south and southeast of San Pedro, between the Atacama salt-lake (Salar
de Atacama) and the border. A second area is situated at a distance north of San Pedro
near the banks of the Loa and Salado rivers; it comprises the villages of Caspana and
Chiu Chiu.
The language of the Atacameño people is also known as Kunza, a word meaning ‘ours’
in Atacameño, or as Lican antai ‘language of the community’. Several sources report
that its area of influence, and possibly the language itself, once extended further east into
adjacent parts of Argentina (Philippi 1860) and the southwestern tip of Bolivia (Ibarra
Grasso 1958). A genetic relation of Atacameño with what was originally its eastern and
southern neighbour, the Diaguita or Kakán language group, was long considered likely
(Schuller 1908; Mason 1950), but the absence of any reliable Diaguita data (cf. Nardi
1979) precludes the verification of this hypothesis.164
Kunza received a substantial amount of attention in publications of the nineteenth
century. They give an interesting view of the protracted process of extinction that has af-
fected the language. Foreign scientists, Chilean state officials and local parish priests165
collaborated in collecting word-lists and grammatical notes, which are useful but in-
sufficient to obtain a full picture of the language (Philippi 1860; von Tschudi 1866–9;
Moore 1878). The best sources date from the 1890s. They consist of a grammatical
sketch by the Chilean engineer Francisco San Román (1890), based on data collected
after 1883, and a word list (glosario) with pronunciation notes, the product of a joint
effort of several interested scholars (Vaı̈sse, Hoyos and Echeverrı́a y Reyes 1896). A
drawback to the study of Atacameño is the absence of text. Several ritual songs that are
performed without being understood any longer and two versions of the Lord’s Prayer,
written down by the Swiss Americanist Johann Jakob von Tschudi, make up the entire
corpus (cf. Lehnert Santander 1976).
At the end of the eighteenth century the Atacameño language was still in use, although
the community itself was probably never greater than a few thousand. Since colonial
times many Atacameño people were experts in leading pack-animals across the icy and
desolate Puna de Atacama (cf. Bowman 1924). This activity took them to places far
164 Swadesh (1959: 18) saw a connection between Atacameño and two native languages of
Rondônia, Brazil: Kapishana (now known as Kanoê) and Mashubı́. To date, Mashubı́ is clas-
sified as a Jabutı́an language and considered unrelated to Kanoê. A rapid comparison of an
unpublished vocabulary of the Kanoê language (Bacelar 1996) with the Atacameño lexical ma-
terial has brought no evidence that would support a relationship between these two languages.
165 At the church of San Pedro a tablet proudly commemorates the efforts of those who studied the
Kunza language, in particular, the parish priests Benito Maglio and Emilio Vaı̈sse.
away from their native oases, a circumstance which may have speeded up the demise of
the language. In 1858 Tschudi estimated the number of Atacameño speakers at less than
200. At the end of the nineteenth century, San Román reported that the language was
known only by a few octogenarians and that it would soon be gone. Vaı̈sse et al. (1896)
estimated the number of Kunza speakers at less than two dozen. It comes, therefore,
as a surprise that sixty years later Mostny was still able to locate (semi-)speakers in
the village of Peine (Mostny 1954). Mostny’s data, however limited, are relevant for
the understanding and interpretation of the nineteenth-century material. Among other
things, she published a local version (in Kunza) of the talátur, a ritual song related to the
annual ceremony of cleaning the irrigation canals, and made a valuable effort to interpret
its contents. Later on, another version of the talátur, recorded in 1976 and originally
from the village of Socaire, also appeared in press (Rodrı́guez 1991).166
Atacameño is fairly well documented as far as its lexicon goes. All the available
lexical data have been brought together by a research group from the University of
Valparaı́so in an (unpublished) computerised dictionary (Sáez Godoy et al. 1974). On
the other hand, the grammatical information is extremely limited and sketchy, because
San Román only gives information on a few selected aspects of the grammar. The case
system, for instance, is not presented at all. As for the sounds of Atacameño, the sources
coincide in saying that it was a harsh-sounding language with many unpronounceable
sounds, which could not be represented easily with the symbols of the Latin alphabet. The
orthography which is used by the different sources is far from consistent. Nevertheless,
both San Román and Vaı̈sse et al. offer interesting observations on the pronunciation,
which make it possible to reconstruct several aspects of the Atacameño sound inventory.
In contrast to Aymara and Quechua, Atacameño had five distinct (short) vowels: a,
e, i, o, u.167 Contrastive pairs for the front and back vowels, respectively, are sem(m)a
‘one’ vs. sim(m)a ‘man’, and potor ‘landslide’ vs. putchur ‘flower’. Cases of distinctive
vowel length are found in some environments at least, e.g. ckacka ‘forehead’, ckaacka
‘stutterer’. The hyphen in forms such as cki-itur ‘to fight’ and ma-istur ‘to find’ suggests
the presence of an intervocalic glottal stop. The spelling of the verb balt-hitur ‘to run’
in Vaı̈sse et al. possibly indicates that the glottal stop could occur in other positions
as well.
Interestingly, few lexical items in the glossary of Vaı̈sse et al. begin with a vowel;
a and i are the only vowels found in that position. Items that do have an initial vowel
166 The talátur and another Kunza ritual song, the cauzúlor, have been brought out on music
albums: Le Chant du Monde: Chez les indiens du désert d’Atacama LDZ-S-4287 (no date);
and Unesco Collection Musical Sources: Amerindian Ceremonial Music from Chile 6586-026
(1975).
167 Mostny (1954) recorded a word containing schwa-type vowels (čərə snə r ‘narrow opening in
the rocks that lets through water’).
are mainly grammatical words (e.g. ackcka ‘I’; inti ‘that much’) and loan words (e.g.
atitur ‘to win’, ‘to be superior’, from Quechua ati-; astatur ‘to whip’, from Spanish
azotar). Most of the non-grammatical native words with initial a that are listed in the
Vaı̈sse glossary have alternative forms beginning with an aspiration (h), e.g. ara ∼
hara ‘lodging place’, ‘temporary shelter’, atta ∼ hatta ∼ haata ‘yesterday’.168 The
interrelation between aspiration and vowel length, as illustrated in the latter example, is
of particular interest. San Román states explicitly that aspirations in Kunza are followed
by ‘a notable lengthening of the vowel’. In his conjugation of the verb ‘to eat’, San
Román registers ohlmtur (with the aspiration written after the vowel), whereas Vaı̈sse
et al. have holmtur. This suggests that the aspiration may have been simultaneous with
the vowel, rather than previous or successive to it. Cases of postvocalic aspiration as
recorded by San Román (e.g. in ohlmtur ‘to eat’ and pahni ‘child’) have been interpreted
as a phenomenon accessory to phonemic vowel length (Lehnert Santander 1987). On the
other hand, as we have just seen, there are also cases where aspiration triggers length,
rather than the opposite.
The consonant inventory of Atacameño, as represented in the glossary of Vaı̈sse et
al., is surprisingly small. There is no doubt that glottalisation could be distinctive in the
labial and in the alveolar positions (e.g. poi.ya169 [poyya] ‘calf of leg’, ppoya [p’oya]
‘two’; tilir ‘spicy’, ttelir [t’elir] ‘vicuña’). Nevertheless, many forms are listed with both
a glottalised and a plain initial, indicating that the distinctive value of glottalisation may
have been limited. For the palatal series the glossary employs only one symbol: tch.
The added explanation (Vaı̈sse et al. 1896: 33) suggests that it referred to a glottalised,
rather than to a plain alveopalatal affricate comparable to Spanish ch. However, San
Román makes a distinction between the symbols ch (as in choraca [čoraka] ‘ostrich’)
and chch (as in chchoya [č’oya] ‘seven’), thereby indicating a glottalisation distinction
in the palatal series as well.
Strangely, the Vaı̈sse glossary contains no evidence of glottalisation in the velar or
postvelar series, nor does it distinguish between these two series at all. It employs the
symbol ck to cover all of the velar and postvelar areas of articulation (except for h).
The sound corresponding to ck is described as comparable to ch in German followed
by a sound similar to r, thereby creating the suggestion of a postvelar fricative (Vaı̈sse
et al. 1896: 15).170 However, San Román affirms that there were several k-like sounds
in Atacameño, ‘to be written c or k, in accordance with their degree of strength’. He
168 There are a few non-grammatical items with initial i in the Vaı̈sse glossary: ipnatur ‘to stick
to’ and ittin(tur) ‘(to put) straight’; they have no alternative forms with initial h.
169 From here on, the hyphen in the glossary is replaced by a dot, in order to avoid confusion with
morpheme boundary markers.
170 The symbol ck is used in the descriptive tradition of the Argentinian Quechua dialect of Santiago
del Estero for the representation of a uvular stop.
assigns a special status to a sound which he writes qc or q-c, in lı́qcau ‘woman’ (Vaı̈sse
et al.: lickau), and which is supposed to be pronounced with ‘a certain tenderness’. His
characterisation of the initial consonant in khûro ‘wind’ (ckuri ∼ ckuruı́.ya in Vaı̈sse
et al.) seems to refer to a strongly aspirated postvelar stop.171 Other spellings used by
San Román are c-k in vác-ka ‘river’ (back.cka in Vaı̈sse et al.), cj in cjaratur ‘to break’,
cc in ccaratur ‘to cut’ (both ckaratur in Vaı̈sse et al.), and qqu in qquepe ‘eye’ (ckepe or
ckepi in Vaı̈sse et al.) The initial sound in this last word also drew the attention of von
Tschudi, who wrote igkjepe and described a deeply guttural sound, both preceded and
followed by affrication (Sáez Godoy 1971). In sum, there can be no other conclusion than
that Vaı̈sse et al. fell short in establishing the relevant distinctions that existed between
Atacameño velar and postvelar sounds.172
The other symbols that are found in the Vaı̈sse glossary are b (sometimes written v),
l, m, n, r, s and y. All are described as having similar functions as their equivalents in
Spanish or other languages. The sound b is historically related to w in other Andean
languages, as can be seen in integrated loan words, such as baina ‘boy-friend’, ‘lover’
(Quechua wayna) and backtcha ‘poor’, ‘orphan’ (Quechua wakča).173 The sound [w] it-
self, written hu, is limited to loans (e.g. hualcka ‘necklace’, from Quechua waly qa; huata
‘belly’ from Chilean Spanish guata) and onomatopoeic expressions. In contradistinction
to Aymara and Quechua, there were no palatal laterals and nasals (ly , ny ). Philippi (1860)
and von Tschudi (1866–9) recorded what may have been a voiceless, aspirated lateral
in the word h( j)lacse ‘head’ (Vaı̈sse et al.: lacksi). In addition to the consonants just
mentioned, there was an affricate ts ∼ tz, which may have had the status of a separate
phoneme. It was apparently not very frequent; e.g. aytzir ‘vizcacha (an Andean rodent)’;
tserar ∼ serar ‘cold’, ‘winter’; tsimir ∼ tchimir ‘snow’.
Table 3.28 represents a tentative, if not speculative, overview of the speech sounds
that may have existed in Atacameño. Consonants for which we have no direct evidence
are given between square brackets. Round brackets indicate that the sound is limited to
loan words.
Clusters of up to three consonants, in medial position, and of two consonants, in initial
or final position, are not uncommon, e.g. ckolcktur ‘to fall’, icks ‘like that’. Remarkable
is the frequent occurrence of geminate consonants in medial position (e.g. ackcka ‘I’).
171 Note that Vaı̈sse et al. have ckuru for ‘mountain-lion’, whereas San Román has kúhri (cf.
Lehnert Santander 1987). Confusion may have arisen in one or the other of the two sources.
172 In 1981 Bill Harrison (personal communication) recorded names of fields, plants and a few
lexical items in the village of Caspana. His taped recording contains ample evidence of glot-
talised as well as aspirated velars and uvulars. Only two conclusions can be reached: either the
Atacameño of the Salado river basin differed considerably from that of the San Pedro area, or
Vaı̈sse et al. somehow failed to recognise the distinctions.
173 A similar development (*w > β) can be observed in the Aymara of northern Chile
(cf. Clair-Vassiliadis 1976) and in Chipaya (section 3.6).
Table 3.28 Tentative inventory of the Atacameño sounds
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Postvelar Glottal
Plain stops p t k q ʔ
Glottalised stops p’ t’ [k’] [q’]
Plain affricates c č
Glottalised affricates č’
Fricatives b s x, γ x. h
Nasals m n
Plain lateral l
Voiceless lateral l

Vibrant r
Glides (w) y
Vowels: a, e, i, o, u, ə(?)
length
aspiration (= h)
‘These consonants are pronounced more strongly and more separate than in Italian’, says
San Román (1967: 88). Gemination may have been the result of an active phonological
process, because it could affect loan words from Quechua and Spanish as well as native
words, e.g. ckas.sa ‘mountain-pass’ (from Quechua q’asa), am.mu ‘boss’, ‘master’ (from
Spanish amo). However, the existence of gemination has not been recorded for all lexical
items containing an intervocalic consonant. Theoretically, the orthographic gemination
may have represented glottalisation, as in ttelir ‘vicuña’, but the inventory of consonants
affected (stops, fricatives, resonants) and the frequent presence of a hyphen between two
identical consonants does not seem to favour such a conclusion.
As far as the rudimentary data available allow a general characterisation of the
language, the following grammatical facts emerge. Atacameño presents a mixture of
prefixation and suffixation. Personal reference affixes were prefixed to both verb and
noun. Tense, mood, nominalisation and negation with verbs, as well as nominal case
were indicated by means of suffixes. The morphology does not seem to be very elab-
orate. Perhaps this can be attributed to the state of decay in which the language found
itself when it was recorded. The general order was subject–object–verb, and modifiers
preceded heads with one notable exception: adjectives were located after substantives,
as in puri lari ‘red water’ (from puri ‘water’ and lari ‘red’).174
174 This situation is characteristic of a whole range of languages native to northern Argentina
and northern Chile, such as Atacameño, Lule, Santiago del Estero Quechua and possibly also
Diaguita (Nardi 1979). It corresponds to type 24 in Greenberg’s classification of basic word-
order types (Greenberg 1966: 109).
Table 3.29 Possessive nominal paradigm in

Atacameño (based on San Román 1967)
locjma ‘dog’
1 pers. singular c’-locjma-ia ‘my dog’

plural cun-locjma-ia ‘our dog’
2 pers. singular s’-locjma-ia ‘your (sing.) dog’
plural chin-locjma-ia ‘your (plur.) dog’
3 pers. singular ai-locjma-ia ‘his/her dog’
plural c’-locjma-ia ‘their dog’
The possessive nominal paradigm as given by San Román is illustrated in table 3.29
with the noun lócjma (Vaı̈sse et al.: lockma) ‘dog’. Note that a relational element -ia ∼
-ya is added to the root. The significance of the apostrophe that occurs with some of the
prefixes remains unexplained. It may indicate the absence of a syllabic vowel.
In Vaı̈sse et al. many grammatical elements, including bound morphemes, are listed as
separate lexical items. The prefixes for first- and second-person possessor are recorded
as cki.i and iss, respectively. The latter form can be recognised in one of the ver-
sions of the Lord’s Prayer collected by von Tschudi (377). (In this and in the fol-
lowing examples the square brackets indicate the forms such as they occur in Vaı̈sse
et al.)
(377) is chea [tchei ‘name’]

{is-che-ya}
2P.SG-name-RL
‘Thy Name’175 (von Tschudi 1866–9, in Echeverrı́a y Reyes 1967)
San Román assigns two other functions to the element ia ∼ ya. One of these functions
is that of an affixed article with nouns (378). It is possible that this so-called article
indicated possession of a noun by a non-identified possessor.
(378) silá-ya
llama-RL [sil.la, sila ‘llama’]
‘the llama’ (maybe: ‘someone’s llama’) (San Román 1967: 79)
175 The full sentence is santi.hijia is-che-a ya-clo ‘Hallowed be Thy Name!’ (hallowed 2P.SG-name-
RL be-IM). At the present state of our knowledge it is not possible to analyse the expression
santi hijia, but note its resemblance to Spanish santificar (‘to hallow’).
Table 3.30 Atacameño personal and possessive pronouns (San Román 1967;
Vaı̈sse et al. 1896)
San Román Vaı̈sse et al. San Román Vaı̈sse et al.
I acca ackcka mine acsa, ájsaya* acksaya

you (sing.) chema tchema yours (sing.) chienza, chénsaya tchénsaya
we cuna ckunna ours cunza ckunsa
you (plur.) chime tchı́mi yours (plur.) chienza, chinzaya tchénsaya
he ia, ya ı́.ya his isa, isáya issi.ya
* The j sounds as ch in German (San Román 1967: 83).
The other function of ia ∼ ya is that of a predication marker (copula) with pronominal

predicates (379). Whenever two nominals (i.e. a noun and an adjective) were connected
predicatively, a copula or predication marker was apparently not required (380).
(379) chema ya [tchema ‘you’]

you be
‘You are.’ ‘It’s you.’ (San Román 1967: 85)
(380) pauna válchar [pauna ‘child’; baltchar ‘bad’]
child bad
‘The child is bad.’ (San Román 1967: 87)
There are two sets of pronouns to match the possessive prefixes: a set of personal
pronouns and a derived set of possessive prounouns, containing the genitive element
-sa. The pronouns that can be extracted from San Román’s work and the corresponding
forms from the Vaı̈sse glossary are given in table 3.30. A number of the possessive
pronouns have only been found followed by the element -ya, which possibly indicates a
predicative function (‘it is mine’, etc.).
In a possessive construction in which the pronoun is expressed explicitly, both the
possessive pronoun and a possessive prefix are required:
(381) chien-za chin-tic.han-ia [tickan ‘father’]

you.PL-G 2P.PL-father-RL
‘your (plural) father’ (San Román 1967: 80)
Nominal plural is indicated by means of a suffix -ckota,176 which can be attached both
to nouns and to the third-person pronoun root i-:
176 Compare the Puquina nominal pluraliser -gata (cf. section 3.5).
Table 3.31 Verbal past-tense paradigm in Atacameño

(based on San Román 1967)
yocon-tur ‘to speak’
1 pers. sing. acca q’-yocon-a ‘I spoke.’

plur. cuna cun-yócon-a ‘We spoke.’
2 pers. sing. chema se-yócon-a ‘You (sing.) spoke.’
plur. chime chin-yócon-a ‘You (plur.) spoke.’
3 pers. sing. ya s’-yócon-a ‘He spoke.’
plur. cota et’-yócon-a ‘They spoke.’
(382) a. ı́-cota ∼ i-ckota ‘they’ [ı́.ya ‘he’]

b. lı́qcau-cota ∼ lickau-ckota ‘women’ (San Román 1967: 79, 85)
The prefixes that identify person of subject in a verb are partly coincident with the
possessive personal prefixes of the noun. The past-tense paradigm of the verb yockon-
tur ‘to speak’, as given by San Román (1967: 86), is presented in table 3.31. The full
personal pronouns that precede each verb form were probably optional.
As in the case of the possessive prefixes the significance of the apostrophe remains
unexplained. The evidence for a third-person-singular marker s’ is weak, because it is not
attested in the other third-person subject forms occurring in the data. (One either finds
zero, or q’, which may not be a personal person reference marker.) The prefix et’- (note
the initial e) is not found in Vaı̈sse et al. The pronominal form cota is an abbreviated
variant of ı́-cota ‘they’. Note in passing the possible diachronic link between the
pronouns and the person prefixes.
The endings of the past tense are said to be unpredictable (San Román 1967: 86).
Other tense and mood categories are indicated by specific endings, where necessary
accompanied by morphophonemic adjustments, such as -ma for present tense, -(o)lo for
future tense and -(l)s for obligation.
(383) a. acca q’-minij-ma ‘I see’ [minck-tur ‘to see’]

b. acca q’-cólc-olo ‘I will fall’ [ckolck-tur ‘to fall’]
c. acca q’-lan-s ‘I will go’ [lan-tur ‘to go’]
Examples of the Atacameño imperative appear in Moore (1878) and in the Lord’s
Prayer versions transmitted by von Tschudi, but we owe the identification of the ending
-k.al(o) as a marker of the imperative to Mostny (1954: 141).177 Another imperative
ending found in the Lord’s Prayer versions is -alo. The examples suggest that the former
177 It is likely that a uvular stop is intended to be represented by the symbol k..
occurred after a vowel (384), whereas the latter was found after bases ending in a
consonant (385).
(384) k.ilapánya aı́ta-k.alo [cf. haita-tur ‘to drink’]

ckilapana drink-2S.IM
‘Drink ckilapana!’178 (Mostny 1954: 142)
(385) can-alo [cf. ckan-tur ‘to give’]
give-2S.IM
‘Give!’ (Tschudi 1866–9, in Echeverrı́a y Reyes 1967)
The negation of the imperative was expressed by means of a suffix -ča- (Mostny 1954:
153). A good example of this construction is again found in the Lord’s Prayer versions
(386). The base verb is the Spanish loan dejar ‘to leave’, ‘to abandon’.
(386) cum deja-cha-calo

1O.PL leave-NE-2S.IM
‘Don’t let us (fall into temptation)!’
(Tschudi 1866–9, in Echeverrı́a y Reyes 1967)
Example (386) also illustrates the use of prefixes or preposed elements referring to
person of object, in this case, cum [kun] ‘us’. Vaı̈sse et al. mention at least two other
elements that are used in this way: ack for first-person-singular object and tchencki
for second-person-singular object. One may venture the idea that the latter was in fact a
complex form referring to the transition of a first-person subject (cki-) to a second-person
object (tchem-).
The categories of deverbal nominalisation comprise the characteristic infinitive ending
in -tur, amply illustrated in the current section. Doubtless, there are other possibilities,
such as those illustrated by the forms lálack-ma ‘daybreak’ and lalck-tchir ‘light’, both
derived from lalck-tur ‘to become light (of days)’ (Vaı̈sse et al. 1896: 24). More verbal
morphology consists in the existence of a transitive or causative formation involving an
element -un-, as in (387):
(387) lalck-tur ‘to become light’

lalack-un-tur ‘to give/make light’ (Vaı̈sse et al. 1896: 24)
The existential verb ‘to be’ in Atacameño is given as ttanzi [t’ansi] in San Román
and as ttansi-r or ttans-tur in Vaı̈sse et al. Its negation was expressed by sin(t)cha.
178 Ckilapana: a fermented drink made from pods of the algarroba tree (Prosopis chilensis). The
ending -ya is not explained in this case.
Example (388) from Mostny illustrates this:
(388) té sinča o t’ánsi

tea not.be or be
‘Is there any tea, or not?’ (Mostny 1954: 170)
The SOV word order of Atacameño is illustrated in (389). Note the absence of a
subject prefix.179 The element -ne- remains unexplained; it may be part of the present-
tense ending. There is no case marker for the goal.
(389) ácca lı́can sáj-ne-ma [lickan ‘town’; sack-tur ‘to go’]

I town go-?-PN
‘I am going to town.’ (San Román 1967: 78)
Case markers and other elements referring to grammatical relations cannot easily be
recovered because they are not treated in the sources. Only a few case endings, such
as -ckol ‘instrumental’ (Vaı̈sse et al. 1896: 19; Mostny 1954: 154) and -p(a)s ‘allative’
(Mostny 1954: 154), have been identified beyond doubt.
From a lexical point of view, it is interesting to note that the Atacameño language had
a full inventory of decimally organised numerals, which also included a non-borrowed
term for ‘hundred’: sem(m)a ‘one’, ppoya ‘two’, ppálama ‘three’, tchalpa [č’alpa] ‘four’,
mútusma (San Román: mútsisma) ‘five’, mı́tchala ‘six’, tchóya [č’oya] ‘seven’, tchólama
[č’ólama] ‘eight’, téckara ‘nine’, sutchi ‘ten’, haaras ‘hundred’ (San Román: aras). The
connecting element was -ta, as in suchi-ta ppoya ‘twelve’ (San Román 1967: 80).
Atacameño had borrowed many lexical items from Quechua, notwithstanding von
Tschudi’s emphatic denial of such being the case (Sáez Godoy 1971: 20), e.g. ckausa-tur
‘to live’, from Quechua kawsa-, and tussu-tur ‘to dance’, from Quechua tusu- (for other
examples see the preceding pages). Borrowings from other languages are represented in
tchamma ‘force’, from Aymara č’ama, and in horsa-tur ‘to rape’, from Spanish forzar.
3.8 The Lule–Tonocoté language

The Lule were one of the semi-nomadic peoples who inhabited the Gran Chaco between
the Pilcomayo river and the Andean foothills of northwestern Argentina. Their language
is known through a grammar and vocabulary published by Machoni de Cerdeña in 1732.
Machoni called his work Arte de la lengua Tonocoté y Lule (Grammar of the Tonocoté
and Lule Language), suggesting that the Lule and Tonocoté languages were one and
the same. This is confusing because in early colonial sources such as the Relaciones
geográficas de Indias (Jiménez de la Espada 1965, I: 390–6; II: 78–85) the two nations
179 According to San Román (1967: 87), the Atacameños ‘used few auxiliaries and abbreviated
everything they could’.
and their languages are treated as separate. In the sixteenth century the Tonocoté were
part of the sedentary indigenous population of the provinces of Tucumán and Santiago
del Estero, now occupied by speakers of the Quechua dialect of the same name (cf.
Martı́nez Sarasola 1992: 549–52). They suffered constant attacks from the Lule. At
the beginning of the eighteenth century part of the Lule population had been brought
together in a mission in eastern Salta, which was subsequently transferred to a location
south of Tucumán in 1737, where a town called Lules still exists (Furlong 1941).
Machoni justifies his procedure by affirming that the language which he describes
was spoken by five nations: Tonocoté, Lule, Ysistiné, Toquistiné and Oristiné. He claims
that the Tonocoté, whom he located in the interior of the Gran Chaco, were the most
numerous of the five and had not yet been converted to Christianity in his time. Since
the languages of the tribes in question have long been extinct and only one variety has
been documented, the question whether Lule and Tonocoté were indeed identical, and
if not, whether Machoni’s grammar deals with the former or with the latter, may remain
open.
The view that Machoni’s Lule is genetically related to the moribund or extinct Vilela
language of the Rı́o Bermejo basin has received attention since the end of the nineteenth
century (Lafone Quevedo 1894a, b, 1895; Balmori 1967). It is probably correct, although
the relationship is certainly not a close one (Viegas Barros 2001). There is no easily
detectable genetic relationship between Lule–Vilela and the other two main linguistic
groups of the Argentinian Chaco, Guaicuruan and Matacoan. There are some similarities
with Matacoan, which may be due to contact.
Machoni describes a relatively small inventory of sounds consisting of five vowels, a,
e, i, o, u and a limited number of consonants. Stress is predominantly word-final.180 The
symbol y is used as an equivalent of i, especially when stressed, but also for referring
to a semi-consonant. According to Machoni, the main difficulties of Lule pronunciation
consist in distinguishing between the sibilants c, ç, and s and in the existence of complex
consonant clusters involving sibilants in word-initial and word-final postion (e.g. quelpç
[kelpts ] ‘I spit’, slimst [slimst] ‘I make a sound with the nose’, oalécst [walékst] ‘I know’,
stuç [stuts ] ‘I throw’).
Machoni’s description of the sibilants is not free of contradiction and is therefore
hard to interpret. His symbols c, ç, and apparently also z, seem to stand for a sound
which may be identified tentatively as an alveodental affricate [ts ]; the language has
no ch [č] as in Spanish. However, Machoni adds that in some words the c has to be
pronounced as a (Spanish) ç or ss (normally the pronunciation of his symbol s). An-
other inconsistency in the use of the symbol c is that it can both refer to [ts ] and to
180 Word-final accent is usually written with an acute by Machoni. The examples given are in
Machoni’s original spelling.
[k]. This becomes evident from the different derivations of the imperative, as in uec-y
‘die!’ [wets ı́] from uec-ç [wets ts ] ‘I die’ against poqu-y [pokı́] ‘dig!’ from poc-ç [pokts ]
‘I dig’.
The simplicity of the Lule sound inventory is surprising when we consider the rather
complex inventories of the related Vilela language (which has postvelar stops, a voicing
distinction and a glottalisation distinction) and of almost all the surrounding languages,
including the modern Quechua dialect of Santiago del Estero. It is conceivable that
Machoni may have missed such distinctions. There are no indications to that effect,
except for the word ttá ‘egg’, in which the double consonant symbol may point at the
existence of glottalisation. On the other hand, the highly informative vocabulary that
accompanies Machoni’s grammar contains evidence of voiceless laterals (quilhá [kil á]
‘Indian girl’; cf. Vilela kil e ‘woman’) and, possibly, of a voiceless nasal (nhalá pulú

‘sugar cane’). The existence of a glottal stop is suggested by seç ∼ s.heç [sʔets ] ‘I
support’, in which s and the vowel must be pronounced separately, and seç [sets ] ‘I cry’,
in which they are pronounced without interruption.
From a superficial point of view, Lule appears to be a typically Andean language with
a suffixing structure, a moderately complex morphology and case markers. However, a
closer look at the verbs included in Machoni’s Spanish–Lule vocabulary shows that this
picture is not entirely correct. These verbs exhibit different sorts of derivational mor-
phology including prefixation, compounding and reduplication. There are, for instance,
verb sets characterised by a root and different prefixes referring to an instrument or body
part with which the action is performed. The root cannot occur without one of these
prefixes, nor are these prefixes formally related with corresponding nouns. For instance,
the root -calam- ‘to press’ is absent from the vocabulary, except when it occurs with one
of the instrumental elements illustrated in (390).
(390) ni-calam- ‘to press with the hands’ cf. ys ‘hand’

yacs-calam- ‘to press with the feet’ cf. ellú ‘foot’
si-calam- ‘to press with knees or body’ cf. toi- ‘body’
ti-calam- ‘to press the earth (of rain)’ cf. auyá ‘rain-water’
na-calam- ‘to press the earth (of running water)’ cf. tó ‘water’
The root -moi- ‘to kill’ is found both with a generic and with an instrumental prefix
(391):
(391) tac-moi- ‘to kill’

s-moi- ‘to kill with an arrow or a spear’
nic-moi- ‘to kill (chicken) with the hands’
na-moi- ‘to kill with a string or lasso’
ap-moi- ‘to kill with a bullet’
Compounding can be illustrated by the encoding of bodily positions in a verb such as

ui- [wi] ‘to sleep’ (392):
(392) lo-ui-181 ‘to sleep while sitting’ cf. lo-, loho-182 ‘to sit (down)’
qui-ui- ‘to sleep while standing’ cf. qui- ‘to stand’
ele-ui- ‘to sleep while lying’ cf. ele- ‘to lie (down)’
Further illustrations of compounding involving verb roots can be observed in (393)

and (394):
(393) ti-tuc- ‘to try’

ne-tuc- ‘to try and eat’, ‘to taste’
(394) tic-tun- ‘to finish’
ne-tun- ‘to finish eating’
Note that the common term for ‘to eat’ is not *ne- but cai-. Furthermore, Lule has a
wide array of terms for eating depending on what is eaten: e.g. pel- ‘to eat flour’, let-
‘to eat soft fruits’, ues- ‘to eat beans or cabbage’, anc- [ants ] ‘to eat soup’.
Lule verbs may differ lexically in function of the number (395) or the gender (396)
of the subject:
(395) uós-ç arrive-1S.SG ‘I arrive’

ual-cen arrive-1S.PL ‘we arrive’
(396) pac- [pats ] ‘to carry (of men)’
yes- ‘to carry (of women)’
Reduplication of the initial syllable is found in derived verbal substantives that refer
to an instrument, as in (397):
(397) ne-neyu-pé ‘flute’ cf. neyu- ‘to play the flute’
Verbs are inflected for person and number. The endings which are used for the non-
future indicative tenses coincide roughly with the endings indicating person and number
of the possessor with nouns. Examples with the verb amaici- ‘to love’ and uyá ‘house’
are given in table 3.32.
The ending of the verbal first person singular varies between -ç, -s, -t, and zero. The lat-
ter two possibilities are used as alternatives after roots ending in a consonant cluster with
a final sibilant, as in oalécs-t (∼ oalécs-ç, oaléc-ç) ‘I know’ or stops-t (∼stops-ç, stops)
181 In the examples the symbol v has been replaced by u, because the former is a mere notational
variant of the latter.
182 The interpretation of the symbol h between vowels is ambiguous. Apart from indicating a glottal
or velar fricative, it can also refer to a glottal stop.
Table 3.32 Lule personal endings for unmarked tense and nominal possession
amaici- ‘to love’ uyá ‘house’
1 pers. sing. amaici-ç ‘I love.’ uyá-s ‘my house’

plur. amaici-cén ‘We love.’ uya-cen ‘our house’
2 pers. sing. amaici-cé ‘You (sing.) love.’ uya-cé ‘your (sing.) house’
plur. amaici-lom ‘You (plur.) love.’ uya-lom ‘your (plur.) house’
3 pers. sing. amaici-p ‘He/she loves.’ uya-p ‘his/her house’
plur. amaici-pán ‘They love.’ uya-pán ‘their house’
Table 3.33 Lule future and imperative

verbal paradigms
Future Imperative
1 pers. sing. -n-s –

plur. -n-cen -pe, -cen
2 pers. sing. -psse + V, −y
plur. -n-(pe)lom -uan
3 pers. sing. -n-t -pep, -to
plur. -n-pan -(n-)pan
‘I pour (a liquid)’. The choice between -ç and -s appears to be arbitrary. As for substan-
tives, Machoni affirms that they normally take -s, but that some take -ç; e.g. y(h)á-ç ‘my
brother’.
The third-person-singular ending of the verbs has two forms: -p and -t. According to
Machoni, the verbs that take -t instead of -p are those that have roots ending in -a-, -e-,
-u-, -li- and -qui-, e.g. e-t ‘he sees’, taclu-t ‘he throws’.
The Lule verbal system comprises different tenses and moods, as well as devices for
subordination and nominalisation, all indicated by means of suffixation. There are no
indications of object encoding within the verb. Near and remote past are characterised
by the affixes -ni- and -(y)ate-, respectively, which are inserted between the root and the
person and number affixes. The imperative and, to a lesser extent, the future paradigm
have special endings for person and number. These are represented in table 3.33.
Apart from the second-person-singular ending all future endings contain an element
-n-. This same element is used to distinguish between an unmarked active participle in
-ton and a future active participle in -n-ton, e.g.:
(398) amaici-tòn ‘he who loves’

amaici-n-tòn ‘he who will love’183
183 In this case Machoni uses a grave instead of an acute accent. The reason for it is not known.
Both participles can be used as finite verbs replacing present-tense and future forms,
respectively. The second-person-singular imperative ending consists of a vowel -y after
roots ending in a consonant, and a lengthened final vowel after roots ending in a vowel.
This is indicated by doubling of the last vowel. It is not sure whether the added vowel
was pronounced separately, as vowel length, or that it was merely stressed. There are
some irregular imperatives, such as cai ‘go!’, ei ‘see!’ and nei ‘come!’ (from ca-, e- and
ne-, respectively).
(399) taclu-ú ‘throw!’

taclup-y ‘turn upside down!’
The subordinate form of the verbs is formed by adding the element -lé to the unmarked
tense of the indicative (e.g. amaici-ç-lé ‘when I love’). The element -lé coincides in
form with a case marker that indicates location involving motion (‘into’, ‘from’). The
interpretation of the case marker depends on the meaning of the verb or the context. The
second lé in (400) and (401) is described as a partı́cula de ornato (ornamental particle)
by Machoni.
(400) uya-lé lé ne-ç

house-L – come-1S.SG
‘I come from the house.’
(401) uya-s-lé lé ca-ç
house-1P.SG-L – go-1S.SG
‘I go to my house’
Lule nouns referring to human beings can be marked for plural, although this is not
obligatory. The exact rules of plural formation are difficult to glean from Machoni’s
grammar.
(402) cué ‘son or daughter’ cué-l ‘children’

zalá ‘young man’ zala-til ‘young people’
Personal possessive endings are added to the plural ending, if any, e.g.:
(403) Pedro cué-l-p uyé

Pedro child-PL-3P.SG not.be
‘Pedro has no children.’
As can be seen in (403), the genitive construction is characterised by possession marked

on the head. The modifier (possessor) precedes the head and remains unmarked.184 If
184 Adjectives follow the noun they modify, as in tó ytyps ‘lukewarm water’.
3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages 391
the head consists of the words pé ‘father’ or umué ‘mother’, the possessive ending -p is
left out whenever the possessor is present. If the possessor is not present, the ending is
compulsory.
(404) Juan pe-p ‘the father of Juan (not present)’

Juan pé ‘the father of Juan (present)’
The personal pronouns of Lule are not related to the verbal endings. Some of them,
however, can be related to verbal endings in the Vilela language: quis ‘I’, ué ‘you’, uá
‘we’, mi-l ‘you (plural)’. In Vilela -ki-s is a first-person-dual or plural verbal ending
(singular -ki), whereas -mi refers to a second person singular (Lozano 1977).185 The
reflexive pronoun in Lule is formed on the basis of a root lo- to which personal possessive
endings are added. Pronouns used in object function, including the reflexives, are located
before the verb.
(405) ué yó ne-ç

you take come-1S.SG
‘I have come to take you.’ [yó ne- ‘to take’, ‘to fetch’]
(406) lo-s tec-ç [los tekts ]
self-1P.SG fight-1S.SG
‘I battle’, ‘I fight’
The numeral system of Lule is not typically Andean in that it consists of only four basic
items: alapeá ‘one’, tamóp ‘two’, tamlip ‘three’ and locuép ‘four’ (cf. lucué ‘man’). The
numeral locuép provides the basis for higher numbers, as in locuép moitlé tamlip ‘seven’
(‘three added to four’) and in locuép moitlé locuép alapeá ‘nine’ (‘four added to four
plus one’). The word for ‘ten’ ysyauomp is derived from ys ‘hand’ and yauoó ‘together’.
It is used as a basis for further counting, as in ysavómp moitlé tamóp ‘twelve’ (‘two added
to ten’). Multipliers precede the number they multiply, as in tamlip ysavómp ‘thirty’.
Lule contains several loan words from Quechua, such as yapa- ‘to add’ (Quechua
yapa-), tanta ‘bread’ (Quechua t’anta), tity ‘tin’ (Quechua titi), utcú ‘cotton’ (Quechua
utku). Interesting are several loans from Spanish that have been modified almost beyond
recognition, e.g. caplá ‘goat’ (Spanish cabra), ceualá ‘millet’ (Spanish cebada), polotó
‘bean’ (Spanish poroto) and telecó ‘wheat’ (Spanish trigo).
3.9 Extinct and poorly documented languages of the Inca Sphere

As anticipated in section 3.1, the Middle Andean region was originally a linguistically
diverse area with numerous local languages. The decline of these languages was almost
185 It is interesting to observe that -l, -l and -s also act as nominal pluralisers in Matacoan (Tovar

1981; Gerzenstein 1994).

certainly triggered by the political unification of the area by the Incas, but many of them
were still widely spoken when the Spanish conquerors arrived. Much of the linguistic
diversity in the Middle Andean region was lost during colonial rule and in the first
century of independence. With the exception of the languages treated in the preceding
sections 3.4–3.8, all the languages that vanished during that period have remained un-
documented. Place names, personal names and, in the best case, short word lists must
be relied upon for a reconstruction of some of the characteristics of these languages.
Their existence is sometimes confirmed by mentions in the historical literature. For a
discussion of these languages we distinguish three relevant areas: Ecuador, northern
Peru and northwestern Argentina.
3.9.1 Ecuador
In the highlands of Ecuador it is possible to reconstruct much of the original language
situation, characterised by a series of distinct language areas that can be identified on the
basis of toponymy and other information. In the coastal area this is nearly impossible.
Coastal Ecuador was (and is) a densely populated area, but, apart from its northernmost
sector (see chapter 2) its linguistic past remains hidden. At the time of the conquest, the
ethnic group that inhabited the region of Guayaquil and the lower valley of the Daule
river was called Huancavilca (Cieza de León 1553). The Huancavilca were in the habit
of removing part of their front teeth, and this is what their name in the native language
is reported to have referred to (Velasco 1789). There were intensive trade relations with
the islanders of Puná and with the inhabitants of the port of Túmbez in northern Peru.
Jijón y Caamaño (1941: 385–97) and Paz y Miño (1961a) treat all these groups as a
linguistic unity, called Atallán by the latter. Jijón y Caamaño adds the language of the
area of Manta in the province of Manabı́ to this complex. He considers the Manabı́–
Huancavilca–Puná group to represent a single language with dialects, belonging to
a family that also comprises Mochica and the Cañar and Puruhá languages in the
highlands further east. Although other classifications (Loukotka 1968) have followed
this suggestion, there seems to be no significant empirical evidence for it. Several other
groups, such as the Indians of the Caráquez bay (Manabı́), the Chono of the Guayas
river basin, the Campaces of the upper Daule valley and the Colima (location unclear),
have not been associated with the Huancavilca complex. Jijón y Caamaño proposes a
Barbacoan connection for the latter two, suggesting that the Campaces may have been
identical to the Tsafiki-speaking Colorado (cf. section 2.17 ; see also Hartmann 1980).
Newson (1995) proposes a similar connection for the Chono.
In 1593 the Diocesan Synod of Quito issued an instruction calling for catechisms and
confessionaries in the following languages: Quillacinga, Pasto, Puruhá, Cañar, ‘the
language of the plains’ (la de los Llanos) and the Atallana (Jijón y Caamaño 1941:
385). Assuming that the Atallana language mentioned in this document was in fact the
Tallán language of Piura in present-day Peru (see section 3.9.2), we may identify the
‘language of the plains’ with that of the Huancavilca complex, which could have been
predominant in southern coastal Ecuador. Another document of 1605, Descripción de
la Gobernación de Guayaquil, refers to an extreme linguistic diversity in the Portoviejo
area in the province of Manabı́. The same source reports that in about 1600 Spanish was
already becoming the contact language in the coastal area (Hartmann 1980).
In the highland part of Ecuador we find a succession of languages, which from north to
south are the following: Pasto, Cara, Panzaleo, Puruhá, Cañar, and a language complex
comprising Palta, Malacato, Rabona, Bolona and Xiroa. These languages are mentioned
in early sources such as Cieza de León (1553) and the Relaciones geográficas de Indias
(Jiménez de la Espada 1965). They have been the object of studies by the Ecuadorian
scholars Jijón y Caamaño (1940, 1941) and Paz y Miño (1940, 1941a, b, 1942, 1961b),
who inventoried recurrent roots and endings, as well as other salient features of these
languages that can be deduced from place names, family names and historical accounts.
However important their work may be have been, a reassessment of the results following
modern techniques and insights is very much needed.
Pasto is usually classified with the Barbacoan family, together with its neighbour
Cuaiquer or Awa Pit (cf. section 2.17). The (extinct) variety of Muellamués (Nariño,
Colombia), of which a short word list was recorded during the nineteenth century, was
clearly related, though not identical, to Awa Pit and had a higher incidence of Quechua
loan words (cf. Jijón y Caamaño 1940: 197). It may have represented one of the last
surviving dialects of the Pasto language. Muellamués piar ‘maize’ can be recognised
in the place name Piartal, in Carchi province (Ecuador); the interpretation of -tal is
‘rock’ (Paz y Miño 1940). The Pasto territory was situated around the border towns of
Tulcán and Ipiales, striding the Colombian–Ecuadorian border. In Ecuador it included
the Andean part of Carchi. Typical elements in Pasto place names are -quer (Mayasquer,
Altaquer) and -es (Ipiales, Pupiales, Túquerres). The language has been replaced by
Spanish.
The territory of the Cara or Caranqui language extended from the valley of the
Mira and Chota rivers to the city of Quito, covering the Andean region situated in the
province of Imbabura and in the north that of Pichincha. Important centres in this area are
Otavalo, Cayambe and Ibarra (Carangue). In a study of local place and family names,
Salomon and Grosboll (1986) show that the Cara linguistic area may have reached
the northern outskirts of Quito, where it bordered on the Panzaleo language further
south. The area is today inhabited by a dynamic indigenous population speaking a
variety of Quechua known as Imbabura Quechua. In particular the people of Otavalo
and surrounding villages are known for their rich folklore and economic success. Cara
may have been used until well into the eighteenth century (Caillavet 2000: 103), before it
became fully replaced by Quechua. A possible substratum element from Cara preserved
in modern Imbabura Quechua is the use of a labial fricative f (from earlier Quechua
*ph ; cf. section 3.2.5). Place names with characteristic stems and endings, as well as a
fair number of family names mentioned in the colonial documents, constitute evidence
of the past existence of Cara and give an impression of its phonology. Some endings
(e.g. -mued, -pud ) are shared with Pasto, suggesting some kind of relationship between
the two languages. River names in -pı́/-bı́ (e.g. Calapı́, Chulxabı́) suggest a connection
with the Barbacoan languages, where this element has the meaning of ‘water’ or ‘river’.
Paz y Miño (1941a) favours the view that Cara was related to Tsafiki (cf. section 2.17).
Among the most frequent endings in place names is -quı́ [kı́] (compare Pasto -quer), for
instance, in Cochasquı́, Pomasquı́ and Tuntaquı́. Caillavet identifies further toponymical
elements, such as -puela/-buela ‘field’, -pigal ‘earth ridge’ and -yasel ‘artificial mound
(locally known as tola)’. A recurrent element in personal names is ango, identified as
‘lord’. It is found, for instance, in the name of the sixteenth-century cacique of Otavalo,
Otavalango, but it also occurs by itself (Caillavet 2000: 28). Unfortunately, there are
hardly any Cara forms of which the meaning is known with certainty. One of the very
few cases is the element -piro/-biro, identified as ‘lake’ or ‘pond’ in the Relaciones
geográficas, which is found in the place names Pimampiro and Tumbabiro (Jiménez de
la Espada 1965, II: 236, 248).186
Paz y Miño (1961a) refers to an (extinct) Cara population on the Ecuadorian coast, near
Caráquez bay (Manabı́). Presumably, this idea was inspired by Velasco’s controversial
account of the Cara or Scyri rulers, who would have invaded the highlands from the
coast in pre-Inca times (Velasco 1789). Regardless of the question whether Velasco’s
account has any historical basis, there is no reason to assume that the Cara language
as we know it from toponymy and historical sources was the product of such a coastal
invasion.
The Panzaleo language owes its name to the Inca settlement of the same name,
situated not far from Quito (cf. Salomon 1986). The Panzaleo area extended from Quito
in the north to the town of Mocha in the south, covering the provinces of Cotopaxi
and Tungurahua, as well as the southern part of Pichincha. The main centres in the
area, apart from Quito itself, are Ambato and Latacunga. The Panzaleo area may have
been the first in the Ecuadorian highlands to become thoroughly Quechuanised. Typical
toponymical endings of the Panzaleo area are -(h)aló (Pilaló, Mulahaló), -leo (Tisaleo,
Pelileo) and -lagua/-ragua (Cutuglagua, Tunguragua). The possibility that the original
language of the Quijos Indians, an ethnic group inhabiting the Andean foothills in the
western part of the province of Napo, was actually a variety of Panzaleo (as suggested
by Cieza de León) is discussed in Jijón y Caamaño (1940: 289–95). The evidence is not
186 Translated as ‘great lake’ and ‘bird lake’, respectively. Note, however, that pimán means ‘bridge’
in Tsafiki (Moore 1962).
conclusive. Loukotka (1968) in his classification presents Panzaleo as related to Páez

(see section 2.15). One of the sources for this view is Jijón y Caamaño (1940: 395–6),
who recognises that the evidence is weak and adds that any observed similarities, when
valid at all, may be attributed to contact.
Puruhá or Puruguay was once the dominant language in the present-day province of
Chimborazo, except in its southernmost section of Alausı́ and Chunchi, where Puruhá
overlapped with neighbouring Cañar. Jijón y Caamaño (1940: 417) leaves open the
possibility of an extension into the Chimbos area further west (province of Bolı́var),
but this idea is not accepted by Paz y Miño (1942). The main centre of the former
Puruhá area is Riobamba. In spite of this strategic position, the amount of information
on the language that has been preserved is disappointingly small. A late seventeenth-
century grammar is reported lost. Modern Puruhá descendants now generally speak
Quechua.
Family names frequently end in -cela or in -lema. Examples are Duchicela, the lineage
of Atahuallpa’s mother, reportedly of Puruhá descent (Velasco 1789), and Daquilema,
the name of a nineteenth-century rebel. Frequent endings of Puruhá place names are -shi
(e.g. Pilligshi), -tus (e.g. Guasuntús), -bug (e.g. Tulubug). More complex endings are
-cahuan, -calpi and -tactu. Some of these elements occur in combination with Quechua
roots, as in Supaycahuan (Quechua supay ‘devil’).
Puruhá is generally believed to be related to Cañar. Nevertheless, the two languages
are kept distinctly apart in the colonial Spanish sources. Some phonological character-
istics not usually found in the languages further north are shared by Puruhá and Cañar,
for instance, the use of voiced stops in word-initial position. Another interesting com-
mon feature is the existence of a voiced palatal fricative [ž] (written zh), which is not
demonstrably a reflex of earlier ly (as it is in some Ecuadorian Quechua dialects). It is
found word-initially in Cañar place names, e.g. Zhud (R. Howard, pers. comm.).
The Cañar language was spoken in the Ecuadorian highlands, in the provinces of Cañar
and Azuay, and in parts of southern Chimborazo (Alausı́). According to the Relaciones
geográficas de Indias (Jiménez de la Espada 1965, II: 279), it was also used in Saraguro
in the northern part of the province of Loja, in spite of the fact that the Indians of Saraguro
were hostile to the Cañar people further north. The Cañar people played a crucial role
in the history of the Inca empire. After they had been conquered, the Incas embellished
their principal town of Tomebamba (Cuenca), which was then destroyed during the
civil war between Atahuallpa and Huascar. Many Cañar people were sent to other parts
of the empire as mitimaes. Cañar troops were sought out for police tasks and special
assignments, which they continued to perform under Spanish rule. The influence of
Quechua became particularly strong in the Cañar region. Nevertheless, Cañar continued
to be used during the colonial period until it was eventually replaced by Quechua. Today,
the main centres of the area are Cuenca, Azogues and Cañar.
Cañar toponymy is highly characteristic and easier to recognise than that of Puruhá.
Nevertheless, some endings (-pala, -pud, -bug, -shi) are shared by the two languages.
Luckily, the Relaciones geográficas de Indias (Jiménez de la Espada 1965, II: 265, 274–
5, 278, 280) are somewhat more informative about the meaning of Cañar place and family
names than about those of other Ecuadorian highland languages. For instance, Leoquina
is translated as ‘snake in a lake’; Paute as ‘stone’; Peleusi (or Pueleusi) as ‘yellow field’;
Pueçar as ‘broom’. The Jubones river was called Tamalaycha or Tanmalanecha ‘river that
eats Indians’. A particularly interesting explanation concerns that of the plain in which the
city of Cuenca is situated. It was called Guapdondelic ‘large plain resembling heaven’.
This explanation allows an interpretation of quite a few place names, such as Bayandeleg,
Chordeleg, etc., which contain the element deleg ‘large plain’. Other place names contain
an element del (e.g. in Bayandel), which may have had a related meaning.187 The most
frequent ending in place names is -cay [kay]. It has been interpreted as ‘water’ or ‘river’,
presumably because of its occurrence in river names, such as Saucay and Yanuncay
(Paz y Miño 1961b). Other examples of endings occurring in Cañar place names are
-copte (Chorocopte), -huiña (Catahuiña), -turo (Molleturo), -zhuma (Guagualzhuma)
and -zol (Capzol). In addition to the original Cañar place names, Quechua names are
also frequent. The ending -pamba ‘plain’, for instance, is more common than the native
-deleg.
In the sixteenth century the province of Loja was inhabited by a number of small ethnic
groups, which the Spaniards found difficult to control. The language they spoke was
known as Palta. Another language, Malacato, was spoken in a limited area south of the
town of Loja. Caillavet (2000: 233) also mentions an enclave of Cañar speakers (Amboca)
situated to the northwest of that town. The Palta language had a wide distribution with
eastern outliers in the Zamora region and in the area of Jaén (department of Cajamarca,
Peru).188 Furthermore, its use may have extended to the area of Zaruma in the present-
day province of El Oro (Caillavet 2000: 216). Today the area, which no longer has a
substantial indigenous population, is mainly Hispanophone, with the exception of the
Quechua-speaking community of Saraguro in the north.
Several observations in the Relaciones geográficas de Indias seem to indicate that the
languages of the area were closely related. It is generally believed that they belonged to
the Jivaroan language family. The only Palta words that were recorded are not from Loja,
but from a mountainous area called Xoroca not far from Jaén (Jiménez de la Espada
1965, III: 143). Of these four words (yumé ‘water’, xeme ‘maize’, capal ‘fire’, let ‘fire-
wood’) the three first ones have been recognised as Jivaroan (Gnerre 1975). Many place
187 Bayán is the name of a shrub.

188 On Ecuadorian maps the area of Jaén is normally represented as a part of Ecuador, as a result
of the boundary conflict between the two countries.
names in the Loja area end in -anga (Cariamanga), in -numa (Purunuma) or in -namá
(Cangonamá, Gonzanamá). Gnerre (1975) interprets the two latter endings as instances
of a Jivaroan locative case marker -num ∼ -nam, whereas Torero (1993a) offers a dif-
ferent interpretation by associating the ending -namá with Aguaruna namák(a) ‘river’.189
Similar elements are found in place names further east in the area of Zamora, where
the Relaciones geográficas de Indias (Jiménez de la Espada 1965, III: 136–42) mention
the existence of three other languages, Bolona, Rabona and Xiroa (possibly a variant
of Jı́varo). For the Rabona language a certain number of vocabulary items, mainly
plant names, are listed. Torero (1993a) has identified some of these items as Candoshi
(e.g. chicxi ‘sapodilla’, Candoshi čı́či(ri)), but others are reminiscent of Aguaruna (e.g.
guapuxi ‘large guava’, Aguaruna wámpušik, Wipio Deicat 1996: 140). In spite of the
fact that Rivet (1934), Loukotka (1968) and Torero (1993a) have classified the Rabona
language as a member of the Candoshi family, we prefer to leave the matter undecided.
The affiliations of the Bolona language cannot be known for lack of data; it has been
classified as Jivaroan by Loukotka, whereas Torero suggests a connection with Cañar
based on the geographical location of Bolona. Few of the communities of the Zamora
region mentioned in the early sources have survived, as much of the area was devastated
by intensive colonisation during the sixteenth century and by the subsequent Jivaroan
uprising (cf. Velasco 1789; Taylor 1999).
As a final addition to this discussion of the pre-Quechuan Ecuadorian highland lan-
guages, we may observe that, with the exception of the languages of Loja and possibly
also of Panzaleo, these languages share a number of distinctive elements that seem to
point at a common origin or a long period of interaction at the least. Examples of such
elements are words ending in the voiced consonants -d and -g, the ending -pud, and sylla-
bles with a complex labial onset (mue, pue, bue).190 The fact that Pasto, with its probable
Barbacoan affinity, is one of the languages exhibiting these shared characteristics seems
to suggest a Barbacoan connection for this whole group of languages. Although far
from being proven, such a connection is more likely than the alleged relationship with
Mochica advocated by Jijón y Caamaño.
3.9.2 Northern Peru

In seventeenth-century sources the northern Peruvian Andes and coast are singled out
as a multilingual area that resisted Quechuanisation. Blas Valera, cited in Garcilaso de
189 The usual meaning of namák(a) in the Jivaroan languages is ‘fish’, but in Aguaruna it has the
additional meaning of ‘river’.
190 Complex labial onsets are also found in Awa Pit (Curnow 1977: 34), where labial consonants
have a labial off-glide before the high central vowel ([pw ], [mw ]). Allophonic labial off-glides
following labial consonants have furthermore been encountered in Muisca (section 2.9.2), in
Shuar and in Yanesha (chapter 4).
la Vega (1609, Book 7, chapter 3), reports that the Quechua language was ‘unknown in
the administrative domain of Trujillo and other provinces belonging to the jurisdiction
of Quito’. The present situation and the little we know of past linguistic developments
in northern Peru give support to Valera’s impression. A number of non-Quechuan native
languages survived the conquest, giving way to Spanish often as late as in the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries. On the other hand, Quechua is not absent from the area. It has
survived in three distinct areas of northern Peru (see sections 3.1, 3.2.3), and it was
certainly more widely used in the sixteenth century (Rivet 1949: 2–3).
The near absence of documentation concerning the non-Quechuan languages of north-
ern Peru is striking. Except for the cases of Mochica and Cholón, there are neither gram-
mars, nor dictionaries of these languages, not even the sort of religious texts that Spanish
priests considered necessary for evangelisation (cf. Adelaar 1999). An essential source
is Bishop Martı́nez Compañón (1985 [1782–90]), who provided word lists of 43 items
each for nine languages spoken in his diocese (figure 1): Castilian (Spanish); Quechua;
the Yunga language of the provinces of Trujillo and Saña (Mochica, see section 3.4);
the languages of Sechura, Colán and Catacaos in the province of Piura (Sechura and
Tallán); the Culli language of the province of Huamachuco; and the languages of the
Hivitos and Cholones of the Huailillas missions (Hibito and Cholón, see section 4.11).
The most comprehensive attempt to reconstruct the colonial language map of northern
Peru is found in Torero (1986, 1989, 1993a). In this context a distinction should be
made between languages effectively mentioned in the sources and those whose former
existence is merely assumed on the basis of clusters of place and family names with
shared characteristics.
Among the well-attested languages are those of the coastal plain of the department of
Piura. One of these languages, known as Sechura, has been associated with the port of
Sechura at the mouth of the Piura river. A second language or language group, generally
kown as Tallán, was found along the Chira river, including the coastal towns of Colán and
Paita, and along the middle course of the Piura river, where it was spoken, among other
places, in the important indigenous community of Catacaos (near the town of Piura).
Ramos Cabredo (1950) provides an extensive list of place names, family names and
native words still in use in the Tallán area. Typical endings for place names are -lá,
-rá (e.g. Narigualá, Tangarará) and -ura (as in Nonura, Piura, Sechura). Family names
often end in -lupú (Belupú, Sirlupú), in -balú∼-gualú (Cutibalú, Mangualú), in -naqué
(Lequernaqué, Yamunaqué) and in -cherre (Pacherre, Tupucherre).
The word lists included in Martı́nez Compañón exemplify the so-called ‘languages of
Colán and Catacaos’, as well as ‘the language of Sechura’. The Colán and Catacaos lists
represent closely related varieties, possibly dialects of the same language. A notable
difference between the two is that Catacaos often features a final element -chim on
nouns, whereas the Colán equivalents only have a nasal (e.g. Catacaos puruchim, Colán
399
C Patrimonio Nacional, Madrid
Figure 1 Martı́nez Compañón’s word lists of 43 items each for nine languages spoken in his diocese. Copyright
purum̃ ‘sister’). Another interesting correspondence is phonological. Colán syllable-

initial dl (possibly a voiced lateral affricate) is either d or l in Catacaos (e.g. Colán
dlacati, Catacaos lacatu ‘to die’; Colán dlurũm, Catacaos durum ‘earth’).191 Martı́nez
Compañón’s Sechura list represents a separate language, because only about 30 per cent
of the vocabulary items show a similarity with either Colán or Catacaos (Torero 1986:
532). Among the possible cognates we find Sechura lactuc, Colán dlacati, Catacaos
lacatu ‘to die’; Sechura colt, Catacaos ccol ‘meat’; Sechura ñangru, Colán nag ([naŋ]?),
Catacaos nam ‘moon’; Sechura fic, Catacaos vic ‘wind’; Sechura yaibab, Colán yaiau,
Catacaos yeya ‘bird’.
In 1863 Richard Spruce obtained from a native speaker in Piura a list of 38 words
which was later published by von Buchwald (1918). It has been identified as a sam-
ple of the Sechura language on the basis of a comparison with Martı́nez Compañón’s
word lists (Torero 1986: 542). The available data suggest that Sechura was a suffixing
language. Kinship terms often contain the elements -ma and -ñi (e.g. Spruce ñosma,
Martı́nez Compañón ñosñi ‘son or daughter’), which were possibly possessive endings.
Sechura verbs as listed in Martı́nez Compañón usually end in -(u)c (e.g. unuc ‘to eat’, nic
‘to cry’).
Rivet (1949) treats Sechura and Tallán as a single language, which he calls Sek,
adopting the denominaton Sec introduced by Calancha (1638). This procedure is justly
rejected by Torero (1986). However, the possibility of a language family, including
both Sechura and Tallán (Colán–Catacaos), must remain open, considering the limited
number of vocabulary items that are available.
A possible extension of the Sechura language was found in the desert oasis of Olmos
in the present-day department of Lambayeque. When referring to the Sec language,
Calancha observed that the people of Olmos ‘change letters and endings’ (mudan letras
y finales). Although the name ‘Sec’ could also have referred to the Tallán language,
later ethnographic research by Brüning (1922) gives support to the idea of a special
connection between Olmos and Sechura suggested by oral tradition and the coincidence
of weaving terminology. For a detailed discussion see Torero (1986), who ventures the
idea that a Callahuaya-type situation may have existed in Olmos (cf. section 3.5). Finally,
the linguistic unity of Olmos and Sechura–Tallán is confirmed in an archival document
of 1638 enumerating the administrative and religious divisions of the northern Peruvian
coastal region (Ramos Cabredo 1950: 53–5).
The original language situation in the interior highland part of the department of
Piura with its centres Ayavaca and Huancabamba is difficult to reconstruct. Today its
predominantly indigenous population is reported to be Spanish-speaking. During the
colonial period Quechua may have been the dominant language in that area, as was
191 It may be assumed that the difference between -um̃ and -ũm reflects an inconsistency in Martı́nez
Compañón’s orthography.
also the case further east in Tabaconas, in the area descending towards the Amazon
(Torero 1993a), and in the Huambos area further south in the department of Cajamarca.
A systematic investigation of place names and family names in eastern Piura remains a
task for the future.
Another well-attested language in northern Peru is Culli (or Culle). Culli was once the
dominant language in the Andean hinterland of the coastal town of Trujillo. Its former
area comprises four provinces of the department of La Libertad (Julcán, Otuzco,
Santiago de Chuco and Sánchez Carrión), the province of Cajabamba (department of
Cajamarca) and the province of Pallasca (department of Ancash). Pallasca was part
of the colonial province of Conchucos, which also included Quechua-speaking areas
in northern and eastern Ancash. The Culli translation of Conchucos is ‘water land’
(coñ ‘water’, chuco ‘land’). The Marañón river valley constituted the eastern border
of the Culli-speaking area. To the southwest it bordered on the Quingnam language of
the Trujillo coastal plain (see section 3.4). Further extensions of the Culli language in
Ancash and Cajamarca, as well as the possibilities of overlap with other languages, are
controversial.
The main historical centre of the Culli-speaking people was the town of Huamachuco,
now the capital of Sánchez Carrión province. It was the seat of an important religious cult
to the creator god Ataguju and the thunder god Catequil. In spite of violent persecution
by the Incas, the Huamachuco cult was still vigorous when the Spaniards arrived. The
Augustinian friars Juan de San Pedro and Juan del Canto, who soon after the conquest
attempted to convert the local population, wrote a detailed account of local beliefs and
customs, in which a Huamachuco language and several native names and terms are
mentioned (Castro de Trelles 1992). Towards the end of the sixteenth century a travel
account by Toribio de Mogrovejo, archbishop of Lima, of his visit to the area refers to
a language called Linga or Ilinga (cf. Rivet 1949). Notwithstanding the fact that these
terms seem to represent modified versions of lengua del Inga ‘language of the Inca’,
the geographic setting indicates that only Culli could be meant. The earliest mention of
the name Culli itself is found in the abovementioned document of 1638 published in
Ramos Cabredo (1950). For a historical overview of the Culli language and its speakers
see Silva Santisteban (1982).
The primary sources for Culli are two word lists. One list of 43 words, referring to the
Culli language of the province of Huamachuco, is found in Martı́nez Compañón (1985
[1782–90]), whereas the other was collected around 1915 in a hamlet called Aija near
Cabana in the province of Pallasca by a local parish priest, father González. This list of
19 words was published in Rivet (1949: 4–5).192 In recent years, a number of students
from the area (Flores Reyna 1996; Andrade Ciudad 1999; Cuba Manrique 2000; Pantoja
192 We have obtained the information concerning the place of origin of the González list from the
field notes of Walter Lehmann, kept at the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin.
Alcántara 2000) have succeeded in expanding the lexical data base of the Culli language
by collecting words and expressions still in use today. Flores Reyna reports that Culli was
spoken by at least one family in the town of Tauca (Pallasca province) until the middle
of the twentieth century. Although Culli has been replaced by Spanish, the possibility
that speakers survive in remote villages cannot be ruled out entirely (cf. Adelaar 1988).
The ethnolinguistic atlas published by Chirinos Rivera (2001) contains several mentions
of municipalities in the Culli area for which the census of 1993 reports the existence of
speakers of an unidentified native language.
In spite of the extremely scanty data it is possible to tentatively determine a number of
characteristics of the Culli language. In compounds a modifying element precedes the
head, like in Quechua. Verb forms as given by Martı́nez Compañón all end in a suffix -ù
([u]∼ [w]), e.g. canquiù ‘to laugh’, čollapù ‘to die’ (see below for a possible interpreta-
tion of the diacritic on č ). The language may have had prefixes for possessive personal
reference considering the fact that several kinship terms feature an initial velar stop
(viz. quinù ‘father’, quimit ‘brother’, cañi ‘sister’). Possibly, the same element is found
in quiyaya, a form of ritual singing, which may contain the word yaya ‘god’.193 Like
Quechua and Aymara, the language may have had a three-vowel system (a, i, u). The oc-
currence of mid vowels (e, o) is limited and seems to be favoured by the neighbourhood
of c, qu, g, no matter if the latter occur in clusters or by themselves (e.g. mosčár ‘bone’,
ogǒll ‘child’, coñ ‘water’; Quesquenda ‘a place name’). It suggests that the language
may have had a velar–postvelar opposition, an assumption fed by the fact that Martı́nez
Compañón often uses a haček-style diacritic when c and g are adjacent to a mid vowel or
a. Other instances of mid vowels (especially o) are found in the environment of r (e.g. in
the place name Choroball) and in contexts in which vowel harmony appears to play a role
(e.g. in Chochoconday, the name of a mountain). Variation between mid and high vowels
is frequent in place names (e.g. Sanagorán, Candigurán; Corgorguida, Llaugueda). A
characteristic feature of Culli is that the second member in a compound often begins
with a voiced stop, producing internally dissimilar consonant clusters when the first
member ends in a voiceless consonant (for instance, in place names such as Chiracbal
and Ichocda). If the same element occurs independently or in initial position it has a
voiceless stop. Compare, for instance, Chusgón (a river name) and Conchucos (both con-
taining the element con∼-gon ‘water’); also Parasive and Pushvara. Frequent endings of
Culli place names are -day∼-tay ‘mountain’, -chugo∼-chuco ‘earth’, -gon∼-goñ ‘water’,
-gueda ∼-guida∼-queda ‘lake’, -gurán∼-gorán ‘river’, -pus ∼-pos ‘earth’; the elements
193 The analysis of qu(i)- as a prefix is, however, contradicted by the fact that some early Culli
family names contain the element quino (Pantoja Alcántara 2000). In addition, Torero (1989:
225) recognises the element quinù in the divinity name paiguinoc ‘lord of the guinea-pigs’
mentioned in the Augustinian chronicle. Note also that quiyaya appears as quillalla in Martı́nez
Compañón.
-bal∼-ball, -bara∼-huara∼-vara, -chal, -da∼-ta, -gal∼-galli∼-calli, -ganda, -maca,

-sicap∼-sácap(e) ∼-chácap(e), all of undetermined meaning; and the borrowed ele-
ments -malca ‘village’ and -pamba ‘plain’ (from Quechua -marka and -pampa, respec-
tively). For an extensive list of Culli place names see Torero (1989). Place names com-
bining a Culli element with a Quechua or a Spanish element (Mumalca,194 Naopamba,
Cruzmaca) are frequent and indicate that these languages must have coexisted for a
considerable time.
From a phonological point of view, it is possible to distinguish several dialect areas.
Place names in the province of Pallasca and neighbouring parts of Santiago de Chuco ex-
hibit endings with the palatal final consonants -ñ [ny ] and -ll [ly ] (e.g. Acogoñ, Camball)
whereas non-palatal endings appear elsewhere (e.g. Chusgón, Marcabal). The distribu-
tion of palatal and non-palatal endings coincides with the geographical distribution of
the lexical endings -day and -ganda as noted by Torero (1989: 226).
The Culli word lists show a relatively high incidence of Quechua loans (e.g. aycha, Qu.
ayča ‘meat’; challuǎ, Qu. čaly wa ‘fish’; cuhi, Qu. kuši ‘pleasure’). The item miù ‘to eat’
appears to reflect a hypothetical pre-Quechua *mi-, which can be reconstructed on the
basis of modern Quechua miku- ‘to eat’ and miči- ‘to herd’. Other items, however, show
no relationship with Quechua whatsoever and suggest that the language is genetically
independent. Similarities with the Piuran languages and Mochica are also limited (cumù,
Colán cũm ‘to drink’; chuip, Catacaos chupuchup ‘star’; paihač, Mochica pey ‘herb’).
They may be due to contact.
The department of Cajamarca has a dense, predominantly indigenous population. The
accounts of colonial inspection visits (visitas) to this area (Remy and Rostworowski de
Diez Canseco 1992) feature a wide variety of family names reflecting the existence of
several unidentified languages. The toponymy is also highly varied and exotic. Never-
theless, only Quechua has survived in a small number of well-defined localities. Interest-
ingly, Cajamarca Quechua (Quesada Castillo 1976a, b) contains a substantial amount of
non-Quechuan vocabulary. In Pantoja Alcántara’s study of the Culli linguistic heritage
in the Spanish of Santiago de Chuco, an area quite distant from Cajamarca, the follow-
ing correspondences between Santiago de Chuco Spanish and Cajamarca Quechua have
come to light:
Santiago de Chuco Spanish Cajamarca Quechua

čukake šukaki ‘headache with nausea’
čurgap(e) čurʁ ap ‘cricket’
dasdas dasdas ‘hurry up!’
inam inap ‘rainbow’
194 The meaning of mu is ‘fire’; the other Culli elements have not been identified.
kaduly kašul ‘toasted maize’

kunguly kulkúl ‘tadpole’
lambake lambax. ‘tasteless’
mindż o mundż u ‘navel’
šayape .šayaϕ ‘a plant name’
širak(e) širax. ‘a plant name’
udž um ušun ‘(honey of) wild bee’
These and other examples suggest the existence of a Culli substratum in the area now
covered by Cajamarca Quechua, in particular in the district of Chetilla, where some
of the above items were recorded. A linguistic link between Cajamarca and the Culli
area is explicitly mentioned by Cieza de León (1553, chapter 81) when he observes
that ‘the province of Huamachuco is similar to that of Cajamarca, and that the Indians
have the same language and dress the same way’.195 However, in a careful analysis
of Cajamarcan place names, Torero (1989) concludes that Culli could not have been
the language of the department of Cajamarca because, apart from its southeasternmost
province of Cajabamba, the characteristic Culli toponymy is not predominant there.
Instead, he distinguishes two toponymical areas, each characterised by the frequent
occurrence of a particular ending in place names, and takes them to have represented
two hypothetical languages.
One area, defined by the ending -den and its variants -don, -ten and -ton, covers
the western and central highlands of the department of Cajamarca (including part of
the newly formed province Gran Chimú of the department of La Libertad), with east-
ward extensions reaching the river Marañón to the north of Celendı́n and in the val-
ley of the river Crisnejas. To the south the Chicama, Chuquillanqui and San Jorge
rivers constitute a boundary separating the -den area from areas with typical Culli to-
ponymy (cf. Krzanowski and Szemiński 1978). Torero associates the language repre-
sented by the -den area with the pre-Inca kingdom of Guzmango, which was centred
in the province of Contumazá (southwest Cajamarca). Espinoza Soriano (1977: 449,
456) found three indigenous words in a report commissioned by a member of the
Guzmango royal lineage, Sebastián Ninalingón, curaca (chieftain) of Xaxadén. Ac-
cording to Torero (1989: 232), these three words (nus ‘lady’, losque ‘young girl’, mizo
‘female servant’) are attributable to the -den language. Further research is needed in
order to explain the contradiction between the absence of Culli place names in western
Cajamarca and the presence of a sizeable amount of Culli lexicon in the Quechua of that
same area.
195 ‘La provincia de Guamachuco es semejable a la de Caxamalca y los indios son de una lengua
y traje . . .’
The second toponymical area, defined by the ending -cat(e) and its variants -cot(e),
-gat(e) and -got(e), includes the town of Cajamarca and stretches out in a triangular shape
towards the Marañón river, covering parts of the provinces of Cajamarca, Celendı́n and
San Marcos. It also includes a stretch of land in the northern provinces of Cutervo and
Chota. As Torero observes, the ending -cat and its variants are found throughout most of
northern Peru. The same holds for a few other endings occurring in the area at issue (-can,
-con, -gan, -gon, -uran). It appears that the -cat area, as defined above geographically, is
a toponymical default area characterised by a low incidence of -den endings and other
recognisable toponymy (although there is a substantial cluster of Culli place names not
far from Celendı́n). Torero (1989: 236–7) ventures the idea that -cat (∼-cot) may have
had the meaning of ‘water’ or ‘river’. In that case, a further comparison with the Cholón
language of the Huallaga basin would be in order. Torero notes that the place name
Salcot, which occurs at least three times in Cajamarca, is formally identical to Zalcot, a
Cholón village meaning ‘black water’ in that language.
The Relaciones geográficas de Indias (Jiménez de la Espada 1965, III: 143–6) contain
a document entitled Relación de la tierra de Jaén (Account of the Land of Jaén). It offers
a detailed description of the complex language situation in the area surrounding the bend
of the Marañón or Upper Amazon in the northern part of the present-day departments
of Amazonas and Cajamarca. This document has been analysed in Rivet (1934) and in
Torero (1993a). It registers the existence of a particular language called the language of
Sacata. Other sources associate the people of Sacata (or Zácata) with a well-organised
ethnic group, the Chillao, who inhabited opposite banks of the Marañón valley near
Cujillo (province of Cutervo) and Yamón (province of Utcubamba, Amazonas). Only
three Sacata words are mentioned in the Relación: unga ‘water’, umague ‘maize’ and
chichache ‘fire’. On this basis Rivet proposed a relationship with the Candoshi languages,
whereas Torero opts for an Arawakan connection. The factual basis is insufficient for
either conclusion.
The bottom of the Marañón valley between the mouths of its tributaries Chamaya
and Utcubamba, and the lower reaches of the valleys of these two rivers (province of
Bagua, Amazonas; province of Cutervo, Cajamarca) were inhabited by an ethnic group
called Bagua (Torero) or Patagón de Bagua (Rivet). Three words of this language are
mentioned: tuna ‘water’, lancho ‘maize’ and nacxé ‘come here’. Although tuna coincides
with the word for ‘water’ in many Cariban languages, the evidence is not sufficient to
allow any reliable classification.
The area of Old Jaén, Perico and Tomependa (province of Bagua, Amazonas; province
of Jaén, Cajamarca) on the left bank of the Marañón near its confluence with the
Chinchipe was inhabited by a population called the Patagón (or Patagón de Perico
in Rivet’s terminology). The four words that have been recorded, tuná ‘water’, anás
‘maize’, viue ‘firewood’ and coará ‘sheep’ (here to be interpreted as ‘sloth’), indicate
a northern Cariban affinity, for instance, with Carijona or with one of the languages of
the Roraima region (Torero 1993: 451).
Another group, the Tabancale, inhabited the village of Aconipa in an elevated area
near the upper reaches of the Chinchipe river, approximately in the border area of Ecuador
(province of Zamora-Chinchipe) and Peru (province of San Ignacio, Cajamarca). Five
words of their language have been recorded: yema ‘water’, moa ‘maize’, oyme ‘firewood’,
lalaque ‘fire’ and tie ‘house’. Their language must remain unclassified because these
words do not exhibit any significant affinity with other known languages.
Still another unclassified language was spoken in the villages of Copallén (today
Copallı́n), Llanque and Las Lomas del Viento. They were situated on a plateau dominat-
ing the Utcubamba river east of Bagua (provinces of Bagua and Utcubamba, Amazonas).
Of this language of Copallén the following words have been recorded: quiet ‘water’,
chumac ‘maize’, olaman ‘firewood’ and ismare ‘house’. Apart from a similarity between
its word for ‘water’ and the element -cat treated above, nothing can be said about the
genetic affinities of this language.
The Chirino constituted one of the principal ethnic groups in the area, occupying
parts of the valley of the Chinchipe river and a vast territory extending east of it. Their
language has been identified as a member of the Candoshi family (Rivet 1934, Torero
1993a). The four words of this language that were recorded in the Relación de la tierra
de Jaén are yungo ‘water’, yugato ‘maize’, xumás ‘firewood’ and paxquiro ‘grass’. For
the Jivaroan-speaking Xoroca see section 2.9.1. All the languages found in the region of
Bagua and Jaén in the sixteenth century disappeared at an early stage. The region north
of the Marañón is now partly occupied by Aguaruna and other Jivaroan peoples.
The pre-Inca native peoples of the highlands of the department of Amazonas (capital
Chachapoyas), situated east of the Marañón river, were known as the Chachapoya.
Impressive ruined cities such as Cuélap and Gran Vilaya are witnesses of important
past cultural developments in this remote area. After being conquered by the Incas, a
large portion of the Chachapoya were taken away to other areas of the Inca empire, for
instance, to the surroundings of Cuzco and Quito, whereas Quechua-speaking mitimaes
were sent to the Chachapoyas region. The original language of the region is sometimes
referred to as Chacha. It is nearly unknown, although some of its most conspicuous
characteristics could be recovered from local place names and family names.
Zevallos Quiñones (1966) collected several hundred Chachapoya family names from
colonial documents. Taylor (1990a) has compared these names with present-day family
names recorded by him in the Chachapoyas region. Several of the colonial names are still
in use. As a result of transmigration, Chachapoya family names were also found in other
parts of the former Inca empire, for instance, in Quito, where one Juan Yoplachacha
was found among the Chachapoya mitimaes (Salomon 1986: 160); cf. the Chachapoya
family name Yoplac. Taylor observes that many Chachapoya names are monosyllabic
(Cam, Hob, Oc∼Occ, Sup, Yull). Others are formed by the repetition of a monosyllabic
element (Pispis, Solsol), or consist of a combination of elements (Detquisán, Subsolsol,
Visalot). Voiced stops could occur word-initially (Det, Buelot, Gaslac), suggesting that
there was an opposition between voiced and voiceless stops in that environment. Initial
consonants often appear to be palatalised or velarised (for instance, in Guiop [gy op] and
in the place name Cuémal [kw émal]), although an interpretation in terms of rising diph-
thongs is also possible. The only frequent non-rising diphthong was uy (e.g. Puyquı́n).
The language seems to have distinguished at least five vowels (a, e, i, o, u). Taylor
reports that the pronunciation of some Chachapoya family names was modified due to
the radical phonetic changes that affected the local Quechua that eventually replaced
the Chachapoya language (and is now itself nearing extinction); for instance, the name
Surueque or Zuruec became súrix in Quechua. Only in a very few cases could the mean-
ing of a name or of one of its constituents be traced. Taylor reports that the name Oc(c)
[ox] may have meant ‘puma’ or ‘bear’ according to an oral tradition of the village of La
Jalca.
Frequent endings in place names are -huala, -lap(e) and -mal (e.g. Shucahuala,
Cuélap, Yulmal). Taylor tentatively interprets these elements as ‘mountain’, ‘fortress’
and ‘plain’ on the basis of the type of location they usually refer to. An additional end-
ing -lon is mentioned by Torero (1989). Taylor, furthermore, notes the occurrence of the
endings -gach(e), -gat(e) and -gote (e.g. Shı́ngache, Tóngate), and suggests that these
could mean ‘river’, ‘water’. Note the striking parallelism with Hibito kači and Cholón
kot ‘water’, ‘river’ (cf. section 4.11.1), and remember the discussion of the hypothetical
-cat language of Cajamarca.
The extension of the Chachapoya language area is a matter that remains to be in-
vestigated. In the department of Amazonas it may have included the provinces of
Bongará, Chachapoyas, Luya, Rodrı́guez de Mendoza and part of Utcubamba. In addi-
tion, the language may well have been used in parts of Cajamarca, in the area of Bolı́var
(ex-Cajamarquilla) in the department of La Libertad, and in the northwest and west of
the department of San Martı́n (where the ruins of Gran Pajatén, located in a depopu-
lated forest area, may have had connections with the ancient Chachapoya culture). The
possibility of connections with Hibito–Cholón, the language of Copallén and the -cat
language would be worth investigating if the data were not so scarce.
3.9.3 Northwestern Argentina

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Andean region of northwestern Argentina
was the home of a large ethnic group, the Diaguita, subdivided into numerous subtribes
(Calchaquı́, Capayán, Hualfı́n, Paccioca, Pular, Quilme). They occupied an extensive
area, including the provinces of Catamarca and La Rioja and the Andean parts of the
provinces of Salta and San Juan. They also inhabited parts of the pre-Andean provinces of
Santiago del Estero and Tucumán, which they shared with the Tonocoté (cf. section 3.8).
One of their most famous strongholds were the Calchaquı́ valleys (Valles Calchaquı́es),
which extend from north to south in the provinces of Salta, Tucumán and Catamarca.
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the name Diaguita was often used in a nar-
rower sense, referring to the inhabitants of Catamarca and La Rioja but excluding the
inhabitants of the Calchaquı́ valleys.
In a letter dated 1594 the Jesuit missionary Alonso de Barzana gives a detailed de-
scription of the ethnic situation in northwestern Argentina and of the languages that
were spoken there (Jiménez de la Espada 1965, II: 78–86). He reports that the language
of the Diaguita was called Caca, a name subsequently modified to Kakán. Barzana was
the author of a grammar of the Kakán language, which has not survived. Between 1630
and 1660, as a reaction to Spanish exploitation, the Diaguita united in a series of rebel-
lions, headed in their final phase by an Andalucian adventurer Pedro Bohórquez, who
had assumed the title of ‘Inca’ (Piossek Prebisch 1976; Isabel Hernández 1992). After
their defeat most of the Diaguita were deported to other areas. The Calchaquı́ valleys
were entirely depopulated. The Quilme tribe, which had fought particularly bravely, was
relocated in what is now the town of Quilmes near Buenos Aires. Others were distributed
as servants to Spanish colonists. Mainly as a result of these events, the Kakán language
soon became extinct.
Although almost nothing is known of the Kakán language, personal names and to-
ponymy are well represented. For the names of chiefs participating in the Bohórquez
rebellion see Piossek Prebisch (1976: 109) or Isabel Hernández (1992: 160). Diaguita
place names are found along the Andes in an area extending approximately from Jujuy
to Mendoza; for an inventory see Martı́n (1964). Lozano (1874–5) provides an explana-
tion for some elements of frequent occurrence, such as the ending -ahaho∼ -ahao∼ -ao
meaning ‘village’ or ‘town’, which usually follows the name of an ethnic subgroup or a
chief (e.g. Anguinahao, Colalao, Luracatao). A further example of this ending is found
in the place name Tuc(u)manaha(h)o, named after a chief who also gave his name to
the town and province of Tucumán (Nardi 1979: 11). Another ending meaning ‘village’
or ‘town’ is -gasta (e.g. in Antofagasta,196 Payogasta, Tinogasta). It is one of the most
characteristic endings throughout the Argentinian northwest, but it has been attributed
to Tonocoté by Lozano. Whereas Martı́n assigns the -gasta ending to southern Diaguita,
Nardi (1979: 7) keeps open the possibility that it may indeed have been a borrowed
element, because its area of distribution is wider than that of the Kakán language alone.
Serrano (1936) remarks that the endings -ao/-ahaho and -gasta often occur attached to
196 The Chilean town of Antofagasta, which dates from the middle of the nineteenth century, was
presumably named after the old mining settlement Antofagasta de la Sierra, situated in the
highlands (puna) of the province of Catamarca (Argentina).
the same root (e.g. Amanao/Amangasta, Tucumanao/Tucumagasta), suggesting that the

endings could have been switched at a certain point. A genuine Kakán ending is -vil
(e.g. in Quimivil, Yocavil), which appears to be related with notions like ‘water’.
Nardi (1979) provides the most comprehensive overview of what we know about
Kakán. He observes that most of the colonial authors who had access to this lan-
guage emphasise its guttural and ‘strangely difficult’ character. Kakán probably had
postvelar fricatives, both voiced and voiceless. This can be deduced from the fact that
the Quechua dialect of Santiago del Estero has some vocabulary derived from a non-
Quechuan substratum (probably Diaguita) in which these sounds occur (e.g. wax.alu ‘a
type of ant’, očoʁ o ‘an aquatic bird’). Many Diaguita names contain f (as in the place
names Famatina and Cafayate; and in Ficpam, the name of a chief); palatal consonants
(č, š, ly , ny ) are particularly frequent. The presence of r and a contrast between voiced
and voiceless stops are both uncertain. The materials included in Nardi’s article show a
low incidence of mid vowels, suggesting that the language may have had a three-vowel
system like Aymara and Quechua. By combining all possible information Nardi man-
aged to identify a few lexical items, such as ango/anco ‘water’, huilla ‘hare’, ismi ‘bird’,
mampa ‘irrigation canal’, talca ‘guanaco’, tancol ‘arrow’ and zupca ‘place of sacrifice’
(mentioned in Lozano 1754–55, II: 295). He, furthermore, ventures the opinion that in
Kakán adjectives may have followed the noun they modify, as in Angualasto, the name
of a river which today is called Rı́o Blanco (hypothetically, ango walasto ‘white water’).
There is evidence that the Kakán language was subdivided into dialects. The Capayán
variety of the La Rioja area has been mentioned as a separate language for which
interpreters were needed (Cabrera 1917; Canals Frau 1946). Another dialect name,
Yacampis, may have referred to the dialect of the Diaguita heartland in Catamarca
or to that of the Calchaquı́ valleys. Nardi (1979) holds the view that the differences
between these varieties were only dialectal, although he admits the possibility of a
division between a northern dialect including the Calchaquı́ valleys and a southern
dialect comprising most of Catamarca and La Rioja.
According to tradition, the Diaguita domain extended into northern Chile covering the
actual area of Copiapó, Vallenar and La Serena in the regions of Atacama and Coquimbo.
A town in the valley of Elqui still bears the name of Diaguita. However, the first Spanish
visitors to the area found a great linguistic variety on their journey southward through
northern Chile. Gerónimo de Bibar (1558), the chronicler of Pedro de Valdivia’s Chilean
expedition, reports that the inhabitants of the valleys of Copiapó and Huasco (Atacama
region) spoke closely related languages, but that the Indians of Coquimbo and Limarı́
(Coquimbo region) each had their own languages. The Chilean Diaguita have left very
few traces, even in the toponymy.
In the extreme northwest of Argentina, in the western parts of the provinces of
Jujuy and Salta, a presence of the Atacameño language and culture is attested. Local
groups are known as Apatama, Casabindo, Churumata and Cochinoca. The Quebrada
de Humahuaca, a valley which crosses the heart of Jujuy province from north to south,
is believed to have had its own language (Loukotka 1968), which is usually referred to
as Humahuaca (or Omaguaca). There is hardly any linguistic information on this group,
which apparently was subdivided into several smaller units called Fiscara, Jujuy, Ocloya,
Osa, Purmamarca and Tiliar (Isabel Hernández 1992: 127). The name of Viltipoco, the
ruler of Tilcara, who resisted the Spaniards in the sixteenth century, and the local sur-
name Vilte suggest a connection with the Atacameño language. In Atacameño bilti means
‘falcon’.
4
The languages of the eastern slopes
As the alter ego of Mario Vargas Llosa strolls through Florence, trying to put all matters
Peruvian out of his mind in order to read Machiavelli and Dante, he stumbles onto
an exhibit of dusty photographs of the Machiguenga. In El hablador (The Speaker;
1987), documentary and novel, this nation plays a central role, one of the countless
groups of Indians struggling in small bands on the eastern foothills of the Andes and on
the Amazonian plains, in order to maintain their cultural and linguistic integrity. This
chapter will try to give a necessarily brief account of the very diverse languages of these
groups.
Since it is impossible to say precisely where the slopes and foothills end and where
the plains begin, we artificially delimit the area discussed in this chapter as the republics
of Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia east of the Andes. The Chaco area of southeastern Bolivia
extends into western Paraguay and into northwestern Argentina, and these are included
as well. The Chaco languages are not covered by Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999). For
these reasons, we include some material on all of the Chaco languages, even though
they merit a more extensive separate treatment. Strictly speaking, this means that too
many languages are included: languages of the Amazonian plains cannot properly be
called Andean. On the other hand, it turns out that Quechua influence, one of the topics
we will be concerned with in this chapter, extends far beyond the foothills. Another not
altogether felicitous result of our delimitation is that the Colombian Amazonian plain,
which forms a natural continuation of that of Ecuador and Peru, is not discussed here (it
was dealt with in chapter 2).
A. C. Taylor (1999: 198–9) describes some of the relations that existed between
montaña and sierra cultures. Most of these were broken as a result of the colonisation
process, and highland and lowland groups grew apart. In pre-Columbian times,
Cochabamba (in what is now Bolivia) and Huánuco (in what is now Peru) served as
trading centres for lowland groups. In northern Bolivia the Callahuaya chiefdoms acted
as intermediaries between Quechua and Aymara cazicazgos and lowland Mojo, Tacana,
and lesser Arawak groups. In Peru, the Campa of the Ucayali river established links with
interfluvial Panoans and with the Piro on the Urubamba. The Incas had an open frontier,
CHA′PALAACHI
COFÁN TETETÉ (†) C O L O M B I A
SIO
Quito NA
SIONA SECOY
A S
TSAFIKI
E
Nap
QUECHUA o
C
L
O
R.
YA
ECUADOR HUAO
QUECHUA TEKIRAKA(†)
QUECHUA
Q
U
Guayaquil ARABELA EC .
Putumayo R
I
ZÁPARO ANDOA(†)
HU
A
HUITOTO BORA
AC CAHUARANO MURUI HUITOTO
RESÍGARO OCAINA MUINANE
H
TAUSHIRO
U
A
Cuenca OREJÓN
R
R
A QUECHUA IQUITO
U
TICUNA
COCAMA
Z
Iquitos YAGUA
SH
HUAMBISA Amazon R.
OMAGUA(†)
MAYNA(†) YAMEO(†)
A URARINA
N MAYO
U CANDOSHI
R
MAYORUNA
UA
COCAMA
A
AG
CHAYAHUITA
Piura P E JEBERO R U
MUNICHE CHAMICURO
Moyobamba CAPANAHUA
M
QUECHUA
R
ar
añ
Chachapoyas
SENSI(†)
ón
PIRO
R.
HIBITO(†)
aR
Uca
Cajamarca CHOLÓN(†)
B
PÁNOBO(†)
ya l
iR
.
Huallag
SHIPIBO
Map 7 Eastern lowland languages: Ecuador and northern Peru

4 Languages of the eastern slopes 413
SHIPIBO B R A Z I L
Hu
Pucallpa ISCONAHUA
a
M
llag
ar
aR
añ
U ca
ó
BO
nR
. SHI
yali
ASHÁNINCA
CA
.
R.
Q
AMAHUACA CULINA
U
MARINAHUA
E
C
SHARANAHUA
YANESHA′
H
CASHINAHUA
UA
Perené R
. ASHÁNINCA
YAMINAHUA
IÑAPARI
NO
MAP E R
PIRO
UAMAHUACA
TS CAMPA NAHUA
IG CAQUINTE KUGAPACORI
Puerto
Lima Maldonado
U
MACHIGUENGA MASHCO-
EN
ESE'EJJA
Ur u
G
PIRO
A
PIRO
ba
m HARAKMBUT
A
Ayacucho b
Ap
ur aR
im . Cuzco
ac
R.
I
V
Q U E C H UA
I
L
Lake
Titicaca
A
O
R
A
M
AY
CHILE
Map 8 Eastern lowland languages: southern Peru
stimulating links of dependency of local chieftains with Cuzco, but leaving local links
intact. As a result of the colonisation process, all these links were weakened considerably
or disappeared altogether.
The population of the lowlands is sparse, and far from homogeneous sociologically.
Taylor (1999: 194–5) divides the current population into racionales (‘rational people’,
mestizos or highland Indians who have abandoned their original ethnic identity), nativos
‘natives’ or mansos ‘tame people’ (Amerindian groups living in accessible settlements
but maintaining their ethnic identity), and aucas ‘wild, inimical people’ (groups who
maintain a distance from the mestizo world).
414 4 Languages of the eastern slopes
B R A Z I L
PACAGUARA
.
ios R
de D
Gu
e
dr ESE'EJJA
ap or
a
M
éR
ARAONA .
.iR
CHÁCOBO MORÉ
ITONAMA
Ben
CAVINEÑA
U
TOROMONA
CAYUVAVA JORÁ
PA
P E R
TACANA REYESANO
US Pana
CANICHANA
ER
MOVIMA Trinidad BAURE
NA
CHIMANE SIRIONÓ
Mam
guá R
San
LECO MOSETÉN
or é
.
Mi
MOJO R.
gue
GUARAYO
lR
Lake
.
Titicaca
La Paz B O L I V I A
YURACARÉ
Cochabamba YUQUI
Santa Cruz CHIQUITANO
Sucre AYOREO
CHANÉ
C
CHIRIGUANO
H
MATACO
TAPIETÉ PA R A G U AY
I
L
E
A R G E N T I N A
Map 9 Eastern lowland languages: Bolivia

O
B O L I V I A AYOREO
AN
B R A Z I L
GUI
CHAMACOCO
MA
CHOROTE
CHIR
TA
TAPIETÉ
C
O
TOBA-
MASCOY
CHOROTE GUANÁ
E
CHULUPÍ CHULUPÍ- ANGAITÉ
ASHLUSHLAY SANAPANÁ ˜
PAI-TAVYTERÃ
Orán O
NO AC PARAGUAY
UA AT
I G M
L
LENGUA
Para
IR
H PI
C Be L A Pilcom
rm G ay MAKÁ
o CHIRIPÁ
EMOK
Á
ejo
guay R.
R.
Salta
R. TOBA
I
MAKÁ
ANÍ
VILELA
R
Asunción
TOBA
UA
ACHÉ
H
G
A R G E N T I N A MBYÁ
MBYÁ
C
Resistencia Paraná
R.
VÍ
O
C
MO
Map 10 Eastern lowland languages: the Chaco area

B. Grimes (1996) lists 111 documented languages for the area (excluding for the mo-
ment lowland varieties of Quechua, sign languages, Low German and Amazon Spanish).
Twenty-one languages were claimed to be extinct in 1992, some more may have disap-
peared as we write this, and more yet when this book comes out in print. The number
of languages listed is somewhat arbitrary in that it is difficult to say where two varieties
should be counted as dialects, and where as separate languages. The Ethnologue uses
both criteria of linguistic distinctiveness and of ethnic self-identification. We see no
reason not to follow these criteria, although in details we will diverge from the list of
languages given there.
In any case, it is clear we are dealing with large numbers of languages. ‘No other area
of South America has greater linguistic diversity’, Steward (1948: 507) writes. There
are a few larger language families represented in the area under consideration, a number
of language families with few identified members and numerous language isolates. We
will begin by presenting the major language families that are represented in the area,
and then turn to the numerous language isolates or languages which so far have not
been definitively classified. We have chosen four languages for a more detailed sketch:
the Jivaroan language Shuar from the Ecuadorian–Peruvian border area, the almost
extinct isolate Cholón from the Andean foothills in northern Peru, Arawakan Yanesha
(Amuesha) further to the south, and the Bolivian language isolate Chiquitano. For all
languages sufficient information is available to gain some idea of the language, but no
recent and easily accessible detailed description in English.
It is difficult to convey to the reader the feeling of devastation and loss one has
when reading about the cultures and languages of the eastern slopes and the Amazon.
Although a sizeable portion of the original ethnic groups is still in existence, in some
form or another, their way of life has changed enormously. Since the armies of Inca
Tupac Yupanqui (1473–92) tried to conquer Madre de Dios and more northern lowland
regions, the vast but ecologically delicate Amazon basin has been under constant
siege from the highlands, with greater and greater success. From the 1540s onwards
Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans founded missions, and tried to ‘reduce’ the
Indians, nomadic or dispersed, into ordered settlements on the European model. In
the reducciones, ‘reductions’, as the Spanish friars called the settlements, different Indian
nations were mixed; sometimes new groups emerged. The greater concentration lead to
greater ease of ‘benign’ exploitation by the missionaries, but also to greater vulnerabil-
ity to epidemics; successive waves of smallpox for example in 1660, 1669, 1756 and
1762 decimated many groups (Phelan 1967: 47). In 1768 only 500 Chamicuro survived
a smallpox epidemic on the Huallaga river (Chirif and Mora 1977); another group that
suffered greatly from the epidemics are the Záparo. A. C. Taylor (1999: 240) claims that
‘the Indian societies of the central selva and further south were in fact infinitely better
able to resist the colonist missionary onslaught than those in the reducciones, even to
4 Languages of the eastern slopes 417
the point of being able, between 1742 and 1770, to clear the region of all non-natives’. The
Franciscans in that area in the early stages weakened indigenous societies less
than the Jesuits, because they tended to keep the groups contacted much more isolated
than the Jesuits.
Some groups were also subject to raids by other Indians. In the eighteenth century the
Arawakan Piro sold Machiguenga (also Arawakan) women and children on the market in
the Spanish hacienda Santa Rosa in Rosalino. The Piro and the Shipibo–Conibo (Pano)
enslaved many Amahuaca as well. Other Indian nations suffered from the colonial wars
between the Portuguese and the Spanish. The Omagua, who fell victim to Portuguese
slave-raiders, went from 15,000 to 7,000 in the forty years after 1641 (Chirif and Mora
1977). Later strife between the Peruvian and Colombian armies affected the Huitoto
Murui.
All these earlier assaults on their physical and cultural integrity pale, however, when
compared to the effects of the rubber boom in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries (Fawcett 1953; Taussig 1987). Rubber traders and companies enslaved many
Indians, and resettled entire groups. The number of deaths is staggering. The Huitoto
Murui went from 50,000 to 7,000 in the first decade of this century, the Bora from 15,000
in 1915 (Whiffen 1915) to 427 in 1940, and of the thousands of Omagua only 120–50
were left in 1925. Other groups gravely affected by the rubber boom are the Andoque,
the Capanahua, the Amarakaeri and the Ese ejja. After 1850 the Peruvian Corporation
enslaved many Campa and Yanesha (Amuesha) on the rivers Ene and Perené. Many
Chamicuro were dislocated, transported to the Yavarı́ and Napo rivers and to Brazil.
Since this period groups have managed for a considerable period at best to remain
stable or increase slightly in number. In the modern era, Andean governments have often
thought that the ‘empty’ spaces in the lowlands would be able to absorb the overflow from
the highlands, and promoted resettlement and ‘colonisation’ in the traditional Indian ter-
ritories. Mineral, logging and cattle-breeding companies have gained large concessions
and employ the local Indians in highly unfavourable conditions. Adventurous highland
settlers have profited from the isolation of many regions to establish themselves as patrón
and recreate conditions of virtual slavery through artificial indebtedness, forced barter
and plain violence. There are many cases documented where the Indians, part of a hunt-
ing/extraction economy, depend on the outsiders and are for example forced to supply
a fixed number of skins. It is reported that the Amarakaeri work for outsiders looking
for gold (Gray 1986). For the dependency of the Yagua on tourism and other external
forces see Chaumeil (1984).
In some areas these conditions have long persisted, for instance, in the area of Atalaya.
Now tribal groups have gained some rights to their territories there (Garcı́a, Hvalkof and
Gray 1998). It is one of the great challenges of our era to create the conditions under
which cultural pluralism can thrive, when no physical means of refuge is left.
A. C. Taylor (1999: 204–5) argues that the locations of individual groups have not
changed a great deal, but other changes are massive. In the sixteenth century the
Amerindian societies were much more diversified sociologically than they are now.
There were a number of highly Incanised tribes, such as the upland Jivaroans (cf. section
3.9.1), but also Jı́varo who lived in small bands in the jungle. There were groups like
the Záparo and interfluvial Pano that lived in small units and had no complex social
structure next to large riverside groups like the Conibo and Omagua.
A general issue of considerable interest that needs careful study is the role of the
respective sign languages in the Amazon basin. Nordenskiöld (1912: 315–21) reports
for the Gran Chaco, the border area between Bolivia and Paraguay, that within the mestizo
Spanish communities the deaf had a marginal position while in the Indian communities
they were fully integrated. The reason is the very different status of the respective sign
languages. The Tapieté, the example he uses, obligatorily express numbers and measures
through signs, and in their narratives, sign accompanies the spoken word continuously.
All members of the group can use sign with the deaf, and hearing Tapieté will often
use sign language among themselves, for example when they want to communicate
silently across a distance. Not all travellers, collectors and researchers were as careful
and unbiased as Nordenskiöld, who provides five pages of description of the Tapieté
signs, but reports of gestural communication abound. The reason we cannot deal with
this issue any further is lack of systematic study.
4.1 The Pano–Tacanan languages

The Pano–Tacanan language family is mostly spoken in the Peruvian lowlands, and to
a lesser extent in contiguous areas of Brazil and Bolivia. In Bolivia, Panoan languages
include Chácobo, Pacaguara and Yaminahua; and Tacanan languages: Araona, Cavineña,
Ese ejja or Huarayo, Reyesano (a language virtually extinct), Tacana and Toromona.
The Tacanan branch is represented in Peru by Ese ejja or Huarayo speakers on either
side of the Bolivian border.
The Panoan branch is spread out throughout the eastern Peruvian lowlands and, in
particular, near the Ucayali river basin, with extensions along the Brazilian border both
in the northern department of Loreto and the southern departments of Ucayali and
Madre de Dios. As d’Ans (1970) and Kensinger (1985) explain, there is no consensus
as to which Panoan languages have to be distinguished. Shell and Wise (1971) observe
that speakers of different Panoan languages may partly understand each other but that
Cashibo is not intelligible to speakers of other Panoan languages. Wise (1985) men-
tions the following extant Panoan languages in Peru: Amahuaca, Capanahua, Cashibo–
Cacataibo, Cashinahua, Cujareño, Isconahua, Mayoruna, Morunahua, Parquenahua or
Nahua, Pisabo, Sharanahua, Shipibo–Conibo–Shetebo and Yaminahua. The Ethnologue
adds Mayo, which is reported extinct by Wise (1985). Varese (1983) also mentions
4.1 The Pano-Tacanan languages 419
Marinahua and Mastanahua. Kensinger (1985) reports that they constitute a mixed group
with the Sharanahua. Chirif and Mora (1977) mention a small group called Chandinahua.
Amahuaca, Cashinahua, Mayoruna and Yaminahua are spoken in Brazil as well.
Many Panoan groups were contacted in the eighteenth century. The Cashibo were first
visited by missionaries in 1757. Around 1870 the Pachitea river Cashibo were subject
to attacks by the Setebo and the Conibo (Chirif and Mora 1977).
The Panoan languages are all closely related, and have been the subject of a number
of comparative studies by d’Ans (1970), Kensinger (1985), Shell and Wise (1971) and
Wise (1985). In Key (1968) and Girard (1971) the Tacanan languages are compared
phonologically and cognate sets are given for this subfamily, some members of which
appear to be rather closely related. These sources also present convincing phonological
evidence for the link between the Tacanan and the Panoan branches. Girard (1971: 4, 145)
stresses the puzzling fact that phonological changes in lexical roots have been limited
within both the Panoan and Tacanan branches, but that morphological changes, partic-
ularly in the ‘root extensions’, have been radical. This pattern points to an interesting
early contact phase in these language groups.
For many of the language groups in the montaña little is known about their history.
Lathrap (1970) speculates that the split in the Panoan groups resulted from demographic
pressures. While all Panoan groups presumably originate from the Cumancaya culture
(around AD 1000), we now find the Shipibo–Conibo being settled along the Ucayali
river basin, with an enriched culture (which also includes culture elements borrowed
from the Tupı́an Cocama). The Cashibo have been pushed into forest regions to the west
and the Amahuaca, Remo and Mayoruna into areas to the east, and their present culture
(as far as ceramics and other visual manifestations is concerned) is an impoverished
version of that found a millennium ago.
As far as information is available, the Panoan and Tacanan languages appear to be all
SOV. From Loos’s (1969) grammatical analysis of Capanahua it becomes clear that it
has postpositions and prenominal possessors. The position of the adjectives and other
modifiers is less clear: both prenominal and postnominal adjectives are mentioned. There
appears to be a validator or mood particle (glossed ‘affirmative’ here) in surface second
position, which can be preceded by the subject, the object, an adverb or even the untensed
verb.
(1) a. mani ta how-ti-ʔʔ-ki

banana AF ripe-TF-PN-AF
‘The bananas are ripening.’ (Loos 1969: 91)
b. mani ta ʔ n his-i
banana AF 1.SG see-PN
‘I see bananas.’ (Loos 1969: 91)
c. baʔʔkiš ta koka ka-no-š.iʔʔi-ki

tomorrow AF uncle go-F.EU-IU-AF
‘Uncle will go tomorrow.’ (Loos 1969: 91)
d. bana ta ʔ n ha-ipi-ki
plant AF 1.SG do-RE-AF
‘I planted.’ (Loos 1969: 91)
That the mood particle or validator occurs after the true first element of the clause
becomes evident when an (emphatic) first- or second-person pronoun is placed in initial
position. It is repeated in the clause, and thus it seems that the emphatic pronoun is
left-dislocated:
(2) mia taʔʔ min ʔ ani-ki

2.SG.EM AF 2.SG big-AF
‘YOU are big.’ (Loos 1969: 92)
The relation between ta(ʔ) and the particle -ki, which also has affirmative value, needs
further study. In the present tense -ki is obligatory with third-person subjects, but not
with first- and second-person subjects. In other tenses -ki is found with all persons (Loos
and Loos 1998: 34).
A remarkable feature of Capanahua concerns recursive negation with ma of a deictic
pronoun:
(3) ha: ‘he’

ha:-ma ‘not he’
ha:-ma-ma ‘not not he’ (= he indeed)
ha:-ma-ma-ma ‘not not not he’ (= someone else) (Loos 1969:41)
There is a set of adverbial subordinating suffixes (attached to the clause-final verb),

sensitive to the relation between the tenses of the adverbial clause and the main clause,
to possible coreference of the subjects (switch-reference), and to possible transitivity of
the matrix verb (Loos 1969: 67–77; Loos and Loos 1998: 660–3).1
(4) -kin simultaneous action (‘while’)

same subject
-ton simultaneous action (‘while’)
subject of subordinate clause is object of main clause
1 The resemblance between some of the Capanahua suffixes and their counterparts in Chipaya is
striking (cf. section 3.6): Cap. -kin / Ch. -kan ‘simultaneous; same subject’; Cap. -ton / Ch. -tan
‘simultaneous and previous, respectively; different subjects’; Cap. -non / Ch. -nan ‘subsequent
and simultaneous, respectively; different subjects’.
4.1 The Pano-Tacanan languages 421
-ya simultaneous action (‘while’, ‘when’, ‘if’, ‘because’)

different subjects
-ʔʔaš. preceding action (‘after’, ‘when’, ‘if’, ‘because’)
same subject
matrix verb intransitive
-š.on preceding action (‘after’, ‘when’, ‘if’, ‘because’)
same subject
matrix verb transitive
-noš.on subsequent action (‘in order to’)
same subject
-non subsequent action (‘so that’)
different subjects
A curious fact concerning switch-reference in Capanahua is that the subject of the matrix
verb in a switch-reference construction cannot be a full pronoun. The latter can only
occur in the subordinate clause, as shown by the contrast in (5):
(5) a. ∗ ka-ʔʔaš. ha: nokoti

go-SS 3.SG arrive
b. ha: ka-ʔʔaš. nokoti
3.SG go-SS arrive
‘Having gone he arrived.’ (Loos 1969: 88)
Often Capanahua utterances consist primarily of a verb with its suffixes. Verbs may be
marked as transitive with the (often causative) suffixes -ha, -n and -tan, and there is a
suffix -kʔt / -()ʔt that makes a verb medial or reflexive in nature (Loos 1969: 143–7).
There is also an extensive set of tenses. According to Loos, both for the past and for the
future, a four-way distinction is made:
(6) remote past x > 6 months

6 months > x > 1 month
recent past 1 month > x > 1 day
1 day > x > present
present x = present
immediate future present < x < few hours
near future x = tonight, tomorrow morning
distant future tomorrow < x
remote future x = some time in the future (Loos 1969: 28)
Valenzuela (2000a, b) has explored ergative splits in the Pano–Tacanan languages. Camp
(1985) shows how noun/pronoun contrasts, and among the personal pronouns, person
contrasts, determine ergative and absolutive case in Cavineña. When a third-person

subject interacts with a first- or second-person object, as in the independent clause in
(7), the third person is obligatorily ergative:
(7) ya-ce-ra hipe-etibe-ya-hu ta-ce-ra ya-ce isara-ca-kw are

1-D-E approach-on.way.back-PN-DS 3-D-E 1-D(A)
greet-arriving.object-RM
‘As we approached them, they greeted us.’ (Camp 1985: 44–5)
Similarly, when a second-person subject interacts with a first-person object, that second
person is obligatorily ergative:
(8) riya-ke wekaka mi-ra e-kw ana isara-nuka-wa

this-which day 2.SG-E 1-PL(A) greet-again-RE
‘Today you spoke to us again.’ (Camp 1985: 45)
Guillaume (2000) is currently studying Cavineña from the perspective of spatial deixis.
4.2 The Arawakan languages

The Arawakan language family, also referred to as Maipuran (David Payne 1991a), has a
wide distribution in many areas of Central and South America. A. C. Taylor (1999: 205)
observes that Arawakans lived in a fringe extending from the Pampas del Sacramento
in the central Peruvian forest area to the Bolivian llanos. This fringe was broken by
the Harakmbut and by Tacanan peoples. Taylor points at the variety in lifestyle among
the Arawak, which included montaña people (e.g. the Amuesha or Yanesha ), riverside
dwellers (e.g. the Piro), atomised small groups, such as the Machiguenga, and well-
organised chiefdoms, such as the Mojos. There was extensive trading between different
groups. Taylor also includes the Panatagua, an extinct group of central Peruvian montaña
dwellers among the Arawakans. However, the linguistic affiliation of the Panatagua has
never been established with certainty.
The Arawak family is represented in Bolivia by the Mojo language, which is split
into two subgroups identified by their ancient mission names, Ignaciano and Trinitario
(Olza Zubiri et al. 2002). A second Arawakan language is Baure. David Payne (1991b)
has shown that Apolista or Lapachu, a nearly extinct language which has been reported
by Montaño Aragón (1987–9) as still spoken, should also be classified as Arawakan.
The Chané, another Arawakan group, subjugated to the Tupi–Guaranı́ Chiriguano of the
Argentinian–Bolivian border area, preserved its language until the twentieth century.
Some smaller Arawakan groups (Paunaca, etc.) were incorporated by the Chiquitano.
Very close to the Andes in Peru we find Campa, Machiguenga and Yanesha . The
Yanesha have a history of frequent contacts with members of other groups; they live
Table 4.1 The relationship between the Arawakan languages of the pre-Andean area
(based on Payne 1991a, b)
Northern Apolista Apolista

Baniva–Yavitero Baniva del Guainı́a, Yavitero
Caribbean Guajiro, Paraujano
North Amazon Achagua, Cabiyarı́, Curripaco, Maipure, Piapoco, Resı́garo,
Tariana, Yucuna
Western Amuesha Amuesha
Chamicuro Chamicuro
Central Parecis-Saraveca Saraveca
Southern Bolivia-Paraná Baure, Guaná (Chané), Mojo (Ignaciano, Trinitario)
Campa Ashéninca, Machiguenga
Piro–Apurinã Piro, Iñapari
near the Cerro de la Sal, a site of traditional pilgrimages and trade. From 1635 onward
they were in contact with the Franciscans, and in 1742 there was the rebellion of Juan
Santos Atahuallpa, which led to the chasing away of the missions (Varese 1968). In 1881
the Franciscans returned. Taylor (1999: 241) argues that the Campa and Yanesha were
less dependent on the highlands for metal tools because they had their own forges.
Campa is subdivided into several subgroups, the largest being called Asháninca and
Ashéninca. Chirif and Mora (1977) mention a small group split off from the Machiguenga
called Kugapakori or Pucapacuri. A fourth Arawakan language in the southeastern low-
land is Piro, described by Matteson (1965). Campa and Piro are spoken in Brazil as well.
The remaining Arawakan languages in eastern Peru are Iñapari (in Madre de Dios),
Chamicuro and Resı́garo (both in Loreto). The latter two have also undergone profound
phonological change. Speakers of Resı́garo live near the Bora and Huitoto along the
Colombian border. There are no Arawakan languages spoken in Ecuador.
The Arawakan language family is one of the best-studied families in the area. Partly
based on earlier work of Wise and other scholars, David Payne (1991a) has managed
to reconstruct a large number of features of this language family, and put its internal
classification on a sounder footing. For the area under consideration the relationship
between the different Arawakan languages is as in table 4.1. This is a fairly conservative
grouping. It may be that southern and western Arawakan are closer than is apparent from
this classification.
David Payne speculates that Proto-Arawakan was highly agglutinative, with a set of
person prefixes (both on nouns and verbs) and a third-person-singular gender distinction.
There are also noun class suffixes, and a number of valency-changing verbal elements are
suffixal. We will not enter into a detailed discussion here of the typological characteristics
of the Arawakan languages, referring the reader to David Payne (1991a) and the work
cited there, and for syntactic properties to Derbyshire (1986) and Wise (1986). Wise
Table 4.2 Yanesha (Amuesha) phoneme inventory (based on Fast 1953 and Duff-Tripp
1998)∗
Labial Palatal labial Dental Palatal Retroflex Velar Palatal velar
Voiceless stops p py t ty k ky
Voiced stops b by
Affricates c č č.
Voiceless fricatives s š x
Voiced fricatives ž. γ
Nasals m my n ny
Lateral ly
Vibrant r
Glides w y
Front Central Back
Mid e (ə) o
Low a
∗ Yanesha vowels can be plain, long (a:, e:, o:), aspirated (ah , eh , oh ), or glottalised (aʔ , eʔ , oʔ ).
stresses the highly verb-centred character of the Arawakan clause, and surmises that
the original word order of the family was SOV, while now various orders are found,
including for the area under study SOV, VSO and OVS.
However, the special status of Yanesha , also called Amuesha (Wise 1976), as a lan-
guage strongly influenced by Quechua, warrants a more detailed presentation. This case
shows how far-reaching Quechua influence has been on some neighbouring montaña
languages. Not only has Yanesha adopted a great many Quechua loans, including some
core vocabulary, and the numerals from ‘six’ to ‘nine’, but it has also developed, for all
practical purposes, a three-vowel system like Quechua instead of the four-vowel system
of related Arawak varieties such as Campa. Furthermore, it has adopted a retroflex palatal
affricate č., according to Wise, from central Peruvian Quechua varieties such as Junı́n,
Pasco or Huánuco. Finally, it does not allow the vowel sequences common in related
Arawak varieties but impossible in Quechua. The phonological changes in Yanesha had
made it difficult for earlier researchers to classify the language as Arawak (Wise 1976).
4.2.1 Yanesha phonology

The consonant inventory of Yanesha is given in table 4.2. It is based on Duff-Tripp
(1998), which builds on Fast (1953) and Duff (1957). These two sources present a three-
vowel system for the language, which is expanded to four vowels in Duff-Tripp (1998).
The Yanesha texts available indicate that the overwhelming majority of words involve
the three vowels a, e, o. These vowels occur in different phonation types: they can be
plain, long, aspirated, or glottalised.2 A central feature of the consonant inventory is the
systematic opposition of palatal and non-palatal stops.
A word series as in (9) illustrates vowel length and glottalisation, as well as the
opposition between palatal, alveolar and retroflex affricates:
(9) čop ‘it grows’
č.o:p ‘corn’
ty o:p ‘an insect’
coʔ ‘fire’
ty oʔ ‘grandfather’ (Fast 1953: 192)
4.2.2 The principal grammatical features of Yanesha
Nominal elements
There is no grammaticalised gender in Yanesha , but a number of kinship terms are
indeed differentiated for natural gender. Words for brother and sister and son and
daughter are also differentiated for the gender of Ego (po- ∼ pw e- is a possessive
prefix; the variation is dialectal; some nouns take paʔ - or poʔ - instead; cf. Duff-Tripp
1997: 144):
(10) a. paʔ -moʔ našeny ‘his brother’
p-oʔ č. ‘his sister’
poʔ -se ‘her brother’
paʔ -moʔ než. ‘her sister’
b. po-čemer, pw e-čemer ‘his son, daughter’
po-čoyor, pw e-čoyor ‘her son, daughter’
poʔ -seny ‘his daughter’, ‘his/her niece (by sibling of
same sex)’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 25, 31, 33)
There are compounds with the nucleus at the end:
(11) a. šony ker-(e)po

worm-time
‘season of the worms’
b. ašoʔ š-esmeʔ ly
armadillo-tail
‘armadillo tail’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 25)
2 Vowel length and aspiration are not systematically indicated in Duff-Tripp (1997, 1998).
Some compounds have a non-nominal initial element:
(12) a. ataž.-poʔ
big-house
‘big house’
b. anož.-pw ec
sit-place
‘a place to sit’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 38)
Personal reference
Prefixal person marking in Yanesha can refer to possessors, objects, and subjects. The
paradigm is as in (13) (Duff-Tripp 1997: 29):
(13) ne- 1.SG ye- 1.PL

pe- 2.SG se- 2.PL
po/pw e- 3.SG po-/pw e- .. -et 3.PL
Notice that this system has been considerably simplified when compared to the
Proto-Arawakan system reconstructed by David Payne:
∗ ∗
(14) nu- 1.SG wa- 1.PL
∗ ∗
p- 2.SG hi- 2.PL
∗ ∗
l- 3.SG.MS na- 3.PL
∗ h
t u- 3.SG.FE (David Payne 1991a: 376)
When the prefix is a possessor, there may be suffixal person marking on the enclitic
element ‘to be’.
(15) no-pakly -oʔ -ce:n-en

1P.SG-house-L-be-1S.SG
‘I am/was in my house.’ (Wise 1986: 571)
The paradigm for this suffixal marking is as follows:
(16) -Vn 1.SG -Vy 1.PL

-Vpy /-Vp 2.SG -Vs 2.PL
∅ 3.SG -et 3.PL (Duff-Tripp 1997: 41)
The nature of the vowel in these suffixes is determined by phonological characteristics of

the base word. Notice the close link between these suffixes and the prefix paradigm
in (13).
When the possessor is not the original possessor of a noun, double prefixal marking
can occur:
(17) no-paʔ -smeʔ ly -o:r

1P.SG-3P.SG-tail-RL
‘my tail (which I have obtained from some animal)’ (Wise 1986: 575)
With respect to possession, four classes of nouns must be distinguished (Duff-Tripp

1997: 30–5):
(18) a. possessive marking obligatory (basic kinship terms such as ‘sister’

and ‘daughter’ and elements that always form part of a whole):
pw e-setmaʔ ty
3P.SG-horizontal.beam
‘the horizontal beam of a house’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 31)
b. possessive marker normally present (body parts, kinship terms

such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, abstract nouns, normally possessed
elements). These elements carry the privative marker -c/-Vc when
the possessor is not specified:
p-ony ony -ec
3P.SG-head head-PI
‘her/his head’ ‘head’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 31)
poʔ -ny ony ny ony -ec
3P.SG-word word-PI
‘her/his word’ ‘word’ (Duff-Tripp 1998: 603)
c. possessive marker optional (many objects, animals, kinship terms

such as ‘mother’ and ‘father’):
p-očk-ar oček
3P.SG-dog-RL dog
‘her/his dog’ ‘dog’ (Duff-Tripp 1998: 254)
d. possessive marker impossible (a small class including češaʔ ‘child’

and wokčanešaʔ ‘orphan’)
This classification of four classes of nouns intersects with one concerning the form
of the possessive marking. Most inanimate objects, all body parts and some of the
kinship terms for children and siblings just receive a possessive prefix. However, an-
imate beings, most kinship terms, words for food and some nominalisations receive
the possessive prefix as well as a suffix -Vr, illustrated with p-očk-ar ‘her/his dog’
in (18c).
With verbs, the person prefix normally marks the subject (cf. the examples below).
In certain circumstances, e.g. in relative clauses in which the subject is unspecified, the
prefixal person marking can refer to the object:
(19) ny eny ty ye-co:y-oʔ t-amp-e:n-eʔ

which 1O.PL-light-EU-DA-PR-UN
‘which lights us (the sun)’ (Wise 1986: 571)
Marking of grammatical relations and adpositions

Objects and subjects are not marked overtly, but there is a generalised relational (locative,
genitive, instrumental) case marked -o, which can be further specified by an additional
suffix or suffix combination:
(20) nony ty -o locative ‘in/to the canoe’

nony ty -o-ty ablative ‘from the canoe’
nony ty -o-ty -eny ‘from the canoe onward’
nony ty -o-ty -eyeʔ ‘a bit beyond the canoe’
nony ty -o-nety allative ‘towards the canoe’
nony ty -o-wa delimitative ‘until the canoe’
nony ty -o-ʔ mar approximate location ‘near the canoe’
(Duff-Tripp 1997: 35–6)
There is no set of postpositions, with the exception of a marker -Vkop for benefactive
and purpose:
(21) češa-neša-ty oly -eč.n-okop

child-group-DI-various-B
‘for all various classes of small children’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 48)
Many spatial distinctions are marked with (possibly internally complex) adverbs,
such as:
(22) aly ‘there’ až. ‘here’

aʔ yo ‘there (distant)’ ty -až.-o ‘there (not so distant)’
yom-taʔ n ‘on the other side’ any emy -taʔ n ‘on this side’
aly -apy ar ‘far’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 126)
Verbs
An example of a highly complex verb in Yanesha is given in (23):
(23) ∅-omaž.-amy -eʔ t-ampy -es-y-e:s-n-e:n-a

3S-go.downriver-DB-EU-DA-EU-PL-EU-late-PR-RF
‘They are going downriver by canoe in the late afternoon stopping
often along the way.’ (Wise 1986: 582)
Striking is the frequent occurrence of euphonic markers, which also appear to have a
grammatical function. Note also the use of a tense marker indicating ‘late afternoon’; it
contrasts with a marker indicating ‘early morning’.
The element -ampy -, glossed ‘dative’ by Wise, deserves special mention. It can add a
slot for an affected oblique object to an intransitive:
(24) a. ne-mah t-a
1S.SG-run-RF
‘I run.’ (Wise 1986: 592)
b. ne-mah t-ampy -s-apy -a
1S.SG-run-DA-EU-2O.SG-RF
‘I run away from you.’ (Wise 1986: 592)
y
Sometimes this function of -amp - leads to a passive-like structure, as in (25b):
(25) a. ∅-wah t-a
3S-rain-RF
‘It rained.’ (Wise 1986: 593)
b. no-wah t-ampy -s-a
1S.SG-rain-DA-EU-RF
‘I was caught in the rain.’ (Wise 1986: 593)
The rich suffixal verbal morphology expresses a wide range of concepts. One example
is subjunctive mood:
(26) pe-šo:r-aʔ n-mw -e:paʔ

2S.SG-fall-AB-CM-SJ
‘Be careful lest you fall.’ (Wise 1986: 602)
Another one involves reciprocal marking:
(27) ∅-y-aʔ n-aʔ t-ann-aʔ t-a

3S-cry-RR-EU-RC-EU-RF
‘They cry for one another.’ (Wise 1986: 579)
Word order
Basic word order in main clauses is VSO:
(28) oʔ kaʔ ž.-at-ež.-ey ač.kaš3 y-ač-or
already eat-CA-RP-1S.PL dwarfs 1P.PL-mother-RL
‘The dwarfs have already fed our mother.’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 177)
3 Possibly a borrowing from neighbouring Quechua I dialects, where ač.kaš means ‘lamb’.
However, often a topic marked with -paʔ (either subject or object) occurs preverbally:
(29) paʔ -tak-paʔ awoʔ pampw -eny -et-aʔ paʔ -čoy-o

3P-foot-TO HS bury-PR-3S.PL-AN 3P-field-L
‘One foot (of his) they buried in the field.’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 179)
Auxiliary elements precede the verb, while oblique complements tend to follow it:
(30) aw-oʔ ∅-aw-an-mw -e:t ent-o

AX-HS 3S-go-AB-CM-3S.PL.RF sky-L
‘Then they went up to the sky.’ (Wise 1986: 605)
Modifiers such as possessors precede the head noun:
(31) a:č pw -eʔ m-a:r

mother 3P-baby-RL
‘mother’s baby’ (Wise 1986: 607)
4.2.3 Complex sentences in Yanesha

Adverbial clauses generally precede the main clause and are marked with -paʔ :
(32) ama ye-ž.-en-aʔ -paʔ oʔ č y-eʔ potaʔ t-a [cf. Quechua ama ‘don’t’]
not 1S.PL-eat-PR-AN-TO F 1S.PL-wash.hands-RF
‘Before eating we wash our hands.’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 191)
In relative clauses a relativiser ny eny ty appears at the beginning of the clause, before the
verb, and the clause is marked again with the topic marker -paʔ :
(33) any -ny a paʔ -tak, ny eny ty ∅-pampw -en-et-aʔ paʔ -čoy-o-paʔ , awoʔ anapy
this-SQ 3P-foot, R 3S-bury-PR-3.PL-AN 3P-field-L-TO,
HS 3S.answer.3O
‘The foot they buried in the field answered.’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 206)
Notice that the clause follows the antecedent.
4.3 Tupi–Guaranı́
The very important Tupi–Guaranı́ language family is mostly spoken in the area south
of the Amazon, in Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Peru. In Bolivia, it is represented by
Chiriguano–Ava, Chiriguano–Tapyi or Izoceño, Guarayo, Jorá, Pauserna–Guarasugwé,
Sirionó and Yuqui. It also includes the Chané, a former Arawakan group which now
speaks Chiriguano, and the Tapieté. The Tapieté are claimed by Nordenskiöld (1912: 310)
to be originally a Mataco-related group. Some of the other Tupi–Guaranı́ groups are small
(the nomadic Sirionó) or nearing extinction (the Jorá and the Pauserna–Guarasugwé).
4.3 Tupi–Guaranı́ 431
Table 4.3 The relationship among the pre-Andean

members of the Tupi–Guaranı́ language family
(based on Rodrigues 1984–5)
I Chiriguano–Ava (including Tapieté)

Chiriguano–Tapyi or Izoceño
Guaranı́
II Guarayo
Pauserna–Guarasugwé∗
Sirionó, Jorá
Yuqui∗
III Cocama, Cocamilla
Omagua
∗ Pauserna–Guarasugwé and Yuqui are not classified in

Rodrigues (1984–5).
The Chiriguano have always been a militarily powerful group; they invaded the Andean
territories proper both during the Inca period and in colonial times.
Tupi–Guaranı́ languages are found in Peru along the Amazon and Ucayali rivers.
There are two languages, Cocama, including Cocamilla, and Omagua. A few speakers
of Cocama can be found in Brazil as well. Early explorers of the Amazon such as Orellana
marvelled at the riches of the Omagua city-like settlements along the rivers. Cocama is
giving way to Spanish at the present moment, and the people are now often acculturated
and live dispersed. The Cocama were first contacted in 1559, and the Cocamilla much
later, in 1651. In 1666 the two groups rebelled together against the Spaniards (Chirif
and Mora 1977).
The relationship among the Bolivian and Peruvian members of this extensive lan-
guage family (found also in Brazil and Paraguay) has been the subject of some disagree-
ment, due to different classificatory techniques. Firestone (1965) has applied lexico-
statistic techniques, and Lemle (1971) has traced some phonological innovations, while
Rodrigues (1984/5) has combined several types of diagnostic criteria, and Dietrich
(1990) has done a sophisticated analysis of the number of phonological and morpholog-
ical features separating these languages. The groupings proposed by Dietrich (1990), as
a consequence, not only reflect genetic relationships but also degree of innovation. Here
we follow Jensen (1998), a comparative reconstruction of Tupi–Guaranı́ morphosyntax,
in taking Rodrigues (1984–5) as our point of departure. The relevant branches of the
Tupi–Guaranı́ family are given in table 4.3.
While the family as a whole has preserved many of its original features relatively
intact, a number of languages have undergone considerable changes. Sirionó, Jorá and,
presumably, Yuqui have been much simplified, possibly because these languages are the
result of the adoption of Tupi–Guaranı́ as a second language by people who originally

spoke something else (Rodrigues 1984–5: 43). The nature of these simplification pro-
cesses remains to be studied, however. In any case, the present-day differences between
Guarayo and the other members of its group are much larger than their joint classification
would suggest (Dietrich 1990: 111).
The case of Cocama also is of great interest from the perspective of language history
and language contact. While phonologically and lexically it is undoubtedly a Tupı́an
language, closely related to Tupinambá from Brazil, structurally it is not (Rodrigues
1984–5: 43–4; Cabral 1995, 2000). It has different pronouns when spoken by the two
genders, and in several cases the feminine form is of Tupi origin (bold here), while the
masculine is not (the reverse never happens):4
(34) 1.SG FE = éce MS = ta

2.SG éne
3.SG FE = áy MS = úri
1.IN ı́ni
1.EX FE = pénu MS = tána
2.PL épe (Cabral 1995: 132)
Rodrigues (personal communication) suggests that the language resulted from a fairly
recent migration of a group speaking a Tupinambá-related language from the lower
to the upper Amazon, perhaps in the immediate preconquest era, and its subsequent
incorporation in a different language group.
4.4 The Jivaroan languages

Jivaroan is represented by four languages: Aguaruna, Huambisa, Achuar (or Achual)
and Jı́varo or Shuar. All four languages are closely related. Jivaroan speakers show a
particularly strong ethnic consciousness. The Aguaruna territory in Peru is quite ex-
tensive and covers parts of the departments of Loreto and Amazonas. The Huambisa
are mainly in Loreto. The Shuar (also known as the Jı́varo) occupy the eastern slopes
of the Ecuadorian Andes, mainly in the province of Morona–Santiago, up to the very
limits of the Andean ridge proper. The Sangay volcano is their sacred mountain. To the
east of the Shuar live the Achuar (partly also in Loreto, Peru). Thus the southern part
of the Ecuadorian oriente is dominated by a single family of closely related languages,
Jivaroan. It may be that previously the Jivaroan area extended into the highlands of the
Ecuadorian province of Loja. Like their Peruvian relatives the Aguaruna, the Ecuadorian
Shuar are known for their high level of political organisation.
4 See, however, Schleicher (1998) for an explanation of the Cocama first person-singular prefix -ta
within the context of Tupi–Guaranı́ historical development.
The Jivaroan groups have a long and complex history of interactions with the highland
cultures. The Shuar are renowned for having raided Andean territories as late as the
colonial period. They were first contacted by the Spanish early on, in 1534, and rebelled
succesfully in 1599. In 1816 a new attempt was made to subdue them. The Aguaruna were
attacked by the Incas upon several occasions, and after 1549 the Spaniards attempted to
bring them together in reducciones. In 1886 they rebelled against the Jesuits (Chirif and
Mora 1977). The Huambisa have managed to stay further apart from the Spanish, due
to their location further into the interior.
As mentioned above, Shuar is one of the most important languages of the Ecuado-
rian lowlands. Part of the Jivaroan language family, it is closely related to and mutually
intelligible with Achuar and slightly more distantly related to and partly intelligible with
Aguaruna and Huambisa. While the Shuar are very well known, under the name Jı́varo,
and have been the subject of extensive ethnographic studies, particularly by Karsten
(1935) and Harner (1972), there is surprisingly little in terms of full linguistic descrip-
tions. The sketch here takes the brief account presented by Karsten (1935) as its basis,
and includes some of the data presented in Beuchat and Rivet (1909, 1910a), Alvarez
([c.1915] 1983), Flornoy (1938), Turner (1958), Pellizzaro (1969), Juank (1982), Rouby
and Riedmayer (1983) and Gnerre (1986). It has not been possible to completely ho-
mogenise the spelling from the different sources, since it is not always clear whether the
differences arise from orthographic conventions, phonetic versus phonological spelling,
or from regional or diachronic variation. Finally, there is the problem that in Macas a
pidgin version of Shuar was in use by and with mestizo settlers (Gnerre 1986: 340),
and it may be that Karsten’s account is influenced by this pidgin Shuar. Gnerre (1986:
309–11) draws attention to the wide variety of registers that were available in traditional
Shuar, including ceremonial visiting dialogues, ceremonial war party dialogues and tra-
ditional narrative styles. In the course of the twentieth century, these styles have largely
disappeared; it would be interesting to study the features of recently developed styles,
such as the Shuar used in radio transmissions.
4.4.1 Shuar phonology

The major source on Shuar phonology is Turner (1958). He presents the phoneme in-
ventory given in table 4.4. There is a nasal–oral contrast in the vowel system, but most
of the consulted sources indicate nasality inconsistently or not at all. Sequences of same
vowels occur, some of which may be due to the loss of an intervocalic consonant (e.g.
in waakis ‘Gualaquiza’). Karsten (1935) sometimes indicates vowel length, where other
sources have plain vowels. Most sources use the symbols e or i for the central vowel
established by Turner (1958). There is also a vowel [e] which in most contexts is best
analysed as underlyingly /a/. Thus we have:
Table 4.4 Shuar phoneme inventory (based on Turner 1958)∗
Stops p t k
Affricates c č
Fricatives s š h
Nasals m n ŋ
Vibrant r
Glides w y
Front Central Back
High i u
Mid
Low a
∗ Vowel nasality and stress are contrastive. Karsten (1935) and Juank
(1982) also distinguish vowel length.
(35) yãwã́-i5 > [yãw˜éy]

dog-3P.SG
‘his dog’ (Turner 1958: 89)
In view of the uncertain interpretation of the vowels, we write nuclear vowels as they
appear in each source. For consonants and non-nuclear vowels we use the phoneme
inventory introduced by Turner, although we do write palatalisation if the original source
has it. Most consonants have palatalised allophones after i. Stops and affricates are voiced
(and sometimes deaffricated) after nasals (Turner 1958).
There is a pervasive tendency towards penultimate stress on the radical, which does
not shift, e.g.:
(36) wakéra-tiny u
wish-IF
‘in order to wish’ (Karsten 1935: 544)
Although Turner (1958) does not elaborate the point, there is some evidence that radical–
final nasals in some cases correspond to underlying prenasalised stops ∗ ŋk, ∗nt, ∗mp. These
have been preserved as such in the more conservative Aguaruna.
(37) a. nuhı́n+
+ur [nuhı́ntur]
egg-1P.SG
‘my egg’ (Turner 1958: 93)
5 Note the similarity with Tupi–Guaranı́ yaγ w á ‘dog’. Jivaroan has a number of words that appear
to be borrowings from Tupi–Guaranı́.
b. šı́am+
+aš [šı́ampaš]
chick-DU
‘a chick perhaps’ (Turner 1958: 93)
Because of the unsolved status of the homorganic nasal-stop sequences in Shuar, the
stop element will be written as in the original source.
A very frequent process in Shuar is metathesis:
(38) a. pántam++n apúhu-y [pánman apúhuy]

banana-AC place-3S
‘He is planting bananas.’ (Turner 1958: 93)
b. u:nt [u:nt] ‘elder’
u:nt-ru-ša [ú:ntruša] ‘also my elder’
u:nt-ru [ú:ntur] ‘my elder’ (Juank 1982: 10)
Finally, we should mention the epenthesis of vowels to suffixed radicals:
(39) peŋŋker-a-yti6
good-EU-be.3S.SG
‘It is good.’ (Pellizzaro 1982: 9)
4.4.2 The principal grammatical features of Shuar

In Shuar there are productive categories of nouns (including various classes of pronouns),
verbs, adjectives and adverbs. A few verbs can be used as auxiliaries. Postpositions, deter-
miners and conjunctions are enclitic elements. There is also a large group of ideophonic
interjections.
Nominal elements
Noun phrases tend not to be very complex in Shuar, and neither is there a very complex
nominal morphology. Bare nouns can have both indefinite and definite reference, but
nouns can be made specific in three ways: with the enclitic particle -ka, with the preceding
third-person pronoun ni, and with a following demonstrative nu:
(40) šuá:ra-ka ‘the Shuar’

ni páŋŋgi ‘the big serpent (anaconda)’
únta nu ‘the chief’, ‘the old one’ (Karsten 1935: 544–5)
The particle -ka may also be added to pronouns and some adverbs.
There is no grammaticalised gender or number marking. Diminutives are commonly
formed with the particle -či, and in poetic usage sometimes with -ta:
6 Pronunciation suggested in Rouby and Riedmayer (1983): [pw éŋgaréyti].

(41) a. úči-ta
son-DI
‘my little son’ (Karsten 1935: 546)
b. nukú-či
mother-DI
‘my little mother’ (Karsten 1935: 546)
Other nominal enclitics are -ki ‘alone’ (-k according to Turner 1958) and -ša ‘also’:7
(42) a. wı́-ki
1.SG-DL
‘I alone’ (Karsten 1935: 559)
b. núwa-ša
woman-AD
‘the woman also’ (Pellizzaro 1969: 13)
Beuchat and Rivet (1909: 814–15) mention the existence of compounds; note that (43a)
appears to be right-headed, and (43b) left-headed. (Beuchat and Rivet’s examples are
given in the original spelling.)
(43) a. x.apa-yagw a
deer-dog
‘leopard’ (Beuchat and Rivet 1909: 814)
b. akap-nawe
stomach-foot
‘foot sole’ (Beuchat and Rivet 1909: 815)
They also mention cases of reduplication:
(44) tagw a tagw a ‘hat’ [cf. tagw asa ‘feather crown’]

kaši kaši ‘day after tomorrow’ [kaši ‘tomorrow’]
(Beuchat and Rivet 1909: 815)
Personal reference
Shuar distinguishes three persons and the opposition singular/plural is sometimes marked
as well. The personal pronouns are:
(45) 1.SG wi 1.PL i:

2.SG ám(u)e 2.PL atumı́
3.SG ni, áu 3.PL ni, áu (Juank 1982: 3)
7 Compare the Aymara suffixes -ki and -sa, which have the same meaning.
The status of the third-person pronominal form áu is unclear. (Sometimes it seems
that in the plural áu is preferred over ni; in other cases, áu seems to refer to elements
new in the discourse, and ni to elements already referred to before.) The labial in áu
may be the source for the labial in the third-person-singular verbal agreement marker
below.
There is a corresponding set of verbal agreement markers:
(46) 1S.SG -ha(y) 1S.PL -hi

2S.SG -me 2S.PL -rme
3S.SG -wa(y) 3S.PL -yny a-wa(y) (Juank 1982: 7)
The short forms without -y are found before the interrogative marker -k. There is an
opposition between the deictic pronouns hu ‘this’ and nu ‘that’, which might be related
to the difference between -ha(y) ‘first-person singular’ and ni ‘she, he’. Inflected verbs
need not have an overt subject:
(47) winy á-me-k

come-2S.SG-IR
‘Are you coming?’ (Juank 1982: 3)
Notice that in wh-questions, an even shorter form of the verbal agreement marker ap-
pears. Consider the following contrast:
(48) ity úrak á-yny a hú-nik á-yny a-way

how be-3S.PL this-like be-3.PL-3S
‘How are they?’ ‘They are like this.’ (Juank 1982: 16)
This alternation may result from a contrast between declarative and non-declarative verb
forms, as in the Barbacoan languages.
Nouns can appear uninflected for person (there are numerous examples of uninflected
possessed nouns in the sources), but there is also a set of person markers:
(49) 1P.SG -r(u) 1P.PL -ri

2P.SG -ram 2P.PL -ri
3P.SG -ri 3P.PL -ri (Juank 1982: 3, 5)
With nouns, however, a pronominal possessor generally must be overt:
(50) atumı́ ná:-rı́

you.PL name-P
‘your (plur.) name’ (Juank 1982: 5)
The agreement markers in Shuar are not pronominal in being able to occur by them-
selves, even if there may be a correspondence of -w (wi / -ru) in the first person and of
-am (am(u)e / -ram) in the second person singular.
The exception are kinship terms, which may appear without the possessor pronoun:
(51) nukúči-ru-ka capı́ki úya-yi

grandmother-1P.SG-DF Tsapiki be.RM-3S
‘My grandmother was Tsapiki.’ (Juank 1982: 9)
Kinship terms optionally and body part terms obligatorily have another person marker
in the second (-em/-im) and third person (-e/-i):
(52) a. ame nuwá-ram / ame núw-em ‘your wife’

b. ni nuwa-rı́ / ni nuw-é ‘his wife’
c. ´
ame nihy ã-im ‘your forehead’
y´
d. ni nih ã-i ‘her/his forehead’ (Juank 1982: 36)
In copular constructions, the copula inflected for person appears as an enclitic on the
predicate:
ŋker-á-yt-hay
(53) péŋ
good-EU-be-1S.SG
‘I am good.’ (Juank 1982: 13)
Marking of grammatical relations and adpositions

Subjects are not overtly marked, and (direct or indirect) object and possessor NPs may
remain unmarked as well (see also the section on word order below). Beuchat and Rivet
mention an object marker -n, -na, or -m for Gualaquiza Shuar, as in:
(54) yusa santo naha-ri-n andaram tax.-aip

God holy name-3P.SG-AC in.vain say-2S.NE.IM
‘Don’t say God’s holy name in vain.’ (Beuchat and Rivet 1909: 817)
According to Pellizzaro (1969: 15), and at variance with example (54), the object marker
-n is only used when the subject of the sentence is first person singular or third person. It
is found as -an/-en after consonants, and as -in after a second-person possessive ending
in -m. The ending -na is found as an alternative for -n, in which case the preceding vowel
is suppressed (e.g. núwa-rú-n ∼ nuwá-r-na ‘to my wife’). The suffix is also present in
the related language Aguaruna (Corbera Mori 2000).
(55) taráč-rum-in nawánt-an susá-hay

cloth-2P-AC girl-AC give-1S.SG
‘I gave your cloth (tarachi) to the girl.’ (Pellizzaro 1969: 15)
There are special strong possessive forms for the pronouns:
(56) wi-ny a ‘my, mine’ i:-ny u ‘ours’

ami-ny u ‘your, yours’ atum(i)-ny a ‘yours’
ni:-ny u, au-nu ‘his, her(s), their(s)’ (Pellizzaro 1969: 16)
The element -na/-nu, discernable in the possessive form of the pronouns, is also
found with other nouns, where it indicates attribution or destination. Pellizzaro (1969:
16) indicates that -na is used after consonants and after monosyllabic stems (which
apparently may not contain a long vowel or a diphthong), whereas -nu is used
elsewhere.
(57) a. hu máčit ú:nt-na-yti

this machete chief-G-be.3S.SG
‘This machete belongs to the chief.’
b. hu máčit suŋŋka-nu-yti
this machete Sunka-G-be.3S.SG
‘This machete belongs to Sunka.’ (Juank 1982: 36)
Location and time can be indicated by means of the suffixes -nam and -num. According
to Pellizzaro (1969: 17, 21) and Juank (1982: 30), the phonological conditioning of
these allomorphs is the reverse of that of attributive -na and -nu; -num is used af-
ter consonants and -nam after vowels. Further allomorphs are -i (after the first-person
possessive marker -ru), -in (after second-person possessive markers in -m), and -n (after
the possessive marker -ri). Karsten (1935) mentions the forms -numa and -náma but
without the alleged conditioning.
(58) a. he:a-numa
house-L
‘in the house’ (Karsten 1935: 558)
b. he:a-numa weá-hey
house-L go-1S.SG
‘I go to my house.’ (Karsten 1935: 559)
c. he:a-numa winy á-hey
house-L come-1S.SG
‘I come from my house.’ (Karsten 1935: 559)
Notice that -numa can mark both Source and Goal. With verbs of motion the postposition
is often omitted. The suffix -nama(n) can also be translated as ‘(in exchange) for’ (Karsten
1935: 559).
Direction (allative) is indicated by means of a suffix -(V)ni. It is often found after the
locative ending -n(u)ma in a sequence -n(u)mani. After personal possessive endings this
sequence is reduced to -i-ni (Pellizzaro 1969: 21, Juank 1982: 30).
(59) a. murá-ni wéa-hay

mountain-AL go-1S.SG
‘I am going towards the mountain.’ (Juank 1982: 28)
´
b. nihy ãy-ru-ı́-ni
forehead-1P.SG-L-AL
‘ahead of me’ (Juank 1982: 28)
Separation (ablative) is indicated by -yã ‘from’. Like -(V)ni, it can occur after the
locative marker (-num-yã, -nma-yã), and again the sequence is reduced to -i-yã after
personal possessive endings. Notice the use of tu-yám ‘from where’, rather than ∗ tu-yã
´,
as well as the short form -m for the second-person subject marker in a wh-question,
in (60a):
(60) a. tu-yám winy á-m

where-AB come-2S.SG
‘Where do you come from?’ (Juank 1982: 6)
b. Táyš-ny um-yã winy á-hay
Taisha-L-AB come-1S.SG
‘I come from Taisha.’ (Juank 1982: 6)
Instrumental, comitative or manner are indicated by means of the ending -hay (Karsten
1935: 546; Juank 1982: 36):
(61) a. apáči-hey weá-hey

white.man-IS go-1S.SG
‘I go with the white man.’ (Karsten 1935: 546)
b. naŋ ŋki-hey ma-ma
lance-IS kill-PF
‘killed with a lance’ (Karsten 1935: 546)
c. šuár-čam-hay
Shuar-language-IS
‘in the Shuar language’ (Juank 1982: 36)
Verbs
Verbs can be marked for a number of suffixes. There are a number of highly complex
morphophonological adjustment rules and the sources only give sketchy information.
Hence, the following account, needless to say, can only be preliminary. A first set of
affixes is attached directly to the verbal root:
(62) -u ‘go to . . .’
-i ‘come to . . .’
-mtik(i) causative
-n passive
-nay reciprocal
ŋk y a
-ŋ ‘almost’
-te inchoative (Juank 1982: 77)
Some examples include:
(63) a. neká-mtiki-a-ta-y
know-CA-SA-HO-1S.PL
‘Let us make it known.’ (Juank 1982: 77)
b. amú-te-k-hay
finish-IC-IT-1S.SG
‘I have started to finish.’ (Juank 1982: 77)
A second set of affixes marks completive or perfective aspect (there is a broad distinction
in Shuar between perfective and imperfective verbs). The form of the aspectual marker
gives additional information (Pellizzaro 1969: 26; Juank 1982: 54). See also the two
preceding examples.
∅-
(64) -i- / -∅ imperfective
-a- simple
-k- iterative / intensive
-r- with plural object
-s- diminutive / affective
-k(i)- neglected action
The imperfective is unmarked after stems ending in a single consonant, otherwise the
ending is -i- (Pellizzaro 1969).
External to aspect marking we find tense and mood markers, but they can be preceded
by the negation marker -ča-. The tenses include (Juank 1982: 26, 33):
(65) -m(a) past at a definite point in time

-my a past at an indefinite point in time
-tta future
Examples are:
(66) umá-r-ča-m-hay8
drink-3O.PL-NE-DF.PA-1S.SG
‘I didn’t drink (yesterday).’ (Juank 1982: 26)
(67) taká-s-ča-tta-rme
work-DI-NE-F-2S.PL
‘You (plur.) will not work.’ (Juank 1982: 33)
External to tense markers we find verbal agreement, optionally followed by dubitative

-(a)š or a question marker -k:
(68) a. narúk-a-y-k
cook-SA-3S.SG-IR
‘Does it cook?’ (Juank 1982: 12)
b. narúk-č-i-aš
cook-NE-3S.SG-DU
‘It perhaps does not cook.’ (Juank 1982: 12)
Mood markers appear to occupy the same position as the tense markers. They include
imperative, potential and irrealis:
(69) a. yu-á-tá
eat-SA-IM.2S
‘Eat!’ (Juank 1982: 12)
b. wará-s-áynt-me
enjoy-DI-PO-2S.SG
‘You could enjoy it.’ (Juank 1982: 67)
c. wará-s-á-me
enjoy-DI-IE-2S.SG
‘You could have enjoyed it.’ (Juank 1982: 67)
Summarising, the Shuar verb can have the following types of verbal affixes:
(70)  –  –  –  – / –  –
/ 
Again, this is only a preliminary sketch. A number of affixes has been left out of con-
sideration, including the numerous nominalisers in Shuar.
8 Note the similarity with Aymara uma- ‘to drink’.

In addition to the negation formed with -ča there is also a negative suffix -cu or -ču:9
(71) taká-ču
work-NE
‘He does not work.’ (Karsten 1935: 554)
This suffix may also be added to non-verbal predicates:

ŋger-a-ču
(72) a. pı́ŋ
good-EU-NE
‘It is not good.’ (Karsten 1935: 554)
b. wı́-ny a-ču
1.SG-G-NE
‘It is not mine.’ (Karsten 1935: 554)
y
Negative imperatives are formed with the ending -aypa [eyp a]; this form is optionally
shortened:
(73) wini:-(ay)pa
come-2S.IM.NE
‘Do not come!’ (Karsten 1935: 554)
There is also a possibility, finally, of forming a negative existential:
(74) acá-way
not.be-3S.SG
‘There is not.’ (Juank 1982: 6)
Word order
Word order is one of the features of the language on which there is firm agreement
among the different authors. The basic order is SOV:
ŋgi uncúri éyncu amúk-ma

(75) ni páŋ
3.SG snake many people kill-PF
‘The snake killed many people.’ (Karsten 1935: 545)
Auxiliaries follow their verbal complement, like the auxiliary puha-. It is used in
progressive constructions together with a gerund ending on the verb:
(76) kanu nahána-sa puhá-hey

canoe make-GR be-1S.SG
‘I am making a canoe.’ (Karsten 1935: 555)
9 Cf. Quechua -ču ‘negation’.

Possessors precede possessed elements:
(77) wı́-ny a yacú-ru úmi

1.SG-G brother-1P.SG blowgun
‘my brother’s blowgun’ (Karsten 1935: 546)
Adjectives precede the noun:
(78) unta pinču

big hawk
‘the great hawk (eagle)’ (Karsten 1935: 547)
Similarly, adverbial modifiers such as the exclamative degree marker ma ti, expressing
wonder, precede the adjective:
ŋgera
(79) a. ma ti pı́ŋ
very more beautiful
‘most beautiful’ (Karsten 1935: 547)
ŋgura ı́my a uncúri éyncu amúk-ma
b. súŋ
epidemic very many people kill-PF
‘The epidemic has killed very many people.’ (Karsten 1935: 548)
Both enclitic and non-enclitic adpositions follow the element they modify:
(80) a. ı́nca-numa
river-L
‘in the river’ (Karsten 1935: 558)
b. wá atáši núkki únta
partridge hen like big
‘The partridge is big like a hen.’ (Karsten 1935: 559)
A possible deviation from the prototypical SOV head-final pattern of Shuar is the demon-
strative and the relative clause (to be illustrated below). Demonstratives may precede or
follow the noun:
(81) a. nu he:a wı́-ny a

that house 1S.SG-G
‘That house is mine.’ (Karsten 1935: 550)
b. he:a nu, wı́-ny a he:a
house that 1.SG-G house
‘That house is mine.’ (Karsten 1935: 550)
The status of nu is not quite clear, however, since it may also modify predicates. Karsten
gives examples where for emphasis it both precedes and follows the predicate:
(82) a. Andiče, nu háma nu

Andiche that ill that
‘Andiche is really ill.’ (Karsten 1935: 550)
b. pá:ndama, nu puhú-ma nu
plantain that be-PF that
‘Is there any plantain?’ (Karsten 1935: 550)
It may be that nu is not a dependent determiner, but a separate emphasis marker, thus
not constituting a counterexample to a head-final analysis for Shuar.
4.4.3 Complex sentences in Shuar

Complex sentences in Shuar appear to be of at least six types. First, causal and conditional
clauses are often formed with the postposition-like complementiser assa:
(83) a. ni háma ássa wini:-ča-ma

3.SG ill SU come-NE-PF
‘Because he is ill, he has not arrived.’ (Karsten 1935: 558)
b. ámue wakéra-ma ássa sumák-ta-hey
2.SG like-PF SU buy-F-1S
‘If you like, I will buy from you.’ (Karsten 1935: 558)
As these examples show, adverbial clauses tend to precede main clauses.

Another possible strategy, used particularly with temporal and conditional adverbials,
is the use of the gerund particle -sa:10
(84) a. áma-sa susá-čays

have-GR give-F.DU
‘If I had, I would give you.’ (Karsten 1935: 558)
b. šuára nambéra11 nahána-sa ihérmas-ma
Shuar feast make-GR fast-PF
‘When a Shuar prepares a feast, he fasts.’ (Karsten 1935: 557)
A third possibility for adverbial clauses is simple juxtaposition. The examples given
have the particle -ma on the first verb. This may indicate temporal sequence:
(85) a. ni wini:-ma weá-ta-hey

he arrive-PF go-F-1S
‘When he arrives, we will go.’ (Karsten 1935: 557)
10 Cf. Aymara -sa ‘gerund’.

11 A root similar to nambera ‘feast’ may have been borrowed into Otavalo Quechua (province of
Imbabura, Ecuador), where we have ñamor ‘feast’. This could point to Jivaroan influences in
the northern Ecuadorian highlands in pre-Inca times (see chapter 3).
Table 4.5 The Shuar switch-reference system illustrated with the verb ant- ‘to hear’
(from Juank 1982: 76)
–simultaneous simultaneous –simultaneous simultaneous

identical subjects identical subjects different subjects different subjects
1 pers. sing. ant-úk-an ánt-ak-un ant-úk-matay ánt-ak-uy

2 pers. sing. . . .-úk-am . . .-ak-um . . .-úk-akmin . . .-ak-min
3 pers. sing. . . .-úk . . .-ak(u) . . .-úk-matay . . .-ak-uy
1 pers. plur. . . .-úk-ar(i) . . .-ak-ur(i) . . .-uk-ákrin . . .-ak-rin
2 pers. plur. . . .-úk-rum . . .-ak-rum . . .-uk-ákrumin . .-ak-rumin
3 pers. plur. . . .-úk-ar . . .-uyny -ak(-u) . . .-úk-ar-matay . . .-uyny -ak-uy
b. yúmi yutúk-ča-ma weá-t-ey

water rain-NE-PF go-HO-1S.PL
‘Let us go before it rains.’ (Karsten 1935: 557)
In Juank (1982: 76) there is mention of a switch-reference system for gerunds, including
the distinctions presented in table 4.5 (ant- ‘to hear’). Perhaps Karsten’s ma corresponds
to third-person-singular (–simultaneous, –identical subject) matay in Juank. There are
numerous cases of shortened verbal affixes in Shuar.
Finally, sometimes an adverbial clause is formed with the postposed deictic par-
ticle nu:
(86) noa, ihérma-sa puhú-ma nu, namán-ki yúo-ca-ma

woman fast-GR be-PF that meat-DL eat-NE-PF
‘The woman, while she was fasting, did not eat meat.’ (Karsten 1935: 554)
Complement clauses are often formed with the infinitive marker -tiny u:
(87) a. wári sumák-tiny u winy á-hey

things buy-IF come-1S.SG
‘I have come to buy things.’ (Karsten 1935: 558)
b. wı́-ny a éyncu ı́s-tiny u weá-hey
1.SG-G relative see-IF go-1S.SG
‘I go off to see my relatives.’ (Karsten 1935: 553)
An alternative appears to be the use of the gerund t(u)-sa- of the verb ti- ‘to say’, as cited
by Juank (1982: 64):12
12 The use of forms meaning ‘saying’ to indicate intention of the speaker is frequently found
in Quechua and in other Andean languages. However, in the lowland varieties of Ecuadorian
Quechua adjacent to Shuar it covers the same range as in Shuar, including infinitival purposives.
4.5 Cahuapana 447
(88) a. pa:ntma-n suruk-tá-h t-sa-n wéa-hay

plantain-AC sell-HO-1S.SG say-GR-1S.SG go-1S.SG
‘I go to sell plantain.’ (Juank 1982: 3)
y
b. išı́čik úm-in -á-yt-hey nampék-ay-h tu-sa-n
modest drink-AG-EU-be-1S.SG get.drunk-NE-1S.SG say-GR-1S.SG
‘I am a modest drinker, not wanting to get drunk.’ (Juank 1982: 12)
c. wi-ša neká-ta-h tu-sa-n tı́ wakér-iny -a-yt-hay
1.SG-AD know-HO-1S.SG say-GR-1S.SG very
want-AG-EU-be-1S.SG
‘Me too, I am very interested in knowing (it).’ (Juank 1982: 15)
Relative clauses are formed with the deictic particle nu ‘that’ at the end. They can follow
their head noun, but may also be extraposed:
(89) wı́-ny a uči, šua:ra ma:-ma nu, ihérma-sa puhú-ma

1.SG-G son enemy kill-PF that fast-GR be-PF
‘My son, who killed an enemy, is fasting.’ (Karsten 1935: 551)
(90) úrutay šua:ra wakı́-tiny u, iky áma weá-ma nu
when Indian return-IF forest go-PF that
‘When will the Indians that went to the forest return?’ (Karsten 1935: 551)
4.5 Cahuapana
A small language family is found along the eastern slopes of the northern Peruvian Andes
(department of Loreto), Cahuapana, which is made up of two languages, Chayahuita
and Jebero. The Chayahuita were contacted first by the Jesuits. The Jebero accepted
protection by the missions after 1638 because they were attacked by the Mayna.
Of these languages little is known so far. A few features of the grammar of
Chayahuita can be reconstructed from a set of phrases in Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano
(ILV) (1979), and there is a new Chayahuita dictionary available (Hart 1988) with
a brief grammatical sketch. Garcı́a Tomás (1993–4) constitutes a four-volume col-
lection of texts, testimonials, etc. It seems to be a language with a fairly consistent
OV pattern. Thus there is adjective–noun order and object–verb order in sentences
such as:
(91) panka non13 nowantr-aw

big canoe want-1S.SG
‘I want the big canoe.’ (ILV 1979: 72)
13 Notice the similarity with Panoan nonti and Yanesha nony ty ‘canoe’.
There is also adverb–verb order in expressions such as:
(92) manoton pa-koʔʔ

quickly go-2S.IM.PL
‘Go quickly!’ (ILV 1979: 72)
Case relations are indicated by means of suffixes, such as the locative marker -k; e.g.
ins-k ‘where’, non-k ‘in a canoe’ (cf. Hart 1988: 282). Question words appear in
clause-initial position, as in:
(93) onpo koši-roʔʔsaʔʔ-taʔʔ kpar-an [cf. Quechua kuči ‘pig’;

how.much pig-PL-Q take-2S.SG Old Spanish coche]
‘How many pigs did you take (to sell)?’ (Hart 1988: 267)
From expressions such as atari kayoʔ ‘chicken egg’ it appears that in nominal compounds
or complex nominals the head is rightmost. There may also be prefixes, however, such
as the negative prefix ko- (combined with the negative suffix -wʔ ): noya ‘good’ versus
ko-noya-wʔ ‘bad’. There is a prohibitive negator ama.14
A striking feature of Chayahuita is the frequent occurrence of compound verbs (Hart
1988: 271, 481–3), in which the first element marks manner or instrument, and the
second element the type of action. An example is pʔ-čar-in ‘he/she tears it with much
force’ (pʔ- ‘with much force’). Component elements include:
(94) a. first element

aʔʔ- ‘with one’s teeth’, ‘with its beak’
o- ‘lifting’
pʔ - ‘with force’, ‘hanging’
toʔʔ- ‘with one’s foot’
wn- ‘squeezing’
b. second element
-ča ‘tear’
-ka ‘clash’
-ni ‘finish’
-pas ‘take a piece’
-ta ‘drop’
Bendor-Samuel (1961) documents a similar level of complexity for Jebero verbs,

confirming the observation in (94). Striking is the frequent use of directional
14 From Quechua ama, which has the same meaning.

4.6 Bora–Huitoto 449
suffixes:
(95) iya-wk’-wa-t-nčaʔʔ-ð
ð k-aŋ
ŋ
want-come-DR-DF-return.H-3O.PL-GR
‘wanting to come towards them when returning’
(Bendor-Samuel 1961: 106)
(96) nampk’-wa-t-ap(a)-ila-ly i-(i)ma
climb-DR-DF-CN-TH-3S.PN-and
‘and he is climbing towards . .’ (Bendor-Samuel 1961: 107)
Rivet and Tastevin (1931: 241) note the occurrence of noun incorporation in this
language:
(97) ikr-mutu-lk
hurt-head-1S.SG.PN
‘My head hurts.’ (Rivet and Tastevin 1913: 241)
Jebero has the interesting feature of two inclusive first persons, a singular and a plural.
See, for instance, the set of possessive nominal suffixes in (98).
(98) -wk 1.SG -wiðð k 1.PL.EX

-mapuʔʔ 1.SG.IV (=1.D) -mapuʔʔ-waʔʔ 1.PL.IV
-pŋ 2.SG -pŋ-maʔʔ 2.PL
-nŋ 3.SG -nŋ-maʔʔ 3.PL (Bendor-Samuel 1961: 97)
4.6 Bora–Huitoto
This family has two main branches (Aschmann 1993): A. Huitoto–Ocaina and B. Bora–
Muinane. Branch A consists of Ocaina and Huitoto, which in turn can be subdivided into
Npode and the cluster of Mnca, Murui and Huitoto Muinane. This branch has over
a thousand speakers in Peru. Branch B consists of Bora Muinane and Bora (including
its dialect Miraña) and has about 1,500 speakers in Peru. All these languages are also
spoken in Colombia.
The unity and internal structure of this family needs to be studied in more detail,
since the relationship between Huitoto and Bora is rather remote. Aschmann (1993)
concludes, on the basis of lexical comparison, a definite relationship between the two
main branches, with 20 per cent shared vocabulary.
From the Huitoto Muinane phrases in ILV (1979) it is clear that we are dealing with a
consistent head-final SOV language with fairly transparent mostly suffixal morphology.
There are prenominal possessors and postpositions; prepositional phrases precede verbs
and adjectives precede nouns. Verbal negation is expressed with a suffix. The form of
the personal affixes is very similar to that of the free forms. According to Petersen
Table 4.6 Phoneme inventory of Bora (based on Thiesen 1996)∗
Coarticulated
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar labiovelar Glottal
Plain stops p t k kp ʔ
Aspirated stops ph th kh
Plain affricates c č
Aspirated affricates ch čh
Fricatives β x
Nasals m n (ny )
Sonorants r (y)
Front Central Back
High i ɯ
Mid e o
Low a
∗ Bora has long or doubled vowels, each vowel being potentially tone-bearing, and a
distinction between high tone and low tone. Most consonants have palatalised allomorphs;
ny and y are the palatalised counterparts of n and r, respectively.
and Patiño (2000), the Huitoto verbal complex roughly consists of the following main
components:
(99) Root Predicate Mood/aspect/ Tense/voice Participant

-ta causative negation/ -d/-t (active) -kw e (1st person)
verbalisers nominal -ka/-ga (passive) -o (2nd person)
classifiers -dž (future passive) -e (3rd person)
Thiesen’s grammar of Bora (1996) gives a good overview of that language. The phoneme
inventory is as in table 4.6. There are two tones, high and low. Only in word-final position
can there be two adjacent syllables with low tone. There is palatalisation of a number
of consonants after i, and in some specific cases after a. There are both suffixes and
prefixes in the language, but suffixes predominate. The (animate) personal pronouns are
the following (Thiesen 1996: 33).
(100) oó 1.SG mɯ ɯʔ -ch i 1.D.MS.EX ɯ ɯ́ʔ a

mɯ 1.PL.EX
mɯ ɯʔ -ph 1.D.FE.EX
meé 1.D.IV meé 1.PL.IV
ɯ ɯ́ 2.SG ámɯ ɯʔ -ch i 2.D.MS ɯ ɯ́ʔ a
ámɯ 2.PL
ámɯ ɯʔ -ph 2.D.FE
tiı́py e 3.SG.MS tiı́t é-ch i
hy
3.D.MS tiı́thy e 3.PL
tiı́če 3.SG.FE tiı́thy é-ph 3.D.FE
4.7 The Zaparoan languages 451
While the pronouns distinguish for gender, prenominal possessive markers do not
(Thiesen 1996: 51–2):
(101) th a- 1P.SG th aʔʔ-xy a ‘my house’

ti- 2P.SG tiʔʔ-xy a ‘your house’
i- 3P.SG iʔʔ-xy a ‘his/her/their (own) house’
The third-person possessive prefix is used when the possessor is identical to the subject
of the clause; with other third persons a full possessor pronoun is required. The exact
shape of the possessor prefix is determined by the sound features of the possessed noun.
One of the most striking features of the language is the nominal classifier system,
which is quite complex. The animate classifiers are marked for feminine and masculine,
and have a singular, dual, plural distinction, just like the personal pronoun system, to
which they are related morphologically (Thiesen 1996: 102). The inanimate simple
classifiers include:
(102) -ʔʔe trees, plants
-kh o sticks, etc.
-ʔʔaám sheets, books, etc.
-kpa flat objects, boards
-pa cartons, boxes, etc.
-x flat, thin and round objects, like disks
-m canoes and other vessels
-iı́ʔʔy o extended objects
-ne objects in general (Thiesen 1996: 102–3)
In addition to the animate and inanimate classifiers, there are classifiers based on verbal
roots that mark the shape or quality an entity has adopted:
(103) ɯ́ me-ʔʔé-kpayááɯ
ɯ
tree-CL:tree-bent.over
‘a bent over tree’ (Thiesen 1996: 103)
Finally, some classifiers also function as separate nouns, such as kh óóx´ ‘day’, which can
function as a classifier when augmented with x-, as in th é-x-kh oóx ‘that day’ (Thiesen
1996: 104). The classifiers play a pervasive role in the structuring of the grammar and
discourse of the Bora–Huitoto language family, ensuring referential cohesion.
4.7 The Zaparoan languages

The Zaparoan languages are all in a precarious state. The following languages remain:
Andoa, Arabela, Cahuarano, Iquito and Záparo itself. The Záparo language, which once
was widely spoken, is almost extinct in Ecuador, having been replaced by Ecuadorian
Amazonian Quechua. Some speakers are said to be immigrants from Peru. Apart from
Záparo, all members of the family are exclusively found in Peru, and all languages have
no more than a handful of speakers, most of them bilingual in either Quechua or Spanish.
The Ecuadorian Záparo speakers live in the province of Pastaza. The Andoa were brought
into a reducción in 1701, and in 1737 a Dominican mission was established. The Iquito
were unknown to the colonisers before the eighteenth century, and since 1737 they stayed
in the missions intermittently (Chirif and Mora 1977).
Peeke (1962) provides an interesting sketch of Záparo morphosyntax. It appears to be
a language with relatively free word order, and no person marking on the verb. Rather
remarkably, it appears that a lexical subject, even an element like no-ka ‘it’ (third person
singular neutral), is almost always obligatory. Possibly, -ka functions as an impersonal
classifier, comparable to Bora -ne (cf. section 4.6):
(104) iá komá no-ká anawkt-ká naw

very strongly 3.SG-NU hurt-CN 3.SG
‘It hurts him very much.’ (Peeke 1962: 132)
(105) no-ká čat´ -ka
3.SG-NU rain-CN
‘It rains.’ (Peeke 1962: 148)
(106) noarı́ no-ká na sntá-ka
after 3.SG-NU F cool-CN
‘Afterwards it will cool off.’ (Peeke 1962: 135)
Záparo has a four-vowel system (i, , o, a), a fairly simple syllable structure, and fourteen
consonants, including c and ʔ. In (106) the future auxiliary na precedes the main verb,
as it does in (107). However, other markers are suffixed to the verb:
(107) kána-ha na ináw-ha no-ka no

1.PL-EM F give-F 3.SG-NU 3.SG
‘We shall give it to him.’ (Peeke 1962: 137)
In compounds the nucleus is last:
(108) sawanaw iawka [sawanáwka]

cotton thread
‘cotton thread’ (Peeke 1962: 150)
The same we see in possessor constructions, (109)–(110), and adjective–noun combi-

nations, (111):
(109) kina nı́ata

2P.PL town
‘your (plur.) town’ (Peeke 1962: 152)
4.8 The Tucanoan languages 453
(110) ko-áno ariáwko

1P.SG-mother dog
‘my mother’s dog’ (Peeke 1962: 153)
(111) róto-ka maráyha ikı́-ča
slippery-NU fish be-CN
‘It is a slippery fish.’ (Peeke 1962: 158)
Notice that there appears to be no overt subject in (111) (except for the enclitic neuter
element -ka), and that in (110) the person marker is proclitic. Both these phenomena are
illustrated in (112):
(112) ko-nokı́:ča-ka ikı́-ča

1S.SG-see-NU be-CN
‘It is my custom of seeing.’ (Peeke 1962: 147)
Here the person marker is attached to the nominalised verb. There is double negation:
(113) taykw á ko mı́-no kórk čiripáka ira [cf. Ec. Quechua kuly ki ‘money’]
not 1.SG have-NE money papaya B
‘I have no money for papayas.’ (Peeke 1962: 130–1)
The person marker paradigm is given in (114):
(114) kw i / ko(-) /k- 1.SG kana, kaʔʔno 1.PL.EX

pa /p- 1.PL.IV
ča(-) /k- 2.SG kina, kiʔʔno 2.PL
naw /no /n- 3.SG na 3.PL
no-ka 3.SG-NU
4.8 The Tucanoan languages

The Tucanoan languages in Peru are Angutero, Orejón or Coto, and Secoya or Piojé.
Secoya is also spoken in Ecuador. There are several other groups speaking closely related
Tucanoan languages in Ecuador: the Siona and the Teteté. All these languages belong to
the western branch. The Siona and Secoya are growing into a single community of an
estimated 600 people. Of Teteté, closely related to Siona, there were only two speakers
left in 1969. Although its speakers have dwindled to an insignificant number, Siona
was once important enough to be considered a lengua general by the Spanish colonial
administration (Ortega Ricaurte 1978); cf. chapter 2.
Table 4.7 Phoneme inventory of Huao (based on Saint and

K. L. Pike 1962)∗
Labial Dental Palatal Velar
Voiceless stops p t (č) k

Implosive click (p< )
Voiced stops b d∼r y ∼ dy g
Nasals m n ny ŋ
Implosive nasal (m< )
Glide w
Oral Nasal
Front Central/back Front Central/back
High i ı̃
Mid e o ẽ õ
Low æ a æ̃ ã
∗ The extra-systemic sounds č, p< and m< are limited to ono-
matopoeic expressions and exclamations. All sounds are subject
to allophonic variation. The phonemes o and õ vary between
back and central and can take the character of a glide ([γ ], [γ̃])
in non-nuclear position.
4.9 Small families and supposed language isolates in Ecuador

In addition to these larger and smaller language families there are a number of families
with only a few members and language isolates. We will discuss these starting with the
remaining Ecuadorian languages.
In the Ecuadorian oriente several small tribes are found along the Colombian border.
They are the linguistically isolated Cofán and western Tucanoan tribes already men-
tioned in chapter 2. In the Ecuadorian lowland province of Pastaza, another linguistic
isolate is found. It is Huao, the language of a tribe alternatively referred to as Auca,
Huaorani, Sabela or Auishiri. This tribe for long remained hostile to outside contacts.
Most linguistic work on this language has been done by the Summer Institute linguist
Catherine Peeke (1973, 1979), and Rachel Saint has collected a number of Huao texts
(cf. E. G. Pike and Saint 1988). The phoneme inventory has been described by Saint
and K. L. Pike (1962) as in table 4.7. There are three marginal phonemes: /č/, used in
onomatopoetic descriptions; /p< /, a labial inverse oral click, used as emphatic negative;
and /m< /, inverse pulmonic nasal. There are no syllable-final consonants and no conso-
nant clusters, while there are numerous vowel clusters. Nasalisation plays an important
role in the language.
4.9 Small families and supposed isolates in Ecuador 455
There is fairly extensive verb suffixing, as in:
(115) apæ̃ -ne-ga-dãn(i)-ı̃-pa

speak-CL:mouth-RM-3S.PL-IL-AF
‘They spoke long ago.’ (Pike and Saint 1988: 119)
There is evidence of noun classification; the examples given all involve body parts, as
-ne- ‘mouth’ above, -miœ̃- ‘tail’ and -po- ‘finger’:
(116) bo-tõ ta:-miæ̃ -kæ-bo-ı̃-pa

1.SG-PU cut-CL:tail-IC-1S.SG-IL-AF
‘I am going to cut off his tail.’ (Pike and Saint 1988: 125)
(117) deye ı̃-maı̃ wẽẽ-nẽ ẽ-po-kã-ta-pa
spider.monkey this-like long.ago-L exist-CL:finger-3S.SG-PA-AF
‘Long ago the spider monkey had four fingers and a thumb.’
(Pike and Saint 1988: 129)
These forms also illustrate a number of other features of the language: the contrast
between past and remote-past tenses, the presence of aspect categories such as inceptive,
and of evidentials, including an inferential marker, the use of person markers, and case
suffixes.
The suffixal person markers differentiate for number (singular, dual and plural), gender
(animate, inanimate) and (feminine) honorific. The second- and third-person dual and
plural forms do not only refer to number, but are also used to denote specific relations
in the kinship system (Peeke 1973: 40). Note that all stop symbols in Peeke’s inventory
of person markers reproduced below have to be pronounced as nasals when preceded
by a nasal vowel. So -dãdi is either pronounced [dãni], or [nãni]; -kã is either [kã] or
[ŋã], etc.
(118) singular dual plural

1 -bo -bōda -bõdi (exclusive)
-bõ (inclusive)
2 -bi -bı̃da -bı̃di
3 animate -kã -da -dãdi
3 inanimate ∅
The feminine honorific forms are designed to address mothers and women of an equiv-
alent rank in relation to the speaker. They distinguish between second and third person,
which are -bı̃ and -dã, respectively.
The case markers include:
(119) -baı̃ ‘like’

-dẽ ‘in’
-dõ ‘toward another, to’
-ke ‘limit, until’
The case markers in (119) that have voiced initials are subject to nasalisation as
described for the person markers above.
There is no marking for subjects and objects, which are differentiated through the
(fairly strict) SOV constituent order. An indication of the complexities of the interaction
of person marking and subordination is given in (120). (Note that -dãni refers to second-
person plural in permissive complement clauses such as illustrated in the following
example.)
(120) mã-nãni a-te “põnõ-mı̃ni kæ-mõ-e-dãni” ã-ny õ-ŋ

ŋã-te, ba ba ã-nãni
have-3S.PL see-SU give-2S.PL eat-1O.PL.EX-PM-2S.PL say-PR-3S-SU
no no say-3S.PL
{When, seeing they had, the (others) said: you give (you permit) us to
eat, they said no no.}
‘Since they had lots of corn, when the others asked: “Can we have some
of your corn to eat”, they refused.’ (Pike and Saint 1988: 115)
The subordination marker -te generally marks identical subjects, but not always.
4.10 Small families and supposed language isolates in Peru

In the northern half of the Peruvian lowlands, the linguistic situation is characterised
by the presence of several language isolates and small families. On the eastern slopes
of the Andes two families are on the verge of extinction, Cholón (discussed in detail
below in section 4.11) and Muniche. Muniche is spoken in the village of Muniches on
the Paranapura river (department of Loreto) (Gibson 1996). The unclassified and nearly
extinct Taushiro language of the Tigre river (department of Loreto) has been mentioned
in connection with Zaparoan (cf. Fabre 2001: 1007). Kaufman (1994) gives evidence for
a possible genetic relation between Taushiro, the extinct Mayna or Omurano language
(once spoken on the Urituyacu river in Loreto) and Candoshi (see below). Another
unclassified and possibly extinct language of the Peruvian lowlands is Au(i)shiri or
Tekiraka, once spoken near lake Vacacocha in the Curaray river area (Tessmann 1930).
In spite of the similarity in the name, the vocabulary given by Tessmann indicates no
relationship with Auishiri, one of the alternative designations of the Huaorani people
(see above section 4.9).
4.10 Small families and supposed isolates in Peru 457
Further north, Candoshi, Shapra or Murato is the last member of a small family; other
members were contacted during the sixteenth century (cf. chapter 3: sections 3.9.1 and
3.9.2). It has often been classified with the neighbouring Jivaroan languages, but David
Payne (1990) argues that this is a misclassification due to borrowing. Shapra also refers
to a variety of Candoshi spoken by a rather isolated subgroup. The Murato were first
contacted in 1744, but resisted missionary efforts of the Jesuits in 1748 (Chirif and Mora
1977).
Further east in Loreto, Urarina or Simacu is a language isolate with a few thousand
speakers. The group is now also known by its own denomination Kachá. Based on the
sentences given in ILV (1979: 139–42), we can draw the following preliminary sketch
of the language. In noun phrases, adjectives (actually stative verbs) follow nouns:
(121) aka helaherı̃: ‘cold water’

aka aharotı̃: ‘hot water’
Possessors and demonstratives precede the noun, however:
(122) a. i: kra:
‘your name’
i: lureri
‘your house’
b. ka: nenaha kra:
this settlement name
‘the name of this settlement’
c. ka: nke kra:
this river name
‘the name of this river’
We have the order modifier–modified:
(123) atawari tahe

‘chicken egg’
The object precedes the verb:
(124) a. kan ama- Atalaya-

1.SG take-IM Atalaya-AL
‘Take me to Atalaya!’
b. karay abio:n sar--če
for.me airplane push-IM-PL
‘Please push the airplane!’
Information status is marked with clause-final particles, such as the question clitic -na
in (125a):
(125) a. kna-a-na
hurt-3S-Q
‘Does it hurt?’
b. kna-to-a
hurt-VE-3S
‘It hurts.’
c. kna-i
hurt-3S.NE
‘It doesn’t hurt.’
Question words are fronted. They include:
(126) dz a ‘what?’, ‘who?’

dz a-bana ‘when?’
dz a-elõ ‘in which direction?’
dz a-hia ‘along where?’
dz a-toan-ẽy ‘how?’ [tona ‘compare’, -ẽy ‘gerund’]
dz ‘where?’
There is evidence of a demonstrative paradigm intersecting with the question-word

system (-hia indicates location in a wide sense).
(127) dz a-hia ‘whereabout?’

ta-hia ‘over there’
ka-hia ‘here’
It is difficult to gain a good picture of the morphology, except that it is suffixal. There
are a great many suffixes and about twelve suffix positions.
Cajas Rojas (1990) deals with the complex interaction between (progressive) nasali-
sation and nasal weakening in Urarina. The language is currently being studied by Knut
Olawsky.15
The Zaparoan family, mentioned above, and the Peba–Yagua family fill part of the
space separating the Amazon river from the Colombian and Ecuadorian border. Peba–
Yagua is now represented by a single language, Yagua. Yameo, another language of
the same family, became extinct in the 1960s. Doris Payne (1986) and Payne and Payne
(1990) contain extensive data on Yagua. Near the place where Peru meets with Colombia
and Brazil the isolate Ticuna is spoken (cf. section 2.20).
15 We thank Knut Olawsky for his revision of the Urarina examples given in this section.
4.10 Small families and supposed isolates in Peru 459
There are two languages in the southern Peruvian lowlands which have been mis-
classified as Arawakan: Culina and Harakmbut. The Culina live on both sides of the
Brazilian border. There is a larger Culina population in Brazil. Culina belongs to the
Arawá family; the Culina constituted a warrior group and were first sighted in 1869 by
the English explorer Chandless; in the 1890s they suffered intensive exploitation and
by the end of the 1940s they established themselves in the Alto Purús (Chirif and Mora
1977).
Harakmbut (spoken in Madre de Dios) has long been considered a language isolate
known by several names. Adelaar (2000), however, has argued a link with the Katukina
language family in Brazil. There are several dialects which fall into two large clus-
ters (Helberg Chávez 1990: 227–8). Toyoeri and Huachipaeri form one cluster, while
the other is formed by Sapiteri, Arasaeri and Amarakaeri, which is the best known
and has the largest number of speakers. It has been studied by Helberg Chávez (1984,
1990). After an initial incursion by the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, a new attempt to conquer
Madre de Dios was made by the Spaniards in 1566. The Huachipaeri managed to attack
highland haciendas from time to time in the colonial period. Towards the end of the nine-
teenth century the Toyoeri were decimated by the infamous rubber-baron Fitzcarraldo,
an event which resulted in an internecine war between the survivors and other Harakmbut
subtribes (Gray 1996). In 1950 there was successful renewed contact with Dominican
missionaries.
Helberg Chávez (1990) provides detailed information about the highly complex struc-
ture of the Amarakaeri verb. Verbs can have both prefixes and suffixes, and a number of se-
mantic categories can be marked on the verb: transitivity, causativity, intensive/extensive,
and person, tense/mood/aspect, and polarity. The personal markers, pronominal and pre-
fixal, are (Helberg Chávez 1990: 243–4):
n
(128) 1.SG doʔʔ ih -
2.SG õn iʔʔ-
3.SG kẽn oʔʔ-
1.PL oro oʔʔ-
2.PL opdn m
bo- / mõ-
3.PL kẽn-õ-my õnʔʔ-
Two examples can serve to illustrate the complexities of Harakmbut verbal morphology,
which includes a complex system of classifiers marking shape:
(129) ih -waʔʔ-pet-n da-piʔʔ ı̃h -nõ-põ-ẽ-ı̃

1S.SG-go-PO-IT-DU 1.SG-CL:centre-CL:round.form-know-1.SG
‘I think I will go a long time from now.’ (Helberg Chávez 1990: 239)
The classifier system has been described in some detail by Hart (1963): morphemes
referring to body parts are often combined with morphemes denoting more abstract
spatial features. These can occur in nouns, but also in adjectives and verbs. An example
of a nominal complex is (130), containing a nominalising classifier prefix:
(130) wa-pa-pi-k-ti-pi
N-CL:rod-CL:stick-CL:head-CL:extension-CL:stick
‘shin’ (Hart 1963: 3)
The data in ILV (1973) allow us to draw some preliminary typological conclusions as
well. Compounds have the order modifier–modified, and the same holds for adjective–
noun and determiner–noun order:
(131) a. baka õnʔʔwẽh cow milk ‘cows’ milk’
b. kargŋ wẽʔʔẽy cold water ‘cold water’
c. ı̃n wa-kmãiʔʔ this N-CL:pill ‘this pill’
Case is expressed through suffixes:
(132) ı̃n-te this-L ‘here’

iʔʔ-mãiʔʔ-po 2S.SG-drink-IS ‘while you drink . . .’
4.11 Cholón
We now will provide a sketch of Cholón, a language of the upper Huallaga valley in
northern Peru, north of the town of Tingo Marı́a. There was also a language closely
related to Cholón, Hibito. Only a few elderly people remembered Cholón until recently
(reportedly in Sión, department of San Martı́n). Both Cholón and Hibito are now probably
extinct. Cholón is discussed in some detail below. This language has been documented
in a number of sources:
– Pedro de la Mata’s (1748) Arte de la lengua cholona. The manuscript was
purchased by the British Library in 1863 and has been – rather unfaithfully
and only partly – transcribed by Julio Tello (1923: 690–750). We went back
to a filmed copy of the British Museum text, which has been prepared for
publication by Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus.
– Martı́nez Compañón’s (1985 [1782–90]) comparative word list of 43 items
gathered from speakers in the same mission areas (conversiones), partic-
ularly the conversión de Hivitos. The list includes several other languages
besides Cholón and ‘Hivito’ (see section 3.9.2).
– Günter Tessmann’s (1930) 30-item word list from his large comparative
study of northeastern Peru, based on data provided by Harvey Baessler
from an old man living in Pachiza.
4.11 Cholón 461
4.11.1 The Cholón lexicon and relationship with Hibito

There is some dispute about the genetic relationship between Cholón and Hibito. Most
scholars, and most convincingly Rivet (1949), have argued that the two languages are
closely related, but Torero (1986: 533) casts doubt on this claim. In our view, the lex-
ical correspondences strongly support the relationship. Pedro de la Mata, at the end of
his Cholón grammar, gives a list of both the Cholón- and the Hibito-speaking towns,
presumably intending his grammar to be used in both. Consider the following items,
taken from Pedro de la Mata (PM), Martı́nez Compañón (MC) and Tessmann (T), which
surely belong to the core vocabulary of both languages. This makes Torero’s suggestion
that shared lexicon has resulted from extensive language contact less plausible:
(133) Cholón Hibito

tree, stick mech (PM), mees=ñgup (MC), mixs (MC),
meš (T) mitš (T)
¯
water cot (PM), quõt (MC), kö˘ ta (T) cachi (MC), otšj (T)
daughter ñu (PM), -ñu (MC) ñoo (MC)
son pul (PM), -pul (MC) pool (MC)
fruit queniya (MC) llagna (MC)
woman ila (PM), yla (MC), hilá (T) etlec (MC), udū,
alu (T)
man nun (PM), num (MC), lūn(o) (T) nuum (MC),
nūm, nun (T)
father nguch ‘his/her father’ (PM) cotc (MC)
mother nguetz, ñeetz, ng̃uech queec (MC)
‘his/her mother’ (PM)
die ñgoli=cho (MC), calgesquim (MC)
col- (PM)
black zal, tzal, chal (PM) utsálmana (T)
bone chel (PM, MC) chepce (MC)
one an- (PM), ans- (T) etsı́ (T)
two ip- (PM), hips- (T) optšē (T)
three is- (PM), hies- (T) útsi (T)
house yip, (t)zip (PM), hı̄p(o) (T) ı̄p (T)
earth pei, pey (PM), lluspey (MC), puts16 (T)
pēij (T)
head setch (PM), mutsitšé (T) sótša (T)
stone ta (PM), tā (T) tšē (T)
16 Compare Culli pus ∼ pos ‘earth’.

Sound correspondences may include:
(134) Cholón Hibito

ta če, či
c, č c
o a
u o:, u:
There are also a number of items which do not correspond, but part of the non-
correspondence may simply be due to the elicitation procedure. Of Hibito, no
more than fifty words are known: those recorded by Martı́nez Compañón and by
Tessmann.
A very interesting case involves the Cholón words for ‘father’ and ‘mother’, which
are regularly inflected with person prefixes except for the suppletive third-person form,
as Pedro de la Mata notes:
(135) ‘father’ ‘mother’

a-pa a-paŋŋ 1P.SG
mi-pa mi-paŋ ŋ 2P.SG.MS
pi-pa pi-paŋŋ 2P.SG.FE
ŋuč ŋeč 3P.SG
The last two forms, however, can be regularly derived from *ŋ-kuč and *ŋ-keč, which
presumably contain the older forms for ‘father’ and ‘mother’, respectively, if we take
the Hibito evidence into account.
4.11.2 Gender-determined language use

Certain forms of Cholón language use are determined by the gender of the (singular)
addressee. Consider first the contrast between the following examples:
(136) a. inčam-ma
what-MS
‘What do you say or want (man)?’
b. inčam-pa
what-FE
‘What do you say or want (woman)?’
The same contrast with m for masculine forms and p for feminine forms we find with
second-person-singular prefixes:
4.11 Cholón 463
(137) a- 1P.SG a-kcok ‘my box’ [kacok ‘box’]

mi- 2P.SG.MS mi-kcok ‘your (masc.) box’
pi- 2P.SG.FE pi-kcok ‘your (fem.) box’
We find p for feminine also in the contrasting address forms: there is an -ey ending for
men, and -pey for women.
4.11.3 Cholón phonology

On the basis of the historical sources it is not easy to get a clear idea of Cholón phonology.
Pedro de la Mata developed elaborate transcription conventions in his Arte, but does
not indicate with which sounds his diacritics correspond. Tessmann, however, uses a
much more uniform and precise system, so that we have a reasonable general idea. The
sound inventory is roughly as in table 4.8. Vowel length is not distinctive, according
to Pedro de la Mata, and there is no contrastive stress. Stress is word final, except on
certain verb tenses, where we have stress on the penultimate syllable. For the notation
of Cholón we use a spelling based on a reconstruction of the Cholón sound system
developed by Alexander-Bakkerus (in preparation).17 Doubled consonants, which are
usually presented as alternatives for simple consonants in de la Mata’s grammar, are
written as single consonants.
There is evidence of harmony for high vowels in the prefixes, as can be seen in the
following contrasts:
(138) ki-coc ‘our guinea pig’ ku-cuč ‘our alfalfa’ [yoc ‘guinea-pig’,
i-coc ‘their guinea pig’ u-cuč ‘their alfalfa’ yuč ‘alfalfa’]
Syllables tend to be simple, as will become clear from the examples below.
4.11.4 The principal grammatical features of Cholón

As far as the morphology of this language is concerned, a large part of Cholón mor-
phology is clearly suffixal and agglutinative, but person markers are prefixal. There is
some compounding as well. There is a complex set of morphophonological adjustment
rules for the third-person prefix, as will be shown below.
Cholón has a number of word classes, in addition to nouns and verbs, which are the
two dominant categories in the language and to which we will return below.
17 Much of the morphological analysis underlying the interpretation of the example sentences in
this section is also based on Alexander-Bakkerus’s unpublished work.
Table 4.8 The sound inventory of Cholón (based on Alexander-Bakkerus,

forthcoming)∗
Labial Dental Palatal Velar Laryngeal
Voiceless stops p t k ʔ
Voiced stops (b) (d) (g)
Fricatives (f ) s š h
Affricates c č
Nasals m n ny ŋ
Vibrant (r)
Laterals l ly
Glides w y
Front Central Back
High i u
Mid e o
Low a
∗ The elements in parentheses occur only in Spanish loan words. The exact value of
the mid vowels is uncertain; the assumption of a glottal stop phoneme is tentative.
Exclamatives
Just like Quechua, Cholón has a wide variety of exclamatives, some of which resemble
those of that language:
(139) ah neutral exclamation, also: to scare children

aha ‘what a shame!’
aku ‘affectionate, pity’
alew ‘cold’
aly aw, atih ‘pain’
ampašlen ‘pity’
anih empek, ma empek ‘very well! well done!’
any iw ‘desire’
aŋ ŋ ‘admiration’
ičay, ičakay ‘disapproval’
iči, ičyey ‘fear’
išiw ‘how wicked, how insolent!’
onew ‘anger or annoyance’
oy ‘concession or assent’
uču, učuw ‘how hot!’
uny uw ‘marvel, praise’
4.11 Cholón 465
Conjunctions and clausal enclitics

There is a small set of sentential affixes, which includes:
(140) a. -le ‘or’, interrogative marker

b. -pit ‘and, also’
c. -simaly ‘and, also’ (used with verbs)
d. -(w)a ‘as for’ (topic marker)
e. -(w)ačo ‘and, but’
The form sim-al y ‘and, etc.’ may consist of sim, which occurs rarely by itself, and the
delimitative clitic -(a)l y . Some examples of sentential affixes are given below.
(141) mi-le ok-le ki-ly a-kt-an18

2.SG-IR 1.SG-IR 1S.PL-go-F-IA
‘Shall I go, or will you go?’
(142) ok a-ly a-kt-an mi-na-ha-wačo mu-mutaŋ ŋ-ha-te [putam ‘village’]
1.SG 1S.SG-go-F-IA 2-PU-PL-but 2P.SG-RL.village-PL-L
‘I will go, but you (plural) (will stay) in your village.’
Question words
Question words include the following, where -(a)m is a question marker:
(143) ol-am ‘who?’

inča-m ‘what?’
intoŋŋko-m ‘which?’
ana-mek-am ‘how much/many?’ [mek ‘all’]
They can be modified by the enclitic conjunction -pit ‘also’ and then have an indefinite
meaning:19
(144) ol-pit ‘someone’

inča-pit ‘something’
intoŋŋko-pit ‘anyone’
18 There is evidence that m and ŋ were the only nasals occurring in word-final as well as root-
final position in Cholón, and that the imperfective suffix -(a)n was in fact pronounced [(a)ŋ].
Likewise, the most likely interpretation for the final nasal in -mutaŋ- (∼ mutam), in (142), is a
velar nasal.
19 Compare Quechua -pas/-pis with the same meaning.
For the use of the question words, consider the following cases:
(145) a. inča-m ma-kot-an

what-Q 2.SG.AP-be-IA
‘What do you have?’
b. inča-pit-ma a-kot-p-an
what-AD-NE 1.SG.AP-be-NE-IA
‘I have nothing.’
c. a-paŋ ŋ-a ol-am a-šot-a ol-lol-am če-kt-an-pit20
1P.SG-mother-TO who-Q 1P.SG-brother-TO who-PL-Q
3S.PL-be-IA-AD
‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’
d. ana-mek-am hayu putam-te i-toŋ ŋ21
how.many-all-Q person village-L 3S.PL-be/sit
‘How many Indians are there in the village?’
It is clear that many question words contain the element -am but the data are not sufficient
to determine what exactly this form means. Possibly, it has a function comparable with
Quechua -taq (see section 3.2.6).
Pronouns
There is a regular personal pronoun system. Notice that the second-person-plural form
can be derived synchronically from its singular counterpart:
(146) ok ‘I’ ki-ha ‘we’

mi ‘you’ mi-na-ha ‘you’
sa ‘he’ či-ha ‘they’
These pronouns can be case-marked as well. Some of them also form the basis for the
person prefixes, as we will see below.
In addition, there are demonstrative pronouns, encoding three degrees of distance:
(147) ko ‘this here’

ŋko
iŋ ‘that there’
pe ‘that over there’
20 The internal vowel of the verb root kot ‘to be’ is suppressed in order to avoid the occurrence
of a non-initial open syllable; it does not happen in (145a), where the root is preceded by an
applicative prefix (Alexander-Bakkerus, personal communication).
21 The verb -toŋ ‘to sit’ is exceptional in that it does not take the imperfective suffix -(a)n in
non-applicative forms with a third-person subject.
4.11 Cholón 467
Nouns
Nouns can appear inflected or uninflected for person, and there is some nominal morphol-
ogy as well. There is the possibility of nominal gender marking through compounding
with nun ‘man’ and ila ‘woman’:
(148) nun hayu / hayu nun ‘man’ [hayu ‘person, Indian’]

ila hayu / hayu ila ‘woman’
kuči nun ‘boar’ [kuči ‘pig’, old Spanish coche]
ately pa nun ‘rooster’ [ately pa ‘chicken’, Quechua atawal y pa]
There is a large set of nominal suffixes, which are either derivational, or mark case
distinctions, and are then postpositional in nature. Derivational affixes are:
(149) a. -(a)ly ‘only . . .’22

b. -(k)e ‘made of . . .’, ‘child of (dead persons)’,
‘former’, ‘the late . . .’ (nominal past)
c. -(k)ely ‘having excess of . . .’ [possibly -(k)e + -(a)ly ]
d. -puč ‘totally’
e. -puly em ‘and natural counterpart’
f. -ciw23 ‘having a lack of . . .’, ‘in need of’
Examples of these affixes are given below:
(150) čow-nik-aly
louse-C-DL
‘with only lice’
(151) a. ampal-e [ampal ‘past’]
‘thing of the past’
b. čečo-ke [čečo ‘silver’]
‘(made) of silver’
c. Juana-ke u-ny u
Juana-NP 3P.SG-daughter
‘daughter of the late Juana’
(152) seč-ely [seč ‘head’]
‘big headed’
22 Cf. Quechua -l ya with the same meaning.

23 In Pedro de la Mata ziu or chiu.
(153) a-lek-puč [a- ‘one’, -lek ‘ten’]

‘completely ten’
(154) a. ŋuč-puly em ŋuč ‘3P.SG.father’]
[ŋ
‘father and son’
b. ŋeč-puly em ŋeč ‘3P.SG.mother’]
[ŋ
‘mother and daughter’
(155) a. a-le-ciw [a-le ‘1P.SG-tooth’]
‘without my teeth’, ‘I, without teeth’
b. a-le-saly -ciw
‘without any of my teeth’, ‘I, absolutely toothless’
The expression kamayok ‘person in charge of . . .’, from Quechua kamayuq (same
meaning), can also be used as a postposition-like element:
(156) weša kamayok [weša ‘sheep’, from Spanish oveja]

‘shepherd’
palol kamayok [palol ‘door’]
‘doorman’
Case markers and postpositions are sometimes difficult to distinguish because de la Mata
does not indicate word boundaries consistently. They include:
(157) -he ‘for’, ‘aim’, benefactive case

-(ly ak)pat ‘by’, ‘because of’, instrumental case
-(ly ak)tep ‘from’, ablative case
-manap ‘between’, ‘after’
-nik ‘with’, ‘company’, comitative case
-(pat)le ‘until, up to’, limitative case
-te locative case, allative case
-tu motion towards a person, allative case
(158) Examples of -he benefactive:
a. ok-he
1.SG.PU-B
‘for me’
b. Dios-he a-lu.pakt-an [lu ‘entrails’, pakot- ‘to be there’]
God-B 1S.SG-think/consider-IA
‘I think of God.’
4.11 Cholón 469
c. a-cm-o-k-te-he [yam-/cam- ‘to learn’]

1S.SG-learn-TV-N-L-B
‘so that I can learn’
d. kač-he a-kt-an
maize-B 1S.SG-be-IA
‘I need maize’
e. a-am-o-k-he-na a-ki-an
1S.SG-eat-TV-N-B-QU 1S.SG-feel-IA
‘I feel like eating.’
(159) Examples of -pat instrumental:
a. a-moncey-pat a-hl-an [hil ‘to speak’]
1P.SG-tongue-IS 1S.SG-speak-IA
‘I speak with my tongue.’
b. mi-pat
2.SG.PU-IS
‘because of you’
c. a-lek libra kuka-pat a-cočok a-ms-i [pis ‘to buy’, ‘to ask for’]
one-ten pound coca-IS 1P.SG-trousers 1S.SG-3O.SG.buy-PF
‘With my ten pounds of coca I bought my trousers.’
(160) Example of -tep ablative:
Espiritu.Santo i-cmey-tep hayu ∅-ki-i
Holy.Ghost 3P.SG-creation-AB man 3S.SG-become-PF
‘Man was born from the Holy Ghost.’
(161) Examples of -nik comitative:
a. čečo-nik a-kt-an
money-C 1S.SG-be-IA
‘I have money.’ (lit. ‘I am with money.’)
b. ki-ha-nik
1.PL-PL.PU-C
‘with us’
c. inčana-m mi-mot-nik me-kt-an
how-Q 2P.SG-name-C 2.SG-be-IA
‘What is your name?’ (lit. ‘How are you with your name?’)24
(162) Example of -le limitative:
liman-le
mountain-LI
‘up to the mountains’
24 For the combination -nik-aly see the example (150) above.

(163) Example of -te locative:

ŋ-an
ki-cip-te ke-tŋ ŋ- ‘to sit’]
[yip ‘house’, toŋ
1P.PL-house-L 1S.PL-sit-IA
‘We are in our house.’
(164) Example of -tu allative:
Juan-tu a-ly w-an [ly a(w)- ‘to go’]
Juan-AL 1S.SG-go-IA
‘I am going to Juan’s place.’
There is a genitive marker -low, which can only occur with a possessive personal
prefix.
(165) a. ok a-low ko-wa

1.SG.PU 1P.SG-G this-TO
‘This is mine.’
b. ok a-low ŋ-a-ly ah-an
1.SG.PU 1P.SG-G 3S.SG-1.SG.AP-take-IA
‘He takes mine (away).’
c. ol i-low-am ko-wa
who 3P.PL-G-Q this-TO
‘Whose is this?’
There is some evidence that the suffix -tup represents an agent-disambiguator or

an ergative case marker. (Unfortunately de la Mata does not contain many example
sentences.)
(166) Juan-tup Pedro i-∅ ∅-lam-i25

Juan-E Pedro 3S.SG-3O.SG-kill-PF
‘Juan killed Pedro.’
Rivet (1956) draws attention to the numeral classifier system of Cholón.26 The numerals
are prefixed to generally monosyllabic morphemes particular to a semantic class. The
25 Compare Mapuche langm- ‘to kill’ (see chapter 5).

26 Rivet argues on this basis, in our view without enough support, that Cholón was related to the
Chibchan languages.
4.11 Cholón 471
list of classes and classifiers is as follows:
(167) -če round objects, birds, fruit

-cel ∼ -čel , -ta humans, horses, hands
-čaŋŋ bundles, handfuls, bunches
-čup clothing, dresses, axes, machetes, fish, books, feathers,
scissors, knives, combs, shoes, stockings
-hil words, precepts, ordinances, commands
-liw diverse objects, colours, parrots
-pimok skies, ceilings, rooms, divisions of space, folds
-pok times
-poŋ ŋ troops, companies, armies, herds
-puč fields
-puk mouthfuls
ŋ
-šuŋ towns, places, posts, piles
-tip halves, pieces of meat
-tuh pieces, chunks, nodes, joints
Adjectives
Cholón only has substantives that can be used adjectivally, such as waliw ‘something
strong’27 and al y hi ‘something sweet’.28 They can either precede or follow the head
noun, according to de la Mata, but the examples given involve adjective–noun order:
(168) a. išiwah hayu

‘bad man’
b. yamkuyla hayu-he
diligent man-B
‘for the diligent man’
Person prefixes
All nouns, verbs, pronouns and even some postpositions are used with prefixes. These
are given in (169), together with the full pronouns listed above. For most person–number
combinations, there is a clear relationship between both. (N- is either n-, or nasalisation
of an initial stop):
(169) 1.SG 2.SG 3.SG 1.PL 2.PL 3.PL

pronouns ok mi sa ki-ha mi-na-ha či-ha
affixes a- mi- ∅-
N-/∅ ki- mi-..-ha (č)i-
27 Possibly from Spanish vale ‘it is worth’, ‘it is good’.

28 Compare Quechua al y i(n) ‘good’.
These prefixes fuse with their base, and de la Mata’s grammar gives extensive paradigms,
which at first sight look quite confusing, particularly where third person singular is
involved:
(170) a-pul ‘my son’ mul ‘his son’ [pul ‘son’]

a-taka ‘my thighbone’ taka ‘his thighbone’ [taka ‘thighbone’]
a-coc ‘my guinea pig’ coc ‘his guinea pig’ [yoc ‘guinea pig’]
a-nly o ‘my pupil’ naly o ‘his pupil’ [naly o ‘pupil’]
There are several regular processes at work in the process of prefix fusion:
(a) before vowels -n- is inserted;
(b) a palatal glide is replaced by the affricate c-;
(c) stem-initial labial stops may become nasal; with some nouns this only
happens to mark third person singular;
(d) stem-initial velar stops become nasal to mark third person singular;
(e) before an alveolar or palatal sound (č, c, s, š, t, l y ) the third-person prefix
is zero; the same holds before nasals as defined under (a), (c) and (d);
(f) the third-person-plural prefix is i- before alveolars and palatals, či-
elsewhere (or u-, ču- through vowel harmony).
Verbs
The verbal paradigm in Cholón is quite complex. The basic forms for person are the
ones listed above in (169). We have the following present-tense paradigm for the verb
kot-‘to be’; cf. also (145). Notice that the third-person-singular form of an intransitive
verb such as kot- has no personal reference marker.
(171) 1S.SG a-kt-an 1S.PL ke-kt-an

2S.SG.MS me-kt-an 2S.PL me-kt-i-ha-[a]n
2S.SG.FE pe-kt-an
3S.SG kot-an 3S.PL če-kt-an
Tense and aspect are marked with suffixes. Some are (using the terminology of de la
Mata):
(172) -(a)n present / imperfective

-Vy / -Vw / -i / -yi preterite / perfective
-Vy / -Vw / -i / -yi + (k)e pluperfect
-(k)t-an future
In addition, there are a number of mood markers, marking optative, exhortative, subor-
dination (gerund). Some of them contain a nominalising element -k- (see below).
4.11 Cholón 473
(173) -(k-)hu gerund (with switch-reference)

ŋ)o-ke / -(k-)te-ke
-(ŋ optative
-(k-)he exhortative (third-person-subject imperative)
There is also a negative element -p-, which interacts with tense-agreement marking:
(174) a-kot-p-an
1S.SG-be-NE-IA or 1.SG.AP-be-NE-IA
‘I am not.’ or ‘I have not.’
Thus we have a basic ‘formula’ for the verb as in:
(175)  -- (-) (-) /
However, when we consider forms such as the following, we realise that the full com-
plexities of the Cholón verbal system still call for further analysis. (Notice the vowel
harmony in /pakot-o-ke/ > pokot-o-ke.).
(176) a-kt-i pokot-o-ke [pakot ‘be there’]

1S.SG-be-PF be.there-FN-NP (optative)
‘I could have been.’ (lit. ‘I have been from having to be’)
There are very strong and productive patterns of nominalisation in the language;
some involve a nominaliser -k- The locative -te is used here with a directional
meaning:
(177) a. liman a-ly a-k-te a-meny -an

mountains 1S.SG-go-N-L 1S.SG-3O.SG.want-IA
‘I want to go to the mountains.’
b. Dios-a ŋol-e-k-te ki-meny -an
God-TO 3O.SG.love-TV-N-L 1S.PL-3O.SG.want-IA
‘We want to love God.’
c. Dios-tup i-k-kol-e-k-te i-meny -an
God-E 3S.SG-1O.PL-love-TV-N-L 3S.SG-3O.SG.want-IA
‘God wants to love us.’
When we look at the transitions between subject and object marking, things are again
more complicated, however. First of all, there can be a third-person-plural object marker
-po- following the person prefixes, so that we would get:
(178)  - . -  -  - /

Examples are:
(179) a-po-koly -an 1S.SG-3O.PL ‘I love them.’

mi-po-koly -an 2S.SG-3O.PL ‘You love them.’
mi-po-koly -i-ha-(a)n 2S.PL-3O.PL ‘You (plur.) love them.’
There is also an applicative marker -pa(ha)- ‘for them’, in forms such as:
(180) i-sak a-paha-puč-an

3P.PL-food 1S.SG-3.PL.AP-put-IA
‘I put the food out for them.’
When the plural -la- appears without either -po- or -pa- it means the subject is third-
person plural and the person prefixes mark the person of the object. In the following
example, as in (179), the verb contains the perfective marker -i, which in these cases is
semantically void.
(181) a-koly -i-la-n 3S.PL-1O.SG ‘They love me.’

mi-koly -i-la-n 3S.PL-2O.SG ‘They love you.’
Compound verbs
Another feature worthy of note in Cholón is the fact that nouns or other elements can be
combined with an auxiliary-like verb to form a complex predicate. Consider:
(182) a. a-kuly ha a-kt-an [kuly ha ‘life’; kot- ‘to be’]

1P.SG-life 1S.SG-be-IA
‘I live.’ (lit. ‘I am my life.’)
b. mu-kuly ha me-kt-an
2P.SG-life 2S.SG-be-IA
‘You live.’ (lit. ‘You are your life.’)
There is a verb ki-, which has the meaning ‘to be’ or ‘to become’:
(183) kama a-ki-an ‘I am ill.’

mise ∅-ki-an ‘He feels cold.’
ciw mi-ki-(e)y-ha-n ‘You (plur.) are needy.’
hayu ∅-ki-y ‘He became a man.’
Similarly, verbs can be made from nouns. (Note that the root vowel of yip- / cip- ‘to
make a house’ remains unchanged.)
4.12 Small families and supposed isolates in Bolivia 475
(184) a. a-cip-an [yip ‘house’, -cip ‘someone’s house]

1S.SG-house-IA
‘I make my house.’
b. liw a-lw-e-n [liw ‘painting’, liw-e- ‘to write’]
letter 1S.SG-write-IA
‘I write.’
4.11.5 The basic word order of Cholón

Cholón has many characteristics of a classical OV language, in addition to fairly con-
sistent verb-final clauses:
(185) kuči-le me-kt-an maly a mu-∅ ∅-ly up-o-wa

pig-or 2S.SG-be-IA raw.thing 2S.SG-3O.SG-eat-FN-TO
‘Or are you a pig that you eat raw stuff?’
Possessors precede their head noun:
(186) Pedro ∅-n-eštek sa-čo ∅-kot-an29

Peter 3P.SG-RL-clothes old-already 3S.SG-be-IA
‘Peter’s clothes are already old.’
Modifiers precede their head noun as well:
(187) čečo-ke kaloč

silver-NP plate
‘silver plate’
4.12 Small families and supposed language isolates in Bolivia

In the Bolivian lowlands surrounding the northern edge of the Andean high plateau
there is a wide array of small, genetically isolated languages. From west to east, they are
Leco, Mosetén–Chimane, Movima, Cayuvava, Canichana, Itonama and, further south,
Yuracaré. Most of these languages are far from being adequately documented at present.
Leco had been considered extinct, but van de Kerke (1998, 1999, 2000, 2002) has found
more than forty-five speakers. The language has (direct and indirect) object person
prefixes but an extensive verbal suffixing system, as well as case suffixes. An example is:
(188) mi:s yo-yo-ki yin-hal-di-ra-no-te wes-ra

tomorrow 1P.SG-mother-RL 1.SG.DA-buy-IC-F-ID.N-DV Guanay-L
‘Tomorrow my mother will go and buy me (a new one) in Guanay.’
(van de Kerke 2002: 246)
29 It could not be determined whether the root for ‘old’ exemplified here is actually sa or sačo.
There are a few simple cases: -ki ‘dative, benefactive’, -i ‘comitative, instrumental’, -ra
‘locative, instrumental’, -rep ‘ablative’, as well as bi-syllabic case markers such as the
Quechua or Aymara borrowings -kama ‘until’ and -bača ‘reason’.
Gill (undated) and Sakel (2002, 2003) provide detailed studies of Mosetén–Chimane.
It is best to consider this group as a set of three closely related varieties: Santa Ana
Mosetén, Covendo Mosetén and Chimane proper. Sakel (2002) documents how gender
marking has become grammaticalised as a pervasive feature of a number of grammatical
subsystems of Mosetén.
Basic data for Movima have been provided by Judy and Judy (1962, 1967) and
Grinevald (2002), and the language is currently being studied by Katharina Haude.
It has a complex system of classifiers (Grinevald 2002). An example from the verbal
domain is:
(189) ona-ra- ‘know (the thing)’

ona-mo- ‘know (a bird)’
ona-wax- ‘know (a place)’
ona-poy- ‘know (an animal)’ (Judy and Judy 1962: 151)
Aspects of the small isolate Cayuvava have been documented by Key (1967). This
language is in urgent need of further documentation and analysis. Itonama and the prob-
ably extinct Canichana are currently being studied by Mily Crevels. Itonama phonology
has been analysed by Liccardi (1968).
Yuracaré has been documented by Adam (1893) on the basis of a much earlier
manuscript by the missionary de la Cueva. It is currently being studied by Rik van
Gijn. It has complex reduplication patterns, involving either the initial syllable, the final
syllable, or the entire word:
(190) a. burusa- ‘to get rent’ burus-bu- ‘to rend’

b. sama- ‘to die’ sama-ma- ‘to kill’
c. bene-bene-‘to be poor, to need’ (Adam 1893: 46–8)
Yuracaré is an SOV agglutinative language with both prefixes and suffixes. As in Leco,
personal nominal possession and object markers are prefixal, while subject markers
are suffixal. Applicatives are prefixal, while other verbal derivation markers, includ-
ing causative and reflexive, tense/mood/aspect markers, case markers and sentence-
organising elements are suffixal. The following example, adapted from de la Cueva’s
work, illustrates some of these characteristics:
(191) ka-n-yuxu-ma ka-la-sa-čo-w

3O.SG-AP.GO-tell-IM.2.SG 3O.SG-AP.SO-finish-HO-3S.PL
‘Tell them to leave it (to stop doing it).’ (Adam 1893: 11, 37)
4.13 Chiquitano 477
Interesting here is the use of different applicatives to mark motion away from or towards
a reference point, as well as beneficiary or purpose. The use of singular third-person
object markers is allowed here because plural is encoded in the complement verb (Adam
1893: 37).
A genetically isolated language, as far as we know (but see below), with a rapidly
decreasing number of speakers for which a modern description is urgently needed, is
Chiquitano in the eastern department of Santa Cruz de la Sierra. Chiquitano being a
former mission language, remnants of other tribes can be found among its speakers. The
sources do not indicate whether these groups have preserved elements of their original
languages.
The remaining language families represented in Bolivia are found in the north of
the country: Chapacuran, with one language called Itene or Moré (Angenot-de Lima
2001), the Pano–Tacanan languages (section 4.1), members of the Arawakan family
(section 4.2) and Tupi–Guaranı́ languages (section 4.3).
4.13 Chiquitano
Now we will try to provide a sketch of Chiquitano. The size of the ethnic group of
Chiquitanos is estimated by Riester (1986a) at 35,000–40,000, a minority of which
are speakers of Chiquitano. In the period of Jesuit control over the area (1691–1767)
Chiquitano was chosen as a lingua franca and imposed in ten reducciones, newly created
settlements. Jesuit policy allowed settlements where other languages with a few thousand
speakers, such as Zamuco, dominated, as long as these speakers also knew Chiquitano.
Speakers of minor languages, however, were encouraged to become integrated into the
Chiquitano ethnic group. While there must have been extensive multilingualism in the
Chiquitano reducciones in the eighteenth century, Alcide d’Orbigny did not find many
traces of the other languages when he visited the missions in 1831. Riester (1986: 31)
describes the situation in the early nineteenth century as follows: several Arawakan lan-
guages (Paiconeca, Paunaca, Saraveca), Chapacuran languages (Chapacura, Kitemoca,
Napeca) and Otuque (a Bororoan language) were still spoken but were losing ground
in a process of language shift towards Chiquitano. Now only in two communities near
Concepción do we find some Chiquitanos who speak Paunaca, and Kitemoca may still
be in existence as well.
The Jesuits effectively created a semi-standardised language, in which quite a few reli-
gious texts were written: sermons, prayers, catechisms, stories from the Scriptures. In ad-
dition, there were several grammars and vocabularies. Most of this material has remained
in manuscript form (cf. the description in Riester et al. 1986), and much of it has been lost.
Two manuscripts (containing a grammar, some dialogues and a vocabulary), one of which
is partly based on the other, found in libraries of La Paz, Jena and Paris, were collated and
published by Adam and Henry (1880) in their Bibliothèque Linguistique Américaine.

A recent brief sketch is provided in Riester et al. (1986) by Barbara Schuchard, who
summarises the Adam and Henry material and confronts it with modern spoken Chiqui-
tano. Max Fuss, who lived in the area for a long time, prepared a manuscript vocabulary,
which was checked and expanded by Riester, and published in Riester et al. (1986). The
Franciscan Jesús Galeote Tormo has written an accessible pedagogical grammar, in fairly
traditional terms (1993; 2nd edn 1996), of the Lomerı́o variety, called Besro. In addition,
the Summer Institute linguists D. and M. Krüsi (1978a, b) have described some aspects
of the Besro Chiquitano spoken in Lomerı́o, and published a number of texts in the
language.
Even though Chiquitano was still known widely enough to be used as a cypher lan-
guage during the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay, now it has lost its role
as a lingua franca to Spanish. It is still widely used, but only in in-group situations,
and has undergone influence from Spanish. For this reason, according to Riester, most
speakers only know dialectal Chiquitano now; knowledge of the lingua franca form of
the language codified in the Jesuit materials is mostly lost. Galeote Tormo (1993: 18,
30) reports that there is considerable mutual comprehension between the varieties of
Chiquitano, of which the three main ones are referred to as Besro or Lomerı́o, San
Javier and San Miguel (the latter two often taken together). The main difference has
to do with more nasalisation in Lomerı́o. In addition, the latter dialect has word-final š.
where the others have h.
Since the eighteenth-century sources analysed by Adam and Henry (1880) are much
more detailed than the twentieth-century ones, we will take the former as a point of
departure, and only note differences where these have been mentioned by Schuchard.
There have been many changes in the language in the last two centuries, which remain
to be studied. Chiquitano remains an isolate genetically.
4.13.1 Gender-determined language use in Chiquitano

Differences related to gender are reported to play a central role in Chiquitano, particularly
in the earlier varieties. Women use the unmarked form, while men use masculine forms
and masculine endings when they speak ‘of Gods or divine persons or angels, demons,
men, false gods; in sum, of everything that painters paint with men’s shapes.’ (Adam
and Henry 1880: 5). Thus, not only does men’s speech as such have particular features
(to be listed below), also men make gender distinctions when referring to other entities
while women do not. The only time a woman will make gender distinctions is when she
is quoting or making fun of men’s speech; similarly, the only occasion a man will not
use them is when he quotes women’s speech.
4.13 Chiquitano 479
Specific features of men’s speech reported in the literature include (Adam and Henry
1880: 5–6, 9–10):
a. the ending -ti: on forms inflected for masculine third person singular, and
the ending -()ma in the plural;
b. the class prefix i- in the singular and main the plural for some person
names; men say i-ša:raš. ‘white man’ and ma-ša:ra-ka ‘white men’, women
ša:raš. and ša:ra-ka;
c. the class prefix o- for words denoting animals and trees; men say o-petaš.
‘turtle’, women petaš.;
d. pronouns and adverbs limited to men;
e. nouns that men never use;
f. nouns that women use inflected, men uninflected, and vice versa;
g. almost all kinship terms have an infix for the third-person masculine pos-
sessive form, e.g.:
(192) a. a-to-bo-ti: abo-š. ‘her stepson’

stepson-MS-LS-3P.MS
‘his stepson’
b. ipak-to-š.-ti: ipak-š. ‘her mother’
mother-MS-P-3P.MS
‘his mother’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 6)
We use the term ‘unmarked’ rather than ‘feminine’, in opposition to ‘masculine’, because
it includes everything but the specifically designated group of masculine entities.
4.13.2 Chiquitano phonology

Chiquitano has the consonantal phonemes presented in table 4.9. It can also be seen
that there are six oral vowels. There is distinctive vowel length, and there can be vowel
sequences, which are pronounced separately and not diphthongised. In addition, all
vowels can be nasalised. When a noun or a verb base is affixed with an element that
contains a nasal or a nasalised vowel, some consonants are nasalised – a case of nasal
spread:
(193) b : m
r:n
y : ny
In speech there are frequent cases of elisions, when one word begins in a vowel and the
preceding word ends in one.
Table 4.9 Chiquitano phoneme inventory∗
Labial Dental Palatal Retroflex Velar Glottal
Voiceless stops p t ty k ʔ
Voiced stop b
Fricatives s š š. x
Affricate č
Nasals m n ny
Vibrant r
Glide y
Front Central Back
High i u
Mid e o
Low a
∗ There is a distinction between short and long vowels. Nasal vowels occur
(Adam & Henry 1880), but have also been interpreted as sequences of a vowel
and a nasal consonant (Galeote Tormo 1993, 1996). In present-day Chiquitano,
stops (not glottal stop) and nasals have palatalised allophones after i.
4.13.3 The principal grammatical features of Chiquitano

Most words in Chiquitano appear to be classifiable as either nominal or verbal.
Nouns. There are three classes of nouns (Adam and Henry 1880: 8):
a. nouns that never appear with person marking; this category includes the
names of animals and trees;
b. nouns that are optionally marked for person; this category includes many
inanimate objects;
c. nouns that are obligatorily marked for person: kinship terms, names for
body parts, and names for ‘body parts’ of plants and trees such as ‘bark’
and ‘flower’.
In relation to the category of animals, in order to indicate possession, a generic term
with the meaning of ‘animal’ is introduced that can be marked for person.30
(194) a. y-au tamokoš.

1P.SG-animal dog
‘my dog’
b. tamokoš. y-au-š.-ti:
dog 3P.MS-animal-P-MS
‘his dog’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 8)
30 This feature is also found in Guaranı́.

4.13 Chiquitano 481
Adjectives. There is no class of adjectives properly speaking in Chiquitano. Two

obligatorily inflected pronouns are used adjectivally: ny etama ‘alone’ and ny atony e ‘self’.
Another fairly small group of adjectivally used nouns is largely uninflected and refers
to stable properties such as size, colour and quality.
Numerals. Apart from the word etama ‘one’, there are no numerals properly speaking
in Chiquitano. Numbers are indicated with quantifiers and gestural indexing.
Personal pronouns. Independently used personal pronouns can appear in subject and
in direct-object position. In subject position they are often preceded by the particle aš.-,
which Fuss and Riester (1986) gloss as a deictic particle. The forms are:
(195) ny 1.SG som 1.PL exclusive

ony 1.PL inclusive
h31 2.SG any o 2.PL
ti: 3.SG masculine ma 3.PL masculine
iny o 3.PL unmarked
There is no third-singular unmarked pronoun; a demonstrative ty one is used in this case.

Notice that there is a first-person-plural inclusive/exclusive distinction.
Other cases of pronominal usage are reflected in person marking on nouns, verbs,
postpositions, etc., the topic to which we now turn.
Person marking. Person is marked through prefixation. Although there appears to be a
great deal of allomorphic variation in the prefixes and the traditional grammars in Adam
and Henry (1880: 12) distinguish five declensions, the pattern is fairly regular. Thus we
have:
(196) i-po:-š.-ma
3P.MS-house-P-MS.PL
‘their (masc.) house’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 13)
Compare now the pronoun forms with the (abstract underlying) person prefix forms.
The symbol Y indicates weakening or palatalisation (k : s, t : č, : š) of the root-initial
consonant.
(197) pron pref pron pref

ny iY- 1.SG som soiY- 1.PL exclusive
ony o- 1.PL inclusive
h a- 2.SG any o au- 2.PL
ti: i- 3.SG masculine ma i- 3.PL masculine
- i- 3.SG unmarked iny o yo- 3.PL unmarked
31 Galeote Tormo (1996) has ()k instead of h.

When we denasalise the pronoun forms, several of them are very similar to the prefix
form:
(198) pron pref pron pref

*y iY- 1.SG *sob soiY- 1.PL exclusive
*oy o- 1.PL inclusive
h a- 2.SG *ayo au- 2.PL
ti: i- 3.SG masculine *ba i- 3.PL masculine
- i- 3.SG unmarked *iyo yo- 3.PL unmarked
There appears to be a diachronic relation for 1.SG, 1.PL exclusive, 1.PL inclusive, 2.PL,
3.PL unmarked, even though it is impossible to derive the prefixes from the pronouns
synchronically.
The pattern under discussion bears much resemblance to the i-, a-, iʔ- pattern for
personal pronominal prefixes, which has a much wider distribution in South America.
It is described by Greenberg (1987), who takes Chiquitano as an example.
Postpositions and case markers. The Chiquitano system of case markers and ad-
positions is quite complex. There are a number of elements that can only be used post-
positionally. Some of these can be analysed as case markers; others correspond to body
parts. In addition, there are elements that can be used either with person prefixes, or
in uninflected form. Finally, there are elements that can only be used transitively, in
uninflected form.
There is very extensive use in Chiquitano of postpositions with pronominal prefixes
to mark the other relations that pronominal elements can have to the predicate. They
provide further illustration of the allomorphic variation in the person prefix system. The
genitive is used for independent possessives glossed ‘mine’, etc. but can also be used
periphrastically with nouns. To say ‘my house’, there are two possibilities:
(199) i-po: po:-š. i-sa

1P.SG-house house-P 1P.SG-possession
‘my house’ ‘my house’
Combining the two possibilities is ungrammatical, however:
(200) *i-po:-š. i-sa

1P.SG-house-P 1P.SG-possession (Adam and Henry 1880: 22)
The dative postposition is used for recipients, as well as benefactive and experiencer
objects:
(201) a. y-ače-ka a-ẽmo

1S.SG-give-ND 2P.SG-DA
‘I give you.’
4.13 Chiquitano 483
b. i-samu-ka po:-š. a-ẽmo

1S.SG-build-ND house-P 2P.SG-DA
‘I build a house for you.’
c. amiaã mo-ti:
3S.SG.seem DA-3.MS
‘It seems to him.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 22)
General accusative does not involve case marking but is simply the base pronoun, as
was mentioned already. There is a special case used with verbs of desiring, one used
with the verb y-asa-ka ‘to see’, and one used with verbs of waiting. The forms are
not entirely regular, however, as can be illustrated with the forms for the first person
singular:
(202) ny pronoun
iY- prefix
iny -ẽmo dative
iy-o with verbs of desiring
is-ari with ‘to see’ (other persons have -kari)
is-ubi with verbs of waiting (other persons have -kubi)
s-obi agentive (also found with unique expressions such as
ane sobi ‘I have’)
There are also some oblique cases (termed ‘ablative’) in Adam and Henry (1880:
24). One of them is given above, the agentive case, which appears in passive sentences
such as:
(203) s-obi i-kunomo

1P.SG-by 3S.SG-write (passive)
‘It has been written by me.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 24)
It has an active equivalent, but the two verbs are derived from identical stems in this
case:
(204) i-kunomo-ka aš.-ny

1S.SG-write-ND PU-1.SG
‘I have written.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 24)
Only with experiencer verbs such as ‘to love’ do we get a dative subject:
(205) i-suba-ka iny -ẽmo

3S.SG-love-ND 1P.SG-DA
‘She was loved by me.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 24)
A few of the other morphemes that can be used as postpositions are (Adam and Henry
1880: 25–8):
(206) a. -aka ‘with’, comitative

b. -anene, -a:p ‘about’, ‘above’
c. -au ‘in the absence of’
d. -čepe ‘conjointly with’, ‘like’
e. -ibi ‘source’, ‘from’
f. -kuata (∼-suata) ‘because of’
g. -ny nana ‘than (in comparisons)’, oblique object, ablative
h. -(o)pnanaki ‘away from’, separation
i. -taku (∼-čaku) ‘for the sake of’
j. -ubo ‘with’, instrumental
Some examples are:
(207) a-kosi y-aka-bo-ti:

2S-go.IM 3P.SG-company-LS-MS
‘Go with him!’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 26)
(208) i-suče-ka y-au-ti:
1.SG-be.sad-ND 3P.SG-absence-MS
‘I am sad in his absence.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 25)
(209) ny -ã:ki-ka iyo a-ibi
1S.SG-ask-ND 3.SG 2P.SG-from
‘I ask it of you.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 25)
(210) i-skišoto-ka i-ny nana
1S.SG-abhor-ND 3P.SG-OC
‘I abhor this.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 25)
(211) a-kosi-bo ny -opnanaki
2S.SG-get.away-F.IM 1P.SG-away.from
‘Get away from me!’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 25)
(212) a-aiki soi-čaku
2S-pray.IM 1P.PL.EX-sake
‘Pray for us!’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 25)
As can be seen in (207, 212), the second-person imperatives are base forms. Case-marked
personal pronouns can be used prepositionally with nouns:
(213) y-ače-ka ny ome pa-ka

1S.SG-give-ND 3.PL.FE.DA woman-PL
‘I give the women.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 27)
4.13 Chiquitano 485
Some prepositions only occur in a fixed form, with the third-person prefix. We list some
of the locatives:
(214) i-ku ‘on or over flat objects’

i-kumoeta ‘in the middle of’
i-pnana ‘between’
i-ta ‘on or over non-flat, round objects’
-takuisr ‘on or over high objects’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 27)
Notice, however, that the element they govern can only be an object, and hence the
invariance may be accidental, though presumably this could be plural as well as singular
in reference.
Verbs. The Chiquitano verb consists of a stem with a person prefix, generally identical
to the person prefix of nouns and postpositions, and tense and mood suffixes. According
to Galeote Tormo (1996: 148–50), the verb can have various forms:
(215) absolute (without an object) pron. prefix a-ACTIVE STEM-ka

active transitive pron. prefix i-ACTIVE STEM-ta
active with pronominal object pron. prefix i-ACTIVE STEM-ka-pron.
suffix
passive pron. prefix-PASSIVE STEM-ka
Passive can be distinguished from the active forms either by stem modification (weak-
ening of the initial consonant, the addition of a prefix), or the stems can be identical;
absolute and transitive uses of the verb are distinguished by affixes. The suffix -ka does
not normally occur with third-person subject forms, where, depending on the verb, it is
replaced by one out of a set of other suffixes (-o, -bo, -ko, -na, -no, -ra, -ro, -so, -yo) or
some additional modification. The manuscripts edited by Adam and Henry describe the
system as involving a different ending for when the action of the verb is determined by
some reason or not, and depending on the nature of the object. In addition to absolute
(no object), active (a specific nominal object), and reflexive (coreferential pronominal
object), they distinguish:
(216) respective 1: masculine pronominal object

respective 2: unmarked pronominal object
Combined with the ± determined distinction this gives the following paradigm (for
first-person-singular subject present):
(217) −determined +determined

absolute: ny a..ka ny a..
active: i..ka i..no
reflexive: i..ka-ny i..no-ny
respective 1 i..ka-ti: i..no-ti:
respective 2 i..to i.. (Adam and Henry 1880: 37)
Notice the discrepancy between the different sources: the i .. ta combination in (215) does
not figure in this list. For the reflexive and respective 1 usages a pronoun is simply added
in final position. However, this pronoun may undergo a complex series of allomorphic
changes depending on the shape of the verbal stem.
The fundamental three-way distinction mentioned can be illustrated by the following
forms of tomoẽ- ‘to tie’:
(218) ny a-tomoẽ-ka absolute

i-tomoẽ-ka active
i-čomoẽ-ka passive
Some verbs are inherently transitive: koko- ‘obey’, ny oko- ‘leave’, yabu- ‘open’,
n en- ‘hold’, ny ama- ‘close’ (Galeote Tormo 1996: 149). Likewise, the number of verbs
y
that can be passivised is limited, including chop- ‘wound’, tomoẽ- ‘tie’. Some verbs,
like ‘go’, ‘come’ and ‘be’ have irregular or at least untransparent paradigms.
Past tense is marked adverbially or with a prefix t- (which precedes person prefixes).
Some verbs allow an affix -ki for future tense, but in most cases this is marked adver-
bially (Galeote Torno 1996: 176). The particle -ka is used in indicative contexts, for
different tenses. It can be preceded by the future particle -ra-/-na- (or another one),
and remote future can be expressed by an adverbial element, so that we have forms
such as:
(219) tari i-tomoẽ-na-ka-ti:

RU 1S.SG-tie-F-ND-3O.MS
‘I’ll tie him up later.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 40)
Other time references can be formed in a similar way with pre- or postposed adver-
bial elements. There is a future or subjunctive prefix that occurs before the person
marker:
(220) m-iš-aneẽ [-aka ‘eat’]

SJ-1S.SG-eat
‘so that I eat it’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 41)
4.13 Chiquitano 487
There are no affixes for nominalised or infinitive forms. Gerunds are formed with a
preposition and an article:
(221) au-n-i-tomoẽ-u
in-DF-1S.SG-tie-3O.SG
‘when tying it up’ (lit. ‘in my tying it’) (Adam and Henry 1880: 42)
Predicative expressions are formed by adding pronouns as enclitics to the predicate.

Predicates can be nouns, adjectives and interrogative pronouns:
(222) a. riaboš.-ny
captain-1S.SG
‘I am a captain.’
b. riaboš.-h
captain-2S.SG
‘You are a captain.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 45)
These essentially stative predicates can be made resultative through the addition of -ka-:
(223) riaboš.-ka-ny
captain-ND-1S.SG
‘I have become a captain.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 45)
Possession can be expressed by prefixing a noun with a person marker and adding -ka
at the end:
(224) i-po:-ka
1P.SG-house-ND
‘I have a house.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 46)
Negation is expressed through the addition of -i at the end of the verb, hence:
(225) i-tomoẽ-to-i
1S.SG-tie-3O.SG-NE
‘I didn’t tie it up.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 45)
Verbal derivation and composition. There are very complex processes of verbal deriva-
tion and composition in Chiquitano. An example is the causative:
(226) ny otubori-ka ‘to have food’

ny otumoni-ma-ka-ka ‘to cause someone to have food’
(Adam and Henry 1880: 46)
The consonantal changes are due to nasal spreading, as explained above.

The range of (generally post-stem) derivational affixes is quite wide. The following
list illustrates just a few:
(227) sura-ka ‘to speak’

sura-pa-ka ‘to speak to another’
sura-taki-ka ‘to speak frequently’
sura-sr-ka ‘to speak before others’
sura-sipi-ka ‘to talk dirty’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 50)
4.13.4 Chiquitano word order

Clearly, Chiquitano is an (S)VO language:
(228) i-tomoẽ-ka n-burikaš. [cf. non-standard Spanish burrica]

1S.SG-tie-ND DF-mule
‘I tie the mule.’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 52)
We also saw that prepositions precede nominal complements:
(229) ipnana n-oseoš.

between DF-corn
‘between the corn’ (Adam and Henry 1880: 27)
The position of the subject is less clear, given the paucity of examples with nominal
subjects. Chiquitano has adopted the Spanish coordinating conjunctions y ‘and’ and o
‘or’. These, as well as native Chiquitano adverbial subordinating conjunctions, precede
the clause they modify.
4.14 The languages of the Chaco region: Guaicuruan, Matacoan,

Zamucoan and Lengua–Mascoy
In the Chaco region, which covers part of southeastern Bolivia, western Paraguay and the
northern Argentinian border region, three small language families are spoken: Guaicu-
ruan, Matacoan and Zamucoan. In addition, there are speakers of Lengua–Mascoy and
of Tupi–Guaranı́ languages (cf. section 4.3). For Lule–Vilela, now practically extinct,
see chapter 3 (sections 3.1 and 3.8). Furthermore, Guaicuruan, Matacoan and Lule–
Vilela connections have been proposed for the extinct Charrúan languages, once spoken
in Uruguay (cf. section 1.7.3). Censabella (1999) gives a survey of the sociolinguistic
situation in the Argentinian part of the Chaco.
The Guaicuruan family includes Pilagá, Toba, Mocovı́ and the extinct Abipón in
Argentina and Paraguay, while Kadiweu is spoken in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul,
Brazil. There were Toba speakers in Bolivia in the nineteenth century, but from 1916
4.14 The languages of the Chaco region 489
Table 4.10 Phoneme inventory of Toba (based on Messineo 2000)∗
Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular Glottal
Voiceless stops p t č k q ʔ
Voiced stops d g 
Voiceless fricatives s š h
Voiced fricative ž
Nasals m n ny
Laterals l ly
Glides w y
Front Central Back
High i
Mid e o
Low a
∗ In Klein (1978), vowel length is distinctive. The voiced stop d has a frequent tap
allophone [r], and Klein’s inventory posits a phoneme /r/, instead of /d/. In some
dialects h is absent in word-initial position.
onwards they were pushed out of Bolivia, and now a handful at most are left there,
although there are many more in Argentina and Paraguay. Pilagá is spoken in the province
of Formosa, Argentina, and Mocovı́ in the southern part of the province of Chaco and
northern part of Santa Fe province, Argentina. While Toba language and culture have
been extensively studied (Censabella 1996; Klein 1973, 1978, 1981; Messineo 2000),
Pilagá has been analysed by Vidal (2001). Grammars of Mocovı́ have been written by
Gualdieri (1998) and Grondona (1998). The now extinct language Abipón has been
documented by Najlis (1966).
The phoneme system of Toba has been analysed by Messineo (2000) as in table 4.10.
Syllables tend to be fairly simple. Examples of the most complex syllables include
dayk ‘big’ (CVCC) and pyoq ‘dog’ (CCVC). The resonants l and n can be syllabic in
word-initial position. Some prefixes and suffixes contain an unspecified vowel which
harmonises with the vowel of the word base. There is frequent palatalisation, of both
vowels and consonants, triggered by the presence of the vowel i. Stress falls on the last
syllable of the word.
The most striking grammatical feature of Toba is the so-called Active valency-marking
system, illustrated by the following contrast (Messineo 2000: 75–6):
(230) a. s-apaGagen na qom l-ʔʔaqtaq

1S.SG-teach DC Toba 3P-language
‘I teach the Toba language.’
b. maše s-ašek
already 1S.SG-go
‘I am going already.’
(231) a. ayem ž-asamny i
1.SG 1.UG.SG-be.tired
‘I am tired.’
b. Romualdo ∅-ž-awa-Gan
Romualdo 3S.SG-1.UG.SG-beat-T
‘Romualdo beat me.’
There are two person paradigms for the first and second persons, A used for transitive
subjects (230a) and subjects of intransitive dynamic verbs (230b), and B used for subjects
of stative verbs (231a) and direct objects (231b). In addition, there is a nominal possessor
paradigm C (Messineo 2000: 133), and a medial paradigm D.
(232) A. Subject B. Undergoer C. Possessor D. Medial

1.SG s(V)- ž(V)- i- ny (V)-
2.SG ʔ aw- ʔ ad- ʔ ad- ʔ an-
1.PL s(V)- qad- qad- ny (V)-
2.PL qaw-...-i qad-...-i qad-...-i qan-...-i
The nominal possessor forms in C are largely identical to the undergoers in B.

Whether a verb enters into paradigm A or B is not only a question of transitivity or the
degree of control of the subject, but also of the dynamicity of the predicate. The verbs
entering into class B are limited to about twenty. The class includes true statives and
descriptives (which may be expressed as adjectives in other languages). Klein (1981)
has provided an interesting analysis of the verbs used with prefixes from paradigm D.
She argues that the basic meaning of the /n/-class prefixes of paradigm D is adcorporeal
movement, i.e. towards the torso. Metaphorically, this is extended to reflexive, reciprocal
and medial uses. Consider the following contrastive pair (Klein 1981: 230):
(233) a. ny i-kor-ek
1S.SG.MD-pour-outward
‘I pour out (perfume, syrup – inward motion).’
b. se-kor-ek
1S.SG-pour-outward
‘I pour out (liquid, e.g. from a pail – motion away from the body).’
For the third person, the situation is more complicated (Messineo 2000: 80–6):
(234) i – / y- transitive subjects, subjects of some intransitive verbs

d(V)- subjects of typically intransitive verbs
∅- inanimate subjects and subjects of locative verbs
n- subjects of medial verbs (reflexive, ‘hither’)
l- possessors
In addition, there is an optional third-person object suffix -a. In the plural, all third
persons are marked with the suffix -d- (or -ʔ in word-final position).
Several authors, including Klein (1981) and Messineo (2000), have discussed the
locative and directional markers of Toba. These are striking because of the range of
semantic distinctions expressed and their morphological features. They are separated
from the verbal root by the aspectual morphemes, suggesting a status of inflectional
element; at the same time, however, they often interact with the meaning of the root,
suggesting a status as derivational element. There are three pairs of strictly directional
markers (Messineo 2000: 114):
(235) a. -(w)ek ‘outward’

-wo ‘inward’
b. -šigem ‘upward’
-ny i ‘downward’
c. -(a)Gasom ‘toward water’
-waq ‘toward fire’
An example would be:
(236) nače ny i nsoGoy ʔ am ya-maG-awaq že norek

then DC Nsooy 2.SG 3S.SG-push-DR DC fire
‘Then Nsooy pushes you toward the fire.’ (Messineo 2000: 121)
Notice that both the prefix i- ‘3S.SG’ and the directional suffix -waq are separated
from the base by a copied or harmonising epenthetic vowel a. (All the directional ele-
ments, except -(w)ek, receive a connective vowel when they are added to a stem ending
in a consonant.) The directional suffix -waq bears no resemblance to the lexical root
norek ‘fire’.
The locational suffixes are not structured in pairs (Messineo 2000: 122–31):
(237) -lek ‘above’

-gi ‘inside’
-ʔʔot ‘stuck away underneath’
-(a)sop ‘underneath’, ‘near’
-ʔʔaoga ‘on the outside’32
-a ‘precisely there’
-ta ‘on the side of, at the border of’
-iʔʔ ‘there’ (deictic)
-ge ‘orientational’
-get ‘in confrontation or contact with’
In the noun, in addition to possessor, dual, paucal and plural number can be expressed
(Messineo 2000: 136–9):
(238) a. ya-pia-te
1P.SG-leg-D
‘my two legs’ (dual) (Messineo 2000: 137)
b. ʔ alo-l
woman-PC
‘(a few) women’ (paucal) (Messineo 2000: 137)
c. waqahny i-pi
star-PL
‘stars’ (plural) (Messineo 2000: 138)
There is both alienable and inalienable possession in the language. The latter involves
body parts, kin terms, parasites, diseases, images of the body (like shadow), intrinsic
human properties (like names) and some objects made by humans. There is a system of
nominal classifiers, intersecting with masculine and feminine gender marking, indicating
various semantic categories. In addition, there is a system of six deictic roots, which
combine with various other gender and number affixes (Messineo 2000: 157):
(239) na ‘close’
so ‘distant’
ka ‘absent’
da ‘vertical extension’
ži ‘horizontal extension’
ny i ‘not extended, three-dimensional’
32 Also recorded as -ʔoga (Klein 1978, 1981).

Table 4.11 Phoneme inventory of Bolivian (Noctenes) Mataco (based on

Claesson 1994)∗
Labial Dental Palatal Velar Labiovelar Uvular Glottal
Stops p t ky kw q ʔ
Affricate c
Fricative s x xw h
Lateral l
Nasal m n
Glides w y
Front Back
High i u
Mid e o
Low a ɑ
∗ Vocalic length and stress are phonemic. Vowel nasality occurs but is not contrastive.
The sound [k] is an allophone of either kw or q. Stops and affricates combine with the
glottal stop ʔ and with the glottal fricative h to form glottalised and aspirated conso-
nants, respectively. In the same way, resonants can be preglottalised or postglot-
talised, when they appear in a cluster with ʔ; when followed by h they become
voiceless.
Word order in Toba is relatively free. In transitive clauses, SVO predominates, and
in intransitive clauses VS. Possessors tend to follow possessed elements. There is no
clearly defined class of adpositions, but the few elements glossed as such precede their
complements. The informative grammar of Mocovı́ by Gualdieri (1998) illustrates many
of these aspects of this very interesting language family.
Matacoan or Mataguayan includes Mataco, Chulupı́–Ashlushlay, Chorote and Maká.
The languages of the Matacoan family are mostly spoken in Paraguay and Argentina.
There may be some speakers of Chulupı́–Ashlushlay and Chorote left in Bolivia, but
most are in Paraguay and Argentina.
Mataco, Wichi or Weenhayek is the only language with a sizeable number of speakers
in Bolivia, along the southwest bank of the Pilcomayo river in the department of Tarija.
There is no sign of language loss among the Mataco, although the majority of the Mataco
also know Spanish. The Bolivian variety is also referred to as Noctenes (Claesson
1994). An overview of earlier materials and a thematically organised vocabulary list is
presented in Lehmann-Nitsche (1926). Tovar (1981) presents texts and a grammar of
Mataco.
The phoneme system of Mataco is presented in table 4.11.
The language is reported to have a four-person pronominal prefix system (Claesson
1994: 7–10). (The fourth person represents first person inclusive.) The set of nominal
possessive prefixes is presented below:
(240) ʔ o:- 1P (but ʔ o- before ##l or t’)33

ʔ a- 2P (but ʔ - replacing ##l or t’)
la- 3P (but ∅- before ##l or t’)
(ʔʔi)##la:- 4P (also ʔ i- before ##l)
Mataco has an elaborate tense system, with a distinction between witnessed and non-
witnessed past. The latter is generally distinguished with ʔ- preceding the tense marker
of the non-witnessed past (Claesson 1994: 9):
(241) neʔʔ / ʔ neʔʔ (non)witnessed immediate past

mheʔʔ / ʔ mheʔʔ (non)witnessed habitual action in recent past
mát(hiʔʔ) / ʔ mát(hiʔʔ) (non)witnessed past of today and the past night
náx(iʔʔ) / ʔ náx(iʔʔ) (non)witnessed past of yesterday and back some
weeks
mháx(iʔʔ) / ʔ mháx(iʔʔ) (non)witnessed habitual action from yesterday
back to remote past
(h)teh / pʔʔanteh (non)witnessed remote past for single action
Only in the last case are the forms substantially different. At least some tense markers
can also be attached to nouns.
(242) ha-ʔʔwe:t-teh34
2P-place-RM
‘your home long ago’ (Claesson 1994: 8)
There are several case markers:
(243) a. ʔ i la-ʔʔwé:t-eh
3S.be 3P-place-L
‘(S)he is at home.’ (Claesson 1994: 4)
b. ʔ i-wo ʔ ahu:cax-aʔʔ
3S-do caracara-AC
‘(S)he dances the caracara (a traditional dance).’ (Claesson 1994: 4)
Chulupı́–Ashlushlay or Nivaclé is spoken in Paraguay (departments of Boquerón

and Presidente Hayes) and Argentina (Salta Province). A detailed dictionary of this
language with sentence examples is available (Seelwische 1980). Chorote is also spoken
33 The voiceless lateral and the glottalised alveolar stop are analysed as sequences lh, tʔ in Claesson
(1994). Stress is not indicated on word-final syllables.
34 Notice that the possessive prefix ʔa- is ha- before a preglottalised consonant.
Table 4.12 Reconstructed consonant system of Proto-Matacoan (based on Viegas

Barros 2002)
Labial(ised) Dental Alveolar Palatal(ised) Velar Uvular
Plain stops ∗p ∗t ∗c ∗ky ∗k ∗q

Glottalised stops ∗p’ ∗t’ ∗c’ ∗ky ’ ∗k’
Fricatives ∗xw ∗s ∗x ∗x.
Lateral fricative ∗#l
Lateral ∗l
Nasals ∗m ∗n
Glides ∗w ∗y
in Paraguay (department of Boquerón) and Argentina (Salta Province). Maká, finally, is

only spoken in Paraguay (department of Presidente Hayes), and has been the subject of
excellent studies by Gerzenstein (1994, 1999). This small but vital language is probably
the best-described Chaco language. It is shown to have ergative-like patterning in the verb
morphology and word order (SVO in transitive, VS in intransitive clauses). However,
a detailed reanalysis of the data may well show that typologically it is more Active,
like the Guaicuruan languages. It has a set of mostly locative postpositions. Inalienable
nominal possession is marked by prefixes (V is a harmonising vowel; it occurs before
consonants).
(244) yi-, y(V)- 1P

(V-) 2P
l (V)-
#
3P
in- 4P (1st person inclusive) (Gerzenstein 1994: 147)
Alienably possessed nouns that refer neither to a body part, nor to a kinship relation, re-
ceive, in addition to the person prefix, an element -q(V)-, for instance, in ye-qe-nenek ‘my
spoon’ (Gerzenstein 1994: 149). Some nouns referring to humans or human attributes are
marked with a suffix -(k)iʔ or -(l)eʔ when feminine, for instance, in puk’al-eʔ ‘(female)
blind’, maka-kiʔ ‘Maká woman’ (Gerzenstein 1994: 152).
Najlis (1984) is a reconstruction of Proto-Matacoan phonology, excluding Maká.
The data in Gerzenstein (1978, 1979, 1983) show that the two varieties of Chorote have
phonemes very much like these of Maká. However, the phonological analysis of Claesson
(1994) gives a rather different picture. He analyses the series of glottalised and aspirated
stops and of pre-aspirated sonorants reconstructed by Najlis as consonantal sequences.
In addition, he assumes only six vowels, where Najlis reconstructs eight. Viegas Barros
(2002) reanalyses all the data available and arrives at a new reconstruction of the Proto-
Matacoan consonant inventory, presented in table 4.12.
Table 4.13 Phoneme inventory of Ayoreo (based on Briggs 1973)∗
Labial Dental Palatal Velar Glottal
Voiceless stops p t č k ʔ
Voiced stops b d g
Fricatives s h
Vibrant r
Nasals m n ny ŋ
Voiceless nasals hm hn h ny
Glides w y
Oral Nasal
Front Centre Back Front Centre Back
High i u ı̃ ũ
Mid e o ẽ õ
Low a ã
∗ Vowel length and stress are contrastive.
Zamucoan includes Zamuco or Ayoreo and the language Chamacoco, spoken in

Paraguay. The majority of the Ayoreo or Ayoréode (ayoré means ‘person’) live in Bo-
livia in the department of Santa Cruz, still preserving their nomadic way of life to some
extent. There are also Ayoreo in Paraguay. The language with the same name is seriously
endangered. Fischermann (1988: 111) notes that there is surprisingly little dialect varia-
tion, even if the Ayoreo live rather dispersed. In some southern varieties, intervocalic r is
not pronounced. Thus Ayoreo is pronounced as [ayoweo], and the word parakarã ‘rattle’
as [pa:ka:]. The manuscript Zamuco grammar by Ignace Chomé (written between 1738
and 1745) has been published by Lussagnet (1958). In addition, Lussagnet (1961–2) has
made available vocabulary items from older sources in different Zamucoan languages.
Zolezzi and Riester (1985) present a number of Ayoreo texts.
Although little systematic study has been carried out, Ayoreo may be assumed to have
the phoneme system given in table 4.13, combining information from different sources.
Clearly more work is needed here urgently. There is general agreement that there is a
five-vowel system, with an oral and a nasal series. The words given in the texts by Briggs
suggest vowel harmony: words generally (though not quite always) contain vowels from
only one of the series. There can be several vowels in a row, but consonant clusters are
not possible.
From Briggs (1973: 156), some insight into the structural properties of Ayoreo can be
gained. There is a masculine/feminine distinction in nouns, as well as a singular/plural
distinction. Adjectives agree in gender and number with the nouns they modify. There
is some derivational nominal morphology, and nouns can be marked for possession. In
the verbal system there are derivational affixes, person prefixes, and tense and aspect
particles.
A preliminary analysis of the following narrative fragment presented by Briggs (1973:
157) gives an indication of some of the features of the language:
(245) ∅-uhé:ʔʔ tı́gre ẽŋ ´

ŋã he ã:č ẽrãkeʔ
ʔ yu ihı́ʔʔ tá y-ibatigái.
1S.SG-kill jaguar and EC jump 1.SG.PU L there 1P.SG-honey.
hunting.trip
‘I was trying to kill a jaguar, and he jumped me while I was on the
honey-hunting trip.
ŋã ∅-ãh nãʔʔ

i-čagú ŋãrãnı̃´ mũ č-ı̃h nı̃´:mẽʔʔ y-ãsoré tẽŋ
1S.SG-lance come.DS but 3S.SG-take.out 1P.SG-lance and 1S.SG-follow
I lanced him as he came, but he took away my lance and I followed him
´
ŋã hek i:si-hiʔʔ tõ:nı̃n
ẽŋ y
ẽkeʔʔ.
and EC 1S.SG.find-DR long.ways.away.
and found him a long way away.
∅-ahó y-ãsoré taháʔʔ mũ, bagé t-ua:tı́ dá:y ka:si:káiteʔʔ

1S.SG-put.down.upon 1P.SG-lance AL but Bagué FE.DC father late
I went to kill him with my lance but Bagué’s late father
ŋã č-uhé:ʔʔ ihı́ʔʔ y-ı̃h mã´ :ı̃nı̃eʔʔ.

čı́:seʔʔ yu ihı́ʔʔ ẽŋ
3S.SG-find 1.SG.PU L and 3S.SG-kill L 1P.SG-hand
came right in and killed him under my nose.
´ ʔ aháʔʔ degúi.
oré:ʔʔ č-ı̃h nõkeʔ
3.PL 3S-carry.on.shoulders AL camp
They carried him back to camp.’
The first-person-singular prefix i-/y-/- can be used both as a possessive and as a subject
marker with verbs (and may well be related to the pronoun yu ‘first person singular’). It is
not clear that this holds for all persons. The language has relational elements (prepositions
or postpositions), like ihı́ʔ ‘locative’ and aháʔ ‘directional’. Verbs precede the direct
object (SVO), and in the text given, the possessor precedes the possessed.
Lengua–Mascoy has been described as an isolate with several dialects, or as a small
language family, Mascoyan (Campbell 1997). Very little systematic linguistic research
has been carried out on this language. A phonological analysis remains to be done, but
it is clear that there is extensive vowel harmony.
Sušnik (1977) is a very interesting ethnolinguistically oriented description of Lengua–
Mascoy vocabulary, grammar and culture. The Lengua–Mascoy verb is marked with a
rich array of verbal classifiers, marking such notions as direction and location. Pronomi-
nal object marking only involves the first person. Subject marking exists for first person,
second/third person (differentiated for masculine and feminine gender) and first person
plural (Sušnik 1977: 97–100). It is not clear whether there is an inclusive/exclusive
distinction. In the unmarked case, the person prefixes are:
(246) k- 1S.SG
ap- 2/3S.SG.MS
n- 2/3S.SG.FE
nn- 1S.PL
ky el- 2/3S.PL (Sušnik 1977: 98)
The independent pronouns are only in part related to these forms:
(247) koʔʔo35 1.SG

λ-y-p36 2/3.SG.MS
λ-y 2/3.SG.FE
nŋkoʔʔo 1.PL
ky el-l ŋky -p 2/3.PL.MS
ky el-l ŋky 2/3.PL.FE
Person marking interacts strongly with indicative, future and negation marking on the
verb (Sušnik 1977: 99–101). On the noun, person marking is obligatory with body
parts and kin terms (Sušnik 1977: 113–14). Gender distinctions pay an important role
in the language. Nominal possessors precede the possessed element:
(248) kla:na ak-ta-l nama

of.the.woman 3P.SG.F-dress
‘the woman’s dress’ (Sušnik 1977: 117)
Nominalised verbs also typically receive person marking, and play an important role
in the formation of complex clauses. Two interesting collections of translated religious
texts in Lengua are Nimpasmo nimpaiwa nelmathnangkama and Nimpaiwa ningmi-
naigmàschàma (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge 1907, 1911).
There have been many population movements in the Chaco during the twentieth
century, both as the result of the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay and of
subsequent socio-economic developments. Stahl (1982: 16) gives a systematic overview
35 Pronunciation suggested in Lowes (1954); Sušnik writes kóó.

36 We tentatively represent Sušnik’s tl as a voiceless lateral affricate (λ-); the symbols ç and çl are
interpreted as realisations of a voiceless lateral fricative phoneme (l ); Lowes (1954) writes th

and explains it as a dental fricative.

4.15 Quechua influences 499
of the distribution of the languages of the Paraguayan Chaco as spoken around 1900. In
the northwest Chiriguano–Guaranı́ was spoken, in the northeast the Zamucoan languages
Chamacoco and Ayoreo, and in the centre west Tapieté. In the southwest Chulupı́ and
Maká were spoken, and in the southeast the Mascoyan languages. In the far south Toba
was spoken, just north of Asunción.
There has been much discussion about the possible relatedness of the languages
of the Chaco (see section 1.7). Now that many detailed dictionaries and grammatical
descriptions have become available, this question can be taken up again. In any case, it is
clear that the languages share a number of grammatical and phonological features, as far
as can be ascertained. There is nasalisation and vowel harmony, and consonant clusters
generally are simple. There often is an Active or ergative system with SVO/VS word
order. Person is marked by prefixes, both on the noun and on the verb. In the noun there
often is an alienable/inalienable possession distinction. Once the Zamucoan languages
and Lengua–Mascoy have been better analysed, a full-scale comparative survey can be
undertaken.
4.15 Quechua influences on eastern slopes languages

There are a number of instances of Quechua influence in the Amazon region. Some
scholars seem to feel that the highlands cultures and languages have had relatively little
influence in the lowlands. ‘The extraordinarily limited influence of the Highland on
the Montaña is intelligible mainly in terms of unlike environmental conditioning of the
cultures’, Steward (1948: 508) writes. This may be so for cultural patterns in general, but
linguistically the influence of the highlands, in the case of Quechua, is far from trivial.
In addition, later research has pointed to extensive interchanges between montaña and
sierra (Raymond 1988).
Tessmann (1930: 623) claims that Cholón is the only case where a mixed language has
developed from Quechua and the montaña languages.37 This is not true, in our opinion.
It simply shares a number of features with Quechua, as well as with eastern slope
languages, and shares a limited set of particular derivational morphemes with Quechua.
Other languages such as Yanesha and Shuar have also adopted some Quechua suffixes,
particularly case markers and clausal markers. However, it is difficult to be certain about
the status of Quechua-like suffixes in Cholón and Shuar because these languages belong
to small language families of which a possible distant genetic relation to Quechua needs
to be studied more. Moreover, there has been no systematic study of the sharing of
grammatical or lexical items between the languages treated in this chapter, and thus the
phenomenon may be much more widespread.
37 ‘der einzige Fall, dass sich eine Mischsprache zwischen Ketschua und Waldlandsprachen
gebildet hat’.
Quechua influence takes several forms. First, a number of varieties of Quechua are
spoken as native languages in the lowlands. Second, Quechua has functioned and still
functions as a lingua franca in a wide area. Third, many languages have adopted Quechua
vocabulary, for material items, in the numeral system and for certain animals. Examples
include Shuar šaya and Muniche saʔa, from Quechua sara ‘maize’, and Shuar kači ‘salt’.
Quechua numerals are found in Conibo, Shipibo, Muniche, Tacana, Urarina,Yameo and
Yanesha .
A particularly striking case of cultural diffusion is analysed by Nordenskiöld (1922).
The chicken was unknown in pre-Columbian South America, and it was probably in-
troduced into Brazil in 1500. Nordenskiöld claims that the species was traded up the
Amazon and throughout Brazil, among others by the Arawak, before it reached the Incas
from the Gran Chaco, through the Guaranı́, who named it uru γ w asu, big ‘uru’, where
the ‘uru’ was a small native fowl. Nordenskiöld claims the Incas took over the bird and
named it ata-wal y pa, where ata is said to be derived from hatun ‘big’ and served as an
augmentative, similar to γ w asu. There are numerous speculations as to why the last Inca
received this name, but this is unresolved. The Quechua word atawaly pa for ‘chicken’
then spread from the Páez in Colombia to the Mapuche in central Chile, and into the
jungle as far as the Huitoto. Nordenskiöld argues that this must have happened before
the destruction of the Inca empire. Later a Spanish word would have been chosen. Much
later Quechua influence is unlikely because soon the term for ‘chicken’ became simply
wal y pa (in Amazon Quechua walipa), everywhere but in parts of Ecuador. This chapter
ends with a list of words for ‘chicken’ in a number of pre-Andean Amazonian languages
(the words have been taken from various sources).
Quechua-based terms: Huariapano ihtori

Achuar atáš Huitoto átaba, atába
Aguaruna atáš, atášu Iñapari tawari
Amahuaca hatapá Lamista Quechua wál ypa
Amarakaeri wa-tawah Napo Quechua atalı́pa, atál ya
Apolista atalpa Nocamán atápa
Campa atawalı́pa Nomatsiguenga tiápe
Campa Asháninca atawa, tawalpa, Panobo ixtori
(ta)waripa, tawarina Piro xat yawripa
Canelo Quechua atál ya Quijos Quechua atálipa, atál ypa
Capanahua atapa Setebo itódi
Cashibo átaba, átapa, attapa-awi, átóripa Shipibo/Conibo átapa, atapa
Chamikuro atawáli Shuar atáš(i)
Chasutino Quechua wád ypa Ticuna óta
Chayahuita at(o)adı́, at(o)arı́, ataš Urarina atawarı́, atawari
Cholón atél ywa, atel ywá Yagua toári, tawal yi, tawariy, tuwariy
Cocama atawáli, atawari Yanesha atol yop, atólup
Hibito udž pa Yuracaré talipa
Huambisa ataš, šiam Záparo atáwali
4.15 Quechua influences 501
Other:
Andoa karará, kakará Muniche kaka, čačan yʔ
Arabela kakarayá Muinane katáwua, adaba
Bora kh árakh a Omurana máta
Candoshi ktášo, katášu Secoya/Pioje kúda, kurá
Chiquitano kurasš., (o)kurubasš. Sensi očici
Coto/Orejón kurá Tekiraka: Abishira aã, tawaruyá
Iquito kakarra, kakará Tekiraka: Vacacocha ayaú
Jebero waʔγ ántk Yameo sekən, seikén
5
The Araucanian Sphere
The term ‘Araucanian Sphere’ has been chosen to cover the central part of what is
today the Republic of Chile, extending from the Aconcagua river valley to the island
archipelago of Chiloé. At the arrival of the European invaders this area was predomi-
nantly inhabited by a single ethnolinguistic group: the Araucanians. This powerful nation
became partly incorporated within the colonial society, but also included an important
sector which succeeded in preserving its independence until 1882.
In this chapter we furthermore give attention to the central-western part of Argentina,
comprising the hilly region known as the Sierra de Córdoba and the Andean foothills
region known as Cuyo (including parts of the provinces of Mendoza, San Juan and
San Luis). Like the Araucanians, the original inhabitants of central-western Argentina
were agriculturalists. They became involved in the process of colonisation right from
the beginning, and lost their identity and their languages at an early stage (Martı́nez
Sarasola 1992: 58–63). Of the various native languages that were once spoken in central-
western Argentina only the Huarpean languages, Allentiac and Millcayac, have been
documented. They constitute a family of closely related languages. Allentiac was spoken
in the southern part of San Juan and in northern San Luis, whereas Millcayac extended
southward from the culturally important wetlands of Guanacache to the Rı́o Diamante,
covering most of Mendoza. The native languages of the province of Córdoba were the
languages of the Comechingones (in the sierras of western Córdoba) and the Sanavirones
(in the northern sierra of Córdoba and its eastern lowlands, including the banks of
the lake called Mar Chiquita). These languages are virtually undocumented. Although
Loukotka (1968) includes the Comechingón language (with its presumed dialects Henia
and Camiare) within the Huarpean family, the evidence consists of no more than a
couple of words. In 1594 Barzana (Jiménez de la Espada 1965, II: 79) reported that
more than eight or nine different languages were spoken in the Sierra de Córdoba,
which indicates that the Comechingón language probably did not constitute a unity.
The Sanavirón language is classified as a linguistic isolate in Loukotka (1968), but the
amount of evidence is so small that a possible genetic relationship could not be detected,
even when it existed.
PERU
B O L I V I A B R A Z I L
PARAGUAY
G
CHILE
UA
R
AN
Í
A ABIPÓN
IT
GÓN
U KAINGANG
G ÓN
A
COMECHIN
VIR
DI
NA
SA
Córdoba
ALLEN CHANÁ URUGUAY
T I AC
MILLCAYAC CHARRÚA
Santiago
Buenos Aires
ARAU C A N I A N
QUERANDÍ
PEHUENCH
ARGENTINA
Temuco GÜNÜNA YAJICH

Valdivia
Chiloé TEUSHEN
CHONO
TEHUELCHE
K AW
ESQ
AR
Map 11 The Araucanian Sphere: approximate distribution of languages at the time of the Spanish
conquest (sixteenth century)
504 5 The Araucanian Sphere
PERU
B O L I V I A B R A Z I L
PARAGUAY
E
L
ARGENTINA
I
Córdoba
RANQUELCHE
H
(19th CENTURY) URUGUAY

Santiago Buenos Aires
MAPUCHE
C
MAPUCHE
Concepción Bi
obí
o
GÜNÜNA
R.
YAJICH(†)
Temuco
MAP
Osorno
UCH
HUILLICHE
Chiloé
E
TEHUELCHE
Map 12 The Araucanian Sphere: twentieth-century distribution of indigenous languages

An overview of the Araucanian Sphere would not be conceivable without paying some
attention to the Argentinian pampas and Patagonia (including the provinces of Buenos
Aires, La Pampa, Rı́o Negro and Chubut), which for centuries constituted an outlet for
the expansion of the freedom-loving Araucanians. Among the native groups of these
sparsely peopled southern extensions were the nomadic Pehuenche, who inhabited the
eastern Andean slopes and foothills south of the Huarpeans, in the province of Neuquén.
These Pehuenche owed their name to their dependency on the collection of pine-nuts
of the Araucaria tree (pewen in Mapuche). Most early sources agree in affirming that
the Pehuenche had a language and an identity of their own, distinct from those both
of the Araucanians and the Huarpeans. Unfortunately, nothing is known of the original
Pehuenche language. The present-day group called Pehuenche is located in Chile, on
the upper reaches of the Biobı́o river (between Santa Bárbara and Lonquimay) and in
other pre-cordilleran areas further south, between the lakes Icalma and Panguipulli. They
speak a Mapuche dialect and are not necessarily related to the historical Argentinian
Pehuenche. The Querandı́ of Buenos Aires were the first to become exposed to the
European colonisation of the Rı́o de La Plata in the seventeenth century. They soon
lost their ethnolinguistic identity. Only two sentences and a few words of their language
were recorded by French sailors around 1555. On the basis of these few data Viegas
Barros (1992) shows that Querandı́ may have been closely related to the language of the
Gününa Küne or Puelche. If this conclusion is correct, it would identify the Querandı́ as
the northernmost representative of the Chon language family. The Tehuelche complex,
which includes Gününa Küne and various other representatives of the Chon family,
will be discussed in chapter 6. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries all these
peoples came into contact with the expanding Araucanians, who either subjugated them
by force, or assimilated them through alliance. As a result, a number of Araucanian-
speaking mixed groups came into existence, some of which are still aware of their
non-Araucanian origins. This, for instance, is the case with the Araucanised Tehuelche,
who live in El Chalı́a in southwestern Chubut. The Tehuelche origin of this group is
confirmed by the use of Tehuelche vocabulary items and phonological features, such
as the use of a uvular stop and glottalisation, common in Tehuelche but otherwise
unknown in Araucanian (Fernández Garay 1997a). For some interesting examples of
Chubut Mapuche usage see also Dı́az-Fernández (1992). Some of the mixed groups,
such as the Ranqueles,1 for a time became powerful nations until they were annihilated
by the Argentinian army in 1879–81.
In spite of its geographical location, which could be considered peripheral within a
South American context, the Araucanian Sphere belongs to the oldest inhabited areas
1 The Ranqueles (or raŋkl-če ‘people of the reeds’) originally had their territory in southern
Córdoba. In 1900 they were relocated in Colonia Emilio Mitre, in northwestern La Pampa
(Fernández Garay 1998a).
of the American continent. Excavations conducted at Monte Verde near Puerto Montt
in the far south of continental Chile have seriously challenged the convictions of ar-
chaeologists that the human occupation of South America must have been posterior
to the Clovis horizon (9500–9000 BC), when Paleo-Indian big-game hunters roamed
on the North American plains (Fiedel 1992). The existence of a 12,000-year-old pre-
agricultural village in this remote area of South America suggests an earlier arrival of
the first inhabitants than was held possible so far (Dillehay 1989–97).
Although the Araucanian Sphere region was neither an area of cultural prestige,
nor of great artistic production, it was certainly not unimportant from a political and a
demographic point of view. In spite of fierce resistance of the Araucanians, the Inca rulers
succeeded in conquering the northern part of it, including central Chile and the Cuyo
region, but their control must have remained limited to the existence of military outposts
and probably some mitimaes (see chapter 3). The limit of the Inca military advance, to
either the Maule river (altitude of Talca) or to the Biobı́o (altitude of Concepción), is
still a matter of debate. The Incas called the Araucanians Auca (from Quechua awqa
‘enemy’, ‘rebel’), a name which the Araucanians proudly adopted as a self-designation.2
Soon after their first attempts at colonisation, the Spanish conquerors became ac-
quainted with the stubborn and fierce resistance of the Araucanians. The dramatic events
of the mid sixteenth century, when the Spanish conquistador Pedro de Valdivia tried to
establish a colony in central Chile at the cost of many Spanish and Indian lives, are
vividly narrated in Alonso de Ercilla’s epic poem La Araucana (1569–89). After these
turbulent beginnings, a status quo arose in which central Chile and the far south (in-
cluding the town of Valdivia and the island of Chiloé) were under Spanish control,
whereas most of the intervening area (including the present-day provinces of Arauco,
Biobı́o, Malleco and Cautı́n) remained independent and outside the domain of Christian
influence. The Araucanians strengthened their position thanks to an unusually effective
military organisation, great strategic experience and dexterity in the use of horses. In the
seventeenth century the Araucanians supported the Dutch in their short-lived attempt of
1642–3 to establish a colony in Valdivia under the leadership of Hendrik Brouwer. As
soon as it became clear that the newcomers could not live up to the Indians’ expectations
and started to behave like a colonial power themselves, the Araucanians withdrew their
support.
The dominant group among the unsubdued Araucanians were the Mapuche (‘people
of the land’). Consequently, the denomination Mapuche became almost a synonym of
Araucanian. The latter name was probably derived from that of the town of Arauco,
situated at the northern border of the independent Mapuche territory. This territory was
2 A more specific denomination used in the colonial period is that of promaucaes (from Quechua
purum awqa ‘uncivilised enemy’).
known as La Araucanı́a during the colonial period and in the nineteenth century. Outside
its borders the Araucanians were either completely assimilated (in the north), or gradually
dwindled in numbers also by assimilation (in the south). After the independence of Chile
(in 1818) the Mapuche in the independent territory retained their autonomy, although
it came gradually under the pressure of a consolidating Chilean state. In 1860 Antoine
Orélie de Tounens, a notary-clerk from the Périgord in France, came to the Araucanı́a
and had himself crowned King of Araucania (and later also Patagonia) under the name of
Orélie-Antoine I. Although many Mapuche recognised and supported him, the Chilean
and Argentinian authorities succeeded in evicting him twice in succession. Some of
Orélie-Antoine’s relatives still claim rights to the Araucanian throne today.
The final blow to the Araucanian independence in Chile came in the 1880s when
the Chilean military occupied the area in a campaign known as pacificación de la
Araucanı́a (pacification of Araucania). The Mapuche were confined in reserved areas
(reducciones), separated by pieces of land that were handed out to Chilean peasants
and newly arrived immigrants from Europe. This policy, aimed at destroying the unity and
organisational traditions of the Mapuche, created many antagonisms between Indians and
non-Indians. So far, it has proved effective. The Mapuche became a marginal and much
discriminated population, plagued by poverty and internal strife. During the Pinochet
dictatorship of 1973–89 the Mapuche suffered heavy oppression and adverse legislation
aimed at the dismantlement of the reducciones system. It is estimated that more than
a hundred thousand Mapuche have migrated to Santiago and other towns outside their
native territory.3 Meanwhile, the provinces of Malleco and Cautı́n (in the ex-Araucanı́a)
have remained predominantly Mapuche. The Araucanians who entered Patagonia and
the Argentinian pampas did so partly in order to establish colonies, and partly for
raiding expeditions. These raiding expeditions, known by the name of malón, were
conducted with great efficiency and violence. They had a terrifying effect on the white
settlers in these sparsely inhabited regions. Alliances between Indian groups sometimes
also involved adventurers of European extraction, who tried to escape the control of
the young Argentinian state. Some of these groups for some time acted as separate
political entities, a situation which is described by the Argentinian colonel Mansilla in
the account of his visit to the Ranqueles in 1870 (Mansilla 1947). Throughout most of the
nineteenth century southern Argentina remained dominated by Indians, Buenos Aires
being situated close to the frontier. The anti-Indian animosity among the authorities
and citizens of Buenos Aires grew such that the Indians were finally subdued in several
military campaigns, especially those of 1833 and 1879–81. The latter campaign led by
3 Most of the statistical information in this chapter has been obtained from the website Estado
actual de las lenguas aborı́genes de Chile (http://rehue.csociales.uchile.cl) of Gilberto Sánchez.
It contains information from the 1988 census.
General Roca, during the government of Sarmiento, is known as conquista del desierto
(‘conquest of the desert’) and was geared towards the total destruction of the Indian
communities in the pampas and in northern Patagonia. The survivors of this campaign
were rounded up in reservations.
Considering that most of the other languages belonging to the domain of this chapter
are extinct and very poorly documented, our attention will mainly go to the Araucanian
language and its local varieties. At the end of the chapter some general features of a
Huarpean language (Allentiac) will be given.
5.1 Araucanian or Mapuche

At the arrival of the Spanish conquerors, Araucanian was the dominant, if not the only
language spoken in central Chile, the non-insular part of southern Chile and the island of
Chiloé. Luis de Valdivia,4 the author of the first description of Araucanian (1606), speaks
of the ‘language which is used in the entire Kingdom of Chile’ (la lengua que corre
en todo el Reyno de Chile). In a later stage of the colonial period the name Chilidugu
(čili θuŋu ‘language of Chile’) came into use (cf. Havestadt 1777). The modern name
of the Araucanian language is Mapudungun, to be analysed as mapu-θ uŋu-n ‘language
of the (people of the) land’, by analogy with Mapuche (mapu-če ‘people of the land’),
as the Araucanians nowadays prefer to call themselves. Nevertheless, the language too
is often referred to as Mapuche.
Early colonial observers (Bibar 1558) point at the linguistic homogeneity of central
and southern Chile when the area was first visited by Spanish military expeditions.
There is a marked contrast with the situation of linguistic diversity and multilingualism
emerging from seventeenth-century descriptive accounts of almost any other area in
the Americas. Spanish religious authorities used the Araucanian language in order to
subdue and evangelise non-Araucanian peoples, such as the Chono of the islands south
of Chiloé, to the Christian faith.
Although it appears that dialect differences did not stand in the way of mutual under-
standability, Valdivia gives a more subtle picture of the situation of the language. His
work is of particular interest due to his exposure to a variety of Araucanian that has long
been extinct, the dialect of the bishopric of Santiago. This variety was also known as
Mapocho or Mapuchu5 after the name of the river that runs through the Chilean capital
today. Valdivia explicitly mentions several distinctive elements of the Santiago dialect,
which are not found in the varieties spoken today. When he mentions such characteristics,
he often contrasts them with linguistic habits that were prevalent among the Araucanians
4 The Jesuit grammarian Luis de Valdivia is not to be confused with the conquistador Pedro de
Valdivia, who died under Araucanian torture in 1552.
5 The river name Mapocho seems to have no relation with ‘Mapuche’, the present-day name of the
Araucanian people.
further south (‘arriba’), to which he often referred as the Beliche (from wil y i-če ‘people
of the south’). Some of the characteristics that Valdivia considered typical for ‘arriba’
or Beliche speech apply nowadays to the language of the Mapuche heartland in Malleco
and Cautı́n, in southern Chile. An example is the absence of the pluralising morpheme
yùca [yka], which, according to Valdivia, was used in the bishopric of Santiago as a
postposed element with non-animate nouns (e.g. ruca yùca [ɹuka yka] ‘houses’), in con-
tradistinction to the prefix-like element pu which marked plurality with animate nouns,
as in pu che [pu če] ‘people’. ‘The Beliches apply pu to every sort of thing’, says Valdivia
(1606: 10). The modern Mapuche language uses pu for human beings and only excep-
tionally for objects (Augusta 1903: 16), which is roughly in accordance with Valdivia’s
observation about the Beliche practice. In addition to such explicit mentions, Valdivia’s
description contains several lexical items and grammatical elements that are not found
in present-day varieties of the language. Examples are the verb cu- [ku] ‘to go’ (modern
Mapuche amu-) and the verbal derivational suffix -clo- [klo] ‘to help’, which has no
equivalent in present-day Mapuche. In part, they may have been specific features of the
Santiago dialect, but we could also be dealing with expressions that became obsolete
during the last four centuries.
During the colonial period all of central Chile north of the Biobı́o river became
thoroughly Hispanicised. The Mapocho dialect and maybe some other varieties became
extinct. The Araucanian dialects that survived are those of the former Araucanı́a and
those of the territories further south, including Chiloé. The varieties that spread into
Argentina were brought there mainly by refugees or migrants from the former Araucanı́a,
which is confirmed by the close linguistic similarity between the Chilean and Argentinian
Mapuche. The one considerably divergent variety of Araucanian still spoken today is
the dialect of the present-day Huilliche, who live in the southernmost provinces of
Valdivia, Osorno and Chiloé, in the Chilean region of Los Lagos. Its local name in
San Juan de la Costa (Osorno), cesuŋun ‘speech of the people’, reflects some of its
phonetic characteristics (Alvarez-Santullano Busch 1992).6 Further characteristics of
the Huilliche dialect are discussed in Salas (1992a: 86–92).
In the past several attempts were made at subdividing the Chilean Araucanians into
ethnolinguistic subgroups. Best known is the classification of Lenz (1895–7) who, in
addition to the Huilliche, distinguished the Picunche (pikum-če ‘people of the north’) in
the northern part of the former Araucanı́a (province of Malleco), Moluche or Ngoluche
(ŋulu-če ‘the Chilean Mapuche as they are called by their (eastern) Argentinian kinsmen’,
probably related to ŋul y -ant ‘evening’) in the southern part of Araucanı́a (province of
Cautı́n), and the Pehuenche (‘people of the Araucaria pine’), who live near the cordillera.
Croese (1980, 1985) distinguishes eight dialect areas in Chile, two of which correspond
6 The equivalent expression in Mapuche would be če-θ uŋ u-n.

to Lenz’s Picunche and one of which corresponds to Huilliche. There appears to be

a consensus that, with the exception of Huilliche, all the Chilean dialects are mutually
intelligible. The Picunche dialect stands out by the fact that its interdental and labiodental
fricatives are voiced ([ð], [v]), whereas they are voiceless ([θ ], [f]) in the Mapuche
dialects further south (Salas 1992a: 92). In this respect, the Picunche dialect coincides
with the extinct northern variety described by Valdivia. Valdivia’s transcription (<d>,
 ∼ <v>) suggests that the fricatives in that variety were also voiced.
The Argentinian dialects are only slightly different from their Chilean relatives, with
the exception of occasional substratum influence from Tehuelche or other local lan-
guages. They may share specific features with one of the Chilean dialects, thus betraying
the homeland from which they once migrated. For instance, the Ranquelino dialect of
La Pampa province shares the use of voiced fricatives with Picunche, which may be its
closest relative in Chile (cf. Fernández Garay 1991).
Approximately 400,000 Mapuche people live in the Chilean region of Araucanı́a
(provinces of Cautı́n and Malleco), where they are the majority of the rural population.
There seem to be no reliable figures concerning the number of speakers of the language,
but it may be assumed that a substantial part of the Mapuche population in this area
continue to speak it. Some smaller groups of Mapuche are located in Arauco and Biobı́o
(region of El Biobı́o) and in Valdivia (region of Los Lagos). The Huilliche people inhabit
a discontinuous area in the region of Los Lagos, including the coast of Osorno (San Juan
de la Costa), the interior of Valdivia (Isla Huapi in Lake Ranco) and several locations near
Quellón at the southern tip of Chiloé (e.g. the community of Huequetrumao). Referring
to Isla Huapi and San Juan de la Costa, Contreras and Alvarez-Santullano (1989) insist
that only people over sixty can speak the language to a satisfactory degree. Given the
critical situation of the Huilliche language, it is unlikely that there remain more than
a few thousand speakers. Estimates concerning the number of Mapuche in Argentina
fluctuate between 27,000 and 60,000 (Martı́nez Sarasola 1992: 493). The largest group
of Argentinian Mapuche live in Neuquén, but there are also communities in the provinces
of Buenos Aires, Chubut, La Pampa and Rı́o Negro. Very little can be said about the
actual number of speakers of Mapuche in Argentina, as in many locations the language
is being replaced by Spanish (Fernández Garay 1996).
5.1.1 Mapuche studies

The Mapuche language has been studied more intensely than many other South American
Indian languages. A good overview of what has been done is Salas (1992b). The Mapuche
grammatical tradition begins with Valdivia (1606), whose work was followed in the
second half of the eighteenth century by the grammars of Febrés (1764) and Havestadt
(1777), the latter one in Latin.
At the end of the nineteenth century Rodolfo Lenz (1895–7) published an extensive
series of studies, known as Estudios Araucanos (Araucanian Studies), including many
texts in different dialects, accompanied by ethnographic and linguistic observations.

Lenz also became known for his claim that Chilean Spanish, as pronounced by the lower
class, is essentially Spanish with Araucanian sounds (Lenz 1893: 208; 1940: 249). The
arguments upon which he based this assertion were successfully refuted by Alonso
(1953). Nevertheless, the idea of an Araucanian substratum in Chilean Spanish may
encounter a more favourable ear today.
Approximately in the same period, Bavarian missionaries renewed the Mapuche de-
scriptive tradition. Their most outstanding figure was Félix José de Augusta, known for
his grammar (Augusta 1903) and dictionary of the language (Augusta 1916), by far the
best dictionary of the Mapuche language to date. Augusta also published a collection
of traditional text and ethnographic notes, Lecturas Araucanas (Araucanian Readings),
collected by himself and Sigifredo de Fraunhæusl (Augusta 1910). To the same grammat-
ical tradition belongs a grammar by Ernesto de Moesbach (1963). Doubtless, his most
valuable contribution is the edition of the autobiography and memoirs of Pascual Coña,
a Mapuche chief, who lived through the turbulent years of the last great Argentinian
raids and the pacification of the Araucanı́a (Moesbach 1930). Both in content and in
form it is a monument of native American literature.
Among the more substantial contemporary contributions to the study of Chilean
Mapuche, the work of Salas (1979, 1992a, 1992b) occupies a central position. Salas
(1992a) also contains an extensive treatment of the different genres in Mapuche folk lit-
erature, including some annotated and translated texts. Smeets’s unpublished dissertation
of 1989 contains the most detailed grammatical description of the Mapuche language
so far, accompanied by analysed and translated texts.7 Catrileo (1987) is a classroom
textbook for learning Mapuche. A recent grammatical description of Mapuche is Zúñiga
(2000).
Most of the publications concerning the Chilean Mapuche language are in the form of
articles in journals. We will mention just a few examples. Important articles on Mapuche
phonology are Suárez (1959), Echeverrı́a Weasson (1964), Echeverrı́a and Contreras
(1965), Lagos Altamirano (1981) and Rivano (1990). The complex system of personal
reference marking in Mapuche is discussed, inter alia, in Fontanella de Weinberg (1967),
Salas (1978, 1979), Grimes (1985), Rivano (1988, 1989) and Arnold (1996). Several
aspects of Mapuche grammar are discussed by Harmelink (1987, 1988, 1990, 1992).
The historical-comparative position of Araucanian is discussed in Key (1978), Stark
(1970) and Croese (1991). In relation to the Argentinian varieties of Mapuche we can
mention the publications of Fernández Garay on the Ranquel dialect (Fernández Garay
1989b, 1991, 1998b, 2001), as well as Golbert’s text edition Epu peñiwen (Two Brothers)
(Golbert de Goodbar 1975).
7 A published version of Smeets (1989) is in preparation.

5.1.2 The sounds of Mapuche

The phonological structure of a Mapuche word is relatively straightforward. It is remi-
niscent of Quechua in that consonant sequences are limited to the intervocalic position
and consist of no more than two consonants.8 However, in contradistinction to Quechua
and Aymara, vowel sequences are common, as in (1):
(1) leli-a-e-n-ew
watch-F-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV
‘He will watch me.’
The Mapuche vowel inventory consists of six vowels a, e, i, o, u, . Their pronunciation

and analysis do not present any particular difficulties, except for . There are no length
distinctions. The vowel has a variable realisation, which can either be a schwa [ə ], or
an unrounded high central vowel [ı̈] according to the environment in which it occurs. In
many cases the presence of the vowel has not been perceived at all in the past. In fact, the
recognition of as a unit phoneme is a relatively recent phenomenon. In the publications
of the Bavarian missionaries the different alleged realisations of were distinguished in
writing, either as <ü>, or as <ə >, e.g. wün· ‘daybreak’, wən· ‘mouth’ (Augusta 1916),
whereas in reality these two words do not differ in pronunciation [w n]. Furthermore,
Valdivia (1606) and Augusta (1903) often write consonant sequences, where contem-
porary descriptions would assume the presence of an intervening .
(2) Valdivia (1606: 10) modern

tva tfa ‘this’
(3) Augusta (1903/1990: 29) modern
konn kon- n ‘I entered.’
The non-recognition of the intervening vowel is not just an omission. Valdivia

(1606: 9) explicitly states that Araucanian had word-final clusters.9 It is the overall word
structure of the Mapuche language that has incited contemporary linguists to assume
the presence of a vowel not recognised so far. The morphophonological behaviour of
8 Occasionally, triconsonantal clusters involving the semi-vowel w occur, as in aŋkaθfwin ‘I had

him on the back of my horse’ (cf. Smeets 1989: 55). The element -fwi- is a contraction of -fu-
‘past tense’ and -fi- ‘third-person object marker’.
9 Valdivia (1606: 9): . . . y se siguen despues dellas dos consonantes assi de las que en España
solemos juntar, como de las que no solemos, y vna de las consonantes que suelen juntar es la
<g> –[ŋ] [authors’addition] – que pusimos en el notable segũdo. Y no se deue pensar que entonces
ay nueua sylaba de mas de la vocal, porque no es mas de vna (‘. . . and after these (vowels) two
consonants may follow, like those we are accustomed to put together in Spain, as well as those
we would not put together. And one of the consonants they are accustomed to put together is
<g> [ŋ], which we have treated in our second remark. And one must not think that there is a new
syllable then in addition to (the one of) the vowel, because there is no more than one’).
may have played a role in the way its status was perceived by different authors. As in the
case of the ‘impure’ vowels of Mochica (section 3.4), it can be used as a full root vowel
(as in wn ‘mouth’), but also as a means to avoid non-licensed consonant sequences.
Example (3), kon-n, is a case in point. The first-person-singular subject ending is
-n; after bases ending in a consonant - - is inserted in order to avoid sequences such
as *-nn.
An additional complication is the fact that the vowel is often accompanied by a
voiced velar glide or semi-vowel [γ ]. Although there is some individual variation, the
presence of the glide is on the whole predictable, so that it need not be analysed as a
separate consonant phoneme. However, the rules governing the behaviour of [γ ] are so
specific and complicated that it turns out easier to include it with a separate symbol in
the orthography (Smeets 1989: 32–4). In some environments, i.e. between a full vowel
and a consonant, the semi-vowel is the only possible realisation, e.g. in reγle ‘seven’.
Elsewhere, γ is added either before or after the vowel , according to the position in the
word.
(4) γy ‘name’

kuwγ ‘hand’
Valdivia (1606) is quite consistent in writing <ú> (or any of its graphic variants <ù>,
<ü>) both for the vowel, and for the semi-vowel (reúle, új, cuú). Augusta (1916) uses
the symbol <q> for some postvocalic realisations of [γ ]: word-internally (e.g. in reqle
[ɹeγle]); word-finally in (near) monosyllables (e.g. liq ∼ lüq [liγ ] ∼ [lγ ] ‘white’, kuq
[kuwγ ] ‘hand’); and word-finally after vowels other than (e.g. umaq [umaγ ] ‘sleep’).
Elsewhere, including in word-initial position, he does not write the semi-vowel (e.g. üı́
[γ y] ‘name’, antü [ant(γ )] ‘day’).
The relation that holds between the semi-vowels y and w and the vowels i and u, respec-
tively, is somehow comparable to that between γ and the vowel . However, the position
of y and w as consonant phonemes is much firmer due to their typically consonantal
behaviour. In Mapuche of Cautı́n the verbal indicative (or third-person subject) ending
-y is obligatorily preceded by a connective vowel after a base ending in a consonant.
(Optionally, this sequence may be replaced by -iy; cf. Smeets 1989: 42, 227.)
(5) lef-y
run-3.ID
‘He/she ran.’
(6) lef-y-mi
run-ID-2.SG
‘You ran.’
It should be observed that in many other varieties of Mapuche, the sequence *y
(∼iy) is realised as i (e.g. kon-i ‘he entered’, kim-i ‘he knows’), a state of affairs which
suggests that the consonantal status of y in those varieties may be less pronounced (see,
for instance, Dı́az-Fernández 1992; Augusta 1903, 1916). On the other hand, Augusta
does register the word wen y (written wen·üi) for ‘friend’.
The status of w can best be illustrated with verbs containing the reflexive suffix
-(u)w-; they are clearly different in pronunciation from their counterparts without that
suffix.
(7) elu-w-a-n elu-a-n

give-RF-F-1.SG.ID give-F-1.SG.ID
‘I shall give to myself.’ ‘I shall give (to someone).’
(Smeets 1989: 31)
(8) elu-w-ke-n elu-ke-n
give-RF-CU-1.SG.ID give-CU-1.SG.ID
‘I usually give to myself.’ ‘I usually give (to someone).’10
(Smeets 1989: 31)
The Mapuche consonant inventory is characterised by a rather extensive array of

articulatory positions. Valdivia (1606) already observed the existence of a phonemic
and alveolar [l, n] resonants. He used the symbols
opposition between interdental [l , n]
ˆ
<ĺ> and <ń>, respectively, to represent the interdental sounds. However, Valdivia did
not recognise the interdental stop [t ], which is also recorded in Mapuche, reserving his
ˆ
symbol <t̄> for the retroflex stop (see below).
At present, the different local varieties of Mapuche, both on the Chilean and on the
Argentinian side, have either preserved or lost the distinction between interdental and
alveolar consonants. For instance, in Argentina the Ranquelino dialect of northwest-
ern La Pampa lacks the distinction (Fernández Garay 1991), whereas the dialect of
Rucachoroy in Neuquén (Golbert de Goodbar 1975) preserves it. In Chile, the Huil-
liche (cesuŋ un) variety of San Juan de la Costa (Osorno) no longer preserves the
distinction in the nasal and the stop series, but has developed a distinctive retroflex
.l in addition to a plain l and a ‘postdental’ (interdental) lˆ (Alvarez-Santullano Busch
1992).11
10 A parallel case with y is leli-e-n ‘you watched me’ versus leli-ye-n ‘I watched many things’
(Smeets 1989: 30).
11 Alvarez-Santullano Busch provides no examples of the ‘postdental’ l . The examples given by
ˆ
her and by Salas (1992a: 87) suggest a historical correlation between the interdental l of central
ˆ
Mapuche and the retroflex .l of Huilliche. The matter needs further investigation.
The continued existence of the interdental–alveolar distinction in the Chilean

Mapuche heartland has been the object of conflicting observations. Salas (1992b:
502–3) insists that the distinction is fully in use. He refers to the work of Lenz (1895–7),
Echeverrı́a Weasson (1964) and Lagos Altamirano (1981), who confirm this, and states
that three different groups of native language planners and educators have considered
it necessary to include the distinction in the orthography.12 On the other hand, Croese
(1980: 14), in his Mapuche dialect survey, affirms that the distinction is practically lost,
and that he found no awareness among the natives of its possible relevance. This is con-
firmed by Smeets (1989: 34–6). She gave the matter special attention but was forced to
conclude that her consultants, all fluent speakers of the language, did not make the dis-
tinction.13 As it appears now, the preservation of the interdental–alveolar distinction in
Mapuche must be related to the individual or family level, rather than to geographically
based dialects.
An additional problem concerning the interdental–alveolar distinction in Mapuche is
the inconsistency of the observations. Lexical items, such as l afken ‘sea’, namun ‘foot’
ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ
and mt a ‘horn’, are usually among those recorded with interdental consonants, but in
ˆ
other cases there is no such consistency. For instance, Salas (1992a) writes t üfa ‘this’,
ˆ
ant ü ‘day’ and külen ‘tail’, where Augusta (1916) has təfa, antü and kəlen, respectively.
ˆˆ ˆ
Given the frequency of occurrence of at least the two first items, this is a remarkable
discrepancy.14
In addition to the alveolar and interdental nasals, all Mapuche dialects distinguish
at least three more nasals: bilabial m, palatal ny and velar ŋ.15 The interesting feature
of the Mapuche nasals is not their number, which more or less follows the selection
of obstruent articulations, but rather the fact that, within the limitations of Mapuche
word structure, they can occur in almost any position and combination. Nasal clusters
are frequent even within morphemes. The low level of nasal assimilation (none at all
at morpheme boundaries) is remarkable. The following examples illustrate some of the
12 These groups are the committee responsible for the development of the Alfabeto mapuche
unificado (Unified Mapuche Alphabet), the members of an alphabetisation workshop organised
by the Catholic University of Temuco, and the native authors participating in the workshops of
the Summer Institute of Linguistics.
13 The late Luis Quinchavil Suárez from Nueva Imperial, the principal Mapuche consultant of the
Leiden project underlying Smeets’s dissertation of 1989, was aware of the interdental–alveolar
distinction among elder Mapuche speakers but did not make the distinction himself.
14 When Mapuche speakers abandon the alveolar–interdental distinction, it does not mean that the
interdental articulation as such is lost. The overall make-up of the Mapuche sound system favours
interdental, rather than alveolar pronunciation. This may explain why present-day observers tend
to record more interdentals than those historically attested.
15 The usual transcription of the ny and the ŋ is ñ and ng, respectively. For the latter sound, Valdivia
used the symbol <ḡ>.
positions that nasals can take.16
(9) lamŋ ŋen

‘sister’, ‘brother of a woman’
(10) many ke
‘condor’
(11) man-kuw-l-n
right-hand-T-IF
‘to give one’s right hand to someone’
(12) aku-ny ma-n weša θŋu
arrive-DM-1.SG.ID bad word
‘I got some bad news.’ (Augusta 1966: xiii)
(13) wely -wn-ŋ
ŋe-n
imperfect-mouth-CV-IF
‘to have an imperfect beak (of a parrot)’ (Augusta 1966: 265)
The fricative series of seventeenth-century Araucanian was remarkable not so much

for what it included, but more so for what it lacked. Valdivia (1606) is very explicit in
his statement that the language had no <ç> [s], no <x> [š], no <j> [h ∼ x] and no <f>
[f], in the way Spaniards would pronounce them. Instead, there was a voiced interdental
fricative <d> [ð], a voiced bilabial or labiodental fricative, written <v> or [v ∼
β], and a voiced retroflex fricative or glide reminiscent of the English ‘r’ in ‘to worry’,
which was written <r> [ɹ]. This, at least, is the picture that can be reconstructed by
referring to the situation in the different varieties of the language today.
In the modern dialects the voiced pronunciation of the labial and interdental fricatives
has been preserved in Ranquelino and in the northern (Picunche) half of the Arauca-
nian heartland (especially in Arauco, Biobı́o and Malleco). In the southern half of the
Araucanian heartland and in the Huilliche area the voiceless fricatives [θ ] and [f] are
preferred over voiced [ð], [v], [β].17 Fernández Garay (1991) notes that the Argentinian
varieties of Neuquén and Rı́o Negro show variation with a preference for the voiceless
options.
Most contemporary varieties of Mapuche have introduced a voiceless alveodental
sibilant s, a voiceless alveopalatal sibilant š, or both. These sounds are found in borrowed
words and, at least in the Temuco area, in forms that are somehow sound-symbolically
16 With the exception of material taken from Valdivia, all examples borrowed from the literature
will henceforth be transposed into the current notation system of this book. Given the controversy
on the interdentals, these will be indicated even when the original source does not distinguish
them from the alveolars.
17 In the word muðay ‘chicha (an alcoholic drink)’ voiced [ð] is found, even with speakers who
normally use the voiceless realisation ([θ ]).
Table 5.1 Mapuche consonant inventory
Labial Interdental Alveolar Retroflex Palatal Velar
Obstruents p t t č. č k
ˆ
Fricatives f θ (s) r [ɹ] (š)
Laterals l l ly
ˆ
Nasals m n n ny ŋ
ˆ
Glides w y (γ )
related to words containing r or θ, e.g. kure ‘wife’, kuše, kuse ‘old woman’, kuθe ‘old
woman (despective)’; cf. Smeets (1989: 38). In several old loan words the Spanish plural
marker -s has been replaced by Mapuche -r (e.g. awar ‘beans’ from Spanish habas), a
fact which illustrates the difficulty that seventeenth century Araucanian speakers must
have experienced when trying to pronounce the Spanish s. The velar voiceless fricative
is still absent from the present-day Mapuche varieties. Its Spanish representative has
been replaced by a stop k in some loan words (e.g. keka-w- ‘to complain’ from Spanish
quejarse; Smeets 1989: 69).
In Huilliche, the modern reflex of the r sound is a retroflex sibilant, as in kuš.am ‘egg’,
Mapuche kuram. A glottal or velar voiceless fricative [h ∼ x] is optionally found as a
variant of f, as in kohke ‘bread’, Mapuche kofke; and xoš.u ‘bone’, Mapuche foro (Salas
1992a: 87–8).
The stops and affricates of Mapuche have the characteristic in common that they can
only occur syllable-initially. The labial and velar stops p and k appear in non-productive
morphophonologically related verb-pairs such as af- ‘to end’ (intransitive), ap-m- ‘to
end’ (transitive), and naγ- ‘to descend’ (intransitive), nak-m- ‘to take down’ (transitive),
which indicate an extinct process of fricativisation in root-final position. There are two
affricates, palatal č and retroflex č. (traditionally written ch and tr, respectively). The
retroflex varies between an affricate and a stop. Valdivia’s representation of this sound
by means of the symbol <t̄> indicates that the stop realisation may have been the only
one possible in the seventeenth-century Santiago dialect.
In summary, the original Mapuche consonant inventory is represented in table 5.1.
Borrowed sounds and sounds of debatable phonemic status are given between brackets.
The obsolescent character of the interdentals is not taken into account. The classification
of the resonant r as a fricative is motivated by its interrelations with the other fricatives.
5.1.3 Grammar
The overall structure of the Mapuche language resembles that of the central Andean
languages Aymara and Quechua as far as the complexity and the transparency of the
morphology, as well as the dependency on suffixes, are concerned. Nevertheless, there
are some notable differences. Whereas the verbal morphology is exceptionally rich,
including, for example, a productive system of noun incorporation, nominal morphology
is weakly developed.
Although noun incorporation is a frequent phenomenon in the New World, it is
relatively rare in the Andean area. Araucanian noun incorporation drew the attention of
Valdivia (1606), who recorded some very illustrative examples of object incorporation
in the seventeenth-century language, permitting us to observe the difference between an
incorporated and a non-incorporated construction. (The examples are given here in the
original spelling and their phonetic interpretation between square brackets.)
(14) quiñe huinca mo are-tu-bi-n ta ñi huayqui

[kiny e wiŋka mo are-tu-βi-n ta ny i wayki]
one foreigner OC lend-LS-3O-1.SG.ID FO 1P.SG lance
‘I lent my lance to a Spaniard.’ (Valdivia 1606: 40)
(15) are-huayqui-bi-n ta quiñe huinca
[are-wayki-βi-n ta kiny e wiŋka]
lend-lance-3O-1.SG.ID FO one foreigner
‘I lent my lance to a Spaniard.’ (Valdivia 1606: 40)
Although the two sentences are translated in the same way, Valdivia points out the
syntactic consequences of using either construction. In (14) the noun phrase referring
to the recipient contains the postposition mo (also mu or mew in modern Mapuche),
which indicates an oblique case. The third-person object marker -ßi- corefers to ‘my
lance’, which is the direct object. In (15) the noun referring to the lance is incorporated
in the verb form. The object marker -ßi- corefers to the next object available, which is
the recipient in this case. Valdivia describes the incorporated variant as ‘an elegant way
of speaking’ (elegante modo de hablar).18
In the present-day language noun incorporation is still fully in use (cf. Harmelink
1992). In addition to object incorporation, theme subjects can be incorporated as well,
as in kuč.an-loŋko- ‘to have a headache’, from kuč.an- ‘to be ill’, ‘to be in pain’ and loŋko
‘head’. The incorporated noun always follows the verb root. In fact, Mapuche noun
incorporation must be analysed as part of a general tendency of the language towards
compounding, which again is more salient in the verb than in the noun (cf. Smeets 1989:
416–20). The possibilities of Mapuche verbal compounding are illustrated in example
(16), which contains a compound of two verb roots and an incorporated object associated
with the second verb root. The incorporated object iyal ‘food’ (from i- ‘to eat’, -a- ‘future
18 In modern Mapuche the form are-tu- (which includes a lexicalised suffix -tu-) means ‘to borrow’,
rather than ‘to lend’, for which the causative are-l- is now preferred. The root are- no longer
occurs by itself. We can only conclude that in seventeenth-century Santiago Araucanian are-tu-
was used in the meaning ‘to lend’, whereas the root are- was reserved for incorporation.
Table 5.2 Personal and possessive pronouns in Mapuche
Independent personal pronouns Possessive personal modifiers
Singular Dual Plural Singular Dual Plural
1 pers. iny če* iny čiu iny činy ny i yu yiny

2 pers. eymi eymu eymn mi mu mn
3 pers. fey fey-eŋ u fey-eŋ n ny i ny i . . . e ŋ u ny i . . . eŋ n
* In Mapuche studies, the nasal in the first-person pronouns is usually marked as palatal, but
the palatal element is, in fact, a case of assimilation of the nasal with the following affricate
(Smeets 1989: 129). The sources are not consistent in their treatment of this cluster; Augusta,
for instance, records iñche ‘I’ (1966: 73), but minche ‘below’ (1966: 150).
tense’, and -(e)l ‘non-subject nominaliser’) is itself a nominalised verb form containing
a tense marker.
(16) kim-θ ewma-iyal-la-y19

know-make.ready-food-NE-3.ID
‘He does not know how to cook.’
The image of Araucanian as a language entirely depending on suffixation is nuanced

by the fact that it has a unique set of possessive modifiers, which play a crucial role
in the grammar. These possessive modifiers have no independent referential meaning
and can only occur before nouns and nominalised verbs. They must not be treated
as prefixes, however, because there is no phonetic coalescence, and because they can
be separated from the noun by another modifier, such as an adjective. The possessive
modifiers are formally related to the independent personal pronouns. The grammatical
distinctions expressed in the pronominal system are person (first, second, third) and
number (singular, dual, plural). Number of a third person is expressed by postposed clitic-
like elements (dual eŋu, plural eŋn), which can but need not merge with the preceding
noun or pronoun. Table 5.2 contains the inventory of personal pronouns and possessive
modifiers in Mapuche.
In a possessive construction the presence of a possessive personal modifier is oblig-
atory. When the possessive modifier is not preceded by a pronoun or another modifier,
an element ta- can be prefixed to it without a notable change in meaning, e.g. ta-ny i,
ta-mi, etc. The possessive personal modifier can be preceded by an independent personal
pronoun for emphasis or disambiguation (in the case of ny i, which is used both for first
person singular and for third person). The pronoun and the possessive modifier must
19 Sequences of vowel-final and vowel-initial stems in compounds may be separated by a pause or

a phonetic glottal stop, as is the case in (16).
agree in person and, if not third person, also in number.
(17) mi ruka eymi mi ruka

2P.SG house you.SG 2P.SG house
‘your house’ ‘your house’
Number of third person is marked only once, either directly on the pronoun, or by
eŋu/eŋn following the head (Smeets 1989: 130).
ŋu ny i ruka
(18) fey-eŋ ny i ruka eŋ
ŋu
he/she/it-D 3P house 3P house 3.D
‘the house of the two of them’ ‘the house of the two of them’
The genitive construction in Mapuche patterns in the same way as the possessive con-
structions containing a personal pronoun illustrated in (17) and (18), with the restriction
that the possessive modifier must be third person.
(19) tfa-či wenč.u ny i ruka

this-AJ man 3P house
‘this man’s house’
Whereas in possessive constructions the modifier precedes the modified, this may be
the other way round if the genitive relationship is not explicitly marked. Such construc-
tions usually have a part-of-whole interpretation, e.g. me yene ‘amber’, literally, ‘whale’s
dung’, from me ‘dung’ and yene ‘whale’ (Augusta 1966: 143). By contrast, noun phrases
in which the modifier precedes the modified, e.g. pron fw ‘knotted thread’, ‘quipu’ (cf.
chapter 3), or awkan θuŋu ‘war matter’ (see the text in section 5.1.5), are more common.
Real compounds, such as mapu-če also have the latter order of constituents.
Mapuche has only one true case marker, the postposition mew (also mo, mu), which
indicates oblique or circumstantial case. Its uses are so manifold that it is difficult to
reduce them to a single semantic definition. It can refer to any non-specific location
(‘at’, ‘to’, ‘from’), time (‘since’, ‘after’, ‘during’), instrument or means (‘with’, ‘by’),
cause (‘because of’), circumstance (‘in’), as well as the standard of a comparison (cf.
Harmelink 1987; Smeets 1989: 76–83). It can also indicate an indirect object; see (14).
More specific spatial relations can be expressed either by means of adverbs indicating
the position of a referent (20), or by means of verbs which encode such relations in their
lexical meaning (21).
(20) inal-tu l afken

ˆ
shore-AV sea
‘at the seashore’ (Augusta 1991: 266)
(21) inal-kle-y l ewf mew

ˆ
be.at.the.edge-ST-3.ID river OC
‘It is at the banks of the river.’ (Augusta 1966: 72)
The Mapuche construction that expresses the concept of comitative does not involve
any case marker. Instead, the distinctions of person and number (dual and plural) per-
taining to the personal reference system are exploited. There is a special set of markers
exclusively for use in the comitative construction, in which those referring to first person
dual and plural are identical to the corresponding personal pronouns (iny čiu, iny činy ); the
markers for second person dual and plural are emu and emn, respectively, and those for
third person, eŋu and eŋn.20 The comitative marker specifies the grammatical person of
the group of referents following a 1 > 2 > 3 hierarchy and the total number of referents
(Smeets 1989: 177–9; Salas 1992a: 99–100).
(22) inyče amu-a-n temuko nyi pu karukatu21 inyčiny

I go-F-1.SG.ID Temuco 1P.SG PL neighbour C.1.PL
‘I shall go to Temuco with my neighbours.’
(lit.: ‘I shall go to Temuco my neighbours all of us.’) (Salas 1992a: 99)
Characteristic of this construction is that there are always at least two referents in-
volved, but that only one of them needs to be overtly expressed. In that case the addressee
has to derive person and number of the referent not mentioned by subtracting the per-
son and number features of the overt participant from the person and number features
conveyed by the comitative marker (Augusta 1990: 125–7). For instance, in (23) the
unexpressed referent is the child’s mother.
(23) ta-mi pnyeny emu

DC-2P.SG child (of woman) C.2.D
‘you and your child (addressing a woman)’
(lit.: ‘your child, the two of you’) (Augusta 1990: 126)
When a verb is part of the construction, it may follow the comitative marker and agree
with it in person and in number (24).
(24) eymn iny činy amu-a-yiny

you.PL C.1.PL go-F-1.PL
‘You people will go with me.’
(lit.: ‘You (plural), we (plural), all of us will go.’) (Augusta 1990: 125)
20 Salas (1992a: 99) calls these markers grupalizadores ‘group makers’.

21 The word karukatu ‘neighbour’ has been derived from the expression ka ruka ‘the next house’
(from ka ‘other’ and ruka ‘house’).
A prefix-like element that serves the purpose of indicating a location is pu. It is

used with nouns referring to places, as in pu ruka ‘at home’, pu wariya ‘in town’.
Its homophone pu is used mainly with nouns referring to human beings to indicate
plural (25).
(25) nyi pu wen

y aku-a-y
1P.SG PL friend arrive-F-3.ID
‘My friends will arrive.’ (Smeets 1989: 91)
Other nominal plural markers are -ke and -wen. The former is used with modi-
fiers, in particular, adjectives. It is a distributive suffix translatable as ‘each’ (26).22
Valdivia (1606: 10) considers its use a characteristic of the southern Beliche Indians. The
suffix -wen indicates pairs that generically belong together; the stem refers to one of the
members of the pair (27).
(26) fča-ke če

old-DB human
‘old people’
(27) fot m-wen
ˆ
son (of man)-GP
‘father and son’ (Augusta 1966: 53)
As in Quechua and Aymara, the verb in Mapuche typically consists of a root fol-
lowed by one or more optional derivational affixes and an inflectional block. The latter
comprises negation, mood, tense, personal reference and nominalisation. The personal
reference markers in Mapuche are of considerable interest. As in the case of the pronouns
and possessive modifiers, there is a three-way distinction both in person (first, second,
third) and in number (singular, dual, plural). In the case of first and second person,
number marking is compulsory; with third person it is optional. Person and number of
subject are generally expressed in the verb; if there is an object, person and number of
the object can also be expressed in the verb. The combined codifications of subject and
object are traditionally referred to as ‘transitions’ (transiciones), a concept which goes
back to a sixteenth-century Quechua grammar (cf. section 3.2.6), and which was further
developed by Valdivia (1606).23
22 The parallelism with the way the affix -kama is used in Quechua is remarkable.
23 The concept of ‘transition’ as used by Peter S. DuPonceau (1760–1844) and other founding
fathers of the North American descriptive tradition in linguistics may have been borrowed from
one of the Araucanian grammars (Mackert 1999).
Table 5.3 Mapuche subject endings
Indicative Conditional Imperative
1 pers. sing. -()n -l-i -či

1 pers. dual -yu -l-iu -yu
1 pers. plur. -yiny -l-iiny -yiny
2 pers. sing. -()y-mi -()l-mi -ŋ e
2 pers. dual -()y-mu -()l-mu -mu
2 pers. plur. -()y-mn -()l-mn -mn
3 pers. -()y -l-e -pe
A feature of Mapuche distinct from Aymara and Quechua is that a third-person object
can also be codified within the verb form. When both the subject and the object are third
person, there are two possibilities. These are illustrated in (28) and (29).
ŋm-fi-y24
(28) l aŋ
ˆ
kill-3O-3.ID
‘He killed him.’ (We are talking about X; X killed Y.)
ŋm-e-y-ew
(29) l aŋ
ˆ
kill-I-3.ID-3.OV
‘He killed him.’ (We are talking about X; Y killed X.)
The third-person object indicated by -fi- in (28) refers to an entity or person which plays
a less dominant role in the discourse than the referent of the subject. The latter is in focus
at the moment of speaking. In (29) it is the other way round: the referent of a third person
which is in focus is the patient of an action effectuated by a third-person actor who is not
yet in focus at the moment of speaking.25 The two third-person categories emerging from
this opposition have been interpreted in terms of a proximate–obviative distinction as
known from the grammatical tradition of the Algonquian languages (Arnold 1996). The
third person in focus is the proximate, whereas the one not in focus is termed obviative.
The endings which indicate grammatical person and number of a subject exhibit many
formal similarities with the personal pronouns and possessive modifiers. They vary
according to moods, three in number, with which they can be combined: the indicative
mood (marker -y- or -∅-), the conditional mood (‘if’; marker -l-), and the imperative–
hortative mood (no specific marker). Table 5.3 shows the subject endings that correspond
to each mood.
As can be seen from table 5.3, the indicative marker -y- is only clearly present in the
second-person endings; in the first person non-singular and in the third person a fusion
24 After -fi- the pronunciation of the suffix -y is optional (cf. Smeets 1989: 65).
25 One may be tempted to interpret these forms as passives. However, Mapuche also has a true
passive (suffix -ŋe-), which can only be used when the actor is unexpressed.
of indicative and person markers may have occurred, and in the first person singular there
is no indicative marker at all. The difference in pronunciation between the non-singular
first-person conditional endings and those of the other two moods appear to be induced
by the phonological context, rather than by their being different endings.
The third-person endings can be put into dual or be pluralised by means of the elements
eŋu (dual) and eŋn (plural), respectively, which are located after the verb (30). These
elements can apply to a third-person subject, as well as to a third-person object. When
they indicate plural or dual of the subject, they can be attached directly to the verb after
the loss of their initial vowel e (31).
(30) elu-e-y-ew eŋ ŋn pč.em

give-I-3.ID-3.OV 3.PL tobacco
‘He gave them tobacco.’ (Augusta 1966: 39)
ŋn pun
(31) č.ipa-ke-y-ŋ
go.out-CU-3.ID-3.PL night
‘They go out at night.’ (Smeets 1989: 461)
When the subject is either first or second person, a third-person object can be marked
straightforwardly by means of the suffix -fi-. This marker is used with definite, known
objects; if the object is indefinite it can be left out.
(32) n-n mapu

take-1.SG.ID land
‘I took land.’ (Smeets 1989: 19)
(33) n-fi-n mapu
take-3O-1.SG.ID land
‘I took the land.’ (Smeets 1989: 19)
When a third-person actor is combined with a first- or second-person patient, the

latter is indicated by means of the corresponding subject ending. At the same time,
two elements must be added: a suffix -e-, which occupies a position to the left of the
subject ending, and an element -ew or mew, which appears immediately after the subject
ending. When the first- and second-person markers are singular and in the indicative,
-ew is added directly to these markers; the second-person marker -y-mi loses its final
vowel. When the markers are dual or plural the added element is -mew or -mu.
(34) leli-e-n-ew
watch-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV
‘He watched me.’ (Salas 1992a: 120)
(35) leli-e-y-m-ew
watch-I-ID-2.SG-3.OV
‘He watched you.’ (Salas 1992a: 121)
(36) kuly i-e-yiny -mu

pay-I-1.PL.ID-3.OV
‘He paid us.’ (Smeets 1989: 195)
(37) pe-e-y-mu-mew
see-I-ID-2.D-3.OV
‘He saw the two of you.’ (Salas 1992a: 125)
(38) leli-e-či-mu
watch-I-1.SG.IM-3.OV
‘May he watch me!’ (Smeets 1989: 235)
As we have seen in the example of l aŋm-e-y-ew (29), a similar formation to the above
ˆ
obtains when an obviative third-person actor is combined with a proximate third-person
patient. All the forms in -e . . . (m)ew have in common that they involve a third-person
actor which is considered to be lower than the patient in a saliency hierarchy defined by
Arnold (1996: 26) as 1 > 2 > 3 proximate > 3 obviative (cf. also Salas 1992a: 125). The
suffix -e-, which is present in all these forms, has been interpreted as an inverse marker
(Arnold 1996: 30).26
The inverse marker -e- also plays a role in the combination of a second-person actor
with a first-person patient. When the inverse marker -e- is accompanied by a first-
person-singular subject ending (-n, -l-i), the resulting form refers to the transition of
a second-person actor to a first-person patient with the restriction that both must be
singular. In this case the imperative and indicative forms are identical (Smeets 1989:
235; Salas 1992a: 127–8).
(39) leli-e-n
watch-I-1.SG.ID(IM)
‘You watched me.’ ‘Watch me!’ (Salas 1992a: 128)
When either the actor or the patient is non-singular, another inverse suffix, -mu-, takes
the place of -e-. Number distinctions are indicated in the first person (the patient), but
are left implicit in the second person (the actor); the imperative endings are used where
relevant (cf. Smeets 1989: 199).
(40) leli-mu-či
watch-I-1.SG.IM
‘Watch (dual or plural) me!’ (Salas 1992a: 127)
26 Grimes (1985) is reported to have been the first to treat the Mapuche personal reference
transitions as an inverse system.
(41) leli-mu-yu
watch-I-1.D.ID
‘You (any number) watched the two of us.’ (Salas 1992a: 128)
In the combination of a first-person actor and a second-person patient the inverse suffix
plays a limited role, possibly because the requirement of the actor being hierarchically
lower in saliency than the patient is not met. Nevertheless, a form in -e-yu is used to
denote the combination of a first-person actor with a second-person patient when the total
number of participants is no more than two; hence the presence of the first-person-dual
ending -yu. If the sum of the participants is more than two, the reflexive suffix -(u)w-27
is used in combination with the first-person-plural ending -yiny .
(42) leli-e-yu
watch-I-1.D.ID
‘I watched you.’ (Salas 1992a: 128)
(43) leli-w-yiny
watch-RF-1.PL.ID
‘I watched you (more than two)’. ‘We watched you’.
‘We (more than two) watched each other’. (Salas 1992a: 128)
The situation outlined above is that of the Mapuche heartland (former Araucanı́a).
Valdivia (1606) recorded a very different use of the marker -e- in the seventeenth-century
Santiago dialect. In that variety the inverse system was apparently not checked by any
considerations of hierarchy, the inverse suffix -e- being freely combined with the second-
person subject endings in order to indicate any combination of a first-person actor with
a second-person patient. There were number distinctions only for the (second-person)
patient, not for the (first-person) actor: elueymi ‘I/we give to thee’, elueymu ‘I/we give
to you two’ and elueymn [elueymn] ‘I/we give to you all’.28 A similar situation was
recorded for the ‘Indians of the South’, presumably the Huilliche, by Augusta (1990:
84); cf. also Salas (1992a:128).
The Mapuche language has an elaborate system of verbal nominalisations, which play
a central role in the formation of complex sentences, relative and temporal clauses, etc.
The nominalisation in -()n, as in lef-n ‘run’, ‘running’ or aku-n ‘arrive’, ‘arrival’, has
many characteristics of an infinitive. It is limited in its morphological possibilities, in
27 The marker -(u)w- in its transitional function is to be kept apart from -(u)w- in its truly reflexive
function, because the order and combinational possibilities of the two differ considerably (Smeets
1989: 385–6).
28 Strangely, with a singular second-person object, the imperative form (elueymi) was identical to
its indicative counterpart, but when the object was dual or plural, there was a difference: eluemu
‘let me/us give to you two’, eluemn [eluemn] ‘let me/us give to you all’.
particular in relation to tense, but it is used in a wide range of syntactic constructions.

The actor corresponding to the event can be indicated by a possessive modifier (44).
(44) ramtu-e-yu chew ny i mle-n

ask-I-1.D.ID where 3P be-IF
‘I asked you where he lives.’ (Smeets 1989: 238)
Stative and agentive nominalisations can be formed by adding the affixes -el and -lu,
respectively. Both types of nominalisation can be combined with tense (see later) and
have an extensive range of syntactic uses. Nominalised verbs in -el can refer either to
the event denoted by the base itself, or to any entity which is not the actor of that event.
It can be used in relative clauses or when referring to occurrences in general. The actor
can be indicated by a possessive modifier.
(45) kim-nie-n čem mi entu-el

know-CN-1.SG.ID what 2P.SG take.out-SN
‘I know what you took out.’ (Smeets 1989: 239)
(46) fali-y ta-mn kely u-el [Spanish valer ‘to be worth’]
be.worth DC-2P.PL help-SN
‘It is good that you helped.’ (Smeets 1989: 257)
The agentive nominalisation in -lu refers to the actor or theme of the event denoted
by the base (‘the one who . . . ’), especially in relative clauses. It can also act as the verb
in a temporal clause. In one specific combination, with the future marker -a-, it can be
used as a finite verb, thus competing with the future indicative.
ŋe-ke-y ko kiny e metawe mew

(47) l a-lu el-el-ŋ
ˆ
die-AG put-BN-PS-CU-3.ID water one jug OC
‘The deceased is provided with water in a jug.’ (Augusta 1990: 192)
(48) piči če kim-nu-lu
small human know-NE-AG
‘a child that does not know’ (Smeets 1989: 282)
(49) pe-fi-lu nyi čaw amu-tu-y
see-3O-AG 3P father go-RS-3.ID
‘When he saw his father, he went back.’ (Smeets 1989: 287)
(50) fey fta-ŋŋe-a-lu
ˆ
he/she husband-CV-F-AG
‘She will be married some day.’ (Smeets 1989: 290)
In the Mapuche of the Araucanı́a an adjectivising suffix -či takes the place of -lu in
relative clauses of which the verb precedes the antecedent immediately. Interestingly, this
must be the result of relatively recent restructuring. Valdivia (1606) describes relative
clauses in -lu followed by či, and then by the antecedent. It appears that in such cases či
was a deictic element.29
(51) ely a pra-pa-či kyen mew

a.little rise-H-AJ moon OC
‘at the time when the moon had risen only a little
(was in its first quarter)’ (Augusta 1990: 191)
(52) huya acu-tu-lu chi Patiru vey may ta inche
[wiya aku-tu-lu či patiru βey may ta iny če]
yesterday arrive-RS-AG DC Father that then FO I/me
‘The Father who arrived yesterday, that was me.’ (Valdivia 1606: 47–8)
Although the syntactic uses of -el and -lu nominalisation are complementary, one
remarkable anomaly has to be mentioned. In temporal clauses, a form in -el can replace
the verb form in -lu when the subject of the verb is a first person singular (cf. Smeets
1989: 262, 290). The replacement is optional. With any other person or number it would
be impossible. Example (53) illustrates the use of first person singular -el (in amu-el).
It further contains an instance of -el, shortened to -l, as required after the future-tense
marker -a- (in umaw-tu-a-l); such forms in -a-l indicate a goal.
ŋn iny če amu-el ny i umaw-tu-a-l

ŋn ay-w-y-ŋ
(53) fey-eŋ
he/she-3.PL enjoy-RF-3.ID-PL I go-SN 1P.SG sleep-V-F-SN
‘They were glad when I went to sleep.’ (Smeets 1989: 262)
As in Quechua (but unlike Aymaran), the personal reference transitions of Mapuche

have been copied onto the nominalisations. Although not all the possible combinations
can be marked explicitly, the direct–inverse distinction is reflected by the use of different
forms (cf. Arnold 1996: 35). In the direct (non-inverse) transitions, as well as in the
(inverse) transition of a second-person actor with a first-person patient, a special ending
-fi-el takes the place of -el in the present-day dialect of the Araucanı́a heartland. In this
ending the element -fi- no longer has its original function of a third-person object marker.
In the seventeenth-century Santiago dialect -fi-el did not occur; instead of it, the ending
-bi-n [βin] was used.
(54) ta-mi elu-bi-n

[ta-mi elu-βi-n]
DC-2P.SG give-3O-IF
‘what I give to you’ (Valdivia 1606: 28)
29 This state of affairs still exists in the Argentinian Ranquelino dialect (Fernández Garay, personal
communication).
The possessive modifier which must precede the -fi-el nominalisation normally refers
to the subject (actor) of the nominalised verb. There is one notable exception, however.
In the interaction between a first and a second person the possessive modifier always
marks second person, even when it corefers to the object (1S.2O), rather than to the
subject of the nominalised verb. The example from Valdivia (54) illustrates this anomaly.
Disambiguation of the actor and patient roles is effectuated by the addition of personal
pronouns located on either side of the construction, following the SVO pattern (Smeets
1989: 272).
(55) iny če mi pe-fi-el eymi

I 2P.SG see-3O-SN you
‘that I see you’ (modifier refers to patient)
(56) eymi mi pe-fi-el iny če
you 2P.SG see-3O-SN I/me
‘that you see me’ (modifier refers to actor)
The inverse transitions that have a third-person actor are expressed in the nominalisa-
tion by means of the ending -e-t-ew, which, among other elements, contains the inverse
marker -e-. In this case it is the patient that is identified by the possessive marker.
(57) ny i pe-e-t-ew
3P see-I-N-3.OV
‘the fact that an (obviative) third person sees him/her/them’
(58) ny i pe-e-t-ew
1P.SG see-I-N-3.OV
‘the fact that (any) third person sees me’
(59) yu pe-e-t-ew
1P.D see-I-N-3.OV
‘the fact that (any) third person sees the two of us’
Another nominalisation strategy in Mapuche involves the suffix -m, which refers to a
place, an instrument, or a tense-marked event. It is used for specific events with known
participants. It does not occur by itself but is found in combinations with temporal
elements, namely -a-m ‘future place or means’, ‘aim’, -mu-m ‘past place or means’,
‘past infinitive’ and -pe-ye-m ‘usual place or means’ (cf. Smeets 1989: 263–71). The
suffix -we indicates a place or instrument with general value (no specification of tense or
participant).30 The suffix -fe (-voe in seventeenth-century Santiago Araucanian) indicates
an actor without any specification of tense or situation.
30 The suffix -we in Mapuche is reminiscent of Aymara -(:)wi, which has almost exactly the same
function. Both are frequently used in place names.
(60) meta-we ‘jug’ [meta- ‘to carry in arms’]

(61) meta-we-fe31 ‘jug maker’ (Augusta 1966: 145)
Several other strategies are in use to form adjectives from verbs, e.g. -fal in ay-fal
‘lovable’ from ay- ‘to love’. A non-productive formation is the suffix -en, which forms
both adjectives and nouns from intransitive verb stems ending in --, e.g. ray-en ‘flower’,
from ray- ‘to flower’, and aŋk-en (∼ aŋk-n) ‘dry’, from aŋk- ‘to dry’ (cf. werk-en in
section 5.1.5).
The verbal tenses of Mapuche are particular in that there is no real present tense. If the
verb represents an event, the unmarked tense is normally translated as a preterit. If, on
the other hand, it refers to a state or quality, a present-tense interpretation is preferred.32
This state of affairs seems to be typical for the Mapuche of the Araucanian heartland.
There is no sign of it in Huilliche (Contreras and Alvarez-Santullano 1989), nor was it
common practice in the Mapocho dialect of Santiago. Valdivia (1606: 13) describes it as
a characteristic of the southern Indians (Beliches), but adds that they would preferably
include a suffix -lle- [ly e] in the verb form (elullen ‘I gave it’). In modern Mapuche
-l y e- is an emphatic suffix not related to tense. Valdivia also affirms that the Indians of
Santiago were in the habit of ‘adorning’ their verb forms with an infixed element -po-
and a postposed element -che [če]; e.g. pe-po-n-che ‘I see’. Some basic examples of the
unmarked tense in Araucanı́a Mapuche are:
(62) kpa-n
come-1.SG.ID
‘I came.’
(63) kim-n
know-1.SG.ID
‘I know.’
There are explicit markers which indicate past (-fu-) and future (-a-). These tense
markers can occur in most combinations, although not in the imperative, nor with certain
nominalisers. They can also be used cumulatively (-a-fu-) in order to indicate a future of
the past. Since the unmarked tense refers to past actions as well, the use of -fu- implies
that an event is completed and that its results are no longer valid, nor relevant. Very
often it refers to actions that failed (cf. Smeets 1989: 300–3). After a vowel a the future
suffix usually takes the shape -ya-. The suffix -()wye- indicates previousness and can be
31 Null verbalisation is found with verbs of manufacturing; compare ilo- ‘to slaughter’ (ilo ‘meat’),
kofke- ‘to make bread’ (kofke ‘bread’).
32 Smeets (1989: 203–5) assigns perfective aspect meaning (implying successful completion) to
the unmarked tense form, but makes an exception for the verbs meke- ‘to be busy’ and ŋe- ‘to
be’, ‘to exist’. In this perspective, the verbs kim- ‘to learn’, ‘to know’ and nie- ‘to get’, ‘to have’
are ambivalent.
followed by other tense markers in anterior past and anterior future constructions. The
suffix -()wma can indicate a perfect tense or previousness, but it does not take personal
reference markers. The resulting form can be interpreted both as a verb and as a noun
(Augusta 1903: 44; Smeets 1989: 291–2).
(64) aku-a-n
arrive-F-1.SG.ID
‘I will arrive.’ (Augusta 1990: 29)
(65) aku-fu-n
arrive-PA-1.SG.ID
‘I was arriving/did arrive (but that is no longer relevant).’
(Augusta 1990: 28)
(66) aku-la-ya-fu-n
arrive-NE-F-PA-1.SG.ID
‘I was not going to arrive (I did not have that intention).’
(Augusta 1990: 29)
(67) l a-wye-ya-n
ˆ
die-PV-F-1.SG.ID
‘I will be dead by then.’ (Augusta 1990: 44)
(68) nč.am-ka-e-n-ew čum-ŋ ŋe-wma ti walon33
conversation-V-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV how-LS-PE DC war
‘He told me how the war had been.’ (Smeets 1989: 292)
In order to describe ongoing events explicitly linked to the present, the Mapuche
language has a series of options which are partly morphological and partly syntactic.
The suffix -nie- is homophonous and probably historically identical to the verb nie- ‘to
have’. It is used with transitive verbs, where it conveys the meaning of a continued or
ongoing transitive action (45), (69). The suffix -(k)le- (-kle- after consonants, -le- after
vowels) is used either to denote a state resulting from an event, or, with intransitive
verbs, an ongoing event, depending on the (telic or atelic) semantics of the verb (21),
(70), (71); cf. Smeets (1989: 368–75). The suffix or root -meke- can indicate an event in
progress with any verb of action (72). Finally, the adverb petu ‘still’ located before the
verb also has the effect of referring to present tense (73). Without further indication all
verbs carrying these elements are interpreted as present tense.
(69) ay-nie-e-yu
love-CN-I-1.D.ID
‘I love you’ (Smeets 1989: 388)
33 Walon: a variant of malon ‘raid’.

(70) aku-le-y
arrive-PR-3.ID
‘He is arriving.’ (Smeets 1989: 370)
(71) an-m-kle-y
sit-T-ST-3.ID
‘It is planted.’ (Smeets 1989: 369)
(72) i-meke-n
eat-PR-1.SG.ID
‘I am eating.’
(73) petu i-n
PN eat-1.SG.ID
‘I am eating.’
The verbal suffix -ke- indicates a customary action. It can be combined with other
elements, including tense and aspect markers. Without further-tense specification it
refers to a habit in the present, as in (47), (74) and (75).
(74) kpa-ke-y-mi
come-CU-ID-2.SG
‘You always come.’ (Augusta 1990: 40)
ŋn
(75) i-ke-fu-y-ŋ
eat-CU-PA-3.ID-PL
‘They used to eat.’ (Augusta 1990: 40)
Negation is indicated morphologically in Mapuche. There are three different markers:

-la-, -nu- (or -no-) and -ki-l-. In modern Mapuche, the distribution of the negative markers
is relatively straightforward. The marker -la- is used in the indicative mood, as in (16),
(66) and (76); -ki-l- (or -ki-nu-l-) is used in the imperative (77); and -nu- is used in the
conditional mood (78), in all nominalisations (48), and in nominal expressions such as
negative pronouns (79) and negative nominal predicates (80). In the latter case nu is a
free element or a clitic, rather than a suffix.
(76) amu-la-yu
go-NE-1.D.ID
‘The two of us did not go.’ (Smeets 1989: 236)
(77) amu-ki.l-yu
go-NE-1.D.IM
‘Let us not go (the two of us)!’ (Smeets 1989: 236)
(78) amu-nu-l-iu
go-NE-CD-1.D
‘if the two of us do not go’ (Smeets 1989: 236)
(79) čem nu rume
what NE ever
‘nothing’
(80) fey θ omo nu
he/she/it woman NE
‘He is not a woman.’
The ending -ki-l- consists of two elements, which can be separated by the inverse
marker -e- and by the third-person object marker -fi-. In some transitional combinations
requiring the inverse marker, the endings following -l- are those of the conditional mood,
rather than those of the imperative. This is the case in the transition of a second-person-
singular actor to a first-person-singular patient:
(81) leli-ki-e-l-i (not: ∗ leli-ki-e-l-či)

watch-NE-I-CD-1.SG
‘Do not watch me!’ (Smeets 1989: 237)
The formal relationship between the negative imperative marker and the condi-
tional mood marker is strongly confirmed by Valdivia’s observations concerning the
seventeenth-century Santiago dialect. In that dialect the negative imperative marker
-qui- [ki] was entirely embedded in the conditional mood paradigm (82), although some
hybrid forms were also recorded (83).
(82) elu-qui-l-mi (not: ∗ elu-qui-l-ḡe)

[elu-ki-l-mi]
give-NE-CD-2.SG
‘Do not give!’ (Valdivia 1606: 24)
(83) elu-qui-l-e elu-qui-le-pe
[elu-ki-l-e] [elu-ki-l-e-pe]
give-NE-CD-3 give-NE-CD-3-3.IM
‘That he may not give!’ ‘That he may not give!’ (Valdivia 1606: 24)
Valdivia (1606: 24) also reports the use of -no-, in competition with -la- in indicative
forms such as elu-po-no-n-che ‘I do not give’.
The Mapuche verb can contain a large variety of derivational extensions. Among
them are valency-changing affixes, as well as spatial, modal and aspectual affixes. Some
aspectual affixes have already been mentioned in connection with the present tense. The
following overview is not meant to be exhaustive.
Among the valency-changing affixes, the following may be mentioned: a reflexive
-(u)w- (-uw- after consonants), cf. (7), (8); a passive -ŋe- (with an unspecified agent),
cf. (47); a benefactive -(l)el- (-el- after consonants, -l- or -lel- after vowels), cf. (47);
a detrimental -(ny )ma- (-ma- or -ny ma- after consonants), cf. (12); and a causative
transitiviser -(e)l- (-el- or -l- after consonants). A further non-productive formation
used for causative transitivisation is the suffix -()m- (cf. section 5.1.2). Example (84)
illustrates three of the valency-changing extensions mentioned here:
ŋ-m-ny ma-ŋ
(84) l a-ŋ ŋe-y ny i č.ewa
ˆ
die-EU-CA-DM-PS-3.ID 3P dog
‘He was affected by the killing of his dog.’
Among the spatial markers of Mapuche, -me-, -pa- and -pu- occupy a central posi-
tion. Whereas -me- indicates motion away from the speaker to another location, with
a connotation of temporariness (‘itive’, ‘thither’), -pa- indicates motion towards the
speaker or location near the speaker (‘ventive’, ‘hither’). The third element indicates a
location remote from the speaker without a previous motion. Both -pa- and -pu- can be
preceded by an element -()r- yielding meanings, such as ‘on the way here’ and ‘on the
way there’. Circular motion can be indicated by means of the suffix -yaw- (-kiaw- after
consonants).
(85) fey-pi-ŋ ŋe-r-pa-n

that-say-PS-MT-H-1.SG.ID
‘I was told on my way here.’ (Smeets 1989: 338)
∅-me-n34 arxentina
(86) kla č.ipantu-∅
three year-V-TH-1.SG.ID Argentina
‘I spent three years in Argentina.’ (Smeets 1989: 342)
(87) lef-kiaw-n
run-CR-IF
‘to run around’ (Augusta 1966: 118)
Among the remaining modal and aspectual suffixes that are worth mentioning
is -()rke-, which combines the meanings of a reportative and a sudden discovery form
(cf. section 3.2.6 on Quechua grammar). The suffix -knu- indicates ‘to leave the patient
in a situation’.35 The suffix -tu- indicates restitution of an original situation; a second
34 A case of null verbalisation: č.ipantu- ‘to be/spend a year’, from č.ipantu ‘year’.
35 The function of -knu- is reminiscent of that of -rpari- in Quechua; cf. section 3.2.7.
application of -tu- is that of a non-causative transitiviser. The suffix -fal- can be in-
terpreted as ‘must’ or, as a transitiviser ‘to order’; -faluw- indicates ‘simulation’. The
suffixes -fem- ‘immediately’ and -we- ‘already’, ‘again’ have time-related functions.
(88) weny e-nie-ny ma-rke-fi-y-ŋ ŋn ny i mapu

steal-CN-DM-SD-3O-3.ID-3.PL 3P land
‘They kept robbing them of their land without them
being aware of it.’ (Smeets 1989: 323)
(89) č.ana-knu-y36 ny i l a kawely u
ˆ
lie.down-LB-3.ID 3P dead horse
‘He left his dead horse behind (and continued his way).’
(Augusta 1966: 236)
(90) n-tu-a-yiny mapu
take-RS-F-1.PL.ID land
‘We will take land back!’ (a land reform slogan)
(91) tofk-tu-n
spit-T-IF
‘to spit at someone’ (Augusta 1991: 150)
(92) wiya č.ipa-fal-fu-y-mi
yesterday leave-OB-PA-ID-2.SG
‘You should have left yesterday.’ (Augusta 1990: 292)
(93) iny če ŋily a-fal-n kamisa
I buy-OB.T-1.SG.ID shirt
‘I had a shirt bought.’ (Smeets 1989: 359)
(94) ly aγ
γ aly k-n, welu aly k-w-faluw-la-n
half hear-1.SG.ID but hear-RF-SI-NE-1.SG.ID
‘I heard half of it, but I pretended not to hear.’ (Smeets 1989: 349)
(95) kintu-fem-fu-y ka θ omo
look.for-M-PA-3.ID other woman
‘He immediately looked for another woman.’ (Smeets 1989: 345)
(96) kpa-we-la-ya-y
come-CM-NE-F-3.ID
‘He will not come anymore.’ (Augusta 1966: 261)
In spite of the large choice of morphological options of the Mapuche verb, several
modal functions are indicated by means of preverbal adverbs, rather than by affixes. Two
examples of such adverbs are kpa ‘want’ and pepi ‘can’.
36 ‘To lie down’, ‘to lie bare’ is č.ana-le-; cf. č.an- ‘to fall’.
(97) kpa amu-la-y

want go-NE-3.ID
‘He does not want to go.’ (Augusta 1966: 113)
(98) pepi amu-la-ya-n
can go-NE-F-1.SG.ID
‘I won’t be able to go.’ (Augusta 1966: 180)
The expression of nominal predicates in Mapuche is realised in different ways. One

option is to verbalise the noun either by means of zero verbalisation (99), or by a verbal
derivational affix used for that purpose, as in (100) and (101).
∅-y
(99) lγ -∅
white-V-3.ID
‘It became white.’ (Smeets 1989: 204)
(100) lγ -kle-y
white-V.ST-3.ID
‘It is white.’‘It has become white.’ (Smeets 1989: 34)
(101) kišu-le-y
alone-V.ST-3.ID
‘He is (left) alone.’ (Smeets 1989: 156)
Another option is to affix the element -ŋe-. This element, which is homophonous
with the verbal passive marker, is historically derived from *ŋe- ‘to be’, ‘to be there’.
Although still used independently in the seventeenth century (cf. Valdivia 1606), the
verb ŋe- is now limited to negative (ŋe-la-) and spatially marked (ŋe-me-, ŋe-pa-) verb
forms (cf. Smeets 1989: 159–60). The suffix -ŋe- indicates a property of the subject. Its
base may be a noun, as well as an adjective (102). In some cases it refers to possession
(‘to have’, ‘to get’), as in (103), and it can also refer to existence, as in (104).
(102) nor-ŋ ŋe-y

straight-CV-3.ID
‘It is straight (always).’ (Smeets 1989: 156)
(103) kure-ŋ ŋe-n
wife-CV-IF
‘to be married’, ‘to marry (of men)’ (Augusta 1966: 107)
(104) krf-ŋ
ŋe-y
wind-CV-3.ID
‘There is wind.’ (Smeets 1989: 158)
Still another option for expressing a nominal predicate relation is by juxtaposing the
nouns. This option indicates that two entities are identical, rather than that one is the
property of the other (105). For an example with a negation see (80). For a seventeenth-
century example, in which the nominal predicate is introduced by the focus marker ta,
see (52).
(105) fey-či θ omo ny i inan lamŋ

ŋen
that-AJ woman 1P.SG next.in.line sister
‘That woman is my youngest sister.’ (Smeets 1989: 182)
Deixis in Mapuche comprises a system of demonstratives, which includes three

degrees: tfa ‘this’, (t)fey ‘that (near addressee)’ and tye ‘that (distant)’. When used as
modifiers, these deictic elements must be followed by the adjectivising suffix -či. Valdivia
(1606) records these same forms, but adds that Santiago dialect speakers preferred ma
and ma-chi to tva [tßa] and tva-chi [tßači], respectively. The word fey is also used
for ‘he’, ‘she’ and ‘it’, Mapuche having no grammatical gender distinctions. There are
special deictics for ‘here’ (faw) and ‘there’ (tyew, γ yw) and a deictic verb root fem-
‘to do like that’ (cf. Quechua hina-).
Two deictic elements, ta and ti, are widely used for different purposes. Smeets (1989:
108–14) analyses them as anaphoric elements, of which the first one appeals to knowl-
edge shared by the speech participants, and the second one to general knowledge. One
of the functions of ta is to focalise a noun or noun phrase that occupies the final position
in a sort of cleft construction; see (52). For an example of ti, see (68).
Interrogative elements are partly derived from a verb root čum- as in čuml ‘when?’,
čum-ŋe-či ‘how?’ and čum-ŋe-lu ‘why?’. The related roots čem and čew refer to ‘what?’
and ‘where?’, respectively.37 Note also iney ‘who?’, tu-či ‘which?’ and tunt e(n) ‘how
ˆ
much?’ (Smeets 1989: 132–5). Indefinite pronouns are formed by adding rume to the
interrogative root, negative pronouns by adding nu rume; cf. (79).
Mapuche has a fair number of sentence particles with functions that are reminiscent
of those of the sentential suffixes in Aymara and Quechua; e.g. či expresses doubt, kay
a pivotal question, and may provokes an affirmative answer (Smeets 1989: 431–49).
(106) iny če amu-tu-a-n, eymi kay

I go-RS-F-1.SG.ID you how.about
‘I am going back, how about you?’ (Smeets 1989: 435)
5.1.4 Lexicon
The root lexicon of the Mapuche language is rich and varied, as is witnessed by Augusta’s
authoritative dictionary (1916). It is the lexicon of a people that regarded proficiency
37 There is a striking analogy with the Aymara interrogative roots kam(a)- and kaw(ki); cf.
section 3.3.7.
in rhetoric as a prerequisite for leadership and one that succeeded in staying aloof
from European cultural influence and forced Christianisation until a relatively recent
date. Its pride and spirit of independence will certainly have played a role. The Mapuche
lexicon may have remained more intact than that of other languages. However, Valdivia’s
grammar contains terms referring to military activity, which are no longer viable today
(e.g. queta-cara-n ‘to destroy cities’).
Borrowed elements from Aymara, Quechua and Spanish are clearly discernible but
do not play a dominant role. The influence of Aymara (not Quechua) in the numeral
system (pataka ‘hundred’) is worth mentioning. Quechua loans are ačawal y ‘chicken’,
‘rooster’ (Quechua atawal y pa name of the last Inca ruler), awka ‘rebel’ (Quechua awqa),
čal y wa ‘fish’ (Quechua čal y wa), čil y ka-tu- ‘to write’ (Quechua qil y qa), miŋgako- ‘to hire
farm-hands’ (Quechua minka-ku-, probably through Spanish), wampo ‘boat’ (Quechua
wampu). Spanish loans were often adopted in the early contact period when the phonetic
permeability between the two languages was not yet very advanced. They include some
very characteristic cases, such as al y fiθ ‘pea’ (Spanish arveja), kapra ‘goat’ (Spanish
cabra), manšun ‘ox’ (Spanish mansón ‘big tame one’), napor ‘turnips’ (Spanish nabos)
and ufiša ‘sheep’ (Spanish oveja); cf. Smeets (1989: 68–71).
The numbering system of Mapuche is decimal. The first ten numbers do not
show any influence from other known languages: kiny e ‘one’, epu ‘two’, kla ‘three’,
meli ‘four’, keču ‘five’, kayu ‘six’, reγle ‘seven’, pura ‘eight’, ayl y a ‘nine’, mari
‘ten’. Multipliers precede the higher units, whereas units follow them, e.g. epu mari
‘twenty’, mari kiny e ‘eleven’. ‘Hundred’ (pataka) and ‘thousand’ (waraŋka) are from
Aymara (pataka, waranqa), although originally from Quechua. Valdivia (1606: 50) men-
tions the existence of a system of month names, which have long since fallen into
oblivion.
The Mapuche kinship system remained well preserved until relatively recently. Au-
gusta (1990: 251–4) and Moesbach (1963: 193–5) provide an insightful inventory of
Mapuche kinship terms. Kinship terms may differ according to gender of ego, except
for the terms for father (čaw) and mother (ny uke), which are the same for both. Where
a man distinguishes son (fotm) and daughter (ny awe), a woman uses one term for both
ˆ
(pny eny ). The terminology for in-laws (cover term ŋil y any ) is nearly as complex and
specific as that for blood relatives (cover term moŋeyel). Many terms have double or
complementary functions. For instance, a woman calls her paternal grandmother kuku,
but also her son’s children. The term lamŋen means ‘sister of man’, but also ‘brother or
sister of woman’. Additionally, a woman calls lamŋen her cousins by an uncle on her
father’s side, and by an aunt on her mother’s side.
The colour terms of Mapuche are of interest in that most of them seem to fit in a
single phonological model, which consists of an initial k, a variable vowel, a resonant
or fricative (in one case a cluster), and a high vowel : kal y f ‘blue’, kar ‘green’, kaš
‘grey’, kel ‘red’, kol ‘brown’, kur ‘black’.38 ‘White’ (lγ) and ‘yellow’(čoθ) do not fit
this pattern.
Mapuche is rich in verbal expressions involving reduplicated roots, which in many
cases have an onomatopoeic character; e.g. nuf=nuf-tu- ‘to sniff’, wir=wir- ‘to screech’,
wirar=wirar-ŋe- ‘to cry constantly’ (Smeets 1989: 403–8).
5.1.5 Mapuche sample text

Mapuche oral literature is rich and varied. Salas (1992a) distinguishes two types of genre:
the epew or apew, which relates mythical events and traditions, and the nč.am or ŋč.am,
which is supposed to have a historical content. A well-known example of a traditional
myth is Manquian, the story of a man who changes into a rock in the ocean. Appertaining
to daily life is the series of narratives known as Federico ñi nütram (Federico’s Stories)
by Segundo Llamı́n Canulaf (1987). Most narratives are characterised by an abundant
use of direct speech accompanied by the verb pi- or fey-pi- ‘to say’. The embedding
of direct speech in direct speech can attain great complexity and may result in long
sentences. Hearsay is frequently indicated, either by means of the reportative (verbal
suffix -rke-), or by the expression pi-am ‘it is said’.39 The following text fragment is
taken from Pascual Coña’s Testimonio de un cacique mapuche (Testimony of a Mapuche
Chief) (Coña 1984: 270–1), first published in Moesbach (1930). It describes the climate
which eventually led to the last great uprising of the Mapuche chiefs in 1881.40
1. kuyfi tfa-či mapu-če mt e-we γθ e-ke-fu-y pu wiŋ

ŋka.
ˆ
in.old.times this-AJ land-people much-LS hate-CU-PA-3.ID
PL non-Indian
In old times these Mapuche people used to hate the Huincas very much.
The term huinca is used by the Mapuches for all non-Indian people, including white
Argentinians and Chileans, but also Spanish-speaking mestizos. The adverb mt e means
ˆ
‘much’; its longer variant mt e-we indicates a very high degree ‘too much’. The combi-
ˆ
nation -ke-fu- refers to a habit in the past.
2. “čem-ye-la-fi-yiny fey-či pu wiŋ

ŋka-ny ma če.
what-V-NE-3O-1.PL.ID that-AJ PL non.Indian-LS human
“We are not related to those half-foreign people.
38 A similar persistent pattern for colour terms is found in Arawakan languages (cf. Payne 1991a).
The reason for this remarkable similarity remains to be explored. Cf. also Atacameño ckaâla
‘yellow’, ckaâri ‘green’ (Vaı̈sse et al. 1896) and Quechua qil y u ‘yellow’.
39 Not attested in the sample text.
40 Direct speech is indicated by means of double quotation marks (“”); embedded direct speech
by single quotation marks (‘’); and second degree embedded direct speech by pointed brackets
(<>).
The verbalising element -ye- can be translated as ‘to have (someone) in a (type of
relationship)’; cf. Smeets (1989: 164). It may be derived from the verb ye- ‘to carry’.
The combination čem-ye- with a negation is to be interpreted as ‘not to have any rela-
tionship (by blood or other) with someone’. The term wiŋka-ny ma ‘Hispanicised Indian’
(Augusta 1966: 276) contains a suffix -ny ma, which is formally identical to the verbal
detrimental suffix. It is often found in adverbs, but here it means something like ‘pseudo-’
or ‘half-’.
3. ka moly fny tfa yeŋ

ŋn”, pi-ke-fu-y-ŋ
ŋn.
other blood this 3.PL say-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL
They are of a different blood,” they used to say.
The word ka means ‘other’, ‘another’; the expression ka mol y fny means ‘of different
blood’, ‘not related’. After a vowel the third-person plural element eŋn can be preceded
by y-.
4. kiny e-ke mu č.r-m-ke-fu-y-ŋ

ŋn malon θ ŋu tfa-či ly ek-le-či
pu loŋŋko pu wiŋ ŋka mew.
one-DB OC be.equal-CA-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL raid thing this-AJ
close-ST-AJ PL chief PL non-Indian OC
Sometimes these chiefs who were neighbours to the Huincas
used to organise some raid against them.
The word kiny e-ke (from kiny e ‘one’) means ‘some’, ‘one by one’; followed by mu
or mew it is translated as ‘sometimes’, ‘on some occasions’. The verb č.r-m- ‘to make
equal’, ‘to compensate’ is also used in the meaning ‘to organise’, ‘to set up’. The
expression malon θŋu, literally ‘raid-thing’, is translated by Augusta (1966: 33) as
‘some raid’. The continuative suffix -(k)le- in l y ek-le-či acts as a verbaliser.
ŋn kewa-tu-ke-fu-y-ŋ
5. fey mew č.aw-lu eŋ ŋn, inaw-tu-ke-fu-y-ŋŋn.
that OC unite-AG 3.PL fight-LS-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL
close-T-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL
Then they would come together and fight, and they would suffer a
disaster.
The verb kewa-tu- ‘to fight’, ‘to hit’ is derived from kewa-, which has the same
meaning. The verb inaw-tu- (or iny aw-tu-) means ‘to suffer a disaster’; its semantic
relation to ina ‘next’ and inaw ‘vicinity’ is not transparent.
6. fey mew θ oy γθ e-wiŋŋka-ke-fu-y-ŋŋn.

that OC more hate-non.Indian-CU-PA-3.ID-3.PL
After that they used to be even bigger Huinca-haters.
7. fem-ŋ ŋe-či ny i mt e-we γθ e-wiŋ

ŋka-ke-n eŋŋn č.r-rke-y ič.o-kom
ˆ
y y
mapu mew eŋ ŋn n i awka-n -pe-ŋ ŋe-a-l kom wiŋ ŋka.
act.thus-LS-AJ 3P much-LS hate-non.Indian-CU-IF 3.PL be.equal-SD-
3.ID right-all country OC 3.PL 3P revolt-EU-see-PS-F-SN all
non.Indian
Because they had such hatred of the Huincas, they had agreed that all
Huincas everywhere in the country would be faced with an uprising.
The expression fem-ŋe-či means ‘in that way’, ‘thus’; it is derived from the deictic
verb fem- ‘to act thus’. The infinitive with incorporated noun γθe-wiŋka-ke-n is used
without a marker as a causal complement, ‘because of their strong hatred’, ‘being such
their hatred’. The verb č.r- means ‘to be equal’; here it has the connotation of plotting.
The sudden discovery marker -()rke- may indicate that the preparations had been car-
ried out in secret. The word ič.o-kom means ‘all without exception’ (kom ‘all’). The verb
awka-ny -pe- means ‘to rise in rebellion against someone’, ‘to riot against someone’;
it is derived from awka- ‘to rebel’, ‘to rise’. For the interpretation of the element
-ny -pe-, the following option is the most likely: -ny - can be a euphonic element which
is often found at the division of compounds before -k- and -p- (as in tofk-ny -pra-m-
‘to spit upwards’); in that case pe- may be identified as the verb ‘to see’. There are
two more derived verbs which contain -ny -pe-, il y ku-ny -pe- (from il y ku- ‘to become an-
gry’) and l y aθk-ny -pe- (from l y aθk- ‘to become sad’) both meaning ‘to scold’ (Smeets
1989: 66).
8. wne werk-l-pa-rke-y θ ŋu pu pewen.če loŋ ŋko nekulmany ŋulu mapu

y
ŋko mew forowe mle-lu n i č.r-a-m awka-n tfa-či ŋulu mapu
loŋ
mew čum-ŋ ŋe-či ny i č.r-m-n pu pewen.če loŋ
ŋko arxentina mew.
first send-CA-H-SD-3.ID word PL Pehuenche chief Neculmañ west
country chief OC Boroa be.there-AG 3P be.equal-F-GR rebel-IF
this-AJ west country OC act.how-PS-AJ 3P be.equal-CA-IF PL
Pehuenche chief Argentina OC
The first to send word over here were the Pehuenche chiefs in a message
to the Chilean chief Neculmañ, who resided in Boroa, calling on him
to prepare an uprising in Chile that would match the preparations of
the Pehuenche chiefs in Argentina.
The intransitive/transitive verb pair č.r- ‘to be equal’ and č.r-m- ‘to make equal’,
‘to compensate’ have the connotation of plotting and arranging. Augusta (1966: 252)
translates č.r-m θuŋu as ‘stratagem’ or ‘trick’.
ŋn ny i tunt e.n mew ny i nie-a-l tfa-či

9. ka werk-le-rke-y pron fw eŋ
ˆ
y
malon fil -ple.
further send-ST-SD-3.ID knot thread 3.PL 3P how.much OC 3P
hold-F-SN this-AJ raid every-side
Furthermore, they had sent a knotted thread establishing the date when
this general rebellion was to take place.
The word ka ‘other’ can further be interpreted as ‘also’, ‘furthermore’. The expression
tunt e(n) means ‘how much’, ‘how big’, etc.; when followed by mew, it means ‘when’.
ˆ
The expression fil y -ple ‘everywhere’ has been translated as ‘general’ here. The ‘knotted
thread’ pron fw refers to the Araucanian equivalent of the Peruvian quipu.
10. aku-lu fey-či werken pewen.če tuw-lu, fey wl-pa-y θ ŋu:

arrive-AG that-AJ messenger Pehuenche come.from-AG he/she/it
give-H-3.ID word
When the messenger arrived, coming from the Pehuenche,
he brought the following news.
The noun werken ‘messenger’ is derived from werk- ‘to send’. The verb tuw- means
‘to proceed from’; its complement is always the place of origin; a relation with tu-
‘to get’ is doubtful. Mapuche has two verbs ‘to give’, elu- and wl-: with the former
object markers are interpreted as recipients, whereas with the latter object markers are
interpreted as real objects and no recipient can be expressed. We interpret fey wl-pa-y
θŋu as: ‘This is the message he came to deliver.’
11. “werk-ŋŋe-n”, pi-pa-y.

send-PS-1.SG.ID say-H-3.ID
“I was sent,” he came to tell.
12. “werk-e-n-ew chayweke loŋ ŋko, ka ny amunkura
ŋko, ka foyely
loŋ
ŋko, ka aŋ
loŋ ŋkač.r loŋ
ŋko.
send-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV Chaihueque chief and Namuncura chief and Foyel
chief and Ancatrir chief
“I was sent by chief Chaihueque, chief Namuncura, chief Foyel and
chief Ancatrir.
These are names of Argentinian caciques.41 The spelling of Namuncura is a bit odd,

as the etymology of this name is doubtless namun kura ‘leg of stone’.
41 See Vignati (1942–6) for historical data regarding some of these indigenous leaders.
13. ‘pe-lel-a-e-n ny i pu ŋulu loŋ

ŋko’ pi-e-n-ew ny i pu loŋ
ŋko.
see-BN-F-I-1.SG.ID 1P.SG PL west chief say-I-1.SG.ID-3.OV
1P.SG PL chief
My chiefs said to me: ‘You will see for me the chiefs of Chile.’
This sentence contains two instances of the possessive modifier which do not seem
to have a clear possessive function; as an alternative, the first ny i could be interpreted as
‘his’, ‘their’, but this would make little sense; imaginably, a rhetorical device or a marker
of respect is involved. The Spanish translation speaks of ‘the’, not ‘my’ Chilean chiefs.
Note also the use of the singular in pe-lel-a-e-n, although four chiefs are involved.
14. fey mew kpa-n.

that OC come-1.SG.ID
Therefore I have come.
15. ‘mle-y may pu wiŋŋka, kom may awka-ny -pe-a-fi-yiny ’
∅ may n i loŋ
pi-∅ y
ŋko.
be.there-3.ID yes PL non.Indian all yes revolt-EU-see-F-3O-1.
PL.ID say-3.ID yes 1P.SG chief
‘As we know well, there are Huincas here; we all intend to rise against
them, don’t we?’, so my chief said.
The primary meaning of may is ‘yes’; as a particle, it is used to provoke the approval of
the addressee (cf. Smeets 1989: 436–7). After a root ending in -i- (pi-), the third-person
indicative suffix -y is often not pronounced.
16. ‘pi-me-a-fi-∅∅-mi fey-či ŋulu loŋ

ŋko’, pi-ŋŋe-n.
say-TH-F-3O-ID-2.SG that-AJ west chief say-PS-1.SG.ID
I was told: ‘You will go and say it to those Chilean chiefs.’
The indicative suffix -y- is not pronounced after the suffix -fi-.
17. ‘<iny činy may yiny pewen.če-ŋŋe-n ap-m-a-fi-yiny tfa-či pu

y
wiŋŋka>, pi-ke-yin .
we yes 1P.PL Pehuenche-CV-IF end-CA-F-3O-1.PL.ID this-AJ PL
non.Indian say-CU-1.PL.ID
‘<We, being the Pehuenche, we will finish off these Huincas>,
that is what we intend to do.
The element -ŋe-n, infinitive of the copula verbaliser (originally ‘to be’), is used here
to characterise the Pehuenche as a collectivity; this collectivity is viewed as if it were
‘owned’ by the Pehuenche, hence the possessive modifier. The transitive verb ap-m- ‘to
bring to an end’ is correlated to intransitive af- ‘to come to an end’. The use of -ke- in
pi-ke-yiny points at a firm and constant intention; in addition to ‘to say’, pi- also has the
meaning ‘to want’.
18. <fey-eŋ ŋn ka fem-nie-a-y ny i wiŋŋka yeŋ

ŋn.
he-3.PL also act.thus-CN-F-3.ID 3P non.Indian 3.PL
<And they will be doing the same to their Huincas.
19. ka fem-ŋ ŋe-či nie-l-fi-pe malon eŋ
ŋn.
also act.thus-LS-AJ have-BN-3O-3.IM raid 3.PL
And thus may they keep them (those Huincas) under attack.
The suffix -l- is here interpreted as a benefactive, in spite of the rather negative
connotation. Alternatively, it may be an instance of a ‘more involved object’ marker, as
described by Smeets (1989: 377–9).
20. fey mew kiny e-w-n nie-a-yiny awka-n θ ŋu>’ ”.

that OC one-V.RF-IF have-F-1.PL.ID revolt-IF thing
So united we shall have a war at hand.>’”
The reflexive suffix -(u)w- here takes the function of a verbaliser, as it often does. The
expression kiny e-w-n is used adverbially ‘together’, ‘in unity’. For the interpretation of
awka-n θ ŋu compare malon θ ŋu in sentence 4.
5.2 The Allentiac language

A reasonable amount of documentation exists on the Huarpean languages Allentiac and
Millcayac. All of it is due to Luis de Valdivia, who also authored the first grammar
of the Araucanian language. Two samples of the original edition of Valdivia’s work
on Allentiac, containing a ‘doctrina’, a catechism with instructions for confession, a
grammar and a Spanish–Allentiac word list (1607) were preserved until the twentieth
century, one in Lima (subsequently lost) and one in the National Library at Madrid.
The work was re-edited by Medina in 1894 and discussed in Mitre (1909–1910, volume
I). Mitre expanded the vocabulary with an Allentiac–Spanish word list and altered the
original spelling in several respects, substituting the symbol j for Valdivia’s <x> on
the (unmotivated) assumption that the latter represented a velar fricative, rather than a
palatal sibilant.42 Valdivia’s work on Millcayac grammar remained lost for a long time,
leading to doubt as to whether it had ever been published, until in 1938 a copy of it
was discovered in the University Library of Cuzco by Márquez Miranda. He had it
photographed by the Cuzco photographer Chambi and published its contents (Márquez
Miranda 1943). We will give an impression here of Allentiac.
42 The alternative use of the forms acasllahue and acaxllahue for ‘virgin’ in Valdivia’s Allentiac
catechism speaks in favour of a (palatal) sibilant interpretation for <x>. The alternation of x
and ch in the verbal morphophonemics points in the same direction.
The absence of explanation concerning the pronunciation of Valdivia’s symbols makes

it a hazardous task to reconstruct the Allentiac sound system. On the morphological and
syntactic level a fuller picture of the language may eventually be obtained by a thorough
analysis of the religious texts that accompany the grammar (a first attempt is Bixio
1993). The Allentiac language apparently had a six-vowel system, similar to that in
Araucanian. Valdivia uses the symbol <ù> or <ú> for the sixth vowel, which may
have been an unrounded high back or central vowel, as in chalù [čal]43 ‘arrow’. It is
possible that Valdivia did not always write the sixth vowel, which could explain the
presence of occasional word-initial consonant clusters, e.g. in pxota [p()šota] ‘girl’ and
qleu [k()lew] ‘on top of’. In one case both spellings are found: qtec and qùtec [k()tek]
‘fire’. To be noticed is the frequent occurrence of what was apparently a syllabic lateral,
as in lpuù [lpu] ‘finger’. The language had a series of sibilants or assibilated affricates,
˚
of which the exact value can only be guessed on the basis of the information given by
Valdivia. They are written <s>, <x>, <z> and <zh>, respectively. The symbol <s>
is limited in its distribution. It is found at the end of a syllable, usually before another
consonant (e.g. in taytayes-nen ‘I vanquish’), and in the word hussú [hus] ‘ostrich’.44
Examples of <x>, <z> and <zh> are xapi [šapi] ‘death’, hueze [weze] ‘leg’ and zhucña
[žukny a] ‘frog’. The interpretation of the symbols <z> and <zh> as voiced fricatives
([z], [ž]) is tentative and, in the case of <z>, partly based on the fact that there seems
to have been an opposition between <z> and <ss> in intervocalic position. In other
positions <z> may have had the value [s].
Allentiac is presented by Valdivia as an agglutinating, dominantly suffixing language.
It differs from Araucanian in having a well-developed set of case markers and post-
positions (e.g. -ta locative; -tati causal; -tayag beneficiary; -ye dative; -yen instrumental;
-ymen comitative). Person of possessor is indicated by adding the genitive case marker
-(e)ch or -(i)ch to the personal pronouns cu ‘I’, ca ‘you’ and ep ‘he/she/it’, viz. cu-ch ‘my’,
ca-ch ‘your’, ep-ech ‘his’. The same holds for the corresponding plural forms, which are
obtained by adding -cha to the personal pronouns, e.g. ep-cha ‘they’, ep-cha-ch ‘their’.
However, in pronouns associated with forms of the verbal paradigm the plural marker is
noted as -chu, rather than -cha (cu-chu, ca-chu, ep-chu). No inclusive–exclusive plural
43 Self-evidently, the phonetic transcriptions proposed in this paragraph are merely suggestive.
The combination gu can be interpreted as [w] before a, o, u; before i and e, the combination
hu serves that purpose. The symbol g alone and the combination gu before e and i may have
referred to a voiced velar stop, but more likely to a voiced velar fricative. The voiceless velar
stop [k] is written qu before e and i, q before silent ù or ú, and c elsewhere. The symbols ch, ll
and ñ were almost certainly as in Spanish.
44 The form hussú (with final ú) is explicitly mentioned in Mitre (1909, I: 374), whereas Medina’s
edition has hussu. We assume that in this case Mitre’s observation is correct because of his
having had direct access to the original edition, notwithstanding the fact that the word list in
Medina’s edition is a lot more trustworthy than Mitre’s.
Table 5.4 Unmarked verbal paradigm in Allentiac
quillet- ‘to love’
1 pers. sing. quillet-c-a-nen ‘I love, want.’

plur. quillet-c-a-c-nen ‘We love, want.’
2 pers. sing. quillet-c-a-npen ‘You (sing.) love, want.’
plur. quillet-c-a-m-ne-c-pen ‘You (plur.) love, want.’
3 pers. sing. quillet-c-a-na ‘He/she loves, wants.’
plur. quillet-c-a-m-na ‘They love, want.’
distinction has been recorded. Plural of substantives is indicated by means of the element
guiam, e.g. in pia guiam ‘fathers’.
The verbal morphology of the Allentiac verb appears to be quite rich. Valdivia of-
fers an overview of the endings referring to person-of-subject, tense, mood, voice,
interrogation, nominalisation and subordination. There is also evidence of some deriva-
tional morphology which is not described systematically. The root of Valdivia’s model
verb quillet- ‘to love’, ‘to want’ is followed by a lexical extension -(e)c- in all of
its paradigms except for the future tense and its derivates. This extension is found
with a number of other verbs as well. Its function remains unexplained. The per-
sonal endings are preceded by a thematic vowel -a-, which can be left out as a re-
sult of morphophonemic adaptations (see below). In the endings the pluralising el-
ements -c- (for first and second person) and -m- (for second and third person) can
be recognised. The unmarked paradigm (present or preterit) of quillet- is shown in
table 5.4.
The same endings are found in the imperfect or habitual past, where an element -yalt-
is inserted after -(e)c-: quillet-ec-yalt-a-nen ‘I used to love, want’. Future is indicated by
the element -ep- (-ep-m- for the plain future), with elimination of the -(e)c- extension:
quillet-ep-m-a-nen ‘I shall love, want’. Verb roots which do not have the -(e)c- extension
in their paradigms may be subject to morphophonemic adaptations, such as the loss of the
thematic vowel a and other modifications, e.g. pacax-nen ‘I remove’, but pacach-a-npen
‘you remove’.
The endings of the imperative and interrogative paradigms differ considerably from
their affirmative counterparts. An example of the unmarked tense of the interrogative is
given in table 5.5.
Negation is indicated by means of a free element naha,45 as in naha quillet-c-a-nen
‘I don’t want’, but for the imperative there are special negative markers, as can be seen
45 The negative marker naha is sometimes found as a prefix or proclitic na-, for instance, in
na-cu-ymen ‘without me’ (cu ‘I’, -ymen ‘with’).
Table 5.5 Interrogative verbal paradigm in Allentiac
quillet-
1 pers. sing. quillet-c-a-lte ‘Do I love, want?’

plur. quillet-c-a-c-lte ‘Do we love, want?’
2 pers. sing. quillet-c-a-n ‘Do you (sing.) love, want?’
plur. quillet-c-a-m-ne ‘Do you (plur.) love, want?’
3 pers. sing. quillet-c-a-nte ‘Does he/she love, want?’
plur. quillet-c-a-m-te ‘Do they love, want?’
in (107) and (108):
(107) quillet-ec-gua, quillet-ec-xec

love-VE-2S.IM
‘Love!’
(108) quillet-ec uche
love-VE 2S.IM.NE
‘Don’t love!’
In some parts of the verbal paradigm only number, not person, is morphologically
distinguished, as in the subordinative form called gerundio de ablativo by Valdivia
(109):
(109) quillet-ec-ma-ntista
love-VE-SU-SU
‘When I/you/he/she wants . . .’
quillet-ec-ma-m-nista
love-VE-SU-PL-SU
‘When we/you (plural)/they want . . .’
Active participles are formed by adding the elements yag ‘this’ or an-tichan to the
verb stem, passive participles by adding el-tichan. According to Valdivia, the el-tichan
nominalisation can serve as the basis for a passive construction in combination with the
verb m(a)- ‘to be’, but he also mentions an alternative construction consisting of the
active form preceded by the element quemmec.
(110) quillet-ec el-tichan m-a-npen

love-VE PS-N be-TV-2S
‘You are loved.’
(111) quemmec quillet-c-a-npen

PS love-VE-TV-2S
‘You are loved.’
The verbal transitions (object marking) are indicated by means of special pronominal
elements which precede the verb root and which are inserted between the pronominal
subject (if any) and the verb root itself. The first-person singular object marker is either
cu-ye (pronoun ‘I’ + dative case), or in a contracted form que; its plural counterpart
is either quex, xque, or cuchanen. The second-person-singular object marker is ca-ye
(pronoun ‘you’ + dative case); its plural counterpart is either cax, xca or xcaummi. The
third-person object marker is pu or pù for the singular, and either pux or pùx, or xpu or
xpù for the plural. In the transition 1S-2O the object marker can either precede the verb,
or be infixed, so that we have the following alternatives:
(112) cu ca-ye quillet-c-a-nen

I you-DA love-VE-TV-1S
‘I love you (singular).’
(113) quillet-ec-ca-nen
love-VE-2O-1S
‘I love you (singular).’
The transition 2S-1O can be expressed in two ways, either as described above, or by
special endings:
(114) ca-chu que quillet-c-a-m-ne-c-pen

you-PL 1.SG.DA love-VE-TV-PL-2S-PL-2S
‘You (plural) love me.’
(115) ca-chu quillet-ec-quete
you-PL love-VE-2S.PL.1O.SG
‘You (plural) love me.’
Reflexivity is indicated by means of the root ychacat [ičakat] ‘self’, which can be
used with a pronoun, as in cu ychacat ‘I myself’. Alternatively, it can be infixed in the
verb (before the extension, if any).
(116) Pedro quillet-ychacat-c-a-na

Pedro love-RF-VE-TV-3S
‘Pedro loves himself.’
Valdivia’s Allentiac lexicon contains very few terms referring to nature and envi-
ronment. Mitre (1909, I: 349) attributes this to the fact that Valdivia’s consultants were
emigrated Huarpeans who had preferred the relative security of Spanish rule in Chile
to their original habitat, surrounded as it was by warlike neighbours. The language has
a decimal system of numerals: lcaa ‘one’, yemen ‘two’, ltun ‘three’, tut ‘four’, horoc
‘five’, zhillca ‘six’, tucum ‘ten’; the numbers for ‘seven’, ‘eight’ and ‘nine’ are com-
pounds, respectively, yemen-qlu, ltun-qleu, tut-qleu. The word for ‘hundred’ is pataka,
a loan from Aymara or Mapuche. Interesting is the shape of colour terms; they all con-
sist of a reduplicated element followed by the ending -niag: hom=hom-niag ‘black’,
zas=zas-niag ‘red’.
Valdivia’s Allentiac lexicon contains a few loan words, such as, yñaca ‘princess’
(Aymara iny aqa ‘young lady’), mita ‘time’, ‘turn’ (Quechua mit’a), mucha-pia-nen ‘I
kiss’ (Quechua muč’a- ‘to kiss’) and quillca-tau-nen ‘I write’ (Quechua qil y qa- ‘to
write’). The functions of the elements -pia- and -tau- in the last two examples are not
known; they may reflect either cases of derivation, or compounds containing the roots
pia ‘father’ (or another element yet to be identified) and tau- ‘to put’. Interesting cases
are the word for ‘house’ ut(u), reminiscent of Aymaran uta, and the word for ‘bread’
kupi. Mitre (1909, I: 382) affirms that this is an arbitrary, transcultural translation of
Valdivia, because kupi referred to a staple food of the Huarpeans, the dried roots of
reed-plants from the lakes. The resemblance with Mapuche kofke ‘bread’ is noteworthy.
6
The languages of Tierra del Fuego
On Tierra del Fuego, the archipelagos surrounding it and the neighbouring mainland,
Patagonia, nine indigenous languages were spoken, of which only a few have survived
to the present day. With respect to the peoples of Tierra del Fuego, a distinction is made
traditionally between the canoe nomads, including the Chono, the Kawesqar and the
Yahgan, and the foot nomads, including the Haush and the Selk nam. In the latter group
the Gününa Küne, the Tehuelche and the Tehues or Teushen are also included (Clairis
1985).
As Guyot (1968) notes, the area of Tierra del Fuego had already been visited by eighty-
one exploratory expeditions by the time the HMS Beagle, carrying Charles Darwin,
passed through the area. Different visitors projected different images onto the nomadic
groups they encountered. Thus Darwin writes: ‘The language of these people, according
to our notions, scarcely deserves to be called articulate’ ([1906] 1983: 195). The Fuegians
could be seen as a decidedly lower step in human development, in his perception.
It was against this view that Thomas Bridges, a missionary in the area from 1869
to 1887 on behalf of the South American Missionary Society, argued with his mas-
sive 30,000-word Yahgan–English dictionary. On the basis of it he is quoted by Guyot
(1968) as having written in an Argentinian newspaper that ‘Incredible though it may
seem, the language of one of the poorest tribes, without literature, nor poetry, nor
songs, nor science, has nonetheless, owing to its structure and its functions, a list of
words which surpasses that of tribes much more evolved with respect to their art and
the satisfaction of their needs’ (translated from French in Guyot 1968: 8). The large
speculative and impressionistic literature on these groups has not automatically led to
very thorough descriptions and profound analyses, however. Here we try to give a sketch
of some of the linguistic properties of the languages involved, building on the recent
careful historical, descriptive and comparative work of scholars such as Casamiquela,
Clairis, Fernández Garay and Najlis, and on the monumental earlier studies of Bridges,
Cooper and Gusinde, among others.
Cooper (1946a) tries to give a general description of the traditional cultures of Tierra
del Fuego, partly on the basis of accounts of travellers who came into contact with
6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego 551
)
O(†
TEUSHEN(†)
ON
CH
ARGENTINA
TEHUELCHE
H
Ch
ico
R.
I
Puerto Edén
K AW
TEHUELCHE
ESQ
AR
Punta SELK'NAM(†)
Arenas
HAUSH(†)
Ushuaia
YAHGAN
Map 13 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
these generally nomadic groups. The people living at this end-point of the world had
gathering economies; cultivated plants were only found in the north, at the margins of the
Araucanian Sphere. Their only domestic animals were the dog and – for some groups –
the horse. Dogs were for some groups only adopted in the colonial period, and horses
came in during the eighteenth century. They had moveable shelters, and no raised beds
or hammocks. Their weapons were made of stone, wood or bone. Metal weapons and
tools were introduced after contacts with Europeans. The canoe nomads lived mainly
on seals, fish and shellfish; the pedestrian nomads hunted land animals such as the
guanaco (a relative of the llama) and the rhea (an ostrich-like creature). On the Atlantic
552 6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego
side the emphasis was on land hunting, while on the Pacific side the early inhabitants
lived from fishing and sea hunting, supplemented by shellfish gathering and hunting of
sea birds (Rivera 1999: 754). The area shows 6,000 years of continuous occupation,
made possible by low population density and enormous maritime resources (Rivera
1999: 756).
The people lived in well-organised families and monogamy was prevalent. Social
organisation was in terms of bands, without clearly distinct chiefs, corresponding perhaps
to extended families. Land-tenure was organised along the lines of the family hunting-
ground system. When food was becoming scarce in one place, the family or band would
move on to a different area and settle temporarily. There is no evidence of cannibalism,
and people held theistic or shamanistic beliefs.
We will now turn to a brief description of the distribution of the different language
groups in the area.
6.1 The languages and their distribution

A schematic representation of the traditional areas of the Fuegian languages is given on
the map at the beginning of this chapter. Turning counter-clockwise along the coast of
Chile, the northernmost group is the Chono or Aksanás (the Kawesqar word for ‘man’),
now extinct, who lived in the area from the Corcovado Gulf, south of Chiloé, to the
Gulf of Peñas. Cooper (1917) has carefully summarised all that can be gathered from
accounts of the Chono, from Jesuit missionaries in 1612 to an English ship captain in
1875. Canoe nomads, they had adopted a few Araucanian elements (Cooper 1946b):
sporadic gardening (e.g. potatoes) and herding, the polished stone ax and the plank
boat (dalca). Below we will briefly present the available data about possible numbers of
Chono speakers.
Cooper (1917) concludes from a survey of the ways the language of the Chono is
described in the sources, including accounts of interpreting etc., that Chono was cer-
tainly distinct from Mapuche and Tehuelche, and more probably than not also from
Kawesqar. An independent Chono group figured already in Chamberlain’s classification
of 1913. Clairis (1985) bristles at the idea of speaking of a language that we know al-
most nothing about, except for some ethnohistorical accounts. Here we will be more
audacious and try to sift through the information there is, particularly the eighteenth-
century catechism found in Rome archives and published by Bausani (1975), with a
tentative interpretation. A similar attempt has been undertaken by Viegas Barros (to
appear a). In table 6.1 we give the correspondences between lexical elements tenta-
tively identified by Bausani and their equivalents in the data presented by Skottsberg
(1913) and Clairis (1985). Skottsberg claimed to have discovered a group of ‘West
Patagonian Canoe Indians’ distinct from the Kawesqar and presumably identical to
the Chono. The word lists presented suggest that this is not the case, however. On
Table 6.1 The relation between putative Chono words identified by Bausani (1975) and
their possible equivalents in the Alacalufan materials of Skottsberg (1913) and Clairis
(1987) (supplemented by Viegas Barros 1990)
Bausani* Skottsberg Clairis
sky acha arrx h acaqsta ‘warm, good weather’

ac’ayes ‘sun’
father sap čı́ča:r cecar
man yema ákšeš aqsenes, aqsanas yema ‘white man,
Chilean’
three tas táw-kl(k) tow, taw ‘other’, wokstów
uklk-at-tawɹlk ‘three’ (Aguilera 1978)
good lam lá:yip layep, layeq
yes jo áylo ayaw
believe [credere] jo-cau kstišy ‘speak’ afsaqh as ‘speak’
son cot ı́ky awt ‘baby’ eyxy ol ‘son’
one üeñec tákso taqso
dákuduk
no yamchiu táxli, kyip qyep, qyeloq
* The Bausani spellings are the original ones.
the whole the words given by Skottsberg correspond to those presented by Clairis.
Only rarely do the words given by Bausani correspond directly with those provided by
Clairis and Skottsberg, although Viegas Barros (to appear a) argues that 45 per cent
of the Chono lexical and grammatical elements resemble those of Kawesqar and/or
Yahgan.
The Kawesqar (also referred to as Qawasqar) or Alacaluf traditionally occupied the
territory from the Gulf of Peñas to the islands west of Tierra del Fuego, and lived
mostly from fishing, like the Chono. Bird (1946) estimates that there may have been
maximally a few thousand Kawesqar at the time of first contact; according to Clairis
(1985) there were forty-seven Kawesqar left in 1972, living on the bay of Puerto Eden
on the east coast of Wellington Island. The 1984 census gives twenty-eight speak-
ers. There was some original confusion about this language. Clairis (1985) criticised
Loukotka for distinguishing two linguistic isolates among the sea nomads who in-
habited the southern Chilean archipelago between Chiloé and Tierra del Fuego. Fol-
lowing Hammerly Dupuy (1947), Loukotka recognised a separate group, Aksanás or
Kaueskar, that would have been different from Alacaluf. Clairis observes that Qawasqar
(Kaueskar) is the autodenomination of the Alacaluf, whereas Aksanás means ‘man
(male)’ in their language. It appears from the listing of languages included in Loukotka’s
Aksanás group that he attributed some of the ethnonyms referring to the Alacaluf to the
extinct Chono or Guaiteca Indians, who lived in the province of Aisén, north of the
Alacaluf.
Aguilera (1978) and Clairis (1987) are the most recent descriptions of the language,
and particularly Aguilera’s work (e.g. 1988, 1997, 1999) provides reliable data. Viegas
Barros (1990) has done a comparative analysis of all available sources and given a
dialectological survey of the language, concluding that there are three recognisably
distinct varieties: northern, central and southern Kawesqar.
The Yahgan (also Yagan) or Yamana occupied the southern coast of Tierra del Fuego
and the archipelago surrounding it, extending to Cape Horn. While there were still
between 2,500 and 3,000 Yahgan in 1875 (Cooper 1946c), Clairis (1985) mentions
six to eight elderly speakers of Yahgan living on Navarino island. There were two in
1994. The principal traditional sources on Yahgan are Thomas Bridges, who produced
a large dictionary in 1879 (1933) and wrote a set of notes (1894), Adam (1884–5), and
Gusinde (1937). Golbert de Goodbar (1977, 1978) presents glossed sentences with brief
grammatical descriptions.
In contrast with these three groups, that all represent canoe nomads, the Selk nam or
Ona were a land people. The Selk nam were also much taller than the Chono, Kawesqar
and Yahgan, averaging six feet or 1.80 cm. Their traditional habitat was the northern
and central part of the island of Tierra del Fuego proper (Cooper 1946d). There was
only one (older) person who could still speak the language in the 1980s, according to
Clairis (1985), while Najlis (1973, 1975) mentions several speakers. The Selk nam were
a hunting nation, living mainly on guanaco meat.
Of the Haush or Manekenkn the last speakers died around 1920; they lived on the east-
ern point of the island of Tierra del Fuego, and shared their lifestyle with the Selk nam.
Guyot (1968: 12) suggests that they were earlier settlers than the Selk nam, and were
subsequently pushed to the southeast. It is even possible that the Haush in turn had taken
over the island from the Yahgan.
In Patagonia, on the continent proper, the people have been designated traditionally as
Patagones or Tehuelche. Clairis (1985), following Casamiquela, divides the Patagones
into four groups. The northernmost group died out early in the nineteenth century, and
nothing is known about their language. The group slightly to the south is known as
Gününa Küne, and also as Gennaken and Pampa. The last speaker of their language,
referred to as Gününa Yajich [gnn a yax č], died in 1960, and Casamiquela (1983)
provides a very useful sketch of it.
The group known as Tehues or Teushen, yet further to the south, also died out in
recent history. Some early twentieth-century materials have been published by Lehmann-
Nitsche (1913). The one group still surviving is called Aonek’enk or Tehuelche (as
mentioned above, also the name for all the indigenous groups of continental Patagonia).
According to Clairis (1985) about thirty members of the group are alive (more recent
6.2 Ethnohistory 555
Table 6.2 Historical demographic data for the canoe nomads

(summarised)
Chono Kawesqar Yahgan
until 1850 21 fam. 4,000 2,900

1875 1 fam 2,500+
1900 130–945
1925 150–400 50
1950 100 40
1985 – 28 6–8
Table 6.3 Historical demographic data for the hunter nomads (summarised)
Selk nam Haush Gününa Küne Tehues Tehuelche
until 1850 3,600 300 some 500–600 9,000–10,000

1875 2,000 2,000–6,000
1900 <1,500 <300
1925 70–100 1–3 10–12
1950 20 40
1975 2–3 100
1985 1 – – – 29
estimates give 200), of whom three to four are reasonably fluent speakers. Fernández
Garay has provided a detailed description of this language (1993a, b, 1995, 1998c).
Gününa Yajich is the sole documented member of the northern branch of the Chonan
family. The proportion of common vocabulary between Gününa Yajich and Tehuelche
does not exceed 11 per cent (Clairis 1985).
6.2 Ethnohistory
The contact with Europeans was disastrous for the indigenous peoples of Tierra del
Fuego. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 give an overview of the available population data, culled from
Cooper (1917, 1946a, b, c, d), Bird (1946), Guyot (1968), Najlis (1973) and Clairis
(1985).
While these tables give a false sense of precision, based as they are on many differ-
ent sources of various types, the overall pattern presented is clear. Particularly in the
final part of the nineteenth century, the indigenous populations declined rapidly. In the
case of the canoe nomads, who originally lived in rather inaccessible and undesirable
surroundings (from the point of view of colonists), the causes of decline were new conta-
gious respiratory diseases, measles and smallpox. The contagion was aggravated by the
colonial and missionary policy of concentrating these originally nomadic and dispersed
peoples on certain sites.
Wilbert and Simoneau (1984: 1–3) and Fernández Garay (1989a) outline several
phases in the post-Columbian history of the Patagones. Originally a strong and numerous
people, they had only incidental contacts with Europeans from 1520 until the eighteenth
century, when the Jesuits started missions. The Patagones adopted horses and other
cultural elements of either Spanish or Mapuche origin, and became a group of hunters
on horseback. Horses changed their lifestyle drastically, as they had in the case of
the Plains Indians in North America. In the second half of the eighteenth century, the
Mapuche started taking over the Tehuelche territories, and after 1800 they defeated the
Tehuelche. Afterwards came the attempted extermination campaigns by white settlers,
who wanted the lands of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. The decisive wars against
the land nomads were the Pampa Wars, waged by the Argentinian army against the
Mapuche and Patagones from 1879 to 1883. After 1883 Indian resistance was broken,
and white colonisation entered into full swing. From 1898 onward several reserves were
created, most of which were reclaimed again by the government in the 1960s, and two
of which remained (Fernández Garay 1989a). These reserves were not large enough
for the indigenous population to continue its original way of life as hunters, and the
reserve inhabitants were forced to seek low-paying jobs as farm-hands on neighbouring
estates. As to their current social position and cultural function, it is clear that by now
the languages have a quite marginal function, inasmuch as they have survived at all.
6.3 Problems in classification

Quite aside from problems of classification, a problem has been that of the identification
of the different languages and ethnic groups. The major efforts are by Lehmann-Nitsche,
Cooper, Casamiquela and Clairis, and the results are by no means conclusive. The
consensus so far is that the languages of the hunter nomads – Selk nam, Haush, Gününa
Yajich, Teushen and Tehuelche – are related (and together classified as the Chonan
family) and share between 10 and 55 per cent of their (core?) vocabulary, depending on
their geographical distance.
Little is known yet about relations between the languages of the canoe nomads,
although Key and Clairis (1978) brought forward the possibility of a genetic relationship
between Kawesqar and the Chonan languages, a hypothesis which awaits further testing.
Viegas Barros (1998, to appear a) is exploring the possibility that Chono, Kawesqar and
Yahgan are all related. More systematic work in this area is needed. Clairis (personal
communication 1988) found Yámana (Yahgan) genetically more isolated than any other
language of the region.
To what extent the sharing of vocabulary between the languages of Tierra del Fuego
is indicative of a genetic relationship and to what extent it is due to borrowing is not dis-
cussed. A problem is that we have only a few reliable grammatical descriptions, and that
6.3 Problems in classification 557
these descriptions are done in maximally divergent grammatical traditions. Nonetheless,

there are some morpheme correspondences in the personal inflection system:
(1) Selk nam Gününa Yajich

1 pers. sing. y- y-
2 pers. sing. m- m-
For Selk nam these forms are straightforward and given as such by Najlis (1973: 21).
Consider, for instance, the pronoun system and the personal prefixes (first and second
persons singular):
(2) a. yah mah

‘I’ ‘you’
ʔɔly
b. y-ʔ m-ʔʔɔly
‘my clothes’ ‘your clothes’
c. y-sɔhy mxε ε:n mer xoʔ
ʔεn m-sɔhy mxε ε:n mer xoʔ
ʔεn
1O.SG-cured DT.PX witch- 2O.SG-cured DT.PX witch-
doctor doctor
‘The (female) witch-doctor cured ‘The (female) witch-doctor cured
me.’ you.’
For Gününa Yajich, however, the matter is slightly more complicated. We find the m-
frequently occurring in the subject and object inflection paradigms and it is present in
the personal pronoun for ‘you’. For the first person we find y, also -ş, and č, in some
forms:
(3) a. pronouns (Casamiquela 1983: 51):

1 2 3
koa kmaw şaş singular
kşaw kmaw waw dual
kşan kman şaş plural
b. most frequent subject markers (Casamiquela 1983: 69):
1 2 3
kuča- muna-/ku-/wa- singular
ska- mu- kuwu- dual
naka- kma- ka-/wa- plural
c. object marking (Casamiquela 1983: 80–1):
1 2 3
-ya -ma -a singular
-yup -mup - p dual
-şn -mn - n plural
The fact that the object inflection is the most regular, and that there is no clear alternative,
makes it more plausible to reconstruct -y for Gününa Yajich. This said and done, however,
it is hard to find other direct evidence for a genetic relationship between the two languages
in specific grammatical morphemes. We will consider other possible resemblances below.
Before going on, it may be worthwhile pointing out that for the other languages, the
first- and second-person elements do not appear to correspond directly, although there
is some possible resemblance among the second persons:
(4) Chono Kawesqar Yahgan

1 pers. sing. (?) ce ha-, hey ∼ hay
2 pers. sing. te- (?) caw s-, sa
6.4 Linguistic features

Since some of the Tierra del Fuego languages have been described only partially, some
not at all, it is difficult to give a detailed picture of their linguistic characteristics. We
will try to give some idea of the typological features of the languages involved, as far as
these can be reconstructed from the published sources, and then describe one language,
Yahgan, in slightly more detail. Given that we have several sources for Yahgan, it is not
surprising that the evidence is somewhat contradictory. We return to this in much more
detail below. However, we begin by first looking at the languages of the Chonan family,
then at Chono and Kawesqar, and finally we turn to Yahgan.
The amount and types of information available on the languages of Tierra del Fuego
differ widely, and therefore it is difficult to compare them typologically. We will begin
by looking at the sound systems of the languages involved, then turn to their basic
morphological patterns and categories, and conclude by describing basic word-order
patterns. In a summarising section we give a comparative sketch of the phonological
characteristics of these languages.
6.4.1 The Chonan languages

Of the Chonan languages, some information is available on Selk nam (Najlis 1973),
Gününa Yajich (Casamiquela 1983) and Tehuelche (Fernández Garay 1998c). Selk nam
has a highly articulated consonantal system, and a relatively simple vowel system, rep-
resented in table 6.4. In Najlis’s analysis (1973: 100), vowels followed by h are both
lengthened and lowered; by consequence, V: in Viegas Barros (1993) corresponds to
Najlis’s Vh. Selk nam syllables can be quite complex, as in şq’ɔht’ε ‘to gather’ and
haʔmqn [haʔmxqn] ‘coast’ (Najlis 1973: 95).
Viegas Barros (1993) shows that the alternation between /r/ and /l/ in Selk nam
sometimes reflects free variation (5a), sometimes geographical variation (5b) or even
Table 6.4 Phoneme inventory of Selk nam (based on Najlis 1973)
Labial Dental Apical Palatal Velar Uvular Laryngeal
Plain stops p t č k q ʔ
Glottalised stops p’ t’ k’ q’
Fricatives s ş š x h
Nasals m n
Lateral l
Vibrant r
Glides w y
Front Central Back
High Close e o
Open ε ɔ
Low Close a
Open α
variation between different branches of the Chonan family (5c), and sometimes sound-
symbolism (6):
(5) a. o:tr ∼ o:tl ‘eye’

b. ʔɔ:sr (central and southern) / ʔɔ:sl (northern) ‘forehead’
c. p’α r (Selk nam) / p’ole (Tehuelche) / p’al (Haush) ‘(to be) black’
The sound-symbolic weight of the alternation /r/∼/l/ shows up in a series of minimal

pairs with related meanings.
(6) a. wer ‘foam’ wel ‘saliva, phlegm’

b. ʔayruʔ ʔ ‘Kawesqar man’ ʔayleʔ ʔ ‘Yahgan man’
c. εr ‘finger’
tε tel ‘little finger’
d. ur ‘peak, point’ ul ‘nose’
In the analysis of Najlis (1973), Selk nam verbal roots, of which there are only a
limited number, have the form (C)V. There are six prefixes, which are inflectional and
may actually be proclitics. They all have the form C-. The number of suffixes is much
larger, and they may have the forms -C, -V, -CV, -VC, or -CVC. There is vowel infixation,
leading to double vowel sequences. The analysis of Viegas Barros (1993) may have
consequences for Najlis’s analysis of Selk nam roots, however, since what are separate
morphemes in Najlis’s analysis may actually be part of the root. Most words have quite
a complicated morphological structure.
In the description of Najlis (1973), Selk nam is an object–verb–auxiliary (verb)–

subject language, with the head noun in final position and with postpositions:
εpr t’ε
(7) yε ε:n hanş t’elqn
meat eat CU girl
‘The girl usually eats meat.’ (Najlis 1973: 15)
εwr xey wε
(8) tε εʔ sɔ
ɔ-ş mah
perhaps come can NE-DU 2.SG
‘Perhaps you cannot come.’ (Najlis 1973: 8)
(9) xe-nn mer čonn
come-AF.MS DC man
‘The man came.’ (Najlis 1973: 8)
This latter example also illustrates two other features of Selk nam: a partially gender-
sensitive evidential system and a complex nominal deixis system. The evidential system
involves a three-way distinction:
εn (feminine), -n (neutral);
(10) a. affirmative/certitive: -nn (masculine), -ε
cf. (9)
b. dubitative: -ş; cf. (8)
c. surprise: -y
The deictic system involves a sequence of optional elements which refer to different
semantic categories (Najlis 1973: 22–6):
(11)      
There are eight positional elements:

(12) han ‘displacement respective to speaker’
a ‘displacement of other’, ‘dispersion of individuals’
q’α ‘dispersion of mass’
on ‘shapeless substance’
t’am ‘fixed’
ʔay ‘vertical’
xa ‘horizontal’
pe ‘balanced’, ‘seated’
The category of plural distinguishes between ε ‘general plural’, and mε

εy ‘collective
plural’. Distance involves three categories.
(13) na ‘near speaker’
mer ‘separate from speaker but not distant’
may ‘distant but in view’
Five cardinal directions are distinguished:
(14) εy ‘south’
ɔqn ‘north’
ahwqn ‘west’
hɔɔht ‘east (heights)’
qɔɔn ‘east (plain)’
Finally, absence may be indicated. In one variety there appears to be a distinction made
between the absence of an animate (hα š) and an inanimate (hαy) entity. An example of
a complex Selk nam deictic expression is:
(15) pem εy ʔα h naʔʔ

seated south behind woman
‘that woman seated to the south’ (Najlis 1973: 25)
In Gününa Yajich we find, according to Casamiquela (1983), something like the

phoneme inventory in table 6.5. Syllables can be closed or open, but are fairly simple in
structure, as words such as cqall ‘star’ and yakalč ‘help’ show. It is not made clear to
what extent all sounds listed are also phonemic; there is no analysis in terms of minimal
pairs.
In Gününa Yajich there are both suffixes and prefixes or proclitics, in Casamiquela’s
(1983) description. In addition, there may be compounds; compound-like structures tend
to contain a linking particle a. Reduplications may be iconic in nature, e.g. gap=gap
‘dust’ or hal=hal ‘fast’.
Gününa Yajich has postpositions:
(16) a. kawal-hna [Spanish: caballo]

horse-L
‘on the horse’ (Casamiquela 1983: 58)
b. puk-kan
stick-IS
‘with a stick’ (Casamiquela 1983: 44)
In other respects, word-order patterns are less clear, however. There are compound-like
prenominal modifiers, as in (17):
(17) atek a gamakya

mountain LK chief
‘God or chief of the mountains’ (Casamiquela 1983: 42)
Table 6.5 Phoneme inventory of Gününa Yajich (based on Gerzenstein’s 1968

interpretation of Casamiquela’s field data)*
Labial Dental Alveolar Apical Palatal Retroflex Velar Uvular Laryngeal

affricate
Plain stops p t c č č. k q ʔ

Glottalised stops p’ t’ c’ č’ č.’ k’
Voiced stops b d g
Fricatives s ş š x h
Nasals m n
Voiced laterals l ly
Voiceless lateral
l
Vibrant rr
Glides w y
Front Central Back
High i u
Mid e ə o
Low a
* The consonants č. , č. ’, and ş are characterised as ‘apico-prepalatal’ in Gerzenstein (1968). The
explanation of the two affricates in Casamiquela (1983) is contradictory, but their retroflex nature
is made plausible (partly on historical grounds) in Viegas Barros (1992). The spelling of č. as tr
in personal names and place names (e.g. in Tretruill) suggests that Viegas’s interpretation is
correct. In contrast, Casamiquela’s description of ş as similar to the s of Castilian Spanish
suggests an apical, rather than a retroflex interpretation for this sound.
Both Gerzenstein and Casamiquela report an additional distinction between open and closed
high central vowels. The distinction appears to be marginal and of a low contrastive value (if any
at all), so it is not taken into account in the examples.
Adjectives tend to occur postnominally, however:
(18) atek a bahai

mountain LK big
‘big mountain’ (Casamiquela 1983: 43)
Striking is the number of VOS sentences in the texts, as in (19), although SVO also
occurs, as in (20):
(19) k čug n y h ča-ka sč.

did business-3P mouse
‘The mouse made his declaration.’ (Casamiquela 1983: 105)
(20) koa nubanal şaşa sč.
I kill that mouse
‘I kill that mouse.’ (Casamiquela 1983: 106)
Table 6.6 Phoneme inventory of Tehuelche (based on Fernández Garay 1998c)
Labial Dental Palatal Velar Uvular Laryngeal
Plain stops p t č k q ʔ
Glottalised stops p’ t’ č’ k’ q’
Voiced stops b d g 
Fricatives s š x x.
Nasals m n
Lateral l
Vibrant r
Glides w y
Front Central Back
Mid Short e o
Long e: o:
Low Short a
Long a:
In Fernández Garay’s analysis, Tehuelche has the phoneme inventory given in table 6.6.
This is very similar to that of Selk nam. The syllable structure is complex, and con-
sonants can be the nucleus of a syllable. Sequences of three consonants can oc-
cur, as in kšxaw ‘to borrow’. Stress is initial, and there are some lexical tone dis-
tinctions conditioned by the presence of a glottal stop. These may have been bor-
rowed from another language, possibly Gününa Yajich. Final consonant devoicing is
obligatory.
There is extensive suffixing in Tehuelche, but only a few verbal prefixes are mentioned.
In addition there is compounding and there are possibly some cases of incipient noun
incorporation, which may be due to Mapuche influence. The latter often follows an OV
pattern, as can be seen from examples such as:
(21) kay-xolen-naon-k’o
cloak-sew-for-thing
‘needle to sew cloaks’ (Fernández Garay 1998c: 136)
Case relations are expressed with affixes and enclitic postpositions. In addition, there
is a complex system of person agreement markers, which show sometimes an ergative
and sometimes an accusative pattern, for reasons not clear. Possibly there is an ongoing
change. When both subject and object are pronominal, we generally find SOV ordering.
There are also some other cases of SOV.
ʔo
(22) šewla š wat’en ma:t’e-k’-ʔ
Šewla S sash make-RD-DV
‘Šewla makes a sash.’ (Fernández Garay 1998c: 409)
In clause-second postion we often find a subject marker. In (22) it is preceded by the

lexical subject, but in (23) by a time adverb:
(23) maʔʔ š e-t-ʔ

ʔo:mk’e-š-k’
now S 1S.SG-3O.SG-know-PD-RD
‘Now I know her.’ (Fernández Garay 1998c: 342)
In imperatives, the clitics occur after the verb.

Returning briefly to the issue of the relationship between Selk nam, Tehuelche and
Gününa Yajich within the Chonan family, the very brief typological comparison made
here is not conclusive. The phonological inventories of the languages are not dissimilar
(especially taking into account that Casamiquela may well be making more distinc-
tions than warranted by phonological oppositions), and the languages have complex
morphologies involving both prefixing and suffixing. The word orders of the three lan-
guages do not correspond, but this may be a matter of external syntactic influences, an
issue to which we return below.
6.4.2 Chono and Kawesqar

From the data available in Bausani (1975) the sound pattern of Chono can be re-
constructed roughly as follows. Syllables are often closed, but need not be. There
are only a few consonant clusters, but vowel clusters are frequent. From the Spanish
transcription, which may of course have been highly inadequate, we arrive at the
tentative sound inventory in table 6.7. The following sample forms, in the origi-
nal orthography and with Bausani’s tentative translation if available, illustrate these
patterns:
(24) quentaumet ‘exist’ zuquena ‘true’

jeyeulam ‘do’+‘good’ vla ‘for the sake of’
üeñec ‘one’ jaguaitau
cot ‘son’ agic
sap ‘father’ eyuic
About Chono morphology, little can be said, except that it does not appear to be a
highly agglutinative language. Question particles, etc, appear to be enclitic. Sometimes
they are written as part of the preceding word, sometimes they appear separately. There
appears to be one reduplicated form: lam=lam ‘very good’.
Table 6.7 Tentative sound inventory of Chono (based on the materials in Bausani 1975)
Labial Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal
Voiceless stops p t č k
Voiced stops b g
Fricative f z (?)* s x h
Nasal m n ny ŋ
Lateral l ly
Glide w y
Front Central Back
High i u
Mid e o
a
Diphthongs: aw, ew, ow, ay, yu, wa, we, wi
* For the symbol <z> various possible pronunciations are imaginable: [θ], as in Mapuche, [z], [ts ]
or [s].
Chono, as far as it can be established from Bausani’s tentative deciphering of the

catechism manuscript, was OV and had postpositions or postnominal case markers:
(25) lam jeyeu lam toquieu?

good do good wish
‘beneficient and benevolent?’ (Bausani 1975: 108)
(26) acha-tau met Dios?
heaven-L be.there God
‘Is God in heaven?’ (Bausani 1975: 108)
Viegas Barros (to appear a) presents a highly informed listing of the lexicon and of
individual endings plausibly attributable to Chono, on the basis of the text in Bausani
(1975), place names and travellers’ accounts.
The sounds of Kawesqar are presented in table 6.8. However, in the Kawesqar alphabet
adopted in Aguilera (1984a, b) a number of sounds do not occur. These are put in brackets
in the array in table 6.8. Consonant clusters may occur in both syllable-initial and -final
position: awspena ‘tired’, yetapaks ‘weave’, and fte ‘fear’ illustrate this.
Clairis (1987) does not give an explicit description of Kawesqar morphology, but
from his description it appears there are (a) free forms; (b) suffixes; (c) enclitic
Table 6.8 Phonemes of Kawesqar (based on Clairis 1987 and Aguilera’s website
http://www.kawesqar.uchile.cl 2002)*
Labial Dental Palatal Velar/Uvular Glottal
Plain stops p t č ∼ c (k) q

Glottalised stops p’ t’ č’ ∼ c’ k’ ∼ q’
Aspirated stops (ph ) (th ) (kh ∼ qh )
Fricatives f s x ∼ x. h
Nasals m n
Lateral l
Vibrant r ∼ rr
Glides w y
Front Central Back
High (i) (u)

Mid e o
Low (æ) a
* Clairis treats the uvular and velar stops (k, q) as realisations of a single phoneme, whereas Aguilera
considers this distinction to be contrastive. Aguilera treats the aspirated stops as allophones of
their non-aspirated counterparts. Clairis identifies a three-vowel system (a, e, o), whereas
Aguilera recognises six vowels.
elements; (d) optionally enclitic elements (e.g. person markers). In addition, there is
some reduplication (aswalaq=aswalaq ‘the day after tomorrow’), and there may be
compounding.
Aguilera (1997: 275) shows that the language contains a number of time and as-
pect suffixes. Time is organised on a continuous axis, marked by the following verbal
suffixes:
(27) -sekué ‘future’ (seqwe in Clairis 19871 )
-yenák ‘present’
-pas ‘inmediate past’
-afqát ‘recent past’
-hóraras ‘remote past’
-hóyok ‘narrative or mythical past’
Kawesqar, from the sentences presented in Clairis (1987), frequently has an SOV
order with a postverbal auxiliary (SOV Aux), although there is considerable word-order
1 Clairis (1987, part III) does not accept Aguilera’s distinction between velar k and uvular q and
uses q in both cases.
freedom:
(28) manteqa qyexena [cf. Spanish manteca]

butter want
‘I want butter.’ (Clairis 1987: 456)
(29) aswalaq ce qoteyo . . . yetas seqwe
tomorrow 1.SG again weave F
‘Tomorrow I am going to weave again.’ (Clairis 1987: 461)
(30) caw-nowaq cefalay-qh ar cefalay seqwe yemase
2-C drink-N drink F boat
‘Let us go and drink wine together in the boat.’ (Clairis 1987: 464)
In addition, it seems to be postpositional:
(31) qalpon alewe [cf. Spanish galpón]

dormitory inside
‘inside the dormitory’ (Clairis 1987: 459)
Head nouns occur at the end of the nominal complex:
(32) nawareno-s qwaseq

Navarino-G board
‘on board the Navarino’ (Clairis 1987: 459)
6.4.3 Yahgan
We will now turn to one particular Fuegian language, Yahgan, and try to describe it in
more detail, basing our descriptions on the main sources available for this language:
Adam (1884–5), Bridges ([1879] 1933, 1894), Gusinde (1926, 1937), Golbert de
Goodbar (1977, 1978, 1985), and Poblete and Salas (1999). Adam has reconstructed
aspects of the grammar of Yahgan from various printed sources, without any fieldwork
of his own. We referred to Bridges’s monumental work in the introduction to this chapter.
In addition to his dictionary, he wrote a brief but illuminating grammatical sketch of
the language. In his enormously detailed monograph on the Yahgan (1937), Gusinde
describes the life and culture of the group in nearly 1,500 pages, but relatively little
space is devoted to their language. In an earlier article (1926) he just describes the
phonological system of Yahgan and the other Fuegian languages. Golbert de Goodbar
worked in 1973 with the one surviving speaker of the language in Ushuaia, Argentina,
someone who had grown up and lived on a Protestant mission, and whose speech was
consequently influenced by English. Her articles deal with basic syntax and with verbal
and nominal morphology. Poblete and Salas (1999), finally, have worked with the two
surviving speakers on Navarino Island.
Table 6.9 Phoneme inventory of Yahgan (based on Golbert de Goodbar 1977 and
Poblete and Salas 1999)*
Labial Dental Palatal Retroflex Velar Laryngeal
Obstruents p t č (č.) k (ʔ)

Fricatives f s š x
Nasals m n
Lateral l
Vibrants r
Glides w y (ɹ)
Front Central Back
High i u
Mid e ə o
Low (æ) a (ɑ)
* The three consonants that only occur in Poblete and Salas are placed between parentheses. Notice
that ŋ in some of Golbert de Goodbar’s examples is not represented in the phoneme inventory.
Her unspecified lateral l has not been included either. It does not seem to coincide with the
voiceless lateral (l ) of the earlier sources Adam and Bridges.

For Golbert de Goodbar ɑ and ə are allophones of a single phoneme, the former occurring under
the accent, the latter in non-accentuated position. Poblete and Salas treat the vowels æ and ə as
phonemically distinct. Apparently, their fronted low vowel æ corresponds to the back low vowel
ɑ of Golbert de Goodbar. All authors coincide in that the place of the accent in Yahgan is not
phonologically predictable.
The sound inventory of contemporary Yahgan is presented in table 6.9, which is

based on Golbert de Goodbar (1977) and Poblete and Salas (1999). The phonological
description of Golbert de Goodbar (1977) and Poblete and Salas (1999) is roughly the
same, except that the latter source mentions an additional distinctive vowel, as well as
a glottal stop and a retroflex series (č. , ɹ). By contrast, it lacks a special lateral sound
represented as l, which was noted by Golbert de Goodbar.2
In Adam (1885), however, a more complex inventory is given, particularly for the con-
sonants, as shown in table 6.10. In this table a series of preaspirated glides is postulated:
h
w, h y, h r, in addition to dental fricatives and voiced stops. Adam’s description cor-
responds roughly to that of Bridges (1894), so it may well be that the language has
been simplified phonologically in the century intervening between the earlier studies
and Golbert de Goodbar’s work. The fact that Gusinde (1926) describes an intermediary
2 Golbert de Goodbar (1977) reports that it was not possible to determine the phonetic character-
istics of Yahgan l, due to the fact that her consultant missed her teeth.
Table 6.10 Phoneme inventory of Yahgan (based on Adam 1885)*
Labial Interdental Alveolar Palatal Retroflex Velar Laryngeal
Voiceless obstruents p t č k
Voiced obstruents b d dž g
Voiceless fricatives f θ s š x h
Voiced fricatives v δ z
Nasals m n ŋ
Pre-aspirated nasal hn
Lateral l
Voiceless lateral l

Vibrants r
Pre-aspirated vibrant hr
Glides w y ɹ
Pre-aspirated glides hw hy
Front Central Back

Short Long Short Long Short Long
High i i: u u:
Mid e e: ə o o: [ɔ:]
Low a a:
Diphthongs: aw, ow, ay, oy
* The ts present in some of Bridges’s examples is not represented. Adam records two different
palatal sibilants (written sh and sch, respectively). The corresponding phonetic difference is
not known.
phonological system in which the voiced stops occur, but the dental fricatives and the
coarticulated velar fricatives do not, supports this hypothesis, which must remain tenta-
tive until a full-scale lexical analysis is undertaken.
In what remains we will follow Golbert de Goodbar’s analysis and transcription. The
opposition in length in the vowel system is allophonic, according to her, conditioned
by stress. She describes syllable structure as being quite simple. According to Golbert
de Goodbar onsets consist of at most two consonants, of which the second must be
a sonorant. However, the data presented show several clusters involving sounds other
than sonorants, and Bridges (1894: 54) shows sequences of complex consonants in his
data, as in tstwi:a: ‘paint brush’. Codas consist of one consonant at most. There may be
extra-long vowels in stressed positions. Bridges (1894: 54) claims that the Yahgan stress
system is rather irregular, but that in bisyllabic words penultimate stress is prevalent,
while in longer words (very frequent) ante-penultimate stress is prevalent. Poblete and
Salas (1999), however, claim that penultimate stress is prevalent throughout. There is a
complex set of morphophonemic alternations evident when words are combined. Bridges
(1894: 55) gives the following pairs of sounds:
(33) r š əra ‘cry’ / kušmu:ta ‘she is crying’

h
t,d r ata ‘take’ / annu: guh r ‘he has taken’
p f a:pu: ‘pull up by the roots’ / əfga:mata ‘pull up the wrong one’
g x əxlə
ta:gu: ‘give’ / tə əbata ‘to give several’
k x ənna yixgaye:te: ‘who is scraping?’
yi:ku: ‘scrape’ / kə
As in Kawesqar, some lexical elements belong to several grammatical categories,

but for the rest there is a clear opposition between verbs and nouns. Adjectives often
resemble nouns, and both classes may be marked with the predicate marker -a(ki):
(34) a. urátur lı́f wɑ ɑx upáy3

ɑlı́č-á sɑ́ [cf. English leaf; Spanish
some plant good-PD illness for valer ‘be worth’]
‘Some plants are good for illness.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 24)
b. parı́kan-óyna yɑ ɑš-á
break-IM.2S hand-PD
‘Break it with your hands.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 7)
While generally predicate phrases are marked with verbal inflection, this predication
marker -a(ki) either marks secondary predication, as in (35), or appears in basic pred-
icative constructions on the predicate, as in (36):
(35) antɑɑp-áki ha-wɑ ɑšták-oan atáma

meat-PD 1.SG-make-F meal
‘I am going to prepare a meal with meat.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 7)
(36) hı́pay wɑɑlı́č yɑ
ɑhɑ́
ɑ(ki)
1.D good boy.PD
‘We two are good boys.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 7)
Nominal compounds are right-headed:
(37) tala-glas [cf. English glass]

eye-glass
‘spectacles’ (Guerra Eissmann 1995: 273)
Yahgan verbal morphology, as we will see, contains compounding, derivational pre-

fixes, proclitic pronouns and enclitic tense markers. Nominal morphology is mostly
3 In Golbert de Goodbar’s example sentences the symbol ɑ stands for a low back vowel when
stressed; elsewhere it is [ə].
limited to a few case suffixes. One of the most striking features of Yahgan is its verbal
morphology. ‘Singular, dual, and plural verbs are a specialty in Yahgan, and simplify
its syntax. The dual verbs are an inflection of the singular, but the plural verbs are to a
very large extent totally different from their singular forms’, Bridges (1894: 67) writes.
What is remarkable about the suppletive pattern is that it seems ergative in nature in that
objects pattern with intransitive subjects. Consider the paradigm in (38):
(38) singular dual plural

ta:gu: ta:gu:pay yatu: ‘to give 1, 2, more things’
ata ata:pay tu:mi:na ‘to take 1, 2, more things’
atəəpi əpipay
atə wa:gu:pi ‘to put 1, 2, more things on board’
---------------------------------------------
apəəna apəəna:pay ma:maya ‘1, 2, more die’
kəəna əna:pay
kə a:lu: ‘1, 2, more are aboard, are on the
water’
ka:taka ka:taka:pay u:tušu: ‘1, 2, more go on foot’
(Bridges 1894: 68)
With transitive verbs the number of the object determines the shape of the verb, with
intransitives the number of the subject.
Another feature of Yahgan verbal morphology worth mentioning, and which resembles
Selk nam and many Algonquian and northwest-coast languages of North America, is
verb compounding and verb classification, which has led to an enormous lexicon in the
language. Bridges (1894) gives a number of examples; we will illustrate the process with
the derivatives of the verb kwissa ‘to pull’:
(39) kwisseta ‘to pull along, to draw on to some place’

kwissakaya ‘to pull up’
kwissa:mana:tsikari ‘to pull out’
kwissa:muči ‘to drag in’
kwissa:teka ‘to drag one thing to another, so as to be on it’
kwisso:ara:gu: ‘to drag ashore’
kwisso:anari ‘to pull into the water’
kwissa:pu:ku: ‘to pull into the fire’
kwisso:ana ‘to drag past’
kwissa:ku:či ‘to pull into a boat any living object’
əpi
kwissa:tə ‘to hoist on board’
kwissu:aka:na ‘to pull down, as trees down a steep bank’
kwissu:ala ‘to pull out, undo, as a piece of knitting’

kwissayaša / kwissa:tayaša ‘to pull over and cove’
kwissu:ara:pu ‘to pull up, as a boat up a creek, by a line’
kwissu:ispe:ata ‘to pull awry, so as to be no longer straight’
kwissəmma / kwissə əmmata ‘to rend, tear, pull to pieces, as a garment’
kwissu:a:turi ‘to pull down, as, for instance, the higher
yards and masts’
kwissu:unna ‘to draw, as a horse does a cart’
‘and so on, ad libitum’4 (Bridges 1894: 70)
Bruce Chatwin gives the following characterisation in his In Patagonia (1983: 128–9)
of the Yahgan derivations, to support his view of Man as the Essential Wanderer:
The Yahgan tongue – and by inference all language – proceeds as a system

of navigation. Named things are fixed points, aligned and compared, which
allow the speaker to plot the next move.
Bridges gives many examples of the way meanings are formed, through often complex
chains of metaphorisation. The root yi:nara ‘to gnaw’ yields yenušyella ‘to continue
gnawing’, which in turns gives rise to či:nušyella ‘to leave unconsumed by gnawing, as
dogs the skeleton of an animal’. The latter form then comes to mean simply ‘skeleton’
(Bridges 1894: 70).
The verbs of motion in Yahgan can be prefixed and, in many discourse contexts, must
be prefixed with directional particles. These include the following:
ə-, ka:g-
(40) kə ‘upward’, ‘the upper end of the wigwam’, ‘westward’
ku:-, kwi- ‘westward’
ku:t-, ku:ta:- ‘southward’, ‘to go out, as on a bowsprit, or to the edge
of a cliff or branch to do anything’, ‘to go out from
shore, whatever the direction’
ku:p-, ku:pa- ‘downward’
ma:n-, mana- ‘outward’
ma-, ma:t- ‘northward’, ‘to go or come ashore’, ‘to remove from
off the fire to its confines, as the hob’
ət-, mə
mə əta- ‘eastward’, ‘inward’, ‘to get to do anything well from
custom’
(Bridges 1894: 71)
4 The forms taken from Bridges (1894) that are listed in (39) and elsewhere are based on a tentative
interpretation of his rather idiosyncratic orthography and have to be considered with reserve.
Adam (1885: 26) notes that some of these prefixes may also be suffixed to noun phrases:
(41) əkəəh r-ku

house-west
‘to the west of the house’ (Adam 1885: 26)
It is clear from Bridges’s description that these elements may also be used referentially:
(42) a. hawa-mə ə-či

1.SG-east-side
‘the person to the east of me’
b. si-məə-či
2.SG-east-side
‘the person to the east of you’ (Bridges 1894: 59)
From a syntactic perspective, the Yahgan inflection system can be characterised as

follows:
(43)  (  ) 
Modals, such as káy ‘can’, kúru ‘want’ and máy ‘habitual’, are never inflected for person
and tense, and their complement is infinitive:
ɑ móla
(44) hı́pay káy úna pókšu yénɑ
1.D can walk fast L day
‘We can walk fast during the day.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 40)
(45) háy kúru múru ánči wɑ́
ɑrš
1.SG want climb that tree
‘I want to climb that tree.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 41)
(46) ɑ́
ɑkɑ ɑr kɑ́
ɑmi-a máy ilána
house wood-PD CU build
‘Houses are generally built from wood.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 41)
The modal téynik(ɑ), marking external obligation, can either function as an impersonal
verb, taking the clause as its complement, as in (47), or it can occupy the customary
modal position, as in (48):
(47) lɑ́
ɑkɑɑx tɑ́
ɑrɑɑ téynik hı́pay úna útɑ
ɑš
night during it.is.necessary 1.D walk slowly
‘At night we must walk slowly.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 55)
ɑ atáma érli
(48) sán téynikɑ [cf. English early]
2.PL it.is.necessary eat early
‘You must eat early.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 42)
The following tense and mood markers occur, as verbal suffixes:
(49) -oan -ona -oa -on -o future

-te -ute -ote -ite -utey past I
ɑrɑ
-ɑ ɑ -arɑɑ past II
-ina -oyna -wina 2nd person imperative
The forms in (49) are given by Golbert de Goodbar (1977, 1985: 422). She distinguishes
two types of future marking – ona and oa – without being able to differentiate them
semantically. Given the other forms encountered, however, it is likely that we are dealing
with allomorphs here. In Bridges (1894) future is indicated by -(y)u:a or -o:a, past by
-ude: or -ara / - ra, and imperative by -i:na.
In the present, there is no tense marking, and generally timeless statements are also
without marking, as are infinitives. Often, past tense is not marked overtly either. It is
not clear from the texts what the difference is between the te tense and the ɑrɑ tense;
both are simply glossed and translated as past tenses.
There is also a set of aspectual suffixes, related to motion particles, described by
Golbert de Goodbar (1985: 422):
(50) -káta ‘arrive / continuative’

-tikila ‘make steps / imprecision, movement’
-yáta ‘lie down / durative, stative’
When the subject is third person (generally a full noun phrase), the verb tends to be
inflected, through a prefix:
(51) ánči yɑ ɑla-n-tán ka-wunorsı́n-ote lɑ́

ɑšɑ́ ɑkɑɑx
that dog-LK-PL 3S-bark-PA night
‘Those dogs barked last night.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 9)
With first- and second-person pronominal subjects, it rarely is:
ɑn-káta náyf
(52) háy tɑ [cf. English knife]
1.SG have-CN knife
‘I have a knife.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 13)
Table 6.11 summarises the distribution of pronouns and inflection in the sentences pre-
sented in the materials in Golbert de Goodbar (1977), disregarding structures involving
Table 6.11 Person inflection in Yahgan (based on

the materials in Golbert de Goodbar 1977)
noun (phrase) 3-V 21

noun (phrase) (3) ∅-V 5
null 3-V 3
pronoun 1, 2-V 5
pronoun (1, 2) ∅-V 33
null 1, 2-V 5
null ∅-V 2
modals. The subject can remain empty, e.g. with expletive subjects or with weather
verbs:
(53) heı́n kúka sá téri

very like 2.SG cold
‘It seems you are cold.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 12)
(54) túla pálaxána urátur k-ayn-óna
if rain few 3S-come-F
‘If it rains, few people will come.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 25)
Similarly with pronominal subjects in certain discourse contexts:
(55) háy túla téke ha-t-ay-óna

1.SG if see 1S.SG-3O-call-F
‘I will call him if (I) see (him).’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 58)
The basic word order of Yahgan is rather difficult to determine from the data in
Golbert de Goodbar (1977). Yahgan basically has subject–auxiliary–verb–object order,
with some variations. The system in the noun phrase is predominantly head-final
(56a–c), although some determiners can optionally occur postnominally, as shown
in (57):
ɑlı́č yɑ́
(56) a. wɑ ɑhɑɑ good boy ‘good boy’
(Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 7)
b. ánči yámana that man ‘that man’
c. háwa túko 1P.SG wife ‘my wife’
(57) yɑ ɑla ánči

ɑšɑ́
dog that
‘that dog’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 8)
There are two prepositions, tésa ‘like’ and yénɑ ‘in, at, on’, glossed here as locative (L):
(58) a. háw úška pá kúkan tésa siná

1P.SG clothes not equal like 2P.SG
‘My clothes are not like yours.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 51)
ɑ pókš
b. háw úška yénɑ [cf. English box]
1P.SG clothes L box
‘My clothes are in the box.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 52)
Postpositions are much more common, however:
(59) a. yɑ́
ɑmuhkɑ ɑ stúwɑ ɑwlo
ɑkáta háwan tɑ́
far city here from
‘The city is far from here.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 53)
b. antɑ́
ɑpa psı́ yénɑ
ɑ sóspi
meat without L pot
‘There is no meat in the pot.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 54)
c. lɑ́
ɑkɑɑx tɑ́
ɑrɑ
ɑ téynik hı́pay úna útɑ
ɑš
night during it.is.necessary 1.D walk slowly
‘At night we must walk slowly.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 55)
Subordinate clauses always occur to the right of the matrix clause:
(60) háy kátak-óa snɑ́

ɑtin pɑ́
ɑlɑɑxána [cf. English it is nothing]
1.SG go.out-F although rain
‘I will go out even though it rains.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 57)
Conjunctions, such as téke ‘that’(?< Spanish de que ‘that’), ásta ‘until’ (< Spanish
hasta), and túla ‘if ’ precede their clause:
(61) a. háy kúru téke sá atáma

1.SG want that 2.SG eat
‘I want you to eat.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 57)
b. xw an k-ɑ́ ɑkɑ ɑŋ-káta ásta sá matámati

Juan 3.SG-sleep-CN until 2.SG arrive
‘Juan is asleep till you arrive.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 57)
c. háy túla téke ha-t-ay-óna
1.SG if see 1S.SG-3O-call-F
‘I will call him if I see (him).’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 58)
Adverbs either follow or precede the verb phrase:
(62) xw án ka-tupóan-ote ɑ́

ɑwi útɑ
ɑš
Juan 3.SG-throw-PA stone slowly
‘Juan threw the stone slowly.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 45)
(63) hɑ́
ɑrš pókšu táto [cf. English horse]
horse fast run
‘Horses run fast.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 37)
The fundamental order of object and verb is likewise not unproblematic. Generally
objects follow the verb, both in main clauses and in subordinate clauses:
(64) sán at-ɑ́

ɑrɑɑ máni póket-n táwlo [cf. English money, pocket]
you.PL take-PA money pocket-LK from
‘You (plur.) took money from the pocket.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 28)
(65) xw án ka-kálek-árɑ

ɑ pédro-n-či.ká: akupána háwan yɑ ɑla
ɑsɑ́
Juan 3.SG-order-PA Pedro-LK-AC kill 1P.SG dog
‘Juan ordered Pedro to kill my dog.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 36)
There are a number of object–verb sequences, however:
ɑsitát-ote
(66) lamá yámana há-ká: ka-kɑ
drunk man 1.SG-AC 3.SG-accompany-PA
‘The drunk accompanied me.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 27)
ɑ-kátak-ute ušká túkši páy

(67) háwa túku wáta kɑ
1P.SG wife before 3.SG-go-PA clothes wash for
‘My wife went (away) to wash clothes.’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1977: 56)
It is not clear from the texts what causes this alternation. The cases where the
object precedes the verb include indefinite noun phrases (without determiner) and
pronouns.
Question words include the following:
(68) kána/kan ‘who’

kanı́ ‘of whom, with whom’
kúnči ‘which’
kúnči pléys ‘where’ [cf. English place]
kuntá ‘which, how, which class of’
kówtu ‘what, what kind of’
Questioned elements tend to be fronted, but this does not appear to be obligatory:
(69) sin úška kuntá-m álakána

2P.SG clothes how-LK look
‘What did your clothes look like?’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1978: 20)
(70) kúnči pléys tumu-tátata ašúkar
which place CA-buy sugar
‘Where do they sell sugar?’ (Golbert de Goodbar 1978: 20)
This concludes our very brief sketch of Yahgan. A more detailed analysis, particularly
of the very rich nineteenth-century materials, including New Testament translations and
the Bridges dictionary, will be very worthwhile.
6.4.4 Areal-typological features of the Fuegian languages

The question arises, naturally, whether Tierra del Fuego and Patagonia are one linguistic
family and, if not, form a linguistic area. These questions need a more careful treatment
than is possible here, where we can only make a few preliminary observations. More
complete descriptions and more detailed comparative studies are needed before we can
draw a firm conclusion. Nonetheless, Clairis (1998: 24) ventures the hypothesis that all
the languages in the area are related. He stresses the shared phonological characteristics
of the Fuegian languages, presented in table 6.12. These inventories are fairly similar in
terms of the number of vowels and consonants distinguished, although there are differ-
ences in the actual inventories, and the data in Adam suggest that the original systems may
have been more divergent than what we encounter in the recent sources. Voiced and glot-
talised consonants are present but not widespread, and retroflex articulations are not fre-
quent. These data do not differentiate between areal and genetic relations by themselves.
A similar general superficial correspondence is evident in the morphologies shown in
table 6.13, where suffixation and encliticisation are widespread, as well as compound-
ing and reduplication. Prefixation and procliticisation are also present in a number of
languages, while suppletion appears to be rare. A big caveat here is that much more
detailed morphological analysis is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.
Table 6.12 Phonological features of the Fuegian languages*
Chono Kawesqar Yahgan Selk nam Gününa Yajich Tehuelche
#C 19 20/21 15/31 21 30 25
#V 6 3/6 6/12 6 7/8 6
Syl CVVC CCVVCC CCVVC CCVCCC CVVC CCVCC
* #C = number of consonant phonemes; #V = number of vowel phonemes; Syl = maximal

syllabic complexity
Table 6.13 Morphological features of the Fuegian languages
Suffix + + + + + +
Prefix − − + + + +
Proclitic − − + + ? +
Enclitic + + + + ? +
Compounding ? + + + + +
Suppletion ? − + − − −
Reduplication + + + ? + ?
Table 6.14 Constituent order features of the Fuegian languages (NP = noun
phrase; P = postposition)
Postpositional NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P NP P
phrase
Noun phrase ? AJ N AJ N N AJ N AJ N AJ
Clause OVS/SOV SOV SVO/SOV OVS VOS/SVO SOV
Turning now to the word order of the languages of Tierra del Fuego, again there are
certain widespread basic word-order patterns, as shown in table 6.14. Most languages
appear to be of the OV type, but the position of the subject varies considerably, and
table 6.14 oversimplifies matters somewhat.
While these observations certainly tend to underline the similarities between these
languages, it would be premature to conclude on their basis that we are dealing with a
linguistic area here. A wider range of more specific features needs to be compared for
this cluster of languages.
6.5 Oral literature

There is a rich tradition of oral literature for most of the groups mentioned. Wilbert’s
work includes edited English-language versions of the folk tales collected by Martin
Gusinde in the 1920s among the Selk nam (Wilbert 1975) and Yahgan (Wilbert 1977).
Wilbert and Simoneau (1984) bring together Tehuelche folk tales from a wide variety of
sources, mostly Argentinian, and the publication of a volume of Kawesqar folk literature
is announced. A collection of Tehuelche texts with translation and notes is available in
Fernández Garay (1997b).
Guyot (1968) analyses and compares Selk nam and Yahgan myths, again on the basis
of the Gusinde materials, within the tradition of Lévi-Strauss. She notes the many par-
allels between the mythology of these unrelated but neighbouring peoples, suggesting
prolonged cultural contact.
6.6 Language contact

Reports about contacts between the canoe nomads are mixed. Gusinde (1937: 233–
46) argues that geographical conditions inhibited contacts between the Yahgan and
their neighbours: Kawesqar in the west, and Haush and Selk nam in the east. Only in
late colonial times were contacts more frequent. Viegas Barros (1993) argues that the
amount of linguistic borrowing suggests much closer ties between the Selk nam and
the Kawesqar than between the Selk nam and the Yahgan. There was barter of artifacts
and raw materials, and some exchange marriages. Knowledge of each other’s language
was limited and rare, however. Eastern Yahgan took over some Selk nam words, and the
reverse happened as well. The Selk nam were driven into Yahgan territory during the
extermination raids of the late nineteenth century.
Contacts between the Yahgan and the Kawesqar were somewhat more frequent, in
part because both groups had a similar economic basis. Lucas Bridges ([1948] 1987: 61)
suggests that there were incidental marriages between the Kawesqar and the Yahgan in the
latter half of the nineteenth century, and reports cases of Yahgan–Kawesqar bilingualism
(1987: 131). Bilingualism was rare, however. There was no occasion for barter. Gusinde
(1931: 142–3) notes that meetings between the Selk nam and the Kawesqar were rather
more frequent, but again limited to barter. There was no evidence of people knowing the
language of the other groups, except for some borrowings. Lucas Bridges (1948: 132),
however, mentions an encounter with Chono speakers where one Kawesqar knew that
language.5
The foot nomads showed more evidence of multilingualism. The Tehuelche moved
around in a large territory, and intermarried with Mapuche and Europeans of different
5 We are indebted to Hélène Brijnen for calling our attention to this passage in Bridges’s book.
6.6 Language contact 581
nationalities. At one point, some Tehuelches knew Spanish, Mapuche, Gününa Yajich
and Teushen in addition to Tehuelche. D’Orbigny mentions one quadrilingual Tehuelche
woman, Lunareja, around 1830 (d’Orbigny 1945). Fernández Garay (1998c: 49–50)
stresses the fact that linguistic taboo, the prohibition among the Tehuelche of using
words resembling the name of a deceased person for a year, may have stimulated linguistic
borrowing.
Viegas Barros (to appear b) interprets a word list collected by Olivier van Noort
in the Strait of Magellan in 1599, arguing that it represents the speech of a group
of foot nomads who had adopted (or possibly maintained from an earlier period) ca-
noe transport, and while speaking a Chonan language, adopted a number of Kawesqar
words.
The mirror image of this group is that of a group of Kawesqar living on the Brunswick
Peninsula who had adopted part of the foot nomad culture and a number of Tehuelche
words in the nineteenth century (Viegas Barros, to appear b). Viegas Barros argues on
the basis of a number of borrowings and of a shared term for the Kawesqar in Selk nam
and Tehuelche that contacts between the foot and canoe nomads must have dated back
to prehistoric times.
Summing up, the various forms of contacts in the whole region reported (sometimes
without much substantiation) by the various authors took the form of:
– mixed marriages, particularly in the late colonial period;
– barter between the Selk nam on one side and the Yahgan or Kawesqar on
the other;
– slaving raids (e.g. by the Chono in Kawesqar territory);
– shared fishing grounds (e.g. between the Kawesqar and the Yahgan);
– capture of Kawesqar women by the Tehuelche;
– migration of groups of Selk nam across the Strait of Magellan and integra-
tion of the latter into the Tehuelche,
– migration of Tehuelches across the Strait of Magellan;
– extensive migration of Mapuche Indians into Patagonia.
Europeans were first looked upon with some awe, and were later much hated and
despised. Gusinde reports that Europeans were called palala by the Yahgan. Bridges
(1894) gives as the meaning of a possibly related word upalalana ‘to make a noise by
vibrating the tongue in the mouth violently’; thus the term would refer to the incompre-
hensible way of speaking of Europeans. Another possible source is patalsala, according
to Gusinde, which means something like ‘incomprehensible people’. In any case, it is
clear that the contacts with the Europeans meant the end of the peoples and languages
of Tierra del Fuego.
We now turn to the effect these contacts had on the languages of the area. It should
be clear that what follows is highly tentative, incomplete and preliminary. Much more
work is needed, for instance, on the lexical influence that the different languages had on
each other.
Both Yahgan and Kawesqar contain a substantial number of European borrowings.
Yahgan tends to have borrowed more from English than from Spanish, Kawesqar almost
exclusively from Spanish. English borrowings in Yahgan include: máykl ‘Michael’,
mári ‘Mary’, péyper ‘paper’, náyf ‘knife’, hárš ‘horse’, máni ‘money’, pléys ‘place’,
kɑ́rpɑntɑr ‘carpenter’, érli móniŋ ‘early morning’, lı́f ‘leaf’. Spanish borrowings include
x w án ‘John’, ašúkar ‘sugar’, rúta ‘route’, wɑlı́č ‘good’, and máytro ‘teacher’.
Particularly in the case of Kawesqar, words have been extensively adapted phono-
logically. Words largely, but not exclusively, refer to borrowed culture items. In the
Kawesqar texts in Clairis (1987) only borrowed nouns appear, while in the Yahgan
material in Golbert de Goodbar (1977) we find conjunctions as well:
(71) bɑ́
ɑt ‘but’ [English but]
snɑ́
ɑtin ‘even though’ [English it is nothing]
bifór ‘before that’ [English before]
i ‘and’ [Spanish y]
o ‘or’ [Spanish o]
ásta ‘until’ [Spanish hasta]
pórke ‘because’ [Spanish porque]
Remarkably, no elements have been incorporated as verbs or prepositions, with the

possible exception of the modal operator téynik(ɑ) ‘obligation’, which could be derived
from Spanish tiene que ‘has to’.
Gününa Yajich contains a number of Mapuche and Spanish borrowings. Tehuelche
and Gününa Yajich have taken over the Aymara words for ‘hundred’ and ‘thousand’
from the Araucanians.
Casamiquela speculates that the Gününa Yajich word order he recorded from the last
speaker of the language was influenced by Mapuche, and Viegas Barros (1995) suggests
that the orginal person system of the Chonan languages has been restructured under the
influence of Mapuche. Fernández Garay (1998c) gives a very detailed description of
processes of language attrition that have affected Tehuelche.
6.7 A Tehuelche text

Several spontaneous texts have been published in the languages of Tierra del Fuego.
We include here a southern Tehuelche flood myth, part of the Elal cycle, told shortly
after 1920 by K’opachüs to J. C. Wolf, who ‘called himself encargado of the Linguistics
section of the Museo de la Plata’ (G. Hernández 1992: 115). The myth is reproduced
in G. Hernández (1992: 132–3, 138). Below the original orthography in the source
text we present in curly brackets an approximate phonetic rendition and analysis, based
6.7 A Tehuelche text 583
on Fernández Garay (1997b, 1998c, personal communication). Casamiquela (1992)

provided additional notes.
1. Tshónke tsháink’ täRnkä k!ä-u;

{č’o:nk č’ay-n-k ter-n-k k’ew}
people be.big-N-MS be.tall-N-MS formerly
‘They were tall, big people formerly.’
2. mátshke tschonk, t!äRosh
{ma:-š-k’e č’o:nk t’ero-š}
kill-PD-RD.MS6 people be.bad-PD
‘They were man-killers and bad.’
3. máshke tshónkie, wı́llum náu óiyu,
{ma:-š-k’e č’o:nk, welom na:w ʔoyo}
kill-PD-RD.MS people all guanaco ostrich
‘They killed people. All the guanaco, the ostrich,’
4. tsháRo7 óienkl, máshke tshónke.
{k’aroʔ ʔoygl ma:-š-k’e č’o:nk}
hawk condor kill-PD-RD.MS people
‘the hawk, the condor used to kill people.’
5. K’änuknk’on dı́os tsháit gátkenäshke,
{qenkenk’en dios č’ay-t(o) ga:nkene-š-k’e}
sun god be.big-AV be.angry-PD-RD.MS
‘The Sun God became very angry’
6. kä-útäshkä lä-ä täRnkä.
{k-e:wet’e-š-k’e leʔ ter-n-k}
3O.MS-send-PD-RD.MS water be.high-N-MS
‘and sent a big flood.’
7. Ó-uktä wánken xóno shähuen k’ōn lä-ä áintke,
{ʔe:w-k’ t-waʔn-k’n xono šanwen8 k’o:n leʔ ʔayn-t-k’e}
upward-AL 3S-go-RD.NU sea spring river water rise-MD-RD.MS
‘Upwards came the sea, the springs and rivers; the water rose,’
8. willum tsháRäkän gä-utä. Willom xámtsh.
{welom t-ša:re-k’n ge:wte welom xa:m-č}
all 3S-be.filled-RD.NU land all die-PL
‘until all the land was covered. Then they all died.’
6 The endings of the realis mood (RD) encode a gender distinction; the gender indicated is that of
a following noun (Fernández Garay 1998c: 275).
7 The form tsháRo (probably [č’arroʔ]) may represent a dialectal variant of k’aroʔ ‘hawk’.
8 Both the pronunciation and interpretation of shähuen are incertain. The word šanwen ‘whirlpool’,
mentioned in Fernández Garay (1998c: 98), seems to fit the context here.
9. Páin uáitshkä uáitä

{pa:y(n) w-ayt-š-k’e w-ayte}
consequently RF-get.lost-PD-RD.MS RF-get.lost
‘So then they disappeared, they disappeared.’
10. K’änüknk’on dı́os kä-útäshke k’aRuya gä-ut’ äkänu;
{qenkenk’en dios k-e:wet’e-š-k’e k’aroʔ . . . ge:wt ʔay k’e-n naon}
Sun god 3O.MS-send-PD-RD.MS hawk . . . land L look.around-IF BN
‘The Sun God then sent the hawk to look around on earth,’
11. gómshkent tuál k’áRo
{k’om-š-k’n t-wa:l k’aroʔ}
not-PD-RD.NU 3S-come.back hawk
‘but the hawk did not come back.’
12. gómshkent xän ä-uk; tsháit xátkan k’ór.
{k’om-š-k’n t-xeʔn ʔe:w-k’ č’ay-t(o) xa:t’e-k’n k’o:r}
not-PD-RD.NU 3S-fly upward-AL, be.big-AV eat-RD.NU grass
‘He could not fly any more; he had eaten too much grass.’
13. K’änüknk’on kä-útäshken kámköm;
{qenkenk’en k-e:wet’e-š-k’n kamk’om}
sun 3O.FE-send-PD-RD.FE dove
‘Then the Sun God sent the dove.’
14. k’ór ánäshk ä-uk kámköm.
{k’o:r ʔa:ne-š-k’ ʔe:w-k’ kamk’om}
grass bring-PD-RD upward-AL dove
‘The dove brought (a leaf of) grass upwards.’
15. Gä-ut árshkän
{ge:wt ʔa:r-š-k’n}
land be.dry-PD-RD.NU
‘Then the land was dry.’
7
The Spanish presence
Manuel Tenorio, over sixty years old, and a Quechua peasant from central Ecuador,
recounts how he learned Spanish as a boy, on the job at the hacienda and during visits
to the market town. When a white man came by on horseback, Manuel was obliged to
say the greeting alabado sacramento ‘blessed (be the) Sacrament’ or alabado evangelio
‘blessed (be the) Gospel’, and was answered back alabado hijo ‘blessed (be the) Son’
(perhaps also ‘blessed, sonny’). However, as a Quechua speaker he had great difficulties
with the vowels [e] and [o] (often pronouncing them as [i] and [u], respectively), and
the punishment for mispronunciation was fierce, so he used to dive into the irrigation
channel when he heard a horse approaching. Almost at the end of his life, in spite of
years in the capital as a construction worker, his Spanish still shows many traces of his
Indian background.
The Spaniards have imposed their language in all their former colonies in the New
World. Not only the immigrants from Europe speak Spanish, but the descendants of the
African slaves and Chinese coolies, and a large part of the native Amerindian population
as well. Nonetheless, the transplanted forms of the language have undergone many
modifications, as in the speech of Manuel Tenorio, and the relationship between Spanish
and the dominated Amerindian languages is a complex one.
In this chapter we discuss various aspects of the relation between Spanish and the native
languages of the Andes. We first look at Andean Spanish from a number of perspectives,
and then at various dimensions of language planning and bilingual education.
Other immigrant languages, such as Mennonite German and Japanese in Bolivia,
Chinese in Peru, and Lebanese Arabic in different Andean countries, will not be dis-
cussed: they are characteristic of the New World as a whole rather than of the Andean
nations.
7.1 Characteristics of Andean Spanish

Andean Spanish can be approached from many perspectives. We will briefly discuss the
relation of this variety to the dialects of the metropolis, before turning to issues such as
the influence it may have undergone from Quechua and other Amerindian languages.
586 7 The Spanish presence
7.1.1 Demography and Iberian dialectal origins

The question of which Iberian dialects contributed most to New World Spanish is a
vexed one, but a modicum of consensus emerged in the 1970s, mainly due to work by
Boyd-Bowman (e.g. 1973). There are several main issues:
(a) The varieties of Spanish in the New World are much more homogeneous than the
ones in Spain itself, in spite of the much wider geographical spread, the lack of inter-
regional communication, the potential diversifying influence of Amerindian substratum
languages, etc. This is part of a general phenomenon noticed by the anthropologist
George Foster in his Culture and Conquest (1960), namely that export varieties of a
culture represent only a limited subset of the cases of variation present in the source
culture. Boyd-Bowman (1973) points to the fact that in the early period, 1490–1520,
there may have been extensive dialect levelling in the Antilles, and that the mainland
was populated from the islands. Also, the Canary Islands may have been a site for
dialect levelling intermediate between Spain and the New World. From other studies
of export varieties of European languages and from creole studies we know that of-
ten the early period in colonisation is decisive for the establishment of new linguistic
norms. The levelling process may already have been started in Seville, the Spanish port
through which the emigration stream was funnelled, and this brings us to the second
issue.
(b) A classic problem has always been that Latin American Spanish resembles the
southern varieties of peninsular Spanish, particularly Andalucian Spanish, more than the
standard in the sixteenth century, which was surely that of the court in Toledo and later
Madrid, i.e. Castilian. We have already pointed to the role of Seville as the Atlantic port,
but Boyd-Bowman’s main contribution lies in establishing that indeed the main body
of emigrants to the New World was from the south. For the whole period 1493–1579,
35.8 per cent of the settlers came from Andalucia and 16.9 per cent from neighbouring
Extremadura. The two Castiles together only provided 29.5 per cent.
For the early period, the figures are even more striking. Thus between 1493 and 1519
the Seville province provided six times as many (1,259 of a total of 5,481) emigrants
as the province of Toledo (208), and the nearby provinces Huelva, Badajoz and Cáceres
provided another 1,174. If we look at women settlers, who may have played a crucial
role in creating the new linguistic norms, between 1509 and 1519, when the New World
society was being given shape, over half (of 308 total) were from Seville.
This type of figure is fairly constant for the different Andean regions, although it is
noted by Boyd-Bowman that Colombia and Venezuela had a somewhat higher proportion
of settlers from the two Castiles than Peru.
(c) A third main issue concerns the somewhat surprising fact that the lowland coastal
areas tend to resemble Andalucian speech more directly than the highland areas, actually
throughout Latin America. Boyd-Bowman (1973: 67) tentatively explains this in terms
7.1 Characteristics of Andean Spanish 587
of ‘a vast maritime empire the ports of which were linked by sea to Seville (and to
each other) along trade routes controlled and maintained predominantly by Andalucian
sailors and merchants’. The ensuing network may have had a more direct and enduring
influence on the coastal areas around the ports than on the highland regions.
7.1.2 Linguistic features

It has been said many times before, but systematic and reliable studies on varieties of
South American Spanish are few and far between; cf. the critical evaluation by Lipski
(1994) of a number of studies, as well as Fontanella de Weinberg (1976). The discussion
of specific Andalucian dialect features has focused on phonology. The most striking
feature, of course, shared by Latin America and southern Spain is the absence of the
[θ]/[ş] contrast (‘ceceo’ versus ‘seseo’) so characteristic of Castilian. Other features,
such as aspiration and loss of word-final /s/, loss or weakening of intervocalic /d/, and
merger of /ly / and /y/ (‘yeı́smo’) can also be mentioned, but are characteristic of the
coastal areas, not of the highlands. In addition, these features are not realised uniformly
either in southern Spain or in Latin America, and in many places need more detailed
study.
The most immediately striking difference in the domain of morphosyntax concerns
the second-person pronouns. Very roughly, the present situation in some places is as
follows:
(1) Spain South America

2.SG familiar: tú 2.SG familiar: vos
2.SG polite: usted 2.SG intimate: tú
2.PL familiar: vosotros/as 2.SG polite: usted
2.PL polite: ustedes 2.PL ustedes
Here ‘intimate’ refers to respectful address in a close relationship, and with ‘familiar’
no particular respect is implied.
The form vos was present in older peninsular Spanish as a polite second-person-
singular pronoun, but has largely disappeared in Spain and in parts of Latin America,
such as coastal Peru and Ecuador. In some areas (e.g. Argentina), tú has been replaced
almost entirely by vos, and there the original verbal inflections associated with the
latter pronoun are preserved as well. Elsewhere, vos is used with the verbal inflections
associated with tú. In areas where both tú and vos occur, the former is used in more
formal contexts and the latter is often considered a sign of lack of a proper education.
In parts of Colombia, finally, usted, the polite second-person-singular form elsewhere,
is often called for in non-intimate but familiar contexts.
There are a great many lexical differences both between the varieties of Spanish in
the different countries of South America, and between this continent and Spain. These
Table 7.1 Major isoglosses in the Andean areas of Latin American Spanish (based on
Zamora Munné and Guitart 1982)
/s/ /x/ vos
IV. Colombia except the coast + – ±

V. Pacific coast of Ecuador and Colombia – – ±
VI. Coast of Peru, except the extreme south – – –
VII. Rest of Ecuador and Peru, west and centre of Bolivia, + + ±
northwest Argentina
VIII. Chile – + ±
need not concern us at the moment, although we will return to items borrowed from
Amerindian languages.
Zamora Munné and Guitart (1982) provide a fairly balanced and comprehensive
account of some of the major dialectal divisions in Latin American Spanish. They
base themselves on three diagnostic features, which constitute major isoglosses: (a) the
retention (+) versus loss or aspiration (−) of final /s/; (b) the velar (+) or glottal (−)
realisation of /x/; (c) general use of vos (+), of tú (−), of both (±). For the regions that
concern us most, they distinguish the five major dialect areas (with their numbering)
listed in table 7.1. Surely other or finer divisions are imaginable, but the dialect splits
outlined in table 7.1 correspond fairly well to global impressions of speakers of varieties
of Andean Spanish.
It should be stressed that thorough descriptive work of Andean Spanish dialects is
uneven in quality and coverage (Bolivian Spanish, for instance, has been barely in-
vestigated); in addition, different studies have focused on widely different features. A
classical study remains Kany’s (1945) survey of regional grammatical features in the
different varieties of Latin American Spanish, based on written sources. Lipski (1994)
provides an excellent country-by-country account of available studies. Perl and
Schwegler (1998) survey the evidence for African influences on Ibero-American lan-
guage varieties.
Colombian Spanish is fairly well described, starting with the pioneering work of
Rufino José Cuervo (1867) on the speech of Bogotá. More recent studies include, for in-
stance, de Granda’s interesting study of Afro-Hispanic speech varieties of the Colombian
Pacific coast area (1977).
Present-day Ecuadorian Spanish has been described most completely by Toscano
Mateus (1953). There are considerable lexical and phonological differences between
Coastal and Highland Spanish, on the one hand, and between educated urban Spanish
and different rural varieties on the other. On the whole Ecuadorian Spanish conforms to
the generalisation that holds for all varieties of South American Spanish: many archaic
7.2 Amerindian substratum influence 589
Peninsular features have been preserved, and the dominant dialectal influence has been
the Andalucian dialects of southern Spain.
The major source for Peruvian Spanish remains Benvenutto Murrieta (1936), although
numerous articles and monographs have appeared on individual phenomena. Ana Marı́a
Escobar (2000) surveys much current research on Peruvian Spanish, paying particular
attention to semantic factors, and Rivarola (1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1987) has investigated
the origins and development of Peruvian Andean Spanish. Another good general source
is Klee (1996).
Reliable information about Bolivian Spanish is rather limited. Building on an earlier
study by Kany (1947), there is a brief but detailed phonetic study by Gordon (1980),
showing that Bolivian Spanish cannot be simply subsumed under the varieties of neigh-
bouring countries, dialectologically. Further, work by Herrero (1969) and Laprade (1981)
argues that different varieties of Bolivian Spanish have undergone Quechua and Aymara
substrate influence, respectively. The complex lexical interactions between Bolivian
Quechua and Spanish are studied in Van Hout and Muysken (1994). Albó (1988b)
documents the ‘llapuni’ Spanish of highland migrants to the tropical Santa Cruz area.
For Chile the best recent source remains Oroz (1966). A dialect atlas of southern
Chile was compiled under the direction of Guillermo Araya (Araya et al. 1973). An
interesting study of mining vocabulary in northern Chile, which reveals the presence
of several Quechua and Aymara words, is Parada et al. (1976). Mining vocabulary,
incidentally, has also been studied, albeit in a rather amateurish way, in Bolivia, but
this extremely rich subject, revelatory of the shaping of a mixed Amerindian–Hispanic
technology and culture, still awaits a more definitive study.
Quechua influence on the Spanish of northwestern Argentina has recently been studied
by de Granda (1995, 1996, 1997a, b).
7.2 Amerindian substratum influence

The possibility of various Amerindian languages influencing Andean Spanish has been
a long-standing issue in Hispanicist scholarship, with important cultural implications as
well. When the new republics gained independence from Spain in the 1830s, an important
link to the old metropolis, but also something linking the young nations themselves, was
the Spanish language. This led to a set of contradictory attitudes. On the one hand, the
unity of Latin America, the old dream of Simón Bolı́var, was best maintained through a
unified Spanish, and thus directly a continuation of the metropolitan norm. If each new
nation were left to its own devices, it was felt, the Spanish of the Americas would fragment
just as Vulgar Latin had in the Dark Ages. On the other hand, the Latin Americans felt
a need to express, in their language, both a distance from Spain and the many particular
features of the New World and of the area they inhabited and were trying to forge into
a country.
Table 7.2 Types of speakers of Spanish that may

show influence from Quechua
(A) Quechua speakers learning Spanish

(B) Stable Quechua–Spanish bilinguals
(C) Spanish monolinguals living in bilingual communities
(D) Spanish monolinguals living in bilingual regions
(E) Spanish monolinguals living in bilingual countries
It is against this background that we must see the debates about possible Amerindian
influences on Andean Spanish (for a general account of the role of language ideology
see Woolard and Schieffelin 1994). But there is more. The Spanish colonial empire was
founded on the assumption that what is Hispanic has inherent value, and what is native
is worthless if not downright ungodly. It is not until the indigenista movements of the
1920s that the Amerindian heritage was recognised as worthwhile, not just for the Indian
peasants themselves, but for the countries in general.
There have been discussions in the literature about various cases of Amerindian lan-
guage influence on Spanish. Araucanian influence on Chilean Spanish, was proposed
by Lenz (1893) (cf. chapter 5). Similarly, several studies have focused on Aymara influ-
ence on the Spanish of the Bolivian altiplano (Hardman 1981). Nonetheless, the main
debate has focused on Quechua influence, and this is what we will concentrate on here,
mentioning Aymara only in passing. Given the many structural and semantic parallels
between these two languages (cf. chapter 3), it would be surprising if the influence of
Quechua and Aymara on Spanish in southern Peru and Bolivia had not led to mutual
reinforcement.
When we consider Quechua influence on Spanish, the picture is quite complex, since
much depends on which variety of Spanish is meant: the Spanish of the whole central
Andes, of the areas where Quechua is or was spoken, of lower-class mestizos in those
areas, or of Quechua–Spanish bilinguals? Taking the whole central Andes is too wide,
yet taking just bilinguals is too narrow, we believe. There are also considerable regional
and national differences. Finally, it depends what aspect of the language is considered.
Schematically, the Spanish of the different speaker types is shown in table 7.2. On the
whole, these categories are arranged implicationally: if a Quechua feature occurs with
speakers of type (D), it will also occur in (B), but not necessarily vice-versa. However,
we will see that in some cases Quechua influence exerts itself in the Spanish speech
of stable bilinguals, while the same feature is not present in the speech of incipient
bilinguals.
Lexically, the influence of Quechua on Spanish has been slight, limited to the domains
of agriculture, food, flora and fauna, the household and clothing, musical folklore,
Table 7.3 Sprachbund phenomena in the pronunciation of liquids and vibrants in

different varieties of Quechua and Spanish in Ecuador
Quechua Spanish Quechua Spanish
North [ž] [ž] [aži] ‘good’ [požo] ‘chicken’

South [ly ] [ly ] [aly i] [poly o]
North [ž. ], [ř] [ž. ], [ř] [ž. iŋri], [řinri] ‘ear’ [pež. o], [peřo] ‘dog’
South [rr] [rr] [rriŋri] [perro]
popular religion and illnesses. The vast majority of borrowed elements are nouns, such
as llama, alpaca and chacra ‘field’. There are a handful of derived verbs, such as yapar
‘to add a bit (in a sales transaction)’, chimbar ‘to cross’, pircar ‘build a wall of stones
and adobe’ and chancar ‘to flatten’, an occasional adverb such as pite pite ‘bit by bit’,
and exclamatives such as achachay ‘brrr, cold’ (Buesa Oliver 1965).
A few Quechua words have gained acceptance beyond Spanish, such as English jerky
from charki ‘dried meat’ and Louisiana French la-gnappe ‘small added bit’ from the
above-mentioned yapa. Mejı́as (1980) has shown that there were Quechua lexical items
used in Spanish from the sixteenth century onwards; their number gradually increased, at
least until the eighteenth century. Lexical influence is the only type of Quechua influence
of type (E) in the scheme above. Of course, it varies a great deal in terms of region, type
of speaker, setting and domain, etc.
The lexical influence of Aymara has been somewhat more limited in its diffusion. In
La Paz Spanish many Aymara words are used, such as chusca ‘square carrying cloth’,
imilla ‘girl’, colla ‘inhabitant of the altiplano’ and cala ‘stone’ (Laprade 1981), but
these are not known much outside the region. An important issue mentioned by Laprade
concerns lexical semantic influence exercised by Amerindian languages on Spanish. A
case in point is pie, which in metropolitan Spanish means ‘foot’, but under the influence
of Aymara kayu has come to refer to most of the leg. This same phenomenon merits
detailed investigation in the case of Quechua influence on Spanish as well.
On the phonological level, the one case of Quechua influence on Spanish reported by
all authors is the pronunciation of /o/ as [u] and of /e/ as [i]. More precisely, we encounter
fusion of /e/ and /i/ into something varying between [e] and [i], and of /o/ and /u/ into
something varying between [o] and [u]. Quechua-speakers may pronounce pero ‘but’ as
[piru], but also cubicar ‘make into a cube’ as [kobekar], due to hypercorrection. This
influence, though general in the whole Quechua-speaking Andes, is limited, however,
to (A) and (B). Even lower-class mestizo monolinguals do not have it.
In Ecuador, there are two interesting sprachbund or convergence phenomena, both
involving liquids, as shown in table 7.3. In the northern part of the Ecuadorian high-
lands the palatalised [ly ], which is widely found in Andean Spanish and in Quechua,
is pronounced as a voiced palatal sibilant in the local dialects of both languages, and
the Spanish trilled [rr] (with its Quechua equivalent in word-initial position) is a voiced
retroflex fricative or an assibilated retroflex vibrant. Notice that it cannot be plausibly
claimed that Quechua influenced Spanish here, since the more conservative varieties
of Quechua (here represented by the south of Ecuador) do not possess the features in
question.
Syntactically and semantically, Quechua may have had some influence on the mono-
lingual highland varieties of rural Spanish (C and D), in addition to stamping the bilingual
varieties. If we try to imagine how this influence was exerted, the most plausible scenario
is one of second-language learning by Quechua speakers in a sociolinguistically com-
plex environment. The particular stratification of variable elements within the Spanish
target-language speech community affects the process of acquisition of these elements.
This stratification is crucial because it may reflect, in part, stages of interrupted or in-
complete L2 acquisition at an earlier point in time. As time goes on, the products of
intermediate and advanced interlanguage grammars (A and B) are incorporated into
the native speech community (C and D), but most often as vernacular, non-standard
forms. In a synchronic perspective, then, native speakers of the target vernacular end up
producing outputs which seem like interlanguage outputs. The particular interlanguage
features which come to be adopted as non-standard features in the Spanish target speech
community serve as models, at a later stage, for new learners. López and Jung (1989)
show how non-standard features are present in primary school in the speech of the local
teachers with bilingual backgrounds.
The process of selection and adoption of these features, however, may be gov-
erned by factors such as superficial resemblance to native language features. This
selection and adoption may result in a situation in which two speech communities
may have different vernacular varieties, while they result from the interaction and
contact of the same L1 and L2. We will illustrate this by comparing the acquisi-
tion of Spanish by Quechua speakers in different regions of the Andes. Quite dif-
ferent forms of Spanish vernacular have emerged in the different contexts, making
a simple prediction on the basis of a contrastive analysis of Quechua and Spanish
implausible.
The existing literature on non-standard Spanish, as used in regions with Quechua–
Spanish bilingualism, is by now quite extensive, but little of it is based on ac-
countable and rigorous data. Most studies deal with Peru. We will take the situ-
ation of Peruvian Andean Spanish as our frame of reference and contrast it with
what is known of other areas. The main grammatical constructions and semantic fea-
tures mentioned are listed in table 7.4. We will discuss the features in table 7.4 one
by one.
Table 7.4 Features claimed to be due to Quechua in different

varieties of Spanish
a. Double possessives
b. Clitic usage
c. Object–verb sequences
d. Irregular gender and number concord, and irregular verb morphology
e. The redundant use of the preposition en ‘in’ in locative expressions
f. The frequent use of gerunds
g. Sentential particles and discourse organisation
h. Semantics of tense, notably of the sudden discovery tense
A. Double possessives are a good case to start with. They occur in examples such as
(Lozano 1975):
(2) Era su amiga de Juan.

it.was 3P girlfriend of John
‘It was John’s girlfriend.’ (Type I)
(3) Se quemó del joven su pantalón.
RF it.burned of.the young.man 3P trousers
‘The young man’s trousers burned.’ (Type II)
Note that in the first example the possessor noun, Juan, follows the possessed noun,
amiga, while in the second one the order is the reverse. In both, there is a possessor noun
as well as the possessive pronoun su. Lozano (1975), based on material from Ayacucho,
south-central Peru, is not very explicit about his data base, and describes different aspects
of Ayacucho rural Spanish deviant from Lima standard Spanish, focusing on the question
of possible influence from Quechua. Lozano does not report on the frequencies of the
constructions described or on the issue of whether they typify monolingual vernacular
or bilingual Spanish. He concludes (1975: 304) that all cases are traceable, at least
indirectly, to Quechua interference. However, the ways in which the innovations have
been formed are varied and complex.
While Lozano (1975) makes strong claims concerning the influence of Quechua on
bilingual Spanish, Puente (1978) would like to limit this influence to subordinate bilin-
guals, more proficient in Quechua than in Spanish. Puente’s work is based on observations
from Huancayo, central Peru, and Ayacucho, south-central Peru. Puente claims that type
II sentences are more frequent with compound bilinguals.
Rodrı́guez Garrido (1982) argues that type I, with a following possessor noun, is
characteristic of Peruvian Spanish in general, and an archaic construction. It is absent
with anything but persons or at least animate beings, and then limited to the third person.
We do not find:
(4) a. ∗ su ladrillo del muro

3P brick of.the wall
‘the brick of the wall’
b. ∗ mi casa de mı́
my house of me
‘my house (of mine)’
These restrictions are absent in type II, which is limited to the strong Quechua area of the
southern highlands, and surprisingly, to Amazon Spanish, and here Rodrı́guez Garrido
claims that Quechua influence is likely.
In Ecuadorian Spanish the situation is quite different. In recordings of an early
bilingual we find twenty-six cases of possessed NP de possessor NP, as in vecino
de Francisco ‘neighbour of Francisco’. In addition there was one case of posses-
sor/possessed: Francisco casa (rather than la casa de Francisco) ‘Francisco’s house’,
and one case of a noun preceded by the noun it is supposed to identify, but without the
preposition de: diez Tigua ‘ten from Tigua’ (rather than diez de Tigua). Other speak-
ers in the recordings sample show a large predominance of standard structures, and
very few deviant examples. Interestingly enough, the construction mentioned in the
Peruvian research literature involving the redundant possessive pronoun su is entirely
lacking.
It is very possible that the absence of the double genitive in Ecuadorian Spanish is
due to its absence in Ecuadorian Quechua. Compare the following examples:
(5) a. Peru
Juan-pa mama-n de Juan su madre
John-G mother-3P of John 3P mother
‘John’s mother’ ‘John’s mother’
b. Ecuador
Juan-pak mama la madre de Juan
John-G mother the mother of John
‘John’s mother’ ‘John’s mother’
In the Peruvian case, the possessed noun receives a third-person marker -n, which cor-
responds semantically to the ‘redundant’ su. This marker is absent in Ecuador.
The differences within Quechua do not explain the differences between the two coun-
tries, however, for possessor/possessed order, unless we would argue that the presence
of su makes it possible in Peru to interpret the possessor phrase de Juan as sort of left-
dislocated within the whole nominal constituent containing the possessed phrase, thus
maintaining a seeming parallelism with the Quechua word order. Similar left-dislocated
possessors are found in many other languages, e.g. Papiamentu Wanchu su kas ‘John’s
house’. De Granda (1997a) claims that the Peruvian pattern is found in northwestern
Argentina as well.
B. Clitic usage is a more complicated issue. While deviant object clitic usage has
often been linked to Quechua influence, neither the phenomenon itself nor the possible
Quechua source are very well circumscribed. The phenomenon includes redundant lo
object clitics in relative clauses, as in:
(6) el hombre que lo vı́

the man that 3O.MS.SG I.saw
‘the man that I saw’
The use of a resumptive pronoun rather than a gap strategy in relative clauses may well
be a result of surface simplification in a context of extensive bilingualism.
A second type of example involves lo in main clauses, marking emphasis. Haboud de
Ortega (1985), a rich but mostly descriptive study based on material from San Pedro de
Casta, Huarochirı́, Peru, contains examples such as:
(7) Usted lo siembra la papa con su abono y todo.

you.CS 3O.MS.SG sow the potato(FE.SG) with 3P fertiliser and all
‘You sow the potatoes with their fertiliser and everything.’
Godenzzi (1986), an analysis of object clitic usage based on recordings from Puno,
southern Peru, gives many examples as well (see also Godenzzi 1992):
(8) Lo veı́a las armas.

3O.MS.SG (s)he.saw the weapons(FE.PL)
‘(S)he saw the weapons.’
Cerrón-Palomino (personal communication) suggests that redundant lo in Central Peru-

vian Spanish is both formally and semantically related to the Quechua perfective verbal
suffix -rqu-, which is pronounced as [ʔlu] in some dialects (cf. section 3.2.6). The suffix
-rqu- often has a telic interpretation, implying some action with respect to an object.
The formal similarity is limited to the Huanca region, but the semantic similarity may
have caused a correspondence in a much wider area.
A third cluster of phenomena includes the absence of an object clitic when its referent
has been mentioned immediately before, in the same clause or in the discourse context:
(9) Nuestra música no podemos dejar de lado. [compare dejarla

our music(FE.SG) not we.can to.leave of side to.leave.3O.FE.SG]
‘We cannot leave our music aside.’
Stratford (1989: 115) states that this is common for all kinds of speakers, monolingual
and bilingual, urban and rural, alike. She also notes that the presence of another clitic, for
instance, se, is a favourable environment for direct object omission. De Granda (1996)
argues that absence of object clitics is frequent in northwestern Argentinian Spanish as
well.
There is frequent clitic doubling:
(10) Lo veo a Juan. [compare Veo a Juan.

3O.MS.SG I.see DA John I.see DA John
‘I see John.’ ‘I see John.’]
Furthermore, gender (lo/la) and number (le/lo, les/los) distinctions are often confused:
(11) Lo veo a Maria. [compare La veo . . .

3O.MS.SG I.see DA Marı́a 3O.FE.SG I.see . . .
‘I see Marı́a.’ ‘I see her (Marı́a).’]
Note that here the ‘doubled’ clitic lo, which is analysed as masculine in standard Spanish,
does not agree with the object, Marı́a, in gender. Ana Marı́a Escobar (1990), in a study
of deixis, location, and object marking in the speech of bilinguals from Ayacucho,
south-central Peru, looks at clitics in some detail, as well.
Camacho et al. (1995) argue that the clitic lo in inalienable possessor constructions
in Andean Spanish, as in (12), is a case of genitive clitic doubling:
(12) Lo amarran su pata del condor.

3O.SG.MS they.tie 3P leg(FE) of.the condor
‘They tie the condor’s leg.’
In Ecuador we find that clitics are used rather unsystematically in rural Spanish,
and particularly that third-person object clitics such as le are often absent. This fea-
ture is characteristic of the vernacular in general, and corresponds to Lozano’s ob-
servation that third-person clitics are absent when their referent has been previously
mentioned.
Again, -rqu- is not present in Ecuadorian Quechua, which could lead to an explanation
for the absence of lo in interlanguage and in the vernacular. Still, Cerrón-Palomino’s
explanation is too dialect-specific and does not cover all the occurrences of lo. More
probable is that the fact that Ecuadorian Spanish is extremely leista, i.e. does not have lo
as a verbal clitic at all, accounts for the absence of lo in Ecuadorian Quechua–Spanish
interlanguage.
It is clear from the discussion so far that the use of lo in Andean Spanish is a multi-
faceted phenomenon, and needs more investigation.
C. Object–verb sequences have been frequently noted. Very characteristic of Andean
Spanish are sentences such as:
(13) A Juan conocı́.

DA John I.knew
‘I knew John.’ (‘I made his acquaintance.’)
Here the object often precedes the verb, which is a marked pattern in standard Span-
ish. Luján, Minaya and Sankoff (1981), using data from Cuzco, southern Peru (cf. also
Minaya and Luján, 1982), primarily study word-order phenomena such as the OV orders
in the light of typological universals. In contrast to Lozano and Puente, their study is based
on children’s speech (three 5-, three 7- and three 9-year-olds, recorded one hour each, in
an informal classroom setting) and provides quantitative data. The variables studied are
both verb/object, adjective/noun, and possessor/possessed order. The results show that
the 5-year-olds in the sample show 51 per cent SOV, 64 per cent possessor/possessed,
and 91 per cent adjective/noun order, as in la bonita casa ‘the pretty house’. Fur-
ther, for the other age groups there is a regular decrease of these word orders, which
are slowly being replaced by the word orders characterising the regional standard: the
9-year-olds show only 30 per cent SOV, 33 per cent possessor/possessed and 38 per
cent adjective/noun orders. Luján et al. claim that the pattern they find is the only one
possible, given the typological characteristics of both Quechua and Spanish and the
universal consistency hypothesis proposed by Hawkins (1979). Crucial is that the tran-
sition from possessor/possessed to the reverse cannot take place without a transition
from SOV to SVO; otherwise implicational universals are violated. Finally, Luján et al.
mention a type of construction where the verb is doubled, producing a type of SVOV
order:
(14) Conozco a los cabritos conozco.

I.know DA the little.goats I.know
‘I know the little goats.’
Courtney (2000) argues that this duplication pattern is visible in Quechua itself, and
is in fact a pragmatic strategy to denote emphasis. It occurs with elements other than
verbs:
(15) Y ya no es loco ya.

and already not he.is crazy already
‘And he isn’t crazy any more.’
It is even possible to duplicate the element in a different language. In (16) kan is taken
from Quechua, while the form it duplicates, hay, is Spanish:
(16) Hay bastante-s fiesta-s ka-n.
there.is enough-PL holiday-PL be-3S
‘There are many holidays.’
In recorded Ecuadorian spoken Spanish, there is also a tendency for highly frequent
OV orders to be associated with Quechua–Spanish bilinguals, and VO order with middle-
class Spanish monolinguals (Muysken 1984). This accords, in principle, with the main
thrust of the findings of Luján et al., but it is striking that in all the recorded material
there is no single case of a true SOV sequence, i.e. one with both subject and object
present. What we find is OVS, OV, OSV, i.e. all cases where the order of the object
preceding the verb could be due to object fronting, for focus:
(17) a. Papas comió.

potatoes he.ate
‘He ate potatoes.’
b. Papas Juan comió.
potatoes John he.ate
‘John ate potatoes.’
c. Papas comió, Juan.
potatoes he.ate John
‘John ate potatoes.’
∗
d. Juan papas comió.
John potatoes he.ate
‘John potatoes ate.’
Example (17d) is excluded because it is not possible in Spanish, even though it directly re-
flects the usual Quechua order. Thus the word-order correspondence between rural Span-
ish and Quechua may be one of superficial resemblance (in the OV sequences), rather than
of deap-seated structural congruence. The case could still be made for Quechua influ-
ence, through the increased incidence of word orders permitted in Spanish that are similar
to Quechua. No cases of verb doubling have been noted so far in Ecuadorian Quechua.
D. Irregular gender and number concord and irregular article usage are highly frequent,
particularly in bilingual or lower-class monolingual speech. In Ecuador as well as Peru,
plurals are only infrequently marked. Note that in Quechua, in contrast to Spanish, plural
marking is optional.
Definite and indefinite articles are frequently not present where they would be expected
in regional standard contexts. This feature, while needing much more study, appears to
be characteristic of vernacular Spanish in the area in general.
Verb marking is highly irregular. In clear first-person-singular contexts, we find third-

person forms, first-person-plural forms and irregular forms for ‘I went’:
(18) ju-é went-3S.SG ‘he went’

jui-mos went-1S.PL ‘we went’
jui-ndo went-GR ‘going’ (lit. ‘went-ing’)
While other bilingual speakers in the community also show some cases of irregular verb
marking, this is not a feature of non-standard Spanish on the whole, and it disappears
rapidly with more advanced speakers.
E. Preposition usage shows seemingly contradictory tendencies for different groups
of speakers. Puente (1978) notes cases such as (19), in which a locative adverb is
redundantly preceded by a locative preposition:
(19) En allı́ está creciendo la leña.

in there is growing the firewood
‘There trees for firewood are growing.’
The Ecuadorian recorded Spanish data suggest that this feature may be due to Quechua
semantic influence, but it is not present in early interlanguage. 36 per cent of the pre-
positions obligatory in Spanish (39 out of 109 cases) have been deleted. This concerns
primarily locative en (16 out of 33 cases) and directional a (17 out of 22 cases). This
tendency diminishes quickly for the more advanced bilinguals, who may well extend the
locative use of Quechua, where place adverbs (non-distinct from deictics) are marked
with the demonstrative as well, to Spanish allı́ ‘there’. In Quechua we have chay-pi
(/-L)
F. Gerunds have been frequently noted, e.g. by Toscano Matteus (1953), Muysken
(1984), Niño-Murcia (1995) and Haboud (1996, 1998), who documents the use of the
gerundive perfective construction by broad sectors of the population for Ecuador, by
Cerrón-Palomino (1972, 1976c, 1981) for Peru, and by de Granda (1995) for northwest-
ern Argentina. Examples from incipient bilinguals in Ecuador are:
(20) Ya desyerbar terminando, a la yerba lo llevado a la casa.

already to.weed finishing, DA the weed(FE) 3O.SG taken to the house
‘Having already finished weeding, I took the weeds to the house.’
(21) Yo saliendo de la escuela mi de entrar en colegio.
I leaving of the school me/my of to.enter in high.school
‘After leaving school I am going to enter high school.’
Menges (1980), the first bilingual acquisition study carried out in Ecuador, is based on
the application of a culturally adapted and expanded bilingual syntax measure to twelve
Indian and twelve non-Indian first graders. The variable studied is the form and function
of the main verb, whether in inflected, infinitive, or gerund form. The analysis of the
interview data indicated that the Indian L2 learners were operating with a simplified
verb system having the gerund as its base form (1980: 105).
For stable bilinguals, the gerund is not so much the base form for main-clause verb
usage, but rather a marker for adverbial clauses.
G. A number of studies draw attention to sentential particles. There are cases of the
Quechua topic marker -ka occurring in Ecuadorian Spanish:
(22) Ahı́-ka barrio chiquito.

there-TO village small
‘Over there is a small village.’
(23) Quedamos-ka lo que da la gana come hago.
we.stay-TO 3O.SG what gives the feeling eat I.make
‘If we stay, I will prepare to eat whatever comes to our minds.’
More prevalent are Spanish sentential particles used in a Quechua-derived or Quechua-

like fashion. We find enclitic tan (from Spanish también ‘also’) as a negative emphatic
marker or as an indefinite marker in Ecuador:
(24) a. nada más-tan

nothing more-AD
‘nothing else’
?
b. Onde-tan has ido?
where-AD you.have gone
‘Wherever did you go to?’
This use of tan directly resembles the semantic range of Quechua -pis/-pas ‘and, also,
indefinite, emphatic’. It may well be that the way tan is used is a calque on Quechua. Just
like the topic marker -ka, this phenomenon is not limited to bilinguals, but it certainly
is stigmatised as lower-class rural speech.
Laprade mentions a number of particles occurring in La Paz Spanish the use of which
may have been influenced by Aymara (1981: 216–19), such as no más ‘just’, and pues
‘then’. An example of the latter would be:
?
(25) Qué cosa pues quieres?
what thing then you.want
‘What then do you want?’
The trouble is that these elements have such a wide diffusion in rural Spanish that much
more specific argumentation than given would be needed to make their Aymara base
conclusive.
Another problem is that Aymara and Quechua have so many structural and semantic
parallels, as was shown in chapter 3, that the use of many elements in Spanish could
be influenced by both or either language. A case in point is the Spanish pluperfect to
mark the sudden discovery tense, something to which we will turn shortly, and the use
of siempre ‘always’ in the sense of ‘after all’, as in:
(26) Tengo que irme siempre.

I.have that to.go.away.1O.SG always
‘I have to go after all.’
This feature has been reported for La Paz Spanish by Laprade (1981: 218), as modelled
on the Aymara emphatic marker -pini/-puni, and for Cochabamba Spanish by Herrero
(1969), as modelled on Quechua -puni. In this case, substrate influences from various
languages may have reinforced one another. Another source for the use of siempre
could be the Quechua suffix -raq, generally glossed as ‘still’. On the precise meaning
of siempre and other discourse markers in different Andean regions more comparative
study is needed.
A case where specific Aymara influence may be involved is the use of pero ‘but’ in
sentence-final position (Laprade 1981: 219), as in:
!
(27) Ya hablas aymara pero!
already you.speak Aymara but
‘But you speak Aymara already!’
The source for this usage would be the Aymara objector suffix -raki.
H. In all varieties of Quechua there is a special tense to mark events which took place
unbeknownst to the speaker; Adelaar (1977) terms this the sudden discovery tense,
marked with -sqa or a similar form. It is used in narrative but also to express surprise,
etc. In Andean Spanish the category is expressed with present perfect haber with past
participle (Ecuador) or pluperfect haber with past participle (Peru and Bolivia):
(28) a. (Ecuador) b.(Peru and Bolivia)

! !
Qué rico ha sido! Qué rico habı́a sido!
how good it.has been how good it.had been
‘This is really good! (said to the host)’
This concludes a preliminary survey of possible Amerindian features in Andean Spanish.

The data are sometimes contradictory between different studies and a far from clear
picture emerges. This may be due to differences in focus of research and data-collection
procedures, to differences between the varieties of Quechua involved, or to differences
in the selection of interlanguage features which are absorbed into the vernacular.
The convergence process, which results from bilingualism over a long period of time,
provides a way for the L2 learner to structure his interlanguage grammar. Where no
linguistic convergence between Quechua and Spanish has taken place (e.g. person–
number marking, marking of grammatical relations, subordination), the L2 learner will
produce idiosyncratic and irregular forms of interlanguage structures, involving deletion,
overgeneralisations, paratactic structures and the like. Where we do find convergence
phenomena (word order, gerunds, tense marking to some extent), the acquisition process
is more regular: the L2 learner falls quickly into the groove as it were, and starts to behave
as a member of a speech community. We hope the discussion of individual variables has
substantiated this distinction.
7.3 Language mixture and pidginisation in the Andes

and the Amazon basin
Several contact varieties have emerged out of the intermixing between Spanish and the
native languages. We will briefly mention two of them here: Media Lengua, spoken in
various parts of Ecuador, and Amazon Spanish pidgin.
The variety of Media Lengua (lit. ‘half language’ or ‘halfway language’) described
here is spoken in parts of the province of Cotopaxi in central Ecuador (Muysken 1979,
1981b, 1986, 1997a). Other varieties have been documented for Cañar and Saraguro
in southern Ecuador. Linguistically speaking, Media Lengua is essentially Quechua
with the vast majority of its stems replaced by Spanish forms. This process of replace-
ment is commonly called relexification. Two examples of Media Lengua utterances are
given below, with the (b) examples presenting the regional Quechua equivalent, and the
(c) examples the regional Spanish equivalent.
(29) a. Unu fabur-ta pidi-nga-bu bini-xu-ni. (Media Lengua)

one favour-AC ask-FN-B come-PR-1S.SG
‘I come to ask you a favour.’
b. šuk fabur-da many a-nga-bu šamu-xu-ni. (Quechua)
one favour-AC ask-FN-B come-PR-1S.SG
c. Vengo para pedir un favor. (Spanish)
I.come in.order.to ask.IF one favour
It is clear that (a) has resulted from putting the phonological shapes of the words in
(c) into the lexical entries in (b). Thus šuk is replaced by unu, man y a- by pidi-, etc. Several
things should be noted. First, we get an emphatic form of the indefinite article in Media
Lengua, unu, rather than Spanish unemphatic un. Second, the Spanish irregular verb
7.3 Language mixture and pidginisation 603
form vengo appears in a regularised stem form bini. Third, the Quechua rule voicing the
accusative case marker -ta to -da after fabur has not applied in Media Lengua; Quechua
dialectological evidence suggests that this is a recent rule. Fourth, what is peculiar
about Media Lengua is not so much that it contains Spanish words (many dialects of
Quechua do as well), but that all Quechua words, including all core vocabulary, have
been replaced. Fifth, the Spanish forms have been adapted phonologically to Quechua;
mid vowels have been replaced by high vowels. Quechua word order and morphology
have been retained.
A similar example is:
(30) a. Kuyi-buk yirba nuwabi-ška (Media Lengua)

guinea.pig-B grass not.be.there-SD.3S.SG
‘There turns out to be no grass for the guinea-pigs.’
b. Kuyi-buk kh iwa ily a-ška (Quechua)
guinea.pig-B grass not.be.there-SD.3S.SG
‘There turns out to be no grass for the guinea-pigs.’
c. No hay hierba para los cuyes (Spanish)
not there.is grass for the guinea.pigs
‘There is no grass for the guinea-pigs.’
Note that the Quechua word kuyi ‘guinea-pig’ appears in the local Spanish as well. The
Media Lengua verb maintains the Quechua-specific sudden discovery tense marking
-ška. The Quechua negative existential verb stem il y a- has been relexified with a newly
formed ‘frozen’ stem nuwabi-, derived from Spanish no and haber ‘have’. The Spanish
verb ‘have’ has an impersonal form hay which also has existential meaning. These
examples illustrate that:
(a) Media Lengua is essentially the product of replacing the phonological
shapes of Quechua stems with Spanish forms, maintaining the rest of the
Quechua structure;
(b) The Spanish forms chosen have undergone regularisation and adaptation
to Quechua morphophonology.
(c) Media Lengua is conservative in sometimes reflecting earlier stages in
Quechua pronunciation.
(d) It is not made up on the spot every time it is spoken.
(e) The occurrence of Spanish strong alternants such as unu in stead of un,
and of frozen composites such as nuwabi- is an indication that we do not
have a simple process of vocabulary replacement here.
The Amazon Spanish pidgin, although clearly showing non-Spanish (possibly Shuar)
features, is more the result of simplification than of relexification. There were and are
Spanish pidgins spoken in the western Amazon basin, and also by the Cayapa on the
Pacific coast in northern Ecuador. Simson (1886) in a travel account and Gnerre (1975)
have provided some data on varieties of this pidgin. Sample sentences are:
(31) Ese canoa andando Consacunti cuando será llegando ese

Tonantins tiene?
that canoe going (to) Consacunti when will.be arriving that Tonantins
has.got
(roughly) ‘This canoe going along to the Consacunti when will it be
reaching the Tonantins?’
(32) Ese Consacunti, Carapaná llegando, más.lejos será tiene ese
Carapaná, Tonantins llegando?
that Consacunti Carapaná arriving farther will.be has.got that Carapaná
Tonantins arriving
(roughly) ‘Arriving in Consacunti and Carapaná, will it be further from
Carapaná to Tonantins?’
(33) Tuyo no sabiendo leña cortando.
yours not knowing wood cutting
‘You do not know how to cut wood.’
Features that can be identified on the basis of Gnerre’s and Simson’s pidgin data are that
the verb is in the gerundive form and a verb form está meaning ‘to be, to be characterised
by’. In Simson’s data it is not the verb estar that is overgeneralised in its use, but rather
the future of the verb ser, i.e. será lit. ‘he will be’. There is SOV word order, with the
main sentence verb following the subordinate sentence verb (consistent with SOV basic
order). Prepositions tend to be absent. We find the generalised use of Spanish tiene ‘has
got’, probably as an emphatic marker. The Spanish demonstrative pronoun ese ‘that’
is used as definite marker. While in Gnerre’s data the second-person pronoun is vos
‘(informal) you’, Simson has tuyo ‘(intimate) yours’.
7.4 African influences

From the very beginning, the Spanish conquistadores brought African slaves with them
to the Andes. While the black population did not become the dominant one, as in the
Caribbean, Africans were forcibly settled in most Andean countries. This includes not
only Venezuela and Colombia, where their presence and influence is clearest, but also
the coastal regions of Peru and Ecuador, and, for instance, the silver mines of Potosı́ in
Bolivia, at an altitude of over 4,000 metres.
While only one clearly distinct new language emerged out of African slavery in the
area we are concerned with, Palenquero, other varieties of Spanish in different regions
clearly display African traits. Romero (1988) shows that this influence on the Peruvian
Spanish lexicon has been quite extensive.
7.5 Language planning and bilingual education 605
Palenquero is spoken in one village near Cartagena in northern Colombia, San Basilio
del Palenque (Friedemann and Patiño 1983; Megenney 1986). It descends from the
language spoken by the slaves who built the fortifications of Cartagena during the late
sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and a group of whom escaped in 1603. Isolation
has helped maintain the language, but now all remaining speakers are bilingual. Indeed,
many utterances contain Spanish elements (given in capitals in the fragment presented
here; Bickerton and Escalante 1970):
(34) no. maı́lo mi kelé nu. EL NO ME kelé mi ası́na. wéno ki i parı́ un

moná TO LOS A . . . anda, panda gaı́na, ke ta kumé to aló
no. husband me want not. he not me want me like that. good that I bear a
child all the y . . . go on, scare hen, that is eat all rice
‘No. My husband does not want it. He does not like me like that. It is
good that I bear a child every year. . . . Go on, chase the hen away, it
eats all the rice.’
It is clear that the basic vocabulary derives from Spanish, but there is also an important
Bantu component (Bickerton and Escalante 1970).
In the coastal regions of southern Colombia and northern Ecuador, Nariño and Es-
meraldas, respectively, non-standard Afro-American varieties of Spanish, are spoken.
Lipski (1987) considers these as non-creoles; they are only different from other varieties
of local Spanish in non-core lexicon and pronunciation, and even in the latter have many
features of coastal (Andalucian) Spanish in general. However, the variety spoken by
descendants of slaves of highland Jesuit plantations in the Chota valley, Imbabura and
Carchi provinces in northern Ecuador, does exhibit a few remnants which point to a cre-
ole or partly creolised antecessor. First, -s is often deleted word-finally, but not in other
contexts, while in coastal Spanish it is frequently aspirated or deleted in all contexts.
At the same time, the non-Afro-American surrounding varieties of highland Spanish
exhibit no s-deletion to speak of. Furthermore, there are cases of improper agreement
both in the noun phrase and in the verb phrase. These are characteristic of Quechua–
Spanish bilinguals, as we have seen, but not of monolinguals such as the choteños. From
all this, Lipski (1987) concludes that we must distinguish between traits which Afro-
American Spanish may simply have inherited from coastal Spanish in general, and cases
where there is evidence for antecedent creole varieties, the case in point being the Chota
valley.
7.5 Language planning and policy with respect to the Amerindian

languages and to bilingual education
The various Andean countries differ in the legal status of the native languages, both due
to the ethnic constitution of the different nations and to their political systems and degree
of ethnic mobilisation. Nonetheless, it should be clear that everywhere the Amerindian
languages are oppressed, to use Albó’s term (1977). In spite of the secondary role that
some Amerindian language may play, the dominant role is reserved for Spanish (see
López and Jung 1998 for a useful overview).
It should not be forgotten, and this is stressed again by Jung (1991), that a so-called
‘minority language problem’ is really a problem of the majority, and of the degree to
which this majority is willing to accommodate and respect other languages. Bilingualism
is all too often a one-sided affair, with speakers of a dominated language learning the
dominant one, and not the other way around.
When we talk about bilingual education for native groups in the Andes, two distinc-
tions are quite important. (a) Projects are experimental in status, and cease when the
evaluation has been completed or when the funding has dried up. Programmes are more
permanent, and reflect the commitment of educational planning authorities towards a
given practice. (b) In transitional models the non-dominant language has an intermediate
role, primarily to help the child adjust to the dominant ‘national’ culture and language,
which are diffused through the schools. Often use of the Amerindian language will be
limited to a few subjects in the first three years or so. In maintenance models the educa-
tional programme is geared towards the stimulation of the non-dominant language and
culture. Use of the Amerindian language will be much more extensive and continues
through the years of schooling.
This requires both more widespread literacy in the Amerindian languages and the
development of these languages as written languages (López and Jung 1987, 1998).
Hornberger (1988, 1989) discusses the complex role of education, even if conducted in
the native language, in Amerindian communities.
We will return to some general issues after surveying the situation in the different
Andean countries.
Venezuela. In Venezuela roughly 1 per cent of the population speaks an Amerindian
language. Spanish is the only official language, but since 1979 there is legislation that
supports bilingual education programmes (von Gleich 1989a: 357–63; Toledo 1989). The
official policy is towards transitional programmes, stressing linkage to la vida nacional
‘the life of the nation’, but there are initiatives, particularly in the Upper Amazon basin
(Eguillor 1989; Jiménez Turón 1989), for maintenance programmes, with the support
of church groups and tribal organisations (Mosonyi 1972, 1987).
Colombia. As in Venezuela, Spanish is the only official language of Colombia, where
about 2 per cent speaks an Amerindian language (von Gleich 1989a: 215–29).
Legislation dating from 1978 outlines a type of bilingual education geared towards
language maintenance, with strong community input. There are two centres for the
training of Indian teachers. Under the general denominator of etnoeducación there are a
number of programmes, run by Amerindian organisations, in part in collaboration with
church groups. The constitution of 1991 has provided new rights for indigenous groups.
7.5 Language planning and bilingual education 607
Two organisations have been quite active in promoting the further study and documen-
tation of the Colombian Amerindian languages: the Summer Institute of Linguistics and
the CCELA (Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes) at the Universidad
de los Andes (cf. chapter 2).
Ecuador. In Ecuador perhaps as many as a quarter of the population may consider
itself to be Indian, but not all speak an Amerindian language. While Spanish is the official
language, the constitution recognises Quechua and the other Amerindian languages as
part of the culture of the nation. A law dating from 1981 formally acknowledges the need
for bilingual intercultural education in predominantly Indian areas, and it is safe to say
that in Ecuador bilingual education is more advanced than in the other Andean countries.
Educational programmes are functioning in most Indian areas in the country, and there are
four teacher training colleges specialising in bilingual education: two in the lowlands, and
two in the highlands. There is a standardised variety termed quichua unificado ‘unified
Quechua’. King (2000) suggests that tensions emerge between this unified variety and
local varieties, perceived as more authentic. These tensions are probably inherent in
any standardisation effort, but are of particular importance in the fragile situation of the
standardisation of an Amerindian language variety. An important role in the propagation
of a unified Quechua was played by radio stations such as La Voz de los Andes (The
Voice of the Andes).
Peru. In Peru the official language is Spanish, while Quechua and Aymara can also be
used officially, and the other native languages form part of the cultural heritage of the
nation as well, according to article 83 of the constitution (López 1990). Discrimination
on the basis of language is specifically prohibited, and each person has the legal right
to use her or his own language in dealings with the judiciary system. Thus, for a while,
Peru accorded the highest legal status to the Amerindian languages of all of South
America (von Gleich 1989a: 318–55; see Mannheim 1984 for a historical account of the
development of language policies in Peru). Nonetheless, daily life is different for most
of the almost four million speakers of Amerindian languages in Peru. In fact, languages
such as Quechua are rarely used officially, though it is spoken widely, even in migrant
neighbourhoods in urban centres. Myers (1973) is an interesting early study of the use
of Quechua in the barriadas (popular neighbourhoods) of Lima and her results have
been confirmed in later research. Gugenberger (1995) illustrates the mixed feelings that
bilingual migrants to the city of Arequipa have about their native language and Spanish.
Von Gleich (1989b) reports on a study in which attitudes towards Quechua and Spanish
in the Ayacucho area are studied, conjointly with W. Wölck, with ten-year intervals from
1968 onward.
In 1984 legislation was passed which made bilingual education possible, leading to
the ‘progressive Hispanicisation’ of the Indian children. There are three centres for the
training of bilingual teachers: in Iquitos, supported by CAAAP (Centro Amazónico de
Antropologı́a y Aplicación Practı́ca); Puno, founded by the German-funded Proyecto

Experimental de Educación Bilingüe; and Yarinacocha, founded by the Summer In-
stitute of Linguistics. A number of bilingual education projects have been set up. In
Ayacucho there have been Quechua–Spanish activities, with some interruptions, since
1964, directed primarily at the early grades of schooling. In 1983 a project started on
the Rı́o Tambo, directed at the Asháninca. Finally, in Puno a project ran between 1977
and 1988 which was one of the largest in the Andes, in terms of staff, publications, etc.
(cf. section 3.2.12). It has been amply documented; an external evaluation of the project
is presented in Hornberger (1988, 1989).
Bolivia. Even though almost half of the population usually speaks a different lan-
guage in Bolivia (Albó 1980), the only official language is Spanish (von Gleich 1989a:
204–14). An impression of the complex Quechua–Spanish bilingual setting in the
Cochabamba area is given in Albó (1968, 1974), and Albó (1995) provides an ex-
haustive survey, based on census-data, of the multilingual situation in the early 1990s.
Present-day legislation only mentions Amerindian languages with respect to (adult) al-
phabetisation and basic education programmes. Nonetheless, educational planning does
include bilingual programmes as one of its objectives. There are three centres for the
training of bilingual teachers, one focusing on Aymara, one on Quechua and one on
Guaranı́.
Chile. There are large groups of speakers of Amerindian languages, particularly Ma-
puche, but Spanish is the only official language in Chile. Such legislation as there is
specifically referring to native groups focuses on integration in national society. There
are no specific training programmes for bilingual teachers. In the rural education pro-
gramme for the Mapuche area the language itself is not taught (von Gleich, 1989a:
230–4).
Argentina. Argentina has a small but sizeable minority (over 300,000) of speakers
of Amerindian languages. Spanish is the official language. There is legislation that
supports a generally transitional model of bilingual education, but there are no training
programmes for bilingual teachers (von Gleich, 1989a: 198–202). Messineo (1989)
describes a programme training ‘auxiliary’ Toba teachers, in order to set up bilingual
schools.
7.6 Andean languages in the modern world

Nelly Ramos Pizarro (1989: 40) writes in an article on the bilingual competence of
Mapuche secondary school students: ‘In what will Mapudungun be useful for a girl
that will develop her whole life in a huinca (white) context?’ This is the problem in a
nutshell facing bilingual education in the Andes. Schools cannot be thought of as islands
in a society otherwise hostile to native languages and cultural values, and neither can
educational reform replace social and cultural reform.
7.6 Andean languages in the modern world 609
In a number of articles in the journal Pueblos Indı́genas y Educación mathematics

classes in native languages are discussed in great detail. How do we adapt the numerical
systems of the native languages to the requirements of modern mathematics teaching?
How do we develop a new meta-vocabulary in these languages? Some authors struggle
on with the set-theoretical mathematics already abandoned in the western school systems
from which it was imported into the Andes in the 1970s. Ingenious though the solutions
presented are, the question is how the mathematical knowledge inculcated in Shuar or
Aymara will serve an adolescent negotiating in the local Sunday feria (market). A related
issue is how the reading knowledge in the Amerindian languages will be put to use in
primarily oral societies.
An ever larger group of Indian children grows up learning poor Spanish at home,
rather than the Amerindian languages. For this group a transitional model does not
make much sense, since their primary language is the nationally dominant one. Thus
we need to think of different models, perhaps maintenance or recovery models, when
we think of bilingual intercultural education. Some such models have been sketched for
North America, e.g. in Craig (1991) and Watahomigie and Yamamoto (1992).
Talking about Andean languages in the modern world runs the risk of making the
error sketched in the beginning of this book, when we discussed the train image from
Lévi-Strauss’s Race et histoire. Of course, the Andean languages are as much in history
and part of history as the European languages. Chiquito was used by the Bolivian army
as a secret code in the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay. Similarly, Aymara is
being promoted in La Paz as an ideal computer language, due to its highly regular and
transparent agglutinative morphology, by Ivan Gutiérrez.
Still, there can be no doubt that for many Andean languages, to be part of the modern
world simply means not to be there at all. We have listed enough cases of linguistic
decay and threatened ethnic and physical survival in this book to make the grim picture
sketched in Michael Krauss (1992) applicable to South America as well: about 90 per
cent of the languages spoken now may disappear in the next century, and indeed many of
the languages are disappearing at an alarming rate. However, there are some cases where
Amerindian communities have managed to regain sufficient control of their environment
and local autonomy to ensure that their language has at least a chance of surviving.
Appendix
Inventory of languages and language
families of the Andean region
The following list contains an overview of the languages and language families rep-
resented in the Andean region (including the Paraguayan languages and some other
languages not systematically treated in this book). For some languages it also includes
alternative names and names used by ethnolinguistic groups for referring to themselves.
Approximative speaker numbers (s.) are given for languages still in use, but it should
be remarked that many sources do not make a specific distinction between the number
of speakers of a language and the number of members of an ethnic group. For instance,
the Colombian statistics usually refer to the totality of ethnic communities and may be
too high when used as an indication of language retention. By contrast, Peruvian figures
may well be too low because they are based on the results of a census involving ques-
tions on language use, of which the answer depends on the willingness of individuals
to supply the requested information. Most importantly, both the estimates of speaker
numbers and of ethnic group membership may differ widely according to the sources. In
this overview, minimum and maximum estimates (separated by a hyphen) are given in
cases of contradiction. For very specific high estimates, round figures may be given
instead of the original numbers.
Sources that have been consulted for the statistical information are, for Argentina,
Censabella (1999); for Colombia, Arango and Sánchez (1998), in an extract kindly
provided by Jon Landaburu, and the website Etnias de Colombia (http://www.
indigenascolombia.org); for Ecuador, Juncosa (2000); for Paraguay, Meliá (1997); for
Peru, Brack and Yáñez (1997), Pozzi-Escot (1998) and Chirinos Rivera (2001); for
Venezuela, González Ñáñez (2000) and Mosonyi and Mosonyi (2000). For Bolivia,
Ecuador and Peru, we have furthermore used the online information collected by Mily
Crevels for the UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages (http://www.tooyoo.l.
u-tokyo.ac-jp/Redbook/SAmerica). An online source for Chile was the website Lenguas
y Culturas de Chile (http://rehue.csociales.uchile.cl). More specific sources, such as
the online information of the Cabeceras Aid Project (http://www.onr.com/cabeceras),
administrated by Christine Beier and Lev Michael, have been consulted for particular
languages. (Online sources updated for May 2003.)
610
Inventory of Andean languages and language families 611
Aguano: unclassified. Peru (Loreto); extinct.

Andaquı́ or Aguanunga: isolate. Colombia (Caquetá, Huila); reportedly extinct; possibly
related to Páez.
Andoque: isolate. Colombia (Amazonas): 518 s.
Araucanian: language family, two languages.
Huilliche: Chile (Los Lagos); a few thousand speakers.
Mapuche or Mapudungun: Argentina (Buenos Aires, Chubut, La Pampa, Neuquén,
Rı́o Negro), c. 40,000 s.; Chile (Araucanı́a, Biobı́o, Los Lagos), speaker estimates
range from 200,000 to 500,000 s.
Arawá: language family, one language in Perú; more in Brazil.
Culina: Peru (Ucayali): 250–400 s.; more in Brazil.
Arawakan: language family.
Achagua: Colombia (Meta): 280 s.; extinct in Venezuela.
Amuesha or Yanesha : Peru (Huánuco, Junı́n, Pasco): 1,750–7,000 s.
Asháninca (including Ashéninca and Gran Pajonal Campa): Peru (Ayacucho, Cuzco,
Junı́n, Pasco, Ucayali): 30,150–52,000 s.; more in Brazil.
Baniva del Guainı́a: Colombia (Guainı́a): a few; Venezuela (Amazonas): 1,130 s.
Baré: Venezuela (Amazonas): a few; more in Brazil (probably extinct).
Baure: Bolivia (Beni): 13 s. (in ethnic group of 630).
Cabiyarı́: Colombia (Vaupés): 277 s.
Campa Caquinte or Poyenisati: Peru (Cuzco, Junı́n): 230–300 s.
Campa Nomatsiguenga: Peru (Junı́n): 4,000–5,530 s.
Chamicuro: Peru (Loreto): 2 s. (in ethnic group of 126).
Curripaco (includes Baniva del Isana): Colombia (Guainı́a): 7,066 s.; Venezuela
(Amazonas): 2,760–4,000 s.; more in Brazil.
Guajiro or Wayuunaiki: Colombia (Guajira): 144,000 s.; Venezuela (Zulia): 180,000 s.
(cf. Alvarez 1994).
Iñapari: Peru (Madre de Dios): 4 s.
Kugapakori or Pucapacuri or Nanti: Peru (Cuzco, Madre de Dios): 250 s., possibly
more uncontacted (information Cabeceras Aid Project).
Machiguenga: Peru (Cuzco, Madre de Dios): 5,910–8,680 s.
Machineri: Bolivia (Pando): 140 s.; more in Brazil.
Mashco-Piro: Peru (Madre de Dios): limited contact, no data.
Mojo (includes the varieties Ignaciano and Trinitario): Bolivia (Beni): over
10,000 s.
Paraujano or Añun or Añuu: Venezuela (Zulia): 20–30 s.
Paunaca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz): a few.
Piapoco: Colombia (Meta, Guanı́a, Vichada): 4,466 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas):
1,167–3,000 s.
612 Appendix
Piro or Yine: Peru (Cuzco, Loreto, Madre de Dios, Ucayali): 2,150–3,500 s.

Resı́garo: Peru (Loreto): 11 s. in 1971 (in mixed group with Bora and Huitoto).
Tariana: Colombia (Vaupés): ethnic group of 332; more in Brazil; 100 s. in both
countries (Aikhenvald 1999).
Warekena: Venezuela (Amazonas): 400–500 s.; more in Brazil.
Yavitero: Venezuela (Amazonas): 1 s.; similar to Baniva del Guainı́a.
Yucuna: Colombia (Amazonas): 500 s.
Presumably extinct languages belonging to this family:
Amarizana: Colombia (Casanare).
Apolista or Lapachu: Bolivia (La Paz).
Caquetı́o: Venezuela (Apure, Falcón, Lara, Yaracuy); Dutch Antilles (Aruba, Bonaire,
Curaçao).
Chané: Argentina (Salta); Bolivia (Santa Cruz); language shifted to Chiriguano.
Garú or Guarú: Colombia (Amazonas).
Maipure: Colombia (Vichada).
Paiconeca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
Saraveca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
Atacameño or Kunza: isolate. Argentina (Salta); Chile (Antofagasta); possibly also
Bolivia (Potosı́); possible subgroups in Argentina: Apatama, Casavindo,
Churumata, Cochinoca; reportedly extinct.
Aymaran: language family, three languages.
Aymara: Bolivia (Cochabamba, La Paz, Oruro, Potosı́): 1,600,000 s.; Chile (Tarapacá):
16,000 s.; Peru (Moquegua, Puno, Tacna): 466,000 s.
Cauqui: Peru (Lima): 11 s. in larger community.
Jaqaru: Peru (Lima): 725 s.
Bagua or Patagón de Bagua: unclassified. Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca); extinct.
Barbacoan: language family, five languages.
Awa Pit or Cuaiquer: Colombia (Nariño): ethnic group of 13,000; Ecuador (Carchi):
2,000–3,000; percentage of speakers unknown.
Cha palaachi or Chachi or Cayapa or Nigua: Ecuador (Esmeraldas): 7,600 s.
Guambiano: Colombia (Cauca): ethnic group of 20,780, mostly speakers.
Totoró: Colombia (Cauca): 4 s. in community of 3,600.
Tsafiki or Colorado: Ecuador (Pichincha): 2,000 s.
Extinct languages belonging to this family:
Barbacoa: Colombia (Nariño).
Cara: Ecuador (Imbabura, Pichincha); affiliation uncertain.
Coconuco: Colombia (Cauca).
Pasto (including Muellamues): Colombia (Nariño); Ecuador (Carchi).
Sindagua or Malla: Colombia (Nariño).
Betoi: language family. Colombia (Arauca, Casanare); Venezuela (Apure); several ethnic
groups: Airico, Betoi, Ele, Jirara, Lolaca, Situfa, etc.; the languages are extinct.
Bora-Huitoto: language family consisting of two distinct subfamilies.
Boran:
Bora: Colombia (Amazonas): 646 s.; Peru (Loreto): 2,000 s.
Miraña: Colombia (Amazonas): 660 s.
Muinane: Colombia (Amazonas): 547 s.
Huitotoan:
Huitoto (subgroups M-in-ica, Murui, N-ipode): Colombia (Amazonas, Caquetá,
Putumayo): 6,245 s.; Peru (Loreto): 1,133–1,917 s.
Nonuya: Colombia (Amazonas): 2 s.
Ocaina: Colombia (Amazonas): 126 s.; Peru (Loreto): 54–188 s.
Cahuapanan: language family with two surviving languages; possibly related to
Jivaroan.
Chayahuita: Peru (Loreto, San Martı́n): 7,875–13,717 s.
Jebero: Peru (Loreto): 500–2,500 s.; language becoming obsolescent.
Probably extinct language belonging to this group:
Cahuapana: Peru (Loreto).
Canichana: isolate. Bolivia (Beni). 3 semi-speakers in community of 583 (field data
Crevels).
Candoshi: language family with one surviving language.
Candoshi or Murato or Shapra: Peru (Loreto): 1,900–3,000 s.
Chirino: Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca).
Rabona: Ecuador (Zamora-Chinchipe); affiliation uncertain.
Cañar-Puruhá: putative language family; two languages, both extinct.
Cañar: Ecuador (Azuay, Cañar, Chimborazo, El Oro, Loja).
Puruhá: Ecuador (Bolı́var, Chimborazo, Tungurahua).
Cariban: language family.
Carijona or Guaque or Hianacoto or Umaua: Colombia (Amazonas, Guaviare): 30 s.
Japreria: Venezuela (Zulia): number included in Yucpa.
Yukpa or Yuco or Motilones mansos: Colombia (Cesar): 3,529 s.; Venezuela (Zulia):
1,500–3,500 s.
Opón–Carare: Colombia (Santander); probably extinct; maybe two languages.
Patagón: Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca).
Extinct languages which may have belonged to this family:
Muzo–Colima: Colombia (Boyacá, Cundinamarca).
Panche: Colombia (Cundinamarca, Tolima).
614 Appendix
Pijao: Colombia (Tolima); strong Cariban influence, but language probably not
Cariban.
Cayuvava: isolate. Bolivia (Beni): 2 semi-speakers in group of 800 (field data Crevels).
Chacha: unclassified. Peru (Amazonas, possibly also in La Libertad and San Martı́n);
extinct.
Chapacuran: language family; one language in Bolivia.
Moré or Itenez: Bolivia (Beni): 76 s., including 21 active speakers (field data Angenot
de Lima).
Extinct languages that belonged or may have belonged to this family:
Chapacura or Huachi: Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
Herisebocona: Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
Kitemoca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz); possible speakers left.
Napeca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
Rocorona: Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
Charrúan: language family (languages: Chaná, Charrúa, Guenoa or Minuane):
Argentina (Entre Rı́os); Uruguay; all extinct; possibly related to Guaicuruan.
Other extinct ethnic groups of Entre Rı́os and Santa Fe (Argentina) that may
have been associated with this language family: Carcarañá, Colastiné, Corondá,
Mbeguá, Mepene, Quiloazá, Timbú.
Chibchan: language family; more languages in Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua and
Panama.
Barı́ or Dobocubi or Motilones bravos: Colombia (Cesar, Norte de Santander):
3,530 s.; Venezuela (Zulia): 1,500 s.
Chimila or Ette taara: Colombia (Magdalena): 900 s.
Cuna or Tule: Colombia (Antioquia, Chocó): 1,166 s.; more in Panama.
Damana or Arsario or Guamaca or Malayo or Marocasero or Sanjá or Wiwa:
Colombia (Cesar): 1,850 s.
Ika or Arhuaco or Bı́ntukua: Colombia (Cesar, Magdalena): 14,300 s.
Kogui or Kággaba: Colombia (Magdalena): 9,765 s.
Uw Cuwa or Tunebo: Colombia (Arauca, Boyacá, Norte de Santander, Santander):
7,000 s.; Venezuela (Apure): some.
Catı́o Chibcha: Colombia (Antioquia).
Duit: Colombia (Boyacá).
Kankuı́ or Kankuamo or Atánquez: Colombia (Cesar).
Muisca: Colombia (Cundinamarca, Distrito Capital).
Nutabe: Colombia (Antioquia).
Chiquitano or Bes-iro: isolate. Bolivia (Santa Cruz): 5,855 s. in ethnic group of c. 47,000;
varieties: Churapa, Sansimoniano, Tao.
Chocoan: language family; two languages.

Emberá or Catı́o or Chamı́ or Saija: Colombia (Antioquia, Caldas, Cauca, Chocó,
Córdoba, Risaralda): 71,400 s.; Ecuador: 60 s.; more in Panama.
Waunana or Wounaan or Noanama: Colombia (Chocó, Valle del Cauca): 7,960 s.
Chon: language family with one surviving language.
Tehuelche or Aonek’enk: Argentina (Santa Cruz): 4 s.
Gününa Yajich or Puelche: Argentina (Chubut, Rı́o Negro).
Haush: Argentina (Tierra del Fuego).
Selk nam or Ona: Argentina (Tierra del Fuego); Chile (Magallanes).
Tehues or Teushen: Argentina (Chubut, Santa Cruz).
Extinct language that possibly belonged to this family:
Querandı́: Argentina (Buenos Aires, La Pampa).
Other language names associated with this group: Chechehet, Divihet, Het, Hongote,
Taluhet, etc.
Chono: unclassified. Chile (Aisén); extinct; affiliation with Kawesqar suggested.
Cofán or A’ingaé: isolate. Ecuador (Sucumbı́os): 800 s.; Colombia (Nariño, Putumayo):
1,457 s.
Comechingón: unclassified. Argentina (Córdoba); extinct; possibly a cluster of lan-
guages, rather than a single one; subgroups: Camiare, Henia; affiliation with
Huarpean suggested.
Copallén: unclassified. Peru (Amazonas); extinct.
Cueva: unclassified language of eastern Panama; extinct.
Culli: unclassified. Peru (Ancash, Cajamarca, La Libertad); presumably extinct.
Diaguita or Kakán: unclassified language or language family. Argentina (Catamarca, La
Rioja, Salta, Santiago del Estero, Tucumán); Chile (Atacama, Coquimbo). Many
subgroups (Calchaquı́, Capayán, Hualfı́n, Pular, Quilme, Tolombón, Yacampis,
etc.); extinct; extent of internal diversification unknown.
Esmeraldeño or Atacame: isolate. Ecuador (Esmeraldas); extinct.
Guahiboan: language family, four languages.
Cuiba: Colombia (Arauca): 2,275 s.; some in Venezuela (Apure).
Guayabero: Colombia (Meta, Guaviare): 1,060 s.
Hitnü or Macaguane: Colombia (Arauca): 542 s.
Sikuani or Guahibo or Hiwi (includes Amorúa, Chiricoa, Masiguare and Tsiripu):
Colombia. (Arauca, Casanare, Guainı́a, Meta, Vichada): 21,410 s.; Venezuela
(Amazonas, Apure): 9,220 s.
Guaicuruan: language family, three languages (and one in Brazil: Kadiwéu).
Mocovı́: Argentina (Chaco, Santa Fe): 3,000–5,000 s.
Pilagá: Argentina (Formosa): 2,000–5,000 s.
616 Appendix
Toba: Argentina (Chaco, Formosa, Salta, Santa Fe) 36,000–60,000 s.; Paraguay (Pres-
idente Hayes, San Pedro): 755 s. (Emok–Toba or Toba Qom).
Abipón: Argentina (Chaco, Corrientes, Santa Fe).
Mbayá: Argentina (Chaco).
Payaguá: Paraguay (on the Paraguay river).
Guamo: language family. Venezuela (Apure, Barinas, Guárico, Portuguesa); all extinct.
Harakmbut or Hate: Language with some internal variety, located in Peru (Cuzco, Madre
de Dios): 800–1,600 s.; several subgroups: Amarakaeri, Arasairi, Huachipairi,
Kisamberi, Pukieri, Sapiteri, Toy(o)eri or Tuyuneiri; it has been linked to the
Katukinan family in Brazil (Adelaar 2000); further connections with Macro-Ge
and Tupi possible.
Hibito-Cholón: language family, two languages both probably extinct; the name
‘Cholona’, from Spanish la lengua cholona (Loukotka 1968), is in error.
Cholón or Seeptsá: Peru (San Martı́n).
Hibito: Peru (San Martin).
Huancavilca: unclassified. Ecuador (Guayas); extinct; it may have included the language
of the island Puná.
Huarpean: language family; all extinct.
Allentiac: Argentina (San Juan, San Luis).
Millcayac: Argentina (Mendoza).
Huaorani or Huao or Auca or Auishiri or Sabela: isolate. Ecuador (Napo, Pastaza):
1,200 s.
Humahuaca: unclassified language or language family. Argentina (Jujuy); all extinct;
subgroups: Fiscara, Humahuaca, Jujuy, Ocloya, Osa, Purmamarca, Tiliar; pos-
sible overlap with Atacameño influence sphere.
Itonama: isolate. Bolivia (Beni): less than 10 aged speakers in an ethnic group of 5,000
(field data Crevels).
Jirajaran: language family; all extinct.
Ayamán or Ayomán: Venezuela (Lara).
Gayón: Venezuela (Lara).
Jirajara: Venezuela (Lara).
Jivaroan: Language family, four languages.
Aguaruna or Awahun or Aents: Peru (Amazonas, Cajamarca, San Martı́n): 34,000–
45,000 s.
Achuar (including Shiwyar) or Aents: Ecuador (Zamora-Chinchipe): 4,000 s.; Peru
(Loreto): 2,800–4,700 s.
Huambisa: Peru (Amazonas, Loreto): 4,000–8,000 s.
Shuar: Ecuador (Zamora–Chinchipe, Morona-Santiago): 35,000 s.; Peru (Loreto): a

few.
Extinct languages associated with this family:
Malacato: Ecuador (Loja).
Palta: Ecuador (Loja).
Xoroca: Ecuador (Zamora–Chinchipe).
Kamsá or Sibundoy or Coche: isolate. Colombia (Putumayo): 4,022 s.
Kawesqar or Alacaluf or Aksanás: isolate. Chile (Magallanes): less than 20 s.
Leco or Rik’a or Buruwa: isolate. Bolivia (La Paz): c. 50 speakers living in dispersed
locations (field data van de Kerke).
Lengua–Mascoy: language family, five closely related languages.
Angaité: Paraguay (Boquerón, Concepción, Presidente Hayes): 971 s.
Guaná: Paraguay (Concepción, Presidente Hayes): 24 s.
Lengua (or Enxet): Paraguay (Boquerón, Presidente Hayes): 9,387 s.
Sanapaná: Paraguay (Presidente Hayes): 789 s.
Toba Mascoy: Paraguay (Alto Paraguay, Boquerón, Concepción, Presidente Hayes):
1,312 s.
Lule–Vilela: language family with one surviving language.
Vilela: Argentina (Chaco, Santa Fe): possibly a few speakers left; community merged
with Mocovı́ and Toba.
Lule: Argentina (Salta, Santiago del Estero, Tucumán).
Tonocoté: Argentina (Santiago del Estero, Tucumán); may be related to Lule, or
independent; no data.
Macú–Puinave: language family, three languages; more in Brazil.
Yuhup–Hupdá: Colombia (Vaupés): 363 s.; more in Brazil.
Kakuá-Nukak (Nukak is Macú del Guaviare): Colombia (Guaviare, Vaupés): 525 s.;
more in Brazil.
Puinave: Colombia (Guainı́a, Vichada): 5,380 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas): 774 s.
Macro-Ge: Widely extended language phylum with a few representatives in the pre-
Andean region.
Bororo family:
Bororo: Bolivia (Santa Cruz): 4 s.; migrants from Brazil; more in Brazil.
Otuque (includes Covareca and Curuminaca): Bolivia (Santa Cruz): extinct.
Ge family (Kaingang subgroup):
Guayana: Argentina (Misiones): extinct.
Ingain: Argentina (Misiones): extinct.
Guató: Isolate. A few in Brazil near the border with Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
618 Appendix
Matacoan: language family, four languages.

Chulupı́ or Ashlushlay or Nivaclé: Argentina: 200–1,200 s.; Paraguay (Boquerón,
Presidente Hayes): 7,780 s.
Chorote or Manjui or Yofuaha: Argentina (Salta): 1,200–2,100 s; Paraguay (Bo-
querón): 208 s.
Maká: Paraguay (Alto Paraná, Asunción, Caaguazú, Central, Concepción, Itapúa,
Presidente Hayes): 990 s.
Mataco or Wichı́ or Weenhayek (varieties: Guisnay, Noctén, Vejoz): Argentina (Chaco,
Formosa, Salta): 35,000–60,000 s.; Bolivia (Tarija): 1,800 s.
Mochica or Muchik or Yunga: isolate. Peru (La Libertad, Lambayeque); presumably
extinct.
Mosetenan: language family, two closely related languages.
Chimane or Tsimane: Bolivia (Beni): 4,000–8,000 s. (Sakel 2003).
Mosetén: Bolivia (La Paz): 750–800 s. (Sakel 2003).
Movima: isolate. Bolivia (Beni): 1452 s.
Munichi or Otanabe: isolate. Peru (Loreto): 3 s. (in 1988).
Omurana or Mayna: isolate. Peru (Loreto): extinct.
Otomaco or Taparita: language family. Venezuela (Apure): extinct.
Páez or Nasa Yuwe: isolate (with variety Paniquitá). Colombia (Cauca, Huila): at least
40,000 s. within ethnic group of 119,000.
Pano–Tacana: language family consisting of two distinct branches.
Panoan:
Amahuaca: Peru (Madre de Dios, Ucayali): 247 s.; more in Brazil.
Capanahua: Peru (Loreto): 120 to 267 s.
Cashibo–Cacataibo or Uni: Peru (Huánuco, Ucayali): 1,500–1,800 s.
Cashinahua or Junikuin: Peru (Ucayali): 900–1,000 s.; more in Brazil.
Chácobo or No iria: Bolivia (Beni): 550 s.
Isconahua: Peru (Ucayali): 50 s.
Marubo: Peru (Loreto); now only in Brazil.
Mayo–Pisabo: Peru (Loreto): 100 s.
Mayoruna–Matsés: Peru (Loreto): 1,177–2,500 s.; more in Brazil.
Nahua or Yora or Parquenahua: Peru (Cuzco, Madre de Dios, Ucayali): c. 170 s.;
uncontacted groups associated with the Nahua: Chandinahua (300), Chiton-
ahua (50), Maxonahua or Cujareño (100), Morunahua (100); closely related to
Yaminahua.
Pacaguara: Bolivia (Beni): 9–18 s.
Sharanahua or Onicoin: Peru (Ucayali): 450–500 s.; associated groups: Marinahua
(50–150), Mastanahua (150); more in Brazil.
Shipibo–Conibo (includes extinct Shetebo): Peru (Loreto, Ucayali): 16,000–

27,000 s.
Yaminahua: Bolivia (Pando): 137 s.; Peru (Ucayali): 380–1000 s.; more in Brazil.
Extinct languages belonging to this subfamily:
Arazaire: Peru (Cuzco); the name seems to coincide with Arasairi, one of the
neighbouring Harakmbut groups.
Atsahuaca or Chaspa: Peru (Madre de Dios).
Nocamán: Peru (Ucayali).
Pánobo or Huariapana: Peru (Loreto).
Remo: Peru (Loreto); also in Brazil (Amazonas).
Sensi: Peru (Loreto).
Yamiaca or Haãuñeiri: Peru (Madre de Dios).
Tacanan:
Araona: Bolivia (La Paz): 81 s.
Cavineña: Bolivia (Beni, Pando): 1,180 s.
Eseejja or Chama or Huarayo: Bolivia (Beni, La Paz, Pando): 225 s.; Peru (Madre
de Dios): 500–600 s.
Reyesano: Bolivia (Beni): possibly a few elderly speakers within ethnic group of
4,000.
Tacana: Bolivia (La Paz): 1,820 s.
Toromona: Bolivia (La Paz): 25–200 s.
Panzaleo: unclassified. Ecuador (Cotopaxi, Pichincha, Tungurahua): extinct.
Puquinan: language family with only one surviving member.
Callahuaya: Boliva (La Paz); professional language predominantly based on Puquinan
lexicon, only used as a second language; a few users.
Extinct language:
Puquina: Bolivia (La Paz); Peru (Arequipa, Cuzco, Moquegua, Puno, Tacna); Coli
may have been the name of the coastal variety of Puquina formerly spoken in
Moquegua and Tacna.
Quechuan: language family with an undetermined number of local varieties usually
referred to as dialects.
Quechua I: Peru (Ancash, Huancavelica, Ica, Huánuco, Junı́n, La Libertad, Lima,
Pasco): 750,000 s.
Quechua II: Argentina (Jujuy, Santiago del Estero; formerly also Catamarca
and La Rioja): 70,000–130,000 s.; Bolivia (Cochabamba, La Paz, Oruro,
Potosı́, Santa Cruz, Sucre, Tarija): 2,400,000 s.; Chile (Antofagasta): a few;
Colombia (Caquetá, Nariño, Putumayo; formerly also Cauca and Huila):
17,855 s.; Ecuador (Azuay, Bolı́var, Cañar, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi, Imbabura,
620 Appendix
Loja, Morona–Santiago, Napo, Pastaza, Pichincha, Sucumbı́os, Tungurahua):

1,400,000–2,000,000 s.; Peru (Amazonas, Apurimac, Arequipa, Ayacucho,
Cajamarca, Cuzco, Huancavelica, Lambayeque, Lima, Loreto, Madre de Dios,
Moquegua, Piura, Puno, San Martı́n): 2,675,000 s.
Quingnam: unclassified. Peru (Ancash, La Libertad): extinct; possibly identical with the
Lengua (Yunga) Pescadora mentioned in colonial documents.
Sacata: unclassified. Peru (Cajamarca): extinct.
Saliban: language family, two languages.
Piaroa or Dearuwa or Wothüha: Colombia (Vichada): 800 s.; Venezuela (Amazonas):
9,000–11,000 s.
Sáliba: Colombia (Arauca, Casanare): 1,300 s.
Sanavirón: unclassified. Argentina (Córdoba, Santiago del Estero): extinct.
Sechuran: language family, all extinct.
Olmos: Peru (Lambayeque).
Sechura or Sec: Peru (Piura).
Tabancale or Aconipa: unclassified. Border area of Ecuador (Zamora-Chinchipe) and
Peru (Cajamarca): extinct.
Tallán: language family, all extinct; possibly related to Sechuran.
Catacaos: Peru (Piura).
Colán: Peru (Piura).
Taushiro or Pinche: unclassified. Peru (Loreto): 7 s. in 1975; possibly related to Zaparoan.
Tekiraka or Abishira or Auishiri (with variety: Vacacocha): isolate. Peru (Loreto): pre-
sumably extinct.
Ticuna or Tucuna: isolate. Colombia (Amazonas): 6,585 s.; Peru (Loreto): 1,787 s.; more
in Brazil (c. 32,000 s.).
Timote–Cuica: language family or isolate with internal variation. Venezuela (Mérida,
Trujillo); presumably extinct, but possible language survival in Mutús (Mérida)
to be verified.
Tiniguan: language family with one surviving language.
Tinigua: Colombia (Meta): 2 s.
Extinct languages belonging to this group:
Majigua: Colombia (Meta).
Pamigua: Colombia (Meta).
Tucanoan: language family.
Angutero: Peru (Loreto): 100 speakers, mixed with the Secoya (Wheeler 2000).
Bará or Waimajã: Colombia (Vaupés): 96 s.
Barasana (including Taiwano or Eduria): Colombia (Vaupés): 1,910 s.; more in Brazil.
Carapana: Colombia (Vaupés): 412 s.; more in Brazil.
Cubeo: Colombia (Vaupés): 6,035 s.; more in Brazil.
Desano: Colombia (Vaupés): 2,136 s.; more in Brazil.

Koreguaje–Tama: Colombia (Caquetá): 2,100 s.
Macuna or Sara: Colombia (Vaupés): 922 s.; more in Brazil.
Makaguaje: Colombia (Putumayo): 50 s.
Matapı́: Colombia (Amazonas): 200 s.
Orejón or Maijuna or Coto: Peru (Loreto): 288 s.
Piratapuyo: Colombia (Vaupés): 630 s.; more in Brazil.
Pisamira: Colombia (Vaupés): 25 s. (in ethnic group of 54).
Secoya (or Piojé): Ecuador (Sucumbı́os): 350 s.; Peru (Loreto): 678 s.; also known as
Pai Coca in Ecuador.
Siriano: Colombia (Vaupés): 715 s.; more in Brazil.
Siona: Colombia (Putumayo): 700 s.; Ecuador (Sucumbı́os): 250 s.; also known as
Pai Coca in Ecuador.
Tanimuca-Letuama (also Retuarã): Colombia (Amazonas): 1,800 s.
Tatuyo: Colombia (Vaupés): 294 s.
Teteté: Ecuador (Sucumbı́os): probably extinct.
Tucano or Yepa Masa: Colombia (Vaupés): 6,837 s.; more in Brazil.
Tuyuca: Colombia (Vaupés): 570 s.; more in Brazil.
Wanano: Colombia (Vaupés): 1,172 s.; more in Brazil.
Ya(h)una: Colombia (Amazonas): 95 s.
Yurutı́: Colombia (Vaupés): 610 s.; more in Brazil.
Presumably extinct groups (no recent data):
Coretú or Curetú: Colombia (Amazonas).
Icaguate: Colombia (Putumayo).
Encabellado: Peru (Loreto).
Yupua or Sokó or Uri or Durinã: Colombia (Amazonas); cf. Landaburu (1996a).
Tupi: widely extended language stock, represented in the area by one family; Tupi is
possibly related to Cariban and to Macro-Ge (Rodrigues 2000).
Tupi–Guaranı́:
Aché or Guayakı́: Paraguay (Alto Paraná, Caaguazú, Caazapá, Canindeyú): 538 s.
Chiriguano or Ava or Guaranı́ Boliviano: Argentina (Salta): 15,000 to 20,000 s.;
Bolivia (Santa Cruz, Sucre, Tarija): 33,670 s. (a local variety in Bolivia is called
Izoceño); Paraguay (Boquerón): 24 s. (the local variety is called Guarayo).
Chiripá or Avá-Guaranı́: Paraguay (Alto Paraná, Amambay, Caaguazú, Canindeyú,
Concepción, San Pedro): 1,930 s.; more in Brazil (Nhandeva).
Cocama-Cocamilla: Peru (Loreto): 11,000 to 18,000 in ethnic group; language
becoming obsolete; some in Brazil.
Guaranı́ Correntino or Goyano: Argentina (Corrientes, Formosa, Misiones, Santa
Fe): 100,000–500,000 s.
622 Appendix
Guaranı́ or Paraguayan Guaranı́: Paraguay: c. 4,648,000; more in Brazil.

Guarayo: Bolivia (Santa Cruz): 5,933–10,029 s.
Guarasugwé or Pauserna: Bolivia (Beni, Santa Cruz): 4 s. in 1974; probably extinct;
may be extinct in Brazil as well.
Jorá: Bolivia (Beni): 5 s. in 1974; possibly extinct.
Mbyá: Argentina (Misiones): 2,500–3,500 s.; Paraguay (Alto Paraná, Caaguazú,
Caazapá, Canindeyú, Guairá, Itapúa, Misiones, San Pedro): 2,435 s.; more in
Brazil.
Omagua: Peru (Loreto): ethnic group of c. 600; language nearly extinct; more in
Brazil (Cambeba).
Paı̃ Tavyterã: Paraguay (Amambay, Canindeyú, Concepción, San Pedro): 500 s.
Sirionó or Mbia: Bolivia (Beni, Santa Cruz): 400 s.
Tapieté: Bolivia (Tarija): 70 s.; Paraguay (Boquerón): 123 s.; Argentina (Salta):
384 s.
Yeral (from Portuguese lı́ngua geral ) or Ñengatú: Venezuela (Amazonas): 730–
2,000 s.; more in Brazil; some in Colombia (Guainı́a, Vaupés).
Yuqui or Bia: Bolivia (Cochabamba): 125 s.
Urarina or Kacha or Simacu or Itucale: isolate. Peru (Loreto): 564–3,000 s.
Uru–Chipaya: language family with two surviving languages; historical varieties com-
monly referred to as Uruquilla.
Chipaya: Bolivia (Oruro): 1,000 s.
Uchumataqu or Uru of Iru-Itu: Bolivia (La Paz): 2 s.
Murato: Bolivia (Oruro); no data.
Uru of Ch’imu: Peru (Puno).
Yaguan: language family with one surviving language.
Yagua or Yihamwo: Colombia (Amazonas): 294 s.; Peru (Loreto): 760–4,000 s; some
in Brazil.
Peba: Peru (Loreto).
Yameo: Peru (Loreto).
Yahgan or Yamana: isolate. Chile (Magallanes): 2 s.
Yaruro or Pumé: isolate. Venezuela (Apure): 5,000 s.
Yuracaré: isolate. Bolivia (Cochabamba): 2,675 s.
Yurı́: unclassified. Colombia (Amazonas): 200 s.
Yurumanguı́: isolate. Colombia (Cauca, Valle del Cauca): extinct.
Zamucoan: language family, two languages.
Ayoreo or Moro: Bolivia (Santa Cruz): 771 s.; Paraguay (Alto Paraguay, Boquerón):
815 s.
Chamacoco: Paraguay (Central, Boquerón): 1,187 s.

Extinct languages belonging to this family (possibly Ayoreo dialects):
Guarañoca: Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
Zamuco: Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
Zaparoan: language family (information Cabeceras Aid Project).
Andoa or Shimigae: Peru (Loreto): 5 s. in 1975; reportedly extinct.
Arabela: Peru (Loreto): 30–40 s. to 100 s.
Cahuarano: Peru (Loreto): 5 s. in 1976; reportedly extinct.
Iquito: Peru (Loreto): 22–26 s., 15–20 semi-speakers.
Záparo or Kayapi: Ecuador: 1–4 s.
Extinct languages: Gae, Coronado, Oa, etc. (Ecuador).
Languages which cannot be classified for absence of data:
Arma-Pozo: Colombia (Caldas, Risaralda).

Atunceta: Colombia (Cauca, Valle del Cauca).
Anserma (incl. Caramanta, Cartama): Colombia (Antioquia, Risaralda).
Bolona: Ecuador (Loja, Zamora–Chinchipe).
Campaces: Ecuador (Manabı́, Los Rı́os, Pichincha).
Canelo: Ecuador (Pastaza).
Carabayo: Colombia (Amazonas); uncontacted group.
Chancos: Colombia (Chocó, Valle del Cauca).
Chango: Chile (Antofagasta, Tarapacá).
Chitarero: Colombia (Norte de Santander).
Chono: Ecuador (Guayas, Los Rı́os).
Ciaman: Colombia (Cauca, Valle del Cauca).
Colima: Ecuador (Guayas?).
Gorgotoqui: Bolivia (Santa Cruz).
Guaca and Nori: Colombia (Antioquia, Córdoba).
Guane: Colombia (Santander).
Guanaca: Colombia (Cauca, Huila).
Hacaritama: Colombia (Norte de Santander).
Idabaez: Colombia (Chocó).
Jamundı́: Colombia (Valle del Cauca).
Jitirijiti: Colombia (Valle del Cauca).
Irra: Colombia (Caldas, Risaralda).
Lache: Colombia (Boyacá, Santander)
Lili: Colombia (Valle del Cauca).
Malaba: Ecuador (Esmeraldas).
624 Appendix
Malibú: Colombia (Atlántico, Bolivar, Magdalena).

Manta: Ecuador (Manabı́); possibly a cluster of languages.
Mocana: Colombia (Atlántico, Bolı́var).
Morcote: Colombia (Boyacá).
Pacabuey: Colombia (Bolı́var, Cesar, Magdalena).
Panatagua: Peru (Huánuco).
Pantágora: Colombia (Caldas).
Pehuenche: Argentina (Neuquén).
Pubenza: Colombia (Valle del Cauca).
Quijo: Ecuador (Napo).
Quimbaya: Colombia (Caldas, Quindı́o, Risaralda).
Quindı́o: Colombia (Quindı́o).
Sinú or Zenú: Colombia (Córdoba, Sucre); subgroups Fincenú, Pancenú, Sinufana.
Sutagao: Colombia (Cundinamarca, Meta)
Tegua: Colombia (Boyacá, Casanare).
Timaná: Colombia (Huila).
Yalcón: Colombia (Huila).
Yamesı́: Colombia (Antioquia).
Yarı́: Colombia (Caquetá); uncontacted group.
Yariguı́ or Yarigüı́: Colombia (Santander).
Yumbo: Ecuador (Pichincha).
REFERENCES
Academia Mayor de la Lengua Quechua (1995) Diccionario Quechua–Español–Quechua/

Qheswa–Español–Qheswa Simi Taqe. Cuzco: Editorial Mercantil.
Acosta, José de (1954 [1590]) Historia natural y moral de las Indias. In: Francisco Mateos (ed.),
Obras del P. José de Acosta. Biblioteca de autores españoles 73, pp. 1–247. Madrid: Atlas
(1987 edition by José Alcina Franch, Madrid: Historia 16).
Acosta Ortegón, Joaquı́n (1938) El idioma chibcha aborigen de Cundinamarca. Bogotá: Imprenta
del Departamento.
Acosta Saignes, Miguel (1983) Estudios de etnologı́a antigua de Venezuela (1st edition 1953).
Havana: Casa de las Américas.
Adam, Lucien (1878) De la langue chibcha. In: Etudes sur six langues américaines: dakota,
chibcha, nahuatl, kechua, quiche, maya, pp. 29–63. Paris: Maisonneuve.
(1885) Grammaire de la langue jâgane. Paris: Maisonneuve.
(1893) Principes et dictionnaire de la langue Yuracaré ou Yurujuré composés par le R.P. de la
Cueva et publiés conformément au manuscrit de A. d’Orbigny. Bibliothèque linguistique
américaine 16. Paris: Maisonneuve.
Adam, Lucien and Victor Henry (1880) Arte y vocabulario de la lengua chiquita con algunos
textos traducidos y explicados compuestos sobre manuscritos inéditos del XVIII siglo.
Bibliothèque linguistique américaine 6. Paris: Maisonneuve.
Adelaar, Willem F. H. (1977) Tarma Quechua: Grammar, Texts, Dictionary. Lisse: Peter de
Ridder Press (distributed by E. J. Brill, Leiden).
(1982) Léxico del quechua de Pacaraos. Documento 45. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos, Centro de Investigación de Lingüı́stica Aplicada.
(1984) Grammatical vowel length and the classification of Quechua dialects. International
Journal of American Linguistics 50, 1, pp. 25–47.
(1986a) Morfologı́a del quechua de Pacaraos. Documento 53. Lima: Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigación de Lingüı́stica Aplicada (also published in
1987 by Facultad de Letras y Ciencias Humanas, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos, Lima).
(1986b) La relación quechua-aru: perspectivas para la separación del léxico. Revista Andina 4,
2, pp. 379–426 (continued in 1987 in Revista Andina 5, 1, pp. 83–91). Cuzco: Centro
Bartolomé de Las Casas.
(1987) Aymarismos en el quechua de Puno. Indiana 11, pp. 223–31. Ibero-amerikanisches
Institut Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.
(1988) Search for the Culli language. In: Maarten Jansen, Peter van der Loo and Roswitha
Manning (eds.) Continuity and Identity in Native America. Essays to Honor Benedikt
Hartmann, pp. 111–31. Leiden, New York, Copenhagen, Cologne: E. J. Brill (published in
625
626 References
Spanish as ‘En pos de la lengua culle’ in: Cerrón-Palomino and Solı́s Fonseca (1990),
pp. 83–105).
(1989) Review of Joseph H. Greenberg Language in the Americas (1987). Lingua 78,
pp. 249–55. Amsterdam.
(1991) The endangered languages problem: South America. In: Robert H. Robins and
Eugenius M. Uhlenbeck (eds.), Endangered Languages, pp. 45–91. Collection Diogène.
Oxford and New York: Berg Publishers.
(1994) ¿Hasta donde llega la inflexión? Criterios para una clasificación interna de los sufijos
verbales en quechua de Tarma/Norte de Junı́n. In: Calvo Pérez (1994), pp. 65–83.
(1995a) Les catégories verbales ‘conjugaison’et ‘genre’ dans les grammaires de la langue
chibcha. In: Troiani (1995), pp. 173–82.
(1995b) Raı́ces lingüı́sticas del quichua de Santiago del Estero. In: Fernández Garay and
Viegas Barros (1995), pp. 25–50.
(1996) La nasal velar en el aymara y en el jaqaru. Opción 12, 19, pp. 5–19. Maracaibo:
Universidad del Zulia.
(1999) Unprotected languages: the silent death of the languages of northern Peru. In: Anita
Herzfeld and Yolanda Lastra (eds.), Las causas sociales de la desaparición y del
mantenimiento de las lenguas en las naciones de América, pp. 205–22. Hermosillo, Sonora:
Editorial Unison.
(2000) Propuesta de un nuevo vı́nculo genético entre dos grupos lingüı́sticos indı́genas de la
Amazonı́a occidental: Harakmbut y Katukina. In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 2,
pp. 219–36.
Adelaar, Willem F. H. and Jorge Trigoso (1998) Un documento colonial quechua de Cajamarca.
In: Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz et al. (1998), pp. 641–51.
Aguiar, Maria Suelı́ de (1994) Fontes de Pesquisa e Estudo da Famı́lia Pano. Campinas: Editora
da Unicamp.
Aguilar Páez, Rafael (1970) Gramática quechua y vocabularios (adaptation of Antonio Ricardo
1586). Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Aguilera Faúndez, Oscar E. (1978) Léxico Kawésqar-Español, Español-Kawésqar (Alacalufe
septentrional), Boletı́n de Filologı́a 29, pp. 7–149. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile,
Facultad de Filosofı́a y Humanidades, Departamento de Lingüı́stica y Filologı́a.
(1984a) Puerto Edén revisitado. Cuarta Expedición Etnolingüı́stica entre los Alacalufes de la
Patagonia Occidental (en colaboración con Marı́a Eugenia Brito y Hugo Nervi). Trilogı́a 4,
6, pp. 7–12. Santiago de Chile: Instituto Profesional de Santiago.
(1984b) Pronombres kawésqar. Trilogı́a 4, 7, pp. 59–83. Santiago de Chile: Instituto
Profesional de Santiago.
(1988) Review of Clairis (1987). Lenguas Modernas 15, pp. 173–200. Santiago de Chile:
Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Filosofı́a y Humanidades, Departamento de Lenguas
Modernas.
(1997) La expresión del tiempo en kawésqar. Onomázein 2, pp. 269–304. Santiago de Chile:
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
(1999) En torno al orden de las palabras en kawésqar: componentes morfológicos del verbo.
Onomázein 4, pp. 301–20. Santiago de Chile: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile.
Aguiló, Federico (1991) Diccionario kallawaya. La Paz: Museo Nacional de Etnografı́a y
Folklore.
Aguirre Licht, Daniel (1998) Fundamentos morfosintácticos para una gramática emberá.
Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes.
(1999) Emberá. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (1999) Areal diffusion and language contact in the Içana-Vaupés basin,
northwest Amazonia. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999), pp. 384–416.
References 627
(2001a) Areal diffusion, genetic inheritance, and problems of subgrouping: a North Arawak
case study. In: Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal Diffusion and
Genetic Inheritance, pp. 167–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2001b) Dicionário Tariana-Português e Português-Tariana. Boletim do Museu Paraense
Emı́lio Goeldi. Série Antropologia 17, 1. Belém do Pará.
(2002) Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2003) A Grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Albis, Manuel Marı́a (1860–1) The Indians of Andaqui, New Granada. Notes of a Traveller:
published by José Marı́a Vergara y Vergara and Evaristo Delgado, Popayán 1885; translated
from the Spanish by J. S. Thrasher, Esq., for the American Ethnological Society. Bulletin of
the American Ethnological Society, vol. 1, pp. 53–72.
Albó, Xavier (1968) Social Constraints on Cochabamba Quechua. PhD diss. Cornell University,
Ithaca.
(1974) Los mil rostros del quechua. Sociolingüı́stica de Cochabamba. Lima: Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos.
(1977) El futuro de las lenguas oprimidas en los Andes. Documento de Trabajo 33. Lima:
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigación de Lingüı́stica
Aplicada.
(1980) Lengua y sociedad en Bolivia, 1976. La Paz: Instituto Nacional de Estadı́stica.
ed. (1988a) Raı́ces de América: el mundo aymara. Madrid: Alianza Editorial and Unesco.
(1988b) Bilingualism in Bolivia. In: Christina Bratt Paulston (ed.), International Handbook of
Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, pp. 85–108. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
(1989) Introducción. In: Girault (1989), pp. 13–18.
(1995) Bolivia plurilingüe. Guı́a para planificadores y educadores. Cuadernos de investigación
44. 2 vols., maps, appendices. La Paz: Unicef and Centro de Investigación y Promoción del
Campesinado (CIPCA).
Albó, Xavier and Félix Layme (1992) Literatura aymara. Antologı́a. I: Prosa. La Paz: CIPCA,
Hisbol and Jayma.
(1993) Los textos aymaras de Waman Puma. In: Duviols (1993), pp. 13–41.
(forthcoming) Más sobre el aymara de Guaman Poma. To appear in Jean-Philippe Husson (ed.),
Entre tradición e innovación: cinco siglos de literatura amerindia. Actas del simposio
‘Fondo autóctono y aportes indı́genas en las literaturas amerindias – aspectos
metodológicos y filológicos’. 50 Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (Warsaw, July
2000). Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Alderetes, Jorge R. (1994) El quechua de Santiago del Estero. Gramática y vocabulario.
Tucumán: Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. (New edition 2001.)
Alexander-Bakkerus, Astrid (2000) Fray Pedro de la Mata, Arte de la Lengua Cholona (1748).
Una gramática colonial: problemas en su uso. In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 2,
pp. 317–28.
(2002) Nominal morphophonological processes observed in Pedro de la Mata’s ‘Arte de la
Lengua Cholona’ (1748). In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 103–10.
(MS) Pedro de la Mata: Arte de la lengua cholona, 1748. The British Library MS Additional
25, 322 (transcription).
(forthcoming). A grammar of the Cholón language based on the interpretation of the manuscript
of Pedro de la Mata (1748). The British Library Ms. Additional 25, 322. Leiden University.
Allaire, Louis (1999) Archaeology of the Caribbean region. In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999),
part 1, pp. 668–773.
Allin, Trevor R. (1976) A Grammar of Resı́garo, 3 vols. Horsleys Green, High Wycombe, Bucks.:
Summer Institute of Linguistics.
628 References
(1979) Vocabulario resı́garo. Documento de Trabajo 16. Lima: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Alonso, Amado (1953) Examen de la teorı́a indigenista de Rodolfo Lenz. In: Estudios
Lingüı́sticos. Temas Hispanoamericanos 5, pp. 332–98. Madrid: Gredos.
Alonso, Amado and Raimundo Lida, eds. (1940) El Español en Chile. Trabajos de Rodolfo Lenz,
Andrés Bello y Rodolfo Oroz. Biblioteca de Dialectologı́a Hispanoamericana 6. Buenos
Aires: Facultad de Filosofı́a y Letras de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, Instituto de
Filologı́a.
Altieri, Radamés A., ed. (1939) Fernando de la Carrera, Arte de la lengua Yunga (1644).
Tucumán: Universidad de Tucumán, Instituto de Antropologı́a.
Alvar, Manuel (1977) La gramática mosca de Fray Bernardo de Lugo. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y
Cuervo.
(1978) Resurrección de una lengua: introducción a la edición facsimilar de la Gramática
Chibcha del Padre Fray Bernardo de Lugo, editada en 1619. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura
Hispánica and Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperación.
Alvarez, Eudófilo (1983 [c.1915]) Vocabulario shuar-castellano. Ecuador: Mundo Shuar.
Alvarez, José (1985) Aspects of the Phonology of Guajiro. PhD diss. University of Essex.
(1990) Coronalidad vocálica y anterorización de vocales en los prefijos guajiros. Revista
Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnolingüı́sticos 7, pp. 50–61. Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor.
(1993) Antologı́a de textos guajiros interlineales. Maracaibo: Gobernación del Estado Zulia,
Secretarı́a de Cultura.
(1994) Estudios de lingüı́stica guajira. Maracaibo: Gobernación del Estado Zulia, Secretarı́a de
Cultura.
(1996) Construcciones posesivas en guajiro. Opción 12, 19, pp. 21–44. Maracaibo:
Universidad del Zulia.
Alvarez-Brun, Félix (1970) Ancash, una historia regional peruana. Lima: Ediciones Pablo L.
Villanueva.
Alvarez-Santullano Busch, M. Pilar (1992) Variedad interna y deterioro del dialecto huilliche.
Revista de Lingüı́stica Teórica y Aplicada 30, pp. 61–74. Concepción, Chile.
Anchieta, Joseph de (1595) Arte de grammatica da lingua mais usada na costa do Brasil.
Coimbra: Antônio Mariz (1946 edition, São Paulo: Editora Anchieta).
Andagoya, Pascual de (1986 [1545]) Relación y documentos, ed. Adrián Blázquez. Madrid:
Historia 16.
Andrade Ciudad, Luis Florentino (1999) Topónimos de una lengua andina extinta en un listado
de 1943. Lexis 23, 2, pp. 401–25. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú,
Departamento de Humanidades.
Angenot-de Lima, Geralda (2001) Description phonologique, grammaticale et lexicale du moré,
langue amazonienne de Bolivie et du Brésil, 2 vols. Guajará Mirim: Editora da Universidade
Federal de Rondônia.
Animato, Carlo, Paolo A. Rossi and Clara Miccinelli (1989) Quipu. Il nodo parlante dei
misteriosi Incas. Genoa: Edizioni Culturali Internazionali.
Anonymous (1928 [18th century]) Vocabulario Andaqui-Español. In: Catálogo de la Real
Biblioteca, vol. VI: Manuscritos. Lenguas de América, pp. 175–95. Madrid.
Ans, André Marcel d’ (1970) Materiales para el estudio del grupo lingüı́stico pano. Lima:
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos: Plan de Fomento Lingüı́stico.
(1977) Chilueno ou arauco, langue des Changos du nord du Chili (dialecte mapuche
septentrional). Amerindia 2, pp. 135–8. Paris: Société d’Etudes Linguistiques et
Anthropologiques de France.
Apaza Apaza, Ignacio (1999) Los procesos de creación léxica en la lengua aymara. La Paz:
Magenta Industria Gráfica.
(2000) Estudio dialectal del aymara. Caracterización lingüı́stica de la región intersalar de
Uyuni y Coipasa. La Paz: Instituto de Estudios Bolivianos.
References 629
Appel, René and Pieter C. Muysken (1987) Language Contact and Bilingualism. London:
Edward Arnold.
Arango Ochoa, Raúl and Enrique Sánchez Gutiérrez (1998) Los pueblos indı́genas de Colombia
1997: desarrollo y territorio. Bogotá: Tercer Mundo and Departamento Nacional de
Planeación.
Araya, Guillermo et al. (1973) Atlas lingüı́stico-etnográfico del Sur de Chile (ALESUCH) I,
Valdivia: Instituto de Filologı́a de la Universidad Austral de Chile.
Arcila Robledo, Gregorio (1940) Vocabulario de los indios yurumanguı́es. Voz Franciscana, 16,
179, pp. 341–43. Bogotá.
Ardila, Olga (1993) La subfamilia lingüı́stica tucano-oriental: estado actual y perspectivas de
investigación. In: Rodrı́guez de Montes (1993), pp 219–33.
(2000) Fonologı́a del guahibo (o sikuani). In: González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes
(2000), pp. 571–4.
Arnold, Jennifer (1996) The inverse system in Mapudungun and other languages. Revista de
Lingüı́stica Teórica y Aplicada 34, pp. 9–48. Concepción, Chile.
Arriaza, Bernardo T. (1995) Beyond Death: the Chinchorro Mummies of Chile. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Aschmann, Richard P. (1993) Proto Witotoan. SIL Papers in Linguistics 114. Dallas: Summer
Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.
Augusta, Félix José de (1903) Gramática araucana. Valdivia: Imprenta Central J. Lampert.
(1910) Lecturas araucanas. Valdivia: Imprenta de la Prefectura Apostólica (republished in
1991, Temuco: Editorial Kushe).
(1916) Diccionario Araucano–Español Español–Araucano.
(1966) Diccionario araucano. Tomo Primero: Araucano–Español (re-edition of the first part of
Augusta 1916). Padre las Casas (Chile): Imprenta y Editorial ‘San Francisco’.
(1990) Gramática mapuche bilingüe (re-edition of Augusta 1903). Santiago de Chile:
Ediciones Seneca.
(1991) Diccionario Español–Mapuche (re-edition of the second part of Augusta 1916).
Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Seneca.
Bacelar, Laércio Nora (MS 1996) Vocabulário preliminar Português-Kanoê. Goiânia.
Ballón Aguirre, Enrique and Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino (1990) Diglosia linguo-literaria y
educación en el Perú. Homenaje a Alberto Escobar. Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y
Tecnologia (CONCYTEC) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).
Ballón Aguirre, Enrique, Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino and Emilio Chambi Apaza (1992)
Vocabulario razonado de la actividad agraria andina. Terminologı́a agraria quechua.
Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
Balmori, Clemente Hernando (1967) Estudios de área lingüı́stica indı́gena. Buenos Aires:
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofı́a y Letras, Centro de Estudios
Lingüı́sticos.
Barbira, Françoise (1979) Ethnicity and Boundary: Maintenance among Peruvian Forest
Quechua. PhD diss. Cambridge University.
Bastian, Adolf (1878) Die Culturländer des alten America, vol. 1. Berlin.
Bastien, Joseph W. (1978) Mountain of the Condor. Metaphor and Ritual in an Andean Ayllu. St
Paul: West Publishing Company (1985 edition, Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press).
Bausani, Alessandro (1975) Nuovi materiali sulla lingua Chono. In: Cerulli and Della Ragione
(1975), pp. 107–16.
Belleza Castro, Nely (1995) Vocabulario Jacaru–Castellano, Castellano–Jacaru (aimara tupino).
Belleza Castro, Neli, Marco Ferrell Ramı́rez and Felipe Huayhua Pari (MS 1992) Jaqaru
Iskriwitkuna – Jaqi Aru Qillqatanaka – Kachyath Jaqaru Iskriwitkuna – Kachuyatha Jaqi
Aru Qillqatanaka. Lima.
630 References
Bendor-Samuel, John T. (1961) The Verbal Piece in Jebero. Supplement to Word 17. Monograph
no. 4.
Bengoa, José (1985) Historia del pueblo mapuche. Siglo XIX y XX. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones
Sur (6th edition 2000, Santiago de Chile: Editorial Lom).
Benvenutto Murrieta, Pedro Manuel (1936) El lenguaje peruano I. Lima: Talleres de Sanmartı́
y cı́a.
Bertonio, Ludovico (1603a) Arte breve de la lengua aymara para introducción del arte grande de
la misma lengua. Rome: Luis Zanetti.
(1603b) Arte y grammatica muy copiosa de la lengua aymara. Rome: Luis Zanetti (1879
edition by Julius Platzmann, Leipzig: B. G. Teubner).
(1612a) Vocabulario de la lengua aymara. Juli, Chucuito: Francisco del Canto (1984 edition by
Xavier Albó and Félix Layme, Cochabamba: Centro de Estudios de la Realidad Económica
y Social, Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos and Museo Nacional de Etnografı́a y
Folklore).
(1612b) Libro de la vida y milagros de Nuestro Señor Iesu Christo en dos lenguas, aymara y
romance. Juli, Chucuito: Francisco del Canto.
Betanzos, Juan de (1987 [1551]) Suma y narración de los Incas, ed. Marı́a del Carmen Martı́n
Rubio. Madrid: Atlas.
Beuchat, Henri and Paul Rivet (1909) La langue jibaro ou šiwora 1. Anthropos 4, pp. 805–22,
1053–64.
(1910a) La langue jibaro ou šiwora 2. Anthropos 5, pp. 1109–24.
(1910b) Affinités des langues du Sud de la Colombie et du Nord de l’Équateur. Le Muséon, NS
11, pp. 33–68, 141–98. Louvain.
Beyersdorff, Margot and Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz, eds. (1994) Andean Oral Traditions:
Discourse and Literature. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 24. Bonn: Holos.
Bibar, Gerónimo de (1966 [1558]) Crónica y relación copiosa y verdadera de los Reynos de Chile
hecha por Gerónimo de Bibar, natural de Burgos. Santiago de Chile: Fondo Histórico y
Bibliográfico José Toribio Medina; Chicago: Newberry Library (see also Vivar).
Bickerton, Derek and A. Escalante (1970) Palenquero: a Spanish-based creole of northern
Colombia. Lingua 24, pp. 254–67.
Bills, Garland D., Bernardo Vallejo and Rudolph Troike (1969) An Introduction to Spoken
Bolivian Quechua. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bird, Junius (1946) The Alacaluf. In: J. H. Steward (1946a), pp. 55–79.
Bixio, Beatriz (1993) Categorı́as vacı́as en allentiac. Actas de las Primeras Jornadas de
Etnolingüı́stica (Rosario, 16–18 June 1993), vol. 1, pp. 61–71. Rosario: Universidad
Nacional de Rosario.
Bonilla, Vı́ctor Daniel (1972) Servants of God or Masters of Men? The Story of a Capuchin
Mission in Amazonia. London: Pelican Books.
Borman, Marlytte B. (1976) Vocabulario cofán. México: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Bouysse-Cassagne, Thérèse (1975) Pertenencia étnica, status económico y lenguas en Charcas a
fines del siglo XVI. In: Noble David Cook (ed.), Tasa de la visita general de Francisco de
Toledo, pp. 312–28. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Bowman, Isaiah (1924) Desert Trails of Atacama. New York: American Geographical Society
(republished in 1971, New York: AMS Press).
Boyd-Bowman, Peter (1973) Patterns of Spanish emigration to the New World (1493–1580).
Special Studies No. 34. Buffalo: Council on International Studies, State University of New
York at Buffalo.
Brack Egg, Antonio and Carlos Yáñez (1997) Amazonia Peruana. Comunidades indı́genas,
conocimientos y tierras tituladas. Atlas y base de datos. Global Environment Facility,
Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarollo and United Nations Office for Project
Services. Lima.
References 631
Branks, Thomas, and Judith Branks (1973) Fonologı́a del guambiano. In: Sistemas fonológicos de
idiomas colombianos, vol. 2, pp. 39–56. Lomalinda: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano
(Editorial Townsend).
Bravo, Domingo A. (1956) El quichua santiagueño. Reducto idiomático argentino. Tucumán:
Universidad Nacional de Tucumán.
(1993) El quichua santiagueño es el quichua argentino. In: Viegas Barros and Stell (1993),
pp. 35–46.
Bridges, Lucas (1987 [1948]) Uttermost Part of the World. London, Melbourne, Auckland,
Johannesburg: Century Hutchinson.
Bridges, Thomas (1894) A few notes on the structure of Yahgan. The Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 23, pp. 53–80.
(1933 [MS 1879]) Yamana–English: a Dictionary of the Speech of Tierra del Fuego, ed. D.
Hestermann and M. Gusinde. Mödling near Vienna: Verlag der Internationalen Zeitschrift
Anthropos.
Briggs, Janet R. (1973) Ayoré narrative analysis. International Journal of American Linguistics
39, pp. 155–63.
Briggs, Lucy Therina (1976) Dialectal Variation in the Aymara Language of Bolivia and Peru.
PhD diss. University of Florida, Gainesville.
(1988) Estructura del sistema nominal. In: Hardman et al. (1988), pp. 171–264.
(1993) El idioma aymara. Variantes regionales y sociales. La Paz: Ediciones Instituto de
Lengua y Cultura Aymara (ILCA).
Briggs, Lucy Therina and Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz, eds. (1995) Manuela Ari: an Aymara
Woman’s Testimony of her Life. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 25. Bonn: Holos.
Brinton, Daniel Garrison (1891) The American Race: a Linguistic Classification and
Ethnographic Description of the Native Tribes of North and South America. New York:
N. D. C. Hodges.
Brundage, Burr Cartwright (1967) Lords of Cuzco: a History and Description of the Inca People
in their Final Days. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Brüning, Enrique (1922) Estudios monográficos del departamento de Lambayeque. Fascı́culo 2:
Olmos. Chiclayo: Dionisio Mendoza (republished in 1989, Chiclayo: Sociedad de
Investigación de la Ciencia, Cultura y Arte Norteño (SICAN)).
Buchwald, Otto von (1918) Migraciones sudamericanas. Boletı́n de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de
Estudios Históricos Americanos 1, pp. 227–36. Quito.
(1922) Análisis de una gramática atacameña. Boletı́n de la Academia Nacional de Historia 5,
12–14, pp. 292–301. Quito.
Buesa Oliver, Tomás (1965) Indoamericanismos léxicos en español. Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Cientı́ficas.
Büttner, Thomas Th. (1983) Las lenguas de los Andes centrales. Estudios sobre la clasificación
genética, areal y tipológica. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Instituto de
Cooperación Iberoamericana.
(1993) Uso del quichua y del castellano en la sierra ecuatoriana. Quito: Abya-Yala.
Büttner, Thomas Th. and Dionisio Condori Cruz (1984) Diccionario Aymara–Castellano.
Arunakan liwru: Aymara–Kastillanu. Puno: Proyecto Experimental de Educación Bilingüe.
Cabello Valboa, Miguel (1951 [1586]) Miscelánea antártica. Una historia del Perú antiguo.
Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Facultad de Letras, Instituto de
Etnologı́a.
Cabral, Ana Suelly Arruda Câmara (1995) Contact-Induced Language Change in the Western
Amazon: the Non-Genetic Origin of the Kokama Language. PhD diss. University of
Pittsburgh.
(2000) ¿En qué sentido el kokáma no es una lengua tupi-guaranı́? In: Miranda Esquerre (2000),
vol. 2, pp. 237–51.
632 References
Cabrera, Pablo (1917) Datos sobre etnografı́a diaguita: un documento interesante. Revista de la
Universidad Nacional de Córdoba 4, 10, pp. 430–63. Córdoba, Argentina.
Cadogan, León (1952) Ayvu Rapyta, Textos mı́ticos de los mbyá-guaranı́ del Guairá. Boletim
núm. 227, Antropologia 5. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Filosofia,
Ciências e Letras.
(1968) Diccionario Guayakı́–Español. Paris: Société des Américanistes, Musée de l’Homme.
Caillavet, Chantal (1983) Toponimia histórica, arqueologı́a y formas prehispánicas de agricultura
en la región de Otavalo, Ecuador. Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Etudes Andines 12, 3–4,
pp. 1–21. Paris and Lima.
(2000) Etnias del norte. Etnohistoria e historia de Ecuador. Madrid: Casa de Velázquez; Lima:
Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos; Quito: Abya Yala.
Cajas Rojas, Judith (1990) Nasalización en urarina. In: Cerrón-Palomino and Solı́s Fonseca
(1990), pp. 217–25.
Calancha, Antonio de la (1977 [1638]) Crónica moralizada. 6 vols., ed. Ignacio Prado Pastor.
Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Calvache Dueñas, Rocı́o (1989) Fonologı́a e introducción a la morfosintaxis del Awa Pit. MA
thesis Universidad de los Andes, Departamento de Antropologı́a. Bogotá.
(2000) Fonologı́a y aproximación a la morfosintaxis del Awa Pit. In: González de Pérez and
Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000), pp. 97–116.
Calvo Pérez, Julio (1993) Pragmática y gramática del quechua cuzqueño. Cuzco: Centro
ed. (1994) Actas de las II Jornadas Internacionales de Lengua y Cultura Amerindias, Valencia,
24–26 November 1993. Valencia: Universidad de Valencia, Departamento de Teorı́a de los
Lenguajes.
(1998a) Ollantay. Edición crı́tica de la obra anónima quechua. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de
Las Casas.
(1998b) Hipótesis sobre los orı́genes del quechua y el aymara. In: Luis Miranda Esquerre and
Amanda Orellana (eds.), Actas del II Congreso Nacional de Investigaciones
Lingüı́stico-Filológicas, vol. 2, pp. 25–44. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma.
Camacho, José, Liliana Paredes and Liliana Sánchez (1995) The genitive clitic and the genitive
construction in Andean Spanish. Probus 7, pp. 133–47. Berlin.
Camp, Elizabeth L. (1985) Split ergativity in Cavineña. International Journal of American
Linguistics 51, 1, pp. 43–7.
Campbell, Lyle (1973) Distant genetic relationship and the Maya–Chipaya hypothesis.
Anthropological Linguistics 15, 3, pp. 113–35.
(1995) The Quechumaran hypothesis and lessons for distant genetic comparison. Diachronica
12, 2, pp. 157–200.
(1997) American Indian Languages: the Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Campbell, Lyle and Marianne Mithun, eds. (1979) The Languages of Native America: Historical
and Comparative Assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Canals Frau, Salvador (1946) Una encomienda de indios capayanes. Anales del Instituto de
Etnografı́a Americana 7, pp. 197–223. Mendoza: Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Facultad
de Filosofı́a y Letras.
(1953) Las poblaciones indı́genas de la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Sudamericana.
Cárdenas, Vı́ctor Hugo and Xavier Albó (1983) El aymara. In: Pottier (1983), pp. 283–307.
Carpenter, Lawrence K. (1982) Ecuadorian Quechua: Descriptive Sketch and Variation. PhD diss.
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Carrera Daza, Fernando de la (1644) Arte de la lengua yunga (for 1939 edition see Altieri).
References 633
Casamiquela, Rodolfo M. (1983) Nociones de gramática del Gününa Küne. Paris: Editions du
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
(1992) Comments on the texts of J. C. Wolf. Latin American Literatures Journal 8, 2,
pp. 143–51.
Castellanos, Juan de (1944 [1589]) Elegı́as de varones ilustres de Indias. Biblioteca de Autores
Españoles, vol. IV. Madrid: Atlas.
Castro de Trelles, Lucila, ed. (1992) Relación de la religión y ritos del Perú hecha por los padres
agustinos. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Catrileo, Marı́a (1987) Mapudunguyu. Curso de lengua mapuche. Valdivia: Universidad Austral
de Chile.
Catta Quelen, Javier (1994) Gramática del quichua ecuatoriano (3rd edition). Quito: Abya-Yala.
Celedón, Rafael (1878) Gramática, catecismo i vocabulario de la lengua goajira. Bibliothèque
linguistique américaine 5. Paris: Maisonneuve.
(1886) Gramática de la lengua köggaba, con vocabularios y catecismos, y un vocabulario
español, chimila, guamaka y bintukua. Bibliothèque linguistique américaine 10. Paris:
Maisonneuve.
Censabella, Marisa (MS 1996) El toba. Estudio fonológico de las variedades regionales habladas
en las provincias de Chaco y Formosa, Argentina. Report for Consejo Nacional de
Investigaciones Cientı́ficas y Técnicas (CONICET). Buenos Aires.
(1999) Las lenguas indı́genas de la Argentina. Una mirada actual. Buenos Aires: Editorial
Universitaria de Buenos Aires.
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo M. (1967) Fonologı́a del wanka. In: Escobar et al. (1967), pp. 53–80.
(1972) Enseñanza del castellano: deslindes y perspectivas. In: Escobar (1972), pp. 143–67.
(1973a) Retroflexivización y deslateralización en wanka. Documento de Trabajo 8. Lima:
Aplicada.
(1973b) La evolución del fonema */q/ en Yaʔa-Wanka. Documento de Trabajo 15. Lima:
Aplicada.
(1976a) Gramática quechua Junı́n–Huanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educación, Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos.
(1976b) Diccionario quechua Junı́n–Huanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educación, Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos.
(1976c) Calcos sintácticos en el castellano andino. San Marcos 14, 9, pp. 3–10. Lima.
(1977a) Huanca Quechua Dialectology. PhD diss. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
(1977b) Cambios gramaticalmente condicionados en quechua: una desconfirmación de la
teorı́a neogramática del cambio fonético. Lexis 1, 2, pp. 163–86. Lima: Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú, Departamento de Humanidades.
(1979) La primera persona posesora-actora del protoquechua. Lexis 3, 1, pp. 1–39. Lima:
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Departamento de Humanidades.
(1981) Aprender castellano en un contexto plurilingüe. Lexis 5, 1, pp. 39–51. Lima: Pontificia
ed. (1982) Aula quechua. Lima: Ediciones Signo.
(1985) Panorama de la lingüı́stica andina. Revista Andina 3, 2, pp. 509–72. Cuzco: Centro
(1986) Comentario de Willem F. H. Adelaar, La relación quechua-aru: perspectivas para la
separación del léxico. Revista Andina 4, 2, pp. 403–8. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las
Casas.
(1987a) Lingüı́stica quechua. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas. (2nd edition 2003).
634 References
(1987b) Unidad y diferenciación lingüı́stica en el mundo andino. Lexis 11, pp. 71–104. Lima:
Pontificia Universidad Católica.
(1987c) La flexión de persona y número en el protoquechua. Indiana 11, pp. 263–76.
Ibero-amerikanisches Institut Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag (also
published in Language Sciences 9, 1, pp. 77–89).
(1989a) Lengua y sociedad en el valle del Mantaro. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
(1989b) Language policy in Peru: a historical overview. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language 77, pp. 11–33. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(1989c) Quechua y mochica: lenguas en contacto. Lexis 12, 1, pp. 47–68. Lima: Pontificia
(1990) Reconsideración del llamado ‘quechua costeño’. Revista Andina 8, 2, pp. 335–409.
Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas (also published in: Ballón Aguirre and
Cerrón-Palomino (1990), pp. 179–240).
(1993) Quechuı́stica y aimarı́stica: una propuesta terminológica. Signo & Seña 3:
Etnolingüı́stica, pp. 19–53. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de
Filosofı́a y Letras.
(1994a) Quechumara. Estructuras paralelas de las lenguas quechua y aimara. La Paz: Centro
de Investigación y Promoción del Campesinado (CIPCA).
(1994b) Vocales largas en jacaru: Reconsideración. Lexis 18, 1, pp. 69–81. Lima: Pontificia
(1995a) Dialectologı́a del aimara sureño. Revista Andina 13, 1, pp. 103–72. Cuzco: Centro
(1995b) La lengua de Naimlap. Reconstrucción y obsolescencia del mochica. Lima: Fondo
Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
(1998) El cantar de Inca Yupanqui y la lengua secreta de los Incas. Revista Andina 16, 2,
pp. 417–50.
(2000) Lingüı́stica aimara. Lima: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas, Programa de Formación en
Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Paises Andinos (PROEIB Andes).
(MS 2002) Bosquejo estructural del chipaya.
(2003) Castellano andino: aspectos sociolingüı́sticos, pedagógicos y gramaticales. Lima:
Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú and Deutsche Gesellschaft für
technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo M. and Enrique Ballón Aguirre (MS 2003) Vocabulario
Castellano–Chipaya Chipaya–Castellano.
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo M. and Gustavo Solı́s Fonseca, eds. (1990) Temas de lingüı́stica
amerindia (Actas del Primer Congreso Nacional de Investigaciones Lingüı́stico-Filológicas,
Lima, November 1987). Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a (CONCYTEC)
and Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).
Cerulli, Ernesta and Gilda Della Ragione, eds. (1975) Atti del XL Congresso Internazionale degli
Americanisti (Rome-Genoa, 3–12 September 1972), vol. 3: Linguistica – Folklore – Storia
americana – Sociologia. Genoa: Tilgher.
Chamberlain, Alexander Francis (1913) Linguistic stocks of South American Indians (with
distribution map). American Anthropologist 15, pp. 236–47.
Chaparro, Carmelo (1985) Fonologı́a y lexicón del quechua de Chachapoyas. Lima: Sagsa.
Chase-Sardi, Miguel (1972) The present situation of the Indians in Paraguay. In: Dostal (1972),
pp. 173–217.
Chase Smith, Richard (1979) The Multinational Squeeze on the Amuesha People of Central Peru.
IWGIA Document 35. Copenhagen: International Work Group of Indigenous Affairs.
Chatwin, Bruce (1983) In Patagonia. London: Picador.
References 635
Chaumeil, Jean-Pierre (1984) Between Zoo and Slavery: the Yagua of Eastern Peru in their
Present Situation. IWGIA Document 49. Copenhagen: International Work Group of
Indigenous Affairs.
Chaves Mendoza, Alvaro, Jorge Morales Gómez and Horacio Calle Restrepo (1995) Los indios
de Colombia. Quito: Abya-Yala (first published in 1992 by Editorial MAPFRE,
Madrid).
Chirif, Alberto and Carlos Mora (1977) Atlas de comunidades nativas. Lima: Sistema Nacional
de Apoyo a la Movilización Social (SINAMOS).
Chirinos Rivera, Andrés (1998) Las lenguas indı́genas peruanas más allá del 2000. Revista
Andina 16, 2, pp. 453–79. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
(2001) Atlas lingüı́stico del Perú. Cuzco and Lima: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas, Ministerio
de Educación.
Chirinos Rivera, Andrés and Alejo Maque Capira (1996) Eros andino: Alejo Khunku
willawanchik. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
Chomé, Ignace (1958 [1738–45]) see Lussagnet (1958).
Cieza de León, Pedro de (1984 [1553]) Crónica del Perú: primera parte. Lima: Fondo Editorial
de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Claesson, Kenneth (1994) A phonological outline of Mataco/Noctenes. International Journal of
American Linguistics 60, 1, pp. 1–38.
Clair-Vassiliadis, Christos (1976) Esquisse phonologique de l’aymara parlé au Chili. La
linguistique 12, pp. 143–52. Paris.
Clairis, Chistos (1985) Indigenous languages of Tierra del Fuego. In: Klein and Stark (1985a),
pp. 753–83.
(1987) El Qawesqar. Lingüı́stica fueguina, teorı́a y descripción. Estudios Filológicos, Anejo 12
(1985). Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile, Facultad de Filosofı́a y Humanidades.
(1998) Lingüı́stica fueguina 1997. In: Marisa Censabella and José Pedro Viegas Barros (eds.),
Actas de las III Jornadas de Lingüı́stica Aborigen (Buenos Aires, 20–23 May 1997),
pp. 21–44. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofı́a y Letras,
Instituto de Lingüı́stica.
Clastres, Hélène (1975) La terre sans mal. Le prophétisme tupi-guarani. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Cobo, Bernabé (1890–5 [1653]) Historia del Nuevo Mundo, 4 vols., ed. Marcos Jiménez de la
Espada. Sevilla: E. Rasco (1892 edition by Atlas, Madrid).
Cole, Peter (1982) Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Cole, Peter, Wayne Harbert and Gabriella Hermon (1982) Headless relative clauses in Quechua.
International Journal of American Linguistics 48, 2, pp. 113–24.
Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon and Mario Daniel Martı́n, eds. (1994) Language in the Andes.
Newark, Del.: Latin American Studies Program, University of Delaware.
Coña, Pascual (1984) Testimonio de un cacique mapuche. Santiago: Pehuen Editores.
Condori, Bernabé and Rosalind Gow (1982) Kay pacha (2nd edition). Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé
de Las Casas.
Condori Mamani, Gregorio (1977) Autobiografı́a, ed. Ricardo Valderrama Fernández and Carmen
Escalante Gutiérrez. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
Constenla Umaña, Adolfo (1981) Comparative Chibchan Phonology. PhD diss. University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
(1984) Los fonemas del muisca. Estudios de Lingüı́stica Chibcha, vol. 3, pp. 65–111. San José:
Universidad de Costa Rica, Departamento de Lingüı́stica.
(1988) Indicios para la reconstrucción de clasificadores en el sintagma nominal protochibcha
(1). Filologı́a y Lingüı́stica 14, 2, pp. 111–18. San José: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa
Rica.
636 References
(1989) Subagrupación de las lenguas chibchas: algunos nuevos indicios comparativos y

lexicoestadı́sticos. Estudios de Lingüı́stica Chibcha 8, pp. 17–72. San José: Editorial de la
Universidad de Costa Rica.
(1990a) Introducción al estudio de las literaturas tradicionales chibchas. Filologı́a y Lingüı́stica
16, 1, pp. 55–96. San José: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica.
(1990b) Una hipótesis sobre la localización del protochibcha y la dispersión de sus
descendientes. Filologı́a y Lingüı́stica 16, 2, pp. 111–23. San José: Editorial de la
(1991) Las lenguas del Area Intermedia: introducción a su estudio areal. San José: Editorial de
la Universidad de Costa Rica.
(1993) La familia chibcha. In: Rodrı́guez de Montes (1993), pp. 75–125.
Constenla Umaña, Adolfo and Enrique Margery Peña (1991) Elementos de fonologı́a comparada
chocó. Filologı́a y Lingüı́stica 17, 1–2, pp. 137–91. San José: Editorial de la Universidad de
Costa Rica.
Contreras, Constantino and M. Pilar Alvarez-Santullano Busch (1989) Los huilliches y su sistema
verbal (Estudio introductorio). Revista de Lingüı́stica Teórica y Aplicada 27, pp. 39–65.
Concepción, Chile.
Coombs, David, Heidi Coombs and Robert Weber (1976) Gramática quechua San Martı́n. Lima:
Ministerio de Educación, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Cooper, John Montgomery (1917) Analytical and Critical Bibliography of the Tribes of Tierra del
Fuego and Adjacent Territory. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 63. Washington.
(1946a) The Southern Hunters: an introduction. In: Steward (1946a), pp. 13–15.
(1946b) The Chono. In: Steward (1946a), pp. 47–54.
(1946c) The Yahgan. In: Steward (1946a), pp. 81–106.
(1946d). The Ona. In: Steward (1946a), pp. 107–25.
Corbera Mori, Angel (2000) Aspectos de la morfologı́a nominal aguaruna (jı́baro). In: van der
Voort and van de Kerke (2000), pp. 213–23.
Cordero, Luis (1967 [1892]) Diccionario Quichua–Español Español–Quichua. Cuenca:
Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cuenca (1992 edition, Quito: Corporación Editora
Nacional).
Correa, François and Ximena Pachón, eds. (1987) Introducción a la Colombia amerindia.
Bogotá: Editorial Presencia.
Correal Urrego, Gonzalo and Thomas van der Hammen (1977) Investigaciones arqueológicas en
los abrigos rocosos del Tequendama: 12,000 años de historia del hombre y su medio
ambiente en la altiplanicie de Bogotá. Bogotá: Fondo de Promoción de la Cultura del Banco
Popular.
Cotari, Daniel, Jaime Mejı́a and Vı́ctor Carrasco (1978) Diccionario Aymara–Castellano
Castellano–Aymara. Cochabamba: Instituto de Idiomas Padres de Maryknoll.
Courtney, Ellen (2000) Duplication in the L2 Spanish produced by Quechua-speaking children:
transfer of a pragmatic strategy. In: Dicky Gilbers, John Nerbonne and Jos Schaeken (eds.),
Languages in Contact, pp. 87–98. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Craig, Colette (1991) Ways to go in Rama. In: Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.),
Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 2, pp. 455–92. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
(1992) A constitutional response to language endangerment: the case of Nicaragua. Language
68, 1, pp. 17–24.
Creider, Chet (1967) Fonologı́a del quechua de Picoy. In: Escobar et al. (1967), pp. 41–52.
Créqui-Montfort, Georges de and Paul Rivet (1925–7) La langue uru ou pukina. Journal de la
Société des Américanistes de Paris 17 (1925), pp. 211–44; 18 (1926), pp. 111–39; 19 (1927),
pp. 57–116.
References 637
Crevels, Mily, Hein van der Voort, Sérgio Meira and Simon van de Kerke, eds. (2002) Current
Studies on South American Languages. (Contributions to the 50th International Congress of
Americanists, Warsaw, 2000). Indigenous Languages of Latin America Series no. 3. Leiden:
Research School CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.
Croese, Robert A. (1980) Estudio dialectológico del mapuche. Estudios Filológicos 15, pp. 7–38.
Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile.
(1985) Mapuche dialect survey. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 784–801.
(1990) Evidencias lexicales y gramaticales para una posible filiación del mapudungu con la
macro familia arawak. In: Cerrón-Palomino and Solı́s Fonseca (1990), pp. 275–90
(republished in 1991 in: Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Etnolingüı́sticos 6,
pp. 283–96, Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor).
Cuba Manrique, Marı́a del Carmen (2000) Vocabulario de Tauribara. In: Miranda Esquerre
(2000), vol. 2, pp. 13–40.
Cuervo, Rufino José (1867) Apuntaciones crı́ticas sobre el lenguaje bogotano. (9th corrected
edition, 1955.) Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
Curnow, Timothy Jowan (1997) A Grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): an indigenous language of
south-western Colombia. PhD diss. Australian National University, Canberra.
(1998) Why Páez is not a Barbacoan language: the nonexistence of ‘Moguex’ and the use of
early sources. International Journal of American Linguistics 64, 4, pp. 338–51.
(MS) Conjunct/Disjunct in the Barbacoan Languages of South America.
Curnow, Timothy Jowan and Anthony J. Liddicoat (1998) The Barbacoan languages of Colombia
and Ecuador. Anthropological Linguistics 40, 3, pp. 384–408.
Cusihuaman Gutiérrez, Antonio (1976a) Gramática quechua Cuzco-Collao. Lima: Ministerio de
Educación, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
(1976b) Diccionario quechua Cuzco-Collao. Lima: Ministerio de Educación, Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos.
Darwin, Charles (1983 [1906]) The Voyage of the ‘Beagle’. London, etc.: Dent.
Davidson Jr, Joseph O. (1977) A Contrastive Study of the Grammatical Structures of Aymara and
Cuzco Quechua. PhD diss. University of California, Berkeley.
Davis, Irvine (1968) Some Macro-Jê relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics
34, 1, pp. 42–47 (reprinted in: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 286–303).
Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz, Sabine (1985) Un aporte a la reconstrucción del vocabulario agrı́cola
de la época incaica. Diccionarios y textos quechuas del siglo XVI y comienzos del XVII
usados como fuentes histórico-etnolingüı́sticas para el vocabulario agrı́cola. Bonner
amerikanistische Studien 14. Bonn: Universität Bonn, Seminar für Völkerkunde.
(1990) Inka pachaq llamanpa willaynin: uso y crianza de los camélidos en la época incaica.
Estudio lingüı́stico y etnohistórico basado en las fuentes lexicográficas y textuales del
primer siglo después de la conquista. Bonner amerikanistische Studien 16. Bonn:
Universität Bonn, Seminar für Völkerkunde.
(1994) El arte verbal de los textos quechuas de Huarochirı́ (Perú, siglo XVII) reflejado en la
organización del discurso y en los medios estilı́sticos. In: Beyersdorff and
Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz (1994), pp. 21–49.
Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz, Sabine and Juan de Dios Yapita Moya (1994) Las oraciones
compuestas en aymara – aproximaciones para su comprensión y su estudio. In: Cole et al.
(1994), pp. 126–50.
Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz, Sabine and Lindsey Crickmay, eds. (1999) The Language of
Christianisation in Latin America: Catechisation and Instruction in Amerindian
Languages. Bonner Amerikanistische Studien 32 / Centre for Indigenous American
Studies and Exchange – St Andrews Occasional Papers 29. Markt Schwaben: Anton
Saurwein.
638 References
Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz, Sabine, Carmen Arellano Hoffmann, Eva König, and Heiko Prümers,
eds. (1998) 50 Years Americanist Studies at the University of Bonn. Bonner amerikanistische
Studien 30. Bonn and Markt Schwaben: Anton Saurwein.
Délétroz Favre, Alain (1993) Huk kutis kaq kasqa . . . Relatos del distrito de Coaza (Carabaya,
Puno). Cuzco: Instituto de Pastoral Andina.
Derbyshire, Desmond C. (1986) Comparative survey of morphology and syntax in Brazilian
Arawakan. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1986), pp. 469–566.
(1987) Morphosyntactic areal characteristics of Amazonian languages. International Journal
of American Linguistics 53, 3, pp. 311–26.
Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds. (1986–98) Handbook of Amazonian
Languages, vol. 1 (1986); vol. 2 (1990); vol. 3 (1991), vol. 4 (1998).
Dı́az-Fernández, Antonio Edmundo (1992) Aprenda mapuzungun! Viedma, Rı́o Negro:
Fundación Ameghino.
Dickinson, Connie (1999) Semantic and pragmatic dimensions of Tsafiki evidential and mirative
markers. Chicago Linguistic Society 35. The Panels, pp. 29–44.
(2000) Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24, 2, pp. 379–421.
(2002) Complex Predicates in Tsafiki. PhD diss. University of Oregon, Eugene.
Dietrich, Wolf (1986) El idioma chiriguano. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica, Instituto de
Cooperación Iberoamericana.
(1990) More Evidence for an Internal Classification of Tupi-Guaranı́ Languages. Indiana,
Supplement 12. Berlin.
Diez Astete, Alvaro and David Murillo (1998) Pueblos indı́genas de las tierras bajas:
caracterı́sticas principales. La Paz: Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarollo.
Dillehay, Tom D. (1989–97) Monte Verde: a Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, 2 vols.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, eds. (1999) The Amazonian Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dostal, Walter, ed. (1972) The Situation of the Indian in South America. Geneva: World Council
of Churches.
Duff, Martha (1957) A syntactical analysis of an Amuesha (Arawak) text. International Journal
of American Linguistics 23, 3, pp. 171–8.
Duff-Tripp, Martha (1997) Gramática del idioma Yanesha (Amuesha). Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana
43. Lima: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
(1998) Diccionario Yanesha (Amuesha) ∼ Castellano. Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana 47. Lima:
Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Dumézil, Georges (1954) Remarques sur les six premiers noms de nombre du turc. Studia
Linguistica 8, 1, pp. 1–15. Lund.
(1955) Remarques complémentaires sur les six premiers noms de nombre du turc et du
quechua. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 44, pp. 17–37.
(1956) Structure du quechua (dialecte cuzquénien). Travaux de Linguistique 1, pp. 125–34.
Paris: Klincksieck.
Dümmler, Christiane (1997) La Nueva Granada como campo de labor lingüı́stico-misionera:
presentación y análisis de varias obras de la época colonial. In: Zimmermann (1997),
pp. 413–32.
Duque Gómez, Luis (1970) Los Quimbayas. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Antropologı́a.
Durbin, Marshall (1985) A survey of the Carib language family. In: Klein and Stark (1985a),
pp. 325–70.
Durbin, Marshall and Haydée Seijas (1973a) A note on Opon-Carare. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie
98, 1–2, pp. 242–5. Braunschweig.
(1973b) A note on Panche, Pijao, Pantagora (Palenque), Colima and Muzo. International
Journal of American Linguistics 39, 1, pp. 47–51.
References 639
(1973c) Proto Hianacoto: Guaque–Carijona–Hianacoto–Umaua. International Journal of

(1975) The phonological structure of the western Carib languages of the Sierra de Perijá,
Venezuela (1). In: Cerulli and Della Ragione (1975), pp. 69–77.
Duviols, Pierre (1971) La lutte contre les religions autochtones dans le Pérou colonial.
‘L’extirpation de l’idolâtrie’ entre 1532 et 1660. Lima: Institut Français d’Etudes Andines.
ed. (1993) Religions des Andes et langues indigènes. Equateur-Pérou-Bolivie avant et après la
conquête espagnole. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.
Eakin, Lucille (1991) Lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma yaminahua. Documento de
Trabajo 22. Lima: Ministerio de Educación, Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Ebbing, Juan Enrique (1965) Gramática y diccionario aimara. La Paz: Editorial ‘Don Bosco’.
Echeverrı́a Weasson, Sergio (1964) Descripción fonológica del mapuche actual. Boletı́n del
Instituto de Filologı́a de la Universidad de Chile 16, pp. 13–59. Santiago de Chile.
Echeverrı́a, Max S. and Heles Contreras (1965) Araucanian phonemics. International Journal of
Echeverrı́a y Reyes, Anı́bal (1967) La lengua atacameña. Revista de Cultura Universitaria
Ancora 3, pp. 89–100. Antofagasta (first published in 1890 as Noticias sobre la lengua
atacameña, Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Nacional).
Eckstein, Susan, ed. (1989) Power and Popular Protest: Latin American Social Movements.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Eguillor, Marı́a Isabel (1989) Educación intercultural bilingüe yanomami, una alternativa a la
situación actual. Pueblos Indı́genas y Educación 10, pp. 55–82. Quito: Abya-Yala and
Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe e Intercultural (EBI).
Elson, Benjamin Franklin, ed. (1962) Studies in Ecuadorian Indian Languages, vol. 1. Norman,
Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
England, Nora Clearman (1988) Sufijos verbales derivacionales. In: Hardman et al. (1988),
pp. 94–137.
Ercilla, Alonso de (1969 [1569–1589]) La Araucana. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria.
Escalante Gutiérrez, Carmen and Ricardo Valderrama Fernández (1992) Nosotros los humanos.
Ñuqanchik runakuna. Testimonios de los quechuas del siglo XX. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé
de Las Casas.
Escobar, Alberto (1967) Fonologı́a del quechua de Yanacocha. In: Escobar et al. (1967), pp. 7–24.
ed. (1972) El reto del multilingüismo en el Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Escobar, Alberto, Gary Parker, Chet Creider and Rodolfo Cerrón (1967) Cuatro fonologı́as
quechuas. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Plan de Fomento Lingüı́stico.
Escobar, Ana Marı́a (1990) Los bilingües y el castellano en el Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos.
(2000) Contacto social y lingüı́stico. El español en contacto con el quechua en Perú. Lima:
Pontificia Universidad Católica.
Escribens Trisano, Augusto (1977) Fonologı́a del quechua de Ferreñafe. Documento de Trabajo
37. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigación de
Lingüı́stica Aplicada.
Espejo Ayka, Elvira (1994) Jichha na: parlt’a:. Ahora les voy a narrar, ed. Denise Y. Arnold and
Juan de Dios Yapita Moya. La Paz: UNICEF, Casa de las Américas (Havana).
Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar, ed. (1964) Visita hecha a la provincia de Chucuito por Garci Diez
de San Miguel en el año 1567. Lima: Ediciones de la Casa de la Cultura del Perú.
(1977) La poliginia señorial en el reino de Caxamarca. Revista del Museo Nacional 63,
pp. 399–466. Lima.
Fabre, Alain (1995) Lexical similarities between Uru-Chipaya and Pano-Takanan languages:
genetic relationship or areal diffusion? Opción, 11, 18, pp. 45–73. Maracaibo: Universidad
del Zulia.
640 References
(1998) Manual de las lenguas indı́genas sudamericanas, 2 vols. Munich and Newcastle:
LINCOM Europa.
(2002) Algunos rasgos tipológicos del Kamsá (Valle de Sibundoy, Alto Putumayo, sudoeste de
Colombia), vistos desde una perspectiva areal. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 169–98.
Faller, Martina (2002) Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD diss.,
Stanford University, Stanford.
Fals Borda, Orlando (1976) Capitalismo, hacienda y poblamiento en la costa atlántica. Bogotá:
Punta de Lanza.
Farfán, José Marı́a B. (1947–51) Colección de textos quechuas del Perú central. Revista del Museo
Nacional 16, pp. 85–122; 17, pp. 120–50; 18, pp. 121–66; 19–20, pp. 191–269. Lima.
(1952–3) Textos del Haqe-aru o Kawki. Revista del Museo Nacional 21 (1952), pp. 77–91; 22
(1953), pp. 61–74. Lima.
(1955) Estudio de un vocabulario de las Lenguas Quechua, Aymara y Haqe-aru. Revista del
Museo Nacional 24, pp. 81–99. Lima.
(1961) Diccionario conciso Castellano–Haqearu–Quechua. Revista del Museo Nacional 30,
pp. 19–40. Lima.
Fast, Peter W. (1953) Amuesha (Arawak) phonemes. International Journal of American
Faust, Norma W. (1972) Gramática Cocama: lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma cocama.
Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana 6. Lima, Yarinacocha: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Fawcett, Percy Harrison (1953) Exploration Fawcett. London: Hutchinson.
Febrés, Andrés (1764) Arte de la lengua general del reino de Chile (reprinted in 1975 by
Ediciones Cabildo, Vaduz, Georgetown).
Fernández Garay, Ana V. (1989a) Situación de la lengua tehuelche a mediados del siglo XIX. Un
caso de muerte de lengua. Cuadernos del Sur 21/22, pp. 113–30. Bahı́a Blanca: Universidad
Nacional del Sur, Departamento de Humanidades.
(1989b) Aspectos dialectales del ranquel. Actas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche 3, pp. 73–90.
Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera.
(1991) Phonology of Ranquel and phonological comparisons with other Mapuche dialects. In:
Key (1991), pp. 97–110.
(1993a) Género y sexo en tehuelche. In:Viegas Barros and Stell (1993), pp. 95–106.
(1993b) Le tehuelche. Description d’une langue en train de disparaı̂tre. Doctoral thesis,
Université de la Sorbonne, Paris V, Paris.
(1995) La posesión en tehuelche. In: Fernández Garay and Viegas Barros (1995),
pp. 251–8.
(1996) Situación de las lenguas indı́genas en la Provincia de Chubut, Argentina. Lengua y
Literatura Mapuche 7, pp. 75–86. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera.
(1997a) El sustrato tehuelche en una variedad del mapuche argentino. II Jornadas de
Etnolingüı́stica, vol.1, pp. 199–205. Rosario: Universidad Nacional de Rosario.
Departamento de Etnolingüı́stica, Escuela de Antropologı́a, Facultad de Humanidades y
Artes.
(1997b) Testimonios de los últimos Tehuelches. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires,
Facultad de Filosofı́a y Letras, Instituto de Lingüı́stica.
(1998a) Una ceremonia tehuelche entre los ranqueles. Memorias de las Jornadas Ranquelinas,
pp. 111–17. Santa Rosa, La Pampa: Gobierno de la Provincia de La Pampa.
(1998b) Afijos y modalidades en el verbo ranquel. In: Golluscio and Kuramochi (1998),
pp. 19–34.
(1998c) El tehuelche. Una lengua en vı́as de extinción. Estudios Filológicos, Anejo 15.
Valdivia: Universidad Austral de Chile, Facultad de Filosofı́a y Humanidades.
References 641
(2001) Ranquel–Español Español–Ranquel, diccionario de una variedad mapuche de La

Pampa (Argentina) Indigenous Languages of Latin America Series no. 2. Leiden: Research
School CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.
(2002) Testimonios de los últimos Ranqueles. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires,
Fernández Garay, Ana V. and Lucı́a Golluscio, eds. (2002) Temas de Lingüı́stica Aborigen II.
Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofı́a y Letras, Instituto de
Lingüı́stica.
Fernández Garay, Ana V. and José Pedro Viegas Barros, eds. (1995) Actas II Jornadas de
Lingüı́stica Aborigen (Buenos Aires, 15–18 November 1994). Buenos Aires: Universidad de
Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofı́a y Letras, Instituto de Lingüı́stica.
Fernández de Oviedo y Valdez, Gonzalo (1851–5) Historia general y natural de las Indias, Islas y
Tierra Firme del Mar Océano, 4 vols. Madrid: Imprenta de la Real Academia de la
Historia.
Ferrario, Benigno (1956) La dialettologia ed i problemi interni della Runa-Simi (vulgo Quéchua).
Orbis 5, pp. 131–40. Louvain.
(MS c.1957) Las lenguas indı́genas del Uruguay.
Ferrell Ramı́rez, Marco A. (1996) Textos aimaras en Guaman Poma. Revista Andina 14, 2,
pp. 413–55. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
Fiedel, Stuart J. (1992) Prehistory of the Americas (1st edition 1987). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Figueredo, Juan de (1964 [1700]) Vocabulario de la lengua chinchaisuyo y algunos modos mas
usados en dicha lengua. In: Luis A. Pardo and Carlos Galimberti Miranda (eds.), Diego de
Torres Rubio: Arte de la lengua quichua, pp. 112–20. Cuzco: H. G. Rozas.
Firestone, Homer L. (1965) Description and classification of Sirionó. The Hague: Mouton.
Fischer, Manuela and Konrad Th. Preuss (1989) Mitos Kogi. Quito: Abya-Yala.
Fischermann, Bernd (1988) Zur Weltsicht der Ayoréode Ostboliviens. PhD diss. University of
Bonn.
Flores Reyna, Manuel (1996) Tras las huellas de una lengua perdida. La lengua culle de la sierra
norte del Perú. Paper read at the First Encounter of Peruvianists (Universidad de Lima,
September 1996). Lima.
Flornoy, Bertrand (1938) Contribution à l’étude de la langue jı́varo ou šuor. Journal de la Société
des Américanistes de Paris 30, pp. 333–41.
Floyd, Rick (1999) The Structure of Evidential Categories in Wanka Quechua. Dallas: Summer
Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Fontanella de Weinberg, Marı́a Beatriz (1967) Componential analysis of personal affixes in
Araucanian. International Journal of American Linguistics 33, 4, pp. 305–8.
(1976) La lengua española fuera de España. Buenos Aires: Editorial Paidos.
Foster, George (1960) Culture and Conquest: America’s Spanish Heritage. Chicago: Quadrangle
Books.
Frank, Erwin H., with Javier Villacorte Bustamante, Chaparo Villacorte Mëa and C. Santiago Mëa
(1990) Mitos de los uni. Enëx ca Santa Martanu icë Unin bana icën. Quito: Abya-Yala.
Frank, Paul S. (1985) The verb phrase in Ika. Estudios de Lingüı́stica Chibcha 4, pp. 57–99. San
José: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica.
(1990) Ika Syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at
Arlington.
Friede, Juan (1952) Consideraciones sobre la lengua andaki. Revista de Antropologı́a y Etnologı́a
6, pp 187–222. Madrid.
(1953) Los Andakı́ 1538–1947. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
642 References
Friedemann, Nina S. de and Jaime Arocha Rodrı́guez (1982) Herederos del Jaguar y la Anaconda
(2nd edition 1985). Bogotá: Carlos Valencia.
Friedemann, Nina S. de and Carlos Patiño Rosselli (1983) Lengua y sociedad en el Palenque de
San Basilio. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
Furlong, Guillermo (1941) Entre los lules de Tucumán. Buenos Aires: Talleres Gráficos
‘San Pablo’.
Fuss, Max and Jürgen Riester (1986) Vocabulario Español–Chiquito y Chiquito–Español. In:
Riester (1986b), pp. 115–385.
Galeote Torno, Jesús (1993) Manityana auki besı̈ro. Gramática moderna de la lengua chiquitana
y vocabulario básico (2nd edition 1996). Santa Cruz de la Sierra: Centro de Estudios
Chiquitanos.
Garcı́a Hierro, Pedro, Søren Hvalkof and Andrew Gray (1998) Liberation through Land Rights in
the Peruvian Amazon. IWGIA Document 90. Copenhagen: International Work Group of
Indigenous Affairs.
Garcı́a Tomás, Marı́a Dolores (1993–4) Buscando nuestas raı́ces, 4 vols. Lima: Centro
Amazónico de Antropologı́a y Aplicación Práctica (CAAAP).
Garcilaso de la Vega (1959 [1609]) Comentarios Reales de los Incas, 4 vols. Lima: Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Garro, J. Eugenio (1942) The northern Kechuan dialects of Peru. American Anthropologist 44,
pp. 442–50.
Gelles, Paul H. and Gabriela Martı́nez Escobar (1996) Andean Lives: Gregorio Condori Mamani
and Asunta Quispe Huamán. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Gerdel, Florence (1973) Páez phonemes. Linguistics 104, pp. 28–48.
Gerdel, Florence and Marianna Slocum (1981) Estudios en páez. Série Sintáctica no. 12.
Lomalinda: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano (Editorial Townsend).
Gerzenstein, Ana (1968) Fonologı́a de la lengua gününa-këna. Cuadernos de lingüı́stica indı́gena
5. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofı́a y Letras, Centro de
Estudios Lingüı́sticos.
(1978–9) Lengua chorote, vol. 1 (1978); vol. 2 (1979). Archivo de lenguas precolombinas 3.
Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Instituto de Lingüı́stica.
(1983) Lengua chorote. Variedad No. 2. Archivo de lenguas precolombinas 4. Buenos Aires:
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofı́a y Letras, Instituto de Lingüı́stica.
(1989) Lengua maká: aspectos de la fonologı́a. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires,
(1994) Lengua maká: estudio descriptivo. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires,
(1999) Diccionario etnolingüı́stico Maká–Español (DELME). Buenos Aires: Universidad de
Gibson, Michael Luke (1996) El muniche: un idioma que se extingue. Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana
42. Yarinacocha: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Gilij, Filippo Salvadore (1780–4) Saggio di storia americana, o sia, Storia naturale, civile e sacra
dei regni, e delle provincie spagnuole di Terra-Ferma nell’America Meridionale descritto
dall’abate F. S. Gilij, 4 vols. Rome.
Gill, Wayne (undated) Diccionario Tsimane–Castellano. New Tribes Mission, Bolivia.
Girard, Victor (1971) Proto-Takanan Phonology. University of California Publications in
Linguistics 70. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Girault, Louis (1984) Kallawaya, guérisseurs itinérants des Andes. Paris: Editions de
l’ORSTOM.
(1989) Kallawaya: el idioma secreto de los Incas: Diccionario. La Paz: Unicef, Panamerican
Health Organisation (OPS) and World Health Organisation (OMS).
References 643
Gleich, Utta von (1989a) Educación primaria bilingüe intercultural en América Latina. Eschborn:
Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).
(1989b) Actitudes lingüı́sticas entre hablantes bilingües en Ayacucho. In: López et al. (1989),
p. 97–122.
(1992) Changes in the status and function of Quechua. In: Ulrich Ammon and Marlis Hellinger
(eds.), Status Change of Languages, pp. 43–64. Berlin and New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
(1998) El impacto lingüı́stico de la migración: ¿desplazamiento, cambio o descomposición del
quechua? In: Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz et al. (1998), pp. 679–704.
(2001) Multilingualism and Multilingual Literacies in Latin American Educational Systems.
Working Papers in Multilingualism 28. Sonderforschungsbereich 538: Mehrsprachigkeit.
Hamburg: University of Hamburg.
Gnerre, Maurizio (1975) L’utilizzazione delle fonti documentarie dei secoli XVI e XVII per la
storia linguistica Jı́baro. In: Cerulli and Della Ragione (1975), pp. 79–86.
(1986) The decline of dialogue: ceremonial and mythological discourse among the Shuar and
Achuar. In: Sherzer and Urban (1986), pp. 307–41.
Godenzzi, Juan Carlos (1986) Pronombres de objeto directo e indirecto del castellano en Puno.
Lexis 10, pp. 187–201. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Departamento de
Humanidades.
(1991) Discordancias gramaticales del castellano andino en Puno (Peru). Lexis 14, pp. 107–18.
Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Departamento de Humanidades.
ed. (1992) El quechua en debate. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
Golbert de Goodbar, Perla (1975) Epu peñiwen (‘los dos hermanos’). Cuento tradicional
araucano. Buenos Aires: Centro de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Educación, Sección
Lenguas Indı́genas, Instituto Torcuato di Tello.
(1977–8) Yagán I. Las partes de la oración, II. Morfologı́a nominal. VICUS Cuadernos.
Lingüı́stica 1 (1977), pp. 87–101; 2 (1978), pp. 5–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(1985) Hacia una morfologı́a verbal del Yagán. International Journal of American Linguistics
51, 4, pp. 421–4.
Golluscio, Lucı́a (1998) Aspecto verbal en mapudungun. In: Golluscio and Kuramochi (1998),
pp. 35–47.
Golluscio, Lucı́a and Yosuke Kuramochi, eds. (1998) Lingüı́stica y literatura mapuche.
Aproximaciones desde ambos lados de los Andes (Trabajos del I Simposio Binacional de
Lingüı́stica y Literatura Indı́genas, Temuco, 23–25 October 1995). Temuco: Universidad
Católica de Temuco; Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Gómez-Imbert, Elsa (1982) De la forme et du sens dans la classification nominale en tatuyo.
Thèse de troisième cycle, Université Sorbonne-Paris IV. Paris.
(2000) Lenguas aborı́genes de la Amazonia septentrional de Colombia. In: González de Pérez
and Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000), pp. 317–20.
Gonzales de Barcı́a Carballido y Zúñiga, Andrés, ed. (1737–8) Epı́tome de la biblioteca oriental y
occidental, náutica y geográfica de Don Antonio de León Pinelo, 3 vols. Madrid: Francisco
Martı́nez Abad.
González Holguı́n, Diego (1607) Gramática y arte nueva de la lengua general de todo el Perú
llamada lengua qquichua o lengua del Inca. Lima: Francisco del Canto (1842 edition,
Genoa: Pagano).
(1608) Vocabulario de la lengua general de todo el Peru llamada lengua qquichua o del Inca.
Lima: Francisco del Canto. (1952 edition by Raúl Porras Barrenechea, Lima: Imprenta Santa
Marı́a; 1989 reprint, Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos).
González Ñáñez, Omar (2000) Las lenguas indı́genas del Amazonas venezolano. In: Queixalós
and Renault-Lescure (2000), pp. 385–418.
644 References
González de Pérez, Marı́a Stella (1980) Trayectoria de los estudios sobre la lengua chibcha o
muisca. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
(1987) ‘Diccionario y gramática chibcha’. Manuscrito anónimo de la Biblioteca Nacional de
Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
González de Pérez, Marı́a Stella and Marı́a Luisa Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000) Lenguas indı́genas
de Colombia. Una visión descriptiva. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
Gordon, Alan M. (1980) Notas sobre la fonética del castellano en Bolivia. Actas del VI Congreso
Internacional de Hispanistas (Toronto), pp. 349–51. Toronto: University of Toronto,
Department of Spanish and Portuguese.
Goulet, Jean-Guy (1981) The Guajiro kinship system: its semantic structure and social
significance. Anthropological Linguistics 23, 7, pp. 298–325.
Granda, Germán de (1977) Estudios sobre un área dialectal hispanoamericana de población
negra. Las tierras bajas occidentales de Colombia. Publicaciones del Instituto Caro y
Cuervo 61. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
(1993) Quechua y español en el noroeste argentino. Una precisión y dos interrogantes. Lexis
17, pp. 259–74. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Departamento de
Humanidades.
(1995) Un quechuismo morfosintáctico en dos áreas extremas del español andino. Las
perı́frasis verbales de gerundio con valor perfectivo en el noroeste argentino y el sur de
Colombia. Anuario de Lingüı́stica Hispánica 11, pp. 153–9. Valladolid.
(1996) Origen y mantenimiento de un rasgo sintáctico (o dos) del español andino. La omisión
de cliticos preverbales. Lexis 20, pp. 275–98. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú,
Departamento de Humanidades.
(1997a) Replantamiento de un tema controvertido. Génesis y retención del doble posesivo en el
español andino. Revista de Filologı́a Española 77, pp. 139–7.
(1997b) Un fenómeno de convergencia lingüı́stica por contacto en el quechua de Santiago del
Estero. El desarrollo del futuro perifrástico. Estudios Filológicos 32, pp. 35–42. Valdivia:
Universidad Austral de Chile, Facultad de Filosofı́a y Humanidades.
(2001) Estudios de Lingüı́stica andina. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú.
Grasserie, Raoul de la (1894) Langue puquina. Paris: Jean Maisonneuve.
Gray, Andrew (1986) And after the Gold Rush. . .? Human Rights and Self-Development among
the Amarakaeri of Southeastern Peru. IWGIA Document 55. Copenhagen: International
Working Group of Indigenous Affairs.
(1996) Mythology, Spirituality and History in an Amazonian Community, vol. 1 The Arakmbut
of Amazonian Peru. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books.
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1959) Linguistic classification of South America. In: Steward and Faron
(1959), pp. 22–3.
(1960a) The general classification of Central and South American languages. In: Anthony
Wallace (ed.), Men and Cultures: Selected Papers of the 5th International Congress of
Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (1956), pp. 791–4. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
(1960b) Linguistic classification of South America. In: Sol Tax (ed.), Aboriginal languages of
Latin America. Current Anthropology 1, 5–6, pp. 431–6. Chicago.
(1966) Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful
elements. In: Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language (2nd edition), pp. 73–113.
Cambridge, Mass., and London: MIT Press.
(1987) Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Greenberg, Joseph H., Christy G. Turner II and Stephen L. Zegura (1985) Convergence of
evidence for the peopling of the Americas. Collegium Antropologicum 9, 1, pp. 33–42.
Zagreb.
References 645
(1986) The settlement of the Americas: a comparison of the linguistic, dental, and genetic
evidence. Current Anthropology 27, 477–88.
Grimes, Barbara F., ed. (1996) Ethnologue (13th edition). Dallas: Summer Institute of
Linguistics.
Grimes, Joseph (1985) Topic inflection in Mapudungun verbs. International Journal of American
Grinevald, Colette (2002) Nominal classification in Movima. In: Crevels et al. (2002),
pp. 215–39.
Grondona, Verónica Marı́a (1998) A Grammar of Mocovı́. PhD diss. University of Pittsburgh.
Groot de Mahecha, Ana Marı́a and Eva Maria Hooykaas (1991) Intento de delimitación del
territorio de los grupos étnicos pastos y quillacingas en el altiplano nariñense. Bogotá:
Banco de la República.
Gualdieri, Cecilia Beatriz (1998) Mocovi (Guaicuru). Fonologia e morfosintaxe. Doctoral diss.,
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil.
Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe (1936 [1615]) Nueva corónica y buen gobierno. Paris: Université
de Paris, Institut d’Ethnologie.
Guerra Eissmann, Ana Marı́a (1995) Los sintemas del yagan. In: Fernández Garay and Viegas
Barros (1995), pp. 271–6
Gugenberger, Eva (1995) Identitäts- und Sprachkonflikt in einer pluriethnischen Gesellschaft.
Eine soziolinguistische Studie über Quechua-Sprecher und -Sprecherinnen in Peru. Vienna:
WUV-Universitätsverlag.
Guillaume, Antoine (2000) Le Cavineña (langue Takana de Bolivie): éléments de morpho-
syntaxe. Mémoire de DEA de Science du Langage. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2.
Gusinde, Martin (1926) Das Lautsystem der feuerländischen Sprachen. Anthropos 21,
pp. 1000–24.
(1931–7) Die Feuerland-Indianer I: die Selk’nam (1931); II: Die Yamana (1937). Mödling near
Vienna: Verlag der Internationalen Zeitschrift Anthropos.
Guyot, Mireille (1968) Les mythes chez les Selk’nam et les Yamana de la Terre du Feu. Paris:
Institut d’Ethnologie.
Haan, Harry de (MS) Nouns in Chiquitano. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.
Haboud, Marleen (1996) Quechua and Spanish in the Ecuadorian Andes: the effects of
prolonged contact. PhD diss. University of Oregon (Spanish version appeared as Haboud
1998).
(1998) Quichua y castellano en los Andes ecuatorianos: los efectos de un contacto prolongado.
Quito: Abya-Yala.
Haboud de Ortega, Marleen (1985) La variante lingüı́stica del poblador rural y su influencia en la
educación (San Pedro de Casta, Huarochirı́). Revista de la Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Ecuador 13, 43, pp. 137–64.
Haboud de Ortega, Marleen, Luis Montaluisa Chasiquiza, Fabián Muenala Pineda and Froilán
Viteri Gualinga (1982) Caimi ñucanchic shimiyuc-panca. Quito: Ministerio de Educación y
Cultura, Pontificia Universidad Católica.
Hammerly Dupuy, Daniel (1947) Clasificación del nuevo grupo lingüı́stico Aksanás de la
Patagonia occidental. Ciencia e Investigación 3, 12, pp. 492–501. Buenos Aires.
Hamp, Eric P. (1967) On Maya–Chipayan. International Journal of American Linguistics 33, 1,
pp. 74–6.
(1971) On Mayan–Araucanian comparative phonology. International Journal of American
Hardman, Martha James (1966) Jaqaru: Outline of Phonological and Morphological Structures.
The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
(1975) Proto-Jaqi: reconstrucción del sistema de personas gramaticales. Revista del Museo
Nacional 41, pp. 433–56. Lima.
646 References
(1978a) La familia lingüı́stica andina jaqi: Jaqaru, Kawki, Aymara. VICUS Cuadernos.
Lingüı́stica 2, pp. 5–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(1978b). Jaqi: the linguistic family. International Journal of American Linguistics 44, 2,
pp. 146–53.
ed. (1981) The Aymara Language in its Social and Cultural Context. A collection of essays on
aspects of Aymara language and culture. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida.
(1983a) Jaqaru. Compendio de estructura fonológica y morfológica. Lima: Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos e Instituto Indigenista Interamericano.
(1983b) Jaqaru short vowels. International Journal of American Linguistics 49, 2, pp. 186–95.
(1986) Data-source marking in the Jaqi languages. In: Wallace Chafe and Johanna Nichols
(eds.), Evidentiality: the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, pp. 113–36. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
(2000) Jaqaru. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
Hardman, Martha James, Juana Vásquez and Juan de Dios Yapita Moya (1974) Outline of Aymara
Phonological and Grammatical Structure. Gainesville: University of Florida.
(1988) Aymara: compendio de estructura fonológica y gramatical. La Paz: Ediciones ILCA
(Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Aymara); Gainesville: The Aymara Foundation.
Hardman-de-Bautista, M. J. see Hardman, Martha James.
Harmelink, Bryan L. (1987) The uses and functions of ‘mew’ in Mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas
14, pp. 173–8. Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Universidad de Chile.
(1988) The expression of temporal distinctions in Mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 15,
pp. 125–30. Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Universidad de Chile.
(1990) El hablante como punto de referencia en el espacio: Verbos de movimiento y sufijos
direccionales en mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 17, pp. 111–25. Santiago de Chile:
Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Universidad de Chile.
(1992) La incorporación nominal en el mapudungun. Lenguas Modernas 19, pp. 129–38.
Santiago de Chile: Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Universidad de Chile.
Harms, Philip Lee (1994) Epena Pedee Syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and
University of Texas at Arlington.
Harner, Michael (1972) The Jivaros. New York: Doubleday.
Harrington, John Peabody (1943) Hokan discovered in South America. Journal of the Washington
Academy of Sciences 33, pp. 334–44. Washington.
(1944) Sobre fonética witoto. Anales del Instituto de Arqueologı́a y Etnologı́a 5, pp. 127–8.
Mendoza: Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.
Harris, Olivia (1974) Los laymis y machas del norte de Potosı́. Semana – Ultima Hora
(11–10–1974). La Paz.
Hart, Helen (1988) Diccionario Chayahuita–Castellano. Canponanquë nisha nisha nonacaso .
Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana 29. Lima: Ministerio de Educación and Instituto Lingüı́stico de
Verano.
Hart, Raymond E. (1963) Semantic components of shape in Amarakaeri grammar.
Anthropological Linguistics 5, 9, pp. 1–7.
Hartmann, Roswith (1979) ¿Quechuismo preincaico en el Ecuador? Ibero-amerikanisches Archiv
5, 3, pp. 267–99.
(1980) Lenguas aborı́genes del Ecuador. Historia del Ecuador 4, pp. 60–2. Barcelona and
Quito.
Haude, Katharina (2003) Zur Semantik von Direktionalität und ihren Erweiterungen: das Suffix
-su im Aymara. Arbeitspapier Nr. 45 (Neue Folge). Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft,
Universität zu Köln.
Havestadt, Bernardus (1777) Chilidúgú sive res chilensis, 2 vols. Münster, Westfalen.
References 647
Hawkins, John A. (1979) Implicational universals as predictors of word order change. Language
55, pp. 618–48.
Hayes, Bruce (1982) Extrametricality and English stress. Linguistic Inquiry 13, pp. 227–76.
Headland, Edna de (1977) Introducción al tunebo. Bogotá: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Headland, Edna Romayne (1997) Diccionario bilingüe Uw Cuwa (tunebo)-Español Español-Uw
Cuwa (tunebo) con una gramática uw cuwa (tunebo). Bogotá: Instituto Lingüı́stico de
Verano.
Helberg Chávez, Heinrich A. (1984) Skizze einer Grammatik des Amarakaeri. PhD diss.
University of Tübingen.
(1990) Análisis funcional del verbo amarakaeri. In: Cerrón-Palomino and Solı́s Fonseca
(1990), pp. 227–49.
Hemming, John (1973) The Conquest of the Incas (1st edition 1970). New York: Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich.
(1978) The Search for Eldorado. London: Michael Joseph.
Hermon, Gabriella (1985) Modularity in Syntax: Evidence from Quechua and Other Languages.
Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Hernández, Graciela Beatriz (1992) Southern Tehuelche mythology according to an unpublished
manuscript. Latin American Literatures Journal 8, 2, pp. 115–42.
Hernández, Isabel (1992) Los indios de Argentina. Madrid: Ediciones MAPFRE (2nd edition in
1995, Quito: Abya-Yala).
Herrero, Joaquı́n (1969) Apuntes del castellano hablado en Bolivia. Boletı́n de Filologı́a
Española 16, pp. 37–43. Madrid: Instituto ‘Miguel de Cervantes’.
Herrero, Joaquı́n, Daniel Cotari and Jaime Mejı́a (1978) Lecciones de aymara: Niveles I y II (2nd
edition). Cochabamba: Instituto de Idiomas, Padres de Maryknoll.
Herrero, Joaquı́n, and Federico Sánchez de Lozada (1978) Gramática quechua. Estructura del
quechua boliviano contemporáneo. Cochabamba: Editorial Universo.
Hervás y Panduro, Lorenzo (1784) Catalogo delle lingue conosciute e notizia della loro affinità e
diversità. Part 1 of: Idea dell’universo: che contiene la storia della vita dell’uomo, elementi
cosmografici, viaggio estatico al mondo planetario, e storie della terra e delle lingue
(1784–7). Cesena: Biasini.
(1800–5) Catálogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas, y numeración, división, y clases
de estas según la diversidad de sus idiomas y dialectos, 6 vols. (vol. 1: Lenguas y naciones
americanas). Madrid.
Hildebrandt, Martha (1963) Diccionario Guajiro–Español. Caracas: Comisión Indigenista,
Ministerio de Justicia.
Hintz, Daniel John (2000) Caracterı́sticas distintivas del quechua de Corongo. Perspectivas
histórica y sincrónica. Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana 50. Lima: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Hoff, Berend Jacob (1968) The Carib Language. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Holmer, Nils Magnus (1946) Outline of Cuna grammar. International Journal of American
(1947) Critical and Comparative Grammar of the Cuna Language. Etnologiska Studier 14.
Göteborg: Etnografiska Museet.
(1949) Goajiro (Arawak). International Journal of American Linguistics 15, 1, pp. 45–56; 15,
2, pp. 110–20; 15, 3, pp. 145–57; 15, 4, pp. 232–5.
(1951) Cuna Chrestomathy. Etnologiska studier 18. Göteborg: Etnografiska museet.
(1952) Ethnolinguistic Cuna Dictionary. Etnologiska studier 19. Göteborg: Etnografiska
museet.
(1953) Contribución a la lingüı́stica de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Revista Colombiana
de Antropologı́a, 1, pp. 311–355.
648 References
Holmer, Nils Magnus and S. Henry Wassén (1953) The Complete Mu-Igala in Picture Writing: a
native record of a Cuna Indian medicine song. Etnologiska studier 21. Göteborg:
Etnografiska museet.
Holt, Dennis (1989) On Paya causatives. Estudios de Lingüı́stica Chibcha 8, pp. 7–15. San José:
Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica.
Hornberger, Nancy H. (1988) Bilingual Education and Language Maintenance: a southern
Peruvian case. Dordrecht and Providence, RI: Foris Publications.
(1989) Haku yachaywasiman: la educación bilingüe y el futuro del quechua en Puno (Spanish
edition of Hornberger 1988). Lima and Puno: Programa de educación bilingüe de Puno.
Hosókawa, Koomei (1980) Diagnóstico sociolingüı́stico de la región Norte de Potosı́. La Paz:
Instituto Nacional de Estudios Lingüı́sticos.
Hout, Roeland van and Pieter C. Muysken (1994) Modelling lexical borrowability. Language
Variation and Change 6, pp. 39–62.
Hovdhaugen, Even (1992) A grammar without a tradition? Fernando de la Carrera’s ‘Arte de la
lengua yunga’ (1644). In: Anders Ahlqvist (ed.), Diversions of Galway: Papers on the
History of Linguistics from ICHoLS V (Galway, 1–6 September 1990), pp. 113–22.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Howard, Linda (1977a) Esquema de los tipos de párrafo en camsá. In: Howard and
Schöttelndreyer (1977), pp. 1–67.
(1977b) Camsá: certain features of verb inflection as related to paragraph types. In: Robert E.
Longacre (ed), Discourse Grammar: Studies in Indigenous Languages of Colombia,
Panamá, and Ecuador, part 2, pp. 273–99. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and
University of Texas at Arlington.
(1979) Fonologı́a del camsá. In: Sistemas fonológicos de idiomas colombianos, vol. 1,
pp. 77–92. Lomalinda: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano, Editorial Townsend.
Howard, Linda and Mareike Schöttelndreyer (1977) Estudios en camsá y catı́o. Lomalinda:
Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano, Editorial Townsend.
Howard, Rosaleen (MS) From ‘Coca Cola’ to ‘Inca Kola’: Quechua Alphabets and the Politics of
Language Identity in the Andes. University of Liverpool.
Howard-Malverde, Rosaleen (1981) Dioses y diablos, tradición oral de Cañar, Ecuador.
Amerindia numéro spécial 1. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique amérindienne.
(1990) The Speaking of History: ‘Willapaakushayki’ or Quechua Ways of Telling the Past.
London: University of London, Institute of Latin American Studies.
(1995) ‘Pachamama is a Spanish word’: linguistic tension between Aymara, Quechua, and
Spanish in northern Potosı́ (Bolivia). Anthropological Linguistics 37, 2, pp. 141–68.
ed. (1997) Creating Context in Andean Cultures. New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Howkins, Douglas W. (1973) A Quechua Legend of Peru: Yaku runa or ‘River Man’. Glasgow:
University of Glasgow, Institute of Latin American Studies.
Hoyos Benı́tez, Mario Edgar (2000) Informe sobre la lengua emberá del rı́o Napipı́. In: González
de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000), pp. 73–83.
Huber, Randall Q. and Robert B. Reed (1992) Comparative Vocabulary: Selected Words in
Indigenous Languages of Colombia. Bogotá: Asociación Instituto Lingüı́stico de
Verano.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von (1836) Über die Kawi-Sprache auf der Insel Java, nebst einer Einleitung
über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige
Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.
(1971) Linguistic Variability and Intellectual Development, trans. George C. Buck and Frithjof
A. Raven. Coral Gables, Fla.: University of Miami Press.
References 649
Husson, Jean-Philippe (1985) La poésie quechua dans la chronique de Felipe Waman Puma de
Ayala. De l’art lyrique de cour aux chants et danses populaires. Paris: L’Harmattan.
(2001) La Mort d’Ataw Wallpa ou La fin de l’empire des Incas. Tragédie anonyme en langue
quechua du milieu du XVIe siècle. Geneva: Editions Patiño.
Ibarra Grasso, Dick (1958) Lenguas indı́genas americanas. Buenos Aires: Editorial Nova.
(1982) Lenguas indı́genas de Bolivia. La Paz: Editorial Juventud.
Imbelloni, José (1926) El idioma de los Incas del Perú en el grupo lingüı́stico
melanesio-polinésico. In: José Imbelloni (ed.), La esfinge indiana. Antiguos y nuevos
aspectos de los orı́genes americanos, pp. 352–68. Buenos Aires: El Ateneo.
(1928) L’idioma Kichua nel sistema linguistico dell’Oceano Pacifico. Atti del XXII Congresso
Internazionale degli Americanisti (1926), vol. 2, pp. 495–509. Rome.
Inda, Lorenzo and Pieter C. Muysken (MS 2002) El idioma uchumataqu. Irohito: Distrito
Nacionalidad Indı́gena Urus de Irohito.
Instituto Indı́genista Interamericano (1993) América Indı́gena 53, 4. Mexico DF.
Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano (1973) Vocablos y expresiones médicos más usuales en veinte
idiomas vernáculos peruanos. Lima.
(1979) Palabras y frases útiles en algunos idiomas de la selva peruana. Lima.
Irala, José S., Francisco Ráez and José Gregorio Castro (1905) Vocabulario polı́glota incaico.
Lima: Colegio de Propaganda Fide del Perú (1998 edition by Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino,
Lima: Ministerio de Educación).
Isbell, William H. and Katherina J. Schreiber (1978) Was Huari a state? American Antiquity 43, 3,
pp. 372–89.
Itier, César (1991) Lengua general y comunicación escrita: cinco cartas en quechua de Cotahuasi –
1616. Revista Andina 9, 1, pp. 65–107. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
(1992) La tradición oral quechua antigua en los procesos de idolatrı́as de Cajatambo. Bulletin
de l’Institut Français d’Etudes Andines 21, 3, pp. 1009–51. Lima.
(1995) El teatro quechua en el Cuzco, vol. 1: Dramas y comedias de Nemesio Zúñiga Cazorla.
Lima: Institut Français d’Etudes Andines. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
(1997) Parlons quechua. La langue du Cuzco. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Jackson, Jean (1983) The Fish People: Linguistic Exogamy and Tukanoan Identity in Northwest
Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jahn, Alfredo (1927) Los aborı́genes del occidente de Venezuela. Su historia, etnografı́a y
afinidades lingüı́sticas. Caracas: El Comercio (2nd edition 1972, Caracas:
Monte Avila).
Jake, Janice L. (1985) Grammatical Relations in Imbabura Quechua. New York and London:
Garland Publishing.
Jamioy Muchavisoy, José Narciso (1992) Tiempo, aspecto y modo en kamënts̈á. In: II Congreso
del CCELA. Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes: Memorias 2,
pp. 199–208. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes.
(1995) La lengua nativa es parte de la ‘identidad indı́gena’. In: Pabón Triana (1995b), pp. 9–18.
Jaramillo Gómez, Orlando (1987a) Barı́. In: Correa and Pachón (1987), pp. 63–73.
(1987b) Yuko-yukpa. In: Correa and Pachón (1987), pp. 75–82.
Jensen, Cheryl (1998) Comparative Tupı́-Guaranı́ syntax. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1998),
pp. 489–616.
Jijón y Caamaño, Jacinto (1936–8) Sebastián de Benalcázar, vol. 1 (1936) Quito: Imprenta del
Clero; vol. 2 (1938) Quito: Editorial Ecuatoriana.
(1940–5) El Ecuador interandino y occidental antes de la conquista castellana, vol. 1 (1940),
vol. 2 (1941), vol. 3 (1943), vol. 4 (1945). Quito: Editorial Ecuatoriana (1998 edition, Quito:
Abya-Yala).
650 References
Jiménez de la Espada, Marcos, ed. (1965 [1586]) Relaciones geográficas de Indias: Perú, 3 vols.
Biblioteca de Autores Españoles 183–5. Madrid: Atlas.
Jiménez Turón, S. (1989) La educación intercultural bilingüe entre los Ye kuana de Venezuela.
Pueblos Indı́genas y Educación 10, pp. 83–90. Quito: Abya-Yala and Proyecto de Educación
Bilingüe e Intercultural (EBI).
Jones, Wendell and Paula Jones (1991) Barasano Syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics
and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Juajibioy Chindoy, Alberto (1962) Breve estudio preliminar del grupo aborigen de Sibundoy y su
lengua camsá en el sur de Colombia. Boletı́n del Instituto de Antropologı́a 2, 8. Medellı́n:
Universidad de Antioquia.
Juajibioy Chindoy, Alberto and Alva Wheeler (1973) Bosquejo etnolingüı́stico del grupo kamsá
de Sibundoy. Bogotá: Ministerio de Gobierno.
Juank, Aijı́u (1982) Aujmatsatai, yatsuchi. Manual de aprendizaje de la lengua shuar, vol. 1 (2nd
edition). Ecuador: Mundo Shuar.
Judy, Robert A. and Judith Judy (1962) Movima y castellano. Vocabularios bolivianos 1.
Cochabamba: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano
(1967) Movima. In: Matteson (1967), 2, pp. 353–408.
Julien, Catherine Jean (1979) Koli: a language spoken on the Peruvian coast. Andean
Perspective Newsletter 3, pp. 5–11. Austin: University of Texas, Institute of Latin American
Studies.
(1983) Hatunqolla: a View of Inca Rule from the Lake Titicaca Basin. University of California
Publications in Anthropology 15. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Juncosa, José E. (2000) Mapa lingüı́stico de la Amazonia ecuatoriana. In: Queixalós and
Renault-Lescure (2000), pp. 263–75.
Jung, Ingrid (1989) Grammatik des Páez: ein Abriss. PhD diss. University of Osnabrück.
(1991) Das Zweisprachenprojekt in Puno-Peru. Erziehungspolitik im Sprachen- und
Kulturkonflikt. Bildungsreport Nr. 51. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
(2000) El páez. Breve descripción. In: González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000),
pp. 139–49.
Jusayú, Miguel Angel and Jesús Olza Zubiri (1981) Diccionario de la lengua guajira.
Castellano–Guajiro. Caracas: Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, Maracaibo: Corpozulia.
(1988) Diccionario sistemático de la lengua guajira. Caracas: Universidad Católica Andrés
Bello.
Kany, Charles F. (1945) American Spanish Syntax. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
(1947) Some aspects of Bolivian popular speech. Hispanic Review 15: pp. 193–206.
Karsten, Rafael (1932) Indian tribes of the Argentine and Bolivian Chaco. Ethnological Studies.
Helsingfors: Akademiska Bokhandeln. Leipzig: Harassowitz.
(1935) The Head-hunters of Western Amazonas: the Life and Culture of the Jibaro Indians
of Eastern Ecuador and Peru. Helsingfors: Akademiska Bokhandeln. Leipzig:
Harassowitz.
Kaufman, Terrence S. (1990) Language history in South America: what we know and how to
know more. In: Doris L. Payne, (1990a), pp. 13–73.
(1994) The native languages of South America. In: Moseley and Asher (1994), pp. 46–76.
Keatinge, Richard W., ed. (1988a) Peruvian Prehistory: an Overview of Pre-Inca and Inca
Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1988b) A summary view of Peruvian prehistory. In: Keatinge (1988a), pp. 303–16.
Kensinger, Kenneth M. et al. (1975) The Cashinahua of Eastern Peru. Providence, RI:
Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology.
(1985) Panoan linguistic, folkloristic and ethnographic research. In: Klein and Stark (1985a),
pp. 224–85.
References 651
Kerke, Simon C. van de (1996) Affix Order and Interpretation in Bolivian Quechua. PhD diss.
University of Amsterdam.
(1998) Verb formation in Leko: causatives, reflexives and reciprocals. In: Leonid Kulikov and
Heinz Vater (eds.), Typology of Verbal Categories. Papers Presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov
on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, pp. 195–203. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
(1999) A 19th century Christian doctrine in the Leko language. In: Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz
and Crickmay (1999), pp. 115–50.
(2000) Case marking in the Leko language. In: van der Voort and van de Kerke (2000),
pp. 25–37.
(2002) Complex verb formation in Leko. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 241–54.
Key, Harold (1967) Morphology of Cayuvava. The Hague: Mouton.
Key, Mary Ritchie (1968) Comparative Tacanan Phonology. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
(1978) Araucanian genetic relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 44, 4,
pp. 280–93.
(1979) The Grouping of South American Indian Languages. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
ed. (1991) Language Change in South American Indian languages. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Key, Mary Ritchie and Christos Clairis (1978) Fuegian and central South American language
relationships. Actes du 42ème Congrès International des Américanistes (Paris, 2–9
September 1976), vol. 4, pp. 635–45. Paris: Société des Américanistes, Musée de
l’Homme.
King, Kendall A. (2000) Inspecting the unexpected: language status and corpus shifts as aspects
of Quichua language revitalization. Language Problems and Language Planning 22,
pp. 109–32.
Kingsley Noble, G. (1965) Proto-Arawakan and its Descendants. The Hague: Mouton;
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kirtchuk, Pablo (1987) Le parler quechua de Santiago del Estero: quelques particularités.
Amerindia 12, pp. 95–110. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique amérindienne.
Klee, Carol A. (1996) The influence of Quechua on Spanish language structure. In: Ana Roca
and John B. Jensen (eds.), Spanish in Contact, pp. 73–91. Somerville, Mass.:
Cascadilla Press.
Klein, Harriet E. Manelis (1973) A Grammar of Argentine Toba: Verbal and Nominal
Morphology. PhD diss. Columbia University.
(1978) Una gramática de la lengua toba. Morfologı́a verbal y nominal. Montevideo: Facultad
de Humanidades y Ciencias, Universidad de la República.
(1981) Location and direction in Toba: verbal morphology. International Journal of American
(1985) Current status of Argentine indigenous languages. In: Klein and Stark (1985a),
pp. 691–731.
Klein, Harriet E. Manelis and Louisa R. Stark, eds. (1985a) South American Indian Languages:
Retrospect and Prospect. Austin: University of Texas Press.
(1985b). Indian languages of the Paraguayan Chaco. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 802–45.
Kramer, Fritz (1990) Literature among the Cuna Indians. Göteborg: Etnografiska museet.
Krauss, Michael (1992) The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68, pp. 4–10.
Krüsi, Martin and Dorothy Krüsi (1978a) Phonology of Chiquitano. Work Papers of SIL-Bolivia
1972–1976, pp. 53–93. Riberalta: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
(1978b) The use of modes in Chiquitano discourse. Work Papers of SIL-Bolivia 1972–1976,
pp. 95–162. Riberalta. Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Krzanowski, Andrzej and Szemiński, Jan (1978) La toponimia indı́gena en la cuenca del rı́o
Chicama (Perú). Estudios Latinoamericanos 4. Wroclaw: Ossolineum.
Ladefoged, Peter (1975) A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
652 References
Lafone Quevedo, Samuel A. (1894a) Los Lules. Boletı́n del Instituto Geográfico Argentino 15,
pp. 185–246. Buenos Aires.
(1894b) Calepino Lule-Castellano. Vade mecum para el Arte del Padre Antonio Machoni S.I.
Boletı́n del Instituto Geográfico Argentino 15, pp. 305–85. Buenos Aires.
(1895) La lengua vilela o chulupı́. Estudio de filologı́a chaco-argentina fundados sobre los
trabajos de Hervás, Adelung y Pelleschi. Boletı́n del Instituto Geográfico Argentino 16,
pp. 39–125. Buenos Aires.
Lagos Altamirano, Daniel S. (1981) El estrato fónico del mapudungu(n). Revista del Pacı́fico
19–20, pp. 42–66. Valparaı́so.
Lakämper-Acebey, Renate (2001) Plural- und Objektmarkierung in Quechua. Doctoral diss.,
Philosophische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf.
Lakämper, Renate and Dieter Wunderlich (1998) Person marking in Quechua: a constraint-based
minimalist analysis. Lingua 105: pp. 113–48.
Landaburu, Jon (1979) La langue des Andoke (Amazonie colombienne). Paris: Société d Etudes
Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France.
(1988) El sistema de designación de la persona sujeto en la lengua ika. Amerindia 13,
pp. 157–67. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique amérindienne.
(1992) La langue ika ou arhuaco: morphosyntaxe du noyau verbal. Amerindia 17, pp. 1–30.
Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique amérindienne.
ed. (1994) Estructuras sintácticas de la predicación: lenguas amerindias de Colombia. Bulletin
de l’Institut Français d’Etudes Andines 23, 3. Bogotá: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de
Lenguas Aborı́genes, Universidad de los Andes.
ed. (1996–9) Documentos sobre lenguas aborı́genes de Colombia del archivo de Paul
Rivet, vol. 1: Lenguas de la Amazonı́a colombiana (1996a), vol. 2: Lenguas de la Orinoquı́a
y del Norte de Colombia (1998), vol. 3: Lenguas del Sur de Colombia (1999). Bogotá:
Editorial Uniandes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes and
Colciencias.
(1996b) La langue ika ou arhuaco: phonologie. Amerindia 21, pp. 21–36. Paris: Association
d’ethnolinguistique amérindienne.
(2000a) La lengua Ika. In: González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000), pp. 733–48.
(2000b) Clasificación de las lenguas indı́genas de Colombia. In: González de Pérez and
Landerman, Peter N. (1973) Vocabulario quechua del Pastaza. Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana 8.
Yarinacocha: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
(1978) The Proto-Quechua first person marker and the classification of Quechua dialects. Paper
presented at the 2nd Workshop on Andean Linguistics, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
(1991) Quechua Dialects and their Classification. PhD diss. University of California, Los
Angeles.
(1994) Glottalization and aspiration in Quechua and Aymara reconsidered. In: Cole et al.
(1994), pp. 332–78.
Laprade, Richard (1981) Some cases of Aymara influence on La Paz Spanish. In: Hardman
(1981), pp. 207–27.
Lara, Jesús, ed. (1957) Tragedia del fin de Atawallpa. Cochabamba: Edición Universitaria.
(1969) La literatura de los quechuas. Ensayo y antologı́a (2nd edition). La Paz: Juventud.
(1971) Diccionario Qhëswa–Castellano Castellano–Qhëswa. Cochabamba: Los Amigos del
Libro.
Larraı́n Barros, Horacio (1991) Limpia de canales de Toconce: descripción de una
ceremonia-faena tradicional. Hombre y Desierto 5, pp. 3–19. Antofagasta: Universidad de
Antofagasta, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas.
References 653
Lastra, Yolanda (1968) Cochabamba Quechua Syntax. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
Lathrap, Donald W. (1970) The Upper Amazon. London: Thames and Hudson; New York:
Praeger.
Lefebvre, Claire (1984) Grammaires en contact: définitions et perspectives de recherche. Revue
québécoise de linguistique 14, 11–48.
Lefebvre, Claire and Pieter C. Muysken (1982) Relative Clauses in Cuzco Quechua: Interactions
between Core and Periphery. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
(1988) Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lehmann, Walter (MS 1929) Vocabulario de la lengua uro. Berlin: Ibero-amerikanisches Institut
Preussischer Kulturbesitz.
Lehmann-Nitsche, Robert (1913) El grupo lingüı́stico Tshon de los territorios magallánicos.
Revista del Museo de la Plata 22, pp. 217–76. Buenos Aires.
(1926) Vocabulario mataco (Chaco salteño) con bibliografı́a. Boletı́n de la Academia Nacional
de Ciencias 28, 3–4, pp. 251–66. Córdoba, Argentina.
Lehnert Santander, Roberto (1976) La lengua kunza y sus textos. Cuadernos de Filologı́a 5,
pp. 71–80. Antofagasta: Universidad de Chile, Instituto de Literatura Nortina.
(1987) En torno a la lengua kunza. Language Sciences 9, 1, pp. 103–12.
(1991) Préstamos del runa-simi a la lengua kunza. Hombre y Desierto 5, pp. 30–48.
Antofagasta: Universidad de Antofagasta, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas.
Lemle, Miriam (1971) Internal classification of the Tupi-Guaranı́ linguistic family. In: Tupi
Studies I. SIL Papers in Linguistics 29, pp. 107–29. Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of
Linguistics.
Lengerke, Geo von (1878a) Palabras de los dialectos de los indios del Opone. Zeitschrift für
Ethnologie 10, pp. 306.
(1878b) Palabras indias dictadas por un indio de la tribu de Carare. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie
10, p. 306.
Lenz, Roberto (1893) Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Amerikospanischen I. Zeitschrift für romanische
Philologie 17, pp. 188–214. Halle: Max Niemeyer (published in Spanish as ‘Para el
conocimiento del español de América’ in: Alonso and Lida (1940), pp. 209–58. Buenos
Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.
(1895–7) Estudios araucanos. Materiales para el estudio de la lengua, la literatura y las
costumbres de los indios mapuches o araucanos. Santiago: Imprenta Cervantes (originally
published in 12 separate articles in the volumes 90–1, 93–4 and 97–8 of the Anales de la
Universidad de Chile).
(1905–10) Los elementos indios del castellano de Chile. Estudio lingüı́stico y etnológico.
Diccionario etimológico de las voces chilenas derivadas de lenguas indı́genas americanas.
Annex to Anales de la Universidad de Chile. Santiago: Imprenta Cervantes.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1948) Sur certaines similarités structurales des langues chibcha et
nambikwara. Actes du 28ème Congrès International des Américanistes (1947), pp. 185–92.
Paris.
(1952) Race et histoire. Paris: Unesco (1961 edition, Paris: Gauthier).
Levinsohn, Stephen H. (1976) The Inga Language. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
Liccardi, Millicent (1968) Itonama intonation and phonemes. Linguistics 38, pp. 36–41.
Liedtke, Stefan (1996) The Languages of the ‘First Nations’: Comparison of Native American
Languages from an Ethnolinguistic Perspective. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM
Europa.
Lindskoog, John N. and Ruth M. Brend (1962) Cayapa phonemics. In: Elson (1962),
pp. 31–44.
Lindskoog, John N. and Carrie A. Lindskoog (1964) Vocabulario cayapa. México: Instituto
Lingüı́stico de Verano.
654 References
Lipski, John M. (1987) The Chota valley: Afro-Hispanic language in highland Ecuador. Latin
American Research Review 22, pp. 155–70.
(1994) Latin American Spanish. London: Longmans Linguistics Library.
Lira, Jorge A. (1941) Diccionario Kkechuwa–Español. Tucumán: Universidad Nacional de
Tucumán (1982 edition, Bogotá: Cuadernos Culturales Andinos 5).
(1990) Cuentos del Alto Urubamba. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
Llamı́n Canulaf, Segundo (1987) Federico ñi nütram, 4 vols. Temuco: Imprenta y Editorial Küme
Dungu.
Llanos Vargas, Héctor and Roberto Pineda Camacho (1982) Etnohistoria del Gran Caquetá
(Siglos XVI–XIX). Bogotá: Fundación de Investigaciones Arqueológicas Nacionales and
Banco de la Républica.
Llerena Villalobos, Rito (1987) Relación y determinación en el predicado de la lengua kuna.
Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas
Aborı́genes.
(1994) Sintaxis de la predicación de la lengua Ẽpẽra oriental del Alto Andágueda. In:
Landaburu (1994), pp. 437–62.
ed. (1995) Estudios fonológicos del grupo chocó. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, Centro
Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes.
(2000) Elementos de gramática y fonologı́a de la lengua cuna. In: González de Pérez and
Loewen, Jacob Abraham (1960) Spanish loan words in Waunana. International Journal of
(1963a) Chocó I: introduction and bibliography. International Journal of American Linguistics
29, 3, pp. 239–63.
(1963b) Chocó II: phonological problems. International Journal of American Linguistics 29, 4,
pp. 357–71.
Long, Violeta (1985) Estudio de la lengua guambiana. University of St Andrews Centre for Latin
American Studies Working Paper No. 20. Larnaca, Cyprus.
Longacre, Robert E. (1968) Comparative reconstruction of indigenous languages. In: Thomas A.
Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics 4: Ibero-American and Caribbean Linguistics,
pp. 320–60. The Hague: Mouton.
Loos, Eugene (1969) The Phonology of Capanahua and its Grammatical Basis. Norman, Okla.:
Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Loos, Eugene and Betty Loos (1998) Diccionario Capanahua–Castellano. Yarinacocha: Instituto
López, Lorenzo E., ed. (1985) N. Federmann, U. Schmidl: Alemanes en América. Madrid:
Historia 16.
López, Luis Enrique, ed. (1988) Pesquisas en lingüı́stica andina. Lima: Consejo Nacional de
Ciencias y Tecnologı́a (CONCYTEC). Puno: Universidad del Altiplano and Deutsche
Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).
(1990) El bilingüismo de los unos y de los otros: diglosia y conflicto lingüı́stico en el Perú. In:
Ballón Aguirre and Cerrón-Palomino (1990), pp. 91–130.
López, Luis Enrique and Ingrid Jung (MS 1987) Las dimensiones polı́ticas de una escritura: el
caso del quechua en el Perú.
(1989) El castellano del maestro y el castellano del libro. In: López et al. (1989),
pp. 197–217.
eds. (1998) Sobre las huellas de la voz. Sociolingüı́stica de la oralidad y la escritura en su
relación con la educación. Madrid: Ediciones Morata; Cochabamba, Bolivia: Programa de
Formación de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Paises Andinos (PROEIB Andes);
Bonn: Deutsche Stiftung für internationale Entwicklung.
References 655
López, Luis Enrique and Domingo Sayritupac Asqui, eds. (1985) Wiñay pacha I. Chucuito and
Puno: Instituto de Estudios Aymara.
eds. (1990) Wiñay pacha (Tierra y tiempo eternos) II. Puno: Academia de la Lengua Aymara.
López, Luis Enrique, Inés Pozzi Escot, and Madeleine Zúñiga, eds. (1989) Temas de lingüı́stica
aplicada (Actas del Primer Congreso Nacional de Investigaciones Lingüı́stico-Filológicas,
Lima, November 1987). Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencias y Tecnologı́a (CONCYTEC),
Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).
López Garcı́a, Angel (1995) Gramática muisca. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.
Loukotka, Čestmı́r (1935) Clasificación de las lenguas sudamericanas. Lingüı́stica
sudamericana, nr. 1. Prague.
(1968) Classification of South American Indian Languages, ed. Johannes Wilbert. Los
Angeles: University of California (UCLA), Latin American Center.
Lowes, R. H. G. (1954) Alphabetical list of Lengua Indian words with English equivalents
(Paraguayan Chaco). Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 43, pp. 85–107.
Lozano, Anthony G. (1975) Syntactic borrowing in Spanish from Quechua: the noun phrase. In:
Rosalı́a Avalos de Matos and Rogger Ravines (eds.), Lingüı́stica e indigenismo moderno de
América. Actas y memorias del XXXIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas 5 (Lima,
1970), pp. 297–305. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Lozano, Elena (1970) Textos vilelas. La Plata: Universida Nacional de La Plata, Facultad de
Humanidades.
(1977) Cuentos secretos vilelas: I. La mujer tigre. VICUS Cuadernos. Lingüı́stica 1,
pp. 93–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lozano, Pedro (1754–5) Historia de la Compañı́a de Jesús en la provincia del Paraguay, 2 vols.
Madrid: Viuda de Manuel Fernández, Supremo Consejo de la Inquisición.
(1874–5) Historia de la conquista del Paraguay, Rı́o de la Plata y Tucumán, 5 vols. Buenos
Aires.
Lucca, Manuel de (1987) Diccionario práctico Aymara–Castellano Castellano–Aymara. La Paz,
Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro.
Lucena Salmoral, Manuel, ed. (1967–70) Gramática chibcha del siglo XVII. Revista Colombiana
de Antropologı́a 13 (1967), pp. 31–90; 14 (1970), pp. 203–20. Bogotá.
Lugo, Bernardo de (1619) Gramática de la lengua general del Nuevo Reyno, llamada mosca.
Madrid: Bernardino de Guzmán (1978 edition, Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica and
Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperación).
Luján, Marta, Liliana Minaya and David Sankoff (1981) El Principio de Consistencia Universal
en el habla de los niños bilingües peruanos. Lexis 5, 1, pp. 95–110. Lima: Pontificia
(1984) The Universal Consistency Hypothesis and the prediction of word order acquisition
stages in the speech of bilingual children. Language 60, pp. 343–71.
Lumbreras, Luis G. (1974) The Peoples and Cultures of Ancient Peru. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Lussagnet, Suzanne, ed. (1958) Ignace Chomé. Arte de la lengua zamuca (1738–1745). Journal
de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 47, pp. 121–79.
(1961–2) Vocabulaires samuku, morotoko, poturero et guarañoka, précédés d’une étude
historique et géographique sur les anciens Samuku du Chaco bolivien et leurs voisins.
Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 50 (1961), pp. 185–243; 51 (1962),
pp. 35–64.
Lynch, Thomas F. ed. (1980) Guitarrero Cave: Early Man in the Andes. New York: Academic
Press.
(1999) The earliest South American lifeways. In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 1,
pp. 188–263.
656 References
Lyon, Patricia Jean, ed. (1974) Native South Americans: Ethnology of the Least Known Continent.
Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company (republished in 1985 by Waveland Press,
Prospect Heights, Ill.)
Macera, Pablo (1978) Visión histórica del Perú (del Paleolı́tico al Proceso de 1968). Lima: Milla
Batres.
Machoni de Cerdeña, Antonio (1732) Arte y vocabulario de la lengua lule y tonocoté. Madrid:
Herederos de Garcı́a Infanzón (1877 edition, P. E. Coni, Buenos Aires).
Mackert, Michael (1999) Horatio Hale’s grammatical sketches of languages of the American
Northwest Coast: the case of Tsihaili-Selish. In: Nowak (1999), pp. 155–73.
MacNeish, Richard Scott (1979) The early man remains from Pikimachay cave, Ayacucho basin,
highland Peru. In: R. L. Humphrey and D. Stanford, Pre-Llano Cultures of the Americas:
Paradoxes and Possibilities, pp. 1–48. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of
Washington.
McQuown, Norman A. (1955) The indigenous languages of Latin America. American
Anthropologist, NS, 57, pp. 501–70.
Malone, Terry (1997–1998) Mora, minimal foot and segmental phonology in Chimila. Estudios
de Lingüı́stica Chibcha 16–17, pp. 19–69. San José: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa
Rica.
Mannheim, Bruce (1984) Una nación acorralada: southern Peruvian Quechua language planning
and politics in historical perspective. Language in Society 13, pp. 291–309.
(1985a) Southern Peruvian Quechua. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 481–515.
(1985b) Contact and Quechua-external genetic relationships. In: Klein and Stark (1985a),
pp. 644–88.
(1990) La cronologı́a relativa de la lengua y literatura cuzqueña. Revista Andina 8, 1,
(1991) The Language of the Inka since the European Invasion. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Mannheim, Bruce and Madeleine Newfield (1982) Iconicity in phonological change. In: Anders
Ahlqvist (ed.), Papers from the Fifth International Conference of Historical Linguistics,
pp. 211–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mansen, Richard and David Captain (2000) El idioma wayuu (o guajiro). In: González de Pérez
and Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000), pp. 795–810.
Mansilla, Lucio Victorio (1947 [1890]) Una excursión a los indios ranqueles. Mexico, Buenos
Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica (published in English in 1997 as ‘An Expedition to the
Ranquel Indians’, Austin: University of Texas Press).
Markham, Clements R. (1911) The Incas of Peru. London: Smith, Elder and Co.
Márquez Miranda, Fernando (1943) Los textos millcayac del P. Luis de Valdivia con un
vocabulario Español–Allentiac–Millcayac. Revista del Museo de La Plata, NS, 2, Sección de
Antropologı́a 12, pp. 61–223. La Plata: Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
Martı́n, Eusebia H. (1964) Notas sobre el cacán y la toponimia del noroeste argentino. Buenos
Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofı́a y Letras, Centro de Estudios
Lingüı́sticos.
Martin, Laura (1988) Fonologı́a. In: Hardman et al. (1988) pp. 24–66.
Martı́nez, Angelita (2000) Lenguaje y cultura. Estrategias etnopragmáticas en el uso de los
pronombres clı́ticos lo, la y le, en la Argentina, en zonas de contacto con lenguas aborı́genes.
PhD diss. Leiden University.
Martı́nez Compañón, Baltasar Jaime (1985 [1782–90]) Trujillo del Perú en el siglo XVIII, vol. 2.
Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica.
Martı́nez Sarasola, Carlos (1992) Nuestros paisanos los Indios: vida, historia y destino de las
comunidades indı́genas de la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Emecé Editores.
References 657
Martins, Silvana and Valteir Martins (1999) Makú. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999), pp. 251–67.
Masferrer Kan, Elio (1983) Situación social de los grupos indı́genas. Informe Unesco Número
III. México DF.
Mason, John Alden (1950) The languages of South American Indians. In: Steward (1950),
pp. 157–317.
Mata, Pedro de la (1748) Arte de la lengua cholona. MS Additional 24, 322. British Library,
London (transcribed and edited by Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus, MS); see also Tello
(1923).
Matisoff, James (1990) On megalo-comparison, a discussion note. Language 66, pp. 106–20.
Matteson, Esther (1965) The Piro (Arawakan) Language. University of California Publications in
Linguistics 62. Berkeley: University of California Press.
ed. (1967) Bolivian Indian Grammars, 2 vols. Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
(1972) Proto Arawakan. In: Esther Matteson et al. Comparative Studies in Amerindian
Languages, pp. 160–242. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
Mayer, Enrique and Elio Masferrer (1979) La población indı́gena de América en 1978. América
Indı́gena 39, 2, pp. 211–338.
Megenney, William W. (1986) El palenquero: un lenguaje post-criollo de Colombia. Bogotá:
Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
Meggers, Betty Jane (1979) Climatic oscillation as a factor in the prehistory of Amazonia.
American Antiquity 44, 2, pp. 252–66.
Meillet, Antoine and Marcel Cohen, eds. (1924) Les langues du monde. Collection linguistique,
vol. 16. Paris: Société Linguistique de Paris (revised 1952 edition, Paris: Centre National de
la Recherche Scientifique).
Meira, Sérgio (2000) A Reconstruction of Proto-Taranoan. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
Mejı́a Fonnegra, Gustavo (2000) Presentación y descripción fonológica y morfosintáctica del
waunana. In: González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000), pp. 85–96.
Mejı́as, Hugo A. (1980) Préstamos de lenguas indı́genas en el español americano del siglo XVII.
México DF: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Meléndez Lozano, Miguel Angel (1989) El nominal en achagua. In: Meléndez Lozano and Tobar
Ortiz (1989), pp. 3–66.
(1998) La lengua achagua: estudio gramatical. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes: Centro
Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes.
(2000a) Reseña bibliográfica del chimila. In: González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes
(2000), pp. 789–91.
(2000b) Reseña bibliográfica del tunebo. In: González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes
(2000), pp. 703–4.
(2000c) Reseña bibliográfica del kamsá. In: González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes
(2000), pp. 135–7.
(2000d) Reseña bibliográfica del kakua. In: González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes
(2000), pp. 561–2.
Meléndez Lozano, Miguel Angel & Nubia Tobar Ortiz (1989) Lenguas aborı́genes de Colombia:
Descripciones no. 4: Orinoquı́a. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de
Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes.
Melià, Bartomeu (1997) Pueblos indı́genas en el Paraguay. Demografı́a histórica y análisis de los
resultados del Censo Nacional de Población y Viviendas, 1992. Fernando de la Mora:
Dirección General de Estadı́stica, Encuestas y Censos.
Meneses Morales, Teodoro (1987) La Muerte de Atahuallpa. Drama quechua de autor anónimo.
Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Menges, Patricia A. (1980) Acquisition of Spanish by Quichua Children in Ecuador: Some
Aspects of Main-Verb Form, Frequency, and Function. MA thesis, University of Amsterdam.
658 References
Messineo, Marı́a Cristina (1989) Lingüı́stica y educación indı́gena. Una experiencia en

comunidades toba de la provincia del Chaco (Argentina). Pueblos Indı́genas y Educación 12,
pp. 9–28. Quito: Abya-Yala and Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe e Intercultural (EBI).
(2000) Estudio del toba hablado en la provincia del Chaco (Argentina). Aspectos gramaticales
y discursivos. Doctoral diss. University of Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires.
Métraux, Alfred (1935–6) Les indiens uro-chipaya de Carangas. Journal de la Société des
Américanistes de Paris 27, pp. 111–28, pp. 325–415; 28, pp. 155–207, pp. 337–94.
(1936) Contributions à l’ethnographie et à la linguistique des indiens uro d’Ancoaqui (Bolivie).
Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 28, pp. 75–110.
(1948) Tribes of the eastern slopes of the Bolivian Andes. In: Steward (1948), pp. 465–503.
Middendorf, Ernst W. (1890–92) Die einheimischen Sprachen Perus. 6 volumes. 1. Das
Runa-Simi oder die Keshua-Sprache wie sie gegenwärtig in der Provinz Cuzco gesprochen
wird (1890a) (published in Spanish in 1970 in a translation by Ernesto More as Gramática
Keshua, Madrid: Aguilar). 2. Wörterbuch des Runa-Simi oder der Keshua-Sprache (1890b).
3. Ollanta, ein Drama der Keshua-Sprache (1890c). 4. Dramatische und lyrische Dichtungen
der Keshua-Sprache (1891a). 5. Die Aimarà-Sprache (1891b). 6. Das Muchik oder die
Chimu-Sprache mit einem Anhang über die Chibcha-Sprache (1892). Leipzig: F. A.
Brockhaus.
Migliazza, Ernest C. (1978a) Some Evidences for Panoan–Yanomama Genetic Relationship.
Paper presented at the LSA Summer Meeting, Urbana, Ill.
(MS 1978b) Pano–Tacana Northern Relationship.
(1985) Languages of the Orinoco–Amazon region: current status. In: Klein and Stark (1985a),
pp. 17–139.
Migliazza, Ernest C. and Lyle Campbell (1988) Panorama general de las lenguas indı́genas en
América. Caracas: Academia Nacional de la Historia de Venezuela.
Millones, Luis, ed. (1973) Un movimiento nativista: el Taki Onqoy. In: Ossio Acuña (1973),
pp. 83–94.
ed. (1990) El retorno de las Huacas: estudios y documentos sobre el Taki Onqoy, Siglo XVI.
Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Sociedad Peruana de Psicoanálisis.
Minaya, Liliana and Marta Luján (1982) Un patrón sintáctico hı́brido en el habla de los niños
bilingües en quechua y español. Lexis 6, 2, pp. 271–93. Lima: Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú, Departamento de Humanidades.
Miranda Esquerre, Luis, ed. (2000) Actas I Congreso de Lenguas Indı́genas de Sudamérica
(Lima, 4–6 August 1999), 2 vols. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma, Facultad de Lenguas
Modernas.
Miranda Mamani, Luis, Daniel Moricio Choque and Saturnina Alvarez de Moricio (1992)
Memorias de un olvido. Testimonios de vida Uru-Muratos (edited by Rossana Barragán). La
Paz: Fundación para la Investigación Antropológica y el Etnodesarrollo ‘Antropólogos del
Surandino’ (ASUR) and Editorial Hisbol.
Mitre, Bartolomé (1909–10) Catálogo razonado de la sección Lenguas Americanas, 3 vols.
Buenos Aires: Museo Mitre.
Moesbach, Ernesto Wilhelm de (1930) Vida y costumbres de los indı́genas araucanos en la
segunda mitad del siglo XIX, presentadas en la autobiografı́a del indı́gena Pascual Coña.
Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Cervantes (new edition see Coña 1984).
(1963) Idioma mapuche. Padre Las Casas, Chile: Imprenta y Editorial ‘San Francisco’.
Mogollón Pérez, Marı́a Cristina (2000) Fonologı́a de la lengua barı́. In: González de Pérez and
Mogrovejo, Toribio Alfonso de (1920–1 [1593]) Diario de la segunda visita que hizo de su
arquidiócesis el Ilustrı́simo señor don Toribio de Mogrovejo, arzobispo de Los Reyes.
Revista del Archivo Nacional del Perú, 1 (1920), pp. 49–81, 227–9, 401–19; 2 (1921),
pp. 37–78.
References 659
Molina, Cristóbal de (1574 [1989]) Relación de las fábulas y ritos de los Incas. In: Henrique
Urbano and Pierre Duviols (eds.), C. de Molina, C. de Albornoz, Fábulas y mitos de los
Incas, pp. 9–134. Madrid: Historia 16.
Monguı́ Sánchez, José Raúl (1981) La lengua kame.ntzá. Fonologı́a – fonética – textos. Bogotá:
Montaño Aragón, Mario (1987–92) Guı́a etnográfica lingüı́stica de Bolivia, vols. 1, 2 (1987–9):
Tribus de la selva; vol. 3 (1992): Tribus del Altiplano y valles: primera parte. La Paz:
Editorial Don Bosco.
Montes Rodrı́guez, Marı́a Emilia (1995) Tonologı́a de la lengua ticuna. Bogotá: Universidad de
los Andes Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes.
Montoya, Rodrigo, Luis Montoya and Edwin Montoya (1987) La sangre de los cerros.
Urqukunapa yawarnin (Antologı́a de la poesı́a quechua que se canta en el Perú), 2 vols.
Lima: Centro Peruano de Estudios Sociales, Mosca Azul Editores and Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos.
Moore, Bruce R. (1961) A statistical morpho-syntactic typological study of Colorado (Chibcha).
(1962) Correspondences in South Barbacoan Chibcha. In: Elson (1962), pp. 270–89.
(1966) Diccionario Castellano–Colorado Colorado-Castellano. Quito: Instituto Lingüı́stico de
Verano.
Moore, Thomas H. (1878) Vocabulaire de la langue atacameña. Compte-Rendu de la Seconde
Session du Congrès International des Américanistes, vol. 2, pp. 44–54. Luxemburg.
Mortensen, Charles Arthur (1999) A Reference Grammar of the Northern Embera languages.
Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics International and the University of Texas at
Arlington.
Moseley, Chris and R. E. Asher, eds. (1994) Atlas of the World’s Languages. London: Routledge.
Mosonyi, Esteban Emilio. (1972) Indian groups in Venezuela. In: Dostal (1972), pp. 388–91.
(1993) Algunos problemas de clasificación de las lenguas arawak (Colombia – Venezuela). In:
(2000) Introducción al análisis del idioma baniva. In: González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de
Montes (2000), pp. 499–513.
Mosonyi, Esteban Emilio and Jorge Carlos Mosonyi (2000) Manual de lenguas indı́genas de
Venezuela, 2 vols. Caracas: Fundación Bigott.
Mosonyi, Jorge Carlos (1987) Lenguas indı́genas de Venezuela. Boletı́n de Lingüı́stica 6,
pp. 20–40. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Mostny, Grete (1954) Peine, un pueblo atacameño. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile,
Instituto de Geografı́a.
Murra, John V. (1975) Formaciones económicas y polı́ticas del mundo andino. Lima: Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos.
Murúa, Martı́n de (1987 [1613]) Historia general del Perú. Madrid: Historia 16.
Muysken, Pieter C. (1977) Syntactic Developments in the Verb Phrase of Ecuadorian Quechua.
Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press (also published by Foris, Dordrecht).
(1979) La mezcla entre quechua y castellano. Lexis 3, 1, pp. 41–56. Lima: Pontificia
(1981a) Quechua word structure. In: F. Heny (ed.), Filters and Binding, pp. 279–329. London:
Longmans.
(1981b) Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: the case for relexification. In: Albert Valdman
and Arnold Highfield (eds.), Historicity and Variation in Creole Studies, pp. 52–78. Ann
Arbor: Karoma.
(1984) The Spanish that Quechua speakers learn: L2 learning as norm-governed behaviour. In:
R. W. Andersen (ed.), Second Languages: a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, pp. 101–24.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
660 References
(1986) Contactos entre quichua y castellano en el Ecuador. In: Segundo E. Moreno Yánez
(ed.), Memorias del Primer Simposio Europeo sobre Antropologı́a del Ecuador,
pp. 377–451. Quito: Ediciones Abya Yala.
(1997a) Media Lengua. In: Thomason (1997), pp. 365–426.
(1997b) Callahuaya. In: Thomason (1997), pp. 427–47.
(2000) Drawn into the Aymara mold? Notes on Uru grammar. In: van der Voort and van de
Kerke (2000), pp. 99–109.
(MS 2002) The Uru Languages. Nijmegen.
Myers, Sarah K. (1973) Language Shift among Migrants to Lima, Peru. Research Paper 147.
Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Geography.
Najlis, Elena L. (1966) Lengua abipona, 2 vols. Archivo de lenguas precolombinas 1.
Universidad de Buenos Aires: Instituto de Lingüı́stica.
(1973) Lengua selknam. Filologı́a y Lingüı́stica 3. Buenos Aires: Universidad del Salvador.
(1975) Diccionario selknam. Filologı́a y Lingüı́stica 4. Buenos Aires: Universidad del Salvador.
(1984) Fonologı́a de la protolengua mataguaya. Cuadernos de Lingüı́stica Indı́gena 9.
Universidad de Buenos Aires: Instituto de Lingüı́stica.
Nardi, Ricardo L. J. (1962) El quechua de Catamarca y La Rioja. Cuadernos del Instituto
Nacional de Investigaciones Folklóricas 3, pp. 189–285. Buenos Aires.
(1979) El kakán, lengua de los Diaguitas. Sapiens 3, pp. 1–33. Chivilcoy (Buenos Aires):
Museo Arqueológico Dr Osvaldo F. A. Menghin.
(2002) Introducción al quichua santiagueño, ed. Lelia Inés Albarracı́n, Mario C. Tebes and
Jorge R. Alderetes. Asociación de investigadores en lengua quechua (ADILQ), Tucumán.
Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken.
Nebrija, Antonio de (c.1488) Introductiones Latinae. Salamanca (1981 edition, Salamanca:
Universidad de Salamanca).
Neira, Alonso de and Juan Ribero (1928 [1762]) Arte y vocabulario de la lengua achagua.
Doctrina Christiana, confesionario de uno y otro sexo é instruccion de cathecumenos. In:
Catálogo de la Real Biblioteca, vol. 6: Manuscritos. Lenguas de América, pp. 1–174. Madrid.
Newson, Linda A. (1995) Life and Death in Early Colonial Ecuador. Norman Okla., and London:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Nieves Oviedo, Rocı́o (1991a) La predicación nominal en nasa yuwe. In: Rojas Curieux (1991c),
pp. 101–38.
(1991b) Fonologı́a: variante Caldono. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 9–42.
(1991c) Fonologı́a comparada. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 121–50.
(1991d) Fonologı́a: variante Paniquitá. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 151–84.
ed. (1991e) Estudios fonológicos de la lengua páez (nasa yuwe). Bogotá: Universidad de los
Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes.
(2000) Páez: Lista de Morris Swadesh. In: González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes
(2000), pp. 150–2.
Niño-Murcia, Mercedes (1995) The gerund in the Spanish of the north Andean region. In:
Carmen Silva-Corvalán (ed.), Spanish in Four Continents. Studies in Language Contact and
Bilingualism, pp. 83–100. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Nordenskiöld, Erland (1905) Über Quichua sprechende Indianer an der Ostabhängen der Anden
im Grenzgebiet zwischen Peru und Bolivia. Globus 88, 7, pp. 101–8.
(1912) Indianerleben. El Gran Chaco (Südamerika). Leipzig: Albert Bonnier.
(1922) Deductions Suggested by the Geographical Distribution of some Post-Columbian Words
Used by the Indians of South America. Comparative Ethnographical Studies 5. Göteborg:
Elanders Boktryckeri.
(1924) The Ethnography of South America Seen from Mojos in Bolivia. Comparative
Ethnographical Studies 3. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri.
References 661
(1928–30) Picture-Writings and Other Documents, vol. 1 (1928) Comparative Ethnographical

Studies 7, 1; vol. 2 (1930a) Comparative Ethnographical Studies 7, 2. Göteborg: Elanders
Boktryckeri.
(1930b) Modifications in Indian Culture through Inventions and Loans. Comparative
Ethnographical Studies 8. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri.
(1938) An Historical and Ethnological Survey of the Cuna Indians (posthumous edition by S.
Henry Wassén). Göteborg: Göteborgs museum, etnografiska avdelningen.
Nowak, Elke, ed. (1999) Languages Different in All their Sounds: Descriptive Approaches to
Indigenous Languages of the Americas 1500 to 1850. Studium Sprachwissenschaft, Beiheft
31. Münster: Nodus.
Nuckolls, Janis B. (1997) Sounds Like Life: Sound-Symbolic Grammar, Performance, and
Cognition in Pastaza Quechua. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Obando Ordóñez, Pedro (1992) Awa-Kwaiker: an Outline Grammar of a Colombian–Ecuadorian
Language, with a cultural sketch. PhD diss. University of Texas, Austin.
Oblitas Poblete, Enrique (1968) El idioma secreto de los Incas. Cochabamba: Los Amigos del
Libro.
Olaya Perdomo, Noel (2000) Descripción preliminar del sistema verbal de la lengua kogui (o
kawgi). In: González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000), pp. 781–7.
Olson, Ronald D. (1964) Mayan affinities with Chipaya of Bolivia 1: Correspondences.
(1965) Mayan affinities with Chipaya of Bolivia 2: Cognates. International Journal of
(1967) The syllable in Chipaya. International Journal of American Linguistics 33, 4,
pp. 300–4.
Olza Zubiri, Jesús and Miguel Angel Jusayú (1978) Gramática de la lengua guajira. Caracas:
Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, Ministerio de Educación.
Olza Zubiri, Jesús, Conchita Nuni de Chapi and Juan Tube (2002) Gramática moja ignaciana
(morfosintaxis). San Cristóbal: Universidad del Táchira; Caracas: Universidad Católica
Andrés Bello.
Oramas, Luis R. (1913) Contribución al estudio de la lengua guajira. Caracas: Publicaciones de
la ‘Revista Técnica del Ministerio de Obras Públicas’ de los EE.UU. de Venezuela.
(1916) Materiales para el estudio de los dialectos ayamán, gayón, jirajara, ajagua. Caracas: El
Comercio.
Orbigny, Alcide Dessalines d’ (1839) L’homme américain (de l’Amérique méridionale) considéré
sous ses rapports physiologiques et moraux. Paris.
(1945) Viaje a la América meridional. Brasil. República del Uruguay. República Argentina. La
Patagonia. República de Chile, República de Bolivia, República del Perú. Realizado de 1826
a 1833. Buenos Aires: Editorial Futura.
Oré, Luis Jerónimo de (1607) Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum. Naples.
Oroz, Rodolfo (1966) La lengua castellana en Chile. Santiago: Universidad de Chile, Facultad de
Filosofı́a y Educación, Instituto de Investigaciones Histórico-Culturales, Instituto de
Filologı́a.
Orr, Carolyn J. and Robert E. Longacre (1968) Proto Quechumaran. Language 44,
pp. 528–55.
Ortega Ricaurte, Carmen (1978) Los estudios sobre lenguas indı́genas de Colombia. Bogotá:
Ortiz, Sergio Elı́as (1946) Los indios yurumanguı́es. Acta Americana 4, pp. 10–25.
(1965) Lenguas y dialectos indı́genas de Colombia. Part 3 of Luis Duque Gómez (ed.),
Historia extensa de Colombia, vol. I: Prehistoria. Academia Colombiana de Historia.
Bogotá: Ediciones Lerner.
662 References
Ortiz Ricaurte, Carolina (1989) La composición nominal en kogui. In: Trillos Amaya et al.
(1989), pp. 181–272.
(1994) Clases y tipos de predicados en la lengua kogui. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 377–99.
(2000) La lengua kogui: fonologı́a y morfosintaxis nominal. In: González de Pérez and
Ossio Acuña, Juan Marı́a, ed. (1973) Ideologı́a mesiánica del mundo andino. Lima: Ignacio
Prado Pastor
Ostler, Nicholas (1993) Cases, directionals and conjunctions in Chibcha. Estudios de Lingüı́stica
Chibcha 12, pp. 7–33. San José: Universidad de Costa Rica.
(1994) Syntactic typology of Muisca – a sketch. In: Cole et al. (1994), pp. 205–30.
(1995) Fray Bernardo de Lugo: two sonnets in Muisca. In: Troiani (1995), pp. 129–42.
(1999) Las oraciones y el catecismo breve en muisca del MS 2922: Historia, texto,
terminologı́a. In: Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz and Crickmay (1999), pp. 41–59.
(2000) The development of transitivity in the Chibchan languages of Colombia. In: John
Charles Smith and Delia Bentley (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1995, vol. 1: General Issues
and Non-Germanic Languages, pp. 279–93. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Ostler, Nicholas and Marı́a Stella González de Pérez (forthcoming) Chibcha in its Linguistic
Context: Grammar, Dictionary, Texts and Reconstruction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Pabón Triana, Marta (1995a) La Lengua de Totoró: historia de una causa. In: Pabón Triana
(1995b), pp. 91–110. Bogotá.
ed. (1995b) Lenguas aborı́genes de Colombia (VII Congreso de Antropologı́a; Simposio ‘La
recuperación de lenguas nativas como búsqueda de identidad étnica’; Medellı́n, June 1994),
Memorias 3. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas
Aborı́genes.
Pachón, Ximena, (1987) Páez. In: Correa and Pachón (1987), pp. 217–34.
Páez, Justiniano (1936) Investigaciones sobre la lengua de los indios motilones. Hacaritama 2,
pp. 337–43. Ocaña, Colombia.
Palavecino, Enrique (1926) Elementos lingüı́sticos de Oceanı́a en el quechua. In: José Imbelloni
(ed.), La esfinge indiana. Antiguos y nuevos aspectos de los orı́genes americanos,
pp. 335–49. Buenos Aires: El Ateneo.
Paniagua Loza, Félix (1986) Qala chuyma. Canciones tradicionales aymaras. Q’axilunaka –
Cajelos. Puno: Proyecto Experimental de Educación Bilingüe.
Pantoja Alcántara, Isabel del Rocı́o (MS 2000) Presencia del culli en el castellano regional de
Santiago de Chuco – La Libertad. MA thesis Facultad de Letras y Ciencias Humanas,
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Lima.
Pantoja Ramos, Santiago, José Ripkens and Germán Swisshelm (1974) Cuentos y relatos en el
quechua de Huaraz, 2 vols. Estudios Culturales Benedictinos 3. Huaraz.
Parada, Enrique, Humberto Valdivieso and Miguel A. Alarcón (1976) El léxico de las minas del
carbón. Concepción, Chile: Universidad de Concepción.
Pardo Rojas, Mauricio and Daniel Aguirre Licht (1993) Dialectologı́a chocó. In: Rodrı́guez de
Montes (1993), pp. 269–312.
Park, Marinell, Nancy Weber and Vı́ctor Cenepo Sangama (1976) Diccionario quechua San
Martı́n. Lima: Ministerio de Educación, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Parker, Gary John (1963) La clasificación genética de los dialectos quechuas. Revista del Museo
(1965) Gramática del quechua ayacuchano. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos, Plan de Fomento Lingüı́stico.
(1969a) Ayacucho Quechua Grammar and Dictionary. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
References 663
(1969–71) Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar. I: Classification, Working Papers in

Linguistics 1, 1, pp. 65–87; II (1969b): Proto-Quechua phonology and morphology, WPIL 1,
2, pp. 123–47; III (1969c): Proto-Quechua lexicon, WPIL 1, 4, pp. 1–61; IV (1969d): The
evolution of Quechua A, WPIL 1, 9, pp. 149–204; Corrigenda et Addenda to Chapters I–IV,
WPIL 2, 2, pp. 111–16; V (1971): The evolution of Quechua B, WPIL 3, 3, pp. 45–109.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Department of Linguistics.
(1976) Gramática quechua Ancash–Huailas. Lima: Ministerio de Educación, Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos.
Parker, Gary John and Amancio Chávez (1976) Diccionario quechua Ancash–Huailas. Lima:
Ministerio de Educación, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Parker, Stephen G. (1987) Vocabularios y textos chamicuro. Yarinacocha: Instituto Lingüı́stico de
Verano.
(1995) Datos de la lengua iñapari. Documento de Trabajo 27. Lima, Yarinacocha: Ministerio
de Educación, Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Parker, Stephen G. with Gregorio Orbe Caro and Alfonso Patow Chota (1987) Kana acha’taka
ijnachale kana chamekolo. Vocabulario y textos chamicuro. Documento de Trabajo 21.
Lima: Ministerio de Educación, Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Parker, Stephen G. with Arquı́medes Sinuiri Nunta and Antonio Ramı́rez Cairuna (1992) Datos
del idioma huariapano. Documento de Trabajo 24. Lima: Ministerio de Educación and
Patiño Rosselli, Carlos (2000) Lenguas aborı́genes de la Amazonia meridional de Colombia. In:
González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000), pp. 169–70.
Patte, Marie-France (1978) Etude phonologique de la langue añun (paraujano) parlée dans la
région de Sinamaica (Vénézuéla). Amerindia 3, pp. 57–83. Paris: Association
(1981) Les préfixes personnels en añún. Amerindia 6, pp. 7–16. Paris: Association
(1986) De los Añun. Chantiers Amerindia: Supplément 2 au no 11 d’Amerindia. Paris:
Association d’ethnolinguistique amérindienne.
(1989) Estudio descriptivo de la lengua Añun (o ‘Paraujano’). San Cristóbal: Universidad
Católica del Táchira.
Payaguaje, Alfredo and Celestino Payaguaje (1988) Ñama, yaio’i cui’ne cutihue cou. El venado,
los tigres y la tortuga. Cultura siona – secoya. Cuadernos de lectura 1. Quito: Organización
de Indı́genas Secoya-Siona del Ecuador, Centro de Investigaciones Culturales de la
Amazona Ecnatoriana and Confederación de Nacionalidades Indı́genas de Ecuador.
Payne, David L. (1981) Bosquejo fonológico del proto-shuar-candoshi. Revista del Museo
(1985) The genetic classification of Resı́garo. International Journal of American Linguistics
51, 2, pp. 222–31.
(1990) Some widespread grammatical forms in South American languages. In: Doris L. Payne
(1990a), pp. 75–87.
(1991a) A classification of Maipuran (Arawakan) languages based on shared lexical retentions.
In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1991), pp. 353–499.
(1991b) Apolista (Lapachu) as a Maipuran language. Paper presented at the 47th International
Congress of Americanists, New Orleans.
(1991c) Clasificadores nominales: la interacción de la fonologı́a, la gramática, y el léxico en la
investigación comparativa del maipuran. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios
Etnolingüı́sticos 6, pp. 241–57. Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor.
(1993) Una visión panorámica de la familia lingüı́stica arawak. In: Rodrı́guez de Montes
(1993), pp. 127–64.
664 References
Payne, Doris L. (1984) Evidence for a Yaguan-Zaparoan connection. In: Desmond Derbyshire
(ed.), SIL Work Papers, University of North Dakota Session 28, pp. 131–56.
(1985) -ta in Zaparoan and Peban-Yaguan. International Journal of American Linguistics 51, 4,
529–31.
(1986) Basic constituent order in Yagua clauses. Implications for word order universals. In:
Derbyshire and Pullum (1986), pp. 440–65.
ed. (1990a) Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American Languages. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
(1990b) Morphological characteristics of lowland South American Languages. In: Doris L.
Payne (1990a), pp. 213–42.
Payne, Doris L. and Thomas E. Payne (1990) Yagua. In: Derbyshire and Pullum (1990),
pp. 249–474.
Payne, Johnny (1984) Cuentos cusqueños. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
Paz y Miño, Luis T. (1936–7) Contribución al estudio de las lenguas indı́genas del Ecuador.
Boletı́n de la Academia Nacional de Historia 14 (1936), pp. 40–54; 15 (1937), pp. 9–41.
Quito.
(1940–2) Lenguas indı́genas del Ecuador. I (1940) La lengua pasto, Boletı́n de la Academia
Nacional de Historia, 20, 56, pp. 161–78; II (1941a) La lengua kara, BANH, 21, 57,
pp. 28–52; III (1941b) La kito o panzaleo, BANH, 21, 58, pp. 145–70; IV (1942) La lengua
puruguay, BANH 22, 59, pp. 42–74. Quito.
(1961a) Las agrupaciones y lenguas indı́genas del Ecuador, en 1500 y 1959. Boletı́n de la
Academia Nacional de Historia 43, 97, pp. 5–16. Quito.
(1961b) Lenguas indı́genas del Ecuador: la lengua kañar. Boletı́n de la Academia Nacional de
Historia 43, pp. 193–229. Quito.
Peeke, M. Catherine (1962) Structural summary of Záparo. In: Elson (1962), pp. 125–216.
(1973) Preliminary Grammar of Auca. Summer Institute of Linguistics Publications in
Linguistics and Related Fields 39. Norman, Okla.: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
(1979) El idioma huao: gramática pedagógica, vol. 1. Cuadernos Etnolingüı́sticos 3. Quito:
Pellizzaro, Siro M. (1969) Apuntes de gramática shuar. Quito: Federación Provincial de Centros
Shuar de Morona-Santiago.
Perea y Alonso, Sixto (1937) Apuntes para la prehistoria indı́gena del Rı́o de la Plata y
especialmente de la banda oriental de Uruguay, como introducción a la filologı́a comparada
de las lenguas y dialectos Arawak. Boletı́n de Filologı́a 1, pp. 217–45. Montevideo:
Universidad de Montevideo.
Pérez de Barradas, José (1955) Les Indiens de l’Eldorado. Etude historique et ethnographique des
Muiscas de Colombie. Paris: Payot (originally published in Spanish in Madrid, 1951).
Pérez van Leenden, Francisco (2000) Lenguas aborı́genes de la penı́nsula de la Guajira. In:
Perl, Matthias and Armin Schwegler, eds. (1998) América Negra: panorámica actual de los
estudios lingüisticos sobre variedades hispanas, portuguesas y criollas. Frankfurt am Main:
Vervuert.
Petersen de Piñeros, Gabriele (1994) La lengua uitota en la obra de K. Th. Preuss. Bogotá:
Editorial Universidad Nacional.
Petersen de Piñeros, Gabriele and Carlos Patiño Rosselli (2000) El idioma uitoto. In: González de
Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000), pp. 219–38.
Phelan, John Leddy (1967) The Kingdom of Quito in the Seventeenth Century. Madison,
Milwaukee and London: University of Wisconsin Press.
Philippi, Rodulfus Amandus (1860) Reise durch die Wüste Atacama auf Befehl der chilenischen
Regierung im Sommer 1853–1854. Halle: Eduard Anton.
References 665
Pigafetta, Antonio (1956) Relation du premier voyage autour du monde par Magellan
[1519–1522]. Commentary and transcription by Léonce Peillard. Paris: Club des Librairies
de France.
Pike, Evelyn G. and Rachel Saint, eds. (1988) Workpapers concerning Waorani Discourse
Features. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Pineda Giraldo, Roberto and Miguel Fornaguera (1958) Vocabulario opon-carare. In: Academia
Colombiana de Historia, ed. Homenaje al Profesor Paul Rivet. Bogotá: Editorial ABC.
Piossek Prebisch, Teresa (1976) La rebelión de Pedro Bohórquez. El Inca del Tucumán
(1656–1659). Buenos Aires: Juárez.
Pitkin, Harvey (1984) Wintu Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
(1985) Wintu Dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pizarro, Pedro (1986 [1571]) Relación del descubrimiento y conquista de los reinos del Perú
(2nd edition). Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Plaza Martı́nez, Pedro and Juan Carvajal Carvajal (1985) Etnias y lenguas de Bolivia. La Paz:
Instituto Boliviano de Cultura.
Poblete Mendoza, Marı́a Teresa and Adalberto Salas (1997) El aymara de Chile (fonologı́a,
textos, léxico). Filologı́a y Lingüı́stica 23, 1, pp. 121–203. San José: Editorial de la
Poblete Mendoza, Marı́a Teresa and Adalberto Salas (1999) Fonemas yamana (yagan). Estructura
fonológica de la palabra. Revista de Lingüı́stica Teórica y Aplicada 37, pp. 107–22.
Concepción (Chile).
Polo, José Toribio (1901) Indios uros del Perú y Bolivia. Boletı́n de la Sociedad Geográfica de
Lima 10, pp. 445–82. Lima.
Porterie-Gutiérrez, Liliane (1988) Etude linguistique de l’aymara septentrional (Pérou-Bolivie).
Thèse Amerindia. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique amérindienne.
(1990) Documentos para el estudio de la lengua chipaya. Amerindia 15, pp. 157–91. Paris:
Posnansky, Arturo (1915) La lengua chipaya. Memorias presentadas al XIX Congreso
Internacional de Americanistas. La Paz: Instituto Tiahuanacu de Antropologı́a, Etnografı́a y
Prehistoria.
(1918) Los chipayas de Carangas (2nd edition). La Paz: Escuela tipográfica salesiana.
(1934) Los urus o uchumi. Actas del XXV Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (La Plata,
1932), vol. 1, pp. 235–300. La Plata, Argentina.
Pottier, Bernard, ed. (1983) América Latina en sus lenguas indigenas. Caracas: Unesco and
Monte Avila.
Pozzi-Escot, Inés (1998) El multilinguı̈smo en el Perú. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas;
Cochabamba: Programa de Formación en Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Paı́ses
Andinos (PROEIB Andes).
Preuss, Konrad Theodor (1921–5) Forschungsreise zu den Kágaba-Indianern der Sierra Nevada
de Santa Marta. Anthropos 16–17 (1–3), pp. 459–80, (4–6), pp. 737–64; 18–19 (1–3),
pp. 125–54, (4–6), pp. 890–950; 20 (1–2), pp. 77–119, (3–4), pp. 461–95. St Gabriel,
Mödling near Vienna: Anthropos Verlag.
(1921–3) Religion und Mythologie der Uitoto. Textaufnahmen und Beobachtungen bei einem
Indianenstamm in Kolumbien, Südamerika. Göttingen and Leipzig: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Proulx, Paul (1969) Proto-Quechua person suffixes. International Journal of American
Puente Baldoceda, Blas (1978) Influencia morfo-sintáctica del quechua sobre el castellano andino
del Perú. Paper presented at a Workshop on Andean Linguistics organised by the Linguistic
Society of America (University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, August 1978).
666 References
Pyle, Ransford Comstock (1981) Aymara kinship, real and spiritual. In: Hardman (1981),
pp. 80–9.
Queixalós, Francisco (1985) Fonologı́a sikuani. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
(1989) Diccionario Sikuani–Español. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano
de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes.
(1993) Lenguas y dialectos de la familia lingüı́stica guahibo. In: Rodrı́guez de Montes (1993),
pp. 189–217.
(1998) Nom, verbe et prédicat en sikuani (Colombie). Paris: Société d’Etudes Linguistiques et
Anthropologiques de France and Peeters.
(2000) Syntaxe sikuani (Colombie). Paris: Société d’Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques
de France and Peeters.
Queixalós, François and Odile Renault-Lescure, eds. (2000) As lı́nguas amazônicas hoje. São
Paulo: Institut de recherche pour le développement, Instituto Socioambiental and Museu
Paraense Emı́lio Goeldi.
Quesada Castillo, Félix (1976a) Gramática quechua Cajamarca–Cañaris. Lima: Ministerio de
Educación and Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
(1976b) Diccionario quechua Cajamarca–Cañaris. Lima: Ministerio de Educación and
Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Quesada Pacheco, Miguel Angel (1991) El vocabulario mosco de 1612. Estudios de Lingüı́stica
Chibcha 10, pp. 29–99. San José: Universidad de Costa Rica.
Quijano Otero, José Marı́a, ed. (1881) Grammatica, frases, oraciones, cathezismo, confessionario
y bocabulario de la lengua chibcha [1620]. In: Actas del Congreso Internacional de
Americanistas IV (Madrid 1881), vol. 2, pp. 226–95. Madrid: Imprenta de Fortanet
(republished in 1968 by Kraus Reprint, Nendeln, Liechtenstein).
Rabinowitz, Joel (1983) La lengua pescadora: the lost dialect of Chimu fishermen. In: Daniel H.
Sandweiss (ed.), Cornell University Investigations of the Andean Past, Papers from the First
Annual Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory, pp. 243–67. Ithaca:
Cornell University.
Raimondi, Antonio (1873) El departamento de Ancachs y sus riquezas minerales. Lima: P. Lira.
Ramı́rez, Henri (1997) A Fala Tukano dos Ye pâ-Masa, vol. I: Gramática; vol. II: Dicionário.
Manaus: Inspetoria Salesiana Missionária da Amazônia and Centro ‘Iavareté’ de
Documentacão Etnográfica e Missionária (CEDEM).
Ramos Cabredo, Josefina (1950) Las lenguas en la región tallanca. Cuadernos de Estudio del
Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas 3, 8, pp. 11–55. Lima: Pontificia Universidad
Católica del Perú.
Ramos Pizarro, Nelly (1989) Bilingüismo castellano mapudungun en población escolar media de
la IX región (Chile). Pueblos Indı́genas y Educación 12, pp. 29–42. Quito: Abya-Yala and
Ravines, Rogger and Avalos de Matos, Rosalı́a (1988) Atlas etnolingüı́stico del Perú. Lima:
Instituto Andino de Artes Populares del Convenio Andrés Bello, Comisión Nacional del
Perú.
Raymond, J. Scott (1988) A view from the tropical forest. In: Keatinge (1998),
pp. 279–300.
Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo (1947) La lengua chimila. Journal de la Société des Américanistes
de Paris 36, pp. 15–50.
(1950–1) Los kogi: una tribu de la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, 2 vols. Bogotá: Editorial
Iqueima (new edition 1985, Bogotá: Procultura).
(1965) Excavaciones arqueológicas en Puerto Hormiga (Departamento de Bolı́var). Bogotá:
Universidad de los Andes.
(1972) San Agustı́n. New York and Washington: Praeger.
References 667
(1989) Materiales lingüı́sticos de 1.947. ‘Contribuciones al conocimiento del idioma sanká’.

In: Trillos Amaya et al. (1989), pp. 143–80.
Remy, Pilar and Marı́a Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, eds. (1992) Las visitas a Cajamarca
1571–2/1578, 2 vols. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Reuse, Willem J. de (1986) The lexicalization of sound symbolism in Santiago del Estero
Quechua. International Journal of American Linguistics 52, 1, pp. 54–64.
Ricardo, Antonio, ed. (1985 [1584]) Doctrina Christiana y catecismo para instrucción de los
indios. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientı́ficas.
ed. (1586) Arte, y vocabulario en la lengua general del Peru llamada quichua, y en la lengua
española. Lima (revised edition see Aguilar Páez 1970).
Rick, John W. (1988) The character and context of highland preceramic society. In: Keatinge
(1988), pp. 3–40.
Riester, Jürgen (1976) En busca de la Loma Santa. La Paz, Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro.
(1986a) Introducción. In: Riester (1986b), pp. 17–84.
ed. (1986b) Zúbaka. La Chiquitanı́a: visión antropológica de una región en desarrollo, vol. 1:
Vocabulario del chiquito Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro.
Rivano, Emilio (1988) Morphosyntactic functions in Mapudungu. Revista de Lingüı́stica Teórica
y Aplicada 26, pp. 57–90. Concepción, Chile.
(1989) Persons, interactions, proximity, and metaphorical grammaticalization in Mapudungu.
Working Papers 35, pp. 149–68. Lund University, Department of Linguistics.
(1990) Notes on the feature matrix for Mapudungu vowels and related issues. Revista de
Lingüı́stica Teórica y Aplicada 28, pp. 135–45. Concepción, Chile.
Rivarola, José Luis (1985a) Lengua, comunicación e historia del Perú. Lima: Lumen (also
published in Boletı́n de la Academia Peruana de la Lengua 19 (1984), pp. 125–60,
Lima).
(1985b) Un testimonio del español andino en el Perú del siglo 17. Anuario de Lingüı́stica
Hispánica 1, pp. 203–11. Valladolid.
(1986) El español del Perú. Balance y perspectiva de la investigación. Lexis 10, pp. 25–52.
(1987) Parodı́as de la ‘lengua del indio’ en el Perú (SS XVII–XIX). Lexis 11, pp. 137–64.
(1990) La formación lingüı́stica de Hispanoamérica. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú.
Rivera, Mario A. (1999) Prehistory of the Southern Cone. In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999),
part 1, pp. 734–68.
Rivet, Paul (1924a) Langues américaines, II: Langues de l’Amérique du Sud et des Antilles. In:
Meillet and Cohen (1924), pp. 639–712.
(1924b) La langue andakı́. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 16, pp. 99–110.
(1925) Les Australiens en Amérique. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 26,
pp. 23–63. Paris.
(1927) La famille linguistique timote. International Journal of American Linguistics 4, 2–4,
pp. 137–67.
(1934) Population de la province de Jaén. Equateur. In: Congrès international des sciences
anthropologiques et ethnologiques: compte-rendu de la première session, pp. 245–7.
London: Royal Institute of Anthropology.
(1942) Un dialecte hoka colombien: le yurumangı́. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de
Paris 34, pp. 1–59.
(1943a) La influencia karib en Colombia. Revista del Instituto Etnológico Nacional 1,
pp. 55–93, 283–95. Bogotá.
(1943b) La lengua chokó. Revista del Instituto Etnológico Nacional 1, pp. 131–96. Bogotá.
668 References
(1943–6) Nouvelle contribution à l’étude de l’ethnologie précolombienne de Colombie.

Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 35, pp. 25–39.
(1947) Les indiens malibú. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 36,
pp. 139–44.
(1949) Les langues de l’ancien diocèse de Trujillo. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de
Paris 38, pp. 1–51.
(1956) Les affixes classificatoires des noms de nombre. Journal de la Société des
Américanistes de Paris 45, pp. 179–88.
Rivet, Paul and Cesáreo de Armellada (1950) Les indiens motilones. Journal de la Société des
Américanistes de Paris 39, pp. 15–57.
Rivet, Paul and Georges de Créqui-Montfort (1951–6) Bibliographie des langues aymará et
kičua, 4 vols. Paris: Université de Paris, Institut d’Ethnologie.
Rivet, Paul and Čestmı́r Loukotka (1952) Langues de l’Amérique du Sud et des Antilles. In:
Meillet and Cohen (revised edition 1952), pp. 1099–160.
Rivet, Paul and Clément Tastevin (1931) Nouvelle contribution à l’étude du groupe kahuapana.
International Journal of American Linguistics 6, 3–4, pp. 227–71.
Robayo Moreno, Camilo Alberto (2000) Introducción al estudio de la lengua yuko o yukpa. In:
Rochereau, Henri (1926–7) La lengua tuneba y sus dialectos, fasc. I: Ensayo gramatical. (1926);
fasc. II: Vocabulario (1927). Pamplona: Imprenta de la Diócesis de Pamplona.
Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna (1984–5) Relações internas na famı́lia lingüı́stica tupi-guaranı́.
Revista de Antropologia 27/28, pp. 33–53. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo,
Departamento de Ciências Sociais.
(1985a) Evidence for Tupi–Carib relationships. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 371–404.
(1985b) The present state of the study of Brazilian Indian languages. In: Klein and Stark
(1985a), pp. 405–39.
(1986) Lı́nguas brasileiras. São Paulo: Edições Loyola.
(1999) Macro-Jê. In: Dixon and Aikhenvald (1999), pp. 164–206.
(2000) ‘Ge-Pano-Carib’ x ‘Jê-Tupı́-Karib’; sobre relaciones lingüı́sticas prehistóricas en
Sudamérica. In: Miranda Esquerre (2000), vol. 1, pp. 95–104.
Rodrı́guez, Gustavo (1991) The Talátur. Ceremonial chant of the Atacama people. In: Key (1991),
pp. 181–92.
Rodrı́guez Baquero, Luis Enrique (1995) Encomienda y vida diaria entre los indios de Muzo
(1550–1620). Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Cultura Hispánica.
Rodrı́guez Garrido, José A. (1982) Sobre el uso del posesivo redundante en el español del Peru.
Lexis 6, pp. 117–23. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Departamento de
Humanidades.
Rodrı́guez González, Sandra Patricia (2000). Estudios sobre la lengua koreguaje. In: González de
Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000), pp. 199–213.
Rodrı́guez de Montes, Marı́a Luisa, ed. (1993) Estado actual de la clasificación de las lenguas
indı́genas de Colombia. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
Rojas Curieux, Tulio (1991a) Las estructuras de la oración en páez. In: Rojas Curieux (1991c),
pp. 7–100.
(1991b) Fonologı́a: variante Munchique. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 43–96.
ed. (1991c) Estudios gramaticales de la lengua páez (nasa yuwe). Bogotá: Universidad de los
Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes.
(1998) La lengua páez: una visión de su gramática. Santafé de Bogotá: Ministerio de Cultura.
Rojas de Perdomo, Lucia (1979) Manual de arqueologı́a colombiana. Bogotá: Carlos Valencia
Editores.
Romero, Fernando (1988) Quimba, Fa, Malambo, Ñeque. Afronegrismos en el Perú. Lima:
Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
References 669
Romoli, Kathleen (1987) Los de la lengua de Cueva. Los grupos indı́genas del istmo oriental en
la época de la conquista española. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Antropologı́a, Instituto
Colombiano de Cultura (Ediciones Tercer Mundo).
Rona, José Pedro (1964) Nuevos elementos acerca de la lengua charrúa. Montevideo:
Universidad de la República, Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Departamento de
Lingüı́stica.
Rösing, Ina (1990) Introducción al mundo callawaya: curación ritual para vencer penas y
tristezas, vol. I: Introducción y documentación. Cochabamba: Los Amigos del Libro.
Rouby, Angel and Otto Riedmayer, with Luis Marı́a Caillet (1983) Shuar chicham. Gramática
shuar. Vocabulario Castellano – Shuar. Ecuador: Mundo Shuar.
Rowe, John Howland (1947) The distribution of Indians and Indian languages in Peru. The
Geographical Review 37, pp. 202–15. New York.
(1948) The kingdom of Chimor. Acta Americana 6, 1–2, pp. 26–59.
(1950a) The Idabaez: Unknown Indians of the Chocó coast. Kroeber Anthropological Society
Papers no. 1, pp. 34–44. Berkeley.
(1950b) Sound patterns in three Inca dialects. International Journal of American Linguistics
16, 3, pp. 137–48.
(1974) Sixteenth and seventeenth century grammars. In: Dell Hymes (ed.), Studies in the
History of Linguistics: Traditions and Paradigms, pp. 361–79. Bloomington and London:
Indiana University Press.
Sáez Godoy, Leopoldo, ed. (1971) Johann Jakob von Tschudi: la lengua cunza. Signos 5, 1,
pp. 15–20. Valparaı́so: Universidad Católica de Valparaı́so, Instituto de Lenguas y
Literatura.
Sáez Godoy, Leopoldo, et al. (MS 1974) Diccionario Español–Kunsa Kunsa–Español. Seminario
de titulación ‘la lengua kunsa’. Valparaı́so: Universidad Católica de Valparaı́so.
Saint, Rachel and Kenneth L. Pike (1962) Auca phonemics. In: Elson (1962), pp. 2–30.
Sakel, Jeanette (2002) Gender agreement in Mosetén. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 287–305.
(2003) A Grammar of Mosetén. PhD diss. University of Nijmegen.
Salas, Adalberto (1978) Terminaciones y transiciones en el verbo mapuche. Crı́tica y bases para
una nueva interpretación. Revista de Lingüı́stica Teórica y Aplicada 16, pp. 167–79.
Concepción, Chile.
(1979) Semantic Ramifications of the Category of Person in the Mapuche Verb. PhD diss. State
University of New York, Buffalo.
(1984) Textos orales en mapuche o araucano del centro-sur de Chile. Concepción: Editorial de
la Universidad de Concepción.
(1992a) El mapuche o araucano. Fonologı́a, gramática y antologı́a de cuentos. Madrid:
Editorial MAPFRE.
(1992b) Lingüı́stica mapuche. Revista Andina 10, 2, pp. 473–537. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de
Las Casas.
Salas, Adalberto and Marı́a Teresa Poblete Mendoza (1997) El aymara de Chile (II Léxico).
Filologı́a y Lingüı́stica 23, 2, pp. 95–138. San José: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa
Rica.
Salas, José Antonio (2002) Diccionario Mochica–Castellano Castellano-Mochica. Lima:
Universidad de San Martı́n de Porres, Escuela Profesional de Turismo y Hotelerı́a.
Salas, Julio C. (1924) Orı́genes americanos: lenguas indias comparadas, vol. 1. Caracas:
Editorial Sur-America.
Salomon, Frank (1986) Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas: the Political Economy of
North Andean Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salomon, Frank and Sue Grosboll (1986) Names and peoples in Incaic Quito: retrieving
undocumented historic processes through anthroponymy and statistics. American
Anthropologist 88, pp. 387–99.
670 References
Salomon, Frank and Stuart B. Schwartz, eds. (1999) The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples
of South America, vol. 3: South America, 2 parts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salomon, Frank and George L. Urioste (1991) The Huarochirı́ Manuscript. A Testament of
Ancient and Colonial Andean Religion. Austin: University of Texas Press.
San Pedro, Juan de and Juan del Canto (1918) Relación de la religión y ritos del Perú, hecha por
los primeros religiosos Agustinos que allı́ passaron para la conversión de los naturales. In:
Horacio H. Urteaga and Carlos H. Romero (eds.), Informaciones acerca de la Religión y
Gobierno de los Incas. Colección de Libros y Documentos referentes a la historia del Perú,
vol. 11, pp. 3–58. Lima (for the 1992 edition see Castro de Trelles).
San Román, Francisco J. (1967) La lengua cunza de los naturales de Atacama. Revista de Cultura
Universitaria Ancora 3, pp. 76–88. Antofagasta (first published in 1890 in Revista de la
Dirección de Obras Públicas: Sección de Geografı́a 5, Santiago: Imprenta Gutenberg).
Santa Gertrudis, Juan de (1970) Maravillas de la naturaleza, 4 vols. Bogotá: Editorial Kelly.
Santo Tomás, Domingo de (1560a) Grammatica o arte de la lengua general de los indios de los
reynos del Peru. Valladolid: Francisco Fernández de Córdova (also published in 1951 by
Raúl Porras Barrenechea, Lima; and in 1994, with an introductory study, by Rodolfo
Cerrón-Palomino, Madrid: Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica and Unesco).
(1560b) Lexicon o vocabulario de la lengua general del Peru. Valladolid: Francisco Fernández
de Córdova (also published in 1994 by Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino, Madrid: Ediciones de
Cultura Hispánica and Unesco).
Schleicher, Charles Owen (1998) Comparative and Internal Reconstruction of the Tupi-Guaranı́
Language Family. PhD diss. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Schuchard, Barbara (1986) Apuntes sobre la gramática. In: Riester (1986b), pp. 85–101.
Schumacher de Peña, Gertrud (1991) El vocabulario mochica de Walter Lehmann (1929)
comparado con otras fuentes léxicas. Lima: Instituto de Lingüı́stica Aplicada (CILA),
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Schuller, Rudolph R. (1908) Vocabulario y nuevos materiales para el estudio de la lengua de los
indios Lican-antai (Atacameños) – Calchaquı́. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Cervantes.
Seelwische, José (1980) Nivacle Ihcliish – Sômto Ihcliish. Diccionario Nivacle – Castellano.
Filadelfia, Paraguay: Asociación de Servicios de Cooperación Indı́gena-Menonita
(ASCIM).
Seifart, Frank (2002) El sistema de clasificación nominal del miraña. Bogotá: Universidad de los
Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes (CCELA).
Seler, Eduard (1902) Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur altamerikanischen Sprach- und
Alterthumskunde, vol. 1. Berlin: A. Asher & Co.
Serrano, Antonio (1936) Contribuciones al estudio de lenguas indı́genas en la Argentina:
observaciones sobre el kakán, el extinguido idioma de los diaguitas. Boletı́n de la Academia
Argentina de Letras, 4, 14, pp. 261–72.
(1947) Los aborı́genes argentinos. Buenos Aires: Editorial Nova.
Shady Solı́s, Ruth (1988) La época Huari como interacción de las sociedades regionales. Revista
Andina 6, 1, pp. 67–134. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
(1997) El centro urbano primigenio de Caral, Supe, costa nor-central del Perú. Boletı́n del
Instituto de Investigaciones Lingüı́sticas (INVEL) 3. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos, Facultad de Letras y Ciencias Humanas.
Shafer, Robert (1959) Algumas equações fonéticas em Arawakan. Anthropos 54,
pp. 542–62.
(1962) Aruacan (not Arawakan). Anthropological Linguistics 4, 4, pp. 31–40.
Shell, Olive (1965) Pano Reconstruction. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania.
(1975) Estudios Panos III: Las lenguas panos en su reconstrucción. Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana
12. Lima, Yarinacocha: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
References 671
Shell, Olive A. and Mary Ruth Wise (1971) Grupos idiomáticos del Perú (2nd edition). Lima:
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos and Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Sherzer, Joel F. (1974) Namakke, sunmakke, kormakke: three types of Cuna speech event. In:
Richard Baumann and Joel Sherzer, Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking,
pp. 263–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1975) A problem in Cuna phonology. Journal of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest 1,
2, pp. 45–53.
(1978) Cuna numeral classifiers. In: Mohammad Ali Jazayeri, Edgar C. Polomé and Werner
Winter (eds.), Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, vol. 2:
Descriptive Linguistics, pp. 331–7. The Hague, Paris and New York: Mouton.
(1983) Kuna Ways of Speaking: an Ethnographic Perspective. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
(1986) The report of a Kuna curing specialist: the poetics and rhetoric of an oral performance.
In: Sherzer and Urban (1986), pp. 169–212.
Sherzer, Joel F. and Greg Urban, eds. (1986) Native South American Discourse. Berlin, New York
and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.
Silva Santisteban, Fernando (1982) La lengua culle de Cajamarca y Huamachuco. Cantuta 9,
pp. 138–48. Lima: Universidad Nacional de Educación (reprinted 1986 in: Fernando Silva
Santisteban, Waldemar Espinoza Soriano and Rogger Ravines (eds.), Historia de Cajamarca
II: etnohistoria y lingüı́stica, pp. 365–70, Cajamarca: Instituto Nacional de Cultura).
Silver, Shirley and Wick R. Miller (1997) American Indian Languages. Cultural and Social
Contexts. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Simón, Pedro (1882–92 [1626]) Noticias historiales de las conquistas de Tierra Firme en las
Indias Occidentales, several volumes. Bogotá: Imprenta de Medardo Rivas (1982 edition,
Bogotá: Biblioteca Banco Popular).
Simson, Alfred (1886) Travels in the Wilds of Ecuador and the Exploration of the Putumayo
River. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle & Rivington.
Skottsberg, Carl (1913) Observations on the natives of the Patagonian Channel region. American
Anthropologist 15, pp. 578–616.
Smeets, Ineke (1989) A Mapuche Grammar. PhD diss. Leiden University.
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (1907) Nimpasmo nimpaiwa nelmathnangkama:
Portions of the Book of Common Prayer in the Lengua Language as Spoken by a Tribe of
Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco. London.
Society for Promoting Christian knowledge (1911) Nimpaiwa ningminaigmàschàma: Original
Hymns and Paraphrases of Well-known Hymns in the Lengua Language as Spoken by a Tribe
of Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco. London.
Solá, Donald F. (1967) Gramática del quechua de Huánuco. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor
de San Marcos, Plan de Fomento Lingüı́stico.
Solı́s Fonseca, Gustavo and Jorge Esquivel Villafana (1979) El fonema postvelar quechua y sus
efectos coarticulatorios. Documento de Trabajo 40. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos, Centro de Investigación de Lingüı́stica Aplicada.
Sorensen, Arthur P. (1967) Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon. American Anthropologist
69, pp. 670–84.
(1985) An emerging Tukanoan linguistic regionality. In: Klein and Stark (1985a),
pp. 140–56.
Soto Ruiz, Clodoaldo (1976a) Gramática quechua Ayacucho–Chanca. Lima: Ministerio de
Educación, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
(1976b) Diccionario quechua Ayacucho–Chanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educación, Instituto de
Estudios Peruanos.
(1979) Quechua. Manual de enseñanza. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
672 References
Squier, Ephraim George (1877) Peru Illustrated or Incidents of Travel and Exploration in the
Land of the Incas. New York: Hurst & Company.
Stahl, Wilmar (1982) Escenario indı́gena chaqueño. pasado y presente. Filadelfia, Paraguay:
Asociación de Servicios de Cooperación Indı́gena-Menonita (ASCIM).
Stark, Louisa R. (1968) Mayan Affinities with Yunga of Peru. PhD diss. New York University.
(1970) Mayan affinities with Araucanian. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago
Linguistic Society, 16–18 April 1970, pp. 57–69. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
(1972a) Maya–Yunga–Chipaya: a new linguistic alignment. International Journal of American
(1972b) Machaj–Juyay: secret language of the Callahuayas. Papers in Andean Linguistics 1, 2,
pp. 199–218.
(1985a) Ecuadorian highland Quechua: history and current status. In: Klein and Stark (1985a),
pp. 443–80.
(1985b) The Quechua language in Bolivia. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 516–45.
(1985c) Indigenous languages of lowland Ecuador. In: Klein and Stark (1985a), pp. 371–404.
Stark, Louisa R. and Pieter C. Muysken (1977) Diccionario Español–Quichua Quichua–Español.
Quito and Guayaquil: Museos del Banco Central del Ecuador, Archivo Histórico del
Guayas.
Stevenson, William Bennett (1825) A Historical and Descriptive Narrative of 20 Years Residence
in South America, 2 vols. London: Hurst, Robinson and Co.
Steward, Julian Haynes, ed. (1946–50) Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 1 (1946a): The
Marginal Tribes; vol. 2 (1946b): The Andean Civilizations; vol. 3 (1948): The Tropical
Forest Tribes; vol. 6 (1950): Physical Anthropology, Linguistics and Cultural Geography of
South American Indians. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin
143. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office.
Steward, Julian Haynes and Louis C. Faron (1959) Native Peoples of South America. New York,
Toronto and London: McGraw-Hill.
Stratford, Billie Dale (1989) Structure and Use of Altiplano Spanish. PhD diss. University of
Florida, Gainesville.
Strom, Clay (1992) Retuarã Syntax. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of
Texas at Arlington.
Suárez, Jorge A. (1959) The phonemes of an Araucanian dialect. International Journal of
(1969) Mosetén and Pano–Tacanan. Anthropological Linguistics 11, 9, pp. 255–66.
(1973) Macro–Pano–Tacanan. International Journal of American Linguistics 37, 3,
pp. 137–54.
(1974) Classification of South American Indian languages. Encyclopaedia Britannica
(15th edition). Macropaedia 17, pp. 105–12. Chicago.
Suárez Roca, José Luis (1992) Lingüı́stica misionera española. Oviedo: Pentalfa.
Sušnik, Branislava J. (1958) Ee nçlı̈t áppaiwa. Lengua–Maskoy. Estructura gramatical. Parte 1ra
Boletı́n de la Sociedad Cientı́fica del Paraguay y del Museo Andrés Barbero etnográfico e
histórico natural, vol. 2, Etnolingüı́stica 2. Asunción (Paraguay).
(1977) Lengua–maskoy. Su hablar, su pensar, su vivencia. Lenguas chaqueñas IV. Asunción:
Museo Etnográfico ‘Andrés Barbero’.
(1978) Los aborı́genes del Paraguay, vol. 1: Etnologı́a del Chaco Boreal y su periferia (Siglos
XVI y XVII). Asunción: Museo Etnográfico ‘Andrés Barbero’.
(1986–7) Los aborı́genes del Paraguay, vol. 7,1: Lenguas chaqueñas. Asunción: Museo
Etnográfico ‘Andrés Barbero’.
Swadesh, Morris (1954) Perspectives and problems of Amerindian comparative linguistics. Word
10, pp. 306–32.
References 673
(1959) Mapas de clasificación lingüı́stica de México y las Américas. Cuadernos del Instituto de
Historia, Serie Antropológica 8. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
(1962) Afinidades de las lenguas amerindias. In: Akten des 34. Amerikanistenkongresses
(Vienna, 18–25 July 1960), pp. 729–38. Vienna: Fred Berger.
(1967) Lexicostatistic classification. In: Robert Wauchope and Norman A. McQuown (eds.),
Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 5: Linguistics, pp. 79–115. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
(1971) The Origin and Diversification of Language. New York: Aldine-Atherton.
Sweet, David G. (1974) A Rich Realm of Nature Destroyed: the Central Amazon Valley,
1640–1750. PhD diss. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Swisshelm, Germán (1971) Un análisis detallado de la fonologı́a del quechua de Huaraz.
Estudios Culturales Benedictinos 1. Huaraz.
(1972) Un diccionario del quechua de Huaraz (Quechua–Castellano Castellano–Quechua).
Estudios Culturales Benedictinos 2. Huaraz.
(1974) Los sufijos de derivación verbal en el quechua de Huaraz. In: Pantoja Ramos et al.
(1974), vol. 2, pp. 471–577.
Szemiński, Jan (1990) Un texto en el idioma olvidado de los Inkas. Histórica 14, 2, pp. 379–89.
Jerusalem.
(1998) Del idioma propio de los incas cuzqueños y de su pertenencia lingüı́stica. Histórica 22,
1, pp. 135–68. Jerusalem.
Tate, Norman (1981) An ethnosemantic study of Aymara: ‘to carry’. In: Hardman (1981),
pp. 57–70.
Taussig, Michael T. (1987) Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: a Study in Terror and
Healing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, Anne Christine (1999) The western margins of Amazonia from the early sixteenth to the
early nineteenth century. In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 2, pp. 188–256.
Taylor, Douglas (1978) Four consonantal patterns in northern Arawakan. International Journal of
Taylor, Gérald (1975) Le parler quechua d’Olto, Amazonas (Pérou). Phonologie, esquisse
grammaticale, textes. Paris: Société d Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France.
(1979a) Morphologie comparée du verbe quechua: l’expression de l’actance. Première partie:
Le Sujet. In: Cathérine Paris (ed.), Relations prédicat-actant(s) dans des langues de types
divers, pp. 171–86. LACITO-documents. Paris: Société d Etudes Linguistiques et
Anthropologiques de France.
(1979b) Diccionario normalizado y comparativo quechua: Chachapoyas–Lamas. Paris:
L’Harmattan.
(1982a) Breve presentación de la morfologı́a del quechua de Ferreñafe. Lexis 6, 2,
pp. 243–70. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Departamento de
Humanidades.
(1982b) Aspectos de la dialectologı́a quechua, vol. 1: Introducción al quechua de Ferreñafe.
Chantiers Amerindia. Paris: Association d’ethnolinguistique amérindienne.
(1984) Yauyos: un microcosmo dialectal quechua. Revista Andina 2, 1, pp. 121–46. Cuzco:
Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
(1990a) La lengua de los antiguos chachapuyas. In: Cerrón-Palomino and Solı́s Fonseca
(1990), pp. 121–39.
(1990b) Le dialecte quechua de Laraos, Yauyos: étude morphologique. Bulletin de l’Institut
Français d’Etudes Andines 19, 2, pp. 293–325. Lima.
(1994) Estudios de dialectologı́a quechua (Chachapoyas, Ferreñafe, Yauyos). Lima:
Universidad Nacional de Educación.
(1996a) El quechua de Ferreñafe: fonologı́a, morfologı́a, léxico. Cajamarca: Acku Quinde.
674 References
(1996b) La tradición oral quechua de Chachapoyas. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios

Andinos. Cuzco: Asociación Archivo de la Tradición Oral Quechua (ATOQ).
(2000) Estudios lingüı́sticos sobre Chachapoyas. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos and Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos.
Taylor, Gérald and Antonio Acosta (1987) Ritos y tradiciones de Huarochirı́ del siglo XVII. Lima:
Instituto de Estudios Peruanos and Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos.
Tello, Julio C. (1913) Algunas conexiones gramaticales de las lenguas campa, ipurina, moxa,
baure, amuesha, goajira, del grupo o familia arawak o maipure. Revista Universitaria 8, 1,
pp. 506–32. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
(1923) Arte de la lengua cholona por Fr. Pedro de la Mata. In: Inka vol. 1, pp. 690–750. Lima.
Tello, Julio C. and Toribio Mejı́a Xesspe (1979) Las lenguas del Centro Andino. In: Julio C. Tello
and Toribio Mejı́a Xesspe, Paracas. Segunda parte: Cavernas y necrópolis, pp. 7–29. Lima:
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. New York: Institute of Andean Research.
Tessmann, Günter (1928) Menschen ohne Gott. Ein Besuch bei den Indianern des Ucayali.
Stuttgart: Strecker and Schröder.
(1930) Die Indianer Nordost-Perus. Hamburg: Friederichsen, de Gruyter and Co. (published in
Spanish in 1999 as Los indı́genas del Perú nororiental, Quito: Abya-Yala).
Thiesen, Wesley (1996) Gramática del idioma bora. Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana 38. Lima: Instituto
Thiesen, Wesley and David J. Weber (forthcoming) A Grammar of Bora. Publications in
Linguistics. Dallas: SIL International and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Thomason, Sarah G., ed. (1997) Contact Languages: A Wider Perspective. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence S. Kaufman (1988) Language Contact, Creolization, and
Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ticona Alejo, Esteban and Xavier Albó Corrons (1997) La lucha por el poder comunal. Jesús de
Machaqa: la marka rebelde. La Paz: Centro de Documentación e Información (CEDOIN)
and Centro de Investigación y Promoción del Campesinado (CIPCA).
Tobar Ortiz, Nubia (1989) El nominal en guayabero. In: Meléndez Lozano and Tobar Ortiz
(1989), pp. 67–134. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de
Lenguas Aborı́genes.
(2000) La lengua tinigua: anotaciones fonológicas y morfológicas. In: González de Pérez and
Toledo, Domingo (1989) Régimen de educación intercultural bilingüe en Venezuela:
interpretación oficial. Pueblos Indı́genas y Educación 10, pp. 43–54. Quito: Abya-Yala and
Toliver, Ralph (MS 1987) Informe sobre las variedades del quechua pasqueño. Lima: Instituto
Torero Fernández de Córdova, Alfredo A. (1964) Los dialectos quechuas. Anales Cientı́ficos de
la Universidad Agraria 2, 4, pp. 446–78. La Molina, Lima.
(1965) Le puquina, la troisième langue générale du Pérou. Doctoral dissertation, Université de
la Sorbonne, Paris.
(1968) Procedencia geográfica de los dialectos quechua de Ferreñafe y Cajamarca. Anales
Cientı́ficos de la Universidad Agraria 6, 3–4, pp. 291–316. Lima.
(1970) Lingüı́stica e historia de la sociedad andina. Anales Cientı́ficos de la Universidad
Nacional Agraria 8, 3–4, pp. 231–64. Lima (also published in: Escobar (1972), pp. 46–106).
(1974) El quechua y la historia social andina. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma.
(1983) La familia lingüı́stica quechua. In: Pottier (1983), pp. 61–92.
(1984) El comercio lejano y la difusión del quechua: el caso del Ecuador. Revista Andina 2, 2,
References 675
(1986) Deslindes lingüı́sticos en la costa norte peruana. Revista Andina 4, 3, pp. 523–48.
(1987) Lenguas y pueblos altiplánicos en torno al siglo XVI. Revista Andina 5, 2, pp. 329–405.
(1989) Areas toponı́micas e idiomas en la sierra norte peruana: un trabajo de recuperación
lingüı́stica. Revista Andina 7, 1, pp. 217–57. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.
(1990) Procesos lingüı́sticos e identificación de dioses en los Andes centrales. Revista Andina
8, 1, pp. 237–63. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas
(1992) Acerca de la familia lingüı́stica uruquilla (uru-chipaya). Revista Andina 10, 1,
(1993a) Lenguas del nororiente peruano: la hoya de Jaén en el siglo XVI. Revista Andina 11, 2,
(1993b) Fronteras lingüı́sticas y difusión de culto: el caso de Huari y de Contiti Viracocha. In:
Duviols (1993), pp. 219–33.
(1994a) El ‘idioma particular’ de los Incas. In: Calvo Pérez (1994), pp. 231–40.
(1994b) Las sibilantes del quechua yunga y del castellano en el siglo XVI. In: Calvo Pérez
(1994), pp. 241–54.
(1995) Historias de /x/: el proceso de velarización de /š/ castellana según su uso en
escrituras de lenguas andinas en los siglos XVI y XVII. In: Teresa Echenique et al. (eds.),
Historia de la lengua española en América y España, pp. 185–203. Valencia: Tirant lo
Blanch.
(1996) Las hablas cauquis de Yauyos (Perú) dentro de una propuesta de reconstrucción
fonológica del proto-aru. Libro electrónico del I Congreso Europeo de Latinoamericanistas.
Instituto de Ibero-américa y Portugal de la Universidad de Salamanca.
(1997) La fonologı́a del idioma mochica en los siglos XVI–XVII. Revista Andina 15, 1,
(1998) El marco histórico-geográfico en la interacción quechua-aru. In: Sabine
Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz et al. (1998), pp. 601–30.
(2002) Idiomas de los Andes: lingüı́stica e historia. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios
Andinos, Editorial Horizonte.
Torres Rubio, Diego de (1616) Arte de la lengua aymara. Lima: Francisco del Canto (republished
in 1966 by Mario Franco Inojosa, Lima: Imprenta Lyrsa).
(1619) Arte de la lengua quichua. Lima: Francisco Laso (republished in 1964 by Luis A. Pardo
and Carlos Galimberti Miranda, Cuzco: H. G. Rozas).
Toscano Mateus, Humberto (1953) El español en el Ecuador. Revista de Filologı́a Española,
Anejo 61. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigación Cientı́fica.
Tovar, Antonio (1981) Relatos y diálogos de los matacos. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica,
Instituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana.
(1983) Linguistic similarity and its significance: comparative procedures. In: Shirô Hattori and
Kazuko Inoue (eds.), Proceedings of the XXIII International Congress of Linguists (Tokyo,
29 August–4 September 1982), pp. 259–69. Tokyo.
(1986) Las lenguas arahuacas: hacia una delimitación más precisa de la familia arahuaca.
Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo (also in Thesaurus 41, pp. 15–57).
Tovar, Antonio and Consuelo Larrucea de Tovar (1984) Catálogo de las lenguas de la América
del Sur con clasificaciones, indicaciones tipológicas, bibliografı́a y mapas. Madrid: Editorial
Gredos.
Triana y Antorveza, Humberto (1987) Las lenguas indı́genas en la historia social del Nuevo
Reino de Granada. Bogotá: Instituto Caro y Cuervo.
(1993) Las lenguas indı́genas en el ocaso del imperio español. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano
de Antropologı́a – Colcultura.
676 References
Trillos Amaya, Marı́a (1989) Aspecto, modo y tiempo en damana. In: Trillos Amaya et al. (1989),
pp. 1–142.
(1994) Voz y predicación en damana. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 401–34.
(1997) Categorı́as gramaticales del ette taara: lengua de los chimilas. Bogotá: Universidad de
los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes.
(1999) Damana. Munich and Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.
(2000) Sı́ntesis descriptiva de los sistemas morfológico y morfosintáctico del damana. In:
Trillos Amaya, Marı́a, Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff and Carolina Ortiz Ricaurte (1989)
Lenguas aborı́genes de Colombia: Descripciones no. 3: Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta.
Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas
Aborı́genes.
Triviño Garzón, Lilia (1994) Hacia una tipologı́a de la predicación de la oración simple en la
lengua guambiana. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 601–18.
Troiani, Duna, ed. (1995) La ‘découverte’ des langues et des écritures d’Amérique. Actes du
colloque international (Paris, 7–11 September 1993), Amerindia 19–20. Paris: Association
Tschopik, Harry (1946) The Aymara. In: Steward (1946b), pp. 501–73.
(1948) Aymara texts: Lupaca dialects. International Journal of American Linguistics 14, 2,
pp. 108–14.
Tschudi, Johann Jakob von (1853) Die Kechua-Sprache, 3 vols. Vienna: Kaiserlich-königliche
Hof- und Staatsdruckerei.
(1866–9) Reisen durch Südamerika, 5 vols. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.
Turner, Glen D. (1958) Alternative phonemicizing in Jivaro. International Journal of American
Uhle, Max (1890) Verwandtschaften und Wanderungen der Tschibtscha. Acts of the 7th
International Congress of Americanists (Berlin 1888), pp. 466–89.
(MS 1895) Grundzüge einer Uro-Grammatik und Uro Vokabular. Berlin: Ibero-amerikanisches
Institut Preussischer Kulturbesitz.
Uricoechea, Ezequiel (1871) Gramática, vocabulario, catecismo i confesionario de la lengua
chibcha. Collection linguistique américaine, vol. 1. Paris: Maisonneuve (republished in 1968
by Kraus Reprint, Nendeln, Liechtenstein).
Vaı̈sse, Emilio, Félix Hoyos and Anı́bal Echeverrı́a y Reyes (1896) Glosario de la lengua
atacameña. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Cervantes (first published in 1895 in Anales de la
Universidad de Chile 91, pp. 527–56, Santiago de Chile).
Valdivia, Luis de (1606) Arte y gramatica general de la lengua que corre en todo el Reyno de
Chile, con un vocabulario, y confessionario. Lima: Francisco del Canto (republished in 1887
by Julio Platzmann, Leipzig: B. G. Teubner).
(1894 [1607]) Doctrina Cristiana y catecismo con un confesionario, Arte y vocabulario breves
en lengua allentiac, ed. José Toribio Medina. Seville: E. Rasco.
Valenti, Donna (1986) A Reconstruction of the Proto-Arawakan Consonantal System. PhD diss.
New York University.
Valenzuela, Pilar M. (2000a) Ergatividad escindida en wariapano, yaminawa y shipibo-konibo. In:
van der Voort and van de Kerke (2000), pp. 111–28.
(2000b) Major categories in Shipibo ethnobiological taxonomy. Anthropological Linguistics
42, pp. 1–36.
(2003) Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo Grammar. PhD diss. University of Oregon, Eugene.
Varese, Stefano (1968) La sal de los cerros. Lima: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias y Tecnologı́a,
Departamento de Publicaciones.
(1983) Los grupos etnolingüı́sticos de la selva andina. In: Pottier (1983), pp. 119–55.
References 677
Vargas Llosa, Mario (1987) El hablador. Barcelona: Editorial Seix Barral.

Vásquez de Ruiz, Beatriz (1988) La predicación en guambiano. Bogotá: Universidad de los
Andes: Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas Aborı́genes.
(1994) La oración compuesta en guambiano. In: Landaburu (1994), pp. 619–37.
(2000) Guambiano: algunos aspectos sobre morfologı́a nominal. In: González de Pérez and
Velasco, Juan de (1787) Vocabulario de la lengua ı́ndica (1964 edition, Quito: Instituto
Ecuatoriano de Antropologı́a y Geografı́a y Biblioteca Ecuatoriana ‘Aurelio Espinoza Polit’).
(1789) Historia del Reino de Quito en la América meridional, 3 vols. (1981 edition of volumes
2 and 3 by Alfredo Pareja Diezcanseco, Caracas: Biblioteca Ayacucho).
Vélez Diéguez, Juan (1980) Clave artificial para identificar los peces marinos comunes en la costa
central del Perú. Boletı́n de Lima 9 (November 1980), pp. 41–56. Lima.
Vellard, Jehan A. (1950–1) Contribution a l’étude des indiens uru ou kot’suns. Travaux de
l’Institut Français d’Etudes Andines 2 (1950), pp. 51–88; 3 (1951), pp. 3–39. Paris,
Lima.
(1954) Dieux et parias des Andes. Les ourous, ceux qui ne veulent pas être des hommes. Paris:
Emile-Paul.
(1967) Contribución al estudio de la lengua uru. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires,
Facultad de Filosofı́a y Letras, Centro de Estudios Lingüı́sticos.
Vidal, Alejandra (2001) Pilagá Grammar. PhD diss. University of Oregon, Eugene.
Viegas Barros, José Pedro (1990) Dialectologı́a qawasqar. Amerindia 15, pp. 43–73. Paris:
(1992) La familia lingüı́stica tehuelche. Revista Patagónica, 12, 54, pp. 39–46. Ushuaia,
Argentina.
(1993) La alternancia R/L en selknam: indicios de lexicalización de simbolismo fónico. In:
Viegas Barros and Stell (1993), pp. 271–8.
(1995) La reconstrucción de los personales en Proto-Chon. In: Fernández Garay and Viegas
Barros (1995), pp. 271–6.
(1998) Explorando la hipótesis del parentesco alacalufe-yagan. Actas VI Jornadas de Lengua y
Literatura Mapuche (Temuco, 1994), pp. 281–5. Temuco: Universidad de la Frontera.
(2001) Evidencias de la relación genética lule-vilela. LIAMES 1, pp. 107–26. Campinas:
Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
(2002) Fonologı́a del proto-mataguayo. In: Crevels et al. (2002), pp. 137–48.
(MS. to appear a) La lengua de los chonos del sur de Chile: una comparación con el qawasqar y
el yagan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientı́ficas y Técnicas (CONICET) and
Universidad de Buenos Aires.
(MS. to appear b) Enoo y Guaı̈caro: dos entidades lingüı́sticas problemáticas de la Patagonia
Austral. CONICET and Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Viegas Barros, José Pedro and Nelida N. Stell, eds. (1993) Actas Primeras Jornadas de
Lingüı́stica Aborigen (Buenos Aires, 6–7 October 1992). Buenos Aires: Universidad de
Vienrich, Adolfo (1906) Tarmapap pachahuarainin: apólogos quechuas. Tarma: La Aurora de
Tarma (republished in 1999 by Pedro Dı́az Ortiz as Azucenas quechuas – Fábulas quechuas,
Lima: Ediciones Lux).
Vignati, Milcı́ades Alejo (1942–6) Iconografı́a aborigen 1, 2, 3. Revista del Museo de la Plata,
NS, 2: Sección de Antropologı́a 10, pp. 13–48; 13, pp. 225–36; 15, pp. 277–99. La Plata:
Museo Nacional de La Plata.
Villareal, Federico (1921) La lengua yunga o mochica según el arte publicado en Lima en
1644 por el licenciado D. Fernando de la Carrera. Lima: Imprenta Peruana de E. Z.
Casanova.
678 References
Villarejo, Avencio (1953) Ası́ es la selva. Estudio monográfico de la Amazonı́a nor-oriental del
Perú. Maynas-Loreto-Requena (1st edition 1943). Lima: Sanmarti y cı́a (republished in 1979
by Centro de Estudios Teológicos de la Amazonı́a, Iquitos).
(1959) La selva y el hombre: estudio antropocosmológico del aborigen amazónico. Lima:
Editorial Ausonia SA.
Vink, Hein (MS 1992) Léxico del quechua de Macañı́a (Pataz). Leiden.
Vittadello, Alberto (1988) Cha palaachi: el idioma cayapa, 2 vols. Guayaquil: Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Ecuador: Sede de Esmeraldas. Museos del Banco Central del
Ecuador.
Vivar, Jerónimo de (1988 [1558]) Crónica de los reinos de Chile. Madrid: Historia 16 (see also
Bibar).
Voegelin, Carl F. and Florence M. Voegelin (1965) Languages of the world: Native America
fascicle 2, Anthropological Linguistics 7, 1, pp. 146–7.
Voort, Hein van der and Simon van de Kerke, eds. (2000) Essays on Indigenous Languages of
Lowland South America. (Contributions to the 49th International Congress of Americanists,
Quito, 1997). Indigenous Languages of Latin America Series no. 1. Leiden: Research School
CNWS of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.
Wachtel, Nathan (1978) Hommes d’eau: le problème uru (XVIe –XVIIe siècles). Annales
Economies Sociétés Civilisations 33, 5–6, pp. 1127–59. Paris: Armand Colin.
(1990) Le retour des ancêtres: les indiens uru de Bolivie XXe –XVIe siècle. Essai d’histoire
régressive. Paris: Gallimard.
Wagner, Erika (1967) The Prehistory and Ethnohistory of the Carache Area in Western Venezuela.
New Haven: Yale University, Department of Anthropology.
Watahomigie, Lucille J. and Akira Y. Yamamoto (1992) Local reactions in perceived language
decline. Language 68, pp. 10–17.
Weber, David John (1983) Relativization and Nominalized Clauses in Huallaga (Huanuco)
Quechua. University of California Publications in Linguistics 103. Berkeley, Los Angeles
and London: University of California Press.
ed. (1987a) Juan del Oso. Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana 26. Yarinacocha: Instituto Lingüı́stico de
Verano.
(1987b) Estudios quechua: planificación, historia y gramática. Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana 27.
Yarinacocha: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
(1989) A Grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. University of California Publications in
Linguistics 112. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
(1994) Ortografı́a. Lecciones del quechua. Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana 32. Lima: Ministerio de
Educación, Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Weber, David John and Peter N. Landerman (1985) The interpretation of long vowels in Quechua.
Weber, David John, Félix Cayco Zambrano, Teodoro Cayco Villar and Marlene Ballena Dávila
(1998) Rimaycuna. Quechua de Huánuco. Diccionario del quechua del Huallaga con
ı́ndices castellano e inglés. Serie Lingüı́stica Peruana 48. Lima: Instituto Lingüı́stico de
Verano.
Weisshar, Emmerich (1982) Die Stellung des Warao und Yanomama in Beziehung zu den
indigenen Sprachen Südamerikas nördlich des Amazonas: Studien zur genetischen und
areal-typologischen Klassifikation. PhD diss. University of Tübingen.
Wheeler, Alva (2000) La lengua siona. In: González de Pérez and Rodrı́guez de Montes (2000),
pp. 181–98.
Whiffen, Thomas (1915) The North-West Amazonas: Notes of Some Months Spent among
Cannibal Tribes. London: Constable.
References 679
Whitehead, Neil L. (1999) The crises and transformations of invaded societies: the Caribbean
(1492–1580). In: Salomon and Schwartz (1999), part 1, pp. 864–903.
Wilbert, Johannes, ed. (1975) Folk Literature of the Selknam Indians. Martin Gusinde’s Collection
of Selknam Narratives. Los Angeles: UCLA, Latin American Center Publications.
(1977) Folk Literature of the Yamana Indians: Martin Gusinde’s Collection of Yamana
Narratives. Los Angeles: UCLA, Latin American Center Publications.
Wilbert, Johannes and Karin Simoneau, eds. (1984) Folk Literature of the Tehuelche Indians. Los
Angeles: UCLA, Latin American Center Publications.
Willey, Gordon R. (1971) An Introduction to American Archaeology, vol. 2: South America.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Wilson, Peter J. (1992) Gramática del achagua (arawak). Bogotá: Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Wipio Deicat, Gerardo (1996) Diccionario Aguaruna–Castellano Castellano–Aguaruna. Lima:
Ministerio de Educación and Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano.
Wise, Mary Ruth (1976) Apuntes sobre la influencia inca entre los amuesha: factor que oscurece
la clasificación de su idioma. Revista del Museo Nacional 42, pp. 355–66. Lima.
(1982) Una contribución de Julio C. Tello a la clasificación de las lenguas autóctonas. Lexis 6, 1,
pp. 125–9. Lima: Pontifica Universidad Católica del Perú, Departamento de Humanidades.
(1985) Indigenous languages of Lowland Peru: history and current status. In: Klein and Stark
(1985a), pp. 194–223.
(1986) Grammatical characteristics of Pre-Andine Arawakan languages of Peru. In: Derbyshire
and Pullum (1986), pp. 567–642.
(1991) Un estudio comparativo de las formas pronominales y sus funciones en las lenguas
arawakas norteñas. In: Lingüı́stica arawaka. Estudios presentados en el 46o Congreso
Internacional de Americanistas (Amsterdam, 4–8 July 1988). Revista Latinoamericana de
Estudios Etnolingüı́sticos 6, pp. 183–99. Lima: Ignacio Prado Pastor.
Wölck, Wolfgang (1972) Foco y especificación en quechua. Documento de Trabajo 4. Lima: Plan
de Fomento Lingüı́stico.
(1987) Pequeño breviario quechua. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Wolf, Teodoro (1892) Geografı́a y geologı́a del Ecuador. Leipzig.
Woolard, Kathryn A. and Bambi Schieffelin (1994) Language ideology. Annual Review of
Anthropology 23, pp. 55–82.
Yánez Cossı́o, Consuelo and Fausto Jara Jara (1983) Ñucanchic llactapac shimi, vol. 1 (3rd
edition). Quito: Centro de Investigaciones para la Educación Indı́gena.
Yapita, Juan de Dios (1991) Curso de aymara paceño. St Andrews: Institute of Amerindian
Studies, University of St Andrews.
Yokoyama, Masako (1951) Outline of Quechua structure. I: Morphology. Language 27, 1,
pp. 38–67.
Yule Yatacué, Marcos (1991a) Estructura distribucional del verbo en nasa yuwe. In: Rojas
Curieux (1991c), pp. 139–90.
(1991b) Fonologı́a: variante Toribı́o. In: Nieves Oviedo (1991e), pp. 97–120.
Zamora Munné, Juan C. and Jorge M. Guitart (1982) Dialectologı́a hispanoamericana: teorı́a,
descripción, historia. Salamanca: Ediciones Alma.
Zamponi, Raoul (1996) Materiali in betoi e varietà linguistiche affini dei ‘llanos’ colombiani.
Quaderno 3 del Seminario Interdisciplinare della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia. Siena:
Università degli Studi di Siena.
Zevallos Quiñones, Jorge (1948) Primitivas lenguas de la costa. Revista del Museo Nacional 17,
pp. 114–19. Lima.
(1966) Onomástica prehispánica de Chachapoyas. Lenguaje y Ciencias 6, pp. 28–41. Trujillo,
Peru: Universidad de Trujillo, Departamento de Idiomas y Lingüı́stica.
680 References
(1989) Los cacicazgos de Lambayeque. Trujillo, Peru: Gráfica Cuatro SA.

(1992) Los cacicazgos de Trujillo. Trujillo, Peru: Gráfica Cuatro SA.
Zimmermann, Klaus, ed. (1997) La descripción de las lenguas amerindias en la época colonial.
Bibliotheca Iberoamericana, vol. 63. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana.
Zolezzi, Gabriela and Jürgen Riester (1985) Cantaré a mi gente. Canto y poesı́a de los ayoréode.
Cochabamba and Santa Cruz: Apoyo para el Campesino Indı́gena del Oriente Boliviano
(APCOB).
Zúñiga, Fernando (2000) Mapudungun. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
Zwartjes, Otto, ed. (2000) Las gramáticas misioneras de tradición hispánica (siglos XVI–XVII).
Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.
AUTHOR INDEX
Acosta, A. 255 Arango Ochoa, R. 56, 66, 75, 80, 109, 112,
Acosta, J. de 23–4, 48 116, 141, 151, 164, 610
Acosta Ortegón, J. 83 Araya, G. 589
Acosta Saignes, M. 130 Arcila Robledo, G. 60
Adam, L. 83, 91, 476–88, 554, 567–73, Ardila, O. 162, 164
578 Arguedas, J. M. 256
Adelaar, W. F. H. xv, 21, 39, 43, 87, 170, 173, Ari, M. 296
186, 188–90, 193, 203, 224–5, 227, 242, Armellada, C. de 80, 116
262, 398, 402, 459, 601, 616 Arnold, D. 296
Aguilar Páez, R. 191 Arnold, J. 511, 523–5, 528
Aguilera Faúndez, O. 553–4, 565–6 Arocha Rodrı́guez, J. 62
Aguiló, F. 356 Arriaza, B. T. 2
Aguirre Licht, D. 57–60 Aschmann, R. P. 164, 449
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2, 21, 39, 164, 411, 612 Asher, R. E. 21
Albis, M. M. 140 Augusta, F. J. de 509, 511–16, 519–22, 524,
Albó Corrons, X. 14, 176, 261–2, 296–7, 357, 526–41
363, 589, 606, 608 Avila, F. de 174, 255
Alderetes, J. R. 221
Alencastre, A. 255 Bacelar, L. N. 376
Alexander(-Bakkerus), A. 460, 463–4, Baessler, H. 460
466 Balmori, C. H. 31, 386
Allaire, L. 8 Barzana (Bárcena, Bárzana), A. de 20, 351,
Allin, T. R. 39, 162 408, 502
Alonso, A. 511 Bastian, A. 57
Altieri, R. 322–46 Bastien, J. 356
Alvar, M. 82 Bausani, A. 552–3, 564–5
Alvarez, E. 433 Beier, C. 610
Alvarez, J. 115–23 Belleza Castro, N. 171, 260, 265, 267, 281,
Alvarez-Brun, F. 170 301–6, 313–15, 317–19
Alvarez-Santullano Busch, M. P. 509–10, 514, Bendor-Samuel, J. T. 448–9
530 Benvenuto Murrieta, P. M. 589
Andagoya, P. de 49, 53 Bermúdez, G. 81
Andrade Ciudad, L. F. 401 Bertonio, L. 16, 20, 191, 259, 264, 266,
Angenot-de Lima, G. 477, 614 270, 276–8, 280–5, 287, 289–90,
Animato, C. 254 293–6
Ans, A.-M. d’ 176, 418–19 Betanzos, J. de 178–9
Appel, R. 19 Beuchat, H. 141, 433, 436, 438
682 Author index
Bibar, G. de 22, 409, 508 Casamiquela, R. M. 550, 554, 556–8, 561–4,

Bickerton, D. 605 582–3
Bird, J. 553, 555 Casanova, V. 315
Bixio, B. 545 Castellanos, J. de 48, 124
Bonilla, V. D. 151 Castro de Trelles, L. 401
Borman, M. B. 161 Catarroja, F. de 80
Bouysse-Cassagne, T. 171, 176, 263, Catrileo, M. 511
362 Celedón, R. 67, 117, 124
Bowman, I. 376 Cenepo Sangama, V. 193
Boyd-Bowman, P. 586–7 Censabella, M. 21, 41, 488–9, 610
Brack Egg, A. 610 Cerrón-Palomino, R. M. xv, 13, 20–1, 35,
Branks, J. 142–3 168–70, 178–9, 182, 189, 192–4, 197,
Branks, T. 142–3 201–4, 210, 213, 257, 259–60, 265–6,
Bravo, D. A. 177, 193 270, 273–4, 276, 280–2, 285–6, 301–2,
Brend, R. M. 142 305, 317, 320–4, 327, 363–74, 595–6,
Bresson, A. 176 599
Bridges, L. 580 Chamberlain, A. F. 26, 552
Bridges, T. 550, 554, 567–74, 578, 581 Chandless, W. 459
Briggs, J. R. 496–7 Chaparro, C. 207
Briggs, L. T. 168, 262, 264–6, 268, 271, 273, Chatwin, B. 572
275, 277–8, 280–5, 287–90, 293, 295–6, Chaumeil, J.-P. 417
298, 300, 496 Chaves, M. 114
Brijnen, H. B. 580 Chaves Mendoza, A. 49, 52, 75
Brinton, D. G. 20, 25–6, 141 Chávez, A. 193
Brundage, B. C. 167 Chirif, A. 416–17, 419, 423, 431, 433, 452,
Brüning, E. 321, 400 457, 459
Buchwald, O. von 400 Chirinos Rivera, A. 13, 168, 187, 258, 262,
Buesa Oliver, T. 591 402, 610
Büttner, T. T. 194, 260, 278–9 Chomé, I. 496
Cieza de León, P. de 22, 48–9, 179, 392–4,
Cabello Valboa, M. 320, 350 404
Cabral, A. S. A. C. 432 Claesson, K. 493–5
Cabrera, P. 409 Clairis (Clair-Vassiliadis), C. 21, 265, 379,
Caillavet, C. 393–4 550, 552–6, 565–7, 578, 582
Cajas Rojas, J. 458 Cobo, B. 22, 24, 178
Calancha, A. de la 320, 400 Cohen, M. 26
Calle Restrepo, H. 49 Cole, P. 17, 193–4
Calvache Dueñas, R. 57, 142–5, Comrie, B. xv, 224
148 Condori Cruz, D. 260, 278–9
Calvo Pérez, J. 255 Condori Mamani, G. 249, 255
Camacho, J. 596 Constenla Umaña, A. 30, 37–8, 49–53, 55–8,
Camp, E. L. 421 61–2, 70, 73–4, 80, 82–8, 114–15, 128–30,
Campbell, L. 21, 35, 38, 42, 497 142, 145, 155–6, 161
Canals Frau, S. 409 Contreras, C. 510, 530
Canto, J. del 401 Contreras, H. 511
Captain, D. 117, 120, 121 Coña, P. 511, 539
Carlin, E. B. 115 Coombs, D. 193
Carpenter, L. K. 192 Coombs, H. 193
Carrasco, V. 260 Cooper, J. M. 550–6
Carrera Daza, F. de la 16, 84, 319–46 Corbera Mori, A. 438
Author index 683
Cordero, L. 192, 255 Espejo Ayka, E. 296

Córdova, L. 243 Espinoza Soriano, W. 259, 404
Correal Urrego, G. 8 Esquivel Villafana, J. 192
Cotari, D. 260, 278–80, 290
Courtney, E. 597 Fabre, A. 21, 171
Creider, J. 201 Fals Borda, O. 62
Créqui-Montfort, G. de 39, 175, 191 Farfán, J. M. B. 192, 305, 315–19
Crevels, M. 476, 610, 613–14, 616 Faron, L. C. 27–8
Crickmay, L. 17 Fast, P. W. 424
Croese, R. A. 40, 509, 511, 515 Fawcett, P. H. 417
Cuba Manrique, M. del C. 401 Febrés, A. 510
Cuervo, R. J. 588 Febrés Cordero, T. 124
Cueva, R. P. G. de la 476 Fernández Garay, A. V. xv, 505, 510–11, 514,
Curnow, T. J. xv, 38, 57, 141–8, 150, 397 516, 528, 550, 555–6, 558, 563–4, 580,
Cusihuaman, A. 193, 250, 252 582–3
Fernández de Oviedo y Valdez, G. 116
Dadey, J. 83 Ferrario, B. 41, 181
Darwin, C. 550 Ferrell, M. A. 171, 261–2
Davidson, J. O. 35 Fiedel, S. J. 1–2, 506
Davis, I. 34, 40 Figueredo, J. de 181
Dedenbach(-Salazar Sáenz), S. 16, 192, 292, Firestone, H. L. 431
296 Fischer, M. 56
Derbyshire, D. 21, 423 Fischermann, B. 496
Dı́az Fernández, A. E. 505, 514 Flores Reyna, M. 401
Dickinson, C. 147 Flornoy, B. 433
Dietrich, W. 431–2 Fonseca, A. 124–5
Diez de San Miguel, G. 259, 264 Fontanella de Weinberg, M. B. 511, 587
Dillehay, T. D. 1, 506 Fornaguera, M. 114
Dixon, R. M. W. 2, 21, 411 Foster, G. 586
Duff(-Tripp), M. 424–30 Frank, P. S. 66–70, 72–4
Dumézil, G. 34 Fraunhaeusl, S. de 511
Dümmler, C. 16, 83 Friede, J. 138–40
DuPonceau, P. S. 522 Friedemann, N. S. de 62, 605
Duque Gómez, L. 49 Furlong, G. 386
Durbin, M. 38, 53, 112–16, 161 Fuss, M. 478, 481
Duviols, P. 191
Galeote Tormo, J. 478, 481, 485–6
Ebbing, J. E. 260, 285 Garcı́a Hierro, P. 417
Echeverrı́a, M. S. 511 Garcı́a Tomás, M. D. 447
Echeverrı́a y Reyes, A. 376 Garcilaso de la Vega, Inca 23, 172, 178–81,
Echeverrı́a Weasson, S. 511, 515 397
Eckstein, S. 10 Gelles, P. H. 249, 254
Eguillor, M. I. 606 Gerzenstein, A. 391, 495, 562
England, N. C. 278–81, 299 Gibson, M. L. 456
Ercilla, A. de 506 Gijn, R. van 476
Escalante, A. 605 Gilij, F. S. 24
Escalante Gutiérrez, C. 249, 255–6 Gill, W. 476
Escobar, A. 201 Girard, V. 39, 171, 419
Escobar, A. M. 589, 596 Girault, L. 356–61
Escribens Trisano, A. 192, 207 Gleich, U. von 258, 606–8
684 Author index
Gnerre, M. 172, 396, 433, 604 Harrison, W. 379

Godenzzi, J. C. 595 Hart, H. 447
Golbert de Goodbar, P. 511, 514, 554, 567–78, Hart, R. E. 460
582 Hartmann, R. 182, 392–3
Gómez-Imbert, E. 162–4 Haude, K. 476
Gonzales de Barcı́a Carballido y Zúñiga, A. 32 Havestadt, B. de 508, 510
González, T. A. 401 Hawkins, J. A. 597
González Holguı́n, D. 16–18, 20, 191, 199, Hayes, B. 118
219 Headland, E. R. 110–12
González Ñáñez, O. 610 Helberg Chávez, H. 459
González de Pérez, M. S. 21, 55, 59, 81, 83–5, Hemming, J. 3, 46–8, 75, 179
87–109, 164 Henry, V. 478–88
Gordon, A. M. 589 Hermon, G. 192, 194
Goulet, J. -G. 117 Hernández, G. B. 582
Granda, G. de 177, 588–9, 595–6, 599 Hernández, I. 408, 410
Grasserie, R. de la 351–5 Herrero, J. 193, 260, 265, 275, 589, 601
Gray, A. 3, 417, 459 Hervás y Panduro, L. 17, 24–5
Greenberg, J. H. 26–9, 37–45, 57, 61–2, 142, Hildebrandt, M. 117, 122
175, 380, 482 Hoff, B. J. 24, 113, 115
Grimes, B. F. 125, 416 Holmer, N. M. 56, 62–5, 67, 117
Grimes, J. 511, 525 Holt, D. 73
Grinevald (Craig), C. 102, 476, 609 Hooykaas, E. M. 53
Grondona, V. M. 489 Hornberger, N. 194, 606
Groot de Mahecha, A. M. 53 Hosókawa, K. 176
Grosboll, S. 393 Hout, R. van 589
Gualdieri, C. B. 489, 493 Hovdhaugen, E. 321, 324, 326–7
Guaman Poma de Ayala, F. 174, 254, 261, Howard, L. 56, 151–4
296 Howard(-Malverde), R. 256–7, 262, 364,
Guardia, J. 236 395
Guerra Eissmann, A. M. 570 Howkins, D. W. 197
Gugenberger, E. 607 Hoyos, F. 376
Guillaume, A. 422 Hoyos Benı́tez, M. E. 59
Guitart, J. M. 588 Huayhua Pari, F. 171
Gusinde, M. 550, 554, 567–9, 580–1 Huber, R. Q. 55, 85
Gutiérrez, C. 80 Humboldt, W. von 18
Gutiérrez, I. 609 Husson, J.-Ph. 254
Guyot, M. 550, 554–5, 580 Hvalkof, S. 417
Haboud (de Ortega), Marleen 595, 599 Ibarra Grasso, D. 41, 176, 376
Hammen, Th. van der 8 Imbelloni, J. 41
Hammerly Dupuy, D. 553 Isbell, W. H. 165
Hamp, E. P. 38 Itier, C. 168, 183, 236
Hardman (-de-Bautista), M. J. 21, 34, 170–1,
174, 211, 260, 264–5, 269, 272, 283–7, Jackson, S. 164
290–3, 301–17, 590 Jahn, A. 124–30
Harmelink, B. L. 511, 518, 520 Jamioy Muchavisoy, J. N. 152
Harms, Ph. L. 59–60 Jaramillo Gómez, O. 112
Harner, M. 433 Jensen, C. 431
Harrington, J. P. 26, 34 Jijón y Caamaño, J. 26–7, 36–8, 41, 49, 61,
Harris, O. 262 155–9, 172, 321, 392–5, 397
Author index 685
Jiménez de la Espada, M. 174, 261, 385, Lefebvre, C. 17, 19, 192, 226
393–7, 405, 408, 502 Lehmann, W. 321, 344–8, 363, 401
Jiménez Turrón, S. 606 Lehmann-Nitsche, R. 41, 493, 554, 556
Jones, P. 164 Lehnert Santander, R. 376–9
Jones, W. 164 Lemle, M. 431
Juajibioy Chindoy, A. 152–5 Lengerke, G. von 114
Juank, A. 433–43, 445–7 Lenz, R. 509–11, 515, 590
Judy, J. 476 Lévi-Strauss, C. 4, 37, 580, 609
Judy, R. A. 476 Levinsohn, S. H. 19, 193
Julien, C. J. 175 Liccardi, M. 476
Juncosa, J. E. 610 Liddicoat, A. J. 38, 57, 141–5, 150
Jung, I. 131–8, 140, 592, 606 Liedtke, S. 34
Jusayú, M. A. 117, 120, 122, 124 Lindskoog, C. A. 142, 145, 147–50
Lindskoog, J. N. 142, 145, 147–50
Kany, C. F. 588–9 Lipski, J. M. 587, 605
Karsten, R. 433–6, 439, 447 Lira, J. A. 192, 255
Kaufman, T. S. 2, 21, 26, 29–34, 38, 40, 43, Llamı́n Canulaf, S. 539
61, 142, 188, 456 Llerena Villalobos, R. 49, 57–9, 62–6
Keatinge, R. W. 7 Loewen, J. A. 57–9
Kensinger, K. M. 418, 419 Long, V. 142–3, 145, 150
Kerke, S. C. van de 21, 192, 475–6, 617 Longacre, R. E. 35, 38, 195
Key, H. 476 Loos, B. 420–21
Key, M. R. 21, 28, 31, 39, 419, 511, 556 Loos, E. 419–21
Kilku Warak’a 255 López, Lorenzo E. 129
King, K. A. 607 López, Luis E. 194, 296, 592, 606–7
Kingsley Noble, G. 39, 175 López Garcı́a, A. 83
Kirtchuk, P. 197 Loukotka, Č. 21, 26, 30–4, 37, 52, 56, 62,
Klee, C. A. 589 142, 159, 162, 176, 180, 392, 395, 397, 410,
Klein, H. E. M. 21, 177, 489–92 502, 553–4, 616
Kramer, F. 56 Lowes, R. H. G. 498
Krauss, M. 609 Lozano, A. G. 593, 596–7
Krüsi, D. 478 Lozano, E. 31, 178, 391, 408–9
Krüsi, M. 478 Lozano, P. 408–9
Krzanowski, A. 404 Lucca, M. de 260, 363
Lucena Salmoral, M. 82–3, 87, 98
Ladefoged, P. 117 Lugo, B. de 16, 82–8, 95, 97–9, 102,
Lafone Quevedo, S. A. 386 106–7
Lagos Altamirano, D. S. 511, 515 Luján, M. 597–8
Lanchas de Estrada, S. 60–1 Lumbreras, L. G. 165
Landaburu, J. 34, 54–5, 67–71, 73, 114, Lussagnet, S. 496
162–4, 610, 621 Lynch, T. F. 2, 8
Landerman, P. N. 185, 187–9, 192–3, 197, 200 Lyon, P. J. 22
Laprade, R. 589, 591, 600–1
Lara, J. 193, 254–5 Macera, P. 1
Lares, J. I. 124 Machoni de Cerdeña, A. 385–90
Larraı́n Barros, H. 188 Mackert, M. 522
Larrucea de Tovar, C. 21 MacNeish, R. 1
Lastra, Y. 193 McQuown, N. A. 27–8, 30, 180
Lathrap, D. W. 27, 182, 419 Maglio, B. 376
Layme, F. 261, 296–7 Malone, T. 76
686 Author index
Mannheim, B. 3, 24, 175, 179–80, 183–5, Mogrovejo, T. de 401

191–5, 200, 261–2, 607 Molina, C. de 254
Mansen, R. 117, 120–1 Monguı́ Sánchez, J. R. 151–2, 154–5
Mansilla, L. V. 507 Montaño Aragón, M. 422
Maque Capira, A. 262 Montes Rodrı́guez, M. E. 164
Margery Peña, E. 38, 57–8 Montoya, R. 256
Markham, C. R. 192 Moore, B. R. 142–5, 147, 394
Márquez Miranda, F. 544 Moore, T. H. 376, 383
Martı́n, E. H. 408 Mora Bernasconi, C. 416–7, 419, 423, 431,
Martin, L. 259, 269, 271 433, 452, 457, 459
Martı́n, M. D. 194 Morales Gómez, J. 49
Martı́nez Compañón B. J. 20, 173, 320, Moseley, C. 21
398–402, 460–2 Mosonyi, E. E. 117, 120, 124, 606, 610
Martı́nez Escobar, G. 249, 254 Mosonyi, J. C. 117, 124, 606, 610
Martı́nez Sarasola, C. 386, 502, 510 Mostny, G. 377, 383–5
Martins, S. 163 Murra, J. V. 6
Martins, V. 163 Murúa, M. de 178
Mason, J. A. 26, 30, 35, 180, 376 Mutis, J. C. 54, 82, 140
Masson, P. 363 Muysken, P. C. xv, 17, 19, 192, 226, 239,
Mata, P. de la 20, 460–75 356–8, 363–5, 367, 370–4, 589,
Matisoff, J. 43 598–9
Matteson, E. 39, 423 Myers, S. K. 607
Medina, J. T. 544–5
Megenney, W. W. 605 Najlis, E. L. 489, 495, 550, 554–5, 557–61
Meggers, B. J. 27 Nardi, R. L. J. 177–8, 192, 376, 380, 408–9
Meira, S. 161 Nebrija, A. de 16
Meillet, A. 26 Neira, A. de 162
Mejı́a, J. 260 Newfield, M. 195
Mejı́a Fonnegra, G. 59 Newson, L. A. 392
Mejı́as, H. A. 591 Nieves Oviedo, R. 130–5, 138
Meléndez Lozano, M. 75, 110, 152–5, Ninalingón, S. 404
163–4 Niño Murcia, M. 599
Meliá, B. 610 Noort, O. van 581
Meneses Morales, T. 254 Nordenskiöld, E. 5, 48, 56, 418, 430, 500
Menges, P. A. 599 Nowak, E. 17
Mera, J. L. 255
Messineo, M. C. 489–93, 608 Obando Ordóñez, P. 142
Métraux, A. 363 Oblitas Poblete, E. 356–61
Miccinelli, C. 254 Olawsky, K. xv, 458
Michael, L. 610 Olaya Perdomo, N. 67, 73–4
Middendorf, E. W. 18–19, 25, 83, 192, 261, Olson, R. D. 38, 43, 175, 363–6, 372,
320–50 375
Migliazza, E. C. 21, 37, 40 Olza Zubiri, J. 117, 120, 122, 124, 422
Millones, L. 9 Oramas, L. R. 129
Minaya, L. 597 Orbigny, A. D. d’ 25, 477, 581
Miranda Mamani, L. 362 Oré, L. J. de 322, 351–6
Mithun, M. 42 Oroz, R. 589
Mitre, B. 544–5, 548 Orr, C. J. 35, 195
Moesbach, E. W. de 511, 538–9 Ortega Ricaurte, C. 54–5, 453–9
Mogollón Pérez, M. C. 80–1 Ortiz, S. E. 55, 61
Author index 687
Ortiz Ricaurte, C. 67–70, 72 Pullum, G. 21

Ossio Acuña, J. M. 9 Pyle, R. C. 294
Ostler, N. xv, 52, 55, 82–4, 87, 89–96,
98–102, 106–9, 111 Queixalós, F. 21, 162, 164
Quesada Castillo, F. 193, 403
Pabón Triana, M. 141 Quesada Pacheco, M. A. 82, 87, 100–101,
Pachón, X. 130–1 106
Páez, J. 116 Quijano Otero, J. M. 82
Pallares, J. M. 155 Quinchavil Suárez, L. 515
Paniagua Loza, F. 296 Quispe Huamán, A. 249
Pantoja Alcántara, I. del R. 401–3
Parada, E. 589 Rabinowitz, J. 320
Pardo Rojas, M. 57–8 Raimondi, A. 170
Park, M. 193 Ramos Cabredo, J. 320, 398, 400–1
Parker, G. J. 34, 181, 185–6, 192–3, 195, 203, Ramos Pizarro, N. 608
205, 207, 209–10, 216, 223, 232 Raymond, J. S. 6, 499
Parker, S. G. 39, 353 Reed, R. B. 55, 85
Patiño Rosselli, C. 164, 450, 605 Reichel-Dolmatoff, A. 114
Patte, M.-F. 116–18 Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 8, 53, 56, 67, 75,
Payne, David L. 39–40, 116, 162, 422–30, 114
457, 539 Remy, P. 403
Payne, Doris L. 21, 34, 40, 164, 458 Renault-Lescure, O. 21
Payne, T. E. 164, 458 Reuse, W. de 202
Paz y Miño, L. T. 172, 392–6 Ribero, J. 162
Peeke, M. C. 452, 454–5 Ricardo, A. 182, 191, 219
Pellizzaro, S. M. 433–6, 438–41 Rick, J. W. 1
Perea y Alonso, S. 41 Riedmayer, O. 433, 435
Pérez de Barradas, J. 22 Riester, J. 477–8, 481, 496
Pérez van Leenden, F. 115 Rivano, E. 511
Perl, M. 588 Rivarola, J. L. 167, 182, 589
Petersen de Piñeros, G. 449 Rivera, M. A. 552
Phelan, J. L. 155, 416 Rivet, P. 26, 34, 36–9, 41, 49, 54–5,
Philippi, R. A. 376, 379 57, 61, 80, 116, 124–8, 138, 140–1,
Piedrahita, L. F. de 52 161, 173, 175, 191, 320, 397–8,
Pigafetta, A. 15 400–1, 405–6, 433, 436, 438, 449,
Pike, E. G. 454–6 461, 470
Pike, K. L. 454 Robayo Moreno, C. A. 112–14
Pineda Giraldo, R. 114 Rochereau, H. 110
Piossek Prebisch, T. 408 Rodrigues, A. D. 34, 39–40, 431–2, 621
Pizarro, P. 181 Rodrı́guez, G. 377
Poblete Mendoza, M. T. 265, 567–70 Rodrı́guez Baquero, L. E. 115
Polo, J. T. 363 Rodrı́guez Garrido, J. A. 593–4
Porterie-Gutiérrez, L. 260, 265, 272, 364, Rodrı́guez González, S. P. 163
375 Rodrı́guez de Montes, M. L. 21, 55, 59, 164
Posnansky, A. 363 Rojas Curieux, T. 132–6
Pottier, B. 21 Rojas de Perdomo, L. 8
Pozzi-Escot, I. 13, 171, 258, 610 Romero, F. 604
Preuss, K. Th. 56, 67 Romoli, K. 3, 62
Proulx, P. 189 Rona, J. P. 41
Puente Baldoceda, B. 593, 597, 599 Rösing, I. 356
688 Author index
Rossi, P. A. 254 Smeets, I. 511, 513–44

Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, M. 403 Solá, D. F. 193, 197
Rouby, A. 433, 435 Solı́s Fonseca, G. 192, 194
Rowe, J. H. 16, 56, 62, 180, 258, 320 Sorensen, A. P. 164
Ruı́z, G. 32 Soto Ruı́z, C. 193, 216
Spruce, R. 400
Sáez Godoy, L. 377, 379, 385 Stahl, W. 498
Saint, R. 454–6 Stark, L. R. 21, 38, 182, 188, 192, 200, 321,
Sakel, J. 375, 476, 618 356–8, 361, 511
Salas, A. 21, 265, 509–11, 514–17, 521, Stevenson, W. B. 155
525–6, 539, 567–70 Steward, J. H. 27–8, 416, 499
Salas, J. A. 321 Stratford, B. D. 596
Salas, J. C. 125 Strom, C. 164
Salomon, F. 255, 393–4, 406 Suárez, J. A. 31, 32, 39–41, 511
San Pedro, J. de 401 Suárez Roca, J. L. 16
San Román, F. 376–85 Sušnik, B. J. 41, 497–8
Sánchez, G. 507 Swadesh, M. 29–30, 34, 39, 42–3, 376
Sánchez Gutiérrez, E. 56, 66, 75, 80, 109, Swisshelm, G. 193
112, 116, 141, 151, 164, 610 Szemiński, J. 178, 404
Sánchez de Lozada, F. 193
Sankoff, D. 597 Tastevin, C. 449
Santa Gertrudis, J. de 53 Tate, N. 294
Santacruz, M. de 296 Taussig, M. T. 3, 417
Santo Tomás, D. de 16–18, 174, 179, 181, Taylor, A. C. 140, 397, 411–18, 423
187, 191, 198, 261 Taylor, D. 116
Sapir, E. 36 Taylor, G. 173, 186, 189, 192–3, 198, 207,
Sayritupac Asqui, D. 296 221, 255, 406–7
Schieffelin, B. 590 Tello, J. C. 39, 460
Schleicher, C. O. 432 Tenorio, M. 585
Schöttelndreyer, M. 56 Tessmann, G. 456, 460–3, 499
Schreiber, K. J. 165 Thiesen, W. 164, 450–1
Schuchard, B. 478 Ticona, A. E. 363
Schuller, R. 376 Tobar Ortiz, N. 161, 164
Schumacher de Peña, G. 321 Toledo, D. 606
Schwegler, A. 588 Toliver, R. 197, 202
Seelwische, J. 494 Torero Fernández de Córdova, A. A. xv, 21,
Seely, M. 125 34, 170, 172–5, 178, 181, 185–6, 189–90,
Seijas, H. 38, 53, 112–16, 161 192, 194–5, 199, 207, 256, 261–3, 320,
Seler, E. 34, 155–9 323–4, 326, 328, 350–7, 362, 364, 375,
Serrano, A. 408 397–403, 461
Shady Solı́s, R. 2, 165 Torres Rubio, D. de 18, 259
Shafer, R. 39, 66 Toscano Mateus, H. 588, 599–600
Shell, O. 39, 418 Tovar, A. 21, 39, 40, 391, 493
Sherzer, J. 56, 62–6 Triana y Antorveza, H. 3, 46, 53, 55, 163
Silva Santisteban, F. 401 Trillos Amaya, M. 66–9, 71–3, 75–9
Simón, P. 22–3, 48 Triviño Garzón, L. 142, 146, 150
Simoneau, K. 556, 580 Troiani, D. 16
Simson, A. 604 Tschopik, H. 263, 296
Skottsberg, C. 552–3 Tschudi, J. J. von 192, 376–7, 379–85
Author index 689
Turner, C. G. 42 Watahomigie, L. J. 609

Turner, G. D. 433–6 Weber, D. J. 17, 164, 189, 192–3, 197, 256–7
Weber, N. 193
Uhle, M. 25, 37, 52, 363–4, 366–7 Weber, R. 193
Uricoechea, E. 48, 54, 81–3, 91, 100, 103, Weisshar, E. 37
109–10, 130 Wheeler, A. 152–5
Urioste, G. L. 255 Whiffen, Th. 417
Whitehead, N. L. 62
Vaı̈sse, E. 376–85, 539 Wilbert, J. 30, 556, 580
Valderrama, R. 249, 256 Willey, G. R. 156
Valdivia, L. de xvi, 16, 508–10, 512–18, 522, Wilson, P. J. 164
526–30, 533, 536–8, 544–9 Wipio Deicat, G. 397
Valenti, D. 39 Wise, M. R. 22, 39, 118, 418, 423–30
Valenzuela Bismarck, P. M. 421 Wölck, W. 192–3, 607
Valera, B. 254, 397–8 Wolf, J. C. 582
Varese, S. 13, 418, 423 Wolf, T. 155
Vargas Llosa, M. 411 Woolard, K. A. 590
Vásquez, J. 260
Vásquez de Ruı́z, B. 142–3, 146 Yamamoto, A. 609
Velasco, J. de 192, 392, 394, 397 Yáñez, C. 610
Vellard, J. A. 362–4, 371–5 Yapita Moya, J. de D. 260, 265, 268, 270–3,
Vidal, A. 489 275–6, 281–93, 296–7
Viegas Barros, J. P. 41, 386, 495, 505, 552–3, Yapu Mamani, E. 296
556, 558–9, 562, 565, 580–2 Yokoyama, M. 19
Vienrich, A. 192 Yule Yatacué, M. 132–3
Vignati, M. A. 542
Villareal, F. 322–5, 333, 335, 338, 341–2 Zamora Munné, J. C. 588
Vink, H. 173 Zamponi, R. 161
Vittadello, A. 141–2, 145 Zegura, S. 42
Voegelin, C. F. 38 Zevallos Quiñones, J. 320, 406
Voegelin, F. M. 38 Zimmermann, K. 16
Zolezzi, G. 496
Wachtel, N. 175–6, 259, 362 Zúñiga, F. 511
Wagner, E. 124 Zúñiga Cazorla, N. 255
Wassén, S. H. 56 Zwartjes, O. 17
INDEX OF LANGUAGES AND
ETHNIC GROUPS
abajero (dialect of Guajiro) 115, 121 Andean 28, 42, 44

Abipón 488–9 Andean A 28
Achagua 24, 55, 116, 162, 164, 423 Andean B 28
Achual, Achuar 432–3 Andean–Equatorial 28, 42
Aconipa, see Tabancale Andean Spanish 160, 206, 217, 224, 585–602
Afro-American Spanish 605 Andoa 451–2
Agatano 52 Andoque, Andoke 31, 33–4, 44, 164, 417
Aguaruna 173, 397, 406, 432–5, 438 Angutero 453
Aimara (historical nation) 179, 259 Anserma (language of ) 49
Aimara ayacuchano 262 Antioquia (languages of ) 44, 49
Ai-ngae, see Cofán Añún, see Paraujano
Airico (Betoi subgroup) 161 Aonek enk, see Tehuelche
Aksanás 30–3, 552–3 Apatama 410
Akuriyo 161 Apolista 28, 39, 44, 422–3
Alacaluf, Alakaluf, Alakuluf, see Kawesqar Apolo (Quechua dialect) 200
Alacalufan 32, 553 Arabela 44, 451
Algonquian languages 523, 571 Araona 418
Allentiac xvi, 16, 42, 44, 352, 502, 508, 544–9 Arasaeri (Harakmbut subgroup) 459
Alto Pativilca–Alto Marañón–Alto Huallaga Araucanı́a Mapuche 526–30
(Quechua dialect group) 185, 193 Araucanian xvi, 14, 22–3, 28, 39–40, 43–4,
Amahuaca 417–19 77, 89, 176, 508–44, 552, 590
Amarakaeri (Harakmbut subgroup) 417, 459 Araucanians 3, 9, 502–8, 582
Amazon Spanish 416 Araucanised Tehuelche 505
Amazon Spanish pidgin 602–4 Arawá, Arawa, Arawán, Araua (group) 28–9,
Amazonas (Chachapoyas) Quechua 193, 200, 31, 33, 39–40, 44, 459
207, 213 Arawak (group) 28, 31, 33, 411, 422–30, 500
Amazonian Quechua 500 Arawakan 22, 24, 26–30, 32, 36, 39–41, 44,
Amerind 26, 42–3 53, 66, 115–16, 125, 128–9, 162, 175, 353,
Amerindian languages 585–6, 591, 605–9 405, 416–17, 422–30, 459, 477, 539
Amuesha, see Yanesha Arawakan languages of the Caribbean islands
Ancash Quechua (dialect group) 168, 180, 116
192–3, 202–7, 224–31, 235 Arawakan languages of the Lesser Antilles
Ancash–Huaylas (regional standard dialect) 116–38, 141
193, 256 Arequipa (Quechua dialect) 35, 195, 199
Andalucian Spanish 586–7, 589, 605 Arhuacan 28, 37, 44, 66–74, 76
Andaquı́, Andaqui, Andaki 26, 28–30, 33, Arhuaco, see Ika
37–8, 44, 48, 54, 138–41, 161 Arma and Pozo (language of) 49
arribero (dialect of Guajiro) 115 Barbacoan, Barbakóan 26, 33, 37–8, 43, 53–4,
Arsario, see Damana 57, 141–51, 155, 159, 171, 392–4, 397, 437
Aru (group), see Aymaran Barı́ 37, 44, 50, 80–1, 112, 117
Aruaco, Aruak (group), see Arhuacan Basque 326
Asháninca 423, 608 Baudó river (dialect of Emberá) 58
Ashéninca 423 Baure 422–3
Atacame, see Esmeraldeño Beliche 509, 522, 530
Atacameño, Atacameno, Atacama 27–9, 31, Besro (dialect of Chiquitano) 478
33, 34, 42, 44, 120, 176–8, 375–85, 409, Betoi 161
539 Betoi (group) 30, 33, 37, 38, 44, 130, 161
Ataguitan 27 Bı́ntukua, see Ika
Atallán 392 Bolivia–Paraná (division of Southern
Atallana 392 Arawakan) 423
Atunceta 49 Bolivian Aymara 260–1
Auca, see Huao Bolivian Quechua (dialect group) 168, 180,
Auishiri, see Huao 187–8, 192–3, 195–206, 214, 221, 231, 235,
Auishiri, Auixira, Auixiri, Aushiri, 270, 357, 361
see Tekiraka Bolivian Spanish 588–9
Australian languages 36 Bolona 393, 397
Awa 141 Bora 162, 164, 417, 423, 449–51
Awa Pit 26, 28, 38, 44, 53, 54, 57, 141–8, 150, Bora (group) 31–3, 44
160, 393, 397 Bora–Huitoto, Bora–Uitoto 44, 449–51
Ayacucho Quechua 168, 187, 188, 192–3, Bora–Huitotoan 32
198–202, 208–32, 235–6, 258 Bora–Muinane 449
Ayacucho rural Spanish 593 Boran, Bóran 26, 29, 33–4, 164
Ayacucho–Chanca (regional standard dialect) Bororo, Boróro (group) 28, 31, 33, 44
193, 256 Bororoan, Boróroan 29, 33–4, 477
Ayamán, Ayomán 129–30 Bribri 73
Aymara, Aymará, Aimara 2, 5, 13–14,
16–18, 20–5, 27, 29–31, 34, 38, 41, 44, 103, Cabécar 73
167–79, 182, 187–8, 191, 195, 214, 243, Cabiyarı́ 162, 423
259–319, 321, 328, 350–62, 365–7, 372–5, Caca, see Diaguita
377, 402, 409, 411, 436, 442, 445, 512, 517, Cahuapana (group) 28, 31–3, 44, 447–9
522–3, 529, 537–8, 549, 582, 589–91, Cahuapanan 40
607–9 Cahuarano 451
Aymara, Aimara (group) 28, 31–3, 42, Caingang (group), see Kaingangan
44 Cajamarca Quechua 167, 193, 198, 200–1,
Aymara of Guaman Poma de Ayala 261 213, 221, 261, 403–4
Aymaran 5, 22, 33, 34–6, 145, 168, 170–1, Cajamarca–Cañaris (regional standard dialect)
173–4, 181, 199, 259–319, 375, 528 193, 256
Ayoreo, Ayoréode 496–7, 499 Cajatambo Quechua 207
Calchaquı́ (Diaguita subgroup) 407
Bagua 405 Caldono (dialect of Páez) 130–2
Baniva del Guainı́a 162, 423 Californian Penutian 43
Baniva do Içana 162 Callahuaya 5, 30, 33–4, 44, 175, 350–2,
Baniva–Yavitero 423 356–62, 400, 411
Bantu 605 Callejón de Huaylas Quechua 197, 201–3
Bará 164 Camiare (Comechingón subgroup) 502
Barasana, Barasano 164 Campa 29, 39, 411, 417, 422–3
Barbacoa, Barbácoa (group) 30, 33, 44 Campaces 392
692 Index of languages and ethnic groups
Campan 29 Central Quechua 185

Camsá, see Kamsá Cerro de Pasco Quechua 258
Candoshi 33, 37, 40, 44, 397, 405–6, 456–7 cesuŋun, see Huilliche
Canichana 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 475–6 Chacha 167, 173, 406
Cañar, Cañari 29, 167, 172, 237, 321, 392–3, Chachapoya 406–7
395–7 Chachapoyas (Amazonas) Quechua 186, 194,
Cañar Quechua 160 198, 407
Capanahua 417–21 Chachi, see Cayapa
Capayán (Diaguita subgroup) 407, 409 Chácobo 418
Caquetı́o 129 Chamacoco 496, 499
Cara, Caranqui 38, 44, 142, 172, 393–4 Chamı́ 57, 59
Carangas (Aymara dialect) 265–6, 271 Chamicuro 28–9, 39, 44, 416–17, 423
Caráquez Bay Indians 394 Chancos (language of the) 49
Carapana 164 Chandinahua 419
Carare 114 Chané 422–3, 430
Carib (group) 28, 44, 173 Chango 176
Cariban 22, 24, 29, 31–3, 38, 40, 50, 57, 80, Chapacura 477
112–15, 125, 161, 405 Chapacura (group) 31, 33, 44
Caribbean (division of Northern Arawakan) Chapacura–Uanhaman 28
423 Chapacuran, Chapakúran 29, 33, 477
Carijona 161, 406 Cha palaachi, see Cayapa
Casabindo 410 Charrua (group) 28, 31–3
Cashibo 418–19 Charrúan, Charruan 29, 33, 40, 44, 488
Cashibo–Cacataibo 418 Chayahuita 44, 447–8
Cashinahua 418–19 Chayma 112
Castilian Spanish 181, 243, 325, 398, 562, Chechehet 29, 31–2
586–7 Chetilla (Quechua dialect) 404
Catacao, Catacaos 28, 31, 33, 44, 398–400, Chibcha 16, 46–8
403 Chibcha (group) 31–3, 37, 44
Catalan 293 Chibcha–Duit 28
Catamarca and La Rioja (Quechua dialect) Chibchan, Chı́bchan 22, 25–6, 29–30, 32–4,
187 36–8, 40, 42, 44, 46, 49–53, 55–6, 61–112,
-cat(e) (hypothetical language) 405, 407 114, 125, 130, 140, 142, 145–6, 151, 159,
Catı́o (Chocó) 56–7 470
Catı́o Chibcha 37, 44, 49, 57 Chibchan proper 28
Catuquina (group), see Katukina Chibchan–Paezan 42, 44
Cauca valley (tribes of the) 49 Chicha (historical nation) 176
Cauqui 27, 29–30, 34, 171, 259, 264–6, 306, Chilean Aymara 265–6, 365, 379
315 Chilean Diaguita 409
Cautı́n (Mapuche dialect) 513 Chilean Quechua 188
Cavineña 418, 422 Chilean Spanish 379, 511, 590
Cayapa 26, 38, 44, 54, 141–51, 155, 159–60, Chilidugu 508
603 Chillao (historical nation) 405
Cayuvava 28, 31, 33, 44, 475–6 Chimane 476
Cayuvavan 29 Chimila 37, 44, 48, 52, 55, 75–80, 85–6
Central Aimara, see Tupino Aimara Chimú, Chimu 28, 31, 33, 37–8, 44,
Central Arawakan 423 320
Central Peruvian Quechua 17, 191, 286, 301, Chimúan 33
314–15, 318, 424 Chinchaisuyo 181
Central Peruvian Spanish 595 Chinese 585
Chipaya xv, 33, 38–9, 43, 175, 362–75, 379, Colima (Ecuador) 392
420 Colla (historical nation) 234, 350
Chiquitano, Chikitano, Chiquita, Chiquito Collavino Aimara 170
28–9, 31, 33, 34, 44, 64, 416, 422, 477–88, Collavino Quechua 170, 187
609 Colombian Chibchan 37, 55
Chiriguano 8, 14, 422, 430 Colombian Quechua 208
Chiriguano–Ava 430–1 Colombian Spanish 61, 588
Chiriguano–Guaranı́ 499 colonial Cuzco Quechua 213, 228
Chiriguano–Tapyi 430–1 Colorado, see Tsafiki
Chirino 29, 406 Colorado–Cayapa 28
Chitarero 52 Comechingón 502
Chocó, Choco, Chokó (group) 28–9, 31–3, 44, Comechingones 502
57 Compi, La Paz (Aymara dialect) 275
Chocoan 38, 50, 54, 56–61, 65, 111, Concepción (Quechua dialect) 201–5
117 Conibo 418–19, 500
Cholón xvi, 20, 21, 97, 173, 352, 398, 405, Conima, Huancané (Aymara dialect) 266
407, 416, 456, 460–75, 499 Copallén 30–2, 406–7
Cholona (group) 31, 33, 37, 44 Copiapó valley (Indians of the) 409
Cholónan 33 Coquimbo valley (Indians of the) 409
Cholones 398 Coto, see Orejón
Chon (group) 29, 31–3, 36, 39, 41, 44, 505 Cotopaxi (Ecuadorian Quechua dialect) 204
Chonan 555–64, 581–2 Covendo Mosetén 476
Chongos Bajo (Quechua dialect) 202, 217 Cuaiquer, see Awa Pit
Chono (Chile) 508, 550, 552–4, 556–8, Cubeo 164
564–5, 580 Cueva 3, 57, 62
Chono (Ecuador) 392 Cuiba 162
Chorote 493–5 Cuica 124–9
Chubut (Mapuche dialect) 505 Cuitlatec 42
Chucuito (Aymara dialect) 265, 272 Cujareño 418
Chulupı́, Chulupı́–Ashlushlay 493–4, 499 Culina 459
Chupaca (Quechua dialect) 202 Culli, Culle 25, 28, 31, 33, 44, 161, 172–3,
Churumata 410 398, 401–5, 461
Ciaman 49 Cullian 29
coastal dialect of Quechua 182, 185, 187, 191, Cumanagoto 112
198, 207, 261 Cuna 26, 37, 48–50, 55–6, 61–6, 79, 85–6,
Cobarı́a (dialect of Tunebo) 109–10 111
Cocama 164, 419, 431–2 Cuna (group) 44
Cocamilla 431 Cuna–Cueva 28
Cochabamba Quechua 43, 193, 236 Cundinamarcan Chibchan 37
Cochabamba Spanish 601 Curripaco 162, 423
Coche, see Kamsá Cuzco (alternative name for the Quechua
Cochinoca 410 dialect of Santiago del Estero) 180
Coconucan 26, 29, 38, 141–2 Cuzco Quechua 17, 20, 35, 167, 168,
Coconuco 141 180–3, 187–8, 191–206, 208–31, 235–6,
Coconuco (group) 9, 30 249–54, 256–7, 270, 292, 352, 357–8, 360,
Cofán, Cofan 26, 28–9, 31, 33, 37, 42, 44, 50, 361
141, 161, 454 Cuzco–Bolivian (Quechua dialect group)
Colán, Colan 28, 398–400, 403 195
Coli (historical nation) 175, 350 Cuzco–Collao (regional Quechua standard
Colima (Colombia) 38, 48, 114–15 dialect) 193
Damana 44, 50, 55, 66–74, 117 General Language of the Inca 179, 186
-den (hypothetical language) 404 Gennaken, see Gününa Küne
Desano 164 German 16, 323, 378
Diaguita, Diaguit 20, 27, 30–2, 177–8, 376, Gorgotoqui, Gorgotoki 30–3
380, 407–9 Grau, Apurimac (Quechua dialect) 199
Dobocubı́, see Barı́ Guachı́ 29
Dorasquean 37 Guachian 29
Duit 23, 37, 44, 46, 50, 81–2, 85 Guahibo, see Sikuani
Duitama (language of ) 82 Guahibo (group) 32–3, 44
Guahibo–Pamigua 28
Easter Island language 41 Guahiboan 29–30, 33, 162
Eastern Apurimac (Quechua dialect) 200 Guaicuru (group) 31–3, 44
Eastern Tucanoan 163–4 Guaicuruan 14, 29, 33, 40–1, 178, 386,
Eastern Yahgan 580 488–93, 495
Ecuadorian Amazonian Quechua 186, 451 Guaiteca, see Chono (Chile)
Ecuadorian Coastal Spanish 605 Guajiro xvi, 53–4, 115–24, 162, 423
Ecuadorian Highland Quechua 131, 149, 172, Gualaquiza (Shuar dialect) 438
186, 195–204, 208–31 Guallatire, northern Chile (Aymara dialect)
Ecuadorian Highland Spanish 605 266
Ecuadorian Quechua 168, 192–3, 207, 218, Guamaca, see Damana
235, 237–42, 289, 395, 594, 596–8 Guambiano 26, 38, 43–4, 54–5, 57, 131,
Ecuadorian Spanish 588, 594, 598–600 141–50
Ele (Betoi subgroup) 161 Guamo 31, 33, 44, 163
Emberá 50, 54–60, 62 Guaná 423
English 16, 66, 324, 360, 516, 567–70, 574–8, Guanaca 138, 142
582, 591 Guanano 164
Equatorial 28, 42, 44 Guanca (historical nation), see Huanca
Equatorial–Tucanoan 42, 44 Guane 52
Eseejja 417–18 Guaque, see Carijona
Eskimo–Aleut 42 Guaranı́ 24, 351, 431, 480, 500, 608
Esmeraldeño, Esmeralda, Ezmeralda 28–30, Guarayo 430–2
33–4, 42, 44, 54, 155–61, 172 Guató, Guato 28–9, 31, 33–4, 44
Ette Ennaka, see Chimila Guatuso 26, 86
Ette Taara, see Chimila Guayabero 55, 162, 164
European languages 586 Guaycurú–Charruan 32
Guaycuru–Opaie 28
Ferreñafe (Quechua dialect) 186, 189, 193, Gününa Küne 5, 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 505, 550,
198, 200, 207, 220–1 554
Fiscara (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 Gününa Yajich 554–8, 561–4, 581–2
Fisherman’s language 320
French 103 Hacaritama 116
Fuegian languages (languages of Tierra del hahuasimi 174, 261
Fuego) xvii, 5, 21, 31, 41, 550–82 Haki (group), see Aymaran
Fuegians 3, 550 Harakmbut, Harákmbut 2, 28, 31–3, 39, 43–4,
163, 422, 459–60
Galibi 113 Haush 41, 550, 554, 556, 580
Gayón 129 Hawaiian 41
Ge (group) 28–9, 32–4, 163 Henia (Comechingón subgroup) 502
Ge–Kaingan 44 Het, see Chechehet
Ge–Pano–Carib 28, 42, 44 Hianacoto, see Carijona
Hibito, Hivito 44, 173, 398, 407, 460–2 Imbabura Quechua 193, 199, 204, 393
Hibito–Cholón 28–9, 407 Inca 16
Highland Jivaroans 418 Inca (general) language 182, 191–2, 198
Hiraháran, see Jirajaran Incas (secret language of the) 178
Hitnü 162 Inga, Ingano (Colombian Quechua dialect) 53,
Hı́varo (group), see Jivaroan 151, 179–80, 186, 193, 202
Hivito, Hivitos, see Hibito inga šimi 180
Hokan 28, 34, 36, 42, 44, 61 Iñapari 353, 423
Hokan–Siouan 37 Iquito 44, 451–2
Hongote 29 Irapa (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13
Huachipaeri (Harakmbut subgroup) 459 Iroka (dialect of Yukpa) 112
Hualfı́n (Diaguita subgroup) 407 Irra (language of) 49
Huallaga (Quechua dialect) 189 Isconahua 418
Huamachuco (language of ) 401 Italian 24, 380
Huambisa 432–3 Itene 477
Huanca (Quechua dialect group) 179, 181, Itonama 28–9, 31–3, 44, 475–6
188, 192–3, 196, 201–6, 210–31, 236, Itucale, see Urarina
256–8, 261, 595 Itucale–Sabela 44
Huancané (Aymara dialect) 283 Izoceño 430–1
Huancavilca 392–3
Huancayo (Quechua dialect) 197, 202–5, 208 Jabutı́an 376
Huangascar–Topará (Quechua dialect group) Japanese 585
185 Japreria 52, 112–13
Húanuco Quechua (Quechua dialect group) Jaqaru 27, 34, 44, 171, 259–60, 264–70,
192–3, 200–1, 217–31, 257, 424 275–6, 281, 287, 290, 293, 295, 300–19,
Huao, Huaorani 28, 30–3, 44, 454–6 352
Huarayo, see Eseejja Jaqi (group), see Aymaran
Huaraz (Quechua dialect) 207 jaqi aru, see Aymara
Huari 29 Jaruro, see Yaruro
Huarochirı́ manuscript (Quechua dialect of Jauja (Quechua dialect) 197, 201–5
the) 192, 198, 231, 318 Jauja–Huanca (Quechua dialect group) 185
Huarpe (group) 28, 31, 33 Je (group), see Ge
Huarpean 29, 42, 502–5, 508, 544, 548 Jebero 44, 447–9
Huasco valley (Indians of the) 409 Jebero–Jivaroan 32
Huaylas–Conchucos (Quechua dialect group) Jı́baro, Jibaro (group), see Jivaroan
185 Jibaro–Kandoshi, see Jı́varo–Candoshi
Huilliche 509–10, 514, 516–17, 526, 530 Jicaque 37
Huitoto 56, 162, 164, 423, 449–50, 500 Jirajara 129
Huitoto–Bora–Záparo 37 Jirajara, Jirajira (group) 28, 31, 33, 44, 129
Huitoto Muinane 449 Jirajaran 29, 33, 37, 52, 129–30
Huitoto–Ocaina 449 Jirara (Betoi subgroup) 130, 161
Huitotoan 26, 28–9, 31–4, 162, 164 jitano 82
Humahuaca 27, 30–2, 177, 410 Jitirijiti 49, 53
Hupda 163 Jı́varo, see Shuar
Jı́varo–Cahuapana, Jivaroan–Cahuapanan 29
Iberian dialects (of Spanish) 586–7 Jı́varo–Candoshi 28, 40, 42, 44
Idabaez 31–2, 56 Jivaroan 31–3, 40, 44, 172–3, 396–7, 406,
Ignaciano 422, 423 416, 432–47, 457
Ika 50, 55, 66–74, 76, 93 Jopoqueri (Aymara dialect) 293
Ilinga 401 Jorá 430–1
Jujuy (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 La Paz Spanish 591, 600–1

Juli (Aymara dialect) 293 Lache 52
Junı́n (Quechua dialect group) 281, 424 Lamista Quechua 186
Junı́n–Huanca (regional Quechua standard languages of Andean tribes 30
dialect) 193 languages of the Amazonian lowlands
Jurı́ 33, 178 xvii
languages of the Cauca valley 49–50
Kachá, see Urarina languages of the Gran Chaco 488–99
Kadiweu 488 languages of the Magdalena valley 50
Kagaba, Kággaba, see Kogui languages of Paleo–American tribes 30
Kahuapana (group), see Cahuapana languages of the Sierra Nevada the Santa
Kahuapana–Zaparo 44 Marta, see Arhuacan
Kaingan, Kaingán (group) 31–3, 44 languages of Tropical Forest tribes 30
Kaingang 163 languages of the Upper Magdalena region
Kaingangan 28–9 138–41
Kakán, see Diaguita Lapachu, see Apolista
Kakua 163 Laraos (Quechua dialect) 186
kam nč.á, see Kamsá Latin 16, 24, 344, 510
Kamsá 28–30, 33, 37–8, 44, 53–4, 56, 151–5, Latin American Spanish 586–8
161 Lebanese Arabic 585
Kandoshi, see Candoshi Leco, Leko 21, 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 475–6
Kanichana, see Canichana Lenca 37, 50
Kankuamo, Kankuı́ 50, 67 Lengua 498
Kanoê 29, 34, 376 Lengua (group) 31, 33, 44
Kapishana, Kapishaná, see Kanoê lengua general (del Inga) 179, 182
Karaib (group), see Cariban lengua del Inga 53, 401
Káriban, see Cariban lengua linga 53
Kariri–Tupi 44 lengua de los Llanos 392
Katakáoan 33–4 lengua pescadora 320
Katio, see Catı́o Chibcha lengua yunga pescadora 320
Katukina (group) 29, 39, 43, 459 Lengua–Mascoy 29, 40, 488, 497–9
Kaueskar, see Chono (Chile) Letuama, see Tanimuca–Retuarã
Kawapánan, see Cahuapana lican antai, see Atacameño
Kawesqar, Kawéskar 28–33, 41, 44, 550, Lili 49
552–4, 556–8, 564–7, 580–2 Lima standard Spanish 593
Kayuvava, see Cayuvava Limarı́ valley (Indians of the) 409
Kechua (group), see Quechua Lincha (Quechua dialect) 186, 189
Kechumaran, see Quechumaran Linga, see Ilinga
Kitemoca 477 Lı́pez (historical nation) 176
Kofán, see Cofán llapuni 589
Kogui 44, 50, 55–6, 66–74, 86 Llata (Quechua dialect) 193
Kolyawaya, see Callahuaya Lokono 116–17
kot-suñ, see Uru Lolaca (Betoi subgroup) 161
kougian, see Kogui Lomerı́o (dialect of Chiquitano) 478
Kugapakori 423 Louisiana French 591
Kulyi, see Culli Low German 416
Kunza, Kunsa, see Atacameño Lule 28–34, 44, 177–8, 380, 385–91
Lulean 31–2
La Paz (Aymara dialect) 265–6, 270–7, Lule–Tonocoté 385
283–4, 286, 289, 293 Lule–Vilela 41, 44, 386, 488
Lupaca (historical nation, Aymara dialect) Marocasero, see Damana

264, 266 Mascoy (group) 28
Mascoyan, Maskóian 33, 497–9
Macaguane, see Hitnü Mashco 33
machaj juyay, see Callahuaya Mashubı́ 29, 376
Machiguenga 29, 39, 411, 417, 422–3 Mastanahua 419
Macoita (dialect of Yukpa) 112–14 Mataco 493–4
Macro-Arawakan 29, 44 Mataco (group) 28, 31, 33, 44, 430
Macro-Carib 28, 29, 42, 44 Mataco–Guaicuru 44
Macro-Chibchan 28, 32, 36–8, 42 Matacoan, Matákoan 14, 29, 33, 40–1, 386,
Macro-Ge, Macro-Jê 28, 32, 34, 39–40, 42, 44 391, 488, 493–5
Macro-Hokan 30 Mataguayan, see Matacoan
Macro-Mayan 29, 32 Matanauı́ 29
Macro-Pano–Tacanan 32 Mayan 31–2, 38–9, 321, 329, 364
Macro-Panoan 28, 42, 44 Mayna 28–31, 33, 40, 44, 447, 456
Macro-Penutian 38 Mayo 418
Macro-Quechuan 29 Mayoruna 418–19
Macro-Tucanoan 28, 42, 44 Media Lengua 5, 602–3
Macu (Venezuelan) 29 Mennonite German 585
Macuan 29 Millcayac 16, 44, 502, 544
Macuna 164 Mnka (dialect of Huitoto) 164, 449
Madeán (Quechua dialect) 186 Miraña 164, 449
Madi (group), see Arawá Mirripú (dialect of Timote) 125
Magdalena valley (tribes of the) 48 Misumalpa (group) 30, 33–4, 37, 50
Magdalena valley Cariban 112–15 Mobima, see Movima
Maipuran 24, 39, 44, 422 Mocana 52
Maipure 162, 423 Mochica xvi, xvii, 2, 16, 22–3, 28–9, 37–8,
Maipúrean 33 61, 84, 120, 172–3, 319–50, 351–2, 392,
Majigua 161 397–8, 403, 513
Maká 493, 495, 499 Mocoa, see Kamsá
Makú (group) 31, 33, 163 Mocovı́ 488–9, 493
Makú–Puinave, Macú–Puinave 29, 163 Moguex 142
Makúan 163 Mojo 16, 411, 422–3
Malacato 172, 393, 396 Moluche, see Ngoluche (Mapuche subgroup)
Malayo, see Damana Moré 477
Malibu (group) 44 Morocomarca, northern Potosı́ (Aymara
Malibú 52 dialect) 283, 287, 310
Mandarin Chinese 147 Morocosi, see Mojo 16
Manekenkn, see Haush Morunahua 418
Manta 392 Mosca, see Muisca
Mapocho, Mapuchu (Santiago dialect of Mosetén, Moseten, Mosetene 28–9, 31–3, 39,
Araucanian) 508–9, 517–18, 526–7, 44, 375, 476
528–30, 533, 537 Mosetén–Chimane 475–6
Mapuche xvi, 2–3, 5, 9, 14, 16, 21, 28, 31, Motilon, see Barı́
33, 38, 40–1, 103, 123, 171, 321, 470, Motilones 38, 80, 112
500, 505–44, 551, 552, 563, 565, 580–2, Movima 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 475–6
608 Muchic, Muchik 172, 320
Mapuchean 29 Mucuchı́ (dialect of Timote) 125–8
Mapudungu, Mapudungun, see Mapuche Muellamués 393
Marinahua 419 Muinane 164
Muisca xvi, 3, 18, 23, 37, 46, 50, 52, 54–5, Omagua 24, 417–18, 431
81–109, 111–12, 352, 397 Omaguaca, see Humahuaca
Munchique (dialect of Páez) 130–1 Omasuyos (Aymara dialect) 275
Muniche, Munichi 28, 30–1, 33, 44, 456, 500 Omurano, see Mayna
Mura–Pirahá 29 Ona, see Selk nam
Muran 29 Opón 114
Murato (Candoshi) 31, 33, 37, 457 Opón–Carare 38, 53, 112, 114–15
Murato (Uru–Chipaya) 362 Orejón 453
Murui (dialect of Huitoto) 164, 417, 449 Oristiné 386
Mutús 125 Osa (Humahuaca subgroup) 410
muysc cubun, see Muisca Otavalo Quechua 445
Muzo 38, 48, 114–15 Otı́ 29
Otomac, Otomaco (group) 31, 33, 44, 163
Na–Dene 42 Otomaco–Taparita 28
Nahua 418 Otomákoan 33
Nambikwara (group) 29, 37 Otuque 477
Napeca 477
Napipı́ river (dialect of Emberá) 59 Pacabueyes 52
Nasa, see Páez Pacaguara 418
Nasa Yuwe, see Páez Pacaraos (Quechua dialect) 186, 189–90,
Neuquén (Mapuche dialect) 516 193, 197–229, 234–5, 242–50, 261, 279,
New World Spanish 586 325
Ngoluche (Mapuche subgroup) 509 Paccho (Quechua dialect) 198–9
Npode (dialect of Huitoto) 164, 449 Paccioca (Diaguita subgroup) 407
Nivaclé, see Chulupı́ Pachitea (Quechua dialect) 202
Noctenes (dialecto of Mataco) 493 Páesan 33
Nonuya 164 Paez (group) 33, 44
North Amazon (division of Northern Páez 9, 26, 30, 38, 48, 50, 54–5, 57, 125,
Arawakan) 423 130–8, 140–2, 395, 500
North Barasana 164 Paez–Coconuco 28
Northern Bolivian Quechua 35, 200, 357 Paezan 28–9, 38, 42, 44
Northern Amerind 44 Paiconeca 477
Northern Andean 44 Palenquero 604
Northern Arawakan 423 Paleo–Chibchan 159
Northern Aymara 265 Palta 172, 393, 396–7
Northern Junı́n (Quechua dialect group) 189, Pamigua 161
194, 201–6, 210–33, 237, 257 Pampa, see Gününa Küne
Northwest-Coast languages 571 Panatagua 422
Nuclear Chibchan 44 Panche 38, 48, 53, 114–15
Nuclear Paezan 44 Paniquita 142
Nukak 163 Paniquitá (dialect of Páez) 130
nuna šimi 179 Paniquitan 26
Nutabe 37, 44, 49 Pano (group) 31–3, 411, 417–18
Pano–Tacana, Pano–Tacanan 29, 31, 39, 44,
Ocaina 164, 449 418–22, 477
Ochosuma, see Uru Panoan, Pánoan 33–4, 39–40, 44, 261,
Ocloya (Humahuaca subgroup) 410 418–21, 447
Ofaié–Xavante 29 Pantágora 38, 48, 114
Old Catı́o, see Catı́o Chibcha Panzaleo 393–5, 397
Olmos (language of ) 320, 400 Papiamentu 595
Paraujano 53, 115–16, 118, 423 Proto-Barbacoan 57

Parecis–Saraveca (division of Central Proto-Chibchan 37, 73, 80
Arawakan) 423 Proto-Chocoan 57–8
Pariri (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 Proto-Colombian Chibchan 96
Parquenahua 418 Proto-Emberá 58
Pasco (Quechua dialect group) 281, 424 Proto-Matacoan 495
Pastaza (Quechua dialect) 187, 193 Proto-Quechumaran 195
Pasto 38, 53, 142, 151, 392–4, 397 Proto-Quechua(n) 35, 181, 187–8, 190, 192,
Patagon (group), see Chon 194–204, 206–7, 213, 244, 267
Patagón, Patagón de Perico 173, 405, Proto-Yukpa 113
554–6 Pucapacuri, see Kugapakori
Patagón de Bagua, see Bagua Puelche, see Gününa Küne
Patagonian languages 5, 21, 31, 41, 578 Puinave 163
Paunaca 422, 477 Puinave (group) 28, 44
Pauserna–Guarasugwé 430–1 Puinávean 33
Paya 37, 73 Pular (Diaguita subgroup) 407
Paya–Chibchan 37 Pumé, see Yaruro
Peba–Yagua 458 Puná (language of) 155
Peban 28 Puno (Aymara dialect) 269
Pehuenche (independent group) 505 Puno Bay Uru 363
Pehuenche (Mapuche dialect) 505, 509 Puno Quechua 35, 187, 199, 201–2, 292, 357
peibu, see Kogui Puquina, Pukina xv, xvi, 5, 26, 30–4, 36, 39,
peninsular Spanish 586–9 43–4, 167, 175–6, 178, 263, 350–62, 366,
Peruvian Andean Spanish 589, 592 375, 382
Peruvian Aymara 260–1 Purmamarca (Humahuaca subgroup) 410
Peruvian Spanish 589, 593, 604 Puruhá, Puruguay 29, 167, 172, 321, 392–3,
Piapoco 116, 162, 423 395–6
Piaroa 162
Piaroa (group) 31, 33, 44 Qawasqar, see Kawesqar
Pichincha (Quechua dialect) 199 Quechua xvi, 2–3, 5–6, 12–25, 27, 31–6, 38,
Picoy (Quechua dialect) 201 41, 53, 103, 123, 129–30, 139, 142, 145–6,
Picunche (Mapuche dialect) 509–10, 149–51, 160, 165–320, 328, 344, 351–61,
516 365–6, 370–5, 377–85, 393–6, 398, 400–6,
Pijao 38, 48, 53, 114–15, 138, 141 409, 411–16, 424, 430, 443, 446, 452, 464,
Pilagá 488–9 465–8, 471, 499, 506, 512, 517, 522–3,
Piojé, see Secoya 527–8, 534, 537–8, 539, 585, 589–603, 605,
Piratapuyo 164 607–8
Piro 39, 411, 417, 422–3 Quechua (group) 22, 28, 42, 44
Piro–Apurinã 423 Quechua (historical nation) 179
Pisabo 418 Quechua A 185
Pisamira 164 Quechua B 185
Piura (languages of ) 403 Quechua I 185–6, 188–91, 197–207, 210–37,
Plains Indians 556 243, 258, 278, 281, 429, 506
Polynesian languages 41 Quechua II 185–91, 212–32, 234–6, 243,
Portuguese 181 270
Pre-Andine subgroup of Arawakan 22, 39 Quechua IIA 186–91, 198
Pre-Quechuan languages of highland Ecuador Quechua IIB 186–91, 196–207, 213–31,
25, 38, 172, 195, 391–7 235–6, 243
Proto-Arawakan 423–6 Quechua IIC 186–91, 195–206, 212–32,
Proto-Aymaran 35, 171, 263, 265–7, 287 234–6, 293
Quechua III 186 San Miguel (dialect of Chiquitano) 478

Quechua(n) dialects 34–5, 160, 168, 177, San Pedro de Cajas (Quechua dialect) 193,
179–81, 183–91, 256, 305 197, 225, 229, 237
Quechua standard language (lengua general ) Sanaviron, Sanavirón 31–2, 502
182–3 Sanavirones 502
Quechuan 5, 29, 34–6, 53, 168–71, 179–263, Sanjá, Sanká, see Damana
318 Santa Ana Mosetén 476
Quechumaran 27, 32, 34–6 Santiago dialect of Araucanian, see Mapocho
Querandı́ 505 Santiago de Chuco (dialect of Spanish) 403–4
Quichua 12–13, 168, 177 Santiago del Estero Quechua, Santiagueño
Quichua (historical nation) 179 Quechua 177, 187–8, 193, 197, 202–4, 221,
quichua unificado 607 231, 258, 378, 380, 386, 387, 409
Quijos 394 Sáparoan, see Zaparoan
Quillacinga 53, 151, 392 Sapiteri (Harakmbut subgroup) 459
Quilme (Diaguita subgroup) 407–8 Saraguro Indians 6, 395
Quimbaya 3, 57 Saraveca 423, 477
Quimbaya, Carrapa, Picara and Paucura Sebondoy, see Kamsá
(language of the) 49 Sec (group) 29
Quindı́o (language of the) 49 Sechura, Sec 25, 28, 31, 33–4, 44, 172, 320,
Quingnam 173, 320, 401 398–400
Secoya 453
Rabona 393, 397 Sek 400
Ranqueles 505, 507 Selk nam 28, 36, 41, 44, 550, 554, 556–7,
Ranquelino, Ranquel (Mapuche dialect) 558–64, 571, 580–1
510–11, 514, 516, 528 Setebo 419
Remo 419 Shaparu (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13
Resı́garo 39, 44, 162, 423 Shapra, see Candoshi
Reyesano 418 Sharanahua 418
Rı́o Negro (Mapuche dialect) 516 Shipibo 500
Rionegrino (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 Shipibo–Conibo 417, 419
Roraima (languages of ) 406 Shipibo–Conibo–Shetebo 418–19
Rucachoroy, Neuquén (Mapuche dialect) Shuar 13, 172, 397, 416, 418, 432–47,
514 499–500, 603, 609
Rumanian 217 Shuar pidgin 433
runa simi 130, 179, 259 Sibundoy, see Kamsá
Russian 231 sign languages 416, 418
Sikuani 55, 162, 164
Sabela, see Huao Simacu, see Urarina
Sacata 405 Sindagua 53
Saija 57–60 Sı́nsiga 110
Salasaca (Quechua dialect) 204, 237–42 Sinú 50, 57
Saliba, Sáliba 44, 162–3 Siona 163, 453
Saliban, Sálivan 28, 29, 33, 162 Siriano 164
Salinas de Garci Mendoza (Aymara dialect) Sirionó 430–1
266 Sitajara, Tacna (Aymara dialect) 281, 283–4,
Sambú 57 288, 307
Samúkoan, see Zamucoan Situfa (Betoi subgroup) 161
San Javier (dialect of Chiquitano) 478 Slavic languages 231
San Martı́n (regional Quechua standard Sokorpa (dialect of Yukpa) 112
dialect) 193, 203, 236, 256 Sonchon (group) 29
Sora (historical nation) 178 téižua (ceremonial language) 67

South American Spanish 587–8 Tekiraka 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 456
South Bolivian Quechua 35 Temuco, Cautı́n (Mapuche dialect) 516
Southern Andean 44 Tena (Quechua dialect) 242
Southern Aimara, see Collavino Aimara Térraba 73
Southern Arawakan 423 terruna shayama (ceremonial language) 67
Southern Aymara 265 Teteté 453
Southern Barbacoan 149 Teushen 41, 550, 554, 556, 581
Southern Peruvian Quechua 253 Ticuna, Tikuna 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 55, 164, 458
Southern Quechua I 250 Ticuna–Yuri 44
Spanish 3–6, 11–13, 24, 53, 59, 66–7, 74, Tiliar (Humahuaca subgroup) 410
82–7, 116–18, 128–9, 131, 139, 155, 170, Timaná 138
173, 179, 182–3, 197, 216–17, 256, 258–9, Timote 124–9, 130
262, 267, 293, 324–5, 344, 351, 368, Timote (group) 28–9, 31, 33, 37, 44
378–81, 386–7, 393–6, 398, 400–4, 418, Timote–Cuica xvi, 52, 124–30
452, 471, 478, 493, 500, 510–11, 544–5, Timótean 33
576, 581, 585–605 Timucua 29, 42
Spanish of northwestern Argentina 589, 595–6 Tinigua 161–2
Subtiaba 37 Tinigua (group) 31, 33, 44
Swedish 217 Tiniguan, Tinı́wan 29, 33
Toba 40, 488–93, 499, 608
Ta–Arawak 116 Tonocoté 177–8, 385–6, 408
Tabancale 29–32, 406 Toquistiné 386
Tacana 418, 500 Toribı́o (dialect of Páez) 130–3
Tacana (group) 31–3, 411 Toromona 418
Tacana–Pano 28 Totoró 38, 54, 141
Tacanan, Takánan 26, 33–4, 36, 39, 44, 171, Toyeri, see Harakmbut
357, 418–19 Toyoeri (Harakmbut subgroup) 459
Tacna (Aymara dialect) 271 Trinitario 422–3
Taı́no 116 Trio 115, 161
Tairona 48, 52, 67 Trumai 29
Taiwano 164 Tsachila 141
Talamancan 26, 73 Tsafiki 26, 38, 44, 54, 141–51, 159–60, 225,
Tallán 25, 34, 172, 179, 393, 398–400 228, 392, 394
Tamanaco 112 Tshon (group), see Chon, Chonan
Tanimuca 164 Tucano 164
Tanimuca–Retuarã 164 Tucano (group) 28, 31, 33, 37, 44
Tapieté 418, 430–1, 499 Tucanoan, Tukánoan 29, 33, 55, 141, 162–4,
Tapo (Quechua dialect) 225 453
Tarascan 29, 34, 42 Tucuna, see Ticuna
Tarata (Aymara dialect) 265–6 Tule, see Cuna
Tariana 162, 164, 423 Tunebo 37, 44, 52, 85, 109–12
Tarma (Quechua dialect) 192–4, 197–206, Tunebo (group) 28, 52, 85, 87, 109–10, 112,
210–33, 235–6, 258 161
Tatuyo 164 Tupi, Tupı́ (group) 22, 28–9, 31, 33, 40, 44,
Taushiro 40, 456 432
Tegrı́a (dialect of Tunebo) 109–10 Tupi–Guaranı́ 14, 24, 26–7, 99, 422, 430–2,
Tehuelche 28, 36, 41, 505, 510, 550, 552, 434, 477, 488
554–6, 558, 563–4, 580–4 Tupı́an 33, 419, 432
Tehues, see Teushen Tupinambá 432
Tupino Aimara 170 Xiroa 393, 397

Turkish 34 Xoroca 396, 406
Tuyuca 164
Tuyuneri, see Harakmbut Yacampis (Diaguita subgroup) 409
Yagua 164, 417, 458
Uchumataqu, see Uru Yagua (group) 31, 33, 44
Uitoto (group), see Huitotoan Yaguan 28–9, 33–4
Umaua, see Carijona Yahgan, Yagan 28, 31, 33, 41, 44, 550, 553–4,
Upper Andágueda (Emberá Chamı́ dialect) 556–8, 567–82
59 Yalcón 48, 138
Urarina 28–9, 31, 33, 44, 457–8, 500 Yamana, Yámana, see Yahgan 554, 556
Uro (group) 31–3, 44 Yamanan 29
Uru, Uro 28, 36, 38–9, 176, 259, 362–3, Yameo 458, 500
366–7, 370, 375 Yaminahua 418
Uru of Ch imu 175, 363 Yanahuanca (Quechua dialect) 201
Uru of Iru Itu (Iruitu) 175, 363 Yanesha 5, 22, 28–9, 39, 44, 397, 416–17,
Uruan, see Uru–Chipaya 422–30, 447, 499–500
Uru–Chipaya 26, 29, 31, 38–9, 43, 175–6, yanga šimi 180
259, 321, 357, 362–75 Yanomama, Yanoama (group) 32, 37
Uruquilla 175–6, 362 Yanomaman 40
Uw Cuwa, see Tunebo Yaru (Quechua dialect group) 185, 193
Uwa, U wa, see Tunebo Yaruro 28–30, 33–4, 42, 44, 159, 163
Yauyos (dialect group) 186, 192, 200, 205, 214
Viakshi (dialect of Yukpa) 112 Yavitero 162, 423
Vilela 28–9, 31–4, 44, 178, 386–7, 391 Yáwan, see Yaguan
Viñac (Quechua dialect) 186 Ysistiné 386
Vulgar Latin 589 Yuco, see Yukpa
Yucuna 162, 423
Wahı́voan, see Guahiboan Yuhupde, see Hupda
Waikurúan, see Guaicuruan Yukpa 38, 52, 80, 112–15
Wamo, see Guamo Yunga, Yunca 28, 38, 172, 320, 398
Warao 32, 37 Yuqui 430–1
Warpe (group), see Huarpe Yuracaré, Yuracare, Yurakare, Yurucare 28–9,
Wasama (dialect of Yukpa) 112–13 31–3, 39, 44, 475–7
Waunana 54, 56–9 Yurı́, Yuri 28, 31, 33, 44, 164
Wayuunaiki, see Guajiro Yurı́an 29
Weenhayek, see Mataco Yurumanguı́, Yurumangui, Yurimangui,
West Patagonian Canoe Indians 552 Yurimangi 28–9, 31, 33, 36–7, 41–2, 44,
Western Arawakan 423 54, 60–1, 161
Western Tucanoan 163 Yurutı́ 164
Wichi, see Mataco
Wintu 43 Zamuco 477, 496
Witotoan, Witótoan, see Huitotoan Zamuco (group) 28, 31, 33, 44
Wiwa, see Damana Zamucoan 29, 33, 488, 496–7, 499
Záparo 451–3
Xauxa (historical nation) 181 Záparo, Zaparo (group) 31, 33, 44, 416, 418
Xibito-Cholon, see Hibito-Cholón Zaparoan 26, 28–9, 33–4, 172, 451–3, 456,
Xidehara, see Jirajara 458
Xinca 37 Zuni 29
SUBJECT INDEX
ablative 189, 215, 273, 277, 303, 374, 428, alienable/inalienable distinction 119, 492,
440, 469 495, 499
ablativus absolutus 251 allative 69, 100, 214–15, 274–328, 356, 385,
ablaut 328 428, 440, 470
abolition of Quechua in the official domain allophonic lowering of high vowels 195, 257,
183, 255 361, 366
absolute (transitive without an object) 485–6 allophonic variation 62, 196
abstract terms 234 altiplano 6–7, 38, 165, 171, 175–6, 296, 350,
Abya-Yala, organisation 13 362
Academia de la Lengua Quechua 181 Alto Perú 171
accent 76, 153, 568 Alto Purús (upper Purús valley) 459
Aconcagua river 502 alveolar affricate 265, 302, 386
active (as opposed to passive) 485–6 Amantanı́, island 350
active participle 547 Amazon, river and region 5, 6, 161, 173, 431,
active–stative distinction 122, 134–5, 489, 499, 603
495, 499 The American Race (Brinton) 25
accusative 71–2, 145, 213, 224, 303–4, Amerindian contact vernaculars 5
360 Amerindian grammatical patterns 43, 482
adcorporeal movement 490 Ampudia, Juan de (conquistador) 138
adjectives, syntactic behaviour of 208, 335, analytic conjugation 122–3
336, 353, 380, 390, 409, 419, 444, 449, anaphoric 537
457, 471, 481, 562 Ancoaqui, indigenous community 363
adstratum 195 Andahuaylillas, town 350
African–Amerindian relations in Pacific Andamarca, Quechua-speaking community
Ecuador 155 258
Africanisms 5, 588, 604 Andean civilisation 2, 35, 165–7
agent (of a passive construction) 329, 335, Andean Cordilleras 6, 168
368, 483 Andean millenarism 1
agent disambiguator 470 animal fables 192
agentive nominalisation 227, 276, 288, 311, antecedent 17, 213, 430
335–6, 339–40, 355, 372, 527–8 anticompletive 251
agglutination 59, 64, 207, 267, 423, 463, 476, Antilles 586
545, 564, 609 Antofagasta, town and region 408
agreement/concord 125, 370, 496, 563 Añasco, Pedro de (conquistador) 48, 138
agricultural terraces 2, 124 Anthropos 56
agriculture 2, 10, 21, 175, 502 apico-alveolar fricative 325–6, 365, 562
Aisén, region 554 applicative 339, 474, 476–7
704 Subject index
aquatic lifestyle (of the Uru) 259, 362 Bavarian mission 511, 512
La Araucana 506 behetrı́as 48
Araucanı́a 14, 507–10 Belalcázar (or Benalcaçar, Benalcazar),
Araucanian-speaking mixed groups 505 Sebastián de (conquistador) 9, 53, 61
Araucanian Sphere 5, 177, 502–8 Belén de los Andaquı́es, settlement 139
Araucaria pine 505 Benedictines 193
Arauco, town and region 506, 510, 516 benefactive 278, 289, 303, 333, 356, 374, 428,
archaeological horizons 7 468–9, 534
Area Intermedia 50 beneficiary 71–2, 230, 280–1, 477
Arequipa, town and region 262 Bermejo river 386
Arhuacan culture 67 Bibliothèque Linguistique Américaine 54, 478
Ariguanı́ river 75 bilingual education 4, 5, 12–13, 15, 168, 194,
Arte de la lengua cholona 460–75 585, 605–9
Arte de la lengua tonocoté y lule 385 bilingualism 131, 258, 262, 580, 592–6, 606
Arte de la lengua yunga 322 Biobı́o, region 510, 516
aspect 133, 153, 190, 221, 226, 231, 281–2, Biobı́o river 9, 505–6, 509
441, 455, 574 bipartite division of Quechuan dialects 181,
aspirated consonants 35, 57–8, 131, 133, 186, 188, 191
187–8, 195, 198–9, 264, 266–8, 282, 302, bishopric of Trujillo 23
313, 351, 364–5, 379, 495 body-part terms 140, 213, 333, 427, 480, 482
aspirated vowels 87, 110, 131, 425 Bogotá, valley of 46
aspiration 378 Bohórquez, Pedro (rebel) 408
Atacama desert 375 Bolı́var, Simón (liberator) 9–10, 183, 589
Atacames, town 155 Bourbon administration 3, 167, 183
Atahuallpa (Inca ruler) 8, 167, 179, 395 Boyacá, region 81–2
Atalaya, town 417 British Library 20, 460
Atánquez, town 67 Brouwer, Hendrik (settler) 506
Atrato river 62 Brunswick Peninsula 581
attenuator 272, 291 Buenos Aires, region and state capital of
auca 413, 506 Argentina 507
augmentative 126, 216
Augustinians 173, 320, 401, 402 Cabana, town 401
autobiography 255, 296, 511 Cabeceras Aid Project 610–11, 623
auto sacramental 255 cabildo 79
auxiliary verb 59, 65, 70–1, 76, 137, 146, 150, Cachuy, indigenous community 171
443, 474 cacicazgos (chiefdoms) 411
Ayacucho, battle of 9 Caguán river 139, 163
Ayacucho, town and region 258, 263 Cajamarca, town and region 186, 403–7
ayllu (lineage group) 234 Calchaquı́ valleys, see Valles Calchaquı́es
Aymara (name) 259 Caldas, Quindı́o and Risaralda, region 49
Aymara substratum (in Arequipa and Puno) Callejón de Huaylas valley 2
262 Canary Islands 586
Aymaraes, region 259 Canas and Canchis, region 262
Aymaranised nouns 267 Cañar, town and region 256, 395, 602
canoe nomads 550–4, 555, 556, 581
Bacatá 46 Cape Horn 6, 554
Bagua, town 406 Capuchins 151
Bahı́a de Solano 56 Caquetá river 139, 164
barriadas (popular neighbourhoods) 607 Caral/Chupacigarro, preceramic settlement 2
basic colours 236, 295, 538, 549 Caráquez, Bay of 392
Subject index 705
Carare river 114 Chancay culture 165

cardinal directions 561 Chancay river 165, 242–3
Caribs (as a cover term for hostile Indians) 24, Chanchán, site 165, 320
52, 75 charango (musical instrument) 236–7
Carumas, town and indigenous community Charazani, town 350, 356
375 Charles III (king of Spain) 3
Casas, Bartolomé de las (defender of Indian Charles V (emperor) 48
rights) 191 Chaupiñamca (deity) 174
case 59, 65, 69–70, 79, 89, 99–101, 111, Chavı́n culture 8
128–9, 140, 145, 153–4, 156, 158–9, Chavı́n de Huántar, site 7, 165
213–16, 226, 277–8, 303, 328, 332, 356, Checras, Quechua-speaking community 258
367, 374, 380, 385, 387, 448, 460, Chibcha Sphere 5, 46
468–70, 476, 482–5, 494, 520, 545, 563, Chicama river 320
565 Chiclayo, town 319
case governed by verbs 101, 483 Chiloé island 14, 502, 506, 508–10, 552, 553
Caspana, indigenous community 376, 379 Chimborazo, region 395
Catacaos, town and indigenous community Chimbos, region 395
398 Chimú, Chimor, kingdom 8, 165, 320
Catalogue of the National Library, Madrid 140 Ch’imu, Ts’imu, indigenous community 31,
Catamarca, town and region 407–9 363
catechisms 16, 20, 81, 106, 130, 182, 351, Chinchaisuyo, administrative quarter of the
392, 477, 544, 552, 565 Inca empire 181
Catequil (deity) 401 Chinchipe river 405–6
Catherine II of Russia 54 Chinchorro culture 2
Cauca, region 141 Chiquitano, region 5
Cauca river and valley 3, 48 Chiquitos missions 25
causative 59, 64, 74, 133, 136, 216, 233, 279, Chira river 398
305, 355, 372, 384, 441, 534 Chita, town 110
Cautı́n, region 507, 509–10 Chocó, region 56–9, 62
Cayapas river 141 Chota river and valley 605
ceceo 587 chroniclers 181
Central Andean linguistic features 145 Chucuito, town and region 259, 262–4
central Chile 506 circum-Caribbean cultures 8
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique cislocative 230
(CNRS) 55 Ciudad Perdida 48
Centro Amazónico de Antropologı́a y Ciudad de los Reyes 182
Aplicación Práctica (CAAAP) 607 class-free suffixes 209
Centro Colombiano de Estudios de Lenguas classification 5, 22–45, 556
Aborı́genes (CCELA) 21, 55 classification networks 29–30
Cenúfana (chiefdom) 50 classifiers 150, 153, 164, 451, 455, 459–60,
ceramic phase of Andean prehistory 7 476
ceramics 8 classifying affixes 67, 125–6, 158, 160
ceremonial language 67 cleaning of the irrigation canals 377
ceremonial speech 64 cleft construction 118
Cerro de la Sal 423 climate 7
Cesar river 75 clitics 367–70, 595
Chachapoyas, town and region 167, 173, Clovis horizon 1, 506
406–7 coarticulated stop 85
Chaco War 296, 478, 498 coca 7
Chamaya river 6, 405 Cochabamba, town and region 411
706 Subject index
Coconuco, indigenous community 141 copula/verb ‘to be’ 59–60, 135, 155, 207, 209,
Colla Capac (indigenous ruler) 350 275, 312–13, 330, 340–2, 382, 438
Collaguas, region 174, 262 copula verbaliser 275–6, 291, 426
Collasuyo, administrative quarter of the Inca correlative 19
empire 174 Cotopaxi, region and sacred mountain 241,
colonial occupation by Spain 2–3, 9, 20, 131, 394, 602
344–8, 350, 362, 395, 411–13, 453, 548 creole studies 586
comarca (autonomous region) 62 Cuélap, site 406
combinations of personal pronouns and case Cuenca, town 395
99 cultural diffusion 500
comitative 123, 136, 215, 332, 440, 469, 521 Cumancaya culture 419
complement clause 226, 372–3, 446 Cuna, pictographic writing system of the 48
complementiser ‘saying’ 446 Cundinamarca, region 38, 46, 81
completive 253 Cuntisuyo, administrative quarter of the Inca
complex sentences 292, 430, 445–7, 498, 516 empire 174
compound tense 223, 229 Curaray river 456
compound verbs 59, 388, 448, 487, 571 Current Anthropology 27–8, 43
compounds 66, 70, 236, 274, 402, 425, 436, Curva, indigenous community 356
452, 518, 561, 566, 570 customary action 532
computer language 609 Cuyo, region 502, 506
Concepción, town in the Chiquitos area 477 Cuzco, name 178
Conchucos, region 401 Cuzco, capital of the Incas, town and region
condenado 253 165–7, 180–3, 191, 255, 262, 350, 406,
conditional 523–4, 533 413
conjecture 286 cuzqueros 180
conquista del desierto 508 cypher language 478
conquistadores 9, 16, 46–9, 53, 165–7, 392,
506, 508, 604 dalca (traditional boat) 552
Consejo Regional Indı́gena del Cauca (CRIC) Daquilema (Indian leader) 395
131 Darien, region 3, 56–7, 62
conservative classifications 26–7, 30, 31 data source 209
consonant clusters 68–9, 81, 85, 88–9, 110, dative 71–2, 79, 332, 429, 482–3
113, 128, 132, 153, 206, 268, 269, 273, Daule river 392
293, 351, 366–7, 379, 386, 402, 512–13, Death of Atahuallpa (traditional play) 254
545, 563, 569 debt slavery 417
consonant lenition 199–200 decimal counting 74, 123, 128, 140, 235, 375,
constitutions 11–15 385, 538, 549
of Argentina 15 declarative 76–7, 111, 146–7, 354, 371, 437
of Bolivia 14 definiteness 122, 217, 435
of Chile 14 deictic roots 492, 560–1
of Colombia 4, 12 demographic decline 167
of Ecuador 13 demographic situation of Andean Indians 4
of Peru 13–14 demonstratives 65, 105, 122, 331, 368, 444,
of Venezuela 11–12 457, 466, 537
contrary-to-fact 153 dental fricative 568
contrast 209 depalatalisation 204
convergence 5–6, 175, 591, 602 Desaguadero river 362–3
conversión de Hivitos 460 Descripción de la Gobernación de Guayaquil
conversiones 460 393
coordination 18, 215, 356 descriptions 192, 416, 499, 557
Subject index 707
descriptive and comparative studies 4 Elegı́as de Varones Ilustres de Indias 124

desiderative 285–6, 337 elision 206, 243, 368, 479
determined/non-determined distinction 485–6 Elqui valley 409
detrimental 280–1, 534 embedded clause 137
dialect chain 188 enclitics 209
dialectal variation 181, 265–6 encomenderos 138
dialectology 192–3, 264 encomienda 138
Diamante river 502 Encyclopaedia Britannica 27–8, 31
dictionaries 191–3, 257, 260, 265, 294, 494, Ene river 417
499, 511, 537, 550, 578 Entre Rı́os, region 41
difrasismo 236 epew (literary genre) 539
diminutive 126, 216, 435 epidemic diseases 3, 8, 182, 416, 555
Diocesan Synod of Quito 392 epistemic modality 70, 134–5
diphthongs 197, 322 equational clause 371
Direct knowledge 135 ergative 59–60, 70, 79, 111, 356, 360, 421–2,
direct speech 234, 292–3, 539 470, 499
directional 59, 64–5, 190, 231, 278, 304–5, ergative patterning in verbal morphology 495,
448, 491, 498 563, 571
directional verb stems 64–5 Esmeraldas river 155
discourse structure 151, 225 Esmeraldas, town 155
distal past 70 Estudios Araucanos 510
distance scale 122, 537, 560 Estudios de Lingüı́stica Chibcha 55
distribution of languages in highland Bolivia Eten, town 321
176, 262 Ethnographic Museum, Göteborg 56
Doctrina Christiana 20, 182, 296 Ethnographic Museum, Hamburg 321
domestication of animals (camelids) 2, 7 Ethnologue 125, 416, 418
domestication of plants 2, 7 etnoeducación 606
dominance of Aymara in the Bolivian euphonic element 429
highlands 263 evangelisation 3, 20, 25, 182, 398
domination by Spanish 4, 196 evidentials 153, 210, 283, 286–7, 367, 455,
Dominicans 82, 191, 416–17, 452, 459 560
double negation 453 exclamative 464
double personal reference marking 426 exhortative 94–5, 473
double possessive 593 existential verb 150, 330, 384
dual 60, 65, 77, 155, 451, 455, 492, 519, 521, expansion of the Aymaran languages 171,
522, 524, 526, 571 176, 260–1, 263
Duchicela (indigenous rulers) 395 expected event 137
duplication pattern 597 experiencer verb 483
durative aspect 65 experiential past 229
Dutch occupation of Valdivia 506 Experimental Project of Bilingual Education
dynamicity 490 194, 257, 296
expulsion of the Jesuits 24
earliest waves of migration 22–4, 42 extinction of languages 22
Early Horizon 7 extirpador de idolatrı́as 255
early human settlement in the Andes 1–2, 7 extra-long vowels 569
ejective 187 extra-short vowels 301
El Dorado (legend of ) 3, 8, 47–8 extrametrical syllable 118
El Ecuador Interandino y Occidental antes de
la Conquista Española 36 factual mood 71–3
Elal (deity) 582 failed action 530
708 Subject index
family names 140, 395, 398–401, 403, 406–7 genitive 59, 61, 69–70, 80, 101–2, 111, 120,
far-remote past 283 145, 149, 154, 213, 322, 328–9, 332–5,
Federmann, Niklaus (conquistador) 129 352, 367–9, 470–1, 520, 545
Felipillo (interpreter) 179 genitive clitic doubling 596
Fell’s Cave, site 1 genitive pronouns 332
Fincenú, chiefdom 50 genitive–locative 273
first Amerindian words borrowed into Spanish genocide 3, 10
116 geographic intertwining of languages 262–3
first-person marker in Quechua 189, 197, 207 gerund 473, 599–600
first-person-plural inclusive 211, 269, 370, glottal stop 68–9, 110, 113, 116, 118, 143,
375, 449 147, 351, 361, 365, 377, 387–8, 519, 563,
fishing and shellfish-gathering 7, 552 568
Fitzcarraldo (rubber baron) 459 glottalised consonants 35, 187–8, 195,
five-vowel system 196, 257, 366 198–200, 264, 266, 302, 351, 365, 378,
focus 134, 523 379–80, 387, 494–5, 505, 578
folk literature 55–6, 511 glottalised vowels 75, 110, 131, 425
foot nomads 550–2, 555, 580 Goal 38, 99–100, 440
Formative Period 165 gold 8, 417
fortis velar 365 Government and Binding 19
four-term system of personal reference xx, grammars (colonial) 16–18, 20, 82–9, 191–2,
211–12, 218, 269, 493 219, 319, 477, 496, 522, 544
four-vowel system 452 Gran Chaco, region 5, 14, 40, 385–6, 411,
fourth person 211, 213, 269 418, 488–99, 500
Franciscans 56, 416–17, 423, 478 Gran Pajatén, site 407
frequentative 91–2, 94 Gran Vilaya, site 406
fricativisation 199–201 Great Civilisations 18
Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Guajira peninsula 115
Colombia (FARC), guerrilla movement Guambı́a, indigenous community 141
10 Guanacache, wetlands 502
fusion of tribes 5 guano exploitation 10
future tense 92–3, 219, 284, 306–8, 336–7, Guatavita, cacique of 47
370, 383, 389, 452, 486, 530, 574 Guaviare river 162
Guayas river 392
La Gaitana 48 güecha 48
geminate consonants 62–3, 76, 81, 144, guerrilla movements 10
379–80 Guitarrero cave, site 2
gender 125, 134, 367–9, 423, 451, 455, 476, Guzmango, kingdom 404
496, 498, 560, 583
gender of addressee 462–3 habitual past 223, 227, 276
gender distinction in pronouns 149, 432, 451, haciendas 3, 459, 585
498 Handbook of South American Indians 26
gender–number 118–19 Hatun Colla, ancient town 234
gender-related language use 365, 478–9 heavy syllable 118
generic prefix 125 Hispanic values 590
generic term for possessed items 480 Hispanicisation 174, 176–7, 509, 607
genetic diversity 42 Hispaniola island 116–17
genetic relations 22–45, 159, 364, 431, 456, Historia del Nuevo Mundo 24
499, 556, 564, 578 Historia natural y moral de las Indias 23
genetically isolated languages 2, 22–3, 30, 61, homeland of Aymaran 263
164, 416, 454, 456, 475, 477–8 homeland of Quechua 180–2, 263
Subject index 709
honorific 455 indigenous communities (comunidades

horse 556 indı́genas) 10, 79, 237, 320, 362–3,
Huailillas, mission 398 418
Huallaga river 405, 416, 460 indirect-object marking (on verbs) 71
Huamachuco, town and region 398, 401, 404 inferential 286–7, 455
Huambos, region 401 inferential past 224
Huánuco, town and region 411 Inferential knowledge 135
Huari, site 7, 165 infinitive 152, 226, 288, 355, 384, 526
Huarochirı́, town and region 174, 255 infinitive complement 137, 226, 372, 573
Huarochirı́ manuscript 174, 187, 192, 255, 261 information status 458
Huascar (Inca ruler) 8, 167, 395 Instituto Caro y Cuervo, Bogotá 55, 83
Huayna Capac (Inca ruler) 3, 8, 165–7 Instituto Lingüı́stico de Verano (ILV) 19, 447,
huaynos 256 449, 457, 460
Huila, region 141 instrument nominaliser 227–8, 289, 339–41,
huinca 539, 608 529
Humboldt current 7 instrumental 215–16, 312–13, 332, 352, 385,
hunters and gatherers 7 440, 469
hunting and extraction economy 417 instrumental prefixes 387, 448
Hunza 46 instrumental–comitative 278, 356, 374
hypercorrection 203 instrumental–coordinative 304
interdental 510, 514–15, 516
Ibero-American Institute, Berlin 363, 401 interlanguage 592, 596
ich-laut 326–7 intermediary periods (archaeological) 7
iconicity 195 Intermediate Area 50
idiomatic expressions 103 internal vowel change 89–90
illative 374 International Journal of American Linguistics
imperative 90, 92, 94, 127, 140, 153, 157, xvi
219, 222, 273, 284–5, 290, 309, 337, interrogative (as a verbal category) 76, 93,
354, 383–4, 387, 389–90, 442, 523, 546, 111, 146–7, 153, 546, 547
564 Interrogative / no knowledge 135
imperfective aspect 91–2 interrogative pronouns 105, 118, 295, 313,
impersonal 71–2 334, 352, 375
implosive 57–8 interrogatives 61, 93, 313, 437, 537
impure vowel 323, 513 intralocutive 71
Inca empire 3, 5, 23–5, 180–1, 260–1, 500 intransitivisers 73–4
Inca nobility (colonial) 183 Introductiones Latinae 16
Inca Sphere 5, 165, 391 inverse/direct distinction 354, 525–6, 528–9
Incanised ethnic groups 418 inverse pulmonic nasal 454
Incas 8–9, 165–7, 178–81, 195, 254–5, 261, Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato) 41
263, 320, 350, 392, 401, 406, 411, 433, irrealis 442
459, 500, 506 irregular concord 598–9
inclusive/exclusive distinction 73, 222, 455, irrigation 2
481 Iru Itu, indigenous community 362
indefinite 12–13 Isla del Sol, island 363
independence (of the Andean states) 3, 10, Isla Huapi, island 510
183, 350, 507 Issa Oristuna, indigenous reserve 75
independent suffixes 208–9, 224, 273–5, itive 231, 534
290–2, 313–14
Indian movements 4, 10 Jaén, town and region 396, 405–6
indigenista movement 4, 181, 254–5, 590 Jequetepeque river 320
710 Subject index
Jesuits 17–18, 24, 163, 254, 259, 264, 408, lexical borrowing 6, 36, 66, 159, 352, 357,
416, 433, 447, 457, 477–8, 552, 556, 605 434, 549, 580–2
Jiménez de Quesada, Gonzalo (conquistador) from Aymaran 171, 263, 279, 302, 375, 385,
46 476, 538, 549, 591
Jivaroan uprising 397 from Quechuan 131, 160, 175, 295, 314,
joint action 133, 151 325, 378, 385, 391, 393, 403, 424, 448,
Juan del Oso (mythical figure) 256 476, 538, 549, 590–1
Juan Santos Atahuallpa, rebellion of 423 from Spanish 59, 74, 87, 105, 128–9, 131,
Juli, town and mission centre 264 150, 152–3, 196–7, 233–4, 236, 241,
245–6, 253, 280, 293, 298, 325, 378,
kankurua (place of worship) 67, 438 384–5, 391, 488, 517, 538, 582
kinship terms 106, 235, 294, 329, 425, 427, lexical gender (in verbs) 388
455, 480, 538 lexical diffusion 5, 500
lexical number (in verbs) 388, 571
La Leche river 320 lexical similarities 49, 57, 140, 142
La Pampa, region 505, 514 lexical suffix 79, 140
La Plata, town and river in Colombia lexico-statistics 431
138–9 Library of the Royal Palace, Madrid 82–3
La Rioja, town and region 407–9 Licancabur, mountain 376
La Tolita culture 156 Lima, as a centre of migration 258
labial click 454 Lima, Aymaran communities in the
labialised consonant 131, 365 department of 261
labiodental fricative 510, 516 Lima, Peruvian state capital and former
labio-postvelar 365 residence of the Spanish viceroys 167,
labiovelars 63, 69, 76, 84, 131, 365, 407 182, 205
lack of polysynthesis 40 limitative 469
Lamas, town and region 186 lingua franca 3, 477–8, 500
Lambayeque, town and region 319, 400 linguistic area 579
landholding system 10 linguistic diversity 2, 22, 81, 183, 416
language attrition 580–2 linguistic fieldwork 20, 191
language contact 4–6, 195, 386, 580–2 linguistic rights 3
language families 26, 416, 454, 499 linguistic taboo 581
Language in the Americas (Greenberg) 27 Lı́pez (region) 362
language maintenance 5, 194, 256, 258 literary production 254–6, 296, 539, 580
language mixture 602 lithic technology 7
language planning 515, 585, 605–8 llanos (eastern plains of Colombia and
language shift 6, 258–9, 262 adjacent Venezuela) 24, 162–3
language surveys 21 Loa river 375–6
Les langues du monde (Meillet and Cohen) 26 Location 99, 100
laryngealisation 198–9 location (as a verbal category) 498
Late Horizon 8 locative 60, 70, 136–7, 189, 214, 276, 312–13,
lateral fricative 144, 364–6 356, 374, 397, 428, 439, 447–8, 470, 485,
lateralisation 205 491–2
Lecturas Araucanas 511 locative–accusative 145
lengua general (general language) 81, 163, locative–genitive 276, 303
167, 175, 296, 350, 453 locative–possessive verbalisation 276
lengua matriz 25 Loja, town and region 396–7, 432
Leticia triangle 164 loose morphological structure 40
lexical and grammatical entwining (of Lord’s Prayer 106–9, 344–6, 359, 376, 381–4
Aymaran and Quechuan) 36 Loreto, region 418, 423, 456
Subject index 711
loss of aspiration 266 Monsefú, town 321

lowering of water level (in Lake Titicaca) 363 montaña (Andean-Amazonian foothills in
Lucanas, region 262 Peru) 9, 13, 411, 419, 424, 499
Lupaca, kingdom 7 Monte Verde, site 1, 506
Lurı́n river 165 month names 538
mood 218, 222, 282–7, 380, 389, 442, 472,
Macotama, religious centre 66 522, 523–4, 573
Madeira river 40 Moquegua, town and region 263
Madre de Dios, region 416, 418, 423, 459 morphological transparency 209, 274
Magalhães (Magellan), Fernando de 15 morphophonemic variation 117, 202, 481–2,
Magdalena river and valley 9, 38, 46, 48, 512, 517, 546
52–3, 75, 112, 114–15, 138, 161 morphophonemics 69, 267, 323, 441, 463
maintenance model (of bilingual education) morphosyntax 69
606–9 motion 153, 477
maize 7 Motupe, town 320
Malleco, region 507, 509–10, 516 mucuchı́es 128
malón (Indian raid) 507 Muequetá 46
mama (spiritual leader) 67 multilateral comparison 43
Manabı́, region 392–3 multilingualism 4, 67, 164, 180–1, 477, 580
Mantaro river and valley 257, 261 multiple vibrant (trill) 58, 68, 81, 117, 205,
manuscripts 20 243, 325
Mapuche uprising 539 mummification techniques 2
Mar Chiquita, lake 502 Musée de l’Homme, Paris 55
Maracaibo, town 115 Museo de la Plata 582
Maracaibo, lake 11, 38, 52, 99, 112, 115, 124
mathematics teaching 609 Nabusı́make, indigenous town 66
Maule river 506 Napo river 417
metathesis 435 narrative past 224
Marañón river 319, 401, 405–6 nasal cluster 515
Mérida, town and region 124 nasal contour 163
Mesoamerica 120, 156, 364 nasal spread 58, 164, 478, 479, 487
Messianic movements 9 nasal vowels 69, 81, 113, 131, 143, 147, 156,
mestizo 255, 418, 590–1 433, 454–6, 479, 496, 499
Meta river and region 162–3 National Library, Madrid 192, 544
Middle Horizon 7 National Library of Colombia 82–3
migration to urban areas 258, 507 nationalism 10
milenarismo andino, see Andean Millenarism nativos 413
mining vocabulary 589 Navarino island 554, 567
missions 4, 16–17, 24–5, 56, 67, 131, 139, Nazca culture 165, 263
151, 163, 408, 416, 419, 423, 447, 452, near past 389
457, 459, 460, 476, 477, 552, 556, 567 near-remote past 283
mitimaes 167, 176, 237, 261, 319, 395, 406, negation 70–1, 78, 93, 133, 153, 158, 209–10,
506 281, 291, 309, 313, 360, 380, 420, 441,
mixed dialect 82 443, 448–9, 473, 487, 522, 532–3, 546
Moche, town and indigenous community 320 negative command 90, 384, 443, 448, 533
Mochica culture 165 negative participle 70–1
modal suffix 183 negative possession 158
mohán (indigenous priest) 84 negative subordination 342
Mojos, Moxos, chiefdom 422 negative verb 119, 385, 603
Mojos, Moxos missions 25 Nele Kantule (Indian leader) 62
712 Subject index
neologisms 123 Ollantay (theatre play) 192, 255

Neuquén, region 514 onomatopoeic roots 236–7
New Granada 23, 48, 53–4, 74, 84 Opón river 114
New Testament translations 578 optative 222, 224, 473
nominal derivation 467–8 Orélie-Antoine I (king of Araucania and
nominal inflection 36 Patagonia) 507
nominal negation 133, 137, 532 Orellana, Francisco de (explorer) 431
nominal person markers 212, 269, 426 oriente (Amazonian lowlands of Ecuador)
nominal predicate 98, 118, 134–5, 207, 209, 12–13, 454
275–6, 382, 487, 536–7 Orinoco river 161, 163
nominal tense 494 Orteguaza river 163
nominalisation 17–18, 69–70, 72, 76, 93, 137, orthography xvi–xix, 86, 183, 194, 257–9,
140, 146, 150, 218, 224, 226–9, 265, 275, 270, 302, 377, 513, 515, 544, 572
288–90, 311–12, 339, 355, 372–3, 380, Otavalo, town 393–4
384, 389, 453, 473, 498, 519, 522, ownership 216–17, 277, 289
526–30, 547
nominative 332 Pacaicasa, site 1
nominative–accusative system 145, 207 Pacasmayo river 320–1
non-finite verbs 70, 76 Pachacamac, site and religious centre 8, 165
Non-involver 286–7, 290 Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui (Inca ruler) 8
non-possession 119, 329, 427 Pachitea river 419
Norte de Potosı́, region 176 pacification of Araucania 9, 507, 511
noun classes 423, 427, 480 Paiján, town 320
noun incorporation 59, 66, 159, 449, 518–19, palatalisation 131, 407, 434, 450, 481, 489
563 palatals 322–3, 324–8, 403, 425
number 111, 125, 133, 153, 221, 269, 354, Paleo-Indian hunters 506
388, 455, 496, 519, 522–3, 538, 547 Pallasca, town and region 401–3
number of language families 2 Pampa Wars 556
number of eastern lowland Indians 13–14 pampas 10, 505, 507–8
number of speakers of highland languages Pampas del Sacramento 422
(Aymara, Mapuche, Quechua) 13–14, Pancenú, chiefdom 50
168, 258 Paracas culture 165
numeral classifiers 66, 79, 329, 342–3, 470, Paraguayan missions 24
471 Paranapura river 456
numerals 34, 66, 74, 79, 83, 106, 111–12, 123, Pariacaca (deity) 174
128, 140, 150, 235, 277, 294–5, 314–15, partial reduplication 388, 476
343, 361, 368, 375, 385, 391, 424, 470, participle 92–5, 156, 340, 390
500, 549 passive participle 95, 547
nütram (literary genre) 539 passive voice 64, 95–6, 123, 150, 329, 335,
338–42, 368, 483, 485–6, 523, 534, 547
object marking (on nouns) 136, 303 past tense 92, 383, 485–6, 530
object marking (personal reference in verbs) Pastaza river and region 454
71, 78, 97–8, 154, 208, 218, 264, 275, Pasto, town 142
282, 306–8, 310, 353, 384, 473–6, 498, Patagonia 505, 507–8, 550, 554–6
524, 548, 557 Path 99–100
object-oriented nominaliser 137 paucal 492
object pronoun 147 Peine, indigenous community 376–7
obligation 289, 338, 383, 573 Peñas, Gulf of 553
obviative/proximate distinction 523–5 percentages of Indian population 11
Ocaña, town and region 116 Perené river 417
Subject index 713
perfective aspect 221, 231, 441, 530, 595 possessive affix 98, 119, 277, 359, 381, 389,
perlative 374 390–1, 402, 420–1, 425, 427, 449, 451,
permissive 456 476, 490, 494
person hierarchy 521, 525–6 possessive construction 77, 214, 278, 358,
personal names 408 382, 390, 452, 519
personal reference 35, 59, 61, 65, 71–3, 77, possessive modifier 419, 444, 449, 457,
88–9, 96–8, 119, 122, 133–6, 140, 147, 519–20, 527, 529
153–4, 156–7, 189, 192, 211–12, 218–21, possessive pronoun 65, 77, 147–8, 352, 358,
226, 269, 275, 282–3, 306, 329–32, 353, 360, 382, 439, 451, 482
358, 380, 383, 388–9, 423, 426, 436–8, postposition 79, 89, 101, 129, 154, 328,
453, 459, 463, 471–2, 481–2, 498, 511, 332–3, 356, 419, 449, 468, 482–3, 495,
521–3, 545, 557, 582 520, 545, 560–1, 563, 565, 567, 576
personal reference number marking 212–13, posture verb 65, 150, 388
222, 546 postvelar 365–6, 378–9, 402, 409
Peruvian Corporation 417 potential 153, 284–6, 309, 372, 442
petrified suffix 69, 74 preaspirated consonant 145, 495
Philip II (king of Spain) 182 preaspirated glide 568
phonology 57–9, 62–3, 68–9, 75–6, 81–9, preceramic phase of Andean prehistory 2, 7
112, 117–18, 143–5, 152, 156, 194–207, predicate marker 570
270–4, 301–2, 321, 361, 364–7, 377–80, prefix fusion 472
386–7, 424–5, 433–5, 450, 454, 463, 479, preglottalised consonant 76, 144
489, 496, 512–17, 564–5, 567–70, 591 prehistory 7–8
phonotactics 35, 267, 293 prenasalised consonant 58, 75, 131, 133, 152,
phylum 28 434
physical characteristics of the Andean region preposition 128, 332, 484–5, 497, 576, 599
6–7 present tense (absence of ) 530
pidginisation 602 preterit 336, 337
Pikimachay, site 1 preverb 133
Pilcomayo river 385, 493 preverbal adverb 535
Pinochet Ugarte, Augusto, military preverbal complement 273
government of 507 proclitic 370, 453, 559, 561
pitch accent 118 professional language 357
Piura, town and region 398 Programa de Formación en Educación
Pizarro, Francisco (conquistador) 8, 167, Intercultural Bilingüe para los Paı́ses
179 Andinos (PROEIB Andes) 257
Plate, River 3, 6, 505 progressive aspect 221, 224, 231, 281, 338
pluperfect 601 promaucaes 506
plural 60, 65, 77, 155, 190, 212, 221–2, pronominal possession 69, 136, 437
269, 277, 281–2, 305, 331–2, 356, 375, pronouns 73, 111, 127, 147, 155, 269, 329,
382, 390, 492, 509, 521–2, 524–5, 545, 353, 358, 360, 367–8, 375, 382–3, 391,
560 436, 450–1, 466, 481–2, 498, 519–20,
polar question 209–10, 291, 331 529, 545, 557, 574–5
Poopó, lake 362 proto-language 35, 80, 112, 202, 266–7
Popayán, town 142 Proyecto Experimental de Educación Bilingüe
portmanteau suffix 190, 208, 219–20, 245–6, (PEEB) 257, 296, 608
339 pseudo-passive 123
Portuguese 417 Pubenza federation 142
Portuguese slave-raiders 417 Puerto Eden, town 553
possession 119, 239, 367, 487, 496 Pueblo Llano, town 125
possession acted upon 71 Puerto Hormiga, site 8
714 Subject index
Puerto Montt, town 506 relational–possessive form 113–14, 119–20,

Puná, island 392 329, 332, 335, 381
Puna de Atacama 376 relational case marker 428
Puno, Bay of 259, 362 relational stem 120–1
Puno, town and region 350, 595 relative clause 15, 17–19, 69, 102, 118, 123,
Puracé, indigenous community 141–2 137, 213, 288, 292, 341, 372–3, 427, 430,
purpose clause 228, 239–40, 288–9, 312, 341, 447, 526–8
428, 446 relative verbs 93
Putumayo river 151, 163–4 relativiser 292, 430
relexification 5–6, 602
Quebrada de Humahuaca 410 religion 7–8, 84
quechua as a generic term 168 remote past 389, 455
Quechua (name) 179, 259 reportative 534
quechua legı́timo 181 Reproacher tense 285–6
Quechua renaissance 183 resguardos 12, 112, 141
Quechuanisation 12, 170, 175, 394, 397 resistance (indigenous) 9, 48–9, 75, 131, 138,
Quellón, town 510 139, 431, 433
question words 18–19, 137, 209, 236, 291, restrictions on verb structure 217–18
448, 458, 465–6, 578 resultative 372
Quichua (name) 179 resumptive pronoun 595
Quimbaya, goldsmith’s art of the 48 retroflex 365, 568
Quimbaya federation 49 retroflex affricate 113, 189, 201, 264–5, 302,
quipu 254, 542 424–5, 514, 517
quipucamayoc 254 retroflex flap 117
Quisgó, indigenous community 141 retroflex glide 516
Quito, capital of the northern Inca empire and retroflex sibilant 202, 325
of the Republic of Ecuador 167, 393–4, retroflex vibrant 204
398, 406 retroflex voiced fricative 591
reversal of personal reference categories 359
racionales 413 reversive 231
raised fields 2 rhetoric 538
Ranco, lake 510 rhetorical question 245
real mood 73, 583 rich obstruent inventories 264
realised event 137 Rimac river 205
realised/non-realised distinction 223 Riobamba, town 395
reciprocal 279, 305, 429 rise of sea levels 1
recognition of Quechua as a national language Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum 322, 351
4, 256 Robledo, Jorge (conquistador) 49
reconstruction 37, 55, 194–5, 267, 431, 495 Roca, Julio Argentino (military leader) 10,
reducciones 416, 433, 452, 477, 507 508
reduplication 119, 123, 232–3, 295–6, 436, root economy 26, 293
539, 549, 561, 564, 566 root structure 269
reflexive 133, 279, 305, 372, 485–6, 526, 534 Royal Commentaries of the Incas 23
reflexive pronoun 391, 548 rubber exploitation 3, 10, 162, 164, 417
regional kingdoms 8
regional standard language 256 sabana 46, 50
regionalisation 8 Salado river, Argentina 188
Relación de la tierra de Jaén 173, 405 Salado river, Chile 376, 379
Relaciones geográficas de Indias 174, 261, Salar de Atacama 376
385, 393–7, 405 saltpetre exploitation 10
Subject index 715
San Agustı́n, site and culture 8, 48, 53, 138–9 sequences of case markers 216
San Agustı́n, stone sculptures of 48, 138 Seville 586–7
San Andrés de Sotavento, town and indigenous shape morphemes 459–60
community 52 shape of object, verbs varying according to 74
San Basilio del Palenque, Afro-Colombian shared lexicon 35, 140, 159–60, 267, 461,
settlement 605 499, 555–6
San Blas, archipelago of 62 sierra (Andean highlands) 20, 181, 411
San Damián de Checas, indigenous Sierra de Córdoba 502
community 255 Sierra de la Macarena 161
San Juan river 56 Sierra Nevada del Cocuy 52, 109–10
San Juan de la Costa, town 509–10, 514 Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta 37, 48, 50–2,
San Martı́n, José de (liberator) 9, 183 66–7, 75
San Miguel de los Ayamanes, indigenous Sierra de Perijá 50, 80, 112
community 129 Silvia, town 141
San Pedro de Atacama, town and indigenous Simancas, colonial settlement 139
community 376 Sinamaica, lagoon of 116
San Pedro de Casta, indigenous community singulative 155
595 Sinú river 62
sandhi 62–4, 270 Sión, ancient mission 460
Sangay, volcano 432 Siquesique, town 129
Santa Ana de Chipaya, indigenous community Socaire, indigenous community 376–7
363 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
Santa Cruz de la Sierra, town and region 477 498
Santa Elena Peninsula 8 Sogamoso, town and religious centre 46
Santafé de Bogotá, state capital of Colombia song texts 256, 261, 296
and former capital of New Granada 81 sound correspondence 462
Santo Domingo de los Colorados, town and sound symbolism 199, 203–4, 315, 516, 559
indigenous community 141 Source 440
Santa Marta, town 52 South American Missionary Society 550
Santa Rosa, hacienda 417 Spaniards 8–9, 124, 138–9, 179, 263, 350,
Santiago del Estero, town and region 168, 401, 409, 417, 433, 585
177, 386, 408 Spanish American republics 10, 589
Saraguro, town and indigenous community spatial adverbs 104, 520–1
395–6, 602 spatial deixis 235–6, 295, 422
Sarmiento, Domingo Faustino (president of spatial distinctions 79, 275, 278–9, 293, 304,
Argentina) 508 333, 428, 533–4
schwa 323, 352, 377, 512 spatial nouns 304
Scyri 394 speaker/non-speaker distinction 146
Sechı́n Alto, site 7 speech registers 64, 433
second language (L2) acquisition 592 spheres, cultural and linguistic 4–5
second-person pronouns (of Spanish) 587 spondylus shell 8
selva (Amazonian forest area in Peru) 13 sprachbund 204, 591
semantic influence 591 standardisation 20, 117, 194, 256–8, 477,
semantic interpretation, range of 234 607
semantic underspecification 103 state 157–8
semi-vowel 513–14 stative nominalisation 228, 289–90, 311–12,
Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), guerrilla 339–41, 355, 527
movement 10 stative verbs 91–2, 122, 490
sentential particles 537, 600 stem modification 485
sentential suffixes 208–9, 291, 465 stock (language) 28, 30
716 Subject index
Strait of Magellan 1, 581 tense 73, 111, 218, 222–4, 282–7, 306–8, 380,
stress 69, 110, 132, 145, 156, 190, 206–7, 389, 421, 429, 441, 494, 522, 530–2, 566,
243, 270–2, 273, 367, 386, 434, 463, 489, 574
569 tense–aspect 370–2, 472
structural similarities between Aymaran and Tequendama, site 8
Quechuan 267 Tercer Concilio Limense (Third Lima Council)
structural transformation 36 20, 182
studies on Quechua 191–4 textiles 8
Suaza river 139 texts in Andean languages 21
subject-centred nominaliser 17, 137, 227, 229, theatre plays 183, 255
288 three-vowel system 156, 195, 270, 301, 402,
subject extraction 372 409, 424–5
subject marker 564 Tiahuanaco, site 7, 165, 375
subject/non-subject distinction 17–19 Tierra del Fuego 550–82
subjunctive mood 429 Tigre river 456
subordinate clause 209, 373–4, 576 Timaná, town 138–9
subordination 137, 149, 218, 223, 224–6, 275, Tingo Marı́a, town 460
287, 310–11, 341, 355, 389–90, 420–1, Titicaca, lake 7, 170, 175, 259, 262–4, 275,
456, 547 350, 362–3
substratum 6, 149, 172, 358, 393, 404, 409, Tolima, region 114
510, 511, 586, 589 Tomebamba, ancient town 395
Sucre, Antonio José de (liberator) 9 tonal languages 80, 163, 164, 450
sudden discovery tense 224, 534, 601, 603 tone, grammatical 80, 164
suffix order 209, 232, 274 tone, lexical 75–6, 80, 110–11, 563
Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) 19, 21, topicalisation 70, 136, 209–11, 291–2, 313,
55, 454, 608 356, 430, 600
supine 95, 342 toponymical area 404–5
suppletion 89, 328, 571 toponymy 21, 53, 114, 125, 140, 170,
Swadesh list of basic vocabulary 130–1 172–6, 261–3, 350–1, 392–409, 562,
sweet potato 41 565
switch-reference 146, 149, 189, 218, 223, totora 175
225–6, 238, 241, 275–6, 287, 310, 373–4, Tounens, Antoine Orélie de 507
420–1, 446, 473 tourism 417
syllabic lateral 545 traditional healers 356
syllable structure 131, 206 trans-Andean contacts (between tropical forest
syncope 63–4 and coastal plains) 6
synonyms 236 trans-Pacific connections 41
synthetic conjugation 122–3 transition (combined personal reference
marking of subject and object in verbs)
Tabaconas, town 401 219, 282, 306–8, 353, 384, 473–4, 522,
tagmemics 19, 193 525–6, 528–9
Tahuantinsuyo 165 transitional model (of bilingual education)
Taki Onqoy (religious movement) 9 606–8
talátur (ceremonial song) 377 transitive/intransitive distinction 64, 90–1, 94,
Taquile, island 350 233, 420–1
Tauca, town 402 transitiviser 73–4, 339, 384, 421
Telarmachay, site 2 transitivity 490
Telembı́ river 141 trapecio andino 174
temperate altitude zone 179 tripartite division of native American
temporal deixis 295 languages 42
Subject index 717
Trujillo, town and region in Venezuela velar nasal 144, 194, 264, 266, 302, 304, 325,
124 332, 365, 465
Trujillo, town in Peru 320, 328, 398, Velasco Alvarado, Juan, military government
401 of 256
truncation 367 ventive 227, 230, 280, 289, 305, 534
Ts’imu, see Ch’imu verb classes 571
Tucumán, town and region 386, 408 verb-initial languages 118, 155
Túmbez, town 179, 392 verbal complement 102–3
Tupac Amaru II (José Gabriel) 3, 9, 183 verbal derivation 208–9, 218, 229–32, 275,
Tupac Amaru, rebellion of 183, 255 278, 280, 293–4, 304–5, 339, 355,
Tupac (Inca) Yupanqui 8, 416, 459 475–6, 487–8, 491, 509, 522, 533,
Tupe, indigenous community 171 546, 571–2
typological distance 2 verbal inflection 35, 442, 522, 573–5
typological regions 50, 55 verbalisation 277, 474–5, 530, 534
verbs of ‘carrying and holding’ 235, 293–4
Ucayali, region 418 verbs of communication 233–4, 293, 446,
Ucayali river 411, 418–19, 431 539
United Provinces of Rı́o de la Plata 3 verbs of ‘eating’ 105, 388
universal quantifiers 137 verbs ‘to do’ 150
Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá 21, vertically organised network of cooperation 6
55 viceroys of Peru 167, 182
University of Costa Rica 55 Vichada river 162
University of Florida 260 vigesimal count 106
University of San Marcos, Lima 18 Vilcabamba, Inca stronghold 9
University of Valparaı́so 377 Viltipoco (Indian leader) 410
University Library of Cuzco 544 Viracocha (Quechua name for Spaniards)
unku 254 179
Upper Amazon valley 24, 432 virtual mood 73
Upper Magdalena region 53, 139–40, visitas 138, 259, 403
163 voiced palatal fricative 395
Urabá, Gulf of 50, 61 voiceless lateral 327–8, 379, 387, 494, 498
Urituyacu river 456 voiceless nasal 387
Urubamba river 411 voiceless vowels 143, 366
Ushuaia, town 567 voicing 182, 198–9, 266
Utcubamba river 405 vowel fluctuation 198
uvulars 178, 183, 194–8, 201–2, 243, 257, vowel harmony 264, 268, 339, 463, 473,
259, 264, 301, 351, 358, 361, 365, 379, 495–7, 499
383, 387, 505, 566 vowel length 76, 81, 110–11, 118, 131, 143,
190, 195, 270–1, 275–6, 284, 287, 289,
Vacacocha, lake 456 301–17, 322, 323–4, 327, 361, 366,
Valdivia, town and region 506, 509, 510 377–8, 425, 433, 463, 479
Valdivia, Pedro de (conquistador) 409, 506, vowel loss 198, 268, 323
508 vowel suppression 35, 89, 101, 110, 267–8,
valency-changing affixes 73–4, 89, 218, 229, 271–4, 278, 281–2, 286, 293, 302–3, 355,
232, 305, 423, 533–4 367
validation 70, 210–11, 419–20 La Voz de los Andes (radio broadcasting
Valles Calchaquı́es (Calchaquı́ valleys) station) 607
408–9
Vaupés, river and region 162–3 Wafer, Lionel (ship’s doctor) 62
velar glide 513 Wars of Independence (against Spain) 9–10
718 Subject index
war of succession (between Atahuallpa and yeı́smo 587

Huascar) 8, 167 Yurumanguı́ river 60
witnessed/non-witnessed 494
word order 59, 61, 65, 69, 70, 79, 99, 111, zambos 155
114, 118, 127, 129, 145, 207, 274, 367, Zamora, town and region 397
370, 380, 385, 419, 424, 429, 443–5, 447, Zaña, town 319
449, 452, 456, 457, 460, 475, 476, 488, zaque (indigenous ruler) 46
493, 495, 497, 560–4, 566–7, 575–9, Zepita, town 362
597–8, 603–4 zero complement 273–4, 288, 303
writing system, lack of indigenous 2 zero person 118–23
zipa (indigenous ruler) 46–7
yanacona 53 Zipaquirá, town 82
Yarı́ river 162 zones of refuge 6
Yavarı́ river 417 Zulia, region 115–17

Adelaar Muysken Thelanguagesofthe Andes 2004

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

Adelaar Muysken Thelanguagesofthe Andes 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE LANGUAGES OF THE ANDES

 . .  is Professor of Amerindian Languages and Cul-

 .  is Professor of Linguistics at the University of

Volumes already published include

Cambridge University Press

© Willem F. H. Adelaar and Pieter C. Muysken 2004

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of

First published in print format 2004

isbn-13 978-0-511-21587-2 eBook (NetLibrary)

isbn-13 978-0-521-36275-7 hardback

List of tables page x

2 The Chibcha Sphere 46

3 The Inca Sphere 165

3.3.4 Salient features of the Aymaran language family 267

4 The languages of the eastern slopes 411

4.11.1The Cholón lexicon and relationship with Hibito 461

5 The Araucanian Sphere 502

6 The languages of Tierra del Fuego 550

7 The Spanish presence 585

7.1.1Demography and the Iberian dialectal origins 586

Appendix: Inventory of languages and language families

1.1 Percentage of Indian population in the different

2.14 Caldono Páez obstruents 131

3.20 Mochica preterit and future tenses 337

6.2 Historical demographic data for the canoe nomads 555

Map 1 The Chibcha Sphere: overview of ethnolinguistic groups attested

This book on Andean languages relies on heterogeneous sources, including premodern

Secondary articulations of the vowels

â. Contrastive stress is also indicated by means of an acute accent. Stress

Secondary articulations of the consonants

– Coarticulation is indicated by juxtaposition of the symbols: kp, pk, pkw .

Other symbols and conventions

1 first person (speaker)

These numbers can be followed by the symbols S (subject), O (object), or P (possessor)

1S, 2S, 3S, 4S first-person subject, etc.

A absolute (as opposed to relational)

AN anticompletive (‘still’, ‘yet’)

1.1 The languages of the Andes

1.2 Physical description

1.3 Brief history of the region

1 Benalcazar or Benalcaçar in the colonial sources.

1.4 A brief overview of the different Andean countries

Table 1.1 Percentage of Indian population in the different Andean

Total population Amerindian population Percentage

Venezuela 21,300,000 315,815 1.48

aboriginal Indian languages have disappeared. Indians or people of local indigenous

1.5 History of the study of the Andean languages

1.5.1 The colonial period

11 Reconocer la preexistencia étnica y cultural de los pueblos indı́genas argentinos. Garantizar el

Table 1.2 Early grammars of Andean languages (arranged

Chibcha 1609 Bernardo de Lugo

(1) kay-man hamu-q runa ruwa-nqa

(2) qaynunčaw riku-sqa-yki runa ruwa-nqa-n

(3) Pedro pori-rca, pay-pas, o chay-pas, o quiquin-pas, micu-rca

(4) Dios-pa gracia-n-pac pi-ch camari-cu-n, o pi-pas camari-cu-n

González Holguı́n also mentions a third way of forming relatives, corresponding to

1.5.2 The nineteenth century

1.5.3 Contemporary Andean linguistics

(5) a. Vb 1331.1 – H:nighua

1.6 Sources for the study of the languages of the Andes

1.7 Genetic relations of South American Indian languages

1.7.1 History of classificatory efforts

Table 1.3 Greenberg’s (1956) classification of the languages of the Andes