You are on page 1of 17

The Syntax of Postpositions in Uto-Aztecan

Author(s): Ronald W. Langacker


Source: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), pp. 11-26
Published by: University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1264986
Accessed: 08-02-2016 01:48 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1264986?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of
American Linguistics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE SYNTAX OF POSTPOSITIONS IN UTO-AZTECAN1

RONALD W. LANGACKER

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO

0. Introduction class ratherthan with the form and meaning


1. Basic syntactic patterns of individual members of the class. As will
2. Absolutive and accusative suffixes become apparent, an appreciation of the
3. Survey of languages and subfamilies syntax of postpositions in its broad outlines
4. Conclusion will greatly facilitate their reconstruction,
5. References cited since the form of postpositions, in Uto-
Aztecan at least, has been influenced in
0. The reconstruction of postpositional various ways by the syntactic constructions
expressions in Uto-Aztecan involves two in which they occur.
distinct but interrelated endeavors: recon- I will largely confine my attention to
structing the postpositions themselves, and fifteen of the better-known Uto-Aztecan
determining the syntactic constructions in languages. These are listed in table 1,
which these elements functioned in the together with their abbreviations and a

BLE 1

Mono (M)
Shoshoni (SH) Numic
Southern Paiute (SP)
Tubatulabal (TU)
Hopi (H)
Serrano (SR)
Cahuilla (CA) T k
Cupeno (CU) Cupan Takc Uto-Aztecan
Luiseno (L)
Papago (P)
Tarahumara (TA)]
Yaqui (Y) Taracahitic
Cora (CR) Corachol
Huichol (HU)
Aztec (A)

protolanguageand during its evolution. My sketch of their genetic relationships. (More


concern here will be with the second of inclusive subgroupings are probable but
these endeavors; that is, I will be con- have not been convincingly demonstrated.)
cerned with the syntax of postpositions as a Brief reference is also made to Northern
1 This article stems from research supported Paiute (NP) and Tepecano (TO).
by a National Endowment for the Humanities
Senior Fellowship (1973-74). I would like to 1. Perhaps the most common pattern in
thank Wick R. Miller and others for their helpful Uto-Aztecan is for a postposition to be
comments.
attached directly to a pronominal base of
[IJAL, vol. 43, no. 1, January 1977, pp. 11-26]
? 1977 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. some kind; this pattern must certainly be
11

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF AMERICANLINGUISTICS VOL. 43

reconstructedfor the protolanguage.Repre- there is good evidence for reconstructing


sentative examples are given in (1). two alternative pronouns for the third-
(1) M ni-paa' person singular,namely ,*?a- and *pi-. It is
by me not unlikelythat *?a- designatednonhuman
(M-L-G-212)2 or inanimate entities and *pi- human or
SH nihi-petu animate entities, but this requires further
toward us DL EXCL investigation. The examples in (2) should
(SH-D-PMS-80) make it quite evident that the two coexisted
SP ni-rWa in Proto-Uto-Aztecan. As we will see, the
on me distribution of *?a- and *pi- with post-
(SP-S-G-221) positions can be shown throughinternaland
H ?i-mi external reconstruction to have been still
to you wider in the family than (2) indicates.
(H-W-L-21) (2) M ?a-lmaha
SR nih-pap on him/bymeans of it
on me (M-L-G-214)
(SR-H-C-28) SP ?a-tulkWa
CA heme-niw underit
with them (SP-S-G-219)
(CA-B-IN) H ?a-IJa
CU ?o-yik by it
to you (H-W-L-9)
(CUP-J-SC-94) SR pi-mia?
L caamo-i)ay with her
from us (SR-H-G-54)
(L-H-I-94) CA pe-rja
P ii-wui in him (pe- < *pi-)
to me (CA-H-BSK-13)
(P-SS-D-131) CU po-ci
Y ?emo-mak with it (pa- < *pi-)
withyou PL (CU-HN-M-140)
(Y-J-I-34) L po-yk
CR ta-hamWan to him (po- < *pi-)
with us (L-H-I-95)
(CR-P-G-58) Y ?ae-t
HU wa-caata for him
among them (Y-J-I-22)
(HU-G-S-43) HU hee-pa-na
A no-naawak towardhim (hee- < *pi-)
withme (HU-G-S-43)
(A-B-NA) A second syntactic pattern involves
I will not be concernedwith the form of this suffixing a postposition directly to a noun,
pronominal base except to observe that as illustratedin (3).
2
Examples taken from other works will be (3) M poilpoi-holtu
identified by code. See 5, where full references withPoipoi
(and their codes) are given. (M-L-G-226)

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NO. 1 POSTPOSITIONSIN UTO-AZTECAN 13

SH paa-ma of a postposition to trigger the loss of an


with the water absolutive suffix that would otherwise ap-
(SH-M-NN-9) pear on the noun. Representative exam-
SP kani-ntulkWa ples are given in (4).
underthe house (4) H kii-hi house
(SP-S-G-218) kii-ve at the house
TU hanii-bacuu-n (house-from-his) (H-W-L-24)
awayfrom his house L huu-la arrow
(TU-V-G-153) huu-tal with an arrow
H kii-ve (L-H-I-89)
at the house A ?a-Awater
(H-W-L-24) ?a-pan on the water
SR puu-htq (A-DA-FC10-194)
below the eye Both tendencies-the tendency for absolu-
(SR-H-D-23) tive suffixes to drop when postpositions are
CA pa-Ija attached and the tendency for this pattern
in the water to be restricted to nonhuman nouns-
(CA-B-IN) should probably be reconstructed for
CU toma-rja Proto-Uto-Aztecan, at least as tendencies
in the soil and probably as general rules.
(CUP-J-SC-23) With human or animate nouns, the
L huu-tal postposition is normally attached, not to the
with an arrow noun itself, but to a pronominal copy of
(L-H-I-89) that noun. The noun thus occurs in its
P wijina-kaj absolutive form, and the pronoun-post-
with a rope position combination constitutes a separate
(P-L-FN) word. Nonhuman or inanimate nouns
TA gari-ci sometimesparticipatein this pattern as well,
in the house as do independent pronouns and demon-
(TA-B-G-19) stratives. This third syntactic pattern must
Y cu?u-make definitely be reconstructed for the proto-
with the dog language, but because of various changes
(Y-J-I-14) affecting the daughter languages, relatively
CR mwaka-ta-n(hand-in-his) few of the Uto-Aztecan languages retain the
in his hand original pattern in unmodified form. (5)
(CR-P-G-26) contains some examples from Aztec and the
HU yiiwi-pa Cupan languages.
in the dark (5) CA qawi-s pe-ta
(HU-G-HTI-225) (rock-ABSit-on) on a rock
A ?a-pan (CA-F-MV-27)
on the water CU no-t po-kWaani
(A-DA-FC10-94) (chief-ABShim-for)for the chief
There is a strongtendency for this patternto (CU-HN-M-139)
be used only with nonhuman or inanimate L hunwu-t po-yk
nouns, as these examples indicate. Further- (bear-ABSit-to) to the bear
more, it is commonplace for the attachment (L-H-I-95)

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14 INTERNATIONAL
JOURNALOF AMERICAN
LINGUISTICS VOL. 43

TABLE 2

Simple Pronoun Construction: *PRON-P


Simple Noun Construction: *N-P
Pronoun-CopyConstruction: *N-ABS PRON-P
InvertedPronoun-Copy Construction: *PRON-P N-ABS
Discontinuous Pronoun-CopyConstruction: *PRON-P... N-ABS
Third-PersonSingular Pronoun Bases: *pi-, *?a-

A ?in ?a-A?i-itik Every man went with (his) vassal.


(ARTwater-ABS it-in) into the water (A-G-L-145)
(A-DA-FC10-170) As a first approximation, then, we may
I will call this construction the "pronoun- reconstruct for the protolanguage the
copy" construction. The remainder of this patterns and elements listed in table 2.
article will be concerned with further
elaboration of the pronoun-copy construc- 2. To go beyond this first approximation,
tion, further justification for its proto- and to motivate further the existence of the
language status, discussion of its historical pronoun-copy construction in the proto-
development, and the consequences of this language, we must consider the matter of
constructionand its evolution for the recon- absolutive suffixesin more detail, as well as
struction of Uto-Aztecan postpositions. the matter of accusative suffixes. The
Two syntactic variants of the pronoun- following claims concerning absolutive and
copy constructionshould be mentionedhere. accusative suffixes must be left largely
Both arewidespreadin the family and should unsupported here, since adequate presenta-
probably be reconstructed for Proto-Uto- tion of the evidence would requirea lengthy
Aztecan, but in this case, the evidence paper in its own right. However, I have little
currently available renders the reconstruc- doubt that these claims are correct, at least
tion somewhat tentative. One variant in their broad outlines.
involves inversion of the two words in the On first examination, the most basic form
postpositional phrase, so that the pronoun of the absolutive suffix in Uto-Aztecan
copy plus postposition precedes the fully appears to reconstruct as *-ta; in (4) for
specifiednominal object of the postposition; instance, the Luiseno absolutive -la and the
an Aztec example is given in (6). Aztec -A, which has the longer variant -Ai,
(6) A ?i-ka te-A both go back to proto *-ta as shown in (8),
(it-with rock-ABS) with a rock by processes that are fairly well understood.
(A-M-A-77) (8) L -la < *-ta
The second variant involves discontinuity A -A(i) < *-Aa < *-ta
between the two words of the postpositional There is reason to believe, however, that
expression, with or without inversion, but *-ta was actually bimorphemic, consisting
more commonly with. (7) provides an of the absolutive suffix *-t(i) followed by the
example of a discontinuous inverted pro- accusative suffix *-a (see UA-W-OA).
noun-copy postpositional expression in Notice, for example, that this analysis is
Aztec. retained in Tubatulabal, as shown in (9).
(7) A ?i-wan ?iskicAaka-Aya ?in masewal-li (9) TU hanii-l
(him-with all man-ABS go ART vassal- (house-ABS)house
ABS) (TU-V-G-145)

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NO. 1 POSTPOSITIONSIN UTO-AZTECAN 15

hanii-l-a the sequence absolutive plus accusative, as


(house-ABS-ACc) house ACC shown in (12). With this revision in mind, let
(TU-V-G-145) us now survey the various Uto-Aztecan lan-
Moreover, *-t or its reflex,without a, is com- guages under consideration to further
monly an absolutive suffix in the daughters, substantiate our reconstruction of the
and *-a, without t, is commonly an accu- pronoun-copy construction for the proto-
sative suffix. There is also evidence for language.
reconstructing the suffix *-yi, which has (12) Pronoun-Copy Construction(revised):
assumed accusative function in various *N-ABS-ACC PRON-P
northern Uto-Aztecan languages and is -t(i)-a
reflected phonetically as -yi, -yi, -y, or -i. I
would equate this with the third-person 3. The Cupan languages directly reflect
singularpossessor suffix *-yi reconstructible the pronoun-copy construction, as shown in
for Proto-Pimic, and I would suggest that (5), but things are somewhat less straight-
the possessor function was the original dne forward than they might appear. First, the
in Uto-Aztecan. The sequence *-y(i)-a is the accusative suffix *-a has disappeared in
most likely source for the Huichol third- these languages, being replaced by the new
person singular suffix -ya, as shown in (10). accusative form *-yi or its descendant,
(10) *-y(i)-a his-Acc > HU -ya his normally -i. The sequence *-t-a is however
The suggested reconstruction of the attested in Luiseno, where it has been
absolutive and accusative elements is sum- reanalyzed as a simple absolutive, reflected
marized in (11). in the variant forms -ta, -la, and -ca, which
(11) *-t(i) ABS coexist with the absolutives -t, -1, and -S, all
*-a ACC from *-t. Because of the loss of *-a, the
*-yi POSSR Cupan pronoun-copy construction involves
*-t(i)-a ABS-ACC simply the absolutive suffix, as in table 2,
*-y(i)-a POSSR-ACC rather than the absolutive-accusativesuffix
This system has been modified extensively sequence reconstructed in (12). However,
in the various daughters. Besides purely Cahuilla possibly attests to the original
phonological changes, there have been accusative marking in the pronoun-copy
numerous reanalyses and syntactic modi- construction, since the new accusative
fications. The sequence *-t(i)-a has become suffix -i or -y is normally used in this con-
a monomorphemicabsolutive suffixin some struction for nouns which regularly take
languages; the sequence *-y(i)-a has become this suffix. Examples are given in (13).
a simple possessor in Huichol but was (13) CA Simple: pe?i-y pe-ta qal
reanalyzed as a simple accusative suffix in (him-Acc him-on lie)
Southern Numic; *-yi itself has become an It's lying on him.
accusative suffix in northern Uto-Aztecan; (CA-H-BSK-14)
and so on. It is not our concern here to trace Inverted: pi-yik niici-lY-i
these developments in any detail, but rather (her-to woman-ABS-ACC)
to refine our conception of the pronoun- to the woman
copy construction on the basis of the (CA-H-BSK-37)
proposed reconstruction. Discontinuous: pe-ta? qal pepe?l-i
Specifically, what I have designated (it-on lie paper-Acc)
simply as an absolutive suffix in table 2 It's lying on the paper.
should more properly be reconstructed as (CA-H-BSK-21)

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF AMERICANLINGUISTICS VOL. 43

The sameconstructionis at least sporadically loss of the absolutive. This development is


attested in Cupeno, as in (14), and has been sketched in (16).
reported for Serrano (SR-C-PC).
(16) *nea-t pe-ia? *nea-t pa? nea-t-pa?
(14) CU po-ya pa-yik > >
(his-mother her-to) to his mother
N-ABS PRON-P N-ABS P N-ABS-P
(CU-HN-M-139)
supul-i na-t-i po-yik In Cupeno,Hill and Nolasquez (CU-HN-
(other-Acc chief-ABS-ACC him-to) M-139) report a handful of nouns which
to the other chief have an irregularform when a postposition
(CU-HN-M-135) is suffixed. These forms are such that they
The Cahuilla-Cupenosubfamily provides can be analyzed as containing a nondeleted
more interesting confirmation of the pro- absolutive, as in the Cahuilla examplesjust
noun-copy construction. Recall that in the discussed. Consider (17), for instance.
simple noun construction, the absolutive (17) CU kawi-t?-?aw
suffixof the noun drops when a postposition on the rock
is attached, as shown in (4). This is generally (CU-H-G-172)
true in Cahuilla and Cupeno, but in each The noun root in (17) is kowi rock, and -?aw
language there is a restrictedclass of excep- is a postposition meaning in/on/at. I would
tions. Considerthe two Cahuillaexpressions suggest that -?aw derivesfrom the pronoun-
in (15). postposition sequence *?a-w or *?a-wi,
(15) CA pa-ra? which has been reanalyzed as a unitary
(water-in) in the water postposition, much like -pa? in Cahuilla. I
(CA-B-IN) think an excellent case for this etymology
nea-t-pa? can be made; related forms are sketched in
(basket-ABS-in)in the basket (18). (17), like (15), therefore derives by
(CA-B-IN) reanalysisof the pronoun-copyconstruction.
The absolutive suffix drops in the first (18) CU -?aw in/on/at < *a-w(i) (it-P)
example with -ia>, but not in the second CU -now with < *na-w(i) < *na-w(i)
one with -pa?. I will claim that the reasonfor (RCPR-P)
this discrepancy is that the first example CA -new with < *no-w(i) < *na-w(i)
derives historically from the simple noun (RCPR-P)
construction, while the second derives from CA -niw with < *ni-wi < *no-wi <
the pronoun-copy construction. Cahuilla *na-wi (RCPR-P)
scholarsgenerallyagreethat the postposition NP -noo with/and < *na-w(i) (RCPR-P)
-pa? derives by contraction from the H -?aw to it < *?a-w(i) (it-P)
pronoun-postpositionsequence pe-rja?in it, Y -w(i) in/at/to (P)
which is still retained as a variant (CUP-J- A -wik toward/against< *-wi-ko or
SC-25; CA-H-BSK-43). Once this con- *-wi-ka (P-P)
traction occurs in the pronoun-copy con- From these Cahuilla-Cupeno examples,
struction, the contracted element -pa?, we learn two important things about post-
reanalyzed as a postposition, is cliticized to positions in Uto-Aztecan. First, even
the preceding noun, since postpositions relatively simple postpositions may be
generally cannot stand alone in the Uto- historicallycomplex; in particular,they may
Aztecan languages. Unlike the primitive incorporatewhat was previouslya pronom-
suffixation of postpositions, this recent inal object of some kind. Thus Cahuilla
cliticization or suffixation does not trigger -pa? incorporates the third-personsingular

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NO. 1 POSTPOSITIONSIN UTO-AZTECAN 17

pronoun pe-, which reflects proto *pi-, languages, except that in all these languages
while Cupeno -?aw incorporates the third- we find a construction, illustrated in (21),
person singular pronoun *?a-, also recon- that can reasonably be said to derive from
structed for the protolanguage. Second, that in (12); the main discrepancy between
because of this reanalysis (or for other (12) and the daughter patterns can be
reasons), the two words of the pronoun-copy attributed to the loss in Numic of the
construction may coalesce into a single absolutive suffix *-t (which was replaced by
complex word or at least a tightly knit a series of nominalizing suffixes).
wordlike sequence. (21) M nopi-lna ?a-lqWena?a
Let us turn now to Classical Nahuatl. As (house-Acc it-farfrom)farfrom the
shown in (5)-(7), Aztec directly reflects the house
pronoun-copy construction in its simple, (M-L-G-210)
inverted, and discontinuous forms. The SP ?a-tulkWakani-a
only modification is that the sequence *-t-a (it-underhouse-Acc) underthehouse
was reanalyzedas a simple absolutive suffix, (SP-S-G-219)
eventually reflected as *-A(i),as part of the SH kahni-a-nma-pinankWa
general loss of accusative inflection in the (house-Acc-GENit-behind) behind
language. the house
However, the coalescence just noted for (NUM-M-PC)
Cahuilla-Cupeno calls our attention to a SH i-kulpa tinaa hunu-kulpa nulki
special form of the simplenoun construction (it-inside down canyon-inside ran)
in Aztec. For certain postpositions, a He ran downinside the canyon.
special connective -ti is inserted when the (NUM-M-PC)
postposition is attached directly to a noun, Wick R. Miller has suggested, quite plaus-
as shown in (19). ibly, that the Mono accusative suffix -na
(19) A cimal-ti-ka derives by reanalysis from the accusative
(shield-coNN-with)with a shield *-a suffix attached to nasalizing stems.
(A-G-L-90) Southern Paiute attests to inversion in the
The insertion is obligatory with some post- pronoun-copy construction. Shoshoni at-
positions and apparently optional with tests to both inversionand discontinuityin a
others. Since the third-person singular specialconstructioninvolving duplicationof
postposition base in Aztec is ?i-, the the postposition, which occurs on both the
derivationin (20) suggestsitself as the originnoun and its pronoun copy.
of this connective. I should note that the In Tubatulabal,we do not find a pronoun-
reduction of ta ?i to ti is phonologically copy constructionper se. In its stead we find
quite regular. Notice further that this a construction involving an object nominal
coalescence must precede the sound change and a preposition or postposition con-
*ta > Aadiachronically. stituting an independent word, as in (22).
(22) TU siigawiyam-i ?aamaayu
(20) *cimal-ta ?i-ka *cimal-t-i-ka
(Koso-ACC with) with the Koso
Indians
N-ABS PRON-P N-ABS-PRON-P
cimal-ti-ka (TU-V-G-150)
?akaziip ?oxolaa-l-a
(across canyon-ABS-ACC) across the
N-CONN-P
canyon
I will have little to say about the Numic (TU-V-G-150)

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
18 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF AMERICANLINGUISTICS VOL. 43

Voegelin cites five of these pre- or post- to represent the simple and inverted pro-
positions, which I list in (23). noun-copyconstructionsrespectively.Third,
(23) TU ?aamaayu with this analysis implies that we must disregard
(TU-V-G-150) the first syllable of these postpositions when
?akaziipacross we undertake to reconstruct postpositions
(TU-V-G-150) for the protolanguage, since the first
naawidam between syllable derives by incorporation of a
(TU-V-G-176) pronoun, as seen previouslyfor Cahuillaand
wahkiik toward Cupeno. In this instance, the remainder is
(TU-V-G-176) still no doubt historically complex, but by
wacPas by means of abstractingthe first syllablewe have taken a
(TU-V-WD-227) necessary first step in isolating the smaller
These elements are obviously complex, at units that can profitably be compared.
least diachronically.I would like to suggest In Hopi, proto *-t-a was reanalyzedas an
that they all result historically from re- accusative suffix. Therefore, we might
analysis of an earlier pronoun-postposition expect the pronoun-copy construction to
sequence, as shown in (24). mark the object nominal with accusative
(24) ?aamaayu < *?a-maayu(it-P) inflection rather than with the absolutive
?akaziip < *?a-kaziip(it-P) per se, and this is indeed the case. Some
naawidam < *na-widam(RCPR-P) examples are given in (26).
wahkiik < *wa-(h)kiik(them-P) (26) H ni-y ?e-iam
wacPas < *wa-cPas (them-P) (I-ACCPRON-for)forme
Several aspects of this analysis may be (H-F-GPA-5)
noted. First, it accounts for the fact that all kii-ki-hi-t ?a-ri
of these postpositions start with ?a, na, or (RDP-house-ABS-ACC it-at) at the
wa, all of which can be reconstructed as houses
postpositional object pronouns in Proto- (H-W-TD-171)
Uto-Aztecan. *?a- has already been dealt naa-y ?a-mim
with. *na- clearly reconstructsas a recipro- (father-Acc him-with) with his own
cal pronoun; further examples are given in father
(18), but I will not try to justify this recon- (H-W-L-45)
struction here in detail (see UA-L-PI). The Serrano situation is initially some-
*wa- is likely as the third-personpluralpost- what confusing. The pronoun-copy con-
positional object on the basis of this struction may appear without any special
Tubatulabalevidence and the use of wa- in marking on the object noun, as in the first
this way in Cora and Huichol, illustratedin example of (27). However, it may also
(25). appear with one of four suffixes, -t, -c, -n, or
(25) CR wa-hapWaon them -ki, sometimes erroneously referred to as
(CR-P-G-26) genitive suffixes (for lack of anything
HU wa-caata among them appropriate to call them); these are illus-
(HU-G-S-43) trated in the remainingexamples of (27).
Second, this analysis entails the prior (27) SR pi-naa pi-yika?
existence in Tubatulabal of the pronoun- (their-kinsman him-to) to their
copy construction, in both its simple and kinsman
inverted forms. With ?a- segmented as a (SR-H-C-28)
pronoun, the two examples in (22) are seen wahi?-t pi-yika?

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NO. 1 POSTPOSITIONSIN UTO-AZTECAN 19

(coyote-GEN him-to) against the pronominal prefix. That is, they mark the
coyote configuration sketched in (29), where there
(SR-H-G-66) is coreference between the noun to which
qaaqW-cpi-nu? the suffix is attached and the following
(sagebrush-GENit-from) from the pronominal element.
sagebrush (29) Ni-GEN PRONi-X
(SR-H-G-122) (Compare this with the first Shoshoni
mi-yi-k mi-na?-n pi-nu? example in [21].) (30) and the last example
(your-mother-GENyour-father-GEN in (28), in which the suffix -t occurs on a
him-from)from your motherand possessed noun, show that even those
father suffixes that derive historically from abso-
(SR-H-G-127) lutives have assumed this special syntactic
The suffixes-t and -c coincide in shape with function and are no longer simply abso-
two of the absolutive suffixesin Serrano, so lutives; (30) also illustratesdiscontinuity.
examples with these two suffixes can be (30) SR ni-sumani-t ni? pu-no? mii
taken as direct continuations of the pro- (my-bow-GENI it-from go)
noun-copy construction reconstructed for I walk awayfrom my bow.
the protolanguage. However, neither -n nor (SR-C-PC)
-ki can plausibly be derived from absolu- I cannot explore here, in detail, the nature
tives-note in particularthat they occur on of the syntacticreanalysisthat has occurred.
possessed nouns in (27), where an absolutive However, granted that this reanalysis has
would be expected to drop-and the taken place, it remains to determine the
mystery deepens when we notice that the source of -n and -ki, which cannot be
use of these suffixes is not restricted to derived from absolutives. We are provided
postpositional expressions. Some further with a clue by the fact that these suffixes
examples are given in (28). occur on possessed nouns, and also by the
(28) SR ?a-yi-ki oo-uuva? fact that (29) may be a possessive construc-
(his-mother-GEN her-eye) his tion. -ki, I claim, derives from a suffix
mother's eye formerlyused specificallyto mark possessed
(SR-H-G-199) nouns; it shows up in the Cupan languages
?ama-y ?a-na?-n ?a-huun-i as -ki, as shown in (31).
(that-Acc his-father-GEN his-heart- (31) CA ne-tyeenda?-am-ki
his
ACC) father's heart ACC (my-store-PL-PossD) my stores
(SR-H-D-43) (CA-B-IN)
?ama-c ?a-w6ocahav-t?a-piit CU com-amiigu-ki
(that-GENher-husband-GENhis- ourfriend
younger sister) her husband's (CU-HN-M-124)
youngersister L no-?exva-ki
(SR-H-G-54) my sand
Although I do not have enough data to (L-H-I-73)
present a definitiveanalysis of this so-called TO ban-gi-d
genitive construction in Serrano, it seems (coyote-PossD-his)his coyote
clearthat these suffixeshave been reanalyzed (TO-M-PL-333)
as syntactic markers of a special kind: they In Cahuillaand Cupeno, it occurs primarily
mark nonfinal nouns in syntactic phrases in on borrowed nouns, while in Luiseno it
which the final constituent begins with a occurs on nouns designating things not

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF AMERICANLINGUISTICS VOL. 43

normally possessed. There is a possessed kolai-c-?id


suffix -gi in Tepecano that may be cognate. (corral-coNN-in)in the corral
The suffix -n, I will claim, is related to a (P-L-FN)
genitive or possessor suffix in Shoshoni and Papago does not have absolutive suffixes,
Tubatulabal having this shape, though the but it seems evident that these connectives
historical picture is somewhat unclear. In are remnantsof the absolutive *-t, protected
Shoshoni, the genitive -n follows the from total effacement by the incorporation
accusative suffix (and may be manifested as of an originally independent postposition.
prenasalizationof the following consonant Second, Papago has a seriesof postpositions
rather than as a separate segment). In that may stand alone as independentwords;
Tubatulabal, all of the variants of the a number of these begin with the syllable
genitivesuffixend in a nasal, and in addition, wi, which is the Papago reflex of proto *pi.
the suffix -n is used as a third-person sin- This is especially suspicious in view of the
gular possessor suffix that cooccurs with fact that the third-person singular post-
the genitive. Examples are given in (32). position base in Papago is zero. Consider
(32) SH kulcun-a-n kahni the examples in (36).
(COW-ACC-GEN house) the cow's (36) P fii-wim
house (me-with) withme
(SH-D-PMS-103) (P-M-LPA-37)
TU hanii-n taatwa-l-a?arj Cioj>o g ?aali ?ab wiim him
(house-his man-ABS-GEN) the man's (man AUX ART boy there with go)
house The man is comingwith the boy.
(TU-V-G-138) (P-L-FN)
The three variants of the genitive suffix in Cioj?o ?ab wiim him g ?aali
Tubatulabal may all incorporate an orig- (man AUX there with go ART boy)
inal accusativesuffix,as Shoshoni suggests; The man is comingwith the boy.
this analysis is sketched in (33). (P-L-FN)
(33) TU -in- GEN < *-i-n- (ACC-GEN) The first example shows that wim as a unit
-i) GEN < *-i-n (ACC-GEN) constitutes a postposition; synchronically,
-a?ar3GEN < *-a-n (ACC-GEN) we cannot segmentthis form into wi plus m.
We come next to Papago. An occasional The second two examples may be taken as
instance of the pronoun-copy construction illustrating the pronoun-copy construction
may be found in Papago, as in (34), but this where the pronoun copy is zero, as it
construction is not common. regularlyis for the third-personsingular;we
(34) P gook-pa ha-i?i.da have discontinuity in both examples and
(two-place them-in) in twoplaces inversionin the last. I suggest that the pro-
(P-L-FN) noun copy is zero simplybecause it has been
Papago does, however, provide two other reanalyzedas part of the postposition, that
kinds of evidence for reconstructing the is, the wii of wiim derives historicallyfrom
pronoun-copy construction for the proto- the pronoun *pi-. A similar analysis is pro-
language. First, certainpostpositionsinduce posed for the other postpositions listed in
a connective -t or -c when they attach to a (37).
noun; this is illustratedin (35). (37) wiim with < wi-m < *pi-m (him-P)
(35) P haiwan-t-?amjid wiinadk with < wii-nadk < *pi-nayk
(cow-CONN-f )from)r the cow (him-P)
(P-CH-SR-184) wico under < wi-co < *pi-tu (him-P)

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NO. 1 POSTPOSITIONS
IN UTO-AZTECAN 21

wiihijid for < wii-hijid < *pi-hiyil cuu?u-ta-mak


(him-P) with the dog
wiigaj behind < wii-gaj < *pi-way (Y-J-I-28)
(him-P) ?usi-mak
By now it should be apparent that the with the child
existence of postpositions which stand alone (Y-L-TG-1 81)
as independent words in a Uto-Aztecan ?usi-ta-mak
language very likely points to an earlier with the child
historical stage in which these free-standing (Y-L-S-24)
postpositions consisted of a pronoun base This suggests incorporation of the post-
and a postposition attached to it. When we position from an original pronoun-copy
find this construction in Tarahumara, construction, probably triggered by loss of
therefore,we can take it as possible evidence the reflex of proto *pi-, which has been
for the pronoun-copy construction, even replaced by ?a-. The fact that the connective
though the Tarahumaraindependent post- -ta is normally used only with animate
positions have no frequently recurring nouns then follows from the fact that the
initial syllable that can be segmented as a reconstructed pronoun-copy construction
pronoun remnant. The examples in (38) was largely restricted to animate nouns.
might even be taken as evidence for inver- Postpositional expressions without -ta thus
sion in this construction. continue the simple noun construction,
(38) TA kusi gite while those with -ta continue the pronoun-
(stick with) with a stick copy construction, as shown in (40).
(TA-B-G-18)
(40) *N-t-a pi-P > *N-ta pi-P >
paca gari *N-ta P > N-ta-P
(inside house) inside the house
(TA-T-TED-47) To see how the pronoun *pi- was lost, we
This analysis is somewhat speculative in need only glance at the independent post-
terms of Tarahumara alone, but when we positions. Most of these begin with the
turn to Yaqui, it is strongly corroborated. syllable be-, which is the expected Yaqui
As in Papago, both bound and free post- reflex of proto *pi. Thus we may assume a
positions provide evidence for an earlier reanalysisdirectlyanalogous to that posited
pronoun-copyconstruction.The Proto-Uto- for Papago; it is outlined in (41).
Aztecan absolutive-accusativesequence*-t-a (41) becibofor < be-cibo < *pi-cipo
was reanalyzed in Yaqui as an accusative (him-P)
suffix.With certainbound postpositions,this benukutuntil < be-nukut < *pi-nukut
suffix sometimes surfaces (optionally) as a (him-P)
connective, as illustrated in (39). betana from/by < be-tana < *pi-tana
(39) Y ?emo-mak (his-side?)
withyou PL betuku under < be-tuku < *pi-tuku
(Y-J-I-34) (him-P)
wiko&i-mak bewit in front of < be-wi-t < *pi-wi-t
with the bow (him-p-P)
(Y-J-I-34) bica toward < *be-ca < *pi-ca(him-P)
cu?u-make beppaabove < be-pa < *pi-pa(him-P)
with the dog benasya like < be-nasya < *pi-nasya
(Y-J-I-14) (him-P)

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22 INTERNATIONALJOURNAL OF AMERICANLINGUISTICS VOL. 43

These independent postpositions often take -hemi with/about < -he-mi < *pi-mi
the accusative suffix -ta on the accompany- (him-P)
ing noun. The expressions in (42) thus -hamWanwith/and< *-he-man < *pi-
constitute a direct reflex of the pronoun- man (him-P)
copy construction as reconstructedin (12). -hapWa on/above < *-he-pa < *pi-pa
(42) Y ?im ?usi-m becibo (him-P)
(my child-PLfor)for my children More specifically,we may posit the develop-
(Y-L-TG-35) ment given in (45), a development which
tomi-ta becibo attests to the prior existence of the non-
for money inverted pronoun-copy construction in pre-
(Y-L-TG-39) Cora.
sawa-ta betuk
(45) *N he-x *N hex N-hex
undera tree
(Y-L-TG-180) PRON-P P P
The final subfamily to be considered is
Corachol. As (43) indicates, there is direct With the segmentation of these post-
evidence of the pronoun-copy construction positions in Cora we have only begun to
in both languages; based on limited data, it explore the marvels of postpositional ex-
appears that this construction is regularly pressions in Corachol. Let me conduct a
inverted in Cora but is uninverted in brief tour of these marvels and then try to
Huichol. explain their origin. In Cora, we find two
(43) CR wa-hapWa?u-huci-mWa series of pre- or postpositions that are very
(them-on their-younger brother- similarin form; generally,the postpositions
PL) on theiryoungerbrothers are bound forms, while the prepositions are
(CR-P-G-26) free forms that are identical to the post-
HU ?iiki tuupiiri-ciiziwaa-ki positions except for the addition of a final
(these policeman-PL them-with) -n. Two such pairs are illustratedin (46).
by means of thesepolicemen (46) CR haitiri-hapWa
(HU-G-S-43) above the clouds
The third-person singular postpositional (CR-MM-CE-xv)
base in Cora is ru-, an innovative form. The hapWan?i-canaka
expected Cora reflex of proto *pi- is he-, (on ART-earth)on the earth
which does not occur. However, a number (CR-P-NE-2)
of postpositions in Cora begin in he- (or in tete-hece
ha- when the change from he- to ha- can be on a rock
attributed to harmonization with the fol- (CR-P-G-71)
lowing vowel), and it is reasonable in view hecen ru-muve
of the preceding discussion to segment this (in his-feather) by means of their
he- as an original pronominal element. feathershafts
This analysis, sketched in (44), provides (CR-P-G-74)
further, though indirect, evidence for the pu-ri hecen watara sai ru-canaka
pronoun-copy construction in Corachol. (he-now in go other his-world)
(44) -hece in/on/for < -he-ce < *-he-cie < Now he goes to his other world.
*pi-cii (him-P) (CR-P-NE-1)
-hete under < -he-te < *-he-tia < Incidentally,the final example in (46) shows
*pi-tua (him-P) that discontinuity is possible with the pre-

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NO. 1 POSTPOSITIONSIN UTO-AZTECAN 23

positional forms. Cora also has at least the together. Clearly we can reconstruct for
remnant of a postposition -na, which may Proto-Corachola postposition *-na meaning
be glossedplace of and occurs at least as one roughly at, but the real task is to determine
member of complex postpositional forms, what syntactic constructions are involved
as in (47). and how they developed historically to
(47) CR ?i-hatea-na-hece produce the somewhatconfusing synchronic
(ART-river-place of-in) in the river picture.
(CR-P-G-14) We can begin with the fairly obvious
Huichol also has a postposition -na, hypothesis that the transition vowel in (48)
glossed in/at, but it behaves in a very and (49) is the remains of the missing
peculiar manner. First, when it alone is third-person singular possessor suffix. Al-
attached to a noun, the third-person though this suffix is now -ya in Huichol,
singular possessor suffix, normally -ya, originally it was *-yi, as shown in (10)
surfacesas zero; however, a transitionvowel above, and the expected reflex of *-yi is -ye.
appears, usually e, as shown in (48). Thus we may posit (51) for the development
(48) HU ki-e-na of expressions like (48).
(house-v-at) at his house (51) *ki-yi-na (house-his-at)> *ki-(y)e-na
(HU-G-S-19) > ki-e-na at his house
Second, -na appears as the second member This transition vowel is now evidently
of complex postpositions the first members phonologically determined; hence by re-
of which derive historically from nouns; a analysis, the possessor suffix has been lost
transition vowel also appears in this con- and is zero synchronicallyin this construc-
struction, and moreover, the postposition tion.
has no overt object. Examples are given in Suppose now that we apply the steps in
(49). (51) to a noun susceptible to being re-
(49) HU hizi-e-na interpreted as a postposition, a noun such
(in front of-v-at) infront of him as hizi eye or wari back. The situation is
(hizi = eye) such that -na can easily be reinterpretedas
(HU-G-S-43) the missing third-person singular pronoun;
wari-e-na hence we may posit (52) as the origin of
(behind-v-at)behindhim expressions like (49).
(wari = back) (52) *wari-yi-na *wari-e-na
(HU-G-S-43) back-his-at > back-v-at >
Finally, -na consistently cooccurs with the N-POSSR-P N-V-P
third-person singular pronoun hee- (which
derives from proto *pi-) when this is used wari-e-na behindhim
with postpositions not recently derived behind-v-him
from nouns, as illustratedin (50). P-V-PRON

(50) HU hee-cie-na Subsequent developments differ some-


on him what for the two languages. In Huichol,
(HU-G-S-43) competition between the old third-person
hee-tia-na pronoun base hee- and the new one -na was
underit resolved by compromise: the two are used
(HU-G-S-43) together, as (50) illustrates. It is significant
One suspects that something is going on that the construction in (50) is used with
here. Somehow all these pieces should fit old, establishedpostpositions, while that in

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24 INTERNATIONALJOURNALOF AMERICANLINGUISTICS VOL. 43

(49) and (52) is used with postpositions that postpositional expressions and their dia-
appear to be derived fairly recently from chronic evolution into account. Some post-
nouns. In Cora, the innovative pronoun positions derive from nouns, others are
base ru- eventually won out for the third- compounded from smaller postpositions,
person singular, through developments some incorporate pronominal elements at
beyond the scope of this article. However, the beginningor the end, and some, the most
the independent prepositions ending in -n important ones comparatively,derive from
provide good evidence that -na at one time simple postpositions in the protolanguage.
functioned as a third-person singular post- We must untangle these myriad develop-
positional object pronoun in Cora, and we ments before we can determine what
have seen that he- can also be reconstructed portions of what postpositions can validly
in this role. To account for these preposi- be comparedfor purposesof reconstruction.
tions, illustratedin (46), we need only equate Most broadly, this article constitutes an
the final -n with -na and recall that Cora exercise in syntactic comparison and recon-
displays the inverted pronoun-copy con- struction in a non-Indo-Europeanlanguage
struction. We therefore have diachronic family. I hope to have shown that such work
derivationslike (53); I will not speculate on is both possible and fruitful; indeed, the
the synchronic derivation of this construc- problems that arise are not unmanageable,
tion. The shared portions of this develop- but rather are quite commensurate with
ment are naturally strong evidence that those encountered in phonological and
Cora and Huichol constitute a subfamily of lexical reconstruction.Not only is syntactic
Uto-Aztecan, a claim that is not controver- reconstructionpossible,givenadequatedata,
sial. but it is also necessaryif we hope to under-
?i-canaka stand fully the evolution of morphological
(53) *he-pa-na elements.
it-on-it AtRT-earth >
PRON-P-PRON N
5. The following references are cited in
'hapWa-n(a) ?i-canaka hapWan this article:
on-it ART-earth > on Brambila, David, S. J. Gramdtica Rardmuri.
P-PRON N P Mexico City: Editorial Buena Prensa, 1953.
(TA-B-G)
?i-canakaon the earth Bright, William. "Notes on Aztec." Informal
ART-earth notes, 1966. (A-B-NA)
N . Informal notes on Cahuilla, n.d.
(CA-B-IN)
4. Since the points I wish to establish Casagrande, Joseph B., and Kenneth Hale.
have been covered extensively in the body "Semantic Relationships in Papago Folk-
of this article,I will touch on them only very Definitions." In Studies in Southwestern Ethno-
linguistics, edited by Dell Hymes. The Hague:
brieflyby way of conclusion. I think I have Mouton, 1967. (P-CH-SR)
demonstratedbeyond reasonable doubt the Crook, Donald. Personal communication. (SR-
existence of the pronoun-copy construction C-PC)
of (12) in Proto-Uto-Aztecan,and numerous Daley, Jon P. "Shoshone Phonology and Mor-
other morphologicalelements and syntactic phological Sketch." M.A. thesis, Idaho State
University, 1970. (SH-D-PMS)
patterns have been supported as well. In Dibble, Charles E., and Arthur J. O. Anderson.
reconstructingindividual postpositions and Florentine Codex. Book 10, The People.
their meanings, we must take the syntax of Translation of Fray Bernardino de Sahagun,

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NO. 1 IN UTO-AZTECAN
POSTPOSITIONS 25

General History of the Things of New Spain. "Passive, Impersonal, Reflexive, and
Monographs of the School of American Unspecified Argument Constructions in Uto-
Research and the Museum of New Mexico, Aztecan." Manuscript,1974. (UA-L-PI)
no. 14, pt. 11. Santa Fe, N.M.: School of Lindenfeld, Jacqueline. "A Transformational
American Research and University of Utah, Grammar of Yaqui." Ph.D. dissertation,
1961. (A-DA-FC10) University of California, Los Angeles, 1969.
Freeze, Ray. "Hopi Genitive and Possessive (Y-L-TG)
Affixation." Manuscript, 1974. (H-F-GPA) . YaquiSyntax. UCPL, no. 76. Berkeley
Fuchs, Anna. Morphologie des Verbs im Cahuilla. and Los Angeles: University of California
Janua Linguarum, Series Practica, no. 87. Press, 1973. (Y-L-S)
The Hague: Mouton, 1970. (CA-F-MV) Mason, J. Alden. The Language of the Papago of
Garibay K., Angel Maria. Llave del Ndhuatl. Arizona. University of Pennsylvania Museum
Mexico City: Editorial Porrua, 1961. (A-G-L) Monographs. Philadelphia: University of
Grimes, Joseph E. Huichol Syntax. Janua PennsylvaniaMuseum, 1950. (P-M-LPA)
Linguarum, Series Practica, no. 11. The . "Tepecano: A Piman Language of
Hague: Mouton, 1964. (HU-G-S) Western Mexico." Annals of the New York
. "Huichol Tone and Intonation." IJAL Academy of Science 25 (1916): 309-416.
25 (1959): 221-32. (HU-G-HTI) (TO-M-PL)
Hill, Jane H. "A Grammar of the Cupefio McMahon, Ambrosio, and Maria Aiton de
Language." Ph.D. dissertation, University of McMahon. Cora y Espanol. Serie de Vocabu-
California, Los Angeles, 1966. (CU-H-G) larios Indigenas, no. 2. Mexico City: Instituto
Hill, Jane H., and Rosinda Nolasquez, eds. Lingiiistico de Verano, 1959. (CR-MM-CE)
Mulu'wetam: The First People (Cupeno Oral Miller, Wick R. Newe Natekwinappeh: Shoshoni
History and Language). Banning, Calif.: Malki Stories and Dictionary. University of Utah
Museum Press, 1973. (CU-HN-M) AnthropologicalPapers,no. 94. Salt Lake City:
Hill, Kenneth C. "A Grammar of the Serrano University of Utah Press, 1972. (SH-M-NN)
Language." Ph.D. dissertation, University of . Personal communication. (NUM-M-
California, Los Angeles, 1967. (SR-H-G) PC)
"Serrano Clitics." University of Michigan Molina, Fray Alonso de. Arte de la Lengua
Phonetics Laboratory Notes 4 (1969): 27-30. Mexicana y Castellana. Colecci6n de Incun-
(SR-H-C) ables Americanos, Siglo 16, vol. 6 (1571).
. A Serrano Dictionary. Computer print- Facsimile ed. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura
out, 1972. (SR-H-D) Hispanica, 1945. (A-M-A)
Hioki, Kojiro. "Zur Beschreibung des Systems Preuss, Konrad-Theodor. Die Nayarit-Expedi-
der Klitika im Cahuilla (Uto-Aztekisch, tion, Text-Aufnahmen und Beobachtungen unter
Sud-Kalifornien)."Manuscript,1971. (CA-H- Mexikanischen-Indianern. Vol. 1. Leipzig, 1912.
BSK) (CR-P-NE)
Hyde, Villiana. An Introduction to the Luiseno . "Grammatikder Cora-Sprache."IJAL 7
Language. Edited by Ronald W. Langacker (1932): 1-84. (CR-P-G)
et al. Banning, Calif.: Malki Museum Press, Sapir, Edward."SouthernPaiute: A Shoshonean
1971. (L-H-I) Language."AAASP 65 (1930):1-296. (SP-S-G)
Jacobs, Roderick A. "Syntactic Change: A Saxton, Dean, and Lucille Saxton. Dictionary:
Cupan (Uto-Aztecan) Case Study." Ph.D. Papago & Pima to English, English to Papago &
dissertation, University of California, San Pima. Tucson: University of Arizona Press,
Diego, 1972. (CUP-J-SC) 1969. (P-SS-D)
Johnson, Jean B. El Idioma Yaqui.Departmento Thord-Gray, I. Tarahumara-English, English-
de Investigaciones Antropol6gicas, Publica- Tarahumara Dictionary. Coral Gables, Fla.:
ciones no. 10. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional University of Miami Press, 1955. (TA-T-
de Antropologia e Historia, 1962. (Y-J-I) TED)
Lamb, Sydney M. "Mono Grammar." Ph.D. Voegelin, C. F. "Tubatulabal Grammar."
dissertation,Universityof California,Berkeley, UCPAAE 34 (1935): 55-189. (TU-V-G)
1958. (M-L-G) . "Working Dictionary of Tubatulabal."
Langacker, Ronald W. Papago field notes, IJAL 24 (1958): 221-28. (TU-V-WD)
1965. (P-L-FN) Whorf, B. L. "The Hopi Language." University

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
26 JOURNALOF AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL LINGUISTICS VOL. 43

of Chicago Library Microfilm Collection of In Linguistic Structures of Native America,


Manuscripts on Middle American Cultural edited by Harry Hoijer et al. VFPA, no. 6.
Anthropology, no. 48. Manuscript, 1935. New York: Viking Fund, 1946. (H-W-TD)
(H-W-L) . "The Origin of Aztec TL." American
. "The Hopi Language, Toreva Dialect." Anthropologist39 (1937):265-74. (UA-W-OA)

This content downloaded from 131.173.17.71 on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 01:48:27 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like