Missionary Linguistic Studies from Mesoamerica to Patagonia (Brill's Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture, 22) 2020009329, 2020009330, 9789004424609, 9004424601

Citation preview

Missionary Linguistic Studies from Mesoamerica to Patagonia

Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture Series Editors Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (Cairns Institute, James Cook University) R.M.W. Dixon (Cairns Institute, James Cook University) N.J. Enfield (University of Sydney)

volume 22

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bslc

Missionary Linguistic Studies from Mesoamerica to Patagonia Edited by

Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus Rebeca Fernández Rodríguez Liesbeth Zack Otto Zwartjes

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Nicholas Visscher, Novissima et Accuratissima Totius Americae Descriptio (1658), in Nicholas Visscher, Atlas Contractus Orbis Terrarum, Amsterdam, c. 1659. Source: provided to Wikimedia Commons by Geographicus Rare Antique Maps. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Alexander-Bakkerus, Astrid, editor. | Fernández Rodríguez, Rebeca, editor. | Zack, Liesbeth, 1974- editor. | Zwartjes, Otto, editor. Title: Missionary linguistic studies from Mesoamerica to Patagonia / edited by Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus, Rebeca Fernández Rodríguez, Liesbeth Zack, Otto Zwartjes. Description: Boston : Brill, 2020. | Series: Brill's studies in language, cognition and culture, 1879-5412 ; 22 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2020009329 (print) | LCCN 2020009330 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004424609 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004427006 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Missions–Linguistic work–Latin America. | Language in missionary work–Latin America. | Language and languages–Religious aspects–Christianity. Classification: LCC BV2082.L3 M57 2020 (print) | LCC BV2082.L3 (ebook) | DDC 498–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020009329 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020009330 Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. ISSN 1879-5412 ISBN 978-90-04-42460-9 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-42700-6 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner. Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface vii List of Figures xiv Notes on Contributors

xv

Part 1 Mesoamerica 1

“The Beginning of Times” in Two Texts of Preachment from New Spain (Sixteenth Century) 3 Pilar Máynez, Mercedes Montes de Oca and Julio Alfonso Pérez Luna

2

Reviving Words: Methodological Implications and Digital Solutions for Editing and Corpus-Building of Colonial K’iche’ Dictionaries 34 Frauke Sachse and Michael Dürr

3

Wide-Lensed Approaches to Missionary Linguistics: The Circulation of Knowledge on Amerindian Languages through Sixteenth-Century Spanish Printed Grammars 54 Zanna Van Loon and Andy Peetermans

4

Between Grammars and Dictionaries: The ‘Tratado de las partículas’ (Treatise on Particles) in Diego de Basalenque’s Work on Matlatzinca 81 Otto Zwartjes

Part 2 South America 5

Were There Ever Any Adjectives? The Recognition of the Absence of an Autonomous Adjective Class in Tupi-Guarani as Demonstrated in the Earliest Missionary Grammars 139 Justin Case

6

Chinchaysuyu Quechua and Amage Confession Manuals: Colonial Language and Culture Contact in Central Peru 156 Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz and Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus

vi

contents

7

Prosodia da Língua, an Unpublished Anonymous Eighteenth-Century Dictionary of Língua Geral Amazônica 220 Wolf Dietrich

8

Patagonian Lexicography (Sixteenth–Eighteenth Centuries) 236 Rebeca Fernández Rodríguez and María Alejandra Regúnaga

9

Language Contacts of Pukina Katja Hannß

10

Puquina Kin Terms 277 Arjan Mossel, Nicholas Q. Emlen, Simon van de Kerke, and Willem F.H. Adelaar

11

The Representation of the Velar Nasal in Colonial Grammars and Other Pre-modern Sources on the Languages of the Central Andean Region 299 Matthias Urban

260

Author Index 313 Index of Languages and Ethnic Groups Index of Subjects 317

315

Preface 1

Introduction

This volume is a follow-up of the seventh international symposium of the research group Revitalizing Older Linguistic Documentation (ROLD) of the Amsterdam Centre for Language and Communication (ACLC), University of Amsterdam. ROLD brings together expert scholars from different countries, and is unique in investigating older texts ((post)colonial, missionary and nonmissionary, grammars, word-lists of travellers and historians) with the following objectives: historical linguistics, the history of linguistics, sociocultural analysis, and translation studies. Selected papers of earlier symposia of the ROLD research group have appeared in STUF: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (= Language Typology and Universals) 66,3 (2013) and 67,2 (2014), and in LiA: Linguistics in Amsterdam 7,2 (2014). The symposium at issue, held on 24–25 November 2016 at the University of Amsterdam, took place to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the research group. The commemoration of this first ROLD decade included not only the symposium, but also a special exposition of rare linguistic books from the Bijzondere Collecties (Special Collections) of the library of the University of Amsterdam, and the PhD defence of Pierre Winkler, supervised by Otto Zwartjes. Pierre Winkler obtained his doctorate with a dissertation on Missionary Pragmalinguistics: Father Diego Luis de Sanvitores’ grammar (1668) within the tradition of Philippine grammars. During the symposium, light was shed vividly on all sorts of older documentation (grammars, vocabularies, religious texts, letters, journals) of languages from Africa, America, Asia and Europe, which resulted in a number of good papers. As a selection of the papers had to be made, the editors chose to dedicate the present volume to the contributions concerning Meso- and South American languages. 1.1 Mesoamerica The contributions of Pilar Máynez, Mercedes Montes de Oca & Julio Alfonso Pérez Luna, Zanna Van Loon & Andy Peetermans, Frauke Sachse & Michael Dürr, and Otto Zwartjes deal mainly with Mesoamerican languages. The article of Pilar Máynez, Mercedes Montes de Oca and Julio Alfonso Pérez Luna, entitled “‘The beginning of Times’ in two texts of preachment from New Spain (sixteenth century)”, contains an analysis of two doctrinal texts attributed to the renowned Franciscan friar Bernardino de Sahagún (1499–

viii

preface

1590): a Sermonario (a collection of sermons) and an Evangeliario (a liturgical book containing the gospels of John, Luke, Mark and Matthew). Máynez et al. first describe the context in which these works are to be placed: the time in which they were written and the purpose for which they were composed, the life and importance of Sahagún and the order to which he belonged, and the language in which the texts at issue were written. Máynez and collaborators not only compare the above-mentioned Sermonario and the Evangeliario with each other, they also compare different versions of both texts. In their analysis of the Sermonario and the Evangeliario the authors furthermore succeed to show the intertextual relationships, the most frequently used rhetorical strategies, such as the use of parallelisms, neologisms, difrasismos and similar syntactical sequences and the pertinence of widening the scope to other passages of the various manuscripts studied in this article. Van Loon and Peetermans discuss the phenomenon of missionary linguistics in their paper “Wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics: The circulation of knowledge on Amerindian languages through sixteenth-century Spanish printed grammars”. For that purpose they analysed eight printed grammars from the sixteenth century. Six of these grammars, or artes, concern the description of a Mexican language, namely: Purépecha in Gilberti’s (O.F.M.) Arte de la lengua de Michuacán from 1558 and in Lagunas’ (O.F.M.) Arte y dictionario […] en lengua Michuacana from 1574, Nahuatl in Molina’s (O.F.M.) Arte de la lenhua mexicana y castellana from 1571 and 1576 and in Rincón’s (S.J.) Arte mexicana from 1595, Zapotec in Córdova’s (O.P.) Arte en langua zapoteca from 1578, and Mixtec in Reyes’ (O.P.) Arte en lengua mixteca from 1593. Needless to say that all the grammars mentioned were written by priests for missionary purposes. Van Loon and Peetermans apply the so-called “wide-lensed” approach of analysing these sixteenth-century grammars. This approach is “context-focused” and makes “use of the historiographical concept of ‘circulation of knowledge’”. The language focused on by Sachse and Dürr in their paper “Reviving words: Methodological implications and digital solutions for editing and corpusbuilding of colonial K’iche’ dictionaries” is the Mayan K’iche’ language as it was spoken in the highland of Guatemala. The purpose of their research was, first, to write a good, conveniently arranged Highland K’iche’ vocabulary, and, second, to make a digital version of the dictionary that could be consulted by other researchers. Therefore, Sachse and Dürr examined eleven K’iche’ and five Kaqchikel colonial vocabularies, dating from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century. The study of the Kaqchikel dictionaries was necessary, because, first of all, Kaqchikel, also known as lengua de Guatemala ‘language of Guatemala’, or lengua metropolitana ‘metropolitan language’, had become “the lingua franca

preface

ix

of conversion and the matrix language for description”; and secondly, “K’iche’ lexicography cannot be separated from the lexicography of its sister language Kaqchikel, as most K’iche’ dictionaries were based in some shape or form on earlier Kaqchikel sources”. When Sachse and Dürr subsequently started composing a corpus of K’iche’ entries and lemmas, they were faced with a number of linguistic difficulties, such as how to interpret the unstandardized orthography used in the different K’iche’ and Kaqchikel sources that they had examined, and how to interpret the different meanings and explanations occurring in these sources with regard to a certain K’iche’ word. More obstacles had to be cleared away when Sachse and Dürr had to create an accessible, searchable, digital version of the dictionary. However, they succeeded in accomplishing this challenging task and they explain in their paper how to use the digital version. They also present a table of a graphic interface and give an example of the annotation of an entry. Thanks to Sachse and Dürr’s detailed explanation, their model can be applied to any other indigenous language, which is of great help for lexicographers wanting to turn a colonial vocabulary into a searchable digital corpus. Otto Zwartjes’ paper entitled “Between grammars and dictionaries: The ‘Tratado de las partículas’ (Treatise on particles) in Diego de Basalenque’s work on Matlatzinca” concentrates on the particles. It is a common practice that the so-called particles belong in fact to a plethora of categories and it has been often demonstrated that missionary grammarians and lexicographers are straightforward in their parts of speech system, and anything which falls outside these models was usually gathered in a final section devoted to the particles. In fact, the history of particles goes back to Antiquity. Basalenque decided to break with the traditional model and compiled an independent work devoted to the particles, between his grammar and his dictionary. In this paper, Zwartjes demonstrates how “particles” are defined and classified, and which decisions Basalenque made in order to include them in the Tratado, and omitting them in the grammars and dictionaries. The hitherto unknown properties of Matlatzinca motivated Basalenque to develop innovating descriptive approaches. 1.2 South America South America is represented by the contributions of Justin Case, Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz & Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus, Wolf Dietrich, Rebeca Fernández Rodríguez & Alejandra Regúnaga, Katja Hannß, Zanna Van Loon & Andy Peetermans (see also Mesoamerica, section 1.1), the so-called Leiden Puquina Group (Arjan Mossel, Nicholas Q. Emlen, Simon van de Kerke, Willem F.H. Adelaar), and Matthias Urban. The authors deal with different linguis-

x

preface

tic phenomena in several indigenous languages, namely: Amage a.k.a. Amuesha or Yanesha (Peru), Patagon / Tehuelche (Argentina), Pukina / Puquina (Bolivia, Peru), Quechua (Peru), and Tupi-Guarani (Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay). Attention should be drawn to the fact that the contributions of both Dietrich and Case deal with Tupi-Guarani, and that those of Hannß and the so-called Leiden Puquina Group have the Pukina / Puquina language as their subject. Hannß uses the IPA spelling ‘Pukina’ to refer to the language, the Leiden Group employs for it the Latin-Spanish spelling ‘Puquina’, as found in the data. The articles of Dietrich and Case, and the ones of Hannß and the Puquina Group Leiden complement each other well. Many authors of a colonial grammar or arte noticed that an open, independent class of adjectives was missing in the indigenous language they were describing, and that nouns designating a property or a quality could be used to function as such. Justin Case, dealing with Tupi-Guarani (TG), pursues the question of the absence of an autonomous adjective class in greater depth, and he analyzes the non-distinction between nouns and adjectives as discussed in four early TG descriptions: Anchieta’s Arte de Grammatica da Lingoa mais usada na costa do Brasil, 1595, Figueira’s Arte da lingua brasilica, 1621 (?), Aragona’s Breve introduccion para aprender la lengua guarani por el P …, and Montoya’s Tesoro de la lengua guarani. Compuesto por el Padre … de la Compañia de IESUS, 1639. Case treats this non-distinction between both nominal categories in the contexts of phrasal determination, non-verbal predication and the lack of derivational mechanisms. Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz and Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus deal with two confessionary manuals, one in Chinchaysuyu Quechua (Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz), the other one in the Amage language, a.k.a. Amuesha or Yanesha (Alexander-Bakkerus). The confessionary manuals, contained in a manuscript from the British Library, date from the eighteenth century. Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz and Alexander-Bakkerus not only analyse the language and the composition of the above-mentioned doctrinal texts, they also give a comprehensive explanation of the confessionary genre, the provenance and the date of both confessions, and establish the Franciscan authorship of the texts, even though the authors of the confessions are anonymous. The paper also makes reference to language contacts. At the end of the article, after a transcription and an analysed translation of the Amage text, there is a list of Amage borrowings from Quechua and Spanish. Wolf Dietrich mentions in his paper, “Prosodia da Língua, an unpublished anonymous eighteenth-century dictionary of Língua Geral Amazônica”, that the project he and his fellow researchers Ruth Monserrat, Candida Barros and Jean-Claude Muller work on concerns the examination of a number of unpub-

preface

xi

lished eighteenth-century Língua Geral (LG) vocabularies, most of them anonymous. The term Língua Geral stands for Língua Geral Amazônica, i.e. the lingua franca spoken in the eighteenth century in the Portuguese part of the Amazon basin. The language LG is based on the Tupi or Tupinikin language of the São Paulo region in the sixteenth century and on the Tupinambá language of Maranhão in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Dietrich reports that he and his team succeeded in discovering the possible author of the Prosodia da Língua manuscript, first, by a thorough examination of the handwriting, the signature, the way the LG words were translated, and the meta-language used in the descriptions and translations (Spanish, Latin, German); and second, by a careful comparison with other eighteenth-century LG vocabularies of which the author had been traced. Subsequently, Dietrich and his team could conjecture where and when the document had been written. Another important point in Dietrich’s paper is that he notifies us of linguistic changes in the LG. With these data Dietrich (linguistic changes) and his team (name of the possible author of the manuscript) thus make a valuable contribution to the history of linguistics and to missionary linguistics. Dietrich also reports that the manuscript does not only comprise a dictionary (85 pages), but also, surprisingly, a number of coplas ‘poems’ (20 pages). A part of a copla, translated by Dietrich, is included in this exceptional article. In the paper about Patagonian word-lists and dictionaries from the sixteenth-eighteenth centuries, Alejandra Regúnaga and Rebeca Fernández Rodríguez present an in-depth study of the vocabulary of the Italian navigator Antonio de Pigafetta (1480–1540) from 1520, Antonio de Viedma’s (1737–1809) vocabulary from 1780, two word-lists of Alessandro Malaspina (1754–1809) from 1789, the vocabulary of Lieutenant Juan José de Elizalde (?–?) from 1791, and Pineda’s word-lists from 1791. The language at issue is Tehuelche. In their paper, Regúnaga and Fernández Rodríguez analyse the compilation of the context and the extension of the lexicographic works, the semantic fields formed by the head words, and the transcription, distribution and organization of the lexemes. They also give an inventory of the consonants by using Fernández Garay’s (2004: 6–17) more detailed and accurate information about the consonant sounds in Tehuelche. The subject of Katja Hannß’ article is the Pukina language and its contacts. Pukina is an extinct language. Hannß presents three areas in which Pukina was spoken and in which the Pukina culture flourished: (i) around the Lakes of Titicaca and Coipasa (Bolivia); (ii) on the eastern slopes of the Andes and the neighbouring valleys (Peru); (iii) in the littoral region of South Peru and North Chile. Hannß argues that Pukina must have had contacts with UruChipaya, Proto-Takanan and Mapudungun, and possibly with Kunza, and she

xii

preface

gives detailed phonological, lexical and structural evidences to sustain her claims. The contacts between Pukina and Uru-Chipaya, Proto-Takanan, and Mapudungun, cover a period from ca. 500 A.D. (Proto-Takanan) until the end of the eighteenth century. Hannß suggests that Pukina may have been the donor language of Uru-Chipaya, Proto-Takanan and Mapudungun. Furthermore, Hannß succeeds in giving us an image of the extinct language through the different phonological, lexical and structural examples included in her article. The Leiden Puquina Group also underlines the importance of the extinct Puquina language and the vast regions in which it was spoken in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The group mentions that at the beginning of the colonial period, it was one of the three major languages, alongside Quechua and Aymara. While Hannß concentrates on the contacts between Pukina speakers and neighbouring peoples, the Leiden Puquina Group focuses on Puquina kinship terms found in Jerónimo de Oré’s Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum from 1607. Ore’s manuscript is the only text in Puquina that is left. It is a special document, containing prayers, catechisms, instructions for confession in Quechua, Aymara, Puquina, Mochica, Guarani, and Tupinambá, called lengua Brasilica ‘Brazilian language’ in the manuscript. Thanks to a careful examination of the Rituale, the group succeeded in adding a great number of lexical items to Puquina lexicography, and in unravelling the Puquina structure and its kinship system (cousin marriage, lineality, exogamy and endogamy). It shows how opaque and inconsistent text fragments should be analysed in order to achieve results. Zanna Van Loon and Andy Peetermans’ “wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics” through sixteenth-century grammars, see section 1.1, concern, in this section, the following grammars: Santo Thomas’ Grammática o arte de la lengua general de los indios de los reynes del Perú (1560), the anonymous Arte y Vocabulario en la lengua general del Perú (1586), and Anchieta’s Arte de grammática da lingoa mais usada na costa do Brasil (1595). Santo Thomas’ grammar and the anonymous one deal with the Quechua language, the lengua general or lingua franca of Peru, while Anchieta’s arte contains a description of Tupi-Guarani, the Brazilian lingua franca. In their conclusion, the authors point out that one should not lose sight of the big picture when doing detailed studies, and present ‘circulation of knowledge’ as a possible theoretical framework for the “integrated large-picture study of missionary linguistics”. Matthias Urban investigates how the velar nasal sound, occurring in Quechua, Aymara, Mochica, Mapudungun, Huarpe, and Cholón, had been symbolized in colonial and pre-modern descriptions of these languages. The present article contains a report of his investigation. It appears that the sound, indi-

preface

xiii

cated as gangoso ‘nasal’ by Valdivia (1606), or as guttural ‘guttural’ by both Valdivia and de la Mata (1748), had been represented in many ways. Urban distinguishes two traditions: the velar nasal sound is mainly symbolized as ⟨n⟩ in Cuzco Quechua and Lupaca Aymara, and as ⟨nc⟩ or ⟨ng⟩ in Santo Tomás’ Quechua and in Mochica. Through this investigation, Urban gained insights into the sound symbolization of other languages, and he utilizes these insights in his analysis of the phonetic structure of the very poorly documented Tallán languages Colán and Catacaos. The volume From Mesoamerica to Patagonia thus presents intriguing analyses of pre-modern documents looked at from different angles which open up new perspectives.

References Alexander-Bakkerus, Astrid and Otto Zwartjes, eds. 2013. Historical documentation and reconstruction of American languages, a special issue of Language typology and universals (STUF: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung) 66 (3). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Alexander-Bakkerus, Astrid and Otto Zwartjes, eds. 2014. A colonized world revisited: Linguistic perspectives from unpublished colonial and postcolonial documents, a special issue of Language Typology and Universals (STUF: Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung) 67 (2). Berlin: De Gruyter. Alexander-Bakkerus, Astrid and Liesbeth Zack, eds. 2014. Revitalizing older linguistic documentation: Proceedings of the Vth international meeting, a special issue of Linguistics in Amsterdam (LiA) 7 (2). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication.

Figures 1.1

2.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

7.1 7.2 7.3

Sahagún’s Sermonario en lengua mexicana, manuscript preserved in the Ayer Collection at the Newberry Library in Chicago (BNCH), call number 1485 (courtesy of the Newberry Library). 6 Graphic user interface of the Tool for Systematic Annotation of Colonial K’iche’ (TSACK) 49 Title page of Basalenque’s Arte (courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library) 86 The letter D (Cartilla, f. 5v) and the letter D (Tratado, f. 95r) (courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library) 88 Cax-qui-ni-tu-nigtta-qui caqui (courtesy of the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey) 96 qui-tu-rahaca-tebahaya (courtesy of the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey) 96 The lemma hithi (to teach) in Basalenque’s dictionary (f. 157r) (courtesy of the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey) 98 Title page of the section “Tratado de las partículas” (courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library) 112 Map of Central Peru (s.a.) (with kind permission of Walter Wust, © www.walterwust.com) 157 Confesonario de chinchaisuios, eighteenth century? (© British Library Board, Add 25,319, f. 16r) 160 Confesonario de Amages, eighteenth century? (© British Library Board, Add 25,319, f. 23r) 161 Sobreviela 1791: “Plan del curso de los ríos Huallaga y Ucayali y de la Pampa del Sacramento, levantado por el padre fray Manuel Sobreviela, Guardián del Colegio de Ocopa. Dado a luz por la Sociedad de Amantes del País de Lima. Año 1791” (courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library) 167 Page 1 of the manuscript, the introduction, where it is called “Prosodia” (courtesy of Academia das Ciências, Lisbon) 222 Page 4 of the dictionary (upper part of the first two columns) (courtesy of Academia das Ciências, Lisbon) 227 The autograph of Rochus Hundertpfundt’s Final Vow, from 1742 (Lus. 16-I f. 86. © Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu) 228

Notes on Contributors Willem F.H. Adelaar is Emeritus Professor of Amerindian Languages and Cultures at Leiden University in the Netherlands. He has conducted field research on different varieties of Quechua and on minor languages of the Andes. He has also worked on the genetic relations of South American languages of the Andes and the Amazonian region and has been involved in international activities addressing the issue of language endangerment. His further areas of expertise include linguistic reconstruction, contact and areal linguistics, oral literature and ethnohistory of South American and Mesoamerican peoples, as well as the interface of linguistic studies with archaeological and historical research. His publications include Tarma Quechua (1977) and a comprehensive volume on the languages of the Andes (2004) of which he is the main author. Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus is Master of Arts (French) and PhD in Comparative Linguistics, Amerindian Languages. She has published grammars of eighteenth century Amerindian languages (Cholón, Ecuadorian Quechua, Jebero/Xebero), papers regarding the phonology, morphology, nominalization, subordination and vocabulary of these languages, and papers in the field of Colonial and Missionary linguistics. Justin Case is a doctoral candidate at the University of Ottawa, Canada. His linguistic interests are both descriptive and theoretical in nature and his work is fed by both field descriptions in the Ecuadorian Amazon and by historical corpora. He actively participates in research on missionary linguistic documentation and the work presented in this volume stems from research performed under the supervision of Dr. Otto Zwartjes at the University of Amsterdam. Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz is Senior Lecturer in Latin American and Amerindian Studies at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at the University of Stirling (Scotland, United Kingdom). She obtained her PhD and Habilitation from the University of Bonn (Germany). Her research centres on the study of Amerindian languages, especially the (ethno)historical, anthropological and descriptive linguistics of Quechua. She analyses the translation of culture and the dynamics of religious change, above all in the context of the introduction of Christianity in the colonial era, and, in

xvi

notes on contributors

a wider framework, the clash of cultures and change of power-constellations it caused. See her academic website https://www.dedenbachsalazar.stir.ac.uk and her publications at the University of Stirling website https://www.stir.ac .uk/people/256347. Wolf Dietrich studied Romance and Classical Philology at the universities of Münster, Montpellier, and Tübingen. He wrote his PhD dissertation in 1971 (supervisor Eugenio Coseriu), working at the same time as Antonio Tovar’s assistant at the Institute of Indo-European Linguistics at Tübingen University. In 1970 he had made, together with A. Tovar, his first linguistic field research among the Western Guarani (Chiriguano) in Argentina. From 1973 to 2006 he was full professor of Romance linguistics at the University of Münster (Germany). One of his major projects was the Atlas Lingüístico Guaraní-Románico, together with Harald Thun (Kiel). His main interests are historical linguistics, syntax, semantics, and word formation, both in Romance and in Tupian languages. Michael Dürr is an anthropological linguist specializing in Mesoamerica and in the North Pacific Rim. He works as a librarian in Berlin and also teaches anthropology and Mesoamerican languages at the Free University of Berlin. His publications, among others, include studies on the reconstruction of Proto-Mixtec tones, on the grammar of sixteenth-century K’iche’ and on texts for the languages Sm’algyax and Itelmen. Currently he focuses on the edition of sixteenth to eighteenth-century dictionaries and grammars in K’iche’ and Mixtec. See his website http://www.lai.fu‑berlin.de/homepages/duerr/index.html. Nicholas Q. Emlen is a linguistic anthropologist (PhD University of Michigan, 2014) who has conducted extensive ethnographic research on multilingualism, language contact, and coffee production on the Andean-Amazonian agricultural frontier of Southern Peru. He also works on the reconstruction of Quechua-Aymara language contact in the ancient Central Andes, and on multilingualism among Quechua, Aymara, Puquina, and Spanish in the colonial Andes. He is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the DFG Center for Advanced Studies “Words, Bones, Genes, Tools” (University of Tübingen), and at Leiden University Centre for Linguistics. His first book, Language, Coffee, and Migration on an AndeanAmazonian Frontier (University of Arizona Press), was published in 2020.

notes on contributors

xvii

Rebeca Fernández Rodríguez is BA in Translation and Interpreting, and PhD in Linguistics by the University of Valladolid. She is currently lecturer at both the University of Amsterdam and Utrecht University in The Netherlands. She is the national coordinator for Masterlanguage Spanish and editor of ERLACS published by CEDLA. She is a member of the ROLD Research Group. She is currently editing the oldest bilingual dictionary of Ilocano. She is also interested in the circulation of knowledge between Europe-Asia-America. Katja Hannß obtained her Master’s degree in Americanist Studies, Linguistics and Archaeology from Bonn University. She collaborated in a DobeS project (Dokumentation bedrohter Sprachen, Documentation of endangered languages) on the endangered Bolivian Chipaya language from 2005 to 2007 (Bonn University and University of Stirling, UK). She conducted her PhD project at the Radboud University in Nijmegen (the Netherlands) from where she obtained her doctoral degree in 2008. This was followed by further positions at the Universities of Constance, Regensburg and Munich. Since 2012 Hannß is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Cologne where she conducted two projects on the Bolivian mixed and secret Kallawaya language. Her most recent project is concerned with salience-marking enclitics of Chipaya. Simon van de Kerke was senior researcher at LUCL, Leiden Unversity, mainly focused on the languages of the southern Andes in Bolivia. He wrote his dissertation on the verbal morphology of Bolivian Quechua and worked on the highland language Chipaya. Currently retired, he continues to work on the description of the obsolete lowland Leko language and the dead highland Pukina language. Pilar Máynez is doctor in Spanish Linguistics and professor at the National University of Mexico. Since many years she is engaged in Missionary Linguistics, especially in its development in New Spain in the sixteenth century. Pilar Máynez has written a number of books, including Fray Diego Durán: una interpretación de la cosmovisión mexica (UNAM, 1997) and El calepino de Sahagún. Un acercamiento (FCE/UNAM, 2003, 2015). She anchors the blog “Seminario Permanente de Historiografía Lingüística” (Colección de Historiografía Lingüística: Documentos y Estudios, 2019, http://www.blogs.acatlan.unam.mx/shistoriografialinguistica/), and she is part of the National System of Researchers.

xviii

notes on contributors

Arjan Mossel is PhD candidate in linguistics at Leiden University, with a research project focused on place-names and the linguistic past of the Central Andes. His interests include Andean languages and linguistics, as well as the application of GIS, databases, and information technology more broadly for research in the humanities. Mercedes Montes de Oca is a researcher at the National University of Mexico. She has taught Classical Nahuatl for more than 30 years. Her primary field of study is colonial Nahuatl, mainly its semantic, discursive and pragmatic aspects. She has published several papers on the Nahuatl register used for evangelizing the Prehispanic people, as well as several chapters and a major book on Difrasismos, which is a salient lexical feature of ancient Mesoamerican discourses. Her other research interests are colonial Zapotec and the discursive aspects of Uto-Aztecan languages. Andy Peetermans studied Classics and Italian at KU Leuven. His master’s thesis explored Varro’s, Cicero’s, and Quintilian’s views on linguistic normativity. A junior member of the KU Leuven project ‘Evolving views on the world’s languages in a globalizing world’, he is writing a PhD dissertation about early modern American missionary grammar titled ‘The Art of Transforming Traditions’. His research aims to clarify how grammarians’ strategies for dealing with the tension between the specificity of their object languages, on the one hand, and that of their principal model (Graeco-Latin tradition), on the other, give rise to different dynamic traditions of missionary grammar. He has also been involved in the teaching of introductory courses on Classical Greek linguistics at KU Leuven. Julio Alfonso Pérez Luna completed his undergraduate and postgraduate studies in Classical Letters (classical philology) at the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) between 1983 and 2002. Author of the book El inicio de la evangelización novohispana. La Obediencia (INAH, 2001), of the video documentary El inicio de la evangelización novohispana. Siglo XVI (INAH, 2016), various articles related to the process of evangelization of New Spain and coordination of books on linguistic historiography. He was a teacher at various institutions from 1988 to 2016. President of the Mexican Society of Linguistic Historiography from 2009 to 2012. Researcher at

notes on contributors

xix

the Dirección de Lingüística of Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) since 1994 and currently its holder. María Alejandra Regúnaga is BA in Arts, and PhD in Linguistics by the Universidad Nacional del Sur (Bahía Blanca, Argentina). She is professor at the University of La Pampa in Argentina, and Director of the Linguistics Institute at the same institution. She is an Associate full-time researcher at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) of Argentina. She is coordinator, together with Prof. Dr. Dioney Moreira Gomes (University of Brasilia), of Project 9 “Linguistic Diversity of America (Amerindian Languages)” of the Association of Linguistics and Philology of Latin America (ALFAL). She leads research projects on Patagonian Languages, and on Minority and Minoritized Languages. Her research is focused on the description of South Patagonian endangered/extinct languages, mainly Yahgan, through documentary and missionary sources. Frauke Sachse is Program Director of Pre-Columbian Studies at the Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Formerly assistant professor at the University of Bonn, Sachse holds a PhD in linguistics from Leiden University and an MA in anthropology, archaeology, and English from the University of Bonn. Her research interests concern the languages, linguistics, indigenous histories, and religions of Mesoamerica, with a current focus on aspects of translation and the hermeneutics of missionary and indigenous text sources from Highland Guatemala. Her research on the written heritage has been supported by fellowships from the Library of Congress, Dumbarton Oaks, and the Princeton University Library. Matthias Urban is principal investigator of the Junior Research Group “The language dynamics of the ancient Central Andes”, hosted by the University of Tübingen and funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG)’s Emmy Noether Programme. Having held prior appointments at the universities of Leiden, Marburg, and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, his research interests include historical linguistics, in particular of the Andes, language contact, and linguistic typology. Zanna Van Loon is a doctoral researcher in Early Modern History at KU Leuven. Her research interests include the history of book trade networks, missionary linguistics,

xx

notes on contributors

book history, and the circulation of knowledge. She has published on the sixteenth-century Scottish book trade with printer-publisher Christopher Plantin. She is currently completing a doctoral project that deals with the early modern circulation of missionary knowledge on indigenous languages spoken in New Spain, Peru, and New France. As part of a broader multidisciplinary project “Evolving views on world’s languages in a globalizing world (1540– 1840)”, her research particularly focuses on the acquisition, production, and diffusion processes of missionary knowledge on indigenous languages through grammars, dictionaries, and doctrinal translations. Liesbeth Zack is assistant professor of Arabic language and culture at the University of Amsterdam. Her research interests include historical linguistics and Middle Arabic, Arabic dialectology, language change and sociolinguistics. She has published on the history of Egyptian Arabic, including an edition and study of Yūsuf al-Maġribī’s Dafʿ al-iṣr ʿan kalām ahl Miṣr (seventeenth century), one of the earliest descriptions of Egyptian Arabic. Currently she is preparing a grammar of nineteenth-century Cairene Arabic. She has co-edited Middle Arabic and Mixed Arabic: Diachrony and Synchrony (Brill, 2012). Otto Zwartjes has published on Hispano-Arabic poetry (the kharjas) (Brill 1997, and with Henk Heijkoop, Brill 2004). He was full professor of Spanish language and linguistics at the University of Oslo where he was the leader of the “Oslo Project on Missionary Linguistics” (OsProMiL). He founded the research group Revitalising Older Linguistic Documentation (ROLD) at the University of Amsterdam. Currently he is full professor of Historical Linguistics of the Romance Languages, the History of Linguistics and Linguistic Typology at the Université de Paris (Laboratoire d’Histoire des Théories Linguistiques). He has published extensively on Spanish, Portuguese and Latin missionary linguistics and coordinates since 2003 the International Conferences on Missionary Linguistics (with five volumes published by John Benjamins).

part 1 Mesoamerica

∵

chapter 1

“The Beginning of Times” in Two Texts of Preachment from New Spain (Sixteenth Century) Pilar Máynez, Mercedes Montes de Oca and Julio Alfonso Pérez Luna

1

The Doctrinal Work of Friar Bernardino de Sahagún: An Approach

The evangelization of the New World posed the missionaries the challenge to translate and adapt sacred texts to the indigenous worldview through various linguistic strategies in order to achieve a more effective conversion of the natives to the creed that was being implanted. In this contribution we will refer to two doctrinal works representing this effort, both written in the Mexican language: one of them signed by its author, Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, and the other, presumably elaborated by him. 1.1 Contextual Background In 1529, Friar Bernardino de Sahagún (1499–1590) arrived in Mexico together with a group of young friars of the Franciscan Order, led by Friar Antonio de Ciudad Rodrigo, who had recently returned to Spain after a stay in the New World, with the purpose of reinforcing their missionary efforts. From the very beginning of his stay, Sahagún seemed to be fully integrated into the religious and academic life. In 1536, he attended the opening of the Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco, where he instructed the native students in Grammar (some of these very students would eventually become collaborators in the great work he intended to carry out).1 The purpose was, on the one hand, to write a series of religious texts in view and for the benefit of the evangelization process of the natives, and, on the other, to gather testimonies of the culture and thought of the indigenous population, in hopes of delving into their universe as well as to confirm the effectiveness and success of the process

1 When he refers to his stay at Tepeapulco, while making his first inquiries for the Historia general, with the assistance of his collaborators, he explains that “Estaban también allí hasta cuatro latinos, a los cuales yo pocos años antes había enseñado la gramática en el Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatilulco” (Up to four latinos were present, to whom I taught grammar a few years back at the Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatilulco) (prologue to Book II, Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España 2000: 129–130).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004427006_002

4

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

of conversion. The medium employed in hopes of achieving both objectives was the use of the Nahuatl language. In fact, some texts2 would be rewritten in that language, a medium that would also prove useful as a means of preparing and delivering sermons, the Gospels, and the Psalms, in view of the religious education of the natives, but also as an aid to the friars’ inquiries regarding the different aspects of the Aztec culture; an effort that the noted friar undertook for more than thirty years, and which finally resulted in his renowned and bilingual Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España. Sahagún was very well versed in Nahuatl (also known as the Mexican language), as his fellow friars inform us. In any case, we are able to confirm this thanks to his own translations and his efforts in composing sacred texts, as well as the monumental lexicographical project contained in his Historia general and the grammar and vocabulary incorporated into it, both of whose whereabouts are at present unknown.3 In addition to Friar Bernardino’s natural linguistic skills, he was also noted for his extensive knowledge as a humanist, stemming from a broad education he received and nurtured at the University of Salamanca, including, among other subjects, studies in Philosophy, Literature and, naturally, Grammar and Rhetoric. Let us not forget that Elio Antonio de Nebrija (1441?–1522) taught at this Institution, and that his Introductiones latinae (1481) had exerted a notable influence in Spain at the time, and later, in the New World. It seems more than likely that Sahagún would have been acquainted with the renewing conceptions of the Renaissance rhetoric which he himself advocated due to its elocutionary simplicity, and whose greatest proponent was Luis Vives (1492–1540). In the opinion of this Valencian humanist, it was necessary to suppress the profuse eloquence of religious rhetoric. A preacher should master the language, have full command of its vocabulary and be able to use the appropriate sentences adequately while elaborating on each and every subject; he should also refrain from constructing too long and complicated sentences, which he him-

2 The fact that the Colloquios y Doctrina Christiana were drafted from a set of documents that were preserved, probably at the convent library “hasta este año de mil y quj[niento]s y sesenta y quatro: porque antes no uuo oportunjdad, de ponerse en orden nj convertirse en lengua mexicana bien co[n]grua y limada …” (1986: 27v) (until this year of fifteen and seventy four: because an opportunity for ordering it and for translating it congrouosly and well refined in the Aztec language, had previously been lacking …). 3 Friar Gerónimo de Mendieta (1993: 1551) maintains that Sahagún composed a grammar of the Mexican language, even though he does not make reference to his vocabulary, whereas Bernal (1983: 317) notes that there is no categorical testimony that the manuscript of the twelve books that were already comprised in the Historia general, concluded in 1569, included an Arte and Vocabulario.

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

5

self found to be extremely boring (cf. Martí 1972: 26–27). These ideas of renewal which were conspicuously expressed in his De ratione dicendi (1532) circulated throughout New Spain in academic media and among the friars in charge of conversion.4 In view of the esoteric undertones enshrouded in mystery which allegedly prevailed during the Lower Middle Ages, a simple and uncomplicated conveyance of the Christian Word was advocated (cf. Gonzalbo Aizpuru 2002: 29). In addition to this, a clause stipulated by the Second Rule proposed by Saint Francis (1223) must be added, which alludes to the brevity and clarity of elocution in preaching (a rule included in a papal bull IX: 3–4). 1.2

The Sermonario en lengua mexicana and Its Branching Off Other Doctrinal Works As far as we can tell, Friar Bernardino de Sahagún may have been acquainted with Vives’ writings, and no doubt carried out his ministry by observing the principles of Rhetoric followed by his religious order during the fourth decade of the sixteenth century, at a time when he had already experienced pastoral work at some of the convents in Central Mexico. Thus, in the first version of the Sermonario en lengua mexicana, one of the two works examined in this study, he remarks: “Siguense unos sermones de domjnicas y de Santos en lengua mexicana: no traduzidos de sermonario alguno sino compuestos nuevamente a la medida y capacidad de los indios: breves en materia y en lenguaje congruo venusto y llano, fácil de entender para todos los que lo oyeren, altos y bajos, principales y macegoales, hombres y mujeres.”5 To this day, two versions of the Sermonario have been identified, both of which have been made accessible to us: the manuscript preserved in the Ayer

4 Gonzalbo Aizpuru (2000: 27–29) goes on to explain that: “Las ideas renovadoras dispersas en el ambiente académico y eclesiástico llegaron a la Nueva España en algunos de los libros que formaron parte de bibliotecas personales, pero sobre todo, y con mayor capacidad de penetración, en la mente de autoridades civiles y eclesiásticos y en la conciencia de los religiosos destinados a la tarea de evangelización” (The ideas of renewal that were scattered throughout the academic and ecclesiastical community reached New Spain by way of a number of books that ultimately found their way into personal libraries, but especially, and certainly in a more profound way, in the minds and thoughts of civilian and ecclesiastical authorities, and in the awareness of the missionaries intended for the task of evangelization. 5 Next comes a number of Sunday [mass] sermons and sermons composed by Saints, in the Mexican language: not translated from any Sermonarios but newly composed in the understanding and capacity of the Indians: brief in subject, and, in language congruous and plain, easy to understand to all that may hear them, high and low, principals and common people, men and women.

6

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

figure 1.1 Sahagún’s Sermonario en lengua mexicana, manuscript preserved in the Ayer Collection at the Newberry Library in Chicago (BNCH), call number 1485 courtesy of the Newberry Library

Collection at the Newberry Library in Chicago (BNCH), call number 1485 (Figure 1.1) and the one kept in the Fondo Reservado de la Biblioteca Nacional de México, call number 1492. This raises two questions: First of all, in what way are the two manuscripts related to each other? And second, how is Sahagún’s doctrinal interest detectable in his grammatical and rhetorical strategies, in a work essential for the ends he pursued? Regarding the first question, it is necessary to point out that most scholars of Sahaguntian literature agree that the manuscript preserved at the Newberry Library is an earlier version as compared to the one kept at the Biblioteca Nacional de México; from the very first leaves of the manuscript, Sahagún points out that the sermons have yet to be corrected. On the first leaf, in fact, and in addition to a preamble extracted from the Vulgata, there are a great amount of corrections and glosses in Latin, Nahuatl and Spanish, on the right, left and lower margins of the pages, which, without a doubt, merit special attention per se, whereas the manuscript from the Biblioteca Nacional is a more elaborate text in its formal drafting as is clearly apparent in each and

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

7

every one of its pages. In this version, one may notice the systematic development of a number of abbreviations (mainly to indicate the plurals of the future tense), although certain grammatical mistakes and errors in the transcription do appear in the text. Specifically, in the part that corresponds to the exegesis in (Saint) Luke 21—relating to the beginning of time—we come across the following:

Sermonario BNCH

Sermonario BNM

Pluralization: quimatizǭ: mamauhtizǭ:

quimatizque mamauhtizque

Grammatical mistakes: Quimmonochili (correct form) quimonochili (incorrect form)

However true it may be that Sahagún ultimately decided to use a plain style in the composition of Homilies with the express purpose of making their understanding easier to the Indians, it is also true, according to Bustamante (1990: 68) and Rojas Álvarez (2010: 70), that certain liberties were taken in order to achieve a more effective rapprochement with the natives by using grammatical and rhetorical elements that were typical of their own ancestral admonitions. This aspect in itself merits a detailed study which could contribute to achieving a more accurate dating of the sermons compiled in both volumes, and to shedding some light on the possible existence of a stylistic conception developed by Sahagún himself, regarding the way in which he could deliver the fundamental concepts of the Christian faith through the use of various types of doctrinal works. In any case, the Franciscan friar’s complex writings have prompted doubts as to the dating of several of his works and have also resulted in modern scholars’ disagreement regarding the affiliation existing among these very same works. Let us now consider the following: in the introductory note to his Coloquios y Doctrina Christiana, which was, together with his Psalmodia Christiana, published in 1583, without any doubt his best known doctrinal opuscule, the friar informs the reader that one of the components of his religious program had already come to a conclusion. We refer to “[…] una declaración o postilla de todas las epístolas, y evangelios de las d[omi]nicas de todo el año (que es la predicacion q[ue] hasta ahora se a usado) muy apropiadas en lengua y materia

8

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

a la capacidad de los yndios la cual se está lima[n]do y será otro volumen por si[…]”6 (Sahagún 1986: 28r.), possibly the Evangeliario. We still do not possess a precise timeline regarding the drafting and rewriting of the doctrinal works attributed to Sahagún. In fact, the references or titles that appear sporadically in his Historia General7 have at times caused a certain amount of confusion; this has also been the case for the Psalmodia, a work constituted by Psalms intended to be intoned, and the same with the Cantares; or on the other hand, by the doubts raised in the midst of his bibliographers, scholars who have not been able to fix the date of completion and contents of these works (cf. Máynez 2011). Mendieta explains that Sahagún had written “[…] unos sermonarios de todo el año, unos breves y otros largos, y una postilla sobre los evangelios dominicales”8 (1993: 551); a fact repeated by Torquemada and Vetancourt.9 Centuries later, Anderson (1990: 165) noted that certain doubts had arisen—without specifying exactly who raised these doubts—regarding the identification of the Postilla, the Códice Beltrami published by Biondelli in 1858, the two versions of the Sermonario mentioned above and “una diferente colección, ahora perdida, de Epístolas y evangelios dominicales”.10 For his part, León-Portilla (1999: 143) maintained, a few years back, that “[…] se han conservado parte de los Coloquios y la Postilla, o sea el sermonario de las domínicas con los comentarios a las versiones de evangelios y epístolas […]”.11 The Pos-

6

7

8 9 10 11

[…] a statement or a commentary to all the Sunday [mass] Epistles and Gospels for the entire year (which is the preachment that has been used until this very day) most appropriate in language and subject, and taking into account the ability of the Indians to understand; a work that is in the process of revision and that will become a separate volume in its own right […]. Referring to the mandate that Father Toral received in 1558 to carry out the assignment of collecting “antiguallas mexicanas”, Sahagún says in the Prologue to the Second Book that: “Recibido este mandamiento, hice en lengua castellana una minuta o memoria de todas las materias de que había de tratar, que fue lo que está escripto en los doce libros, y la postilla y los cánticos. Lo cual se puso de prima tijera en el pueblo de Tepepulco …” (2002: 129). (Having received this mandate, I drafted a list or memorandum of all the subjects that had to be dealt with, which is what is written in the twelve books and in the postilla and in the cánticos. Which has been taken to the forefront at the town of Tepepulco …) [emphasis is ours]. It should be noticed that, in addition to specifically referring to the Postilla, he also includes a reference to the cánticos meaning the Cantares. […] sermon books for the entire year, some brief, others lengthy, and a commentary to the Sunday Gospels. Noted by Bustamante (1990: 91). An entirely different collection, now lost, of the Epístolas y Evangelios dominicales. […] a section of the Coloquios and the Postilla have been preserved, meaning the Sunday Sermon Book with commentaries to the Gospels and Epistles […].

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

9

tilla, along with its numerous and copious glosses, which are evident in the Sermonario 1485 of the Ayer Collection, had therefore been identified by LeónPortilla, but not as an independent work. This contention concurs with the program that Sahagún defines in his Coloquios, where the Sermonario was not specifically mentioned, perhaps, because it had already been brought to completion, although the Postilla to the Gospels was in fact mentioned supra.12 However, in a more recent study, León-Portilla refers to both the manuscript composed in 1540 and re-written in 1563, and the Epistles and the Gospels in the Mexican [language]; concerning the latter, he suggests that they are in reality texts which include Biblical translations similar to those encompassed by Biondelli in his Evangeliarum, Epistolarium et Lectionarium, to which we will now refer (2014: 26). According to García Icazbalceta (1954: 334), other bibliographers such as Jiménez Moreno and Nicolau d’Olwer had previously made reference to a manuscript that Chavero, in turn, described as composed of 74 leaves divided into quarters, and displaying a still well-defined and firm handwriting on them, and which, he suggests, was written by Friar Bernardino at the same time he was writing the Sermonario. This chronology and the specific identification of both works, as suggested by Jiménez Moreno and d’ Olwer (cf. García Icazbalceta 1954: 334), turn out better conceived, if one takes into consideration the function of the Epistles and the Gospels as a primary source of reference in the writing of sermons (which were put through constant revisions, as was the entire bulk of his work).

12

León-Portilla summarizes Sahagún’s doctrinal project as follows: “El primero [libro] tiene treinta capítulos que contienen todas las pláticas y confabulaciones y sermones que hubo entre los doce religiosos y los principales y señores y sátrapas de los ídolos [esto es, el libro de los Coloquios, con el que contamos]. El segundo libro trata del catecismo y doctrina cristiana con que todos los adultos que se requiere baptizar, han de ser primeramente instruidos. El tercer libro había de ser del suceso que tuvo esta conversión en las manos de estos doce padres […]” (León-Portilla 1999: 21). (The first [book] has thirty chapters containing all the talks and plots and sermons which took place between the twelve missionaries and the native principals and the nobles and the local rulers (meaning the book known as the Coloquios, which we possess). The second book deals with the Catechism and Christian Doctrine in which all adults who wish to be baptized, must be instructed beforehand. The third book would become the event that made this conversion process possible in the hand of these twelve friars […]); the very same Sahagún mentions another of the friars having already carried out this task; and the fourth book concerns the public reading of the Epistles and the Gospels.

10

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

1.3 Three Versions of the Evangeliario Attributed to Sahagún The Evangeliario and the Epistles, which were required texts used by the missionaries in their frequent dissertations on the liturgical cycle, this being also the case for the Sermonario, entail a set of different versions. To this day, we have compared three of the numerous versions of the Evangeliario registered by Bustamante (1990: 116–148): the version edited by Biondelli (1858), known as the Códice Beltrami, or Evangelarium, Epistolarium et Lectionarium which can easily be looked up on the web, is generally attributed to Bernardino de Sahagún; the Ayer Manuscript 1467 of the Newberry Library, which is included in Schwallers’ register,13 can also be accessed electronically; and finally, the one recently identified by Téllez in the Archivo y Biblioteca Capitulares de Toledo (BCT).14 In any case, the title of the version preserved at the Newberry Library, reads: “Incip[i]u[n]t Ep[istolae] et Eua[n]gelia, qu[a]e in diebus dominicis p[er] anni totius circulum legu[n]t[ur]. Traducta in lingua[m] Mexicana[m]”, whereas the corresponding version from the BCT, indicates: “Incipiu[n]t Ep[isto]l[a]e et Eva[n]gelia qu[a]e in diebus dominicis et festivis per toti[us] anni circulu[m] legu[n]t[ur]. Traducta i[n] lingua[m] mexicana[m]”.15 The first of the above-mentioned manuscripts was acquired at the beginning of the nineteenth century by Beltrami, who subsequently wrote down the year 1532 as the likely date of completion, based on a date which he himself was able to make out. Bustamante (1990: 117) maintains, for his part, that the volume was unmistakably composed at the convent of Santiago de Tlatelolco and that the manuscript bears a certain similarity to an autograph by Sahagún, but whose date—after all due consideration as to the prevailing liturgical canon—must be later than 1541.16 On the other hand, the title of the Ayer Manuscript 1467—a large volume in a very well-defined handwriting—does not entirely coincide with the last of 13

14 15

16

Schwaller has established a comparison between the manuscript edited by Biondelli, the one referred to as Ayer 1467 and another, preserved at the National Library of Mexico, catalog number 1487, arriving at the conclusion that the second of these documents is the lost manuscript referred to by Chavero. We concur with Bustamante in that this cannot be the lost manuscript due to the physical peculiarities highlighted by Chavero in his description (cf. Bustamante 1990: 142–143). The Capitulary Library and Archives of Toledo. The first page of these manuscripts reads, verbatim: “Incipiȗt E / pƚę et Euâge / lia, quę in die / bus dominicis ᵱ anni totius cir / culum legȗt.̃ Traducta in lin / guâ Mexicanâ”. And “Incipiȗt epƚe et evâgeli / a, que in diebus domini / cis ʅ festivis per toti‫ و‬/ anni circulȗ legȗt.̃ Traducta ĩ / linguȃ mexicanaʒ.” The reason is that he identified in the text certain interpolations extracted from the Misal Seráfico (the Seraphic Missal) which was printed in Venice that very same year. For more details cf. Bustamante (1990: 117–119).

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

11

our versions, the one corresponding to the BCT, which has also been associated with the name of Alonso de Molina. Let us not forget that the chronicler of the Order, Gerónimo de Mendieta, maintained that this Friar: “[…] tradujo en la misma lengua (mexicana) los evangelios de todo el año y las horas de Nuestra Señora, aunque estas se recogieron por estar prohibidas en lengua vulgar” (1993: 551).17 Nevertheless, Bustamante (1990: 155–156) explains that this attribution should be disregarded since Molina never once mentioned that he had composed an oeuvre of this type. The possibility that in 1577 there was no more than a single translation sin comento ‘without commentaries’ should be taken as a fact—evidently with several versions, as we have been able to confirm— based on a missal authored by Bernardino de Sahagún himself. All in all, we concur with the bibliographers who have attributed to Sahagún, for the most part, the rendering destined for the Epistles and the Gospels. We differ from Téllez’s position who, in this regard and in the style of a hypothesis, contends that the BCT Manuscript, 35–22—the last of the three versions reviewed in this article—is a joint composition in which the illustrious Latinist and professor at the Colegio de Tlatelolco, Arnaldo Bassacio,18 collaborated, at least at the beginning, and which is concluded by Sahagún after the latter’s demise in 1542.19 If we take into account what was apprised in the aforementioned book of the Coloquios, the Evangeliario from Toledo is presumably the work of Friar Bernardino de Sahagún, even more to the point if we consider the friar’s extreme zeal in recording his works, the progress in their composition, and the 17

18

19

Translated in the same language (Mexican) the Gospels of the entire year and the Hours of Our Lady, although these were later reclaimed because they were prohibited in the vulgar tongue. It is true that Mendieta also points out that “Arnaldo de Bassacio, a French national, and a very profound theologian, wrote many profuse sermons, and in a very elegant style, and translated the Epistles and the Gospels, intoned in Church the entire year, all of which is held in high regard.” (1993: 550). As to the question of who wrote the manuscript, Heréndira Téllez remarks: “Aunque los historiadores del siglo XVI atribuyeron la obra a fray Arnaldo Bassacio, la hipótesis más extendida desde el siglo XIX es que el Evangeliario lo escribió Bernardino de Sahagún … Aunque falta un estudio en profundidad sobre el tema nuestra hipótesis es que la redacción inicial corrió a cargo de Bassacio, pero el proyecto lo acabó Sahagún a la muerte de Bassacio en 1542”. (Although the historians of the sixteenth century attributed the work to Friar Arnaldo Bassacio, the most widely accepted theory since the nineteenth century maintains that it was Bernardino de Sahagún who wrote the Evangeliario … Although an in-depth study on the subject is lacking, our hypothesis is that the initial drafting of the document was done by Bassacio, but the project was brought to a conclusion by Sahagún after Bassacio’s demise in 1542.) For access to the document, please visit: www .madridmasd.org (accessed 7 March 2017).

12

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

people who were in some way involved in their making. And this is perhaps the “lost manuscript” which coincides, almost entirely, with the physical peculiarities that were noticed and described by Chavero: […] en cuarto menor, (todo de letra de Sahagún), aunque sin nombre del autor. Está escrito en mexicano, y comprende los evangelios y epístolas de las domínicas … los títulos y capitales están escritos con tinta roja y de éstas algunas con oro y colores semejando pájaros o monstruos, como era usanza de los manuscritos, (características que cabe señalar no se encuentran en el manuscrito correspondiente a la Ayer Collection). La letra es todavía firme y clara, señal de que la traducción fue hecha y redactada, no mucho después de la llegada de nuestro buen padre[…].20 Bustamante 1990: 98–99

The Toledo manuscript is composed of 215 leaves, recto and verso, but on the lower part of leaf 71 the expression Evangelium secundum […] may be distinguished, though not very clearly, indicating the conclusion of the section. The volume characters are outlined in red, and some in gold, and include illustrations of birds, even though most of them represent floral motifs (trees); the writing on it is very well-defined. It seems unusual that Sahagún’s signature does not appear as is usually the case for his writings; nonetheless, the rigid restrictions that prevailed at the time as to the rendering into native languages of this type of document, must be taken into account.

2

Liturgy and Liturgical Action

2.1 Liturgy and Evangelization Another important aspect to be taken into consideration is the nature of the books and texts that are the subject of this study. In the process of the evangelization of the Indians, preaching became a fundamental task, for it was through this medium that an effective conversion into Christianity could be 20

[…] in the lower quarter, (entirely in Sahagún’s handwriting), albeit without the name of the author. It is written in the Mexican [language], and comprises the Sunday Mass Holy Gospels and Epistles … the titles and the capital letters are written in red ink and some of these in gold and colours resembling birds or monsters, in compliance with the custom in the production of manuscripts (all features which, we must say, cannot be found in the corresponding manuscript of the Ayer Collection). Its writing is still well-defined and firm, a sign that the translation was rendered and written down not long after the arrival of our good Father […]. The second set of parenthesis is our own.

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

13

assured. Thus, through the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ the ideological values of the new religion were conveyed, and became a new framework which endeavoured to replace the old Mesoamerican view of the world and justified the new order established by the conquest. However, conversion is a complex process which not only includes the manifest adhesion of the people, but also the attention to various aspects which, on the whole, will validate their allegiance to the new religion and its ecclesial institution. Together with the intrinsic difficulties of the new Catholic concepts and dogma (the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, the Redemption of man through Christ), the difficulties of searching for and composing catechismal methods appropriate to the character of the Indians, and the friars’ initial ignorance of the native languages, the missionaries—in the beginning—and later, the members of the secular clergy in New Spain—must have also taken good care of properly observing the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church vis-à-vis the heritage and symbolism of the indigenous population. In other words, the liturgical dimension constituted another facet within the process of conversion, a dimension whose imprint was quite perceptible to the natives on various levels. In fact, from the very first ecclesiastical meeting in New Spain,21 the administration of the Holy Sacraments to the Indians (Baptism, Confirmation, Penance, Communion, Matrimony and Extreme Unction), represented an important aspect which had to be observed carefully, and which included ritual elements that had to be heeded.22 Hence, during the third ecclesiastical meeting, which took place in 1539: Se debatieron algunos aspectos del ritual del bautismo y el matrimonio de los indígenas, intentando ajustar las prácticas del primer sacramento a la bula Altitudo divini consilii, y las del segundo a las prescripciones del derecho canónico, en particular, las contempladas en las constituciones sinodales del arzobispado de Sevilla.23 Pérez, González and Aguirre 2004: 6

21

22 23

Four ecclesiastical meetings were held before the First Mexican Council took place: in 1524, 1532, 1539 and 1546. Likewise, during the sixteenth century three Mexican Councils were held, in 1555, 1565, and 1585. For instance, an initial shortage of Holy Chrism and Holy Oil and Balsam in order to carry out the Rites of Baptism and Confirmation. Some aspects of the rite of Baptism and Matrimony among the natives were discussed, in an attempt to adjust the practices of the first Sacrament to the papal bull entitled Altitudo divini consilii, and of the second, to the precepts of canonical law, in particular, to those contemplated by synodical constitutions from the archbishopric in Seville.

14

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

For its part, the Second Mexican Council (1565) decreed regulations, in compliance with the Council of Trent, in reference to the public aspects of religious celebrations as well as worship proper, placing special care in requesting that it be observed that the Indians did not possess sermon books “ni otra cosa de escritura escrita de mano, salvo la doctrina cristiana aprobada por los prelados y traducida por los religiosos lenguas …” (Pérez, González and Aguirre 2004: 11).24 2.2 Liturgy and Liturgical Books As concerns the Catholic Church, liturgy not only contemplates all the details, code and regulations of the ritual acts and their elements in religious worshipping. It is conceived of as the true “ejercicio del sacerdocio de Cristo”25 (Luengo 2005), which is truly present, and not only commemorating His presence in the world. The Liturgy of the Word, together with the Eucharistic Liturgy,26 has a special place within the structure of the Holy Mass, the Divine Office, which is a foremost expression of Catholic worship. It comprises readings of passages from the Bible (Old and New Testaments), preaching or Homily, commonly known as a sermon, and the prayers of the gathering. Thus, words—either written and read, or preached and interpreted—constitute the medium between the Church and the faithful. In the case of the Homily, it fulfils an important function in the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the context of Evangelization. The Homily represented the moment in which the ideological contents of the new Religion were conveyed to the natives, marked by all due solemnity and symbolic language just as in the liturgy.27 It thus became a fundamental element of conversion. 24

25 26

27

Nor any other thing of writing, written by hand, except for the Christian doctrine approved by the prelates and translated by the missionaries-‘lenguas’ (= missionaries who were trained to communicate with the indigenous people in their own language). Exercise of the Priesthood of Christ. Verily, the Eucharistic Liturgy constitutes the most solemn moment of the Divine Office, in which the Body and the Blood of Christ are present in the Bread and in the Wine, not only commemorating but also representing the Supper of Our Lord. “Cristo nuestro Señor instituyó el sacrificio eucarístico de su Cuerpo y de su Sangre como memorial de su pasión y resurrección y lo confió a la Iglesia, su amada Esposa” (Instrucción General del Misal Romano). (Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood as a memorial of his Passion and Resurrection and He entrusted it to the Church, his beloved Spouse). According to article 1145 of the Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica: “Una celebración sacramental está tejida de signos y de símbolos. Según la pedagogía divina de la salvación, su significación tiene su raíz en la obra de la creación y en la cultura humana, se perfila en los

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

15

The Liturgy of the Word has as its foundation the passages from the Bible which are to be read aloud and expounded during the Homily: missal, breviary, evangeliario, lectionary. Thus, the priest’s sermon should be rigorously based on reflection (concerning these texts) and following the liturgical cycles which Catholic worship has established. Now, it is necessary also to consider the activity and efficiency of the preacher in the performance of his endeavours. A sermon is not something to be improvised, even less in a context of converting the infidels, as in New Spain.28 The composition of books of sermons as tools was an imperative necessity for the first missionaries since these, although abiding by the liturgical order, constituted a firsthand resource to address their flock. From this perspective, it is easy to understand, then, the need and importance to count on liturgical books, especially if we consider the circumstances at the beginning of the evangelizing endeavour. The composition of books of Gospels, Epistles and of sermons, particularly in the native languages, was to make up for a significant deficiency apropos of the enormous responsibility of the work with the natives, always maintaining the liturgical rigour of these texts, and at the same time adapting them to the particular needs of such an endeavour. 2.3

The Evangeliario-Epistolary of the Archive and Library of the Cathedral of Toledo According to its title: Incipiu[n]t Ep[isto]le et Eva[n]gelia que in diebus dominicis et festivis per toti[us] anni circulu[m] legu[n]t[ur]. Traducta i[n] lingua[m] mexicana[m], the manuscript 35–22 of the Archives and Library of the Cathedral of Toledo is an Evangeliario-Epistolario, that is, a book encompassing the entire spectrum of Biblical readings that would be read and preached during the annual cycle or liturgical year as a part of worship established by the Catholic Church.29 In the following paragraphs we will establish the difference in comparison to the Sermonario whose features have already been mentioned.

28

29

acontecimientos de la Antigua Alianza y se revela en plenitud en la persona y la obra de Cristo.” (A sacramental celebration is interwoven with signs and symbols. In agreement with the Divine Teaching of Salvation, its meaning has its roots in the Divine Work of Creation and in human culture, and is shaped in the events of the Ancient Alliance and is revealed in plenitude in the Person and Works of Christ.) Thus, the liturgy uses a symbolic language expressed in texts, objects, matter, colors, gestures, postures and forms of proceeding (actions) in worshipping God. The old bibliographical collections from New Spain which to date have been preserved, show us the importance the sacred oratory would represent in the instruction of future friars in convents and convent schools. “El tiempo litúrgico en la iglesia no es más que un momento del gran año de la redención

16

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

As has been stated earlier, worship is centered in the Sacrifice offered to God in a permanent and cyclical manner, having Jesus Christ as the axis. Thus, liturgical practice contemplates the cycles of Advent and Christmas, Lent and the Paschal Cycle (Passion and Resurrection). In each of them, the Church determines the readings from the Bible which are to be considered during the celebration of Mass, understood as a symbolic Sacrifice made present every single time, commemorating the true Sacrifice of Christ, Son of God, with all its legacy and for the Redemption of Mankind. The contents of each liturgical cycle are determined by the Missale Romanum (Roman Missal) and the Breviarium Romanum (Roman Breviary);30 in each one of these, the readings that are appropriate, according to the contents of each cycle, have been established. We must clarify, however, that we are referring to the readings as such, which include passages, in this case, from the Gospels and from the corpus of Epistles which are a part of the New Testament. It is very likely that when the manuscript, now preserved at the Cathedral of Toledo, was being composed (sixteenth century), the edition of the Missale Romanum, which would tend to unify variants in the ceremonial practice of the Church, was also being worked. This was done as a directive derived from the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent, which was held on the 17th of September, 1562, and whose decree “De observandis et vitandis in celebratione Missarum”, delegated to the Pope the responsibility of its implementation and promulgation.

30

inaugurado por Cristo (cf. Lc. 4,19–21); y cada año litúrgico es un punto de la línea recta temporal propia de la historia de la salvación” (Sartore and Trìacca 1987: 140). (Liturgic time in the Church is no more than a moment of the great year of Redemption begun by our Lord Christ (cf. Lc. 4,19–21); and each single liturgical year is a point in the temporal straight line of the history of Salvation). “La Iglesia trabaja desde hace veinte siglos, como abeja industriosa, en torno a los libros de su Liturgia, que se pueden dividir en dos clases: el Misal y el Breviario, que contienen las fórmulas y ritos necesarios a la celebración de la Misa y al rezo de la Salmodia. “Sacrificium laudis” (libros relacionados con la mediación ascendente); y el Pontificial y el Ritual, que contienen las fórmulas y ritos para la administración de los Sacramentos y de los sacramentales (libros relacionados con la mediación descendente)” (Parente, Piolanti and Garofalo 1955: 217–218). (The Church has laboured for twenty centuries now, like an industrious bee, in regard to the books of its Liturgy, which can be divided into two classes: the Missal and the Breviary, and which contain the formulas and rites necessary for the celebration of Mass and the Psalmody prayer. ⟨⟨Sacrificium laudis⟩⟩ (books related to Ascendant Mediation); and the Pontificial and the Ritual, which contain the formulas and the rites for the administration of the Holy Sacraments and the Sacramentals (books related to descendent mediation).

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

17

Although this precept was set in motion under Pope Pius IV, it was Pius V who brought it to a conclusion; hence, on the 13th of July, 1570, the Missale Romanum was promulgated, remaining in force until the twentieth century; then, the Vatican Council II announced the Missal which is now in force (3rd of April, 1969). In the same way, two years prior, in 1568, the Breviary was published, also a product of the Tridentine Council.31 At this point, it would be convenient to recall that the Second Mexican Council (1565) noted that as long as the Missal and the Breviary from the Tridentine Council were not made available, they would have to be covered by the corresponding texts used by the Church of Seville: Y porque haya esta conformidad, sancto approbante concilio, ordenamos y mandamos que todas las iglesias a ésta nuestra sufragáneas canten en el coro y hagan el oficio mayor y menor, conforme a los misales nuevos y breviarios de la dicha iglesia de Sevilla, hasta tanto que venga el breviario y misal de que se hace mención en el libro de el santo concilio tridentino. Y que el dicho oficio divino se haga según y como por nos está dispuesto y mandado en las sinodales que en el sínodo principal pasado se ordenaron.32 Pérez, González and Aguirre, 2004: 8

The Toledan manuscript begins with two fragments of New Testament readings which correspond to those established by the Missale Romanum—according to the Vulgata version—for the first Advent Sunday; regarding the Epistle of Saint Peter to the Romans, chapter XIII, verses 11 through 14, Fratres scientes quia hora est iam nos de somno surgere. Then follows Chapter XXI of the Gospel of Saint Luke, verses 25 through 33, which is the fragment that we will examine in this study. The subject matter of the Pauline text concerns the proximity of the “Day of Salvation” and the need to be properly prepared, setting aside “the doings of darkness”. We must note that the Missal does not consider the final part of verse 14, regarding the desires of the flesh. For its part, this segment of the Gospel of Saint Luke deals with the subject of the Parusía 31 32

http://ec.aciprensa.com/wiki/Breviario. And in order to reach this conformity, sancto approbante concilio, we order and command that all churches comply to this our own, and sing in the Choir and perform the Divine Office and the daily services, in compliance with the new Missals and the breviaries of the said Church of Seville, until such a time when the Breviary and the Missal mentioned in the book of the Holy Tridentine Council, arrive. And that the said Divine Office be made accordingly and in the way in which it has been determined by us and commanded by the Synod assemblies which have been ordered in the last main Synod.

18

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

or the Second Coming of our Saviour, also associated with the end of times, and the portents that will precede it. The passage of the Gospel of Saint Luke, chosen by the Missale Romanum for the first Advent Sunday, and which corresponds to the versions of our manuscripts, is organized in four parts, the first of which (v. 25–26) is related to the portents that will be seen as signs preluding the coming of the Son of Man (Adventus Filii Hominis): in the sun, the moon and the stars, on the land, in the sea, and the anguish that all of this will bring on men (arescentibus hominibus prae timore, et exspectatione …); the second (v. 27–28) is the coming of the Son of Man in the midst of his Glory, announcing the approaching “Redemption” (apropinquat redemptio vestra); the third (v. 29–31) concerns the parable of the fig tree, reinforcing the message of the signs preceding the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is drawing near (prope est regnum Dei); and finally, the fourth, (v. 32–33) is the statement that all of this will transpire soon and that it will be so (Caelum et terra transibunt: verba autem mea non transibunt). From the point of view of the Liturgical tradition, the selection of these texts seems to have its antecedent in a time far before the sixteenth century, into ancient times, as well as the pertinence of the Pauline letters within the cycle of Advent and Christmas.33 In fact, nowadays, the first Advent Sunday in Liturgical Cycle C observes the reading from the Bible of chapter XXI of the Gospel of Saint Luke, verses 25–28 and 34–36.34

33

34

“[…]la tabla de lecturas de la Biblia[, en] sus rasgos esenciales, se remonta a una antigüedad muy venerable: Adviento: Isaías y las epístolas de San Pablo; Navidad, Epifanía: San Pablo, siguiendo este antiquísimo orden: Epístolas a los Romanos, Corintios, Gálatas, Efesios, Filipenses, Colosenses, Tesalonicenses, Timoteo, Tito, Filemón, Hebreos …” (Chico 2006). ([…]the arrangement of the readings from the Bible [, in] their main features, goes far back to a most venerable ancient time: Advent: Isaiah and the Epistles of Saint Paul. Christmas, Epiphany: Saint Paul, following this very ancient sequence: The Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Collossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews.) http://es.catholic.net/op/articulos/48986/ciclo‑c.html.

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

3

19

Intertextuality in the Sermonario and the Evangeliario

3.1 An Assessment Methodologically speaking, the process of assessing texts that are related either in filiation, topic or contents allows for a random comparison, that is to say contrasting textual parameters without following a particular order or design. The goal of the assessment is to identify the web of intertextual relations between texts that are perceived as similar. It is relevant to define the term “intertextuality” and the scope in which this concept is used.35 Interrelation and interdependency are fundamentals comprised in the concept of intertextuality; firstly, they refer to textual material and, subsequently, to performative material. Therefore, the goal is to relate two different texts with entirely distinct purposes but establishing a connection that originates from a context of liturgical preaching. Consequently, the Evangeliario and the Sermonario are in fact materials that interact on the two above-mentioned levels, even though serving different purposes. The Evangeliario furnishes the Sermonario which, at the same time, appears as one of the former’s destinations. At the performative level, the producer, the writer, the orator of the texts, is linked to both texts. The preference for the same passage of the Gospel of Saint Luke in both the Sermonario and the Evangeliario brings us closer to the understanding of certain textual and discursive features from a comparative standpoint. As a result, it will be possible to show the way in which the textual sequences of the Epistles have been introduced into other forms of discursiveness represented by the sermons. The passages from Chapter 21 of Saint Luke correspond to verses 25–28 and 34–36 of the 38 verses that compose the aforementioned chapter and which are located in page 7r and 7v of the Evangeliario de Toledo. The verses translated from Latin into Nahuatl making reference to the Parusía, the Second Coming of Christ in the context of Judgement Day, contain an apocalyptic view referring to cosmological signs and the disorder of the natural elements, such as the atypical motion of the sea. These events will bring fear to the people, whose salvation will begin with the descent of Christ from

35

The concept of intertextuality was coined by Julia Kristeva and its first appearance occurs in the article entitled “Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le roman”, in 1967. The basic idea is that texts are not in reality original entities, but are built from other texts instead; such a process establishes author/speaker, reader/listener through the medium of citations, topics, references, and so on. For a detailed review of the history, meanings, usages and referents of this concept, in several schools of theory, Cf. Allen (2000).

20

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

among the clouds. In the aforementioned verses, a reference to the famous parables of the fig tree is made, and which, in the Nahuatl translation, was recorded as a xochiqualquahuitl fruit tree without any more specifications as to its type. In the same way, a biological metaphor (through the use of a simile) has been included comparing the blossoming of the trees, as proof, stemming from nature, of the changes that take place from one season to the next, and together with the cosmological signs, constitute the natural and logical announcement of the Coming of Christ. The sermon where Sahagún takes up once again the aforementioned verses from chapter 21 of the Gospel of Saint Luke is the one mentioned during the first Advent Sunday, about the Coming of Christ and signalling the beginning of the liturgical year. It is pertinent to recall that the readings comprised in the Evangeliario are not used as they are arranged or in a verbatim fashion in preaching, but rather constitute the basis for the composition of sermons, in compliance with the sequence prearranged by liturgy, in such a way that both texts are addressed to a different set of audiences and perform different functions: the first one acts as an aid to the material used in preaching, and the second serves as resource for the benefit of actual preaching, of preaching in action. In the construction and composition of sermons, it is necessary to identify the framework of references which refers to other texts; this perspective is more productive than simply putting forward or identifying the ecclesiastical sources or their influences, since this fact implies a static view and does not allow to consider intertextuality as a means to activate the historical and social contexts of sermon production. It is therefore possible to perceive the movement from a formulaic discursive form attached to biblical and evangelical contents, to another form with a much freer narrative and discursive space, although still requiring a fixed structure. The fact of just trying to have a better understanding of the way in which the verses were inserted in the Epistles of the Nahuatl version of the Gospels, either as a quotation, as a paraphrase, or even as looser version, refers us to the question of intertextuality, more specifically to narrative intertextuality which implies both continuity and discontinuity at the same time (Moyise 2002: 422). The method of inclusion of the verses does not represent a word-by-word reproduction, since fragments of another sort of narrative sequencing have been intertwined; also, certain sequences that were deemed suitable have been excluded. The way in which the fragments have been inserted into the text takes the form of a quotation, or may have also been inserted at different parts of the sermon. Thus, the cited portion is thereby recontextualized, and the story contained in the epistle assumes a new shape. Thus, the continuities refer to the

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

21

segments that are being quoted verbatim, and the ones left out of the verse or verses are considered discontinuities. The following extracts include sequences that have been removed from the Sermonario but that appear in the Evangeliario: in huey atl aocmo tlacamaniz aocmo yviyan maniz ‘The sea shall not storm any longer, it shall no longer remain calm.’ ca in angeloti hualtemozque achi ihuqui momahutizque36 ‘The Angels shall descend from above, as if troubled’ in ye in opehu mochivai xacotlachiacan ximimatinenca, ximozcalia, ca yequene yz huitz in amomaquixtiloca ‘When it begins to happen, look up, be advised, be sensible. In the end, your Salvation shall come (from) there.’ yvan quimolhuilli. centlamantli machiyotl. Itech ximixcuitica in xochiqualquahuitl yn iquac ye itzmolini e xotla ic anquimati ca ic onpehua in xopaniztli ahu quihualtoquiliz in tonalco çan no yhuqui yn iquac anquitazque yn ye mochiva ican quimatizque ca ye anquitazque in itlatocayotzin dios. ‘And I shall tell you an example, take the example of the fruit tree when it blossoms, when it flourishes, by this it is known that spring begins and then follows summer (the dry season). And thus, you yourselves will also see that what is known comes to pass, then you shall see the Kingdom of God.’ ça nelli namechilhuia achtopa ixquich mochiuaz in ayamo tlami cemanavac In tlanel polihuiz yn ilhuicac 36

In spite of the fact that it is not possible to establish a homogeneous orthographic guideline for the documents of the sixteenth century, we can observe in the Evangeliario, that the convention to write the phoneme /w/ does not follow the pattern to write ⟨uh⟩ in the contexts at end of the words and before a consonant, instead ⟨hu⟩ is preferred.

22

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

yn tlalticpac in notlatoltzin, ayc cencamatl polihuiz aic cencamatl nenquiça ‘In truth, I tell you that, firstly, everything will come to pass, a time when the world has not yet come to an end even though the sky, the earth might vanish, (of) what I say not a single word shall fade, not one word shall ever be lost.’ 3.2 Textual Features As noted previously, Sahagún does not copy nor does he include the full version of the Evangeliario in Nahuatl; he selects some topics, transferring them to the first Advent sermon, excluding a few which could be ambiguous or present problems of interpretation. It is clear that he is thinking about his audience when he is composing his sermons as he highlights events or images that are the most memorable to the natives or which could make a greater impression, since the sermons are specifically addressed to natives. The sermons are of an ad hoc manufacture, and constitute original texts of sacred oratory wherein the inclusion of the references to the Epistles comprised in the Evangeliario may be traced. Consequently, it cannot be said that they are no more than translations of other sermons written in Latin or in Spanish, but rather texts written in Nahuatl, drawn up ex profeso ‘professionally’ for the benefit of the natives’ evangelization. However, the Sermonarios refer to a fixed structure, which reflects the five canons of Classical rhetorics: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. In relation to the first canon, the arrangement of the classical or traditional sermons consists of specific sections: … after starting with a brief exordium which introduces or declares the words of the Gospel of the day or a passage from the Bible and concludes with a salutation (Hail Mary), the narration of the sermon is immediately introduced, always beginning with a thema, generally a verse from the Holy Scriptures, which is later divided—and many times subdivided— into several points that are gradually developed, or questions that are gradually proved by means of authorities, reasoning, examples. The last part usually consists of a confirmation, an assessment or recapitulation of what has been said in the sermon, finally concluding by invoking God or The Virgin Mary and a peroration (exhortation and parting of the audience). Castaño Navarro 2008: 201

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

23

The reverse route could also be followed in considering aspects which Sahagún himself includes in the segment of the first sermon, for instance, referring to Judgement Day several times, although it does not appear in the verses of Saint Luke 21 in the Evangeliario. The topic of Judgement Day pertains to Saint Matthew chapter 24, as is indicated by the comment that Sahagún writes along the margins of his Sermonario. Incidentally, it is probable that Sahagún may not have been thoroughly systematic in his directions in regard to the Epistles or in the inclusion and limits of the verses. The reasons may very well lie in the particular structure of the sermons, which include forms based on native stylistics, as well as formulary narrative and colloquial sequencing, from which the biblical quotation is not graphically separated, but instead, blends in and expands, in order to comprise and attach other related images and concepts. Another factor for the lack of consistency in referring directly to the Gospels was the censorship to translate these texts into native languages.37 3.2.1 Differential Composition The verses in the Evangeliario have been integrated without much care for numbering, whereas in the Sermonario, a narrative has been constructed integrating the verses, without any delimitations, as with the selection and removal of a number of themes, for instance, the fruit tree parable, in a way that both the Sermonario and the Evangeliario express similar conceptualizations and similar discursive sequences, but have not been carried out in the same way. In other words, in spite of the almost exact syntactical selection in some of the passages of the texts, there are points that have been constructed in an alternative or differential way; for instance, two expressions in the instrumental case have been used in the Evangeliario: netoliniliztica (ne-tolini-liz-tica, REC-misery NOM- INST)—and nemauhtiliztica (ne-mauhti-liz-tica REC-fright-NOM-INST)38 ‘miserably’ and ‘frightfully’. These two words describe the way in which “men on earth will be left fleshless”, whereas in the Sermonario, men will be afraid of izqui tlamantli tetzahuitl39 ‘so many scary things’ and one of them is being fleshless: 37 38 39

Texts in the Evangeliario were translated into Nahuatl from Latin, while those in the Sermonary were written directly in Nahuatl. REC-reciprocal, NOM-nominalizer, INST-instrumental. The scope in meaning of the word tetzahuitl is wide and varied. In the Aztec mind, the word indicated the idea of something portentous, meaningful, out of the ordinary, and not necessarily evil. This word was quickly resemantisized so as to include the substantive form, the quality of something bad, terrible, frightful, as is evident by Molinas’ meaning of the word in his Vocabulario: ‘scandalous deed or frightful or a thing of omen’ (Molina 2001: f. 111r, second part). For a better understanding of this concept, see Pastrana (2014).

24

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

Evangeliario: in tlalticpac tlaca netoliniliztica nemahutiliztica quahuaquizque ipampa in ixquich temamahuti nohuian cemanavac tepan mochivaz. ‘Men on earth, through misery (miserably), with fear, will be fleshless (will dry up) because of all the dreadful things that will happen to people everywhere.’ Sermonario: ic cenca momautizque in tlalticpac tlaca: yvan ipampa in izqui tlamantli tetzavitl yn novuyan cemanavac mochivaz quauvaquizque in tlalticpac tlaca [término tachado] ‘This is why men will fear much on earth, because so many dreadful things shall come to pass everywhere in the world, men on earth shall be left fleshless.’ The second example is the way in which Jesus Christ is referred to in the Nahuatl language. While in the Evangeliario the name used is ‘Our Lord’ (in toteucio), in the Sermonario it is ‘the Son of the Virgin’ (in ichpuchtli iconetzin), a very common neologism: Evangeliario: in tlalticpac tlaca quimotilizque in toteucio inic valmohuicaz mixtitlan moquixtiquihu, huel hualneztiaz ynic huei, inic mahuiztic. ‘Men on earth shall see how Our Lord will descend from among the clouds, He will emerge, He will come to be shown in all Greatness, with Majesty.’ Sermonario: Iquac quimottilizque in tlalticpac tlaca in ichpuchtli iconetzin inic ualmouicaz mixtitlan moquixtiquiuh: vel valneztiaz inic uey inic mauiztic. ‘And then men shall see the Son of the Virgin Who will descend thus and will come to appear from among the clouds, He will appear thus with great Majesty.’ The said neologism is repeated in another subsequent part of the text, and its textual sequence is the same:

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

25

Auh in tlalticpac tlaca niman iquac qujmottilizque in ichpochtli yn yconetzi inic valmouicaz mixtitlan moquixtiquiuh: vel vualneztiaz inic vei ipan inic mauiztic. ‘Finally, in the Evangeliario the appearance (verb ‘neci’) of the sun, the moon and the stars is a sign, whereas in the Sermonario it is shown as an event and a dreadful, a frightful tetzauhmachiyotl40 sign or signal; the verb used in this case is chihua (to happen, to come to pass, to pass).’ Evangeliario: In iquac ye ontlamiz cemanavac itech neciz machiyotl yn tonatihu in meztli in cicitlalti[n]: in tlalticpac huei netoliniliztli mochiuaz ‘When the world is about to end, next to you the signs of the sun, the moon and the stars will appear, there will be much suffering on earth.’ Sermonario: in iquac tlamiz cemanavac: qujnmolhuili. Yn Tonatiuh yvan yn metztli, in cicitlalti, tetzauhmachiyotl intech mochivaz: auh in tlalticpac vej netoliniliztli mochivaz. ‘When the world ends, He told them, dreadful signs in the sun and the moon will appear, and there will be enormous suffering on earth.’ In addition, the order in which the thematic sequences appear in the Evangeliario and in the Sermonario is not the same. For instance, the Evangeliario begins with the signs: the sun, the moon and the stars, and in the Sermonario this same sequence appears after the first mention of the descent of Our Lord Christ from among the clouds. Even if these elements do not display great lexical or syntactic diversity, they are evidence of the recompositioning and importance that Sahagún attaches to the structure of his sermons. 3.2.2 Loanwords and Neologisms Loanwords are expressions that are not native but have been inserted in the target language in order to designate one of its concepts. In the Nahuatl evangelization, loanwords played an important part by designating obscure, ambigu-

40

Tetzauhmachiyotl is a compound form of tetzahuitl (vid. previous note) and machiyotl ‘example, model, sign, mark’.

26

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

ous concepts or if a given translation was not sufficiently able to transmit the desired meaning. Some loanwords from Spanish to Nahuatl recur in several works of evangelization, and some of them are more frequently used, as has been shown by Máynez (1998). In both fragments from the Evangeliario and the Sermonario, the aforementioned forms are present, although the number is relative and in no way indicative of a greater or lesser presence of loanwords in the respective materials. In the Evangeliario only one appears, angeloti, whereas in the Sermonario we have two forms, sancto evangelio and missa. The use of neologisms was also quickly introduced from the very first stages of the Spanish-native contact so as to designate new realities, in this case, the catholic context. The number of neologisms appearing in the Sermonario is greater, however, and our considerations concerning this are similar to the number of loanwords calculated. 3.2.2 Parallelism41 In simple terms, the concept of parallelism refers to the reiteration of a linguistic structure42 in a subsequent point in the text, in such a way, that both sequences are aligned (Montes de Oca 2013: 202). Frequently, types of parallelism are not distinguished one from the other, and are dealt with without distinction; nevertheless, parallelism appears at the various levels of language (phonological, morphological, semantic and syntactical). Lexical parallelism is employed as a discursive expression and is the base-structure for difrasismos,43 instances of semantic parallelisms, are also present in the texts and which are initially more difficult to identify because they consist of a repetition of meaning that has been constructed through the use of alternate syntactical resources. The difrasismos that appear in the Evangeliario are the following: aocmo tlacamaniz aocmo yviyan maniz

41

42

43

‘no more (will be) tempests’ ‘will no longer be calm’

Parallelism is not a prerogative of Nahua evangelization materials; there is a long tradition of study regarding parallelism in Biblical texts and the process of their translation. See Kugel (1989), Berlin (1985) and Alter (1985). A conceptual repetition does not necessarily have to be represented in the structure, since a semantic parallelism manages a reiteration of meaning that is not necessarily comparable with a lexical-grammatical repetition. Difrasismo can be defined as a semantic couplet composed by terms that when juxtaposed construe a complex meaning which sometimes is far from the individual sense of the composing terms. These linguistic structures are employed instead of the more commonplace words in certain types of discursive contexts.

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

netoliniliztica nemahutiliztica

‘through misery (miserably)’ ‘with fear’

ynic huei inic mahuiztic

‘so big’ ‘so majestic’

ye itzmolini ye xotla

‘it is ripening’ ‘it is flourishing’

yn ilhuicac yn tlalticpac

‘in the sky’ ‘on earth’

27

ayc cencamatl polihuiz ‘not one word shall disappear’ aic cencamatl nenquiça ‘not one word will be lost’ Whereas in the Sermonario they are: temamauhti teiçauj

‘frightens the people’ ‘terrorizes people’

inic uey inic mauiztic

‘that big’ ‘so majestic’

It must be noted that lexical parallelism is a process that is more frequently found in the Evangeliario than in the Sermonario. 3.2.3 Discursive and Pragmatic Features In both texts, the translator of the Evangeliario (presumably Sahagún) establishes a relationship with his audience, which is made up of the readers of the Gospels and the priests who use the material in their day to day preaching, or who use it to compose their own evangelization works. Also, the author of the Sermonario, who is undoubtedly Friar Bernardino de Sahagún, establishes a clear and direct relationship to his main target audience, the natives, who represent the ideal audience for his sermons. In this sense, Bustamante, when commenting on the model Sahagún uses in his preaching, says that: “He offers at the same time and with the highest degree of authority, a model, and a tool for preaching.” But of a particular kind of preaching, as he understood it, based on “the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or with the authority of the Holy Mother Church, and delivered with a plain and clear style, well measured and proportionate to the ability of the listeners” (Bustamante, 1992: 269). The afore-

28

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

mentioned model is due to the influence and context of Sahagún’s instruction, which has already been referred to in section 1. The type of allocution is another discursive feature that displays differences in both texts: in the Sermonario it is straightforward, as we can see by the use of the vocative and the imperative, which make the presence of an audience/listener evident through the active presence of the interlocutors: notlaçopilhuane ‘Oh my dear children!’ Inin teotlatolli inic vel a[n]quimelauacacaquizq[ue], notlaçopilhuane ‘This Holy Word you must understand in this way, my dear children!’ xicmocaquitican ‘pay heed to it!’ In the Evangeliario, indirect speech in discourse refers to time past “in illo tempore” ‘in that time’ and “in iquac tlalticpac monemitiaya toteucio Jesucristo” ‘when Our Lord dwelled on earth’. Reported speech makes clear the preeminence of the audience / reader. So we can point out segments like: quinmolhuili in tlamachtilhuan ‘He told his disciples’ yvan quimolhuilli centlamantli machiyotl ‘and He gave them an example’ Interpretation is a constant production of meaning limited by both the author’s written proposal and the probabilities of reading which the reader-audience undertakes. As a consequence, through the Sermonario, the reader has access to the sermons’ teachings and to the substance of the translation of the texts of the Gospels or of the Holy Scriptures in the various textualities and expressive qualities of the language: Nahuatl, Latin and Spanish.

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

29

Saint Luke Chapter 21 is a text with apocalyptic views, and the image which is being focalized is that of Our Lord Christ descending from the clouds. The reference made to this event has been repeated twice in order to construct, ostensibly, an image which will be highlighted.44 This pragmatic strategy is known as intensification45 through repetition. In tlalticpac tlaca quimotilizque in toteucio inic valmohuicaz mixtitlan moquixtiquihu, huelhualneztiaz ynic huei, inic mahuiztic In tlalticpac tlaca quimotilizque in toteucio inic valmohuicaz mixtitlan moquixtiquihu, huelhualneztiaz ynic huei, inic mahuiztic. ‘Men on earth shall see our Lord who will descend thus and will come to appear from among the clouds, He will appear thus with great Majesty.’ In the same way, the strategy of pragmatic attenuation is carried out by compensating frightening events with the promise of the eternal presence of God, reflected in the final sentence, which speaks of the possibility of everything disappearing except the Word of the Lord: “Even though the skies may disappear, the earth, of what I have spoken not a single Word shall ever be lost”. The use of attenuation is understandable if one thinks that the establishment of Catholicism among the natives confronted many obstacles, and this is also the reason why the friars sought not to be too intimidating when introducing the new religion to the Indians.

4

Conclusions

As we have seen in our brief philological analysis, it is essential to carry out an extensive bibliographic and archival research in order to set up a precise relationship and a comprehensive collection of the doctrinal texts composed for the evangelization of indigenous people.

44 45

One of the important functions of repetition is to promote an emotional participation of the listener (Cf. Pezzini 2008: 91). Attenuation and intensification are pragmatic operations, related to what has been said as well as to speech itself, with the speakers’ attitude and, in particular, with those (minimizing or enhancing) actions, which are to be understood as optimal so as to successfully reach the anticipated goal (strategic actions, therefore). The attenuants and intensifiers are the tactics, methods, or procedures utilized to achieve the said operations (Briz 2015).

30

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

The bibliographic catalogs of colonial authors represent, undoubtedly, an invaluable guide for the follow-up and codicological characterization of the works. However, some references, sometimes, do not correspond exactly with the volumes that have been located. This fact causes uncertainty to determine their exact identification even more if we consider the prolonged ignorance of the whereabouts of certain texts, as is the case with the one which was treated in this article. The problem is further aggravated due to the fact that the bibliography of Fray Bernardino de Sahagún is so complex because of the numerous versions and diversity of titles of each of his works, due to the perfectionist zeal that characterized his behavior. Nonetheless, the author himself offers us important clues for the identification and conditions that surrounded the elaboration of his manuscripts. Sahagún systematically informs us about this, so any kind of attribution must be established according to the indications that are included in the different manuscripts that make up the Historia General and in the doctrinal opuscules that have reached us. In this study we have concretely established the intertextual relationships— conceived of as the entire bulk of linguistic and discursive indicators—that refer in this specific case to the Ayer manuscript of the Sermonario and the Toledan Evangeliario. We have selected a passage of Luke 21 in the Evangeliario to analyse the most frequently used rhetorical strategies, such as parallelism, neologisms and difrasismos, and we have also singled out some syntactical sequences, all of this in order to look into the way in which Sahagún used this same passage in the Sermonario when composing one of his sermons. This textual perspective enabled us to do a fine-grained analysis of the same discursive traits in order to better understand the interrelation of two types of doctrinal works.

References Primary Sources Asís, San Francisco de. Regla franciscana de los hermanos menores. www.fratefrancesco .org/escr/146.reglas1.htm (accessed 3 February 2017). Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos. 2015. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam, translated by Alberto Colunga and Laurentio Turrado. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos. Breviarium romanum, ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum. 1568. Lyon: Gaspard de Portonariis. Martínez López-Cano, Pilar, ed. 2004. Concilios provinciales mexicanos: época colonial. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. (Compact Disc)

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

31

Mendieta, Gerónimo de. 1993. Historia Eclesiástica Indiana. México: Porrúa (completed in 1596, first published in 1870). Molina, Alonso de. [1555–1571] 2001. Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. México: Porrúa. Missale Romanum, ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum … 1585. Antuerpiæ: Ex officina Christophori Plantini. Sahagún, Bernardino de. Sermonario en lengua mexicana, Ms. 1485 Ayer Collection, Newberry Library in Chicago. Sahagún, Bernardino de. Sermonario en lengua mexicana, Ms. 1482 Fondo Reservado de la Biblioteca Nacional de México. Sahagún, Bernardino de. 1858. Evangeliarium, Epistolarium et Lectionarium, Aztecum sive Mexicanum ex antiquo códice Mexicano, ed. Bernardino Biondelli. https://archiv e.org/details/evangeliariumepi00cath (accessed 30 January 2019) Sahagún, Bernardino de. Epistolae et Evangelia in linguam mexicana. BCT, 35–22 Archivo y Biblioteca Capitulares de Toledo. Sahagún, Bernardino de. Incipiu[n]t Ep[isto]le et Eva[n]gelia que in diebus dominicis et festivis per toti[us] anni circulu[m] legu[n]t[ur]. Traducta i[n] lingua[m] mexicana[m] https://www.wdl.org/es/item/15015/ (accessed 30 January 2019) Sahagún, Bernardino de. 1986. Coloquios y Doctrina Cristiana con que los doce frailes de San Francisco, enviados por el Papa Adriano VI y por el emperador Carlos V convirtieron a los indios de la Nueva España, edición facsimilar del manuscrito original. Paleografía, versión del náhuatl, estudio y notas de Miguel León-Portilla. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México y Fundación de Investigaciones Sociales. (First edition 1927) Sahagún, Bernardino de. 2000. Historia general de las cosas de Nueva España, versión íntegra del texto castellano del manuscrito conocido como Códice florentino, estudio introductorio, paleografía, glosario y notas de Alfredo López Austin y Josefina García. Volume 1. México: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. (First edition 1829–1830).

Secondary Sources Allen, Graham. 2000. Intertextuality. London; New York: Routledge. Alter, Robert. 1985. The art of Biblical poetry. New York: Basic Books. Anderson, Arthur J.O. 1990. “La enciclopedia doctrinal de Sahagún.” In Bernardino de Sahagún. Diez estudios acerca de su obra, edited by Ascensión Hernández de LeónPortilla, 164–179. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Berlin, Adele. 1985. The dynamics of Biblical parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bernal, Ignacio. 1983. “Dos cartas inéditas de Paso y Troncoso.”Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 16: 265–325. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

32

máynez, montes de oca and pérez luna

Briz, Antonio. 2015. “Las diferentes caras de la estrategia pragmática intensificadora en la conversación coloquial.” Paper delivered at the XX Congreso de la Asociación Alemana de Hispanistas, Universität Heidelberg (without page numbers). Bustamante, Jesús. 1990. Fray Bernardino de Sahagún: una revisión crítica de los manuscritos y su proceso de composición. México: IIB, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Bustamante, Jesús. 1992. “Retórica, traducción y responsabilidad histórica: claves humanísticas en la obra de Bernardino de Sahagún.” In Humanismo y visión del otro la España Moderna: cuatro estudios, edited by Berta Ares et al., 245–378. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Canger, Una. 2011. “The origin of orthographic hu for /w/ in Nahuatl.” Ancient Mesoamerica 22: 27–35. Castaño Navarro, Ana. 2008. “Sermón y literatura: la imagen del predicador en algunos sermones de la Nueva España.” Acta Poética 29 (2): 191–212. Catecismo de la iglesia católica http://www.vicariadepastoral.org.mx/1_catecismo_igle sia_catolica/catecismo_iglesia_catolica.pdf (accessed 30 January 2019) Catholic.net. http://es.catholic.net (accessed 30 January 2019) Chavero, Alfredo. 1882. “Apuntes sobre bibliografía mexicana. Sahagún.” Boletín de la Sociedad de Geografía y Estadística de la República Mexicana, third ep., 6: 5–42. Chico, Pedro. 2006. Diccionario de catequesis y pedagogía religiosa. Lima: Editorial Bruño. Enciclopedia católica online http://ec.aciprensa.com/wiki/Breviario (accessed 30 January 2019) García Icazbalceta, Joaquín. 1954. Biblioteca mexicana del siglo XVI. Catálogo razonado de los libros impresos en México de 1539 a 1600 con biografías y otras ilustraciones. Edited by Agustín Millares Carlo, second edition. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. (First edition 1886). Gonzalbo Aizpuru, Pilar. 2002. “Facetas de la educación humanista de los novohispanos en el siglo XVII.” In Historia de la literatura mexicana 2: la cultura letrada en la Nueva España del siglo XVII, edited by Raquel Chang-Rodríguez, 27–46. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México/Siglo Veintiuno Editores. Instrucción General del Misal Romano http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregatio ns/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento‑messale_sp.html #Capítulo_I (accessed 30 January 2019) Kristeva, Julia. 1967. “Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le roman.” Critique 239: 440–441. Kugel, James. 1989. The idea of Biblical poetry: Parallelism and its history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. León-Portilla, Miguel. 1999. Bernardino de Sahagún: pionero de la antropología. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; El Colegio Nacional. León-Portilla, Miguel. 2014. “Aportaciones en las últimas décadas sobre Sahagún y

“the beginning of times” in two texts of preachment

33

su obra y lo que falta por hacer.” In El universo de Sahagún: pasado y presente, 2011, edited by Pilar Máynez and José Rubén Romero, 13–32. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Luengo, Jesús. 2005. “El Espíritu de la Liturgia (o más sobre Acólitos).” Arte Sacro, 25 September, Sevilla. Martí, Antonio. 1972. La preceptiva retórica española en el Siglo de Oro. Madrid: Gredos. Máynez, Pilar. 1998. “Un caso de interferencia lingüística en el Confesionario Mayor de fray Alonso de Molina.” Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 28: 365–379. México: IIH, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Máynez, Pilar. 2011. “Problemas filológicos y hermenéuticos en las obras doctrinales de Sahagún.” In Lenguas en el México novohispano y decimonónico, edited by Julio Alfonso Pérez Luna, 43–56. México: El Colegio de México. Montes de Oca, Mercedes. 2013. Los difrasismos en el náhuatl de los siglos XVI y XVII. México: IIFL, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Montes de Oca, Mercedes. 2014. “El paralelismo y la construcción de escenas en un texto nahua.” In Mapas del Cielo y de la Tierra: espacio y Territorio en la palabra oral, edited by Mariana Masera, 201–226. México: IIFL, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Moyise, Steve. 2002. “Intertextuality and Biblical studies: A review.” Verbum et Eclessia 3 (2): 418–431. Parente, Pietro, Antonio Piolanti, and Salvatore Garofalo. 1955. Diccionario de teología dogmática, translated from the Italian by Francisco Navarro. Barcelona: Editorial Litúrgica Española. Pastrana, Miguel. 2014. “La idea de tetzahuitl en la historiografía novohispana. De la tradición náhuatl a la Ilustración. Comentarios preliminares.” Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 47: 237–252. México: IIH, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Pérez Puente, Leticia, Enrique González González, and Rodolfo Aguirre Salvador. 2004. “Los concilios provinciales primero y segundo.” In Concilios provinciales mexicanos. Época colonial. México: IIH, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Pezzini, Domenico. 2008. The translation of religious texts in the Middle Ages. Berlin: Peter Lang. Rojas Álvarez, Augusto. 2010. “La predicación y el nuevo orden social náhuatl: el “Sermonario en lengua mexicana” de fray Bernardino de Sahagún.” Master’s Thesis. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Sartore, D. and Achille M. Trìacca. 1987. Nuevo diccionario de liturgia. Spanish edition adapted by Juan María Canals, second edition. Madrid: Ediciones Paulinas. Téllez, Heréndira. “El Evangeliario de Toledo constituye uno de los testimonios antiguos más importantes para la fijación del léxico y de la gramática náhuatl.” Interview with Heréndira Téllez and José Miguel Baños. Madridmasd.org. 16 November 2015. http://www.madrimasd.org/notiweb/entrevistas/evangeliario‑toledo‑constitu ye‑uno‑los‑testimonios‑antiguos‑mas‑importantes (accessed 30 January 2019)

chapter 2

Reviving Words: Methodological Implications and Digital Solutions for Editing and Corpus-Building of Colonial K’iche’ Dictionaries Frauke Sachse and Michael Dürr

1

Introduction

This chapter summarises two presentations given at the ROLD meetings in 2015 and 2016. Both papers addressed issues of missionary lexicography and the methodological implications of corpus-building and editing of colonial dictionaries in the Highland Maya language K’iche’. We give an overview of the existing K’iche’ dictionaries and summarise the current state of research on this material. Based on the results of two recent research projects on K’iche’ lexicography, which include the edition of the Vocabulario en lengua 4iche otlatecas in the collection of the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin (Dürr and Sachse eds. 2017) and the development of the software tool TSACK (Tool for Systematic Annotation of Colonial K’iche’) (Sachse, Dürr and Klingler 2017), we discuss how these lexicographic sources can be used to build usable dictionaries and searchable digital corpora.

2

Colonial K’iche’ Lexicography

Highland Guatemala was one of the first regions in the Americas where missionaries employed the Amerindian languages in the process of conversion. Doctrinal texts for preaching the gospel and descriptions of the Highland Mayan languages for the missionaries were primarily produced by the friars of the Franciscan and Dominican orders. The Franciscans controlled the production of materials in the Kaqchikel area, while the Dominicans dominated the mission in the K’iche’ and Q’eqchi’-speaking Central and Eastern Highlands. The reason for this geographical division of the field of mission lies in the circumstances of the Spanish invasion. The Kaqchikel had sided with the Spanish in fighting the K’iche’ state with its capital in Utatlán, and the Spanish as a consequence established their first capital in Kaqchikel territory. The Franciscans who arrived prior to the Dominicans settled where there was already

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004427006_003

reviving words

35

a Spanish base and thus Kaqchikel, the language of the former allies, was the first Mayan language missionary linguists focused on. Labeled “lengua de Guatemala”, Kaqchikel became the lingua franca of conversion and the matrix language for description, while K’iche’, now referred to as the “lengua utlateca”, lost its status as the dominant language of Highland Guatemala. The first dictionaries that were produced in the sixteenth century were bilingual Kaqchikel vocabularies that were all compiled by Franciscan authors (see Smailus 1989: 12ff., Niederehe 2004; Hernández 2009). There is no evidence for the compilation of K’iche’ dictionaries before the seventeenth century. K’iche’ lexicography cannot be separated from the lexicography of its sister language Kaqchikel, as most K’iche’ dictionaries were based in some shape or form on earlier Kaqchikel sources (see Sachse 2009). However, the synoptic and intertextual relations of K’iche’ missionary dictionaries with other lexicographic and doctrinal text sources require more research. Table 2.1 provides an overview of the missionary dictionaries that have been preserved for K’iche’. This list excludes short vocabularies from the late eighteenth and nineteenth century that are archived in the Archivo General de Indias or at the Tozzer Library at Harvard University, as well as all the photostatic copies that were produced primarily by William Gates in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and are today found in a number of different collections, including the Newberry Library in Chicago, the Meso-American Research Institute at Tulane University, or the Harold B. Lee Library at Brigham Young University. Based on the matrix language we can distinguish four different types of lexicographic sources for colonial K’iche’: bilingual dictionaries with a SpanishK’iche’ matrix, bilingual dictionaries with a K’iche’-Spanish matrix, as well as tri- and quadrilingual Kaqchikel dictionaries that also include K’iche’ and Tz’utujil entries. The earliest bilingual dictionary for K’iche’ is the Vocabulario quiché by the Dominican Domingo de Basseta from 1698, which survives in a full copy at the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BNF) and as a partial draft in the hand of Basseta as part of a compendium of doctrinal texts in the Tozzer Library at Harvard University. Basseta’s dictionary is primarily a Spanish-K’iche’ dictionary, but also includes a section with K’iche’ entries that was specifically compiled by Basseta and does not only include the resorted translations of the Spanish entries. The other substantial bilingual Spanish-K’iche’ source is the Anonymous Franciscan Dictionary of which four different manuscript copies have been preserved: a complete copy titled Vocabulario de la lengua kiche by Fermín Tirado (1787) at the Tozzer Library, as well as partial copies in Princeton (GGMA ms. 161) and in the BNF (Coleccion Angrand ms. 9 and Manuscrits Amér-

36 table 2.1

Year

sachse and dürr Colonial missionary dictionaries in K’iche’1

Author

Title

Folios

Place/Ms.

Bilingual vocabularies Spanish—K’iche’ 1698 n.d.

Basseta, Domingo Basseta, Domingo

1726 1745

Calvo, Thomas Barrera, Francisco

18th c.

Anonymous

1787 18th c.

Anonymous (Tirado) Anonymous

18th c.

Anonymous

19th c.

Anonymous

Vocabulario quiché (fols. 1r–160v) Vocabulario de la lengua quiché y castellana Bocabulario de la lengua quiché Abecedario en la lengua que dize qiche Vocabulario de la lengua castellana y quiché Vocabulario de lengua kiche

248 fols. BNF-MA 59 78 fols. TOZ-C.A.6C73 14 fols. PUL-GGMA 163a 134 fols. PUL-GGMA 160 100 fols. BNF-MA 64 218 fols. TOZ-C.A.6V85

Bocabulario en lengua Quiche 206 fols. PUL-GGMA 161 y Castellana (A-M) Vocabulario en lengua Kiché 139 fols. BNF-ANG 9 y castellana Nombres de pájaros en lengua quiche 16 fols. BNF-MA 12

Bilingual vocabularies K’iche’—Spanish 1698 18th c.

Basseta, Domingo Anonymous

Vocabulario quiché (fols. 161r–239r) 248 fols. BNF-MA 59 Vocabulario en lengua 4iche otlatecas 167 fols. IAI-Y-2997

Trilingual vocabularies Kaqchikel—Spanish—K’iche’ 17th c.

Anonymous

18th c.

Anonymous

Vocabulario de la lengua cakchiquel, 286 fols. BNF-MA 46 con advertencia de … quiche y tzutohil Vocabulario copioso de las lenguas 706 pp. JCBL-b5705183 cakchikel y 4iche / Bocabulario en lengua Cakchi4el y 4iche otlatecas

1 The titles in this table preserve the original colonial spellings, which include special characters that were introduced to represent glottalized phonemes for which the Spanish alphabet had no graphemic conventions: ⟨4⟩ and ⟨q⟩ for /k’/, ⟨ɛ⟩ for /q’/, and ⟨4,⟩ for /ʦ’/ (see section 4).

37

reviving words Table 2.1

Colonial missionary dictionaries in K’iche’ (cont.)

Year

Author

Title

Folios

Place/Ms.

19th c.

Anonymous

Vocabulario de las lenguas quiche y kakchiquel (lettres A, B, C, K, T)

76 fols.

BNF-MA 65

Quadrilingual vocabularies Kaqchikel—Spanish—K’iche’—Tz’utujil 1704–1714 Ximénez, Francisco Primera parte de el Tesoro de las 211 pp. BANC-M-M 445 lenguas ɛaɛchiquel, Quiche y 4,utuhil 1704–1714 Ximénez, Francisco Primera parte de el Tesoro de las 152 fols. BPC-FA 129 lenguas ɛaɛchiquel, Quiche y 4,utuhil Abbreviations: BANC = Bancroft Library, Berkeley University; BNF = Bibliothèque nationale de France (MA = Manuscrits Américaines; ANG = Colección Angrand); BPC = Biblioteca Provincial de Córdoba (FA = Fondo Antiguo); JCBL = John Carter Brown Library; IAI = Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut, Berlin; PUL = Princeton University Library (GGMA = Garrett-Gates-Collection of Mesoamerican Manuscripts); TOZ = Tozzer Library, Harvard.

icains ms. 12) (see Sachse 2009). Other Spanish-K’iche’ dictionaries include two manuscripts at the collection in Princeton—a short vocabulary by Thomas Calvo (1726) and Barrera’s Abecedario de la lengua … quiché (1745)—as well as the anonymous Vocabulario de la lengua castellana y quiché at the BNF (ms. 64). Besides the second half of Basseta’s dictionary, the only bilingual K’iche’ vocabulary that is sorted along K’iche’ entries is the Vocabulario en lengua 4iche otlatecas in the collection of the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin. Besides these bilingual dictionaries, there are two multilingual sources for the closely-related sister language Kaqchikel that employ Kaqchikel as the matrix language and list K’iche’ and Tz’utujil forms only comparatively. The first of these is a trilingual dictionary (Kaqchikel-Spanish-K’iche’) that has been erroneously attributed to Domingo the Vico (Carmack 1973: 113–116; Hernández 2008; Smith-Stark 2009: 24). We have identified three copies of this dictionary, two in the BNF (Manuscrits Américains ms. 46 and 65) and one in the John Carter Brown Library labeled Vocabulario copioso de las lenguas cakchikel y 4iche. The text genesis and synoptic relationships of this dictionary with other lexicographic sources will be discussed further below. The second multilingual dictionary is the Tesoro de las lenguas ɛaɛchiquel, Quiche y 4,utuhil by Francisco Ximénez, of which two copies survive, one in the Bancroft Library at Berkeley University and the other, in the hand of Ximénez, at the Biblioteca Provincial in Córdoba.

38

sachse and dürr

Colonial K’iche’ dictionary sources and their lexicography have not received much scholarly attention and with the exception of Basseta (Acuña 2005) and Ximénez (Sáenz de Santa María 1985) and lexical data from Tirado’s copy of the Anonymous Franciscan Dictionary that entered into Edmonson’s QuicheEnglish Dictionary (Edmonson 1965), all of the mentioned sources are unedited and unpublished. Since 2007, Frauke Sachse has produced machine-readable copies of all vocabularies in the Garrett-Gates Collection at the Princeton University Library and in the Special Collections of Tozzer Library at Harvard University, as well as a full transcription of the original Basseta dictionary. The materials were recorded with the long-term aim to build a comprehensive dictionary and database of colonial K’iche’ lexical items, which would permit a systematic analysis of K’iche’ lexicography. The dictionaries for colonial K’iche’ are invaluable resources for several reasons. On the one hand, they provide information about K’iche’ lexical semantics and language history. Many concepts and metaphors recorded by the missionaries have not been preserved in modern K’iche’ and colonial dictionaries are therefore key to understanding the ethnohistorical text sources on Highland Guatemala, including the famous Popol Vuh (see e.g. Dürr 1987, Christenson 2003 and 2004), the títulos (see e.g. Carmack 1973), the dance drama Rabinal Achi (see e.g. Breton 1994), calendar documents (see Weeks, Sachse and Prager 2009), and other texts that were written by indigenous authors in the colonial era. On the other hand, the dictionaries were compiled for the purpose of the mission. They contain large numbers of doctrinal neologisms and provide insight into processes of translation and the creation of Christian discourse in K’iche’, which makes them essential prerequisites to understanding the abundant doctrinal text sources that have been preserved in K’iche’, such as Domingo de Vico’s Theologia Indorum (Sparks 2011, Sparks et al. 2017), and the many surviving catechisms and sermons (see Sachse 2015). Moreover, colonial dictionaries provide information about missionary lexicographic practices in Highland Guatemala. The analysis of strategies for lexical compilation and the reconstruction of synoptic relationships between the dictionary and other missionary sources allow insights in the process of knowledge generation in the context of the Christian conversion. Despite their relevance, the systematic analysis of colonial K’iche’ dictionaries is still a research desideratum. Building a searchable corpus from colonial K’iche’ textual sources has a number of methodological implications that we will point out based on examples from our recent work in editing the Vocabulario en lengua 4iche otlatecas.

reviving words

3

39

Vocabulario en lengua 4iche otlatecas

The Vocabulario en lengua 4iche otlatecas (henceforward: Vocabulario otlatecas) is an early eighteenth-century dictionary in the holdings of the Ibero-American Institute in Berlin. The manuscript is part of a volume that was acquired by Walter Lehmann in Guatemala in 1909. The volume includes the dictionary of 167 folios and a doctrinal text of 14 folios in Kaqchikel that was added when the manuscript was rebound in the nineteenth century. The author of the Vocabulario otlatecas is anonymous. The text was written by a single scribe, but includes various amendments in the form of corrections, orthographic modernisations, additions and revisions by four later hands. In the process of preparing the edition, we identified the Vocabulario otlatecas as a dictionary that was compiled from the K’iche’ entries of the aforementioned trilingual K’iche’ dictionary that has been erroneously attributed to Vico and survives in three copies. The manuscript in the John Carter Brown Library labeled Vocabulario copioso and BNF ms. 46 are almost identical copies of an unknown original. C.E. Brasseur de Bourbourg who had originally purchased BNF ms. 46 also produced another partial and altered copy of the text (BNF ms. 65). The title page of ms. 46 is written in the hand of Brasseur and suggests that the vocabulary had been compiled from the work of Domingo de Vico.2 And, indeed, we could identify a sixteenth-century copy of the Theologia Indorum in the American Philosophical Society (APS) that exhibits a significant number of marginalia by a seventeenth-century second hand who obviously used the source to compile a dictionary. Signatures in the back of the manuscript in the APS indicate that it was in the possession of the guardian of the Franciscan convent of Samayac named Diego de Ocaña, whose name also features in the Vocabulario copioso and who may have been involved in the compilation of the trilingual Kaqchikel-Spanish-K’iche’ dictionary. Furthermore, we could identify that the Kaqchikel entries in the Vocabulario copioso are at least in part shared with the entries in the seventeenth-century anonymous bilingual Vocabulario de la lengua Cakchiquel that is likewise part of the collection of “Indian Manuscripts” at the APS.3 The Vocabulario copioso was thus compiled from at least one earlier Kaqchikel source and K’iche’ entries that were taken from Vico’s Theologia Indorum (see Dürr and Sachse 2017: 21–24). 2 The full title in Brasseur’s hand reads: “Vocabulario de la lengua Cakchiquel con advertencias de los vocablos de las lenguas quiché y tzutuhil se trasladó de la obra compuesta por el Il(ustrisi)mo Padre el venerable Fray Domingo de Vico.” 3 The manuscript that is archived under the Call number MS 497.43 V85.10 comprises 345 folios. There is no explicit copy date, but the paleography dates it to the late seventeenth century.

40

sachse and dürr

The textual genesis of the Vocabulario otlatecas constitutes a nice example for the process of lexicographic compilation among the missionaries. The case confirms that it was primarily Franciscans who were involved with dictionary production in Highland Guatemala—copying freely from each other while incorporating Dominican source material—and that Kaqchikel compilations served as the basis for later K’iche’ dictionaries. The anonymous author of the Vocabulario otlatecas, who was also likely Franciscan, used the trilingual Vocabulario copioso as a mine. As illustrated in the example in Table 2.2, he took entries from the Kaqchikel source that are identical in K’iche’, while deleting Kaqchikel forms not found in K’iche’. He also copied entire entries substituting the Kaqchikel forms with the corresponding lexical forms and grammatical inflections in K’iche’, but keeping the Spanish translations and explanations. There are several cases where the author made explicit amendments to original Kaqchikel entries. He furthermore complemented the text with additional K’iche’ terms that he took from another textual source as well as from his own ethnographic knowledge. The compilation of lexical material from several sources is reflected in the composition of the entries. The entries taken and modified from the Vocabulario copioso are more extensive and often include grammatical details and derivational forms, while entries taken from the other unidentified source seem to be rather concise and simply correlate a K’iche’ entry with a straightforward Spanish translation. Entries reflecting the ethnographic and cultural knowledge of the author are in contrast more descriptive (1). (1) Yac. canu. y forma yacaba. dejar la vara de justiçia tendida ante el superior que la dio, menospreçiandola. como quando se forma vna cuestion entre el presidente y los alcaldes de la ciudad que dise vn alcalde o los dos. señor yo por esta vara yze la justiçia como deuo, y si no vale lo que yo he hecho por esta vara aqui la tiene vusque quien la exerssa. y la pone sobre la messa. este modo es yacaba, o soverbiando qualquiera cosa que sea. (Vocabulario otlatecas, fols. 89v–90r) (Yac. canu. and it forms yacaba. to leave the staff of justice stretched out before the superior who bestowed it [upon him], despising it, like when there is an issue between the president and the mayors of the city, when one mayor or both say ‘Lord, because of this staff I did justice as I had to. And if what I have done through this staff has no worth, here you have it, find someone who exerts it’. And he puts in on the table. This way is yacaba, or being arrogant about whatever.)

41

reviving words table 2.2

Comparison of entries in the Vocabulario otlatecas and the Vocabulario copioso

Vocabulario otlatecas (f. 258v–259r)

Vocabulario copioso (BNF ms. 46, fols. 271r)

4,onoɧ. pedir. o preguntar. 4,onoɧ. l. tzonoɧ. se halla este vocablo con diferentes (4,onoɧ. request. or ask.) letras. pedir, o preguntar. lo mismo que 4utuɧ. tin. (4,onoɧ. or. tzonoɧ. this word is found with different letters. request, or ask. the same as 4utuɧ. tin.) 4,ob.4,ob. ca4,ob4,obic. esta goteando aqui. 4,uɧ4,u. ti. se ussa tambien el 4iche. 4,uɧ4,ubic (4,ob.4,ob. ca4,ob4,obic. it is dripping here. 4,uɧ4,u. ti. it is also used in 4iche. 4,uɧ4,ubic) 4,aɧpuɧic y tiɛoval. el sudor. (4,aɧpuɧic and tiɛoval. the sweat.)

4,oɧpin. sudar. qui4,oɧpiɧ. quipoloɛiɧ. haser mucho sol o sudar. qui4,oɧpiaɧ. de 4,oɧpin forma 4,oɧpiniçaɧ. tin. haser sudar a otro. ru4,oɧpihic. ru4,oɧpiahic. el sudor. vçoɧpihic. vti4oual. 4iche. canu4,oɧpiniçaɧ. qui4,oɧpihic. ti4,oɧpiyaɧ ruvinakil. tiuouot. doler mucho la llaga. tilem lot ɛiɧ. haser mucho sol. (4,oɧpin. to sweat. qui4,oɧpiɧ. quipoloɛiɧ. to be very sunny or to sweat. qui4,oɧpiaɧ. of 4,oɧpin forms 4,oɧpiniçaɧ. tin. to make someone sweat. ru4,oɧpihic. ru4,oɧpiahic. the sweat. vçoɧpihic. vti4oual. 4iche. canu4,oɧpiniçaɧ. qui4,oɧpihic. ti4,oɧpiyaɧ ruvinakil. tiuouot. to hurt a lot the sore. tilem lot ɛiɧ. to be very sunny.)

A more detailed description of the manuscript, its textual genesis and synoptic relations with other sources is found in the introductory study of our recent edition (Dürr and Sachse 2017). The edition includes a full transcription of the manuscript text and a usable reference dictionary in modern orthography, which reorganises the lexical entries. In the following section we will identify and describe the methodological implications of corpus-building from colonial dictionary sources by outlining the process of reorganising and systematising the Vocabulario otlatecas.

42 4

sachse and dürr

Creating a Usable Dictionary

Colonial dictionaries from Highland Guatemala exhibit idiosyncratic textual properties which need to be accounted for in the process of creating a reference dictionary or searchable corpus. In a first step, an accurate transcription of the original manuscript text needs to be converted into a machine-readable format based on standardised transcription conventions. In the case of the Vocabulario otlatecas, this involved the resolution of abbreviations, the rendering of word boundaries and line breaks as well as the standardisation of upper and lower case letters. The original orthography was not modified, so as to retain the option of analysing scribal practices along with the lexical content. Spanish translations of entries were however rendered in modern orthography to assure a better readability. As can be expected for a handwritten manuscript that was compiled from different sources, the entries under each head letter of the Vocabulario otlatecas are not in systematic alphabetic order. Turning the colonial source into a usable reference dictionary requires resorting of the lemmata, for which all entries were consecutively numbered under each head letter (2). (2) Yac. canu. por alsar. ô por guardar algo. o por rescatar algo. o lebantar algun testimonio. … Y001 Yac. gato de monte. Y002 Yac. canuyac v4ux chi mac. haçer que peque, ynsistiendole, o recordandole. Y003 Yac. canyac yl. ser caussa de que le benga mal a otro. yn yacol yl chi riɧ Pedro, o yn yacol ril Pedro. yo soy causa de que le benga mal â Pedro. Y004 Yac. canyac vuach. adornar alguna cosa para que paresca linda. Y005 (Vocabulario otlatecas, f. 89r–89v) (Yac. canu. for elevating. or for saving something. or for salvaging something. or to testify. … Y001 Yac. wild cat. Y002 Yac. canuyac v4ux chi mac. make someone commit sin, by insisting on him, or reminding him. Y003 Yac. canyac yl. cause harm to someone else. yn yacol yl chi riɧ Pedro, or yn yacol ril Pedro. I caused harm to Pedro. Y004 Yac. canyac vuach. adorn something to make it look pretty. Y005) The Vocabulario otlatecas is arranged in the following alphabetic order: A B C CH E H Y K L M N O P Q R T V X Ɛ 4 4H 4, TZ. This alphabet is based on the

reviving words

43

system of orthographic conventions that was introduced by Francisco de la Parra O.F.M. in the late 1540s. To represent the glottalised and uvular sounds of the K’iche’an languages, La Parra defined a set of special characters that are widely used in the missionary K’iche’ and Kaqchikel literature (see e.g. Campbell 1977: 120–121). The characters that were not used according to the rules of the Spanish alphabet are the following: ⟨4⟩ = /k’/; ⟨k⟩ = /q/, ⟨Ɛ⟩ = /q’/, ⟨tz⟩ = /ʦ/, ⟨4,⟩ = /ʦ’/, ⟨4h⟩ = /ʧ’/ as well as ⟨x⟩ = /ʃ/ and ⟨ɧ⟩ = /χ/. However, these orthographic conventions are rather inconsistently applied in the majority of colonial dictionaries, which is due to difficulties the missionary linguists encountered in rendering the unfamiliar phonetic sounds, but also the result of random orthographic changes that scribes made in the process of copying. Given that the Vocabulario otlatecas was compiled from different sources, the lack of orthographic standardisation within the manuscript is manifest and significant. Thus, to create a usable dictionary and make lexical forms systematically searchable, the orthography of the lemma for each entry needs to be standardised. As a standard we chose the official phoneme-based K’iche’ alphabet as defined by the Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala without vowellength distinction (ALMG 1988). Orthographic standardisation requires the phonemisation of the colonial entries, which is not a straightforward process. Some of the colonial entries cannot be found in modern K’iche’ dictionaries, though they may still be present in modern K’iche’, which would require the involvement of a native speaker in the process of analysis. Moreover, modern dictionaries also exhibit spelling variations, in particular with respect to the presence of glottalisation. This implies that phonemisations and thus transcriptions into modern spelling need to be checked in multiple modern sources. Some forms are only attested in modern Kaqchikel, which could be indicative of language history, but may also simply suggest that the colonial author did not eliminate these entries in the process of compilation. Given that missionary lexicography aimed at creating a vocabulary for the Christian mission, the Spanish translation may refer to a neologism or a metaphor, which is not easily found in the modern reference material. For instance, the entry canucabuɧ vchi (f. 37v) is translated into Spanish as purificar ‘to purify’. In modern K’iche’, the phrase k’ab’uj chi’ means ‘to open one’s mouth’. The semantic connection can only be understood within the context of Holy Communion and the reception of the Eucharist which is seen as a process of purification of the soul. Besides the difficulties posed by the process of phonemisation, some entries also include morphologically complex and fully inflected forms that begin with pronominal or aspect prefixes and are sorted under the first letter of the form

44

sachse and dürr

rather than under the first letter of the actual lemma. The entries in the following example (3a) are all marked with the second person possessive prefix a- or aw- and listed under the head letter A, rather than under A (aɛanic), Ɛ (ɛahic) and X (xibibal). Such entries require morphological analysis and lemmatisation before all entries of the dictionary can be placed into a systematic alphabetical order (3b). (3) a. Avaɛanic. tu subida. avaɛanic chi caɧ. tu subida al çielo.A150 Aɛahic chi xibalba. tu bajada al ynfierno. abic chi xibalba. tu yda al ynfierno. A151 Axibibal. tu temor. A152 (Vocabulario otlatecas, f. 9v) (Avaɛanic. your ascent. avaɛanic chi caɧ. your ascent to heaven.A150 Aɛahic chi xibalba. your descent to hell. abic chi xibalba. your way to hell. A151 Axibibal. your fear. A152) b. aq’anik Av-aɛanic. tu subida. avaɛanic chi caɧ. tu subida al cielo. A150 qajik A-ɛahic chi xibalba. tu bajada al infierno. abic chi xibalba. tu ida al infierno. A151 xib’ib’al A-xibibal. tu temor. A152 As illustrated in example (4), the lemmata in their modern spelling serve as head entries for the dictionary. These modern head entries are given as stems with their lexical class indicated in brackets. All original entries that contain the respective lemma and derivations of this lemma are sorted underneath that modern head entry. The resorted entries can be traced to their position in the original text through the entry numbers that are retained in superscript at the end of the line. (4) qaj (vi) kaɧ. quinkaɧ. bajar, o descender. xkaɧ kahok. bajo bajando. y si pasa la oración adelante, convierte el ok en â. xkaɧ kaha chi riɧ quieɧ. se bajó de la bestia. K001 kaɧ. cakaɧ hab. está lloviendo. K005 kaɧ. cakaɧ chi nuach. agradarme, caer en gracia. K006 kaɧ. cakaɧ chi riɧ quieɧ. apearse de la bestia. K007 aɛahic chi xibalba. tu bajada al infierno. A151 chuɛahibal ɛiɧ. al occidente. CH080

reviving words

45

(qaj (vi) kaɧ. quinkaɧ. to go down or descend. xkaɧ kahok. he went down descending. And if the sentence continues, the ok changes into â. xkaɧ kaha chi riɧ quieɧ. he got off the horse. K001 kaɧ. cakaɧ hab. it is raining. K005 kaɧ. cakaɧ chi nuach. endear, indulge. K006 kaɧ. cakaɧ chi riɧ quieɧ. get off the beast [horse, mule]. K007 aɛahic chi xibalba. your descent to hell. A151 chuɛahibal ɛiɧ. westwards. CH080) In cases where there are several entries for derivations, sub-entries have been defined (5). (5) achi (s) achi. hombre. achihalaɧ vinak. persona fuerte. A057 achiɧ chicop. el animal macho. A059 tuque achi. extraño hombre. T103 vachihil. mi marido. 4096 achijilal (s) achihilal. la fortaleza. A058 auachihilal. tu esfuerzo. A146 (achi (s) achi. man. achihalaɧ vinak. strong person. A057 achiɧ chicop. the male animal. A059 tuque achi. strange man. T103 vachihil. my husband. 4096 achijilal (s) achihilal. the fortitude. A058 auachihilal. your effort. A146) Original entries that include several K’iche’ lemmata were copied underneath the respective modern head entries. In this process, long entries were shortened, and entries that merge different lemmata with related or sometimes even opposite meanings were split. The following example (6) illustrates how longer entries are separated underneath individual head entries. (6) Nimaxulak ɛiɧ. a visperas, o despues de visperas. nim vui ha paloo grandes ôlas del mar. nima rakan hab. grande aguaçero. de nim. forma nimaɧ.

46

sachse and dürr

canu. por obedeser, honrrar, tener reberençia, o ensalsar alabando. nim. absoluto. de nimaɧ. acatar con reberencia. caniman la Santa Maria, nosotros que obedesemos, tenemos reberençia, alabamos, ensalsamos a Vuestra merced Santa Maria. de nim. forma nimar. veruo neutro. xnimar v4oheic. se ensoberbeçio, ô ensalso, o engrandeçio. de nim. forma nimariçaɧ. canunimariçaɧ vib. engrandeserse, o ensoberueserse nimariçan. nimariçax. passiuo. de nimaɧ. nimabal. obediençia. de nimariçaɧ. nimariçabal. soberbia. N031 (Vocabulario otlatecas, f. 130v–131v) (Nimaxulak ɛiɧ. at vespers, or after vespers. nim vui ha paloo. great waves of the sea. nima rakan hab. heavy downpour. from nim. derives nimaɧ. canu. by obeying, honouring, show reverence, or extol praise. nim. absolute of nimaɧ. bow with reverence. caniman la Santa Maria, we who obey, show reverence, praise, extol Our Mercy Saint Mary. from nim. derives nimar. neutral verb. xnimar v4oheic. he became arrogant, or extolled, or aggrandized himself. from nim. derives nimariçaɧ. canunimariçaɧ vib. to aggrandize oneself, or become arrogant nimariçan. nimariçax. passive. from nimaɧ. nimabal. obeyence. from nimariçaɧ. nimariçabal. pride. N031) → nim (adj) nimaxulak ɛiɧ. a vísperas, o después de vísperas. nim vui ha paloo. grandes ollas del mar. nima rakan hab. grande aguacero. N031 → nimar (vi) nimar. verbo neutro. xnimar v4oheic. se ensoberbeció, o ensalzó, o engrandeció. de nim. forma nimariçaɧ. canunimariçaɧ vib. engrandecerse, o ensoberbecerse nimariçan. nimariçax. pasivo. … de nimariçaɧ. nimariçabal. soberbia. N031 → nima- (vt) nimaɧ. canu. por obedecer, honrar, tener reverencia, o ensalzar alabando. nim. absoluto. de nimaɧ. acatar con reverencia. caniman la Santa Maria, nosotros que obedecemos, tenemos reverencia, alabamos, ensalzamos a Vuestra merced Santa María. … de nimaɧ. nimabal. obediencia. N031 The manual process of creating a reference dictionary of the Vocabulario otlatecas did not permit a more detailed analysis of the entries that exhibit a rather variable internal organisation which poses specific constraints in each case. This regards in particular entries that are organised as super entries with several subentries, or entries that correlate multiple K’iche’ forms with multiple Spanish translations, including discursive sample sentences, which illustrate

reviving words

47

the term in context. Only a part of the vocabulary included in these sample sentences is contextualised within the reference dictionary. For example, the following entry is listed under the head entry utzir (vi), but not under each of the other verbs included in the sample sentence (7). (7) Vtzir. forma quin. desenojar. xutzir pa a4ux? ya te desenojaste? y de vtzir forma. vtziriçaɧ. absolver. bendecir. o hazerlo bueno. xrutziriçaɧ, xrutzbijɧ, xrutzɛahartiçaɧ 4u kahaual Jesu Christo e rappostoles chu4ubaxic qui4ux. bendijo Christo a sus appostoles para consolarles por absolber. quinutziriçaɧ ta la ahauɧ. señor absuelbame Vuestra merced. … V082 (Vocabulario otlatecas, f. 198r) (Vtzir. forms quin. to calm down. xutzir pa a4ux? have you already calmed down? and from vtzir derives. vtziriçaɧ. to absolve. bless. or make good. xrutziriçaɧ, xrutzbijɧ, xrutzɛahartiçaɧ 4u kahaual Jesu Christo e rappostoles chu4ubaxic qui4ux. Christ blessed his apostles to console them by absolution. quinutziriçaɧ ta la ahauɧ. Lord absolve me Your Mercy. … V082) Similarly, entries that include derivational forms without direct translation were not further analysed, but simply listed en bloc under the head entry (8). (8) Vinak. persona. hun vinak vna persona. queb vinak. dos personas. de vinak. forma vinakir. hazerse jente. o consevirse. xvinakir Santa Maria chupam atobal graçia. fue consevida Santa Maria en graçia. vinakirem. vinakiric. v4,uquic. de vinakir. vinakiriçaɧ. canu. sacar a luz. formar, criar. xuvinakiriçaɧ Dios nimahauɧ caɧ, vleuɧ. formô, crio Dios el çielo, y la tierra. xoɧuvinakiriçaɧ. nos formô. o crio. vinakiriçan. vinakiriçax. vinakiriçanel. vinakiriçaxel. vinakiriçabal. vinakiriçay. V031 (Vocabulario otlatecas, f. 195r) (Vinak. person. hun vinak one person. queb vinak. two persons. from vinak. derives vinakir. to become people or to conceive. xvinakir Santa Maria chupam atobal graçia. Saint Mary was conceived in grace. vinakirem. vinakiric. v4,uquic. from vinakir. vinakiriçaɧ. canu. bring to light. form, create. xuvinakiriçaɧ Dios nimahauɧ caɧ, vleuɧ. God formed, created sky and earth. xoɧuvinakiriçaɧ. he formed or created us. vinakiriçan. vinakiriçax. vinakiriçanel. vinakiriçaxel. vinakiriçabal. vinakiriçay. V031)

48

sachse and dürr

While the decision to restrict the analysis of the entries and subentries for the edition of the Vocabulario otlatecas was a pragmatic one that suits the objective of a physical book publication, we have also developed a digital solution for the creation of searchable corpora, which permits the comparison of lexical entries from various dictionary sources.

5

Digital Solution for Corpus-Building

The methodological difficulty for corpus-building from colonial dictionaries is the combination of inconsistent orthographies, complex word forms, and variable entry structure. These parameters impede any quick and automated solutions for turning the colonial text formats into searchable corpora. While there are many CL-tools for automated morphologisation and dictionary building (parsers, lemmatisers, FLeX etc.) available, these applications only work with standardised orthographies and cannot deal with multilingual entries. For the problems created by this particular combination of parameters, no practical solutions have been presented to date. To facilitate the process of corpus-building of colonial dictionary sources, we have developed a software solution that takes the aforementioned properties and conditions posed by lexical data in unstandarised orthographies into account. The Tool for Systematic Annotation of Colonial K’iche’ (TSACK) is a prototype for an XML-based application, which supports orthographic and morphological analysis of colonial dictionary sources in the form of a semiautomated annotation process. The application offers a graphic user interface which replaces the traditional XML-editor, and guides the user step by step through the annotation process, which includes the transcription, glossing, lemmatisation and translation of the entries. The manuscript text is copied into a programme window and annotated with predefined XML-tags that are accessible through buttons in the menu, which reduces the error rate. In the course of annotation each original form is first transcribed into a phoneme-based orthography, which is then lemmatised and morphologised. The annotation is hierarchical. It starts with the entry, which can also be a super-entry organised into several related subentries. Each entry consists of at least one Spanish and one K’iche’ form that are correlated. However, as we have seen above, often more than one form is correlated. Furthermore, a K’iche’ lemma can consist of several words, which are analysed into grammatical forms and lemmata. The lemmata are again analysed for inflectional and derivational morphology all the way down to the root. To give an example for a systematic annotation we are selecting an entry from the Vocabulario otlatecas. The phrase kanusukub’a nuk’u’x literally trans-

reviving words

49

figure 2.1 Graphic user interface of the Tool for Systematic Annotation of Colonial K’iche’ (TSACK)

lates as ‘I correct my heart’ and was introduced as a neologism to refer to the Christian concept of confession. (9) Canuçucuba nu4ux … me confieso … (f. 57r) (Canuçucuba nu4ux … I confess …) After tagging the text with the relevant metadata (general data) and formal properties (page break, line break), the annotation is guided through the righthand menu. First the boundaries of the dictionary entry are defined (entry). Then the K’iche’ form is marked and tagged (kichee_entry). The given example canuçucuba nu4ux consists of two words, which are tagged and annotated separately (word). By selecting the respective word and the button word in the menu, an input mask opens which asks for a transcription of the word into standard orthography, i.e. kanusukub’a (word 1) and nuk’u’x (word 2). For reference, modern K’iche’ dictionaries were embedded. The subsequent morphological analysis only affects the transcribed form. First, all grammatical affixes of the form are tagged by selecting the affix and then the respective button grammatical affix. The inflectional affixes of K’iche’ are deposited in a dropdown menu. By selecting a grammatical category from this menu the respective affix

50

sachse and dürr

is tagged with function and gloss. In the case of word 1 the affixes that are tagged in this manner include (in the order left to right): prefix ka- as incompletive, øas the 3.SG absolutive pronoun and nu- as the 1.SG ergative pronoun. This leaves the verb stem sukub’a, which is then annotated by selecting the button lemma. The mask that opens up asks for the selection of the lexical class, which in this case is a transitive verb, and a translation of the lemma, i.e. ‘to correct sth.’. As sukub’a is a complex lemma, it is further analysed. The derivational suffixes are selected from another dropdown menu; in this case the transitiviser -ub’a. This leaves the positional root suk ‘straight’, which is again tagged through a mask for lexical class and translation. The same steps are repeated in the annotation of word 2. Having annotated the complete K’iche’ form, the Spanish translation is selected (spanish_entry) and transcribed into modern spelling. A summary of the annotation of the entire entry is found below:

Canuçucuba

ka ø nu

suk ub’a

correct sth. straight

nu4ux

nu

k’u’x

heart heart

reviving words

51

me confieso me confieso

The result of this annotation process is an XML-document with a fully annotated entry, which provides a transcription, morphological analysis and gloss. All annotated elements are searchable (e.g. through Xqueries within the database eXist). In this process all lemmata can be reconstructed to fully glossed forms. (10) Canuçucuba nu4ux nu-k’u’x ka-ø-nu-suk-ub’a INC-3.SG.ABS-1.SG.ERG-POS:straight-TRVZ 1.SG.POSS-N:heart ‘me confieso’ (I confess) Compared to tagging with conventional XML-editors, TSACK facilitates the annotation process and minimises the error rate. The current prototype is a proprietary application that runs on individual machines. Our aim is to further develop the tool in cooperation with the Department for Research and Development of the University Library in Göttingen and embed it within the research environment TextGrid (https://textgrid.de), which provides an onlinebased digital research platform for collaborative and decentralised work. The idea is to create a tool which permits multiple researchers to work on the same texts and create a central corpus. Developing TSACK under TextGrid would also involve the implementation of further semi-automatised features, which will speed up annotation by retrieving and replicating previously annotated forms. This would create a powerful tool with which transcribed dictionary texts could be quickly annotated and become accessible for systematic database queries. We would like to continue developing this tool within the TextGrid digital research environment to create a basic infrastructure that in the long term can also be adapted to building corpora from colonial textual data of other Mayan and Amerindian languages.

52

sachse and dürr

References Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG). 1988. Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala: Documento de referencia para la pronunciación de los nuevos alfabetos oficiales. Documento; 1. Guatemala: Instituto Indigenista Nacional. Basseta, Domingo. [1698] 2005. Vocabulario de la lengua quiché. Rene Acuña (ed.). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Breton, Alain. 1994. Rabinal Achi: un drame dynastique maya du quinzième siècle. Nanterre: Société des américanistes; Société d’ethnologie. Campbell, Lyle. 1977. Quichean linguistic prehistory. Berkeley: University of California Press. Carmack, Robert M. 1973. Quichean civilization: The ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and archaeological sources. Berkeley: University of California Press. Christenson, Allen J. 2003. Popol Vuh, Volume I. The Sacred Book of the Maya. Winchester, New York: O Books. Christenson, Allen J. 2004. Popol Vuh, Volume II. Literal Poetic Version. Translation and Transcription. Winchester, New York: O Books. Dürr, Michael. 1987. Morphologie, Syntax und Textstrukturen des (Maya-)Quiche des Popol Vuh. Linguistische Beschreibung eines kolonialzeitlichen Dokuments aus dem Hochland von Guatemala. Bonn: Holos. Dürr, Michael and Frauke Sachse. 2017. “Introducción.” In Diccionario k’iche’ de Berlín: El Vocabulario en lengua 4iche otlatecas. Edición crítica, edited by Michael Dürr and Frauke Sachse, 5–67. Berlin: Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut; Gebr. Mann Verlag. Dürr, Michael and Frauke Sachse, eds. 2017. Diccionario k’iche’ de Berlín: El Vocabulario en lengua 4iche otlatecas. Edición crítica. Berlin: Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut; Gebr. Mann Verlag. Edmonson, Munro. 1965. Quiche-English dictionary. New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University. Hernández, Esther. 2008. “Indigenismos en el Vocabulario de la lengua cakchiquel atribuido a fray Domingo de Vico, MS. BNF R. 7507.” Revista de Filología Española 88 (1): 67–88. Hernández, Esther. 2009. “Los vocabularios hispano-mayas del siglo XVI.” In Missionary Linguistics IV / Lingüística Misionera IV. Lexicography, edited by Otto Zwartjes, Ramón Arzapalo and Thomas C. Smith-Stark, 129–150. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Niederehe, Hans-Josef. 2004. “Los misioneros españoles y el estudio de las lenguas mayas.” In Missionary Linguistics / Lingüística Misionera. Selected Papers from the First International Conference on Missionary Linguistics, Oslo, 13–16 March 2003, edited by Otto Zwartjes and Even Hovdhaugen, 81–91. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

reviving words

53

Sachse, Frauke. 2007. “Documentation of colonial K’ichee’ dictionaries and grammars.” Report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies (FAMSI). http://www.famsi.org/reports/06009/index.html (accessed 29 January 2019) Sachse, Frauke. 2009. “Reconstructing the Anonymous Franciscan K’ichee’ Dictionary.” Mexicon 31 (1):10–18. Sachse, Frauke. 2015. “Und Gott sprach K’iche’: Ein Überblick über die Quellen und Forschungsansätze zur sprachlichen Mission im Hochland von Guatemala.” In Mesoamerikanistik: Archäologie, Ethnohistorie, Ethnographie und Linguistik. Eine Festschrift der Mesoamerika-Gesellschaft, Hamburg e.V., edited by Lars Frühsorge et al., 432–467. Aachen: Shaker. Sachse, Frauke, Michael Dürr, and Christian Klingler. 2017. “Digitale Erschließung und systematische Annotation kolonialer Lexikographien am Beispiel der Mayasprache K’iche’.” DARIAH-DE Working Papers 22. http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/pub/mon/ dariah‑de/dwp‑2017‑22.pdf (accessed 29 January 2019) Sáenz de Santa María, Carmelo. 1985. → Ximénez Smailus, Ortwin. 1989. Vocabulario en lengua castellana y guatemalteca que se llama Cakchiquel Chi: análisis gramatical y lexicológico del Cakchiquel colonial según un antiguo diccionario anónimo (Bibliothèque Nationale de Paris—Fonds Amer. No. 7). 3 vols. Hamburg: Wayasbah. Smith-Stark, Thomas C. 2009. “Lexicography in New Spain (1492–1611).” In Missionary Linguistics IV / Lingüística Misionera IV. Lexicography, edited by Otto Zwartjes, Ramón Arzápalo Marín and T.C. Smith-Stark, 3–82. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sparks, Garry. 2011. “Xalqat B’e and the Theologia Indorum: Crossroads between Maya spirituality and the Americas’ first theology.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Sparks, Garry with Frauke Sachse and Sergio Romero. 2017. The Americas’ first theologies: Early sources of post-contact indigenous religion. New York: Oxford University Press. Weeks, John M., Frauke Sachse and Christian M. Prager. 2009. Maya daykeeping: Three calendars from highland Guatemala. Boulder: University of Colorado Press. Ximénez, Francisco. [ca. 1700] 1985. Primera parte del Tesoro de las Lenguas Cakchiquel, Quiché y Zutuhil, en que las dichas Lenguas se traducen a la nuestra, española. Edición crítica por Carmelo Sáenz de Santa María. Guatemala: Academia de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala.

chapter 3

Wide-Lensed Approaches to Missionary Linguistics: The Circulation of Knowledge on Amerindian Languages through Sixteenth-Century Spanish Printed Grammars Zanna Van Loon and Andy Peetermans

1

Introduction

From the sixteenth century onwards, the early modern proto-globalization was characterized by extensive linguistic contacts between European colonizers and native populations of other continents. This initiated a dynamic process in which Europeans accumulated, spread, and systematized knowledge of the indigenous languages spoken in the colonies. More in particular, missionaries active in Spanish America produced several descriptions of some of the languages they encountered, along with religious translations into these languages, in order to pave the road for their evangelization efforts (Suárez Roca 1992: 7–8; Ostler 2004: 38–45). These missionary activities in sixteenth-century Spanish America led to the printing of eight grammars. The overall goal of this contribution, which is programmatic in nature, is to use a tentative analysis of these grammars as an illustration to highlight the value of studying missionary linguistics through a wide lens, with ample attention to intellectual, institutional, and socio-cultural contexts. We discuss a specific theoretical framework that provides one possible trajectory for such an integrated wide-lensed study: the one known as ‘circulation of knowledge’, which forms a prominent part of recent research in the History of Knowledge. It is clear that through their texts, European missionaries played an important role in gathering, codifying, and spreading linguistic knowledge of the New World. Therefore, we hope to show that it can be fruitful to employ the concept of ‘circulation of knowledge’ as an integrated approach to missionary linguistics from a wide-lensed angle. In order to illustrate this general point, this article will focus on aspects of the circulation of knowledge on American indigenous languages embodied in sixteenth-century printed missionary grammars. After a general discussion of wide-lensed approaches and ‘circulation of knowledge’ (§ 2 and 3, respec-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004427006_004

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

55

tively), the different subsections of §4 will look at the production and diffusion of knowledge through eight sixteenth-century Spanish printed grammars. Different stages will be highlighted: missionary grammarians’ justifications for producing and diffusing new grammatical knowledge; the role of the Latin tradition in the production (or codification) of this knowledge; the role of censura and printers in the diffusion of knowledge; and the different circuits through which the diffusion of knowledge contained in these grammars passed over into the seventeenth century.

2

The Value of an Integrated and Multidisciplinary Approach

Since the 1990s, academic interest in missionaries’ work on indigenous languages has grown considerably, giving birth to Missionary Linguistics, a field of research at the crossroads of History of Linguistics and Descriptive Linguistics. Many scholars have carried out essential research in this field over the past two decades, focusing on missionary sources of different religious orders, in different political structures and traditions, on different continents, and exploring the phenomenon as of the 1500s well into the nineteenth century.1 The field of Missionary Linguistics has thus expanded its research scope in time range, geographical space, and historical context. Moreover, apart from descriptive linguistic approaches, researchers have adopted other perspectives towards missionaries’ linguistic work, as substantial work from a historiographical, socioanthropological, and ethnographic point of view has been conducted in this field, by focusing on contextual aspects, such as translation practices; transculturation; and colonialism.2 Previous research thus supports the view that placing early modern linguistic work in its socio-cultural, intellectual, and colonial context is interesting for its own sake, and not just to provide a historical framework.3 We wish to complement this growing area of interest with a cohesive and integrated approach to the diachronic phenomenon of early modern missionary linguistics through the lens of the History of Knowledge.4 Such an approach would involve a con-

1 For a general state of the art of Missionary Linguistics, see Zwartjes (2012). 2 Relevant contributions, for instance, are Hanzeli (1969), Suárez Roca (1992), Calvo Pérez (1997), Wendt (1998; 2001), Altman (2009), Klöter (2011), Tomalin (2011), Zwartjes (2011), Zwartjes, Zimmermann, and Schrader-Kniffki (2014), Garone Gravier (2014), Fountain (2015), Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz (2016), and Zwartjes and Flores Farfán (2017). 3 Cf. Zimmermann and Kellermeier-Rehbein (2015: vii); Klöter (2011: 14). 4 The research presented here is part of a multidisciplinary KU Leuven project entitled ‘Evolv-

56

van loon and peetermans

stant dialogue between wide-lensed research and zoomed-in, content-focused approaches.5 Thus, our understanding of missionary linguistics can be both deepened and widened, as the macro-level and micro-level interlock in ever more points. In this way, we can work towards creating a maximally cohesive high-resolution image of missionaries’ linguistic activities.

3

The Wide Lens of the History of Knowledge

Adopting the wide-lensed historiographical approach of the concept of ‘the circulation of knowledge’ can provide us with innovative insights into the early modern dynamics of acquiring, producing, and diffusing linguistic knowledge, and further enables us to obtain a good overview of missionary linguistics as a historical phenomenon.6 However, historians who have usually been concerned with the early modern circulation of knowledge, still tend to focus on knowledge about geography, ethnography, and natural sciences—such as botany and medicine—rather than language-related knowledge.7 This tentative article adds to a recently growing body of research that studies the circulation of knowledge on missionary linguistics in a global framework,8 by exploring the circulation of linguistic knowledge through sixteenth-century printed missionary grammars of the New World’s languages.

5 6 7

8

ing views on the world’s languages in a globalizing world’. As a whole, this project combines the expertise from the different fields of Linguistics, Early Modern History, and Translation Studies to adopt a multi-faceted approach to the study of early modern missionary linguistics, while gaining a well-grounded bird’s eye view on the phenomenon. It relies on an extensive database, which contains the metadata of primary sources, both manuscripts and printed books, ranging from 1500 to 1800 (Van Hal, Van Loon, and Peetermans, 2018). That attention to content and context should be seen as complementary is of course not a new idea in the Historiography of Linguistics, cf. Swiggers (1990: 21–22). A good introduction to this field is Östling et al. (2018). This is illustrated by recent conferences on the circulation of knowledge, at which none or only a few conference papers concentrated on linguistic knowledge: the conference Embattled Territory. The Circulation of Knowledge in the Spanish Netherlands (9–11 March 2011, Ghent); the conference Circulation of Knowledge and the Dynamics of Transformation (28 February–1 March 2014, Berlin); and the History of Science International Conference Connecting Worlds. Production and Circulation of Knowledge in the first Global Age (18–20 May 2016, Porto). Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia, Danièlle Dehouve, and Bartomeu Melià have made interesting contributions to the subject in Castelnau-L’Estoile et al. (2011), just like Wu Huiyi (2015), and Pytlowany and Van Hal (2016). In 2017, the conference La circulation des savoirs linguistiques et philologiques entre l’ Allemagne et le monde (XVIe–XXe siècle) (25–27 January 2017, Paris) devoted one session to German missionary grammars.

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

57

While adopting this perspective, it is important to explain (and question) the concepts ‘knowledge’ and ‘circulation of knowledge’. As Östling et al. have stated (2018: 18), “both ‘circulation’ and ‘knowledge’ can be understood, employed, and analysed in a multitude of ways and historical settings,” which, in the case of missionary linguistics, is a very interesting viewpoint to work with. What is knowledge and in what way can we regard early modern missionary linguistics as knowledge, as we do with science? When one approaches ‘knowledge’ as a concept that can entail many forms (Burke 2016: 7–8), we can easily fit linguistics in its definition.9 For example, scientific knowledge, e.g. presented in books about medicinal practices, can be considered as theoretical knowledge, because the focus is on ‘knowing that’, known in Latin as scientia. Missionary linguistics can be seen as a type of knowledge too, but is at the same time fundamentally different in character from scientific knowledge. Indeed, we can see missionary linguistics as ‘practical’ or ‘skill-oriented’ knowledge (ars), instrumental in nature and serving particular purposes.10 Language was considered a vital tool in the early modern colonial enterprise, central to all kinds of socio-political and cultural interests. For European missionaries, knowledge of indigenous languages was a key to gain access to information about indigenous peoples, cultures, and religion, which in turn facilitated the evangelization of the New World.11 Moreover, communication with indigenous peoples was essential, because these clergymen had to reach an elementary understanding of native speech in order to hear confession and to preach the Catholic faith to them. In this article, we suggest that the circulation of missionary linguistic knowledge encompasses three main paths or phases, viz. the processes of acquisition, production, and diffusion.12 The consumption of knowledge is at the other end of these processes, and this notion can be studied in terms of (scholarly) reception and readership of this knowledge. However, as consumption is

9 10

11

12

Peter Burke states that “there are different kinds of knowledge”, but the definition of knowledge fluctuates in time and space, and is open for debate (Lässig 2016: 39). Cf. Hammar (2018: 112–113). Linguistics in general was an essential part of the trivium in the septem artes liberales in the form of grammatical study since the Middle Ages, and was conceived as an ars; a practical skill or competence with a theoretical foundation. As illustrated by the elegiac couplets of Sebastianus Salinas printed in Santo Tomás (1560a: viir): “If you wish to know the true language of the Indians and discover things that have been hidden for a long time, if you wish to learn about arcane customs and people’s secret corners, and rituals unknown to those of the past: buy this book.” (Si cupis Indorum lingua[m] cognoscere veram: / Et scire exoptas quae latuere diu: / Si cupis arcanos mores, hominumq[ue] recessus / Discere, nec Priscis cognita sacra viris: / Hu[n]c eme). Cf. Burke (2016: 46).

58

van loon and peetermans

sometimes able to set in motion new circulation dynamics, we believe this topic can be part of diffusion processes. Knowledge circulation started with European missionaries attempting to communicate with indigenous peoples, and with the willingness of native informants or bilingual interpreters to share information on indigenous languages with them. In this first stage of acquiring knowledge, missionaries accumulated unprocessed data on indigenous languages, which they ordered and structured “to fit in a particular framework of interpretation” (Lässig 2016: 39). In this regard, we suggest that missionary linguistic knowledge only came to develop as soon as they processed ‘raw information’ after acquiring the skills to speak, write, and understand indigenous languages during their interactions with natives with the aim to mediate this knowledge to others. Thus, one way to approach knowledge is as a communicative activity, as mediation of processed information is what constitutes knowledge, and different types of media have a significant impact on the nature of this knowledge (Östling et al. 2018: 18). As soon as these missionaries put to writing newly acquired linguistic concepts, a second process was set in motion—knowledge production—as they believed it to be necessary to understand the grammatical structures and vocabulary of these languages in order to efficiently evangelize native populations. By storing this knowledge in manuscripts, these missionary authors opened up the possibility for diffusion, the third stage, as others could (and would) copy and thus transfer this knowledge for their own use. In this regard, missionary linguistic knowledge started to be distributed locally. As soon as these language descriptions were printed, opportunities were created to further diffuse this knowledge to others on a larger scale, initiating a process of building knowledge networks (Lässig 2016: 38). Manuscripts and printed books are thus media of prime importance to trace early modern knowledge on indigenous languages, as suggested by Roberts (2012: 51): Plato notwithstanding, knowledge cannot exist or travel on its own in our material world. It needs a physical carrier, whether a human, a book, an illustration, a machine or an instrument. That is, it needs to be embodied. Hence, knowledge is always embodied, but handwritten and printed texts enable knowledge to be disseminated in a more permanent body. Moreover, we support the ideas of Jordheim (2018: 233; 250), who emphasizes the transformative character of these physical carriers, taking into account the changes that can occur during writing, printing, and publication processes, or in later editions, revisions, and translations. For instance, censorship was a means of controlling (and validating) the contents of grammars before publication: the

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

59

censura determined which knowledge was approved of and which not, in turn shaping what knowledge would eventually be diffused through a printed book. Furthermore, Darnton (1982: 67) acknowledged that printed books could be seen as part of a circuit of communication involving several actors. It is possible to look at this communication circuit from a broader perspective in the light of the dynamic process of circulation of missionary linguistic knowledge. This process would include more actors—such as native informants, interpreters, authors, censors, publishers, printers, booksellers, translators, editors, commissioners, agents etc.—who, as cultural intermediaries, impacted the ways in which linguistic knowledge was being acquired, produced, and diffused. In doing so, these intermediaries influenced how, when, and what knowledge was in circulation. Our approach has the double advantage of foregrounding the actions, circumstances, and motivations of the human agents in knowledge circulation, without overlooking the effects of structural factors— the economic, the socio-political, the cultural—, in order to reveal the nature of networks and practices of knowledge (Lässig 2016: 43–46). Consequently, the production and diffusion of knowledge differed depending on who wrote what, how, why, where, when, for whom, to what purpose, and with what effect.

4

Missionary Linguistics and the Circulation of Knowledge

Despite an estimated total of eighty Spanish manuscript language descriptions that may have circulated in the sixteenth century, of which fifty manuscripts dealt with grammatical structures of Middle and South American languages, only eight Spanish missionary grammars were printed, which are listed here below including the author’s name, religious order, and the language it deals with.13 1. Franciscan Maturino Gilberti (1558); Purépecha. 2. Dominican Domingo de Santo Tomás (1560); Quechua. 3. Franciscan Alonso de Molina (1571); Nahuatl. – [Revised edition] (1576). 4. Franciscan Juan Baptista de Lagunas (1574); Purépecha. 5. Dominican Juan de Córdova (1578); Zapotec. 6. [Anonymous] (1586); Quechua.

13

The data presented in this section was collected from our interlinked database RELiCTA. For more information, see Van Hal, Peetermans, and Van Loon (2018).

60

van loon and peetermans

7. Dominican Antonio de los Reyes (1593); Mixtec. 8. Jesuit Antonio del Rincón (1595); Nahuatl. It is interesting to tackle the question of why particularly these texts circulated as printed books, and other texts as manuscripts. Which elements determined the publication of missionary language descriptions, and, in this case, of grammars? Does it have something to do with the fact, as Canger (1997: 60) argues, that there was a greater demand for grammars in certain languages, such as Nahuatl, or that the sixteenth-century printing of missionary grammars was dependent on the involvement of different religious orders? 4.1

Legitimizing Knowledge Production and Diffusion: The Language of Christianization Before looking at the actual processes of knowledge production and diffusion, it is interesting to consider the elements the Spanish authors of the first published missionary grammars presented to justify why their texts had to be printed. These missionary grammarians were all prominent members of the regular clergy—three of the Dominican, three of the Franciscan, and one of the Jesuit order—who embarked on the early modern missions in the New World, respectively as of 1510, 1523, and 1572.14 Already at an early stage in the American evangelization, these missionary orders actively attempted to study indigenous languages in order to spread the Word in these languages. In the sixteenth century, the general focus was on the study of languages considered at the time as linguae francae to reach as many potential converts as possible: Nahuatl in New Spain, and Quechua in Peru (Valdeón 2014: 75). Accordingly, six of the printed grammars dealt with the structures of these dominant languages. By way of illustration, Santo Tomás (1560b: iiiv) emphasized in his vocabulary how the mastery of Quechua, a lengua general, would prove to be very fruitful for evangelization: Because given that there are many other particular languages in this [land], [and] that almost every province has its own, this nevertheless is the general [language] and [it is] understood throughout the whole of the land, and more used by the lords, and the important people, and a very large part of the remaining Indians.15 14

15

Anonymous (1586) could have been composed by the same team of regular and secular clergy who had been responsible for the religious corpus which preceded the grammar in 1584, in which Jesuits, Augustinians, and Dominicans had taken part (Durston 2007: 97). “Por que puesto q[ue] ay en ella otras muchas lenguas particulares, que quasi en cada

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

61

Members of the regular clergy in Spanish America also acknowledged the importance of learning smaller local languages in addition to the lenguas generales (Valdeón 2014: 78). Accordingly, the three remaining publications described other languages of New Spain: Zapotec by the Dominican Córdova (1578a), Mixtec by the Dominican Reyes (1593), and Purépecha by the Franciscans Gilberti (1558) and Lagunas (1574). According to Nájera (2012: 577) and Garone Gravier (2014: 190), language study in early modern New Spain was geographically distributed among the orders: Franciscans mainly focused on dominant regional languages in Central Mexico and Yucatán (Nahuatl, Yucatec Maya, Purépecha, and Otomi); Dominicans on Nahuatl, Purépecha, and languages of Southern Mexico and Guatemala (e.g. Mixtec, and Zapotec), and Jesuits on minor languages (e.g. Cahita). With the exception of Rincón (1595), this seems to be compatible with our corpus.16 The authors themselves linked the printing of their missionary grammars with the importance of language proficiency in order to facilitate the evangelization of indigenous peoples, because they realized that most clergymen lacked the expertise to efficiently communicate with natives, which complicated the conversion process. Indeed, Gilberti (1558:vir) e.g. explained to his readers in his Arte that because missionaries did not understand the indigenous language, they were unable to pursue their proselytizing efforts. The missionary authors furthermore explicitly pointed to the difficulties missionaries experienced in mastering these Amerindian languages. Santo Tomás (1560: iiv; iiir) explains why his Arte would assist many of his fellow friars, and would make it much easier to learn Quechua: So I started trying to turn that language into a grammar, so that not only I could use it, in that new Church, to teach and preach the Gospel to the Indians, but also so that many others, who failed to undertake such Apostolical work, because they experienced difficulties while learning the language, seeing that there already was a grammar of [that language] and that it was easy to learn [this language], would be encouraged by it and would learn it with ease, as they have indeed begun to do.17

16 17

prouincia ay la suya, pero esta es la general y entendida por toda la tierra, y mas vsada de los señores, y gente principal, y de muy gran parte de los demas Indios.” However, it would be interesting to incorporate the entire corpus of handwritten and printed texts in indigenous languages to validate these findings. “Luego comence a tractar de reduzir aquella lengua a Arte, para que no solamente yo pudiesse en ella aprouechar, en aquella nueua yglesia, enseñando y predica[n]do el Euangelio alos Indios, pero otros muchos, que por la difficultad de apre[n]derla, no emprendian tan

62

van loon and peetermans

In fact, all of the sixteenth-century preliminaries to the grammars emphasized the importance of printing them, and pointed to the usefulness and the advantages they would bring to both missionaries and indigenous peoples. The attached license of Catholic authorities in Reyes’ grammar, is a good illustration of how these grammars were referred to as being necessary for spreading the Catholic faith (1593: 3r): Given that on the part of Friar Antonio de los Reyes, Vicar of Tepuzculula, of the Order of the Preachers, we were asked and begged [that] we would give him a license to print a Grammar that the said Friar Antonio de los Reyes has composed in the Mixtec language, saying it would be useful, and very necessary for the priests who preach the Holy Gospel to the natives in Mixtec, or will have to preach it, and that it would be a public interest, and for the service of God our Lord.18 Because missionaries wrote these grammars of Amerindian languages as tools to facilitate evangelization, the texts were usually connected to religious translations, such as catechisms, sermons, confessionaries, liturgical texts etc., into these languages. By translating principles of faith in native languages, these religious tools enabled them to instruct the Christian doctrine to Amerindian populations in their languages. Catechisms, confessionaries, sermons etc. were aimed at gaining a profound knowledge of the Christian discourse in native languages and hence can be seen as linguistic tools as well. By way of illustration, the prologue of Anonymous (1586: 4r) mentions that the Arte y Vocabulario was intended to complement a corpus of catechetical texts in a standardized form of Quechua that had been printed before in 1584–1585, in order to create a unified set of tools to evangelize Peruvian populations. Furthermore, some historians postulate (e.g. Valdeón 2014: 128) that linguistic texts must necessarily have preceded religious translations, though it is better to consider it in terms of accompanying each other in parallel. For instance, Maturino Gilberti and Alonso de Molina authored religious texts which were printed around the same period as their grammars, and a license in the Arte

18

Apostolica obra: viendola ya en Arte: y que facilmente se podia saber, se animassen a ello, y con facilidad la aprendiessen, como se come[n]ço a hazer.” “Por quanto por parte de Fray Antonio de los Reyes, Vicario de Tepuzculula, dela Orden delos Predicadores, nos fue pedido y suplicado, le diesemos licencia para poder imprimir vn Arte que el dicho Fray Antonio d[e] los Reyes ha compuesto en la lengua Mixteca, diciendo ser vtil, y muy necessario para los ministros que enla Mixteca predican a los naturales el Sancto Euangelio, o lo vuieren de predicar, y por ser causa publica, y del seruicio de Dios nuestro Señor.”

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

63

of Córdova (1578a: 3v) mentioned that he was still writing a (lost) Confessionario Breve. Besides religious translations, vocabularies of the same languages usually complemented these artes as well, in some cases as an additional part, which is the case of Lagunas (1574) and Anonymous (1586), but often these texts could be bought as separate books. Maturino Gilberti, Domingo de Santo Tomás, Alonso de Molina, and Juan de Córdova were all authors of vocabularies printed in the same year as their grammars, but sold separately with a different title page, numbering, and bookbinding.19 In comparison with the relatively low number of printed language descriptions, approximately 40 religious translations were printed in the course of the sixteenth century. Does this have something to do with the fact that religious literature was a commercial genre in sixteenth-century society that was predominant in the output of European (and American) printing presses (Nájera 2012: 576)? Does this imply that printing language descriptions was not as lucrative as religious texts? Or, was the printing of religious texts a way to control the contents’ conformity to official standards, which might have been deemed less necessary in the case of language descriptions? Considering that a genre can define how printed books circulate (Jordheim 2018: 251), we suggest that early modern missionaries did not regard the dissemination of linguistic material in printed books as of crucial significance. Indeed, taking into account the high number of linguistic manuscripts produced (and copied) in the sixteenth century, handwritten texts may have been sufficient to mediate linguistic knowledge to readers, even though their copies were distributed on a smaller scale.20 Whatever the case may be, it is clearly important not to disregard this handwritten corpus. 4.2 Producing Linguistic Knowledge: The Role of the Latin Tradition When studying the moment of knowledge production—imagining, so to speak, the individual missionary grammarian while he constructs and composes his grammar, thus producing a piece of embodied linguistic knowledge with a particular structure and shape—we seek to reconstruct and appreci19

20

In the same line of thought, Reyes (1593) can be linked with Alvarado (1593), which was printed in the same year as Reyes’ Mixtec grammar, and of which he had examined the contents. Only Antonio del Rincón does not seem to have authored a published vocabulary. The majority of those who wrote the eight printed grammars had produced much more linguistic and religious material that had never been printed. Moreover, the Jesuits, who, with the exception of Rincón (1595), did not have a share in the printing of sixteenthcentury texts in indigenous languages, probably utilized manuscripts for language training.

64

van loon and peetermans

ate the interplay of contextual factors and the grammarian’s personal background, attitudes, motivations, and reasoning that moved him to write what he wrote the way he wrote it. Indeed, grammars can come in many forms and be similar to or dissimilar from each other with regard to (macro- and/or microlevel) structure, style of presentation, didactic procedures, conceptual content, choice of examples and definitions, and terminology. In line with the general idea behind the present contribution—and a considerable amount of previous research21—we believe that the choices that present themselves in individual grammars can be understood most fruitfully in the light of a wide-lensed perspective on the broader tradition(s) of which these grammars are part. One crucial factor in the interplay shaping missionaries’ grammaticographical choices, and particularly interesting from a History of Linguistics point of view, is the pre-existing body of pieces of embodied linguistic knowledges, which is usually known as the grammatical tradition.22 When it comes to the sixteenth-century missionary grammars of the Americas, the importance of what is commonly called the European (Graeco-) Latin grammatical tradition—a fairly cohesive collection of bodies of knowledge shaped by the work of ancient, medieval, and humanist grammarians—cannot be overstated. In their respective artes, Santo Tomás (1560a: A viiiv), Molina (1571a: first part: 5v; 1576: 1v), Lagunas (1574: 2), and Córdova (1578a: 19v–27r) expressly used the latefifteenth-century Latin grammar by the famous Spanish humanist Antonio de Nebrija as a point of reference; and Gilberti illustrated his intimate knowledge of previous tradition by authoring a Latin grammar himself.23 Thus—as has been made clear by, among others, Percival (1999: 21–23), Zimmermann (2004: 27), Fountain (2006: 72–145), Alexander-Bakkerus (2008), and Zwartjes (2012: 210)—it is essential to accurately understand the role of the Latin tradition in the production of embodied knowledge on indigenous languages. 21 22

23

E.g. Hanzeli (1969); Suárez Roca (1992); Esparza Torres (2007); Hernández de León-Portilla (2010); Zwartjes (2011). There are many other such factors, of course, each of which can be relevant to a study of grammaticographical choices. It would take up too much space to do more than enumerate some of them: didactic considerations; ideas and attitudes as to language in general and the object language in particular; knowledge of other languages; the apparent typological realities of the object language (e.g. its degree of agglutinativity or fusionality); institutional or political factors (e.g. the internal mechanics and external relations of religious orders). Gilberti’s connection to previous grammaticography is highlighted by the subtitle of his Latin grammar (1559): Tractatus omnium ferè qu⟨a⟩e Grammatices studiosis tradi sole⟨n⟩t […] ex doctissimis collectus autoribus, ‘A treatise containing almost everything that is usually passed on to students of Grammar, collected from the most learned authors’. On Gilberti’s grammars, see Monzón (1997; 1999).

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

65

The Latin tradition often takes on the name of Antonio de Nebrija and his immensely popular Introductiones Latinae in both comments made by the missionaries themselves and present-day studies in Missionary Grammar.24 By way of their immense popularity, the Introductiones have known a very large number of different versions and editions throughout the early modern period.25 Given the views about the embodied nature of knowledge that were expressed earlier in this contribution, we very much welcome the line of research represented by Esparza Torres (2007) and Baños Baños and Téllez Nieto (2015), who raise the question which specific version(s) of the Introductiones missionary grammarians are likely to have known and used. Indeed, just as it would be a glaring overgeneralization to simply note that a (monolithic, undifferentiated) block called missionary grammar was influenced by another such block called Latin grammar without adding further qualifications or specifications,26 ‘Nebrija’ (‘el arte de Antonio’) does not constitute a single well-defined and undifferentiated entity: What is part of one edition of the Introductiones, may very well not be part of others. For example, the overall structure of the grammar underwent profound changes in the edition of 1485, so that the structure of earlier editions (including the original of 1481) cannot at all be considered representative of ‘Nebrija’ as known to any individual missionary grammarian (Esparza Torres 2007: 9; Baños Baños and Téllez Nieto 2015: 236). Therefore, when speaking about the influence of Nebrija on the genesis of a specific missionary grammar, it is advisable to follow up with the question ‘which Nebrija?’. Proceeding on this basis, it becomes possible to talk about Nebrija’s influence on broader traditions of missionary grammar in an increasingly more meaningful manner, through the path of induction and ever more encompassing generalization. 4.3 Visto y examinado: Validating Knowledge before Diffusion During the sixteenth century, the Spanish Crown passed several laws that insisted on language proficiency, such as the decree proclaiming to adopt policies in order to examine priests’ competences before they could start working 24

25 26

Nebrija’s influence on missionary grammar has received fairly generous amounts of attention, e.g. by Calvo Pérez (1994); Percival (1999); Esparza Torres (2007); Baños Baños and Téllez Nieto (2015). It is noted, however, that most of this research has tended to focus on the sixteenth century (and, to a lesser extent, the first decade of the seventeenth). For information about the different versions and editions of Nebrija’s Introductiones up to 1700, cf. Sánchez Salor (2008) and Martín Baños (2011–2018). Which is exactly the kind of oversimplification that has had to be overturned in order to allow for the flourishing of the field of Missionary Linguistics (cf. Zwartjes and Hovdhaugen 2004: 2).

66

van loon and peetermans

in local parishes. One way to gain these competences was by using grammatical texts on the respective languages. Hence, controlling printed books dealing with indigenous language structures was necessary in order to offer these priests validated knowledge, which is what happened in sixteenth-century Mexico. In the viceroyalty of Peru, the Spanish Crown did not install a printing press until 1581, and in this regard exerted a great amount of control on how and what linguistic knowledge circulated in South America in printed books, as Santo Tomás (1560a) was the only Quechua grammar allowed to be published until the 1580s. Only in 1586, the authorities allowed the publication of a second Quechua grammar (Anonymous 1586) in order to complement a printed three-volume set of pastoral texts in Quechua and Aymara authorized by the Third Lima Provincial Council (1582–1583) to guarantee a standard corpus for evangelization conforming to their decrees. The two printing centres in Mexico and Lima almost exclusively served the colonial interests of the Spanish Crown and the Church in the Americas, and their output was strictly regulated by both institutions (Nájera 2012: 579), and the sixteenth-century publishing of grammars in Spanish America required a number of steps in the process of controlling the contents of each book before it was printed. Lagunas’ grammar and vocabulary (1574) attested of all these different steps. He first of all obtained a license and privilege of the viceroy of Mexico, Martín Enríquez, who declared that he considered the contents to be “muy provechosa” (very profitable) to print, after receiving the original manuscript and handing it over to ecclesiastical authorities. Several licenses followed hereafter, among which from the bishop of Michoacán, Antonio de Morales de Molina, the general commissioner of the Franciscan order, Francisco Ribera, and the provincial Antonio de Beteta, who also declared the grammar’s contents to be rightful after examination by experts. One of these experts was Maturino Gilberti, who after the publication of his own Purépecha grammar twenty years earlier, had clearly acquired the authority to examine Lagunas (1574), of which he declared the following: I saw and examined this book and the things contained in it, by order of our very reverend father provincial Friar Antonio de Beteta, and it seems that there is nothing in it [that is] not appropriate, rather [it] to be a fundamental and proper thing, in order to quickly understand this language from Michuacan.27 27

“Vi y examine este libro, y las cosas en el contenidas por mandado de nuestro muy R. padre Prouincial Fray Antonio de Beteta, y parece no auer en el cosa, no deuida, antes ser cosa prima y curiosa, para de presto ente[n]der esta lengua de Michuacan.”

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

67

In total, four different experts examined Lagunas’ grammar for inadequacies, which resulted in the granting of six different licenses that approved its publication. Moreover, sometimes linguistic experts from different missionary orders were approached to evaluate each other’s grammars, in order to achieve correctness. For instance, the grammar by Franciscan Maturino Gilberti (1558: iiir; ivv) had been evaluated by Alonso de la Veracruz, the provincial of the Augustinian order, Iacobo de Dacia, a member of the Franciscan order, Diego Pérez Gordillo, a member of the secular clergy, and Francisco de la Zerda, a secular priest of Michoacán; “all four very expert in the said language” and “very learned people in the Tarascan language”.28 It appears that censorship not only had the effect of controlling what knowledge would be spread within these printed books, but aimed at verifying the grammar’s correctness as well. Hence, censorship was not only a form of content control, but also intended to preventively check its quality, and thus contributed to the correctness of the linguistic knowledge that would be made available to the public through these instruments. With regard to the complex process of printing a text, preliminary findings indeed indicate that authorities sometimes rejected texts of missionary authors, which is why those language descriptions only circulated in manuscripts. It thus seems that printed books were attestations of verified knowledge, and that some manuscripts did not make it through this process of control, as their contents were considered incorrect. However, there are other explanations as well. While the censura indeed provided for content and quality control, leading some texts to remain unpublished, other factors also seem to have played a part in determining whether or not missionary linguistic (and religious) texts were published. One such important factor was the effiency of the handwritten word. Many manuscripts were produced, distributed, copied, and reworked without being published, since not all linguistic knowledge had to be commercialized and distributed on a large scale through the printing press. For instance, manual transcription was a more appropriate way to distribute knowledge on a particular indigenous language with a limited amount of speakers, as it allowed for a quick and local distribution.29

28 29

“todos quatro muy expertos enla dicha leng[u]a]”; “[p[er]sonas muy doctas en lengua Tarasca”. In her doctoral dissertation, which is due in 2020, Zanna Van Loon studies the early modern circulation of missionary knowledge on the indigenous languages of New Spain, Peru, and New France, and she analyses the regulations and necessary conditions for the publishing of missionary linguistic material, but also elaborates on the efficiency of the manuscript production, distribution, and transcription of missionary linguistic texts.

68

van loon and peetermans

4.4 The Role of Printers in the Process of Diffusion Lässig (2016: 46) states that “just as important as actors in the history of knowledge are physical and social spaces. Those spaces include institutions and organizations, networks, and geographic spaces”, which in the case of our sixteenthcentury corpus, seems to be a valid statement. First of all, the only sixteenthcentury grammar that was printed in Europe dates from 1560, when there was no local printing press in Peru. Santo Tomás (1560a) was printed in Valladolid in Spain, as it would take until 1581 before printer Antonio Ricardo had installed his printing press in Lima. Already in 1551, the First Provincial Council of the Catholic Church in Lima had encouraged the publication of texts in Quechua (Valdeón 2014: 132), but because the Crown prohibited the installation of a local printing press, Santo Tomás had to look for another option. In Spain, Santo Tomás received royal patronage for his texts, of which the king’s printer Fernández de Córdova had made 1,583 copies, which were intended to be used by missionaries in Peru (Durston 2007: 69). However, why was the Arte printed in Spain and not in Mexico, which did have a printing press since 1539? This seems to imply that knowledge circuits on indigenous languages were bound to the borders of the Spanish viceroyalties in the New World. Secondly, seven grammars were printed and published in the New World, of which six in Mexico, which was the first colonial city to have a printing press. Becoming operational in 1539, it enabled a diffusion of missionary linguistic knowledge on a larger scale. Four out of the ten printers30 who were active in sixteenth-century Mexico published one or more grammars of an indigenous language in their printing office. Apparently, the sixteenth-century production of missionary linguistic knowledge in New Spain was in the hands of a small community of printers, who all knew each other. Juan Pablos, the owner of the first printing press in the New World, throughout his career employed future printers in his office, such as Antonio de Espinosa and Pedro Ocharte (Garone Gravier 2014: 141). Until 1559, he was the only printer in Mexico with his own printing press, which explains why Gilberti approached him in the course of 1558 to print his grammar. Ocharte, the second printer in Mexico to print a grammar, married Juan Pablos’ daughter María de Figueroa and subsequently took over Pablos’ printing office around the time of his death in 1560. Interestingly, Antonio de Espinosa does not appear in the list of printed grammars, even though he printed several religious texts in indige30

There is no consensus about the total number of active printers in sixteenth-century Mexico. For example, Rodríguez-Buckingham (2007: 217) refers to ten individuals who are known to have produced books in sixteenth-century Mexico, while Garone Gravier (2014: 140–143) only lists seven.

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

69

nous languages (Garone Gravier 2014: 193) and one vocabulary by Alonso de Molina (1571b). It could have been the case that Espinosa mainly had his expertise in printing religious translations, and that Molina (1571b) was outsourced to him, because Ocharte was already occupied with printing both Molina (1571a) and Cruz (1571). Pedro Balli, of French origin just like Ocharte, seems to have been an apprentice in the latter’s office. It can be surmised that, when the Inquisition accused Pedro Ocharte of heresy between 1572 and 1576 and imprisoned him, Balli filled in the gap and may have bought or taken over his printing material (RodríguezBuckingham 2007: 217). Even though Ocharte continued to print until his death in 1592, his business must have suffered from the inquisitorial trials. In any case, Pedro Balli was known to be a specialist in publishing bilingual texts dealing with indigenous languages (Paisano Rodríguez 2011: 24). He began his activities as a bookseller and official binder of the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1572 (Paisano Rodríguez 2011: 5) and was active until 1600. This might explain why five different grammars of an indigenous language were printed at his office: the Catholic authorities supported his activities, at the time when the only other active printer, Ocharte, was brought into discredit. It should thus come as no surprise that missionary authors would prefer to work with a printer who was on favourable terms with the Catholic Church. The last printer was Antonio Ricardo, who printed Anonymous (1586) in Lima, and was active in Mexico between 1570 and 1579 before he moved to Lima in 1581 to establish the first South American printing press in 1584 (Pérez 2001: 168). That he knew and collaborated with Pedro Ocharte is made clear by the title page of Córdova (1578b), which mentions that the book was printed “por Pedro Charte, y Antonio Ricardo”. He was the only printer in Lima from 1581 until his death in 1605. 4.5

Continuing Diffusion of Linguistic Knowledge in the Seventeenth Century The grammars that are the focus of this article became, through time, parts of the foundations of new and growing traditions of grammaticography. Seventeenth-century missionary grammarians related to their sixteenth-century predecessors in ways analogous to how the latter had related to preceding Latin grammarians (such as Nebrija), so that the pioneering grammars of the Americas in turn served as models that to a greater or lesser degree co-influenced later missionaries’ grammaticographical decisions in the production of new pieces of embodied knowledge. As an example of this phenomenon, we will take a brief look at how Rincón (1595) Arte mexicana, the first printed grammar of Nahuatl authored by a Jesuit, was taken up again by two seventeenth-

70

van loon and peetermans

century grammarians of that language: the Augustinian Diego Galdo Guzmán and the Jesuit Horacio Carochi. The relation between Rincón (1595) and his successor Carochi (1645) has often been described in terms of a teacher-student bond (e.g. Hernández de León-Portilla 1996: xiv); as pointed out by Smith-Stark (2000: 34), this is historically impossible in a physical sense—Rincón died in 1601, while Carochi is known to have arrived in New Spain in 1605. However, it presumably does contain symbolic truth, since it is clear that Carochi’s work was greatly influenced by Rincón’s, whom he mentioned several times in his Arte (1645: 22r, 28v, 81r– v) and even singled out for individual praise on account of his grammar having been written “co[n] tanto magisterio” (with so much mastery) (1645: Al lector). The precise nature and extent of the use Carochi made of Rincón has been investigated by Canger (1997) and, more extensively, Smith-Stark (2000). This last author has come to the conclusion that Carochi was indeed very much inspired by Rincón, but that this does not at all imply that Carochi simply repeated his predecessor, rather, Carochi’s treatment was an improvement on many counts (Smith-Stark 2000: 48). Thus, Rincón (1595) and Carochi (1645) represent the first half-century of a longer Jesuit tradition of Nahuatl grammar (Smith-Stark 2000: 62). One point where Carochi provides an interesting and innovative reanalysis of Rincón’s material is in his treatment of the prefixes Nahuatl uses to mark grammatical person (as subject, object, or possessor), which Rincón— and Carochi in his wake—calls semipronombres.31 Rincón conceptualizes the different forms and roles that these assume in terms of a category that is a central part of the Latin tradition, namely case: person prefixes denoting subjects are called nominative, those that denote objects are called accusative or dative, and those that denote possessors are called genitive. Meanwhile, he does not admit for the category of case in his analyses of Nahuatl nouns or full pronouns, claiming that both the noun and the pronoun lack case distinctions (Rincón 1595: 2v; 7r); consequently, grammatical case plays a role only in his discussion of semipronombres. Carochi (1615: 3v) agrees with Rincón that the noun does not have distinct cases, but rather than introducing the concept of case into his grammatical system solely in order to be able to make sense of the different forms the semipronombres take, he prefers not to rely on this notion at all 31

Rincón (1595) treats semipronombres on 7r–9r; Carochi (1645) on 10r–15r. While some basic points about this aspect of Carochi’s innovativity have been covered by Canger (1997: 68) and Smith-Stark (2000: 51), most of what is said in this paragraph is based on Andy Peetermans’s doctoral dissertation on conceptual and terminological developments in early modern American missionary grammars, which he is currently preparing.

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

71

to structure his analysis. His choice not to rely on the category of case compelled Carochi to come up with new modes of explanation and use new terms that Rincón had not needed, such as semipronombres de verbos intransitivos and semipronombres agentes. While Rincón (1595) lies at the basis of a Jesuit tradition of Nahuatl grammar, his influence also exceeded the limits of this order. As has been shown by Canger (1997: 65–66), Galdo Guzmán (1642) was obviously influenced by Rincón and copied entire paragraphs from his work, which demonstrates a clear example of Jesuit linguistic knowledge crossing over to the Augustinian order. The rather short list of examples that Canger adduces to support her analysis can easily be expanded upon. For example, Galdo Guzmán (1642: 2v–6v) adopted Rincón’s (1595: 2v–7r) division of Nahuatl nouns into five declensions (like Latin), based on the ways their plurals are formed. The declensions are the same, and they are treated in the exact same order, making use of the same example words (though Galdo Guzmán does add some extra examples). Another example: Galdo Guzmán (1642: 27r–34r) borrowed Rincón’s notion of semipronombres, as well as his way of conceptualizing them in terms of case.32 To what extent was missionary knowledge on indigenous languages disseminated in European circles? Was this knowledge circuit strictly confined to American missionary networks or did this knowledge cross the Atlantic? By tracing contemporary provenance notes—references to the history of ownership and possession of a book, such as handwritten notes or ex libris—it might be possible to reconstruct to some extent which paths sixteenth-century printed missionary grammars followed through history.33 After consulting all online catalogues in which surviving copies of the eight printed missionary grammars can be found, it appears that the seven grammars that were printed in Mexico and Peru overall seem to be held in collections of mostly American, Peruvian, and Mexican libraries, among which most notably John Carter Brown Library (Providence, US) and Biblioteca Cervantina (Monterrey, Mexico).34 Sometimes they do appear in European libraries, such as the Biblio32

33

34

As is the case for Rincón (1595) and Carochi (1645); a more detailed analysis of Galdo Guzmán’s (1642) treatment of semipronombres will be given in Andy Peetermans’ doctoral dissertation. We used the Universal Short Title Catalogue to trace surviving copies of our corpus in European and American archives and libraries. It is, however, impossible to give a complete picture, keeping in mind these printed books might have travelled from library to library in the course of history, and many copies have not been found yet or have not been preserved. Usually, either we are unable to find an early modern ex libris, or unable to identify the owner based on handwritten notes.

72

van loon and peetermans

thèque Nationale de France (Paris, France) and the British Library (London, UK), but this can often be shown to be due to nineteenth-century bibliophilic collectors.35 Santo Tomás (1560a) provides us with a very different picture, which can be explained by the fact that his grammar was printed in Europe, rather than Spanish America, facilitating European readers’ access to it. A range of European libraries hold in their collections surviving copies of his Arte, such as the Bodleian Library (Oxford, UK), the Biblioteca Nacional de España (Madrid, Spain), San Lorenzo de El Escorial (Madrid, Spain), etc. It is even more fascinating when we study the provenance notes found in the copies of the BNE and Bodleian Library. The title page of the BNE’s copy contains handwritten annotations, referring to a “doctor Medrano”, and a crossed out “fr. Aug[ustin] de Labata or[din]is praedicatorum”. The former can be identified as the sixteenth-century inquisitor and (as of 1592) member of the Council of the Indies Alonso Molina de Medrano (1549–1616), likely an acquaintance of the latter, Dominican friar Augustín de Labata (Gómez Zorraquino 2016: 801). It can be suggested that at one point Labata donated or sold the Arte to Medrano, after which Medrano crossed Labata’s name off the title page. Even though both men were involved in ecclesiastical affairs, it seems that they never travelled to Peru, or the Americas in general, which can imply that they had an interest in the grammar, which was not directly related to evangelization purposes. The Bodleian copy contains the following provenance notes: “Guill.mo Godolphin”, “The books of Sir William Godolphin, 1635–1696, diplomat, and Ambassador of Charles II to Madrid, came to Wadham via his nephew Charles”, and “Bequest of Charles Godolphin 1720”. Indeed, in 1720 Charles Godolphin (c. 1650–1720), nephew of diplomat and ambassador Sir William Godolphin (1635–1696), had bequeathed a comprehensive collection of almost 1,500 historical and theological books printed in Spain to Wadham College in Oxford (Attar 2016: 354). In 1666–1669, William visited Madrid with the Earl of Sandwich to negotiate commercial affairs between Britain and Spain, and in 1669– 1678 he worked as the British ambassador to Spain (Venning 2016). Probably during his returning trips to England or after his death, the arte came in the possession of his nephew Charles with the rest of his book collection. It is nevertheless noteworthy that a British diplomat bought this sixteenth-century

35

For instance, Molina’s copy (1576) was donated to the BNF after the death of E. Eugene Goupil in 1896, who in turn had bought his Mexican collection from another bibliophile, Joseph Marius Alexis Aubin.

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

73

missionary grammar in the mid-1600s as an addition to his extensive collection, instead of using the tool for its intended purpose. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of the contemporary European circulation of these language descriptions, it is highly enlightening to note that León Pinelo (1589–1660), a Spanish bibliographer who left colonial Peru for Spain in 1612, was one of the first bibliographers to list handwritten and printed missionary linguistic texts by contemporary Spanish missionaries in his 1629 Epitome de la biblioteca oriental i occidental, under section 18, Autores, que han escrito en lenguas de las Indias (1629: 104–110). He for instance included Domingo de Vico’s manuscript grammars of “Cakchiquel and of the Verapaz [language]” (104).36 Similarily, the seventeenth-century Bibliotheca Hispana by the Spanish bibliographer Nicolás Antonio contains entries for several sixteenth-century missionary linguists.37 The inclusion of Domingo de Santo Tomás (Antonio 1672: 258), whose work was published on the Iberian peninsula, is relatively unsurprising; but the same cannot be said of Alonso de Molina (29), Antonio de los Reyes (123), Antonio del Rincón (123), Juan Baptista de Lagunas (490) and Juan de Córdova (516), whose works were published in Mexico.38 Particularly fascinating is the inclusion of Andrés de Olmos (64), whose grammars do not seem to have been printed at all. This confirms that it was not impossible for an educated, sufficiently resourceful, and persistent Spaniard of that time to have come across these works in contemporary libraries in Europe or to have at least heard about them. This is an indication that, even though these grammars were intended as practical tools for evangelization abroad, they circulated in European academic circles to some extent as well. And of course the existence of Antonio’s successful bibliography further favoured the circulation of information about these linguistic documents. It appears that the European path of diffusion followed a trajectory different from missionary networks, and consequently, the knowledge presented in sixteenth-century missionary grammars gave rise to two different knowledge circuits that functioned more or less separately. Missionary linguistics, though originally intended as a form of practical knowledge (ars), could shed its instrumental character and reach new audiences as a form of theoretical knowledge (scientia). As these language descriptions diffused, people could become fasci-

36 37 38

“Artes de la lengua Cachiquil, i de la Verapaz”. A late-sixteenth-century religious treatise already mentions linguistic activity in the New World. See Tapia (1594: 253). Antonio also mentioned, for example, the seventeenth-century missionary linguists Diego de Torres Rubio (246), Bernardo de Lugo (176), Antonio Ruiz de Montoya (125), Diego González Holguín (219), and Diego de Olmos (234), etc.

74

van loon and peetermans

nated by these texts an sich, and the knowledge contained in them acquired a different status for some, as is illustrated by the case of Antonio and Godolphin.

5

Conclusion: On the Importance of Contextualization

We hope to have demonstrated the relevance of a wide-lensed perspective and given an impression of how much can be gained by keeping an eye on the larger picture, also when doing detailed studies of grammars and their content. Throughout, we have noted that Missionary Linguistics has already taken important steps towards such an integrated study of sources and traditions. Also, we have presented one possible theoretical framework that offers a promising approach to the integrated large-picture study of missionary linguistics: ‘circulation of knowledge’. While the circulation of knowledge comprises four ‘phases’—acquisition, production, diffusion, and comsumption— our article has focused mostly on production and diffusion, which is not at all meant to imply that studying the acquisition of knowledge (e.g., relations with informants, or the elicitation methods used) is of any less value or interest. When it comes to the justification of the choice to produce and diffuse grammatical knowledge, as expressed in the preliminaries to their works, sixteenthcentury missionary grammarians invariably expressed their motivations and their belief in the useful and necessary nature of their work in terms of the broader evangelization project and its practical needs. Grammars, vocabularies, and religious translations jointly served as invaluable tools for this project. Considering sixteenth-century missionaries’ production of embodied linguistic knowledge, we have noted that grammaticographical decisions are shaped by an interplay of many factors, both contextual and individual. In this regard, we specifically underlined the importance of a wide-lensed perspective on the influence of the broader (Latin) grammatical tradition and illustrated the importance of cultivating awareness of the potentially significant differences between versions of a grammar. With regard to the next step in the circulation knowledge produced by sixteenth-century missionaries, we have discussed how the print diffusion of missionary grammars was dependent upon contextual and institutional factors, such as the process of censorship and the agency of printers. Through censura, both royal and ecclesiastical authorities were able to exert significant influence on the final form taken on by the corpus of printed grammars, while also validating as correct the linguistic knowledge these books would diffuse. As to the professionals tasked with the technical side of enabling the wide diffusion of knowledge, we have looked in some detail at the role of the small and tight-knit network of printers that controlled

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

75

the printing of missionary grammars in sixteenth-century Mexico. Finally, we have discussed the different circuits through which the diffusion of the knowledge contained in our sixteenth-century grammars passed over into the seventeenth century. On the one hand, the seventeenth-century missionaries in Spanish America continued the sixteenth-century task of producing and diffusing grammatical knowledge in function of evangelizational needs. In producing their own bodies of knowledge, they derived inspiration from the embodied knowledge that had been diffused to them, giving rise to grammaticographical traditions that sometimes crossed the boundaries between religious orders. On the other hand, part of the diffusion of missionary linguistic knowledge took place in European circles, going outside the control of missionary networks. In this case, it could shed its instrumental character, becoming a form of theoretical knowledge pursued in the name of intellectual curiosity. Clearly, the status of a piece of knowledge is of a fluid nature and can change in function of context and audience. Having come this far, we hope to have provided sufficient support for the following two statements: it is worthwhile to adopt integrated wide-lensed, context-rich approaches, such as ‘circulation of knowledge’, to missionary linguistics; and, vice versa, missionary linguistics represents a valuable addition to studies in the History of Knowledge.

Acknowledgements We wish to express our gratitude to Otto Zwartjes (Université de Paris) and Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus (University of Amsterdam) for organizing the ROLD workshop, providing us with the opportunity to write this chapter, and giving relevant feedback. We also would like to thank our supervisors Toon Van Hal, Werner Thomas, and Pierre Swiggers, and colleagues Raf Van Rooy and Bram De Ridder (KU Leuven) for their helpful comments on previous versions of the presentation and text.

References Primary Sources Alvarado, Francisco de. 1593. Vocabulario en lengua misteca. Mexico: Pedro Balli. [Anonymous]. 1586. Arte, y Vocabvlario en la lengva general del Perv. Los Reyes: Antonio Ricardo. Antonio, Nicolás. 1672. Bibliotheca Hispana sive Hispanorum qui usquam unquamve

76

van loon and peetermans

sive Latinâ sive populari sive aliâ quâvis linguâ scripto aliquid consignaverunt notitia […]Tomus primus. Rome: Nicolaus Angelus Tinassius. Carochi, Horacio. 1645. Arte de la lengva mexicana con delcaracion de los adverbios della. Mexico: Iuan Ruyz. Córdova, Iuan de. 1578a. Arte en lengva zapoteca. Mexico: Pedro Balli. Córdova, Iuan de. 1578b. Vocabulario en lengva zapoteca. Mexico: Pedro Ocharte; Antonio Ricardo. Cruz, Juan de la. 1571. Doctrina Christiana en la lengua guasteca. Mexico: Pedro Ocharte. Galdo Guzmán, Diego. 1642. Arte Mexicano. Mexico: la Viuda de Bernardo Caldero[n]. Gilberti, Maturino. 1558. Arte de la le[n]gua de Michuaca[n]. Mexico: Iuan Pablos. Lagunas, Iuan Baptista de. 1574. Arte y dictionario: con otras Obras, en lengua Michuacana. Mexico: Pedro Balli. León Pinelo, Antonio de. 1629. Epitome de la biblioteca oriental i occidental, náutica i geografía. Madrid: Iuan Gonzalez. Molina, Alonso de. 1571a. Arte de la lengua Mexicana y Castellana. Mexico: Pedro de Ocharte. Molina, Alonso de. 1571b. Vocabulario en lengva Castellana y Mexicana. Mexico: Antonio de Spinosa. Molina, Alonso de. 1576. Arte dela lengva Mexicana y Castellana. Mexico: Pedro Balli. Reyes, Antonio de los. 1593. Arte en lengva mixteca. Mexico: Pedro Balli. Rincón, Antonio del. 1595. Arte mexicana. Mexico: Pedro Balli. Santo Tomás, Domingo de. 1560a. Grammatica o arte de la lengua general de los Indios de los Reynos del Peru. Valladolid: Francisco Fernandez de Cordoua. Santo Tomás, Domingo de. 1560b. Lexicon o Vocabulario de la lengua general del Peru. Valladolid: Francisco Fernandez de Cordoua. Tapia, Carlo. 1594. De religiosis rebus tractatus. Naples: Ex Typographia Stelliolae.

Secondary Sources Alexander-Bakkerus, Astrid. 2008. “Two colonial grammars: Tradition and innovation.” Asian Journal of Latin American Studies 21 (1): 215–255. Altman, Cristina. 2009. “Retrospectivas e perspectivas da historiografia da lingüística no Brasil.” Revista argentina de historiografía lingüística 1 (2): 115–136. Attar, Karen, ed. 2016. Directory of Rare Book and Special Collections in the UK and Republic of Ireland. London: Facet Publishing. Baños Baños, José Miguel, and Heréndira Téllez Nieto. 2015. “El modelo nebrisense del Arte de la lengua mexicana (1547) de fray Andrés de Olmos.”Historiographia Linguistica 42 (2/3): 233–260. Burke, Peter. 2016. What is the History of Knowledge? Cambridge; Malden: Polity. Calvo Pérez, Julio. 1994. “Las gramáticas de Nebrija y las primeras gramáticas del quechua.” In Actas del Congreso Internacional de Historiografía Lingüística: Nebrija V

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

77

Centenario: Volumen II: Nebrija y las lenguas amerindias, edited by Ricardo Escavy Zamora et al., 63–80. Murcia: Secretariado de Publicaciones e Intercambio Científico, Universidad de Murcia. Calvo Pérez, Julio. 1997. “La gramática aimara de Bertonio (1603) y la escuela de Juli.” In La descripción de las lenguas amerindias en la época colonial, edited by Klaus Zimmermann, 321–338. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana. Canger, Una. 1997. “El Arte de Horacio Carochi.” In La descripción de las lenguas amerindias en la época colonial, edited by Klaus Zimmermann, 59–74. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana. Castelnau-L’Estoile, Charlotte de, et al., eds. 2011. Missions d’évangelisation et circulation des savoirs, XVIe–XVIIIe siècle. Madrid: Casa de Velázquez. Connecting Worlds: Production and circulation of knowledge in the First Global Age. 2016. History of Science International Conference, University of Porto, Faculty of Arts and Humanities 18–20 May 2016. Porto: Centro de Investigação Transdisciplinar “Cultura, Espaço e Memória”. http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/15196.pdf (accessed 29 January 2019) Darnton, Robert. 1982. “What is the History of Books?” Daedalus 111 (3): 65–83. Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz, Sabine, ed. 2016. La transmisión de conceptos cristianos a las lenguas amerindias: Estudios sobre textos y contextos de la época colonial. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag. Durston, Alan. 2007. Pastoral Quechua: The history of Christian translation in colonial Peru, 1550–1650. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press. Esparza Torres, Miguel Ángel. 2007. “Nebrija y los modelos de los misioneros lingüistas del náhuatl.” In Missionary Linguistics III / Lingüística misionera III: Morphology and syntax: Selected papers from the Third and Fourth International Conferences on Missionary Linguistics, Hong Kong/Macau, 12–15 March 2005, Valladolid, 8–11 March 2006, edited by Otto Zwartjes, Gregory James, and Emilio Ridruejo, 3–40. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fountain, Catherine Anne. 2006. “Colonial linguistics in New Spain: The Nahuatl tradition.” PhD dissertation, University of California. Fountain, Catherine Anne. 2015. “Transculturation, assimilation, and appropriation in the missionary presentation of Nahuatl.” In Colonialism and Missionary Linguistics, edited by Klaus Zimmermann and Birte Kellermeier-Rehbein, 177–197. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter. Garone Gravier, Marina. 2014. Historia de la tipografía colonial para lenguas indígenas. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, Universidad Veracruzana. Gómez Zorraquino, José Ignacio. 2016. Patronazgo y clientelismo: instituciones y ministros reales en el Aragón de los siglos XVI y XVII. Zaragoza: Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza.

78

van loon and peetermans

Hammar, Anna Nilsson. 2018. “Theoria, praxis, and poiesis: Theoretical considerations on the circulation of knowledge in everyday life.” In Circulation of knowledge: Explorations in the history of knowledge, edited by Johan Östling et al., 107–124. Lund: Nordic Academic Press. Hanzeli, Victor Egon. 1969. Missionary Linguistics in New France: A study of seventeenthand eighteenth-century descriptions of American Indian languages. The Hague: Mouton. Hernández de León-Portilla, Ascensión. 2010. “Paradigmas gramaticales del Nuevo Mundo: un acercamiento.” Boletín de la Sociedad Española de Historiografía Lingüística 7: 73–107. Huiyi, Wu. 2015. “Language training and circulation of linguistic knowledge in the Chinese Mission by 1700: A case study of the personal notebook of J.-F. Foucquet, S.J.” In History of the Catholic Church in China: From its beginning to the Scheut fathers and 20th century, edited by Ferdinand Verbiest Institute, 193–241. Leuven: Ferdinand Verbiest Institute. Jordheim, Helge. 2018. “The printed work as a site of knowledge production.” In Circulation of knowledge: Explorations in the history of knowledge, edited by Johan Östling et al., 232–253. Lund: Nordic Academic Press. Klöter, Henning. 2011. The language of the Sangleys: A Chinese vernacular in missionary sources of the seventeenth century. Leiden: Brill. Lässig, Simone. 2016. “The history of knowledge and the expansion of the historical research agenda.” Bulletin of the German Historical Institute 59: 29–58. Martín Baños, Pedro. 2011–2018. Corpusnebrissense: Repertorio de textos y estudios nebrisenses. http://corpusnebrissense.com (accessed 15 February 2018) Monzón, Cristina. 1997. “La influencia de Nebrija en la gramática p’urhépecha de Gilberti.” In Memoria del Coloquio ‘La obra de Antonio de Nebrija y su Recepción en la Nueva España’: Quince estudios nebrisenses (1492–1992), edited by Ignacio Guzmán Betancourt and Eréndira Nansen Díaz, 107–120. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Monzón, Cristina. 1999. “Innovations in a vernacular grammar: A comparison of Fray Maturino Gilberti’s Latin and Tarascan grammars.” In History of Linguistics 1996: Selected Papers from the Seventh International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHOLS VII) Oxford, 12–17 September 1996: Volume I: Traditions in Linguistics Worldwide, edited by David Cram, Andrew Linn, and Elke Nowak, 147– 154. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nájera, Luna. 2012. “Contesting the word: The crown and the printing press in colonial Spanish America.” Bulletin of Spanish Studies 89: 575–596. Ostler, Nicholas. 2004. “The Social Roots of Missionary Linguistics.” In Missionary Linguistics / Lingüística misionera: Selected papers from the First International Conference on Missionary Linguistics, Oslo, 13–16 March 2003, edited by Otto Zwartjes and Even Hovdhaugen, 33–46. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

wide-lensed approaches to missionary linguistics

79

Östling, Johan, et al., eds. 2018. Circulation of knowledge: Explorations in the history of knowledge. Lund: Nordic Academic Press. Paisano Rodríguez, María del Refugio. 2011. “Pedro Balli, cuarto impresor novohispano: Estudio histórico-bibliotecológico.” Tesis de Maestría en Bibliotecología y Estudios de la Información. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Percival, W. Keith. 1999. “Nebrija’s Linguistic Œuvre as a Model for Missionary Linguistics.” In Languages different in all their sounds … Descriptive approaches to indigenous languages of the Americas 1500 to 1850, edited by Elke Nowak, 15–29. Münster: Nodus. Pérez, Pedro Guibovich. 2001. “The printing press in colonial Peru: Production process and literary categories in Lima, 1584–1699”. Colonial Latin American Review 10: 167– 188. Pytlowany, Anna, and Toon Van Hal. “Merchants, scholars and languages: The circulation of linguistic knowledge in the context of the Dutch East India Company (VOC).” Histoire Épistémologie Langage 38 (1): 19–38. Roberts, Lissa. 2012. “The circulation of knowledge in early modern Europe: Embodiment, mobility, learning and knowing.” History of Technology 31: 47–68. Rodríguez-Buckingham, Antonio. 2007. “Change and the printing press in sixteenthcentury Spanish America.” In Agent of change: Print culture studies after Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, edited by Sabrina Alcorn Baron et al., 216–237. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Sánchez Salor, Eustaquio. 2008. Las ediciones del arte de gramática de Nebrija (1481– 1700): Historia bibliográfica. Mérida: Junta de Extremadura. Smith-Stark, Thomas Cedric. 2000. “Rincón y Carochi: La tradición jesuítica de descripción del náhuatl.” In Las gramáticas misioneras de tradición hispánica (siglos XVI– XVII), edited by Otto Zwartjes, 29–72. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Suárez Roca, José Luis. 1992. Lingüística misionera española. Oviedo: Pentalfa. Swiggers, Pierre. 1990. “Reflections on (models for) linguistic historiography.” In Understanding the historiography of linguistics: Problems and projects, edited by Werner Hüllen, 21–34. Münster: Nodus. Tomalin, Marcus. 2011. ‘And he knew our language’: Missionary linguistics on the Pacific northwest coast. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Universal Short Title Catalogue. 2018. http://ustc.ac.uk (accessed 27 February 2018) Valdeón, Robert A. 2014. Translation and the Spanish Empire in the Americas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Van Hal, Toon, Zanna Van Loon, and Andy Peetermans. 2018. “Presentation of the RELiCTA database: Repertory of Early Modern Linguistic and Catechetical Tools of America, Asia, and Africa.”Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft; Vol. 28(2): 293–306.

80

van loon and peetermans

Venning, Tymothy. 2004. “Godolphin, Sir William.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/10883 (accessed 22 February 2018) Wendt, Reinhard, ed. 1998. Wege durch Babylon: Missionare, Sprachstudien und interkulturelle Kommunikation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Wendt, Reinhard, ed. 2001. Sammeln, Vernetzen, Auswerten: Missionare und ihr Beitrag zum Wandel europäischer Weltsicht. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Zimmermann, Klaus. 2004. “La construcción del objeto de la historiografía de la lingüística misionera.” In Missionary linguistics/Lingüística misionera II: Orthography and phonology, edite by Otto Zwartjes and Even Hovdhaugen, 7–32. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Zimmermann, Klaus, and Birte Kellermeier-Rehbein, eds. 2015. Colonialism and missionary linguistics. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter. Zwartjes, Otto. 2011. Portuguese missionary grammars in Asia, Africa and Brazil, 1550– 1800. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Zwartjes, Otto. 2012. “The Historiography of missionary linguistics: Present state and further research opportunities.” Historiographia Linguistica 39 (2/3): 185–242. Zwartjes, Otto, and Even Hovdhaugen. 2004. “Introduction.” In Missionary Linguistics / Lingüística misionera: Selected papers from the First International Conference on Missionary Linguistics, Oslo, 13–16 March 2003, edited by Otto Zwartjes and Even Hovdhaugen, 1–5. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Zwartjes, Otto, Klaus Zimmermann, and Martina Schrader-Kniffki, eds. 2014. Missionary Linguistics V / Lingüística Misionera V. Translation Theories and Practices. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Zwartjes, Otto, and José Antonio Flores Farfán. 2017. Manuel Pérez, O.S.A. Arte de el idioma mexicano (1713): Gramática, didáctica, dialectología y traductología. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana.

chapter 4

Between Grammars and Dictionaries: The ‘Tratado de las partículas’ (Treatise on Particles) in Diego de Basalenque’s Work on Matlatzinca Otto Zwartjes

1

Introduction

The Augustinian priest Diego Serrano Cardona de Basalenque (1577–1651) was born in Salamanca and moved to New Spain when he was nine years old. He first studied Latin and rhetoric at the Colegio Máximo with the Jesuits (S.J.) in Mexico City, until he was 15, and in 1593 he entered the order of Saint Augustine (O.S.A.). He learned Greek and Hebrew from Bishop Gonzalo de Hermosillo of Guadiana (1560–1631) (Eguiara y Eguren 2010 [1755–1763]: 814). He was appointed as lector in philosophy in Yurirapándaro and Valladolid and taught theology in Zacatecas. As a priest, he worked in several missions, such as San Luis, Valladolid and Charo.1 He taught Latin, philosophy, theology, music and indigenous languages—mainly Matlatzinca, a language of the Otomanguean linguistic phylum (forming with Tlahuica, or Ocuiltec, the Atzinca group of the Otomian sub-branch of the Otopamean branch of this phylum) (Palancar 2017: 1; Pascacio Montijo 2017: 17–21) and Purépecha (also called Tarascan, or “the language of Michoacán”, which is an isolate language). He wrote a Cartilla, Arte abreviado, Arte, Tratado de las partículas of Matlatzinca and two Vocabularios (bilingual dictionaries, Spanish-Matlatzinca and Matlatzinca Spanish). His grammar of Purépecha was published posthumously. Basalenque knew—apart from Matlatzinca and Purépecha—Italian, Spanish, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, Nahuatl and Pirinda, in total four indigenous languages, belonging to three completely distinct families. Five ethnic indigenous groups (“Naturales”) speak the Matlatzinca language according to Basalenque’s prologue of his work on Matlatzinca: the Nentambati, the Nepinthathuhui, the Matlaltzingos properly, the Pirindas and the Charenses (Ms Monterrey, “prologue”, f. 17r). Matlatzinca, Matlatzinga, or with 1 For more details about his life, see Eguiara y Eguren (2010 [1755–1763], §798: 813–823), Beristáin de Souza (1883), both based on Pedro Salguero (1761 [1664]). See also Warren (2007: 177–188).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004427006_005

82

zwartjes

metathesis Matalzinca, are Hispanicised forms of the Nahuatl exonym mātlāltzincah. This is used as glottonym and ethnonym, derived from the toponym Matlatzinco, the term used in postclassical time to designate the valley of Toluca and means “people who make nets”.2 In Basalenque’s work it is usually written as Matlaltzinga. Matlatzinca is severely endangered, with 731 speakers in 2011 in and around San Francisco Oxtotilpan; Ocuiltec is spoken in San Juan Atzingo and six other different places around Ocuilan, South-East of the volcano Nevado de Toluca, with 698 speakers (Pascacio Montijo 2017: 21–22; 37) in 2010.3 In the colonial period, Matlatzinca was the glottonym used for Matlatzinca generally (Western part of the State of Mexico, Morelos, Guerrero and Michoacán), whereas Pirinda was also used for the variety of the Matlatzinca spoken in Michoacán, excluding Ocuiltec (Pascacio Montijo 2017: 28–29). The endonym used for Ocuiltec today is Pjiekak’joo (lit. “this is the language I speak”). There are no extant colonial sources written in or describing Ocuiltec (Pascacio Montijo 2017: 50). Matlatzinca is poorly documented during the colonial period, compared to other languages such as Nahuatl. The earliest extant source is the glossed dictionary of Alonso de Molina (c. 1514–1585), recently published by Lastra et al. (2017), in which Andrés de Castro4 added Matlatzinca equivalents to Molina’s bilingual Spanish-Nahuatl dictionary. As observed by Pascacio Montijo (2017: 21), the language is still understudied today.5 The most important texts are not only written in a different period, but also in different locations (Castro, 1557: Valley of Toluca, State of Mexico; Guevara, 1638: Santiago Undameo, Michoacán; and Basalenque’s work in the 1640s: Charo, Michoacán). In what follows, I shall study Basalenque’s ‘particles’. The following questions will be discussed: – What is a particle, according to Basalenque’s view? – Why did he devote a special treatise to this topic?

2 In some texts the simplified form “Matlazinca” is used. Here, the most common form “Matlatzinca” is used, as in Ethnologue. See for the etymology of the term Matlatzinca, and other Nahuatl exonyms, such as Quaquatas, Toloques, Bernardino de Sahagún’s (1499–1590) Códice Florentino X, f. 130, cited in Pascacio Montijo (2017: 30–31). 3 Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2010, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (Pascacio Montijo 2017: 22). 4 Dates of his birth and death are unknown. He arrived in New Spain in 1542 and wrote also an “Arte” and sermons in Matlatzinca. The first is considered to have been lost, whereas several sermons in Matlatzinca are preserved. For more details regarding Andrés de Castro’s (O.F.M.) life and work see Pascacio Montijo (2017: 51–54) and Lastra, et al. (2017: 29–31). 5 See for an overview of relevant studies Pascacio Montijo (2017: 25–27).

between grammars and dictionaries

83

– Are the particles selected independently, or did the author translate these “little words”, which is the literal meaning of “partícula”—from Spanish? – Are there particles in the Tratado which are also treated in the Cartilla, the Arte or the Vocabulario? Are there particles included in this treatise which are not discussed or included in the Arte and the Vocabulario? If this is the case, why did Basalenque put them outside the dictionary and his Arte? – Are Baslenque’s decisions consistent or systematic according to his own theory? – How can we contextualize the prologue of this Tratado?

2

Basalenque’s Work

Basalenque explicitly tells his readers that—after he finished his studies on Matlatzinca (“Despues de aver estudiado la Le[n]gua Matlalcinga, y compuesto Arte, y Vocabulario de ella”)—he started to get interested in the study of Purépecha, a language in which he wanted to become more proficient (“tuve deseo de estudiar con cuidado la Lengua Tarasca”). He started learning Matlatzinca in 1637 when he was 60 years old, but no grammars or dictionaries were written yet, according to Basalenque, except a short notebook of a certain Francisco de Acosta.6 He finished his grammar in 1640, but his name is mentioned in the Arte doctrinal y modo general de aprender la lengua matlaltzinga of another Augustinian, Miguel de Guevara, dated 1638 (Zwartjes 2017c).7 This

6 It has been documented that the Augustinian Francisco Acosta composed a grammar of the Pirinda variety, entitled Arte de la lengua pirinda (Beristáin de Souza 1883, I: 9) and some religious works, such as sermons. During the colonial period, Pirinda was the glottonym for the Matlatzinca variety spoken in Michoacán (Pascacio Montijo 2017: 29). The glottonym “Pirinda” is not consistently used, since it appears also as synonym for Tarascan, as indicated by the title of his Tarascan grammar “Arte de la lengua Tarasca ó Pirinda” (Beristáin de Souza 1883, I: 144). The same glottonym “Pirinda” is used by Beristáin de Souza (1883, II: 64) for the title of Miguel Guevara’s grammar: “Arte, y vocabulario y manual de la lengua pirinda”, but the Arte doctrinal describes Matlatzinca. As we have seen, in Basalenque’s prologue, the Pirindas and the Charenses are mentioned as separate ethnic groups, whereas we find elsewhere that Pirinda is the variety that was once spoken in Charo (the last speaker died in 1932) (Soustelle 1937). Nahuatl is the most important lingua franca in Meso-America, but in Charo, Purépecha seems to have had the function of a local lingua franca in the missions. This assumption is based on Guevara, who informs his learners that if they were not able to find the right equivalent in Matlatzinca, they always could use Purépecha instead (“remitirse a la tarasca general”) (Guevara 1862 [1638]: 231). 7 According to Lastra (2013: 31), Basalenque’s Matlatzinca grammar including the vocabularies was completed between 1640 and 1644.

84

zwartjes

means that a part of Basalenque’s work was already in circulation in that year, probably his Arte abrebiado. Guevara’s Arte doctrinal shares many sections with Basalenque’s work; many particles described by Guevara are also included in the corresponding section of Basalenque. One of the earliest extant dictionaries of the New World is Molina’s dictionary of Nahuatl. The first edition (Spanish-Nahuatl) was published in 1555 and two years later, the Franciscan Andrés de Castro added Matlatzinca glosses in the margins of this bilingual dictionary. There is no evidence that Basalenque had seen Castro’s dictionary.8 Unlike his Matlatzinca grammar, which only circulated as a manuscript, his work on Tarascan was printed posthumously (Basalenque 1714; Zwartjes 2017b) (the original manuscript has been lost). Since Basalenque also refers to Tarascan in his Matlatzinca grammar, we can assume that he already had some knowledge of this language—i.e. before he started to study it “carefully” (“con cuidado”).9 He started writing his grammar on Purépecha after he finished his work on Matlatzinca, which means at an age of around 67. Apart from linguistic works, Basalenque also wrote historical treatises, such as Historia de la provincia de San Nicolás Tolentino Michoacán, del orden de san Agustín, completed when he was 70 years old, according to the prologue of this book, published posthumously in 1673. Beristáin de Souza (1883, vol. I: 144) also mention other works, written in Matlatzinca, sermons and a catechism (“Sermones en dicha lengua”, “Catecismo en la misma y Manual de párrocos de Michoacan”), considered to have been lost. 8 In fact, Castro used a more advanced alphabet, distinguishing nine vowels, the five used in Spanish, and in addition the two central vowels /ə/ and /ɨ/ with iota subscriptum, or cedilla, rendered as ⟨ą⟩ and ⟨ų⟩, and finally, the ⟨y⟩ for the vowel [i] and ⟨v⟩ for [u], although some of these are not used consistently (Lastra et al. eds. 2017: 22). The digraph ⟨ag⟩ is also used for the mid central vowel, not distinguished by Basalenque, although he uses other digraphs, such as ⟨eu⟩, ⟨eg⟩ representing /ə/ and ⟨iu⟩ and ⟨ig⟩ for /ɨ/. Basalenque does not distinguish the glottalized consonants either, as in Castro (Pascacio Montijo 2017: 102). Several digraphs and trigraphs, such as ⟨pp⟩, ⟨tt⟩, ⟨chh⟩, ⟨ttz⟩, ⟨mh⟩, ⟨nh⟩ and ⟨tzh⟩ are used in Castro, and these are generally not used by Basalenque (Manrique 1975: xviii). Neither of the authors marked any tone differences. Tone is not only lexical but also grammatical in Modern Matlatzinca, in order to distinguish clusivity in verbs and in possessive constructions (see for more details Escalante & Hernández 1999: 59–60). Probably the distinction was also present in Colonial Matlatzinca (Pascacio Montijo 2017: 189). 9 There are some references to Purépecha in the works on Matlatzinca. In the “Tratado de las partículas” Basalenque observes that the particle y in Matlatzinca is a “preposition”, which is used differently compared with Tarascan, where a locative case-ending is placed after the root (f. 111v). In his grammar of Purépecha the -o ending is described and compared with the Latin preposition ad and the adverb ibi (Basalenque 1714: 69). In the section describing the infinitive the two languages are compared again. According to the author’s view, the infinitive is non-existent in Matlatzinca, unlike Tarascan (glossa 48, f. 62r).

between grammars and dictionaries

85

In fact, Basalenque’s two grammars on Matlatzinca and Purépecha follow a different structure and the latter was not modelled on the former. As learning tools for Tarascan (Purépecha), Basalenque used the two famous grammars of the Franciscans Maturino Gilberti (1507–1585) and Juan Baptista de Lagunas (ca. 1530–1604). The grammar of Purépecha is predominantly inspired by these two grammars of his Franciscan predecessors, but an important difference between his Arte de la lengua Tarasca and these two is that Basalenque expanded his section on particles (almost 33% of his Arte) considerably.10 Several copies of the work on Matlatzinca are preserved as manuscripts: – John Carter Brown (JCB) Library.11 – Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, repositorio Institucional del Tecnológico de Monterrey, Patrimonio Cultural, Manuscritos Novohispanos en Lenguas Indígenas.12 – Archivo Histórico de la Biblioteca Nacional de Antropología e Historia (vol. 177) (Manrique Castañeda 1975: xlviii): Arte y Vocabulario de la Lengua Matlalzinga Vuelto a la Castellana and the Vocabulario de la Lengua Castellana Vuelto a la Matlaltzinga. In the JCB copy the “Vocabulario” is not appended, but in the Ms of Monterrey we find a section entitled “Vocabulario de la lengua Matlaltzinga: buelto en la castellana, por el Padre Maestro fr. Diego Basalenque de la orden de N.P.S. Agustin de la prouinçia de Michoacan anno 1642” (f. 123r). On the front page of the Ms of the JCB library, the year 1640 is given for the Arte, whereas we find the year 1642 on the front pages of the two parts of the dictionary (vocabulario). The Ms used by the editors Bribiesca and Manrique (1975) has the year 1644 at the end of the vocabulary. The JCB and Monterrey Manuscripts are not identical and not always the same spelling is used. To mention one example: the Monterrey manuscript often gives aspirated ⟨th⟩, where the JCB only uses ⟨t⟩, as in ⟨thica⟩ (“prepociçion de ablatiuo”; Monterrey f. 209v), compared to ⟨tica⟩ in the JCB Manuscript (f. 110v); ⟨thaquita⟩ versus ⟨taquita⟩ (“particula que dice possibilidad”), etc. In the Monterrey manuscript, we find an explanation: En esta letra tha-the-thi-tho-thu se an de notar dos cosas. La primera que de ordinario despues de la -T- estos naturales hechan -h- porque pronun10 11 12

For a comparison of the content and structure of the works of Basalenque, see my entries in CTLF (Zwartjes 2017a, b). Indigenous collection, JCB call Codex Ind 9, online available at: https://archive.org/details/ artedelalenguama00basa. Location Michoacán (code 70), available at https://repositorio.itesm.mx/ortec/handle/ 11285/596313.

86

zwartjes

figure 4.1 Title page of Basalenque’s Arte Courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library

cian con fuerça. Las çinco vocales quando les antecede -T- y assi es bien ponerles -h- como -tha-the-thi-tho-thu. Ms Monterrey f. 196v

Regarding the letters tha-the-thi-tho-thu two matters have to be observed. The first is that the natives usually put in a -h- after the -t- since they pronounce it with force. When the letter -T- goes before the five vowels, an -h- has to be put in: -tha-the-thi-tho-thu.13

13

Otopamean languages have large segmental inventories, ranging from 40 consonants

between grammars and dictionaries

87

In the Cartilla of the JCB manuscript, there is no special section devoted to the digraph ⟨th⟩ and other aspirated consonants are not marked. As Manrique demonstrates, the Matlatzinca-Spanish section is much shorter than the Spanish-Matlatzinca section, which is less common as compared with other dictionaries of this period (Manrique 1975: xix, and for an overview see also Zwartjes 2019a, b, c). The Matlatzinca-Castellano section contains around 4,300 entries and the Castellano-Matlatzinca ca. 10,000 entries (Manrique 1975: xx). His dictionary is understudied, which is difficult to explain, since Basalenque explicitly tells his readers that his vocabulary is “very different from the others” (“… en cuanto a la composición de este vocabulario, la cual es muy diferente de los demás …”). There are several aspects that are indeed remarkably ‘different’ from other sources from this period and, as far as I could trace, the treatise on the particles is not analysed at all, and for several reasons—to be demonstrated in the following paragraphs—this text deserves more attention. Firstly, we shall start with a short history of the term “particle”, starting with Greek and Latin, followed by Spanish and other European texts where particles are treated. As Haßler (2007) observes, the “particle” is an element which falls somewhere between “grammar” and “dictionary”. In her study, she analyses several sources, starting from Antiquity, followed by sources from Spanish authors and grammarians and lexicographers from New Spain. As far as I could trace, Basalenque’s approach, devoting a separate treatise to the particles, which falls outside the scope of the traditional grammar and the dictionary, is unusual, but not unique in missionary linguistics generally (Ignacio Chomé’s (1696–1768) Arte de la lengua chiquita includes a Tratado de las partículas as well). Basalenque’s complete work is entitled Arte de la lengua matlaltzinga mui copioso and includes one “ars minor” (“arte abreviado”) and one “ars maior”. The “Tratado de las partículas” falls within the framework of the Arte de la lengua matlaltzinga mui copioso, but falls outside the Arte proper, which ends with the colophon “finis”. The end of the Tratado also has a colophon with the indication of the end “finis”. The Tratado has its own title and a prologue, which is a kind of theoretical introduction in which the concept of the particle is defined (see Appendix I). These aspects suggest that the author considered this treatise on particles as an independent work on the one hand, as a bridge between grammar and dictionary, but also as a part of a larger “didactic programme”,14

14

(Northern Pame) to 53 (Mazahua). Voiceless occlusives, the voiceless affricate [ʦ] and the fricative [s] are further differentiated as simple, aspirated and ejective ([t, th, t’]). We do not have any information about teaching practices in this region. Since Basalenque’s work is not printed, he perhaps wrote it for himself, or for a limited number of

88

zwartjes

figure 4.2 The letter D (Cartilla, f. 5v) and the letter D (Tratado, f. 95r) Courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library

containing interrelated sections with a great number of cross-references, which means that each separate work cannot be used without the other parts. The particles in the Tratado are arranged alphabetically and often the same information can be found in the Cartilla, and vice versa. In the Cartilla we find references to the Tratado, as demonstrated in the section devoted to the letter “D” where we find reference in Latin “de quo infra litera R. et in particulis”. On the other hand, in the Tratado we find a reference to the Cartilla: “Esta letra -D, como se apunto en la cartilla, muchas veces …” Not every section contains information about the letter in question. The letter C starts directly with the first particles ca, cata, which are also included in the dictionary (“ca que es partícula que significa tiempo”; f. 97r and f. 130v), meaning that Basalenque is not always consistent in making decisions on how to classify some elements and where he had to put them, in the Cartilla, the Arte, the Tratado and/or in the Vocabulario? Some particles in the Tratado are also described in the Arte, which might seem inconsistent, unsystematic or even ‘chaotic’—seen from an anachronistic modern scholarly or ‘scientific’ view. Generally, missionary grammarians are straightforward in their parts of speech system, but when the ‘particle’ is studied, they could not rely on specific models. Definitions of the ‘particle’ from Antiquity are far from users. The work is mainly written for those who had to learn the language without the help of a teacher. For this reason, Basalenque uses the Greek term “glossa” as heading for his grammatical remarks in his Arte: “§ 1. Glossa en griego quiere decir /lengua/ y assi las glossas de los libros quieren decir maestros que enseñan lo que esta en el texto: y para que todos entiendan este arte, sin maestro, le ponemos glosas …” (f. 19v). (In Greek, ‘glossa’ means ‘language’ and the ‘glosses’ of books refer to the masters who teach what is in the text, and for this reason we put ‘glosses’ for those who want to understand this grammar without a teacher so that they will understand it).

between grammars and dictionaries

89

uniform and often rather vague, which has the logical consequence that missionaries created their own “framework-free” sections, using their own imagination.15 The four “indeclinable” parts of speech in the Arte are without exception alphabetically arranged Matlatzinca-Spanish word-lists, starting with the prepositions, followed by the adverbs, interjections and conjunctions. It is significant that Basalenque does not give Spanish or Latin entries first, as occurs in many other missionary grammars where Latin or Spanish prepositions are given with equivalents in the indigenous languages. It is also interesting that even the traditional dichotomy between ‘declinable’ and ‘indeclinable’ is not applicable to the prepositions, according to Basalenque. He introduces a novel dichotomy, the so-called declinable (“preposiciones declinables”) and indeclinable prepositions. The first category of prepositions is ‘declined’, not according to case, but according to person.16 Most indeclinable parts are included in the corresponding chapters in the Arte and just a few of them are included in the Tratado as well.

2

The Classical Heritage

2.1 The Greek Tradition: arthron (ἄρθρον) and syndesmos (σύνδεσμος) In Aristotle’s Poetica (Περὶ ποιητικῆς, 20, 1457a) we find the dichotomy between ὄνομα (onoma) and ῥῆμα (rhèma) (noun and verb). They share the feature φωνὴ σημαντικὴ (phonè sèmantikè ‘with significance’), whereas the difference between them is that the first is ἄνευ χρόνου (aneu chronou, without tenses) and the latter μετὰ χρόνου (meta chronou, with tenses). In addition, Aristotle describes two other concepts, ἄρθρον and σύνδεσμος (arthron, ‘article’) and σύνδεσμος (sundesmos, ‘conjunction’) which both share the feature of a φωνὴ ἄσημος (phonè asèmos, ‘without significance’, ‘meaningless’), but which are both complementary to each other. The conjunction has a cohesive and unifying function, and the ‘articulation’ has a function of ‘delimitation’.17 15

16

17

Since some authors, such as Blancas José, devoted almost the entire work to the particles, which were considered by others unnecessary left-overs, we can characterise his descriptive approach as “the tail wagging the dog”. Acerca del ser declinables v[el] indeclinables, se nota que la proposicion de su naturaleza es ser indeclinable, pero aqui las llamamos declinables no por casos sino por p[er]sonas. (Arte, glossa 68, f. 88r) (Regarding the nature of being declinable or undeclinable, it has to be noted that the preposition is by nature undeclinable, but here we call them declinable, not by cases but by persons). “La conjonction est porteuse d’ une fonction cohésive, elle unifie, tandis que l’articulation est porteuse d’ une fonction discriminante et sert à distinguer les subdivisions éventuelles

90

zwartjes

Most missionary grammars follow the eight parts of speech system using one of the many reprints and adaptations of the Latin grammar of Antonio de Nebrija as their model. Nebrija’s system is a direct continuation of the model of grammarians of Latin, who in their turn closely followed the Stoics and the Greek-Alexandrian grammarians. In the Τέχνη (Technè) of Dionysius Thrax, we find an eight parts of speech system, the noun (ὄνομα, onoma), verb (ῥῆμα, rhèma), participle (μετοχή, metochè), pronoun (ἀντωνυμία, antonumia), article (ἄρθρον, arthron), preposition (πρόθεσις, prothesis), adverb (ἐπιρρημα, epirrhèma) and the conjunction (σύνδεσμος, sundesmos). The category of the latter is subdivided into nine subclasses, three of which, the interrogatives, expletives and adversatives, are not included in the model of the Stoics (Haßler 2007: 87). The expletives (παραπληρωματικοί, paraplèromatikoi) are ‘fillers’, which are particularly used in poetry for prosodical reasons (metri causa). This specific subcategory could have inspired the missionary grammarians, who often define ‘particles’ as unnecessary, optional elements, which can be used in ‘elegant speech’ for reasons of embellishment or eloquence, or as Basalenque puts it “galanamente” (elegantly, see below). Haßler (2007: 87) demonstrates that there was disagreement about the function and meaning of these elements, some seeing them as mere “material de embalaje” (packaging material), whereas others considered them as meaningful words. Some missionary grammarians prefer to classify the particles according to their position (see below), whereas others classify them according to their meaning (‘with or without meaning’).18 In Antiquity, there were treatises devoted specifically to the σύνδεσμοι (sundesmoi), such as, for instance, Apollonius’s work Περὶ συνδέσμων (peri sundesmon) (Lallot 2001). As Sicking (1986: 126) observes, the definition of the concept of ‘particle’ varies from author to author. Apparently, we are dealing with some kind of ‘left-over’ words that were not described somewhere else in the grammar, for various reasons (historical, semantical, or systematical). According to the theory of Apollonius Dyscolus, the conjunctions and prepositions belong to the same category of σύνδεσμοι (sundesmoi).19

18

19

d’ un énoncé ou à délimiter les énoncés les uns par rapport aux autres” (Baratin 1989: 20). See also Baratin and Desbordes (1981: 101). As the term “particula significativa” illustrates in Chomé’s Tratado (Chomé 1730: f. 428). Chomé decides to include in his “Tratado” only the ‘significative particles’, whereas the others are included in his dictionary, falling outside the “Tratado”. As the concept of ‘declinable preposition’, the term ‘significative particle’ is a contradictio in terminis seen from the perspective of grammarians from Antiquity, since particles per definition cosignify. In his treatise, the author discusses the difference between ἐπιδοῦναι (epidounai) and ἀπο-

between grammars and dictionaries

91

2.2 The Particles in Latin The direct continuation of the concept of σύνδεσμος (sundesmos) is the Latin calque coniunctio, whereas the concept of Greek μόριον (morion) (‘piece’, ‘portion’, ‘constituent’, ‘member [of the parts of the body]’, and in grammar ‘part [of speech]’, or even ‘part [of the word]’, for instance, suffixes, prefixes), was translated with the term particula (Haßler 2007: 87), the diminutive of the word pars [orationis]. As in the Greek tradition, the term ‘particle’ is used with many different meanings and is generally defined in a negative way: (1) any part of speech which is not inflected (in the tripartite division, it includes any element except the noun and the verb; adjectives were considered a class of the noun). Following the Aristotelian tradition, Latin grammarians describe ‘conjunctions’ (σύνδεσμοι, sundesmoi) as elements that “co-signify” (consignificantia);20 (2) any part of speech which is not inflected. In the eight parts of speech system, the four “indeclinable parts of speech”, preposition, adverb, conjunction and interjection, and (3) any ‘part’ which falls outside the eight traditional parts of speech; “little words” which are not a noun, verb, participle, pronoun, preposition, adverb, conjunction, or interjection. It is obvious that it is impossible to give a clear definition to particles, since authors give them definitions or descriptions with regards to a wide range of linguistic phenomena, highlighting their meaning (semantic approach), morphology (in terms of non-inflectional properties, declinability), syntax (position), functional discourse markers, pragmatic-communicative markers—for instance, markers of the speakers ‘intentions’ (mode, evidentiality, etc.)—as required, and sometimes the distinction is made between obligatory markers (as in Spanish, the stem cant- is a bound morpheme which has to be followed by the thematic vowel, TAM-morphemes, and subject argument indexes, frequently fused together), opposed to ‘particles’ which are often described as ‘embellishment’, elegant speech, i.e. everything which is used as an extra or

20

δοῦναι (apodounai); ἀπαιτεῖν (apaitein) and προσαιτεῖν (prosaitein), where different prepostions ἐπι (epi), ἀπο (apo), etc. can be combined with the same verb, forming a compound form (cf. Baratin 1989: 24–25). In missionary grammars we see comparable descriptions. What Lagunas calls “inseparable verbal prepositions” (“preposiciones verbales inseparables”), such as Latin am-, com-, dis-, di-, re-, Basalenque calls these preverbs in his grammar of Purépecha “anteposed verbal dictions which give a different meaning to the verb” (“dicciones prepositivas de verbos, que les dan distinta significación”; Basalenque 1714: 85). Apparently, he did not classify these prefixes as ‘prepositions’, nor as ‘conjunctions’, or ‘particles’, but as ‘dictions’. This approach reveals his insight. Historically, in Indo-European languages at least some prepositions were adverbs and developed into preverbs of compound verbs. Since in Latin, some preverbs correspond with prepositions (such as inter, ex) and others not (dis-), it makes sense not to label them as “prepositions”. In Hebrew grammars written in Latin, also called the third ‘part of speech’—apart from

92

zwartjes

optional element which falls outside the traditional parts of speech system, or an element which is used metri causa, or ornatus gratia.

3

The Study of Greek and Latin Particles in Europe and the Particle in Grammars of European Vernaculars

In many studies, such as Foolen (1993: 7), the discipline of what has been called “Partikelforschung” starts with Weydt’s (1969) study on the “Abtönungspartikel”, although Foolen observes that the particles did not escape the attention of earlier scholars, such as von der Gabelentz (1840–1893). Studies that are specifically devoted to particles had been written much earlier and “Partikelforschung” was already flourishing in earlier centuries. For reasons of space, I cannot go into the details, but I shall mention only some key studies. In Hoogeveen’s (1813) Doctrina particularum linguae graecae we can read that particles do not seem to have ‘force’ (vis) to express a thing (res); they do not have a meaning when they are considered in isolation (“particulae, per se solae spectatae nihil significant”), and their function is to vary the meaning of “sentences, uttered by nouns and verbs, for instance, to express mitigation, negation, affirmation, they can have the function of conjunctions, disjunctions, etc.” The definition of Denniston is also quite general: “Difficult as it is to arrive at a satisfactory definition of particle, an attempt must be made at the outset. I will define it as a word expressing a mode of thought, considered either in isolation or in relation to another thought, or a mood of emotion” (Denniston 1974 [1934]: xxxvii). Another important study on Latin particles is Horatius Tursellinus’s (1829 [1598]) De particulis Latinis commentarii. In his voluminous work, the four indeclinable parts are included as subcategories of the particle: quatuor genera, adverbia, praepositiones, coniunctiones, interiectiones. In France we find different translations of σύνδεσμος / coniunctio. In the title of grammatical treatises, we find both “particules” (Monet 1629; Ogier 1637) and “ligatures” (Monet 1629). As far as I could trace, in Spain we do not find treatises devoted to “ligaturas”, although in the Philippines, the “ligazones”, “ligaturas”, “ligaduras”, “ataduras”, “partículas unitivas”, such as -ng, linking words

nouns and verbs—a dictio consignificans (Padley 1976: 99), while according to Basalenque the particle is not a dictio.

between grammars and dictionaries

93

together, play a prominent part of the grammar (see for more details Ridruejo 2005). In France and Italy, several treatises were written devoted to particles. Firstly, grammarians started to describe Greek and Latin particles. Godescalcus Steuvechius’s De particulis linguae Latinae (Cologne, 1580) and Horatius Tursellinus’s De particulis latinae locutionis published in Rome in 1598 were the earliest and most influential. Not only Latin words are described, such as adeo, dum, adeo usque, dum, but also verbal constructions such as timeo ne, timeo ut, timeo non ne, etc. In Tursellinus, we find a great deal of “headwords”, such as a, ab, absque, ac, atque, ad, adeo, adhuc, admodum which could be labelled as prepositions, conjunctions, and adverbs, i.e. the indeclinable parts of speech.21 Other treatises were derived from Tursellinus, such as Monet’s Ligatures de la langue française, et latine, reciproquement appariées (1629), which, as the title indicates, does not only include Latin particles, but also French. The selected “headwords” here start with French A, ainçois, ains, ainsi … car, de, … depuis, etc. (Colombat 1999: 83–84) In Ogier’s Inventaire des particules (1637) and in particular in Pomey’s Les Particules Françoises (1666), we do not find only Latin as source language, but also French. For instance, Latin is the source language when the ablativus absolutus and the gerundium are given, accompanied by French translations, but in other cases French is the source language, such as “le participe ayant”, “le mot besoin”, “l’adverbe combien, devant, le participe estant, le verbe faire” and French particles like qui, que, on, se, etc. As Colombat (1999: 87) observes: “Ce sont en fait des adaptations dont l’ objet est non plus l’ étude des particules latines, mais bien la traduction en latin des particules françaises.”22 In Spain, a remarkable grammar appeared in 1791, written by Gregorio Garcés, entitled Fundamento del vigor y elegancia de la lengua castellana, expuesto en el propio y vario uso de sus partículas, described and analysed by Haßler (2007: 93–98), who characterises this work as a ‘rediscovery’ (“redescubrimiento”) of the particles in the Spanish grammatical tradition. As Haßler demonstrates, the particles are not to be regarded as “packaging material” (“material de embalaje”), superfluous and unnecessary elements, but their main function is to connect words (“enlazar las palabras”), making speech more elo-

21 22

For more details, see Colombat (1999: 82–83). In the lexicographical tradition, particles are also frequently treated separately, serving as appendix to the dictionary (Colombat 1999: 87). This tendency is unusual or almost nonexistent in the Spanish missionary lexicographical tradition, whereas the Jesuit Sébastien Rale (Rasles) (1657–1724), for instance, includes a separate section to the particles in Abenaki.

94

zwartjes

quent (“lo mas bello y primoroso de la elocucion”), giving force to the sentence (“dan fuerza á aquella íntima union”) (Garcés 1791: xxix; and Haßler 2007: 94). Garcés’s work contains 698 pages, with a great number of examples, but the selected “headwords” belong to different parts of speech, such as the preposition “a”, followed by entries of words combined with this preposition, such as adverbs, “dicciones adverbiales”, also labelled as “maneras de hablar”: “a modo”, “a tiempo”, “a lugar”, “a semejanza”, “a causa que” etc. Such particles are described in the first volume, preceding the second devoted to the two parts of speech, the noun (including the pronoun) and the verb, and here, the chapters are not devoted to these parts of speech only, but also their “constructions”, where the author does not describe syntax only, but often also elegant locutions (“elegante locución”), laconic locutions (“locuciones lacónicas”) and other amusing speech manners (“graciosos modos de hablar”), with funny examples from the Quijote, etc. The work is in fact a collection of particles, words, locutions and phrases.23 Summarizing the preceding approaches to ‘particles’, linguistic works can be structured as follows: (1) Tripartite system (as in Correas)

Parts of speech [+inflected]

[-inflected]

Noun Particles Verb

23

As pointed out by Colombat, in France pedagogical tools were developed as well. One tradition concentrates on rudiments and particles (Colombat 1999: 77–93), the other on “élégances” (Colombat 1999: 93). Garcés seems to share the features of this tradition.

95

between grammars and dictionaries

(2a) New Spain: (as in most grammars of indigenous languages in the Spanish tradition)

ARTE [+Parts of speech] [+inflected]

[-dictiones] [-part of speech] [-inflected]

Noun

Preposition

Verb

Adverb

Pronoun

Conjunction

Participle

Interjection

Particles

(2b) New Spain: (as in Basalenque)

ARTE Noun

Preposition

Verb

Adverb

Pronoun

Conjunction

Participle

interjection

TRATADO DE LAS PARTÍCULAS

VOCABULARIOS

96

zwartjes

figure 4.3 Cax-qui-ni-tu-nigtta-qui caqui Courtesy of the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

figure 4.4 qui-tu-rahaca-tebahaya Courtesy of the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

4

Basalenque’s Views regarding the Internal Structure of the Word

The use of hyphens throughout the grammar is a great step forward in the history of linguistic description and documentation. These hyphens indicate the borders between what we call “morphemes” today, and Basalenque uses this system, although not always systematically, but often with remarkably great precision (for instance on f. 35v: Cax-qui-ni-tu-nigtta-qui caqui “tu eres mi vida” (you are my life), see Figure 4.3, or: qui-tu-rahaca-tebahaya “siempre me alegro” (I am always glad) (f. 83r), see Figure 4.4). Basalenque distinguishes three types of particles: those which are placed before roots (verbs and nouns) (anteposed), those which are placed between them, as infixes or endoclitics (interposed), and those which come after the noun or the verb (postposed).24 According to the prologue the Tratado is mainly devoted to those that are placed within the word (“Las partículas interpuestas son mas propias de este tratado”; f. 94v). The compilation of an independent “treatise” on particles collocated between the grammar and the dictionary is a novelty. Basalenque describes in detail how he compiled his dictionary. The Spanish-Matlatzinca section was an easy task. With “our Spanish dictionary” (“nuestro vocabulario”) he went to the bilingual natives (“los Naturales mas ladinos”) and started asking for translations. It was much more complicated to make the inverted Matlatzinca-Spanish

24

The term ‘anteposed conjunctions’ occurs also in Apollonios Dyscolos (“protetikoi sundesmoi”), cf. Baratin (1989: 22).

between grammars and dictionaries

97

section. When translating from the indigenous language, particularly agglutinative languages which mainly have suffixes, such as Tarascan, there are no serious problems for the lexicographer compiling a dictionary, since the root always comes first and the affixes have no consequences for the alphabetical order of the dictionary. Matlatzinca, according to Basalenque, is different since it uses “iniciales” (initials) and primarily has anteposed particles (“partículas antepuestas”). Since the infinitive in Matlatzinca is non-existent, this form could not be used as the citation form of the lemma. The first person subject argument index is preposed, and can be combined with other prefixed markers, which would have an effect on the alphabetical order when the first person singular was chosen as citation form. Basalenque found a solution that made the structure of the entries of the Matlatzinca-Spanish dictionary unique. Basalenque’s dictionary uses three vertical columns preceding the entry in question, where he fills in the prefixes that can be combined with the root. The roots are arranged alphabetically; nouns often take the prefixes ca, hue, huebe, huebu, huebete, etc. (2a regla, prologo f. 123v) and verbs can take one (as in qui), two (for instance qui-tu), or three (as in qui-tu-tu), depending on which conjugation they belong to, according to Basalenque’s classification. Between the personal subject argument and the root, other ‘particles’ can be interposed in Matlatzinca, as in other Otomian languages (mainly aspectual markers, such as rahaca, which is used for the frequentative), but Basalenque decided not to design separate columns for aspectual or temporal infixes. The direct object argument markers do not preceed the root, as in Nahuatl, but they are postposed, and number markers can appear as suffixes. According to Basalenque’s analysis, verbs can belong to several ‘conjugations’, such as the root tzitzi (to eat), and from this root causatives can be formed, creating a different “conjugation”, adding another participant as argument, and he demonstrates that from the same root, nouns can be derived, by using the ‘particle’ in.25 In Basalenque’s dictionary this is rendered as follows: qui tu tzitzí qui tu tu tzitzí qui tu te tzitzí in tzitzí ni tzitzi

25

‘yo como cosa de fruta’ (I am eating [something] a fruit) ‘yo doy de comer a otro’ (I feed someone) ‘yo me como’ (I eat [for myself]) ‘la comida’ (the meal) (f. 124r) ‘accion de comer’ ‘lo comido’ (‘the [act of] eating’)

In is a DET (allomorphs: im, ym, y, n, m) prefixed to any noun, except humans (Pascacio Montijo 2017: 174–175).

98

zwartjes

figure 4.5 The lemma hithi (to teach) in Basalenque’s dictionary (f. 157r) Courtesy of the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey

Below is the entry ⟨hithi⟩, preceded by prefixes: qui tu tu hithi ‘yo enseño a otro’ (I am teaching someone) qui tu te hithi ‘yo estudio, yo me enseño’ (I study, I am teaching myself) ni te hithi ‘La arte liberal que se estudia’ (Liberal art which one studies) (f. 157v) As all “elegant” languages, Matlatzinca has, according to Basalenque’s view, eight parts of speech: noun, pronoun, verb, participle, preposition, adverb, interjection and conjunction (f. 10). In the prologue to his grammar, Basalenque also comments on the dissimilarity between the two languages, Latin and Matlatzinca. It does not happen often that missionary grammarians of this period explain and reflect upon the main differences between the indigenous language under study and Latin. The first five parts of speech are easy, as there are even fewer prepositions in Matlatzinca than in Latin, since many different ones in Latin can be expressed by the same preposition in Matlatzinca. The language is abundant in adverbs, and in the three first parts of speech (noun, pronoun and verb) Matlatzinca has a high degree of sophistication (‘artificio’): the noun has three numbers (including the dual, as in Greek), the possessives deserve special mention as the most sophisticated (‘lo más artificiosa’), while the verb has its special difficulties: there are three conjugations (although in glossa 39 we see that he distinguishes six conjugations, f. 51v), defective verbs, and in particular verbs are combined with “partículas antepuestas, interpuestas y pospuestas”. The first conjugation is the ‘verb’ sum es fui, the second includes the verbs ‘que dizen passion y qualidad en el Alma y cuerpo’ (which express emotions and qualities in the mind and in the body). All the passives of active (transitive) verbs follow this second declension, which takes the prefixes tutu-, whereas the verbs that express feelings and emotions (Spanish ‘passion’), such as ‘I feel sad, I have pain in the body, etc.’ are formed differently in the third person, compared to the passive of the transitive verbs, as Basalenque explains. This is the reason why he reserved a separate conjugation for this class

between grammars and dictionaries

99

of verbs that have as “subject” argument a person who does not have only the semantic role of an undergoer, but mainly as experiencer. The third and fourth conjugation are based on the distinction “immanente” and “transeúnte” (transitive), the third conjugation takes the prefixes tu-te (immanent action) and has the pattern “yo doi de comer a otro” (I am feeding someone) (causative), “azoto a otro” (I whip someone [else]); and the fourth is reflexive (“yo doi de comer a mi”, “me puedo azotar ami”) (I am feeding myself, I can whip myself). Basalenque describes this category of verbs as having an “accion volutiva” (volitional action).

5

The “Tratado de las partículas”

5.1 Basalenque’s Approach As demonstrated in the preceding sections, the ‘particle’ fell outside the parts of speech system, and the consequence of this was that most missionary grammarians in this period did not attempt to define it. They reserve the final section of their grammars to ‘open classes’, including any element that according to their views does not fit into the parts of speech paradigm. Basalenque is one of the few who wrote a prologue and tried not only to give a definition, but also attempted to systematise a great variety of material, using at least some criteria for his selection. According to Basalenque, the addition of particles allows the verb or noun to “denote or signify something more than it signified by itself”, which is a definition that coincides with a commonly known definition from Antiquity, mainly in the Aristotelian tradition, in which “conjunctions” (σύνδεσμοι sundesmoi) are elements that “co-signify” (consignificantia). Basalenque distinguishes three classes of particles, depending on their position.26 He further explains that his Tratado is not comprehensive; he concentrates on the interposed particles. If we count the three categories, we see indeed that most selected particles are indeed interposed, and only a few postposed and anteposed particles are included in the Tratado (see Appendix II). It would be easy to highlight Basalenque’s inconsistencies, but this would be anachronistic. Basalenque explicitly tells his readers that the selection criteria for including particles as “headwords” in his Tratado are quite flexible. Some entries are included, even when they are not particles (“y tambien se pone la propiedad de algunas letras aunque no son particulas”). Basalenque observes that certain particles can be classified as adverbs and adjectives at the same time and he even distinguishes between adverbs and adverbial phrases: 26

“En esta lengua se allan particulas antepuestas, interpuestas y pospuestas” (f. 94v). (In this language, there are anteposed, interposed and postposed particles).

100

zwartjes

El conocimiento y uso de los aduerbios es muy necessario en todas las lenguas de modo que el que supiere muchos hablara galanamente, porque hablar solo de nombre y verbo es tosco lenguage y asi con cuidado sean puestos todos los adverbios ordinarios porque sin ellos no se puede hablar, y no solo lo sean puesto los meros adverbios sino modos aduerbiales, porque como se puede notar no todo lo puesto es mero adverbio sino a modo de adverbio; y algunas veçes oraçiones porque son como locuciones sueltas y adverbiales vg. ‘hagate buen provecho’ ‘estad en buenahora’, ‘dios sea con vosotros’ y otros modos de hablar como se vera. Arte glossa 70, f.93v. (emphasis is mine)

The knowledge and use of adverbs is very important in any language, since if someone knows many of them, they will speak elegantly; using nouns and verbs alone in speech is after all rude, and therefore it is necessary that all the ordinary adverbs are appropriately listed here, since one cannot speak without using them; it is not only important that the mere adverbs are listed but also the adverbial phrases, since as you can notice, not all that has been included here are mere adverbs, but they resemble adverbs and sometimes phrases, or even independent clauses and adverbials, such as ‘take advantage of’, ‘be at a good time’, ‘God be with you’ and other manners of speech as we shall see. When Basalenque explains that some particles are in fact adverbs, he has often a reason to include such particles in the Tratado instead of putting them in the alphabetically arranged word-lists of adverbs in the Arte. One of the main reasons is that Basalenque found bound morphs with adverbial meaning, corresponding in the Spanish translation with Spanish adverbs, but not as separate words in Matlatzinca. Spanish is not the source language in these wordlists summing up prepositions and adverbs, but Matlatzinca. Basalenque was aware that at least some ‘adverbs’ are bound morphemes, which co-occur with the verbal root, forming one phonological word. This explains why he often gives additional category names in the list of particles, such as adverb and preposition, when these elements are actually affixed elements and where such ‘adverbs’ do not (typically) occur as separate words (in agreement with his definition of the particle). Some ‘particles’ express tense, aspect, or modality. In the following, a more systematic overview is given of the particles included in the Tratado.27 27

For reasons of space, not every single particle will be discussed, but only the most representative or illustrative.

between grammars and dictionaries

101

5.2 Particles Attached to Nouns The so-called nine “initials”, “initial letters” (“iniciativas”) or particles are also explained in the prologue of the Vocabulario. Some of them are included in the Tratado and most of them are described and defined in the Arte. In the Arte a rather lengthy section is devoted to possessive constructions, but the prefixes that accompany possessive constructions are generally not included as ‘particles’ in the Tratado. Basalenque includes the in- prefix, which is classified as one of the “letras iniciales” (“la ordinaria particula inicial”) (also discussed elsewhere, vid. litera 1 in the section “Cartilla”; cf. glossa 3). Nin is according to Basalenque an “initial particle” (“particula initiativa”) of ‘certain’ nouns. Basalenque describes certain particles as equivalents to ‘adjectives’, since they correspond with the Spanish adjectives: imbe ‘sucio’ (dirty), imbo ‘negro’ (black), intox ‘blanco’ (white) and na ‘limpio’ (clean). In fact these forms are coalescences of the determiner in- followed by the words for ‘dirty’, ‘black’, ‘white’ and ‘clean’.28 Missionary-linguists were not always successful at separating determiners from the words to which they are attached. Basalenque defines the particle in as a separate particle in his treatise, using rather vague terms: “es la ordinaria partícula inicial”, “es partícula con que comiençan muchos substantivos” (it is the ordinary initial particle; it is a particle with which many substantives begin).29 Some particles in the Tratado are defined in terms of (in)definiteness, such as the particle ba which makes the noun “indefinite and not limited”, the particle chi which marks “indefiniteness”, and ne which is a ‘particle’ that is used as a plural marker (“hace pluralidad”). This is explained in the paradigm of the noun in the Arte (huema “el hombre”; thema “los dos hombres” and nema “los hombres”) (f. 9v–103).

28

29

The words for ‘black’ and ‘white’ correspond with Escalante and Hernández’s data: bóyä (black); as in imbosíni ka’thesíní (the black dog is mine) (pp. 163 and 184); nt’oxpáari (glossed as in-toxI-páari; DEF_S-blanco-caballo; ‘the white horse’; with elision of the final vowel of this “qualifying suffix”) (p. 55). In the Arte Basalenque separates in from nouns: “sustantivos racionales comienzan con hue como huebunibi …. ‘el hombre’ … algunos hay que comienzan con in como in Angel, ‘el Angel’; inmemexí ‘el alguacil’, pero los sustantivos que no son racionales no toman hue, sino unas de estas cuatro partículas in, ni, nin, y, y estos en vivientes y no vivientes: in ímpaharí ‘el caballo’, ínto ‘la piedra’” (Basalenque ed. 1975: 15, nota 4) (rational substantives are preceded by hue as in huebunibi …. ‘the man’ … some are preceded by in as in in Angel, ‘the Angel’; inmemexí ‘the bailiff’, but the substantives which are not rational do not take hue, but one of these four particles in, ni, nin, y and these are combined with living and non-living substantives: in ímpaharí ‘el caballo’, ínto ‘la piedra’).

102

zwartjes

5.3 Particles Attached to Verbs The structure of the verb phrase in Matlatzinca is as follows: Subject Argument index + TAM affixes + Root + Object Argument index The causatives be-, te-, to- and reflexive te- appear between the subject argument marker and the root of the verb (Pascacio Montijo 2017: 184). The subject argument indexes are called “relatives” (affixal pronouns, which are prefixed in Matlatzinca when they are the subject of the verb, and suffixed when they function as objects). As Basalenque explains, his Tratado focuses on interposed particles. Only a handful postposed particles are included, and none of them is an object argument index. One of the few is -be (“making the action of the verb general”).30 The classical approach to the Greco-Latin verb focuses on the ‘accidents’ (morphological properties, or inflectional affixes). In earlier Spanish grammars, adverbs are often used in order to translate the Greek optative, which is marked by inflectional morphemes (‘ojalá’, Lat. ‘utinam’). In missionary grammars, we find a comparable approach and Basalenque is no exception. The subject argument indexes co-occur and often interact with TAM and Voice markers in Matlatzinca. Both Castro’s dictionary and Basalenque’s dictionaries use the prefix qui- (ki-) as citation form for verbs. According to Pascacio Montijo (2017: 220–222), it is not clear if this is a clitic or an independent word; according to her it is not a verbal affix, since it appears also with DET, ADJ, ADV and PREP phrases, giving the impression that it has a predicative function. In the paradigms of the Arte labelled ‘tenses’, according to Basalenque, these are formed as following: qui-tu-tzitzi (present), qui-mi-tzitzi (imperfect), qui-ta-tzitzi (perfect), puexi-qui-mi-ta-tzitzi (pluperfect), qui-rutzitzi (future imperfect), puexi-qui-ru-tzitzi (first person singular subjunctive), ya-ca-tu-tzitzi (present), tacan-mi-du-tzitzi (imperfect), tzaya-ta-tzitzi (perfect), tzaya-puexi-ta-tzitzi (pluperfect), tzaya-puexi-tacan-mi (another pluperfect), tzaya-tacaru-hohobi-tzitzi (future), tzaya-puexi-quiru-tzitzi (another future), etc. In the preceding examples, we can see that the root tzitzi is not inflected. The equivalents for Latin tenses and moods are separate words, such as tzaya, puexi, whereas others are interposed (such as future -ru-). We might expect that Basalenque would include all or most of these elements, which do not have the 30

Basalenque gives the forms for first person plural qui caquehebí (“nosotros muchos somos”) (we [more than two] are), opposed to qui caquí “yo soy” (I am). He does not discuss -he which is attached together with -bi.

between grammars and dictionaries

103

status of an inflectional morpheme, in his Tratado, but rather the status of particles, either separate, preposed, or interposed, but this is not the case. The only element appearing in his Tratado is puexi. In fact, the Tratado does not have any systematised representation of material corresponding to/ translated at a par with the Latin tenses or moods as represented in the Arte. 5.4 Voice and Valency The case of the two particles -be- and -ta, the first infixed and the latter a suffix, is not described very clearly by Basalenque. According to his view, the combination of both “dice generalidad” (expresses generality), but he highlights the co-occurrence of these two particles as simulfix:31 Partícula -be- (interpuesta) en los verbos y en los nombres y pide así en los verbos como en los nombres en la final un ta que dice generalidad, como quítutuhí, ‘yo enseño’, y si éste es el maestro de todo el pueblo ha de decir quítubeinta; quítututzisnu ‘yo bautizo’, y si el cura del pueblo ha de decir quitubetzisnuta, mudando un tu en be, porque se sigue el ta y en el verbal ha de tener dos be be, como huebebehinta, ‘el maestro del pueblo’ The particle -be- interposed in verbs and nouns, requiring -ta at the end, means ‘generality’, as in quítutuhí, ‘I teach’, and if this is the teacher of the whole community, one must say quítubeinta […] ‘I am teaching for the whole village’, like huebebehinta, ‘the master of the community’. Pascacio Montijo (2017: 184) analyses these ‘particles’ using the following example from Castro (s.v. ‘desmayar’), where -be- has a causative function, adding a second agent argument to the verb, and the antipassive -ta reduces the valency of the verb (the object argument of the verb). Both affixes have the function of voice or valency changes: -be- caus and -ta Antipasive: ki toβekaašβita ⟨q to be caaxbi ta⟩ ki to-βe-kaašβ-ta K-321sn.a-caus-desmayar-ap ‘hago que se desmaye’ ⟨hazer desmayar a otro⟩ (to cause/ to let someone to faint) 31 32

The most common type of simulfixation is circumfixation, the concatenation of an affix at two positions on the root. The category k stands for Basalenque’s qui- (for more details see Pascacio Montijo 2017).

104

zwartjes

Another example: (p. 193) Kitoβentitonta ⟨qtobentytonta⟩ Ki to-βe-titom-ta k1sn.a-caus-amiguear-ap ‘hago conciliar a alguien’ ⟨Amigos hazer a algunos⟩ (to let someone make friends with someone else) 5.5

Particles Used in Verbal Constructions, Falling Outside the Greco-Latin Categories TAM affixes appear between the subject argument index and the root. Basalenque gives several examples: – the interposed particle -bu-, expressing “frequentacion”, as in qui-qui-tu-butzitzi “siempre estás comiendo” (you are constantly eating); – bura is used when an action is completed (“quiere decir acabado todo”); – cana is used when completing an action on time (“hacer la accion a buen tiempo”); – muntexi is used when an action is done quickly (“dice hacer presto la accion”); – nen is used when an action is ‘en route’ or ‘in transit’ (Sp. “de camino”, “quando caminaba”); – ninqui is used when an action is continuous (“proseguir lo que se iba haciendo”); pa corresponds with Spanish ir or venir + gerund (“voy predicando”); – Another ‘frequentative’ is the interposed particle -rahaca-. Basalenque devotes a special section to the “verbo frequentatiuo” (frequentative verb; Chapter 29, fols. 83r–v), in which he gives a paradigm for all “conjugations”: (1) qui- rahaca -tiqui caqui, “siempre estoy pesado” (I am always annoyed), (2) qui-rahaca- tiqui caqui, “siempre temo” (I always fear), (3) qui-tu-rahaca tzitzi, “siempre como” (I always eat), (4) qui-tu-tu-rahaca hibí,33 ‘siempre riño’ (I always laugh), (5) qui-tu-rahaca-tebahaya ‘siempre me alegro’ (I am always happy), (6) qui-tu-rahaca-hori, quiratzitzi, ‘siempre busco qué comer’ (I am always looking for something to eat). In the accompanying ‘glosa’ (65) Basalenque gives a definition of this marker and explains in which position it occurs: in the first two conjugations following after qui, in the third after the two markers qui-tu, in the fourth after the three markers quitu-tu, while in the fifth it is interposed between qui-tu and -te-, since the

33

The use of spaces and hyphens is not always consistent in Basalenque’s examples.

between grammars and dictionaries

105

latter has to proceed the verb directly (ibid.). Since rahaca also appears as a separate lemma or lexeme in the list of adverbs, we do not disregard the possibility that such adverbs can be inserted between the pronominal prefixes and the root. This could be a case of grammaticalisation. – ho expresses “impossibility”, translated with the Spanish verb “poder” (“to be able to”); 5.6 Other Particles In this section I shall give a selection of other elements, which are included as ‘particles’ in the Tratado. Many of them can be classified differently (as adverbs, prepositions, etc.), and often more than one meaning is given. – nah expresses “possibility”; – yaxi and yaxiho are negations; the latter also expresses “impossibility” of the action indicated by the verb. – quinhi is according to the terminology of Basalenque Latin ecce, a “particula demonstrativa” (demonstrative particle); – pinita corresponds with the three Latin prepositions in, ad and versus; – ypy is another preposition (and adverb) which Basalenque includes in his Tratado, meaning “encima, arriba” (on top of, up); – Although Basalenque does not mention the category of the “conjunction” when he describes the particles ca and cata, he translates them with the Spanish “quando” (when). These are not found in the corresponding chapter on the conjunctions, which is in fact very brief, including only the equivalents of the Spanish conjunction “y” (with 5 equivalents, without any explanations) and the translation of the Latin ‘disjunction’ vel (or); – quihequixemi is according to Basalenque an expression that corresponds with Latin ergo and is used in order to draw a conclusion (“se pone para conclusion de lo que sea dicho”). Today, we would call such an element a ‘discourse marker’; – xucan is a reportative evidentiality marker that is translated with Spanish ‘dizque’ (hearsay, or second-hand knowledge). The example which Basalenque uses to explain how to use it is remarkable. The phrase is a quotation where the Jews say: “dizque eres Cristo”, which means that the Jews did not have any evidence for such an assumption, since they received this information by means of ‘hearsay’. For them, it was not an established fact that the person in question was indeed Jesus Christ; – chu expresses “exaggeration” and “reverence” (“dice exageracion y reverencia”); – he is used as an honorific, when an inferior person speaks with a superior, such as God;

106

zwartjes

– ri is also an honorific (“es de reverencia”), which is sometimes combined with he. Some particles are not defined at all, or only in vague terms, such as cati which is used as an embellishment (“dice elegancia”). The personal prefixes are often labeled as “elegant”, even when they are not optional markers and cannot be omitted: Mue, vel muequin: is used each moment expressing elegance (“se pone cada momento por gala”); Taqui causes elegance (“causa elegancia”). Other ‘particles’ are used for pragmatic purposes (politeness). Basalenque explains that several particles are in fact compositions of two separate particles, such as in bura, which is a combination of the two particles bu and ra. Other examples are cara, ypy and roma.

6

Conclusion

Since Antiquity the definitions of ‘particle’ vary from author to author. Basalenque based his grammar and dictionary grosso modo on Western models. He does not mention any European model, but it is known that in Europe several grammarians and lexicographers expanded the Arte—which is usually restricted to the parts of speech—with works devoted to particles. The particles included in these works do not represent any consistent part of speech or bond morphs, and sometimes complete adverbial phrases were labelled as particles, since they serve as elements of elegant speech or embellishment. Basalenque’s definition of the particle is not different from what we usually find in the works of other grammarians. Particles are elements that “denote or signify something more than it signifies by itself”. Basalenque devoted a special treatise to this topic. The main objective was not compiling an index that includes all obligatory elements, such as argument indexes as a guide for his readers, the nine ‘relatives’, serving as a summary of what has been explained in the Arte. The majority of such affixes are not included. The same applies to possessive markers and other affixes combined with nouns. The object argument suffixes are not included at all; this indicates that he considered them as part of the inflections of the verb. For a comprehensive treatment, the learner had to read the Arte instead. It is obvious that the primary goal of compiling this Tratado was to give the reader an overview of TAM markers, often translated with Spanish adverbs, but not represented by separate words or lexemes in Matlatzinca. In his enthusiasm, Basalenque further added other elements, such as discourse markers, which did not fit well in his Arte, as many colleagues did in this period. It is also obvious that Basalenque selected the particles independently from Spanish. In particular, the interposed particles were the most interesting for him, and these “little words”

between grammars and dictionaries

107

are usually not included in the list of adverbs, when they could be translated by Spanish adverbs. Finally, it has been demonstrated that Basalenque included particles in this treatise which are not discussed or included in the Arte and the Vocabulario, for reasons explained above, although some of them were so important, that Basalenque describes them in the Arte, the Vocabulario, and sometimes in the Cartilla as well. Basalenque does not always give the same category for a certain element, which does not necessarily mean that he was inconsistent. A large number of particles have different functions, and for that reason receive different labels. On the other hand, it is evident that there are indeed also many inconsistencies, mismatches, repetitions, vague definitions, and erroneous analysis, which is not surprising. Baselenque mentions explicitly that he did his best, listening to and inquiring of the native speakers, but he also admits that his work is not to be considered perfect or comprehensive.

Acknowledgements This study has benefited from observations and corrections made by Justin Case. I would also like to acknowledge with thanks the valuable comments received from anonymous referees and the careful reading by the editors of this volume. Regular disclaimers apply. The title “Between grammars and dictionaries” has been inspired by Haßler (2007). Biographical information is mainly taken from Beristáin de Souza (1883, vol. I: 142–144) and some sections of this article are derived from Zwartjes (2017a, b and 2019d).

References Primary Sources Basalenque, Diego. 1640. Arte de la lengua matlaltzinga mui copioso y assi mismo una suma y arte abrebiado compuesto todo por el padre maestro fray Diego Basalenque, de la orden de nuestro padre S. Augustin, de la prouincia de Michoacan. (John Carter Brown, Codex ind. 9, 06355. Other copies: Newberry Library, VAULT, Ayer MS 1807, 1, 2) and Repositorio Institucional del Tecnológico de Monterrey, Manuscritos Novohispanos en Lenguas Indígenas, no. 70. Basalenque, Diego. 1975 [1642]. Arte y vocabulario de la lengua matlaltzinga vuelto a la castellana. (MS Biblioteca Nacional de Antropología e Historia, CA0236, 03, V. 117). Edited by María Elena Bribiesca and Leonardo Manrique. México: Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México, vol. 33

108

zwartjes

Basalenque, Diego. 1975 [1642]. Vocabulario de la lengua castellana vuelto a la matlaltzinga. Edited by María Elena Bribiesca and Leonardo Manrique. México: Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México, vol. 34. Basalenque, Diego. 1673. Historia de la Provincia de San Nicolás de Tolentino de Michoacán. México: Por la Viuda de Bernardo Calderón. Basalenque, Diego. 1714 [c. 1644]. Arte de la lengua tarasca. Mexico: Francisco Calderón. Blancas de San José, Francisco. 1610. Arte y Reglas de la lengva tagala. Bataan: Thomas Pinpin Tagalo. Castro, Andrés de. 1557. Vocabulario castellano-[náhuatl]-matlatzinca. Copy Ithaca library, University of Cornell, New York (Pascacio Montijo 2017: 13; 59). See Lastra et al., eds. (secondary sources). Matlatzinca glosses attributed to Andrés de Castro to Molina’s 1555 edition of his Spanish-Nahuatl dictionary. Chomé, Ignace. 1730. Arte de la lengua chiquita. Puebla de San Joseph de Chiquitos, s.n. (Ms John Carter Brown Library). Correas, Gonzalo. 1954 [1625]. Arte de la lengua española castellana. Emilio Alarcos García, ed. (Revista de Filología Española, anejo LVI). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Eguiara y Eguren, Juan José. 2010 [1755–1763]. Bibliotheca Mexicana sive Eruditorum Historia virorum, qui in America Boreali nati, vel alibi geniti … Mexici: Ex novâ Typographiâ in Ǽdibus Authoris editioni eiusdem Bibliothecæ destinatâ (Only the first volume was published). Spanish version of the Third book (from D–F): Bibliotheca Mexicana. Tomo tercero, que contiene las letras D al inicio de la F. Prólogo y coordinación de Germán Viveros, con la colaboración de Verónica Cortés Cejudo, et al. México, D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Garcés, Gregorio. 1791. Fundamento del vigor y elegancia de la lengua castellana, expuesto en el propio y vario uso de sus partículas. 2 Vols. Madrid: Viuda de Ibarra. Guevara, Miguel de. 1862 [1638]. “Arte doctrinal y modo general para aprender la lengua matlaltzinga” [Ms completed in 1638]. Boletín de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía y Estadística no 9: 197–260. A transcription of the original manuscript Bibliothèque National de France, Mex. No. 409, Amoxcalli made by Doris Bartholomew is on-line available: http://amoxcalli.org.mx/facsimilar.php?id=409 Both the 1862 edition and the BNF copy are incomplete. Pimentel added the missing sections in his edition of 1862, based on Basalenque. The BNF manuscript stops abruptly in the section entitled “del modo con el qual pveden empezar a hablar” (the religious texts included in 1862 are missing). Pascacio Montijo (2017: 16; 48) mentions another 19th or 20th copy, housed in the Bancroft Library, California (BANC MSS M-M 490). Hoogeveen, Henrici. 1813. Doctrina particularum linguae graecae. In epitomen redegit Christianus Godofr. Schütz. Glasguae: Andreas Duncan, Academiae Typographus, veneunt apud Ricardum Priestley Londini. Lagunas, Juan Baptista. 1574. Arte y dictionario: con otras obras, en lengua michuacana. México: Pedro Balli.

between grammars and dictionaries

109

Molina, Alonso de. 1555. Aqui comiença un vocabulario en la lengua castellana y mexicana. México: Juan Pablos. Molina, Alonso de. 1571. Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana. México: Antonio de Spinola. Molina, Alonso de. 1571. Arte de la lengua Mexicana y castellana. México: Pedro Ocharte. Monet, Philibert. 1629. Ligatures des langues françoise, et latine, reciproquement appariées, & proprement randües, les unes par les autres, ou explication des menus mots François, et Latins, qui font la liaison de la structure, au langage. Lyon & Paris: Guillaume Pelé. Nebrija, Antonio de. 1492. Interpretatio dictionum ex sermone latino in hispaniensem. [Lexicon hoc est Dictionarium ex sermone latino in hispaniensem], also: Lexicon ex sermone latino in hispaniensem. Salamanca, no publisher mentioned. Nebrija, Antonio de. 1951 [c. 1495]. Vocabulario español-latino. Dictionarium ex hispaniensi in latinum sermonem. Salamanca. Facsimil edition: Madrid: Real Academia Española. Ogier, Rolland. 1637. Inventaire des particules françoises, et esclaircissement de leurs divers usages, reduits au parallele de la langue latine, avec beaucoup de belles observations necessaires pour la composition. La Flèche: Georges Griveau (third edition). Pomey, François-Antoine. 1666. Les particules françoises, méthodiquement exprimées en latin, avec un receuil de celles qui ne souffrent point de méthode, rangée [sic] par ordre alphabétique. Lyon: A. Molin. Rasles, Sebastian [= Sébastien Rale]. 1833 [1691]. A Dictionary of the Abnaki Language in North America. Ed. John Pickering. Offprint Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. New series, vol. 1, 370–546. Salguero, Pedro. 1761 [1664]. Vida del venerable P. y exemplarissimo Varon, el M.F. Diego Basalenqve, Provincial qve fve de la provincia de San Nicolas de Michoacan, de la Orden de N.P. San Agustin. México: Por la Viuda de Bernardo Calderón. Second edition: Lucas Centeno, ed. Roma: En la Imprenta de los Herederos de Barbielini. Steuvechius, Godescalcus. 1580. De particulis linguae Latinae. Cologne: Haeredes A. Birckmanni. Tursellinus, Horatius (Orazio Torsellino). 1969 [1829]. Tursellinus, seu de particulis Latinis commentarii. Ferdinandus Handius (= Ferdinand Gotthelf Hand), ed. 4 vols, 1829–1845. Vol. I: 1829 (reprint Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1969).

Secondary Sources Baratin, Marc. 1989. La naissance de la syntaxe à Rome. Paris: Minuit. Baratin, Marc, and Françoise Desbordes. 1981. L’analyse linguistique dans l’antiquité classique. Paris, Klincksieck. Beristáin y [Martín] de Souza, José Mariano. 1883. Biblioteca Hispano Americana setentrional. Amecameca: Tipografía del Colegio Católico.

110

zwartjes

Colombat, Bernard. 1999. La grammaire latine en France à la Renaissance et à l’Âge Classique. Théories et pédagogie. Grenoble: ELLUG/ Université Stendhal. Denniston, J.D. 1974 [1934]. The Greek Particles. Second edition. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. Escalante, Roberto, and Marciano Hernández. 1999. Matlatzinca de San Francisco Oxtotilpan, Estado de México. México, D.F.: Colegio de México. Foolen, Ad. 1993. De betekenis van partikels. Een dokumentatie van de stand van het onderzoek, met bijzondere aandacht voor maar. PhD Thesis. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen. Gabelentz, Georg von der. 1901 [1891]. Die Sprachwissenschaft: Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Herm. Tauchnitz. (second edition). Haßler, Gerda. 2007. “Las partículas entre la gramática y la lexicografía”. In Das gefesselte Wort. Beiträge zur Entwicklung von Wörterbücher und Grammatiken des Spanischen/ La palabra atada. Contribuciones sobre la evolución de diccionarios y gramáticas del español, edited by Mechtild Bierbach, Barbara von Gemmingen and Yvonne Stork. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag, 86–101. Lallot, Jean. 2001. “Apollonius Dyscole”. Corpus de Textes Linguistiques Fondamentaux (article 4629). Online: http://ctlf.ens‑lyon.fr/n_fiche.asp?num=1104 Lastra, Yolanda, Etna T. Pascacio y Leopoldo Valiñas, eds. 2017. Vocabulario castellanomatlatzinca de fray Andrés de Castro (1557). Versión paleográfica y analítica del vocabulario de Doris Batholemew; Vocabulario español-matlatzinca de Roberto Escalante y Marciano Hernández (circa 1973). Cotejo, sistematización, organización y anotaciones de los vocabularios por Etna T. Pascacio. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Manrique Castañeda, Leonardo, ed. 1975. Diego Basalenque, Vocabulario de la lengua castellana vuelto a la matlaltzinga [1642]. México: Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México. Padley, G.A. 1976. Grammatical theory in Western Europe 1500–1700: The Latin tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palancar, Enrique. 2017. “Oto-Pamean”. In Søren Wichmann, ed. The Languages and Linguistics of Middle and Central America. A Comprehensive Guide. On-line: https:// hal.archives‑ouvertes.fr/hal‑01493977 Pascasio Montijo, Etna Teresita. 2017. El Vocabulario Matlatzinca de Fray Andrés de Castro. Estudio filológico, características fonológicas y análisis morfológico de la flexión nominal y verbal. PhD Thesis Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Ridruejo, Emilio. 2005. “Las ligaturas en las gramáticas misioneras filipinas del siglo XVII”. In Otto Zwartjes, Cristina Altman, eds. Missionary Linguistics II/ Lingüística misionera II. Orthography and Phonology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 225–245. Sicking, C.M.J. 1986. “Griekse partikels: definitie en classificatie”. Lampas 19: 125–141.

between grammars and dictionaries

111

Soustelle, Jacques. 1937. “La famille Otomi-Pame du Mexique central”. Université Paris, Travaux et Mémoires de l’Institut d’Ethnologie 26: 16–571. Spanish translation: “El Matlatzinca (pirinda) y el Ocuilteca”. In La familia lingüística Otomí-Pame de México Central. México, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica, Chapter XII, 303–329. Warren, J. Benedict. 2007. “Fray Diego Basalenque y su Arte de la lengua lengua tarasca”. In: Estudios sobre el Michoacán Colonial: Los Lingüistas y la Lengua. Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico: Fimax Publicistas/ Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, 177–188. Published earlier as introduction to the facsimile edition of Basalenque’s Arte de la lengua tarasca (Morelia: Fimax Publicistas, 1994). Weydt, Harald. 1969. Abtönungspartikel: Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen Entsprechungen. Bad Homburg: Gehlen. Zwartjes, Otto. 2017a, b, c. “Diego de Basalenque. Arte de la lengua Matlatzinga”; “Diego de Basalenque. Arte de la lengua tarasca”; “Miguel de Guevara. Arte doctrinal para aprender la lengua matlatzinga” Corpus de Textes Linguistiques Fondamentaux. nos. 4662, 4647 and 4661. Ed. Bernard Colombat. http://ctlf.ens‑lyon.fr Zwartjes, Otto. 2019a, b, c. “Missionary Traditions in South America”; “Missionary Traditions in Mesoamerica”; “Missionary Traditions in East Asia”. Chapter 26 (555–578), 27 (579–596) and Chapter 29 (614–633). In John Considine, ed. The Cambridge World History of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zwartjes, Otto. 2019d. “Diego de Basalenque’s linguistic work on Matlatzinca: The “Tratado de las partículas” (1640) and the parts of speech”. In: Jean-Marie Fournier, Aimée Lahaussois & Valérie Raby, eds. Grammaticalia. Hommage à Bernard Colombat. Lyon: ENS Éditions, 53–62.

112

zwartjes

Appendix I: The Complete Text of the Prologue of the ‘Tratado’

figure 4.6 Title page of the section ‘Tratado de las partículas’ courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library

En esta lengua se [h]allan particulas antepuestas, interpuestas y pospuestas con las quales, el verbo o el nombre que las tiene denota y significa algo mas de lo que significaba por si solo v[erbi]g[racia]. Puex, es particula antepuesta y quiere deçir ‘presto’ dicenle a uno, ‘be, y prende a P[edr]o’ timpa quiri huehebi huetu P[edr]o, y responde: puex quirumpa ‘yre con presteça’. Las particulas interpuestas son mas propias de este tratado porque se [h]allan en medio como /rahaca/ bu que ambas significan ‘siempre’, como qui tu /bu/ tzi tzi ‘siempre estoy comiendo’ qui qui tu /rahaca/ tzibi ‘siempre estas riñendo’34 en quanto a la interposicion se note que siempre se interponen despues de los relativos, conbiene a saber, en la 1a y 2a coniugaçion despues del /qui/ en la 3a. despues del /quitu/ en la 4. despues del qui/ tu- tu/ en la 5. despues del /quitu/ y la par-

34

In the paleographical edition of Bribiesca we find “siempre estoy riñendo” which is not correct and the example in Matlatzinca qui tu/bu/tzi tzi is lacking.

between grammars and dictionaries

113

ticula y relatiuo /te/ va con el verbo, como se dijo glossa 60. § 2, como admirose mucho: qui re /rahante/ texemisnu,35 las particulas postpuestas son algunas en que acaban los verbos como quitubeyeta, siendo el Verbo qui tu be yee ‘yo hablo’ y como el predicador habla a todos qui tu beyeta dice ‘yo predico’, notando aqui que en auiendo /ta/ en el verbo, le [h]a de anteceder vn /be/ despues del /quitu/ qui tu be cuñaha ta- qui tu be yeeta, qui tu behinta ‘el maestro de todos’, y en el verbal se pongan dos /be/ uno del verbal y otro de la /ta/ como huebebehinta, y aunque noten que no todos lo [h]echan sino /vno/ haçenlo por abrebiar y sincopar las particulas se ponen por abeçedario, y tambien se pone la propiedad de algunas letras aunque no son particulas, no ban todas las particulas de la lengua sino las importantes y mas usadas en general de todos que las que usan algunos muy elegantes no son comunes a la lengua. In this language, there are anteposed, interposed and postposed particles. When attached to the noun or verb, they denote and signify something more than what they signify by themselves. Puex is an anteposed particle meaning ‘quickly’. If one says to someone ‘Go and catch Pedro’ timpa quiri huehebi huetu P[edr]o, he answers puex quirumpa ‘I will go with promptness’ (immediately). The interposed particles are more proper for this treatise and they are placed in the middle [of the word], such as /rahaca/ bu which both mean ‘always’, as in qui tu /bu/ tzi tzi ‘I am always eating’ qui qui tu /rahaca/ tzibi ‘you are always arguing’. Regarding the interposition, it has to be noted that they are always to be placed after the relatives, as in the first and second conjugation, [it has to be placed] after /qui/ and in the third [conjugation] after /quitu/, in the fourth after qui/ tu- tu/, in the fifth after /quitu/ and the particle and relative /te/ goes with the verb, as has been said in gloss 60, paragraph 2, as in ‘he admired himself much’: qui re /rahante/ texemisnu. The postposed particles are those that are used at the end of the verb, as in quitubeyeta, where the verb is qui tu be yee ‘I speak’ and since the preacher speaks to all [listeners] qui tu beyeta dice ‘I preach’, noting here that using /ta/ in the verb, a /be/ has to precede, after the /quitu/ qui tu be cuñaha ta- qui tu be yeeta, qui tu behinta ‘the master of all’, and in the ‘verbal’ two /be/-s have to be used, one for the verbal and the other for the /ta/ as in huebebehinta, and although it has to be observed that not all use both, but instead, they use just one, shortening, or using syncopated particles. They are arranged alphabetically, and also the property of some letters is explained, even when they are not particles. Not all the particles of the lan-

35

Arte, cap. 19. Del nombre exagerativo rahante ‘en gran manera’. Diccionario: Rahante es partícula que exagera, como huera hante benpuethí ‘el más sabio’.

114

zwartjes

guage are included, but only the most important ones and the most frequently used, and generally, some even when some of them are very elegant, they are not always commonly used”.

Appendix II: The Particles of the ‘Tratado’

Partícula

A36 I

Ba

√

Be

P

Antepuesta aun n[ombre] substantiuo le haçe indefinito y no limitado a alguno, (anteposed to a noun makes it indefinite and not limited to something) dice generalidad (expresses generality)37

√

Combined with the suffix -ta

√

Bi

√

36

37 38

39 40

U Tratado

Vocabulario Ba is also classified as a preposition in the dictionary, with the meaning of “desde allí” (Ms Monterrey f. 126r).

preposition, with the meaning of “cerca”. In the dictionary we also find a totally different meaning: there is a separate entry for -ta; “particula que allegada a un subwhere we find, among other mean- stantiuo: significa cosa suçia, como ings: “pospuesta en los verbos y en im be naha ‘manta suçia’.”38 (a partilos nombres haçe la accion del verbo cle which means ‘dirty thing’ when general” (postposed to verbs and attached to a substantive, as in im be nouns makes the action of the verb naha ‘dirty blanket’) general) primeras personas del numero plural naçe del relatiuo, nosotros muchos39 (first persons of the plural number, formed from the ‘relative’ we [many of us])40

A= Partícula Antepuesta, I = Interpuesta, P = Postpuesta and U = Undetermined, not defined by Basalenque. Some are not classified as ante/ inter or postpuesta by Basalenque, but in some cases it could be inferred from the examples given. Basalenque devotes a special rule (“regla”) to this particle (ed. Manrique 1975: 148). We also find be as “Aduerbio de tiempo” with a different meaning “cerca de tiempo” pi be no inhiabi “cerca de dos dias” (Arte, f. 92r), also included in the list of the “aduerbios de lugar” (f. 92v) (adverbs of place). According to the dictionary, bi is a preposition with the meaning “desde allí” (from there), which is also the translation of ba. Basalenque gives the forms for first person plural qui caquehebí (‘nosotros muchos somos’) we [more than two] are’, opposed to qui caquí ‘yo soy’ (I am). He does not discuss -he which is attached together with -bi.

115

between grammars and dictionaries (cont.) Partícula

A

Bo

√

Bu

I

P

U Tratado haçe la possesion de la 2a persona plural (expresses ‘possession’ of the second person plural)

√

Bura Particula compuesta de bu y ra Ca, cata

Can

√

Cana

41

significa tiempo, esto es, ‘quando’ (means ‘tense’, i.e. ‘when’)

√

√

√

√

In the dictionary, bo is combined with in in the previous column “inbo”; it is a “particula que diçe ‘cosa negra’, como imbo naha ‘el luto’” (f. 129v). (black thing, mourning).

diçe frequentaçion en la accion, como qui-qui-tu-bu-tzitzi ‘siempre estás comiendo’ (expresses ‘frequentation’ in the action, as in qui-qui-tu-bu-tzitzi you are constantly eating) quiere decir acabado todo (means everything is finished)

√

Cata

Vocabulario

-interpuesta, vel antepuesta con su relatiuo (interposed, or anteposed with its relative) Only examples, no definition diçe haçer la accion a buen tiempo (means to do the action on time)

(1)41 Ca es unna [sic] particula que sirbe al vocatiuo a quien llamamos. Como caP[edr]o (Ca is a particle which is attached to the vocative to whom we address, as in CaPedro) (2) Tambien es particula que significa tienpo, vg. ‘quando comiste’, ca quitzití (f. 130v–131r) (it is also a particle meaning ‘tense’, vg. ‘when did you eat?’ ca quitzití) can es particula que significa ‘mucho’ (f. 131v) (can is a particle meaning ‘much’)

Some particles have more than one meaning. The numbers are mine, they are not in the original text.

116

zwartjes

(cont.) Partícula

A

Cara Particula compuesta de ca y ra [“Particle composed of ra and ra”]

I

P

U Tratado

√

Cata

√

Cati Cha

√

Chare

√

Che

√

√

Chebe

√

Chere

√

Chi

√

42 43

(1) -ra denota 2a persona, el -ca dice ‘de que modo’ (2) tambien significa mucho, lo mismo que otras particulas /hambe/ chuna/ rahante ((1) -ra denotes second person, -ca expresses ‘in what way’ ” (2) it also means ‘much’, the same as other particles /hambe/ chuna/ rahante) denota el tiempo quando se hara alguna cosa (quando) (denotes the time when something will be done (when)) diçe elegancia [“expresses elegance”] 2a persona de plural en lugar de /che/42 (second person plural instead of /che/) es interrogatiua, que diçe ‘podrás’43 (Chare is interrogative and expresses ‘you will be able to’) es relatiuo de la 2a persona del dual (Che is a relative of the second person of the dual) es una de nuebe particulas que se ponen para las nuebe personas de los tres numeros (Chebe is one of the nine particles which are used for the nine persons of the three numbers) de esta particula se dijo arriba en la particula chare (the meaning of this particle has been explained above dealing with the particle chare) haçe que su significacion que era indefinita se limite (Chi makes the meaning, which was indefinite, limited)

Vocabulario cara vel. carahante ‘es particula que exagera y sirbe de superlatiuo’ (f. 131v–132r) (cara vel. carahante is a particle which exaggerates and serves as superlative)

The “Tratado” the digraph ⟨ch⟩ is not a separate entry, different from the dictionary, where ⟨ch⟩ comes after the letter ⟨c⟩. Also classified as “aduerbio de preguntar” (interrogative adverb) (Arte, f. 88v): “chare tí/na/tzitzi ‘podra comer’ ”.

117

between grammars and dictionaries (cont.) Partícula

A

I

Chin

Cho

√

Chore

√

Chu

√

Co

√

Cora

√

44

U Tratado

Vocabulario

√

chin particula que pregunta donde esta esto y a de ser inanimado (f. 138r) (chin is a particle which asks where this is and has to be inanimate) (1) añade que la accion del verbo se hace alla, (2) significa menosprecio ((1) adds that the action of the verb is done there, (2) meaning contempt) tambien diçe haçer alla la accion del verbo en las 2as personas (cf. /cho/) (also means that the action of the verb in the second person has to be done there) dice exageracion y reuerencia44 (expresses exaggeration and reverence) diçe exageracion y mucho en la cosa, vg. Quita-chuna-tzitzi ‘e comido mucho’ (expresses exaggeration and ‘much’ as to the ‘thing’ vg. Quitachuna-tzitzi ‘I have eaten much’) (1) hacer la accion alla (2) Tambien es relatiuo dual ((1) doing the action over there, (2) it is also relative, dual)

√

Chuna

Core

P

√

es particula de Reuerençia (f. 144r) (Chu is a particle of reverence)

In the dictionary we find a different definition: ‘co es particula que arrimada a otro pregunta asi de tiempo como de lugar’ (f. 132v) (co is a particle attached to another, which interrogates about time and place)

Lo mismo diçe lo mismo que la pasada (haçer la accion alla) (same as the above-mentioned (doing the action over there)) “allá harán los dos aquesto” (over there both of them will do this)

According to Pascacio Montijo (2017: 167) it is a reverential prefix (“prefijo apreciativo con valor reverencial”).

118

zwartjes

(cont.) Partícula

A

Coru

I

P

U Tratado

√

Cu

√

Cuebe

√

Da Viene de estas partículas dapuracah, datetzon, Dandacah

√

Di

√

Haqui

√

He

√

Hi

√

45

Vocabulario

Como las demas nacen de la particula -co- que diçe ‘alla’ se hara la accion (as with the others, they are derived from -co meaning ‘over there’, where the action will take place) (1) es relatiuo, (2) antes que (3) cuando,45 (4) significa abajo, como cu ((1) is a relative, (2) before (3) when, (4) meaning below, as cu) Esta partícula es de las nuebe particulas (cf. chebe) (This is one of the nine particles (cf. Chebe)) significa ‘todos’ … daquirontzitzi Da es una particula que diçe ‘todos comieron’ (meaning ‘all’ muchos y assi si anteçede al Dual daquirontzitzi ‘they all eat’) da theno diçe ‘a,bos a dos’ y si al plural da tetzo diçe ‘todos’ (f. 145r) (Da is a particle meaning ‘many’ and it is anteposed to the dual da theno diçe ‘to both of you’ and in plural da tetzo it means ‘all’) es palabra reuerencial porque estamos hablando con /dios/ (Di is a referential word, since we are talking with God) es lo mismo que /pero/ (is the same es particula que diçe ‘pero’ vg. ‘Joan as ‘but’) es limosnero pero borracho’ haquihue bethunimi (f. 152r) (Haqui is a particle which means ‘but’ vg. ‘John is a beggar, but he is drunk’ aquihue bethunimi) la usan de reuerencia, quando habla el inferior al supperior [sic], como hablando con dios (He is used to express reverence, when an inferior talks to a superior, such as talking with God) se interpone en dos parentescos que es de hijo y de m[adr]e y no se alla en otros (Hi is interposed between two relatives, which is the son and the mother, not to be used in others)

For Basalenque “Quando” in Spanish is also a “particle”: “… esta particula quando”.

119

between grammars and dictionaries (cont.) Partícula

A

Ho

√

I

P

diçe imposibilidad en la accion del verbo, vg. yaxitutzitzi ‘no como’ mas si añadimos /ho/ taxiho-tutzitzi dice imposibilidad, ‘no puedo comer’, como a la contra /nah/ diçe possibilidad (infra) (Expresses impossibility in the action of the verb vg. yaxitutzitzi ‘I do not eat’ but if we add /ho/ taxiho-tutzitzi it means impossibility, ‘I cannot eat’, opposed to /nah/ which means possibility (infra))

Hora

√

Horu

√

Hue

√

I

√

Imbe

√

U Tratado

Vocabulario (1) Ho es una particula de aclamaçion que llama al modo de nuestra lengua ‘o’, (2) es una particula que se arrima a la negatiua yaxi, yaxiho y diçe en pluralidad en el verbo yaxiho qui tu tzitzi ‘no puedo comer’ (f. 158r) ((1) Ho is a particle of exclamation which is comparable to our language ‘o’. (2) It is attached to the negative yaxi, yaxiho and expresses plurality on the verb yaxiho qui tu tzitzi ‘I cannot eat’)

diçe lo mismo que la particula /cora/ que es ‘alla’ (is the same as the particle cora which means ‘there’) es lo mismo que la particula /coru/ que dice alla (is the same as the particle coru which means ‘there’) – hue es una particula que se pone a los Raçionales muchos v. hembras como huema huexuhui y vale lo que en español ‘el’ vel ‘ella’ vide Arte (f. 160r) (hue is a particle which is used with many Rational individuals, such as females, as in huema huexuhui and it is equivalent with Spanish ‘el’ (‘he’) or ‘ella’ (‘she’), see the Arte (f. 160r)) Letra, en el principio del nombre, Idem (f. 162r), as in the “Cartilla” sirbe de inicial al substantiuo (Letter, at the beginning of the noun, serves as initial to the substantive) (1) una de las nuebe puesta para la 3a persona de singular, (2) significa ‘sucio’ y antepuesta al substantiuo le haçe sucio, como imbe huexuhui ‘muger sucia’ ((1) one of the nine used for the third person singular (2) Meaning ‘dirty’ and anteposed to the substantive makes it dirty, as in imbe, huexuhui ‘dirty woman’)

120

zwartjes

(cont.) Partícula

A

Imbo

√

In

√

Intox

√

Intzaq[ui]na

46

I

P

U Tratado quiere deçir negra, y asi al sustantivo que se le sigue le haçe negro, como imbo naa ‘manta negra’ imbo huexuhui ‘muger negra’46 (meaning ‘black’ and attached to any substantive makes it black as in imbo naa ‘black blanket’ imbo huexuhui ‘black woman’) (1) es la ordinaria particula inicial (vid. litera 1), (2) es adjetivo ((1) In is the ordinary intitial particle, (2) is an adjective)

√

quiere deçir blanco, es adjetiuo que al substantiuo que antecede le hace blanco, como intox dibahui ‘papel blanco’ (means ‘white’, it is an adjective which makes the substantive which it precedes white, as in intox dibahui ‘white paper’) quiere decir ‘poco’, y unas veces sirbe de aduerbio, otras de adiectiuo. (means ‘a little bit’, and sometimes is used as an adverb, other times as an adjective)

Cf. supra: bo and in + bo (f. 129v).

Vocabulario

es particula con que conmiençan muchos substantiuos, como in Angel ‘el Angel’ vide arte in cartilla y en el nombre (In is a particle with which many substantives begin, as in in Angel, ‘the Angel’, see the Arte in the ‘Cartilla’ and [in the section] on the noun)

121

between grammars and dictionaries (cont.) Partícula

A

I

Ma

Mani

P

U Tratado

Vocabulario

√

(1) es una particula que se aplica a las mugeres, en ausencia y presençia, como ma Maria ‘o la Maria’ v. ‘aquella María’, (2) es particula que por elegançia se llega a la terçera persona de singular y Plural, (3) es adjetivo que significa ‘grande’ (f. 162v) ((1) … is a particle which applies to women, absent or present, as in ma Maria ‘o Maria’, or ‘that Maria’, (2) it is a particle attached with elegance to the third person singular and plural, (3) is an adjective which means ‘big’).

√

Me

√

Mu

√

47 48 49

(1) se arrima por elegancia a la 3a persona de singular y a la 3a de plural, (2) tambien singulariça la cosa que de suyo era indefinita, como inmahachi, ‘hacienda de alguno’, (3) tambien es particula47 que diçe grande48 a la contra de /intecha/ que diçe chica ((1) attached with elegance to the third person singular and plural, (2) it also singularises the object which was indefinite in itself, as in inmahachi, ‘country estate of someone’, (3) It is also a particle which means ‘big’, opposed to /intecha/ which means ‘small’) diçe que se ba haciendo la accion del verbo, como ne Angeles quiro, /mani/ thehui ‘los Angeles iban cantando’ (expresses that the action of the verb is gradually going to take place, as in ne Angeles quiro, /mani/ thehui ‘the Angels were starting to sing’)49 Quiere decir ‘ay’ en cosas inanimadas ‘ay dinero’ qui/me/intomines (Means ‘there is/ ther are’ in inanimate things, as in ‘there is money’ qui/me/intomines) (1) Haçe el partiçipio de presente en todas las conjugaciones, (2) Tambien se pone por elegancia a la 3a persona de singular … (with this particle the present participle is formed in all conjugations, (2) It is also used with elegance with the third person singular)

Only the second meaning is given: (f. 167v).

In the dictionary Spanish ‘grande’ (big) is not a ‘particle’ but an ‘adjective’: es adjetivo que significa ‘grande’ (f. 162v) (it is an adjective, meaning ‘big’). According to Pascacio Montijo (2017: 167) be is an appreciative prefix (aumentative): “Prefijo apreciativo (aumentativo)”. In Escalante & Hernández (1999: 111) man is glossed as “Progressive” prefix. Aspectual markers are indeed, as Basalenque observes, “interposed” between the pronominal prefix(es) and the root.

122

zwartjes

(cont.) Partícula

A

I

Mue, vel muequin

Muntexi

√

Na

√

Naa

P

U Tratado

Vocabulario

√

Muequin ‘solamente’ (f. 169v) (only)

√

50

disminuye la indefinita significaçion del verbo, como ‘no e comido sino pan’, (diminishes the indefinite meaning of the verb, as in ‘I have only eaten bread’) diçe haçer presto la accion (means that the action of the verb is done quickly) (1) Es la particula de verbo nahui que es ‘querer’, que interpuesta en otro verbo quiere decir ‘quiero hacer esto’ vg. Quitu/na/tzitzi ‘quiero comer’, (2) Tambien es adjetiuo, que quiere deçir /todos/ y se aplica a uiuientes y no uiuientes, (3) Tambien es particula adjetiua, que significa ‘limpieça’ como ina na ‘ropa limpia’, (4) Tambien significa lugar bajo vel adentro nema qui do/nan/chori ‘los hombres estaban abajo vel, adentro’ ((1) is a particle of the verb nahui which means ‘to want’, which interposed with another verb means ‘I want to do this’, vg. Quitu/na/ tzitzi ‘I want to eat’ (2) It is also an adjective, meaning ‘all’, and it is applied to living and not living (animate or inanimate), (3) It is also an adjective particle meaning ‘cleanliness’ as in ina na ‘clean clothes’, (4) It also means a low place or within nema qui do/nan/chori ‘the men are below or, inside’) significa ‘orilla del mar’, o ‘fimbria de la ropa’ (Means ‘sea-shore’, or ‘border of a garment’)50

Cf. Castro (2017 [1557]: 272), yn naa.

Spelled differently: Munthexi ‘presto’ (quickly) (f. 171r) (1) Diçe ‘quiero’ la acçion del verbo, (2) Antepuesto al numbre lo haçe limpio, (3) Sirbe de adjetiuo y diçe ‘todos’ ((1) means ‘I want’ [followed by] the action of the verb (2) anteposed to the noun it makes it clean, (3) Serves as an adjective meaning ‘all’)

La orilla de qualquier cosa y tambien significa la finbria y remate de la bestidura (f. 172v) (The border of anything, it also means ‘border of a garment’ and ‘seam of a vestment’)

123

between grammars and dictionaries (cont.) Partícula

A

I

Nah

√

Nan

√

Ne52

51 52

U Tratado con aspiracion … diçe possibilidad en la accion del verbo, como qui tu /nah/ thehui ‘puedo cantar’, a la contra, esta particula yaxiho51 diçe impossibilidad (with aspiration … expressing ‘possibility’ in the action of the verb, as in qui tu /nah/ thehui ‘I can sing’, opposed to the particle yaxiho which means ‘impossibility’) diçe possibilidad (cf. nah) [“means possibility”] (1) haçe pluralidad en las cosas, (2) tambien es negatiuo, de nexi ((1) pluralises things, (2) is also a negative of nexi)

√

Nebe

Nen

P

√

√

Vocabulario Diçe posibilidad en su acçion. Como quituhnah tzitzi ‘puedo comer’, contra la otra yaxiho que diçe imposibilidad (f. 172v) (means ‘possibility in its action’, as in quituhnah tzitzi ‘I can eat’, opposed to yaxiho meaning impossibility)

Es particula, diçe dos en numero, es para cosas inanimadas como nohui ne inhiabi ‘dos dias’ (particle meaning two in number, used for inanimate things, as in nohui ne inhiabi ‘two days’)

una de las nuebe de los relatiuos, combiene a la 3a persona de plural (One of the nine relatives, to be combined with the third person plural) significa haçer de passo la accion, quiere decir ‘de camino’, ‘quando caminaba’ (means ‘to do an action in passing’, meaning ‘on the way’, ‘while he was going’)

In Manrique’s edition (1975: 131) yaxio, but in both Ms (JCB and Monterrey) we find yaxiho. Pascacio Montijo (2017: 153).

124

zwartjes

(cont.) Partícula

A

Ni

√

Nin

√

I

P

Ninqui

Pa

Pi

U Tratado

√

√

√

(1) arrimada a un substantibo haçe possesion suya vel, de aquel, como in capote es el nominatiuo el capote, pero poniendole -ni- es suyo vel de aquel, (2) tambien se arrima al verbo es identico de la accion del verbo, como nitztitzi ‘el comer’, vel ‘lo comido’ ((1) attached to a substantive makes possession of one’s own or of someone else, as in capote which is the nominative, ‘the cloak’, but attaching ni- is ‘his [own] cloak’, or ‘his [= someone else’s] cloak’; (2) attached to a verb it is identical to the verbal action, as in nitztitzi ‘the eating’, or ‘the eaten thing’) particula initiativa de algunos substantiuos los quales auian de començar con /ni/ mas porque se sigue c.d.p.q.t (initial particle of some substantives which begin with nifollowed by c, d, p, q, t) significa ‘proseguir lo que se iba haciendo’ (means ‘to continue what one was doing’) quiere deçir ‘voy’ vel ‘vengo haciendo de aquel verbo,’ (means to be gradually doing something, to have been doing something) diçe haçer la accion del berbo pa[ra] si mismo, vel para otro, (means to do the action of the verb for one self, or for another)

Vocabulario (1) es nombre relatiuo, para cosas inanimadas que demuestran la cosa, como ni imbahani, y si es animado dice nithi como nithi P[edr]o, ‘aquel P[edr]o’, (2) esta particula con la y- ípslon ante puesta a los animales denota su caso, como y ni ruthani ‘la jaula’ ((1) Ni is a relative noun for inanimate things, which demonstrate the thing, as in ni imbahani, and, if it is animated, it is said nithi as in nithi P[edr]o, ‘that Peter’; (2) this particle with the -y, anteposed to animals, denotes its gender, as in ni ruthani cage)

In the dictionary a different meaning is given, as equivalent for py: Py vel pi es preposiçion que diçe lugar, como en el çielo Pythithi vel Pithithi (f. 185r) (Py or pi is a preposition which means a place, as ‘in heaven’ Pythithi or Pithithi)

125

between grammars and dictionaries (cont.) Partícula

A

I

Pinita

√

Piqui cah

√

Pu

√

53

P

U Tratado (1) preposicion … sirbe para tres preposiciones distinctas en latin, que son, in, ad, versus, (2) causal, (3) interrogative ((1) preposition, serves for three different Latin prepositions, being in, ad, versus, (2) causal, (3) interrogative)

Quiere decir ‘asi’ (means ‘so, in this way’) (1) denota haçer la accion del verbo, como ‘yo te haré azotar’ basta decir qui ru /pu/ mebi y tambien sirbe para la misma p[er]sona que haçe haçer la accion,53 (2) partícula de dos preposiciones que en latín son distintas que son ‘allí’, y ‘de alli’ ((1) denotes to do the action of the verb, as in ‘I will have you whipped’, it is sufficient to say qui ru/ pu/ mebi and it also serves for the same person who causes the action to take place, (2) Particle of the two prepositions, which in Latin are different, which are ‘there’ and ‘from there’)

Vocabulario (1) Pinita ‘porque’ vel, ‘por tanto’, quando ba con relatiuo, ‘como’, (2) Tambien significa lugar ‘en’, como pinita altar ‘en el altar’, (3) Tambien significa ‘por’, (4) Tambien significa ‘a’ como ‘llegue a una muger’ quitanori huexuhui pinita, (5) Tambien significa ‘hacia’, como ‘mira hacia el cielo’ Dinu vel tinu ínínhithi pínita (f. 186v) (Pinita ‘because’, or ‘therefore’, and when it goes with the relative, it means ‘as’, (2) It means also ‘place in which’, as in pinita altar ‘in the altar’, (3) it also means ‘by’ (4) It also means ‘to’, as in ‘I came to a woman’ quitanori huexuhui pinita, (5) It also means ‘towards’, as in ‘look towards the sky’ Dinu vel tinu ínínhithi pínita) ‘assi es’ (f. 187r) (that’s the way it is)

In the Philippines, we find the Latin concept of facere facere used for the causatives.

126

zwartjes

(cont.) Partícula

A

Pucah

I

P

U Tratado √

Puex

√

Puexi

√

Py

√

54 55 56

Vocabulario

‘como’. Pucah es de dos sillabas— interpuesto puede tener tres puccahcah el pucah todo al principio y luego el ultimo cah interpuesto vg ‘como aquel ame’ pu tatu cah tochí o todo es eslabodado [sic]54 que dice mas gala. (‘as’. Pucah has two syllables, interposed it can have three puccahcah; Pucah at the beginning and then cah interposed, as in ‘as he loves’ pu tatu cah tochí or every element is linked together, which is more graceful) diçe presteça (means ‘speed’) Es particula que dice ‘al punto’, Luego, ‘presto’ (is a particle which means ‘instantly’, and also ‘quickly’) quiere decir ‘antes’ y ‘asi’ en las con- ‘antes’ particula que en el arte se jugaciones (means ‘before’ and ‘in aplica al plusquanperfecto y al this way’ in the conjugations) futuro perfecto (f. 190r) (‘before’, a particle which in the grammar is used for the pluperfect and the future perfect) es adverbio que diçe ibi y preposicion Cf, Pi que diçe in verbigracia, en el cielo py hih55 (is an adverb meaning ibi (there), preposition meaning ‘in’ as in the example ‘in heaven’ py hih)56

JCB has eslabodado, Ms Monterrey has “… todo es laboreado” and in the transcription of Manrique’s edition we have “eslabonado”. Also included in the Arte, in the chapter on the ‘preposición indeclinable’ (Arte, f. 87r). Also included in the word list in his Arte in the section “Adverbios de lugar”, here included in the treatise on ‘particles’. In fact, Basalenque observes that py is a locative preposition (lit. a preposition of place, ‘preposición’; Manrique 1975: 115), included in the list of adverbs in his Arte. here as adverb. It does not appear as a separate entry in word list of the prepositions, but in the Vocabulario it appears again as preposition (Manrique 1975: 240).

127

between grammars and dictionaries (cont.) Partícula

A

I

Qua

P

U Tratado √

Qui

√

Qui tu

√

Quibe

√

Quihequixemi

√

Quina

57

√

se usa muchas veçes para la primera p[er]sona del plural ‘nosotros muchos’ (is often used for the first person plural ‘many of us’) se interpone galanamente en los verbos en la 3a conjugacion (it is elegantly interposed in the verbs in the third conjugation) Esta particula -quitu- se usa en la 4a conjugación por elegancia al modo que la partícula qui se usa en las otras conjugaciones (This particle, quitu is used with elegance in the 4th conjugation in the same manner as the particle qui is used in the other conjugations) Esta partícula es una de nuebe que se aplican a los nuebe relatiuos y combiene a la 2a p[er]sona de singular. ‘vas a comer’ qui quimpa, quibetzitzi (This particle is one of the nine which are applied to the nine relatives and correspond with the second person singular ‘are you going to eat?’ qui quimpa, quibetzitzi) es una partícula que se pone para conclusion de lo que sea dicho, vale lo que en latin -ergo ([Quina] is a particle which is used for the conclusion of what has been said, and has the same value as Latin ergo) (= ‘consequently, accordingly, therefore’) junta con los relatiuos y pronombres diçe identidad verbigracia ‘yo mismo’ quina caqui (together with the relatives and pronouns means ‘identity’, as in ‘I for myself’ quina caqui)

Vocabulario

In the dictionary it is spelled as quihnah.57 Es particula que diçe identidad, como quihnahcaqui ‘yo mismo’ (It is a particle that states identity, as in quihnahcaqui ‘I, myself’)

Basalenque devotes a special note to the alternation qui / quih (“unas veces los Naturales pronunçian fuertemente el -quih- y otros blandos. … mas aqui iran todos con -h- que hace dura la pronuncicion [sic]”). (f. 194r–v) (sometimes the Indians pronounce -quih- strongly

128

zwartjes

(cont.) Partícula

A

Quihni

I

P

U Tratado √

Quini

√

Quiz

√

Ra

√

Rahaca

√

58 59

Vocabulario

es demonstratiua y diçe lo mismo que en latin ecce, ‘veis, aqui’.58 (is a demonstrative with the same meaning as Latin ecce ‘here’, to denote that something is present) haçe posesion de la 3a p[er]sona (makes possession of the third person) denota que la cosa de quien habla esta arriba, (indicates that the thing that one talks about is above) se pone en lugar del relatiuo de 1a p[er]sona del futuro que es ru …tambien se junta a la particula /ho/ y diçe hora de quo supra (has to be placed instead of the relative of the first person of the future, which is ru … it is also combined with the particle ho with the same meaning as hora, as shown above) significa ‘siempre’ y asi hace el verbo (qui tu tu) Racah vel rahacah ‘confrequentatiuo (means ‘always’ and tinuar la cosa que se haçe’ thus makes the verb frequentative) Rahacah es particula que interpuesta en el verbo diçe frequentaçion (f. 196r)59 ((qui tu tu) Racah or rahacah ‘to continue the thing one is doing’. Rahacah is a particle which interposed in the verb means ‘frequency’)

and others pronounce it smoothly … but here, they all appear with -h- which makes the pronunciation strong). Also classified as ‘Aduerbio demostratiuo’ (Arte, f. 89v) (demonstrative adverb). Basalenque devotes a special section to the “verbo frequentatiuo” (frequentative verb; Chapter 29, fols. 83r–v), in which he gives a paradigm for all “conjugations”: (1) qui- rahaca -tihqi caqui, ‘siempre estoy pesado’ (I am always annoyed), (2) qui-rahaca- tiqui caqui, ‘siempre temo’ (I always fear), (3) qui-tu-rahaca tzitzi, ‘siempre como’ (I always eat), (4) qui-tu-tu-rahaca hibí, ‘siempre riño’ (I always laugh), (5) qui-tu-rahaca-tebahaya ‘siempre me alegro’ (I am always happy), (6) qui-tu-rahaca-hori, quiratzitzi, ‘siempre busco qué comer’ (I am always searching something to eat). In the accompanying ‘glosa’ (65) Basalenque gives a definition of this marker which serves to express “frecuentación” and explains in which position it occurs: in the first two conjugations following after qui, in the third after the two markers qui-tu, in the fourth after the three markers qui-tu-tu, while in

129

between grammars and dictionaries (cont.) Partícula Rahante

Ri

A

I

P

U Tratado

√

√

60

Vocabulario

(1) diçe muchissimo, ya sirbe a los verbos comparatiuos … interponese entre nombres y verbos, (2) tambien puede tener raçon de adiectiuo, vg. ‘rogue a dios con g[ran]de humildad’ qui tabu chobi nituyaa, huebunibi in Dios rahante cabiami ((1) means ‘very much’, and serves comparative verbs. It is interposed between nouns and verbs, (2) It also has the meaning of an adjective, as in ‘beg to God with great humbleness’ qui tabu chobi nituyaa, huebunibi in Dios rahante cabiami)60 es de reuerencia, como la particula /he/ y algunas veces se ponen ambas, como en el pater noster (is a reverantial particle, as the particle he and sometimes both are used, as in the Pater Noster)

the fifth it is interposed between qui-tu and -te-, since the latter has to proceed the verb directly (ibid.). In the list of temporal adverbs it appears as dahaca ‘siempre’ (always). The liquid /ɾ/ has two allophones: [d] after a nasal consonant, and between vowels it can be [ɾ] or [d] (Pascacio Montijo 2017: 136). Basalenque was perfectly aware of this alternation, as explained in his cartilla: “La D se usa com nosotros la usamos en los simples, así en el principio como en el medio de parte, solo hay diferencia en los simples y compuestos que tienen antes de sí N, como huendihuí, mas en los compuestos que cuando le antecede otra parte, le hace mudar la D en R ….” (The D is used as we use it in simple words, both at the beginning and in the middle; there is only one difference between simple and in composition, that if preceded by N, as in huendihí, but if in composition, when another element precedes, the D is pronounced R). According to Castro (2017 [1555]: 261) rahanta is an adverb.

130

zwartjes

(cont.) Partícula

A

I

P

U Tratado

Roma

√

Ta

√

Tha

√

Tabe

√

Tan

√

Taqui

√

61

Vocabulario

sirbe a las 3as personas del numero plural cuyo es el relativo ro el ma es elegancia y necess[ari]o q[uan]do los muchos hacen la accion y se ban (serves as third person plural whose relative is ro; ma is used with elegancy and is needed when many do the action and go away) (1) haçe el relatiuo de la 1a p[er]sona = Tha qui ta tzitzi ‘yo comí’, (2) tambien es relatiuo de la 3a p[er]sona en el imperatiuo de la 3a conjugacion, como ta tzitzi ‘coma’.61 … ((1) denotes the relative of the first person qui ta tzitzi ‘I ate’, (2) it is also the relative of the third person in the imperative of the third conjugation, as in ta tzitzi ‘eat [third person]’ – (1) Diçe peligro, significa cosa difficultosa, cosa peligrosa (f. 198r) (2) Dice ‘apenas’ (f. 198r) ((1) Expresses danger, meaning something difficult, (2) means ‘hardly’) pertenece a los nuebe relatiuos y se aplica a la 1a p[er]sona (belongs to the nine relatives and is applied to the first person) ‘dice que cosa’, tan qui tzitzi ‘que comes’ (means ‘what’, as in tan qui tzitzi ‘what are you eating?’) causa elegancia (causes elegance)

Basalenque compares the two forms which may produce “equivocación” with Spanish first and third person singular of the imperfect and imperfect subjunctive which have the same forms (‘comía’, and ‘comiera’).

131

between grammars and dictionaries (cont.) Partícula

A

I

Taquita

√

√

Taquire62

√

√

P

Tare/he/te

Te

√

√

62

U Tratado

√

Vocabulario

es mas propia deste lugar que la In the dictionary it is spelled as passada porque tiene dos /ta/ y Thaquita antepuesta y interpuesta al verbo diçe possibilidad en su accion huebama taquita nohui huebaxuhui pinita ‘el marido licitam[en]te puede llegar a su muger’ ([this particle] is more appropriate than the previous one, since it has two ta-s and anteposed and interposed to the verb it expresses possibility in the action huebama taquita nohui huebaxuhui pinita ‘the husband may legally approach his wife’) se pone para sola la 5a conjugacion porque la passada taquita no le sirbe (it is used only in the fifth conjugation since the previous [particle] taquita cannot be applied) es relatiuo propio de la 3a p[er]sona de singular del imperatiuo de la 5a conjugacion (is the appropriate relative for the third person singular of the fifth conjugation) (1) diçe possesion de la 2a p[er]sona, (2) interpuesta en los substantiuos los apoca y embileçe como huete tuma ‘viejo ruin’, (3) pospuesta al verbo que denota que la accion del verbo cae en 3a p[er]sona vg. Qui tutuqi ‘yo cargo’ qui tu tun-te ‘pongo a otro la carga’ ((1) expresses possession for the second person, (2) interposed in substantives it apocopates and degrades them, as in huete tuma ‘old mean person’, (3) postposed to the verb, it denotes that the action of the verb falls to a third person vg. Qui tutuqi ‘I carry (the load)’ qui tu tun-te ‘I put the load on somebody else’)

Taquita and taquire are not arranged alphabetically.

132

zwartjes

(cont.) Partícula

A

I

P

U Tratado

Vocabulario

The

√

–

(1) significa dos viuientes, (2) Particula que disminuye el substantiuo, como huethema ‘hombre bil’, huethehua, ‘el niño’ (f. 203v) ((1) indicates two living beings, (2) Particle which diminishes the substantive, as in huethema ‘vile man’, huethehua, ‘the child’)

Ti

√

(1) es relatiuo de la 2a p[er]sona de imperatiuo del a 3a conjugacion, (2) Tambien es particula que por elegancia se entremete en otros relatiuos de otras conjugaciones …, ((1) is the relative for the second person and the imperative of the third conjugation, (2) it is also a particle which gracefully can be interposed between other relatives of other conjugations …) – Es relatiuo que dice ‘aqueste’ vel ‘aquesto’ (f. 209v) (a relative meaning ‘that’) es proposicion de hablatiuo que diçe In the vocabulario it is spelled as ‘con’, como instrum[en]to mas no a Thica. Es prepociçion de ablatiuo de ser la cosa corporal sino s[pirit]ual y sirbe solamente a las potençias como con humildad (is a preposition del alma y espirituales, como ‘con of the ablative meaning ‘with’, as in humildad’ (f. 209v) (Preposition an instrument, but not a corporal of the ablative which serves only thing, rather a spiritual one, such as for the capacities of the mind or ‘with humility’)63 spiritual matters, such as ‘with humbleness’)

√

Thi

√

Tica

√

63

Also included in the list of prepositions: “tica con, es instrumento, mas no por cosas corporales, sino del alma. Ticaní tecabihamí ‘con humildad’.” (tica ‘with’, is instrumental, but not applied to corporal things but spiritual Ticaní tecabihamí ‘with humility’).

133

between grammars and dictionaries (cont.) Partícula

A

I

Tu

P

U Tratado √

Tzu Xi

√ √

64

65

(1) sirbe a la accion de la 4a conjugacion en todas las p[er]sonas, (2) tambien denota possesion intrinseca, (3) Tambien diçe reverencia en la possession, (4) en el verbo /thena/ que significa tener necesidad añade neçesidad continua ((1) serves for the action of the 4th conjugation in all the persons, (2) denotes also intrinsic possession, (3) it also denotes reverence in possession, (4) in the verb thena which means ‘being essential’, adds the meaning of ‘constant need’) denota haçer la accion arriba (denotes doing the action upwards) (1) niega la accion,64 (2) antepuesta a un substantiuo diçe que aq[ue]l sustantiuo es sacado de otro como inxitzipi ‘centella’ porque sale del fuego inxipueixto65 ((1) denies the action, (2) anteposed to a substantive means that this substantive is derived from another substantive, such as inxitzipi ‘spark’, because it comes from ‘the fire’ inxipueixto)

Vocabulario

Es una particula negatiua que naçe de otra, yaxi, quitandole el ya, como ‘no lo comi’, yaxi tatzitzi vel xitatzitzi (f. 221v) (negative particle which comes from another, yaxi, taking away ya, as in ‘I dit not eat it’ yaxi tatzitzi or xitatzitzi)

As in Escalante and Hernández (1999: 67–68): ninhí imbáani kimhúyä ‘esta casa es nueva’ (this is a new house; ninhí imbáani xamhúyä ‘esta casa no es nueva’ (this is not a new house). Also included in the list of ‘preposiciones indeclinables’ (Arte f. 87r): xi ‘sin’ xicahachisin ‘sin ti’.

134

zwartjes

(cont.) Partícula

A

Xucan

√

Y

√

Ya

√

Yare

√

Yaxi

√

66 67 68

I

P

U Tratado significa lo que en castellano decimos /dizque/ como los judios dixeron a Xpo (Cristo) xucan Xpo dizque eres Cristo. Usanlo mas para la 3a p[er]sona mas es vocablo antiguo que agora por oracion lo dicen quiron hihini quin xpo, ‘diçen que eres Xpo’66 (same meaning as Castilian ‘dizque’67 as the Jews say to Christ xucan Xristo ‘they say that you are Christ’. It is also used for the third person, but it is an archaic word which today is expressed by a clause, as in quiron hihini quin xpo, ‘they say that you are Christ’) es preposicion de tanto valor como /py/ (is a preposition with the same value as py) es interrogatiua (is an interrogative)

√

Vocabulario Significa lo que en español decimos ‘dizque’, como ‘dizque eres sabio’ xucan qui hueben puethi (f. 226r) (Means the same as Castilian ‘dizque’, as in ‘they say that you are wise’ xucan qui hueben puethi)

Particula que pregunta, como ‘ya amaste’, yaquibuthochi (f. 227v) (Is a particle which interrogates, as in ‘have you loved yet?’ yaquibuthochi)

(1) pregunta espeçialmente en la 5a conjugacion para la 3a p[er]sona, (2) tambien vale lo mismo que la particula /ri/ en el preterito de passiua ((1) interrogates, in particular in the 5th conjugation for the third person, (2), has the same value as the particle ri in the preterite of the passive) niega siempre68 (always denying) Es particula negatiua como no comí yaxi tatzitzi (f. 228r) (is a negative particle, as in ‘I did not eat’ yaxi tatzitzi)

Also included in the list of the ‘aduerbios de preguntar’ (Arte f. 89r): xucan ‘dizque’ (hearsay), which is difficult to explain. The evidentiality marker serves to encode the source of the evidence a speaker has for a certain statement. Also in the chapter on ‘preposiciones indeclinables’ (Arte f. 87 r): yaxi mana thihui; ‘no sin causa’ (not without a reason).

135

between grammars and dictionaries (cont.) Partícula

A

Yaxiho

√

Ynu

√

Ypy √ Es compuesta porque y por si dice lugar, py por sí tambien y se pueden juntar Z

Total: 108

69

37

I

P

U Tratado

Vocabulario

no solo niega, pero diçe impossibilidad en la accion del verbo a la contra de la particula nah69 (It does not only deny, but also expresses impossibility of the action of the verb, the opposite of the particle nah) es preposicion que diçe ‘encima’, ‘arriba’ (is a preposition meaning ‘at the top’, ‘above’) (1) es preposicion que diçe /en/ (2) sirben para las acciones como ‘peque en el pensamiento palabra y obra’, quitatehegtahui … ((1) is a preposition, meaning ‘in’, (2) applies to actions as in ‘I committed a sin in thought, word and deed’ quitatehegtahui …) √

31 11

pospuesta a la vocal dice que aquella cosa esta en alto (postposed to the vowel means that that thing is situated above) 33

Also included in the list of the ‘aduerbios de negar’ (Arte f. 89r) (adverbs of negation).

part 2 South America

∵

chapter 5

Were There Ever Any Adjectives? The Recognition of the Absence of an Autonomous Adjective Class in Tupi-Guarani as Demonstrated in the Earliest Missionary Grammars Justin Case

1

Introduction

There exists a body of literature that postulates the absence of an autonomous adjective (A) class in the Tupi-Guarani (TG) language complex (Jensen 1999; Dietrich 2000, 2001, 2017; Queixalós 2001, etc.). These studies form syntheses of synchronic descriptions performed over the second half of the twentieth century; however, within the context of the earliest missionary sources, this subject is inadequately treated. I suggest that the view that adjectives cannot be distinguished from nouns (Ns) is further supported in the corpus of earlier works considered here. Within the framework of the abovementioned synchronic analyses, Dietrich (2000, 2001, 2017) provides a series of syntactic observations as to the nondistinction between As and nouns which equally hold for the TG languages captured in the oldest relevant missionary sources that form the corpus for this study. This work is organized on the grounds of these observations as follows: section 2 presents the typically nominal character of the morphosyntax of notionally adjectival elements as captured in the missionary corpus. Section 3 considers the historical treatment of NP-internal (quality) attribution as compared with its modern linguistic treatment as presented in Dietrich (2017). Section 4 briefly expands the considerations of section 3 to the domain of nonverbal predication. Section 5 summarizes the missionary conception of the imcomparability of adjectives in TG with those observed in better-known European languages in relation to modern, synchronic treatments. Before advancing to section 2, I present the missionary corpus of this investigation. I focus on four missionary grammars from the early contact period (1500–1650CE), as listed below: Anchieta (1534–1597) composed the first Tupi grammar to be printed, Arte de grammatica da lingua mais usada na costa do Brasil (1595). The manuscript

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004427006_006

140

case

edition of this work was said to have been circulated among the Jesuit colleges of Brazil as early as the mid-1550s (Altman 2012). Figueira (1575–1643) was responsible for the second printed grammar of Tupi, Arte da lingua Brasilica (ca. 1621), written in accordance with the Ratio studiorum programme that defined Jesuit instruction in the seventeenth century (Altman 2012, Zwartjes 2002). Figueira is an important figure in the expansion of the Jesuit programme in the Brazilian colony, founding the captaincy of Maranhão and advocating for this expansion in Europe. The other sources considered here were composed in Paraguay, in the Rio de Plata colonies of Spanish America. Upon observing the success of the Jesuit operation in Brazil, the so-called Reducción system was established at the turn of the seventeenth century (Groh 1970), outfitted with the Jesuit library and grammar tradition (Grover 1993). As such, the early Jesuit grammars of Guarani in the Rio de Plata region can be viewed as an extension of this same tradition. Thus, the third source analyzed here is a personal grammar text compiled by the Italian Jesuit Aragona (1585–1629), Breve introducción para aprender la lengua guaraní (ca. 1629), while working in the field at the newly founded mission of Concepción on the Uruguay River. The final sources considered are the relevant works of Ruiz de Montoya (1585–1652); namely the dictionary, Tesoro de la lengua Guarani (1639) and its grammar companion, Arte y Bocabulario de la lengua Guarani (1640). Importantly, at this point in history, dictionaries were compiled as separate, accompanying documents to grammars, together forming the materials of the grammarian’s instructive arsenal. Consulting both types of documents is enlightening for our purposes. Although originally from the Peruvian colony, Ruiz de Montoya became an advocate for Guarani rights and language in the seventeenth century, standardizing the orthographical and grammatical conventions for centuries thereafter. In consideration of the corpus presented here, the following section demonstrates their general comprehension of the incompatibility of the European conception of the adjective with the notionally adjectival elements found in the concerned TG systems.

2

The Nominal Syntax of Notional Adjectives in TG

This section focuses essentially on the shared morphology between notionally nominal and adjectival elements, and the related lack of derivational morphological devices to derive one from the other. In the recent literature, Dietrich (2017) demonstrates that, in all relevant varieties of TG here, there are only two major word classes—i.e. (i) nouns and (ii) verbs, which are morphologically

were there ever any adjectives?

141

distinguished on the basis of their respective sets of person-marking prefixes. Besides this distinction, there are no formal parameters that distinguish nominal from verbal roots—that distinction is made in the lexicon. Therefore, both Ns and As share (i)-type morphology in TG, and this fact is recognized more or less consistently in the corpus. One less-explicit basis on which the authors conceded this non-distinction is in the semantic domain. Conceptually, they hold the fundamental distinction between a notionally prototypical A element and a prototypically N element; namely that an A element denotes a single property, whereas an N element generally refers to an individual, or thing, that can be viewed as a bundle of properties (Bhat 1994). Systems such as English require the presence of categoryaltering morphology to derive a nominal element from an adjective in order for it to occupy an argument position: (1) a. *“I value friendly” b. “I value friendli-ness” In the case of (1a), the English system would block the A element, ‘friendly’, in the position reserved for the direct object of the transitive verb ‘to value’. Conversely, this derived nominal form would be blocked in an instances of NPinternal attribution, as below: (2) a. * “I have friendli-ness neighbours” b. “I have friendly neighbours” This derivational procedure is strictly syntactic, contributing nothing to the semantic implications of the expression. Consider the claim of Dietrich (2001: 23), “conceitos como belo [e] beleza […] têm um significado lexical comum, independemente de sua forma” (concepts like ‘beautiful’ and ‘beauty’ have a common lexical meaning, independent of their form). In the case of English, the lexical root is ‘beauty’, which is a non-prototypical N element designating a single property, i.e. belonging to the marginal sub-class of Abstract Ns, and a morphological derivation is required for this item to occupy an A-position: (3) “I have beauti-ful neighbours” Conversely, the example from Dietrich’s claim displays that in Portuguese the adjectival form, “belo”, forms the root for this lexeme, whereas the nominal is derived, i.e. “beleza”. In both of these cases, the presence of derivational morphology is required to distinguish the N from the A form of the lexical element.

142

case

This does not hold in the case of TG, where no formal or distributive (syntactic) distinction is noted between these sets of elements. On this basis, subclasses of Ns (including notionally A elements) are interpreted contextually based upon semantic criteria and its relation to the surrounding elements with which it interacts. Consider the statement of Aragona, “[e]l nombre adjetivo se cono[s]e por la significación” (1979[c. 1629]: 35) (the adjective is recognized by its meaning), which is an overt recognition of the absence of A elements in their own right. This claim is supported by the various ways in which the authors present notionally adjectival items in the corpus. Consider the example of “[~] catú”,1 which Anchieta and Ruiz de Montoya present as follows: Anchieta: – “[…]catû, bom: xecatû, eu sou bom” (1595: f. 46r) (catû, good; xecatû, I am good). Ruiz de Montoya: – “[…] Mârângatú, bueno, Chemârângatú, yo soy bueno” (1640: 49) (Mârângatú, good, Chemârângatú, I am good). As per Dietrich’s two-way distinction, these elements are fitted with a nominal, first-personal, singular marker, “xe/ che”—i.e. not the verbal marker. This, of course, is evidence of these As as being morphologically nominal. As regards the authors’ presentations however, the element “[~] catú” is presented as equivalent to the Spanish/Portuguese adjective, “good”, in their respective chapters dedicated to the copula: the traditional “Sum, es, fui” chapter. Compare this with the example from Figueira, which is taken from his equivalent chapter: Figueira – “[…] Catu, significa cosa boa, Xecatu, eu sou bom” (1621: f. 35v) (Catu, means good thing, Xecatu, I am good). 1 This element is also referred to as ‘mârângatú’ in the works of Aragona and Ruiz de Montoya; however, according to Ruiz de Montoya (1639: f. 209v), this item is “c[ompuesto] d[e] mârâ y (catû)” (composed of mârâ and catû), pointing to the fact that these are two versions of the same item. For the sake of consistency, I will refer to this item as the element “[~] catú” moving forward.

were there ever any adjectives?

143

Here, Figueira offers the interpretation, “good thing”, which is fundamentally distinct from the others’ presentations, signaling the intrinsic referential capacity of the element “[~] catú”, as per its bare root. An item is considered referential when it identifies a discursive participant, or a conceivable entity in the real world. In the case of English, for the purposes of illustration, As are not intrinsically referential. Instead, the light noun, “one”, is required to designate referential capacity to an A: (4) “I want the cheap one” If we were to remove the light noun in (4), the sentence would be rendered ungrammatical. Alternatively, as per Figueira’s definition, he employs the light noun, “cosa” (thing), as a translational convenience. In other terms, the bare root “[~] catú” can refer to a contextually salient entity in the actual world that portrays the associated quality without requiring further morphology. This account is supported in that Figueira provides further examples, such as “Tìnga, cousa branca” (1621: f. 36r) (Tìnga, white thing), “Mimõya, cousa cozida” (id: f. 42v) (Mimõya, cooked thing), etc. These concede the intrinsic referential capacity of notionally adjectival Ns across the board. As per the above examples, the nominal character of notionally adjectival roots is often acknowledged where the authors present the relevant items in isolation. On these grounds, I consult the appropriate entries in Ruiz de Montoya’s dictionary. Firstly, consider his definition for the “[~] catú” element in isolation: “virtud, prouecho, bondad, honra” (1639: f. 209v) (virtue (valour), advantage, goodness, honour). This entry demonstrates that the bare root form of the notional A not only exhibits an intrinsic referential capacity, as shown above in the example of Figueira, but it can also refer to the quality itself as an abstract nominal. This fact becomes clearer in consideration of a prototypically A-type entry: “Tŷnŷhê, llenura” (id: f. 391v) (Tŷnŷhê, fullness). However, he also demonstrates the syntactic flexibility of this element with the following example, “Tûpâcí ty’ny’hê Tûpâ gracia rehé” (ibid) (the Lord’s mother [i.e., “Virgen” in original] is full of grace).2 This is one of many such examples in the Tesoro, which highlight Ruiz de Montoya’s acknowledgement of the nominal character of notional As and, inadvertently, the lack of morphology needed to derive the attributive A-type interpretation of the same element.

2 This is my own translation of Ruiz de Montoya’s dictionary entry, originally written in Spanish. I have also placed the term in bold for the purposes of this study.

144

case

Although the dictionary represents a more explicit means to enumerate the relevant lexical items in isolation, similar, yet less direct, examples are found in the grammars of the corpus. Firstly, consider an example from Anchieta wherein he reveals the possessive function of the N-type person-marking prefixes: […] tê[m] por pronome relativo y. ut ába, capillus, yába, eius capillus[,] oába, suus capillus. Catû, ycatû, ocatû, pô, ypô, opô They have as relative pronoun y. [such as] ába, hair, yába, his/her hair, oába, one’s [reflexive] hair. Catû, ycatû, ocatû, pô, ypô, opô3 1595: f. 15v

Here the element “[~] catú” is listed in the context of elements that clearly refer to prototypical N notions, i.e. “ába” (hair) and “pô” (hand). Anchieta’s presentation here represents a clear inclusion of notional A-type Ns into the broader nominal class by recognizing its N-type morphology. As per Dietrich (2017), this fits into the modern conception of a strict dichotomy regarding content words as being either nominal or verbal on the basis of their person marking. Due to this general understanding, Zwartjes (2011) observes that “Anchieta obviously concluded that in Tupi, there is no clear-cut distinction between the noun and the adjective” (id: 162); and I suggest that this observation applies more broadly to the entire corpus here. In support of this claim, I consider another notionally A-type N that is considered by the authors; namely the element “[~] torîb”, meaning “happiness”.4 In the first place, Anchieta presents this item as a so-called neutral, or stative, verb: “Xerorîb, [eu me alegro], çorîb, ille [alegrasse]” (1595: f. 21r) (Xerorîb, I am happy, çorîb, he is happy). Despite this verbal interpretation, he clearly displays the N-type person-marking morphology on the root. This noun-verb confusion is considered in more detail in the ensuing sections of this work. Conversely, Ruiz de Montoya provides a conventional, N-type dictionary entry for the element “[~] torîb” in Tesoro: “Torî.b, alegria. Cherorî.b. yo me alegro. […] Torïbaí, grande alegria[, etc.]” (1639: f. 397v) (Torî.b, happiness. Cherorî.b. I am happy. […] Torïbaí, great happiness). Aragona seconds this nominal interpretation: “cherorî, estoy Alegre, […] del nombre torî que signif[ic]a 3 I have placed the target element in bold characters. 4 For purposes of space and congruency, I will not treat the morphophonological processes that account for certain changes in the context compounding by assimilation.

were there ever any adjectives?

145

alegría” (1979[c. 1629]: 38) (cherorî, I am happy, from the noun torî which means happiness). Interestingly, he adds an alternate interpretation of the N-type person-marking: “cherorî, mi alegría” (id: 39) (cherorî, my happiness). This latter interpretation clearly recognizes the ability for this element, even when combined with person morphology, to act as an eventive argument—i.e. as an N-type element. In summary, each of the authors in the corpus indirectly recognize that notional As form a subgroup of the N class. These elements are listed among other nominals in declension charts and in dictionary/vocabulary entries. Also, as confirmed in more recent accounts, all A-type Ns are distributed with nominal person-marking morphology; namely, “xe-/ che-”, “y-”, “o-”, etc. On this basis, the authors are unanimous in recognizing the link between quality attribution and genitive possession encoding strategies, further representing their understanding of the non-distinction between As and Ns. However, herein lies a point of confusion regarding capturing the nature of notional As within the corpus. The following section considers these successes and confounds as to quality attribution in the domain of the NP.

3

Possession as Encoding Quality Attribution?

To begin, I clarify the modern conception of quality attribution in TG, with particular attention to varieties of Guarani, as per Dietrich (2017). Attribution is divided into two types, which Dietrich (id: 172–173) labels internal attribution and external attribution respectively. These attribution strategies are superficially indistinguishable in that they are both formed by means of the juxtaposition of two bare Ns, thereby forming a N + N compound—a fairly common strategy for encoding quality attribution cross-linguistically (Rießler 2016: 29– 31). The internal-external dichotomy regarding relations between Ns is both syntactic and semantic in nature. Each compound is composed of a head element and a complement element, where the former determines the type of noun which is being referred to, as semantically restricted by its association to the complement noun. For example, the English nominal compound “vanilla icecream” refers to a type of icecream—i.e. the head of the compound, not to a type of vanilla. On syntactic grounds, this division is characterized by the directionality of the complement element relative to the head—i.e., external attribution surfaces as a complement-head configuration, whereas internal attribution displays as head-complement. Note that I place each head element in boldface where applicable for the remainder of this section for the sake of clarity. This con-

146

case

figurational dichotomy reflects crucial semantic distinctions, which are noted in the corpus at a certain level of abstraction, but are never explicitly distinguished as such. Firstly, as regards external attribution, the complement-head configuration captures a relation between two N elements. For instance, in the case of a genitive relation, the possessor (complement) restricts the reference of the head N as pertaining to that entity. Consider the following examples of this type of attribution in Anchieta: (5) a. “Pedro jára, [dominus] petri” (Anchieta 1595: f. 12v) (Peter’s boss). b. “Pedro pó, Petri manus” (id: f. 2v) (Peter’s hand). Here the nouns in (5a) and (5b) refer to a boss (or master) and to a hand respectively—i.e. these are the heads of their respective NPs in the syntax and the semantics as outlined above. As I will demonstrate below, although this is not explicit in Dietrich 2017, the complement-head configuration also extends to the relation between the head N and the material from which it is composed—i.e. neatly falling within the conception of an external attributive relation holding between two separable entities: the complement and the head. Conversely, as concerns internal attribution, the head-complement configuration encodes the attribution of a quality associated with the complement N to the head N, such that the compound strictly refers to a single entity. As Dietrich (2017: 173) explains, “[the quality N] is part of the head and therefore an internal quality of the head. […] Internal attribution, which refers to a quality of the head or a taxonomic class to which it belongs, is expressed in Guarani by the postposition of the determinant [i.e. the complement]”. Consider an example from Anchieta (1595: f. 8v–9r): “Mbaê[-]tatâ” (thing-fire), which he translates as meaning “fire-thing”, or “thing that is all fire”, or “thing with fire”. In this case, it is uncertain whether the generic entity is designed to contain or make fire, defined as being fire-like, etc.; nonetheless it is relevant to note that the entity denoted by the head N “mbaê” (thing) is described as being associated with “tatâ” (fire), without the existence of a certain fire being presupposed. A thorough characterization of the semantics of internal attribution configurations in diachronic TG is reserved for further work. In the corpus, although each author recognizes the zero-marking strategy used to encode quality and/or possessor attribution generally, they fail to account for the external-internal distinction as noted above, conflating the two processes. Below I reveal their brief accounts regarding attribution:

were there ever any adjectives?

147

Anchieta: Os nomes substantivos se compoem, com adiectivos, praecedendo sempre os substantivos. […] Substantivos co[m] substantivos, co[m]a mesma muda[n]ça. […] [nos] apposito[s], & nesta sempre praecede o nome mais usado, & universal, & genérico, ut. Mbaê[-]tatâ, cousa fogo, cousa que he toda fogo, […] cousa que tem fogo. […] Sendo ambos iguaes, ad libitum, ut guirâ iagoára, ave cão, jagoáguiraâ, cão ave Nouns are composed, with adjectives, with the noun always preceding. Nouns with nouns, with the same arrangement in appositions, and in this the most used, universal and generic noun always precedes, [such as] mbaê-tatâ, fire thing, thing that is all fire, thing that has fire. With both being equal, ad libitum, [such as] guirâ iagoára, bird dog, jagoáguirâ, dog bird. 1595: f. 8v–9r

Figueira: Qualquer nome sustantivo posto com óutro tambem sustantivo, se estiver no primeiro lugar, fica sendo genitivo, ità coára, buraco da pedra; o nome ità, he o genitivo Any noun placed with another noun, if it is in the first position, it continues to be genitive, ità coára, rock pit; the noun ità, is the genitive. 1621: f. 4r

Aragona: Si [s]e pone [el nombre adjetivo] antes del sustantivo, se [debe a]nteponer [la y re]l[at]iva. […] Si an [de po]ner el nombre de la materia de que esta echa la cosa com[o e]s, […] pongan primero el nombre de la materia. […] Desta manera se juntan la cosa poseída con su po[seedor] If the adjective is placed before the noun, the relative y- must be placed before it. If you must put the name of the material from which the thing was made as is, put the name of the material first. In this way, the possessed thing is attached to its possessor. 1979[c. 1629]: 35–36

148

case

Ruiz de Montoya: Los nombres adjectivos se posponen a los sustantivos. […] El genitivo de possession se haze poniendo al principio lo que possee, y luego lo posseìdo Adjectives are positioned after nouns. The genitive of possession is done by placing that which possesses at the beginning, and then the possessed [thing] 1640: 2–3

Cf. El ablativo de materia, es como el genitivo de la cosa perteneciente […] ò con los dos nombres sustantivos, ut ñaêmbe îbîrá, [ve]l, îbîrá ñaêmbê, plato de palo The ablative of material is like the genitive of the owned thing or with both nouns, [such as] ñaêmbe îbîrá, or, îbîrá ñaêmbê, wooden plate. 1639: 3

Each author in the corpus discusses the encoding of nominal relations in the relevant TG variety, albeit in slightly different ways. Firstly, in the case of Anchieta’s example of “Mbaê[-]tatâ” (thing-fire), he correctly identifies the second-position complement element as restricting the identity of the N head as belonging to a taxonomic class of “fiery” or “fire-related” entities. However, he also presents an instance where a head can (apparently) not be determined, “guirâ iagoára/ iagoá guirâ” (bird-dog/ dog-bird) by considering these as identical. Under this assumption, no determination takes place. This position is problematic given that, as Dietrich (p.c.) confirms; the former, “guirâ iagoára” (bird-dog), is a type of bird, that is associated with dogs (i.e. the bird is doglike, lives with dogs, etc.), whereas the second is a type of dog associated with birds (i.e., the dog is bird-like, used for hunting birds, etc.). It is unlikely that the historical variety of Tupinamba deviates starkly from what is a pervasive strategy across all modern Guarani varieties; as such, I suggest that Anchieta fails to account for the generality of his head-complement observation. A seemingly similar misunderstanding is overtly displayed by Ruiz de Montoya with regards to the so-called ablative of material, a characteristically external attributive relation. He provides the reader with an option, “ñaêmbe îbîrá/ îbîrá ñaêmbê” (wood-plate/ plate-wood), stating that both equally designate “[a] wooden plate”—i.e., this gloss can be reformulated as follows (wood-plate/ plate-wood). Following a discussion with Dietrich (p.c.), he notes that, in all synchronic TG varieties described to date this optionality does not obtain.

were there ever any adjectives?

149

At a par with Anchieta’s “bird-dog”, “dog-bird” example above, in the case of “ñaêmbe îbîrá” (wood-plate), this refers to “[a] wooden plate, or plate of wood”—i.e., where plate is the head N and the material is the complement. This observation confirms that a material-object relation appears to pattern with genitive relations as being encoded via the external attribution configuration, such that the material does not represent an internal property but a second, external entity that enters into the relation. Similarly, as confirmed by Dietrich (p.c.), “îbîrá ñaêmbê” (plate-wood) ought to be interpreted as another instance of this type of relation, except where the compound refers to the wood of the plate, with the material as the head in final position. Given that the authors in the corpus do not provide example sentences, it is difficult to determine how these compounds might have been used in practice; however, research into the modern varieties suggests that the variations offered in Montoya do in fact refer to different things. In his related example of the ablative of material, Figueira provides the example, “ità coára” (rock-pit). Both he and Montoya recognize the fact that the material-object relation is encoded identically to the genitive relation, following the external attribution strategy. Additionally, Montoya and Aragona recognize that the material is preposed to the head N. Taken together these authors point to the fact that the material-object relation ought to be considered, along with the genitive relation, as an instantiation of the external attribution configuration. To reiterate, only Anchieta recognizes the nominal modification semantics associated with the internal attribution strategy as per Dietrich (2017). I shift my attention to the remainder of the claim made by Aragona; namely that “[i]f the adjective is placed before the noun, the relative y- must be placed before it” (1979[c. 1629]: 35–36). This claim is supported in the recent literature where, according to Dietrich (2001: 30), it ought to be interpreted as a predicative marker. This type of attribution, by means of non-verbal predication, is given some attention in the corpus, I will consider it briefly in the ensuing section of this investigation.

4

Non-verbal Predication as N-type Predication in TG

Again, I begin this section with a clarification of the modern stance on nonverbal predication as noted in the relevant TG varieties. Specialists are unanimous in recognizing the zero-copula strategy employed to form predicates expressing possession and quality attribution, both of which exhibit N-type predication as per the verb-noun distinction presented in Dietrich (2017). Else-

150

case

where, this strategy is simply classified as a possessive strategy. For instance, consider the special type of predicate provided for TG in the typology of nonverbal predication as per Stassen (2009: 192–193): Tupi-Guarani-Type Possession. He provides the following example: “Xe-pindâ—I have a harpoon […]; [There is] my harpoon”. In the second suggested translation, he provides an existential reading that is matched in similar examples in Dietrich (2001: 32): “[…] che kane’õ ‘[existe] cansaço relativo a mim’, ‘cansaço se refere a mim’” (fatigue [exists] as relative to me, fatigue refers to me). This possessive construction clearly expresses a state relative to the identified discourse participant, which is related to the equivalent expressions in French and Spanish (among other European languages) for example: j’ai sommeil (FR: lit. I have fatigue, I am tired), tengo sueño (SP: lit. I have fatigue, I am tired). This possessive construction is found on a system-wide basis in TG to express the attribution of qualities and states, generally expressed through copular constructions with As in other languages. This fact is recognized by the authors of the missionary corpus, although their accounts are generally not exhaustive enough to capture the entire paradigm. Generally, examples are provided with the first-personal, singular N-type marker, “xe/ che”. For instance, consider the following examples from Aragona: “cheraîra, es mi hijo, tengo hijo, cheao, es mi roupa o tengo roupa” (1979[c. 1629]: 37) (cheraîra, there/it is my son, I have a son, cheao, there/they are my clothes or I have clothes). These examples mirror precisely that which is stated in Stassen (2009) above, especially if we interpret the copulas in Aragona’s glosses as existential in the traditional, Latinate sense. Furthermore, these examples constitute an acknowledgement of the predicative capacity of the unit, “cheraîra”; namely, recognizing that this can denote a grammatical expression in and of itself, or an argument of a predication in other circumstances—i.e. as “my son”. He does not, however, provide examples of such N-type predicates as encoding quality or state attributions. For that, we turn to the Sum, es, fui chapters, the traditional chapter treating copular constructions, as found in Anchieta and Figuiera: Anchieta: Os nomes conjugados como verbos incluem em si o verbo sum, es, fui, em duas significação[s] […], ser, & ter. […] Quanto a primeira significação, ser, co[n] adiectivos ou substantivos catû, bom: xecatû, eu sou bom. […]. In omnibus temporibus5 5 The fact that Anchieta recognizes the temporal dimension on nominal predications is not problematic given the nominal tense mechanism present in TG (see Bossong 2009).

were there ever any adjectives?

151

Nouns conjugated as verbs include in themselves the verb sum, es, fui, with two meanings, to be & to have. With respect to the first meaning, to be, with adjectives or nouns catû, good: xecatû, I am good. In all tenses.6 1595: f. 46r

Figueira: Do verbo Sum, es, fui: “Não ha nesta lingua verbo algum particular, que propriamente responda ao verbo Sum es fui, latino; mas esta falta se supre bem com o pronome Xe. Tres saõ as significações do verbo sum s. Ser, Estar, Ter; ut sum, eu sou, ou estou; & tambem, Est mihi pater, eu tenho pay. […] [A]junandolhe qualquer nome adjectivo, forma o verbo Sum. Ut, Catu, significa cosa boa, Xecatu, eu sou bom. […] Cig, mãy, Xecig, tenho mãy” There is no particular verb in this language that properly corresponds to the Latin verb Sum es fui [“to be”]; but this missing element is accounted for with the pronoun Xe. The verb sum s. has three meanings: To be [temporary states and permanent qualities], to have; [such as] sum, I am [permanent quality], or I am [temporary state], & also, lit. [It] is to me father, I have a father. Joining to it any adjective forms the verb Sum. [Such as], Catu, means good thing, Xecatu, I am good. Cig, mother, Xecig, I have a mother. 1621: f. 34v–35v

Both authors recognize the zero-copula strategy used to denote possession or quality attribution. On this account, they both recognize that this strategy encompasses expressions which require the neutral copula “to be” (both ser and estar), and those that require the possessive copula “to be” as found in their native Portuguese. Just as in the case of Aragona, Figueira demonstrates that the addition of the person-marking prefix, “xe”, to a common N forms a wellformed possessive expression, as in “xecig, I have a mother”. Note that, although there is no explicit example of this, in following the rest of the text, “xecig” can also mean “I am a mother”, just as it can in modern TG. Figueira also recognizes that the addition of this prefix to a notionally A-type N element causes it to predicate in the same way as other Ns. For instance, although he offers the gloss, “I am good” for the entry “Xecatu”, this expression could be easy refor6 It is relevant to note that, although the verb “ter” does not behave as an existential verb in modern standard Portuguese, this verb was crucially used in this way in historical varieties and certain synchronic varieties across Brazil (see work by Avelar 2009, 2012).

152

case

mulated as “I have goodness, virtue, etc.” or “there is goodness, virtue, etc. as relative to me” (based upon Ruiz de Montoya’s Tesoro entry for “[~] catú”), similar to how such expressions are treated in the vein of Dietrich and Stassen, as presented above. Therefore, the presentation of traditional copular constructions as being formed with an element of the N-type person markers attached to a N host element in TG fits within the modern conception of N-type predication as per Dietrich (2017). Although both Anchieta and Figueira recognize different loci as responsible for producing the non-verbal, i.e. N-type, predicative constructions, they are both correct in recognizing the zero-copula strategy to encode such expressions. This is not particularly problematic for our purposes, as they are both recognizing constituent components of a two-place composition. None of the authors go beyond the basic paradigms in their grammars, however, to account for instances of N-type predications that include the introduction of a thirdpersonal participant, as in the following example: “Pedro i-pó” (Peter has a hand) (Dietrich, p.c.), which contrasts with the entity N, “Pedro pó” (Anchieta 1595: f. 2v) (Peter’s hand). The difference between these two examples is the presence of the so-called predicative marker, “i-”, in the instance of predication. By extension, this marker would equally be necessary in a case such as “Pedro icatú” (~ Peter is good); namely in cases where the predicating N-type element is of the notional A variety. As stated above, the necessity of this marker is put forth in Aragona (1979[c. 1629]: 35–36), however, he strictly recognizes its presence in cases where the A-type element precedes the head N. Although instances of thirdpersonal N-type predications without this marker are noted, including in modern varieties of TG, this behaviour cannot be generalized (Dietrich, p.c.). As such, although Aragona’s assertion is insightful and correct, albeit incomplete. Otherwise, in the corpus, the “i-/ y-” marker is only recognized as being the third-personal prefix in the N-series. For instance, Anchieta includes this in his conjugation table for the “[~] catú” element: “Y-catu, Ille [he bom], […] Illi [son bons]” (1595: f. 46r) (Y-catu, he is good, they are good). He also demonstrates the usage of “i-/ y-” in instances of external attribution: “yjará, eius dominus” (id: f. 10r) ( yjará, his master). Similarly, in Ruiz de Montoya’s “[~] catú” entry, he provides the following example, “Ymârângatû chébe, es me provechoso” (1639: f. 209v) (Ymârângatû chébe, it is advantageous to me). Each of these examples simply present this marker as the third-personal item of the set of N-type person markers, not as a predicative marker. The fact that these authors did not recognize this aspect of non-verbal predication in TG is either indicative of their confusion in this regard, or of the incompleteness of the traditional grammar approach based on Latin, in which no such predicative markers are found.

were there ever any adjectives?

5

153

Conclusion

In this investigation, I have demonstrated that the authors of the concerned corpus achieved an impressive understanding of the non-distinction between N and A elements in TG given the linguistic instruments and knowledge they possessed. Firstly, I revealed their recognition of the general lack of derivational morphology to form As out of Ns, or vice versa. Instead, the authors adequately captured the nominal denotation of notionally adjectival Ns in isolation, and the non-distinction observed regarding the syntactic behaviour of all types of Ns, including A-type Ns, with respect to their morphology and their distribution. Secondly, I highlighted both the successes and confusions of the authors with regards to their descriptions of NP-internal quality attribution. Despite conflating external and internal attribution, as it is understood in the recent literature, they sufficiently captured the zero-marking juxtaposition strategy for encoding both types of attribution. Finally, I considered the authors’ presentations of non-verbal predications. I demonstrated that, although they do capture the constructions in TG that equate to copular constructions in Latin (and Iberian Romance), they fail to account for the distribution of the predicative marker, obligatory in (most) instances of third-personal non-verbal predication. On these grounds, I have expanded upon the observation in Zwartjes (2011: 162), stating that “Anchieta obviously concluded that in Tupi, there is no clear-cut distinction between the noun and the adjective”. By extension, I have shown that this fact was generally understood, on a basic level, by each author in the corpus. Although they did not capture the syntactic character of notional As, and quality attribution more broadly, to the modern standard; in many respects, their creative solutions for presenting the nominal character of A-type elements are centuries ahead of its time. As such, I view these grammars as contributing to the argument in the recent literature positing the lack of an autonomous A category in TG generally.

Acknowledgements This work is based upon my MA thesis at the University of Amsterdam, ¿Alguna vez existió el adjetivo? La relevancia del tratamiento del adjetivo en las Artes misioneras sobre las lenguas tupí-guaraníes en la época colonial temprana (ca. 1500–1650 EC). I am grateful for the direction and support offered by Prof. Dr. Otto Zwartjes and the other members of ROLD. Also, I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Wolf Dietrich for his comments and correspondence.

154

case

References Primary Sources Anchieta, Joseph de. 1595. Arte de Grammatica da Lingoa mais usada na costa do Brasil (ed. princeps). Coimbra: Antonio Mariz. Aragona, Alonso de. 1979 [ca. 1629]. “Breve introducción para aprender la lengua guarani por el Padre Alonso Aragona”. [Ms Colegio del Salvador, Buenos Aires]. Introduction and publication by Bartomeu Melià, S.J. Amerindia 4, 23–61. Figueira, Luís. 1621?. Arte da lingua brasilica (ed. princeps). Lisboa: Manoel da Silva. Ruiz de Montoya, Antonio. 1639. Tesoro de la lengua guarani. Compvesto por el Padre Antonio Ruiz de la Compañia de IESVS. (ed. princeps). Madrid: Iuan Sanchez. Ruiz de Montoya, Antonio. 1640. Arte y Bocabulario de la lengua guarani. Compvesto por el Padre Antonio Ruiz de la Comopañia de IESVS. (ed. princeps). Madrid: Iuan Sanchez.

Secondary Sources Altman, Cristina. 2012. “As partes da oração na tradição gramatical do Tupinambá / Nheengatu.” Limite 6: 11–51. Avelar, Juanito. 2009. “On the emergence of Ter as an existential verb in Brazilian Portuguese.” Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory, edited by Paola Crisma and Giuseppe Longobardi, 158–175. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Avelar, Juanito. 2012. “Gramática, competição e padrões de variação: casos com ter/ haver e de/em no português brasileiro.” Revista de Estudos da Linguagem 14 (2): 99– 143. Bhat, Shankara D.N. 1994. The adjectival category: criteria for differentiation and identification. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bossong, Georg. 2009. “The typology of Tupi-Guaraní as reflected in the grammars of Jesuit missionaries: Anchieta (1595), Aragona (c. 1625), Ruiz de Montoya (1640), and Restivo (1729).” Historiographia Linguistica 36 (2/3): 225–258. Dietrich, Wolf. 2000. “El problema de la categoría del adjetivo en las lenguas tupíguaraníes.” In Indigenous languages of Lowland South America, edited by Hein van der Voort and Simon van de Kerke, 255–263. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden. Dietrich, Wolf. 2001. “Categorias lexicais nas línguas tupi-guarani (visão comparativa).” In Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question, edited by Francisco Queixalós, 21–37. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Dietrich, Wolf. 2017. “Word classes and word class switching in Guaraní syntax.” In Guarani linguistics in the 21st century, edited by Bruno Estigarribia and Justin Pinta, 158–193. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Groh, John E. 1970. “Antonio Ruiz de Montoya and the early reductions in the Jesuit province of Paraguay.” The Catholic Historical Review 56 (3): 501–533.

were there ever any adjectives?

155

Grover, Mark L. 1993. “The book and the conquest: Jesuit libraries in colonial Brazil”. Libraries and Culture 28 (3): 266–283. Jensen, Cheryl Joyce S. 1999. “Tupi-Guarani.” In The Amazonian Languages, edited by Robert M.W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 125–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Queixalós, Francisco. 2001. “Le tupi-guarani en chantier.” In Des noms et des verbes en tupi-guarani: état de la question, edited by Francisco Queixalós, 1–20. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Rießler, Michael. 2016. Adjective attribution. Berlin: Language Science Press. Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zwartjes, Otto. 2002. “The description of Portuguese America by the Jesuits during the colonial period: The impact of the Latin grammar of Manuel Álvares.” Historiographia Linguistica 29 (1/2): 19–70. Zwartjes, Otto. 2011. Portuguese Missionary Grammars in Asia, Africa and Brazil, 1550– 1800. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

chapter 6

Chinchaysuyu Quechua and Amage Confession Manuals: Colonial Language and Culture Contact in Central Peru Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz and Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus

1

Introduction

A volume which contains several anonymous and undated Quechua and two Amage texts, most of them of Christian religious character, includes a Quechua and an Amage confession manual, written by the same hand, most probably from the eighteenth century. The Quechua one shows very interesting features, i.e. Central Peruvian Quechua and the tendency towards a media lengua (mixed language); the Amage one seems to be the earliest known text in the Amuesha (or Yanesha’) language which belongs to the Arawakan language family and is spoken to the east of the central Andes (see Figure 6.1). Interestingly enough, it is the Amage confession manual which can help us localise them and formulate a hypothesis about the authorship. There is little information about missionary work in the highlands, because by the eighteenth century the indigenous peoples may have been seen and treated as Christians and therefore did not merit more attention. On the other hand, quite a few missionaries wrote about the lowland missions, and this information has been our point of departure to approach the authorship and dating of the documents which may have had their origin in a Franciscan convent. The Amages were an ethnic group, today known as Amuesha or Yanesha’,1 who in the seventeenth century lived in the Central Peruvian lowlands, in and around Cerro de la Sal and Quimiri and are later also documented for Pozuzu (see Figure 6.4). From the colonial sources it becomes clear that they were first Christianised by the Franciscans. As the Quechua confession manual has Central Peruvian Quechua traits, we can, then, suppose that it reflects the language as it was used in the adjacent highland areas of Central Peru, i.e. Huánuco—Cerro de Pasco—Junín—

1 When talking about the language or ethnic group in colonial times we use the term Amage; when we refer to the modern language or group, we will use Yanesha’.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004427006_007

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

157

figure 6.1 Map of Central Peru (s.a.); Highlighting by SDS: blue—colonial era highland entries to the lowlands; red—Amage/Yanesha’ area courtesy of Walter Wust, © www.walterwust.com

Tarma—Jauja, with Huánuco or Tarma being the most probable (Amich [1767] 1854: 136). The question is why such a long time after the conquest there would still be the need to write a confession manual in Quechua. The reasons could be that it was directed towards people who lived in isolated areas (maybe Cerro de Pasco), that the existing confession manuals were no longer available and/or too long. As both manuals are (mainly) directed towards women, it is also possible that it was thought that they needed to be confessed in their language because they might have been less hispanised than men. Our objective is to present the two texts, embedding them in their historical context, and to discuss some of the most interesting features they show. Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz (SDS) explains the context and manuscript history, makes an analysis of the most salient linguistic features of the Chinchaysuyu Quechua confession manual and presents its transcription (sections 2 and 3, Appendix 1). Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus (AAB) provides a commented transcription and translation of the first Amage confession manual included in the manuscript volume (section 4, Appendix 2). The materials, data and analyses we present here and which reflect the unequal state of knowledge about

158

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

the two languages, are meant to form the basis of further discussions, be it of this genre of text, missionary linguistic history, or descriptive anthropological and contact linguistics.

2

The Texts

2.1 The Genre of the Confession Manual Confession manuals are a distinctive genre in Latin American Christian literature, but they were not exclusive to Amerindian language indoctrination. A European tradition of how to confess derived from the Council of Letrán in 1215 and was found afterwards in late medieval and early modern writings.2 It was also continued by Latin American missionaries, first in Mexico, most notably by Molina, responsible for two confession manuals in Nahuatl (Molina 1565a, b) and then in the Andes, beginning with the one of the Third Lima Council (Confessionario [1585] 1985), followed by others, such as the one by missionarylinguist Torres Rubio (1619).3 We can therefore see that a European tradition was taken up and translated in linguistic and cultural terms for a new target population, and whilst most Spanish confession manuals were detailed treatises, the Amerindian ones consisted of longer or shorter lists of questions. Although all of them are different from each other, their questions followed the ten commandments (The ten commandments 2005). The texts normally open with a question about the tenets of Christian belief in general and the exhortation to confess one’s sins, and they end with another exhortation to confess. However, the ones we present here include only eight commandments. As the ninth and tenth commandments are in a way part of the sixth and seventh commandment respectively, this format seems to have become usual early in the colonial era. Neither of the confession manuals analysed here is a copy of the questions found in any of the published ones; rather they seem to use those as guidelines, and each is different in detail and also different from each other (as are all confession manuals). Compared to the published texts they also show that the priests had to be pragmatic and use a brief catalogue of questions. Some questions are simply a translation of those given in the published manuals; oth-

2 See Yáñez (2004: 79). Cf. Spanish confession manuals, for example, by Pérez ([14th century] 2012); Victoria (1562); Azpilcueta and Bernat (1580). Also see González Polvillo (2010) for a detailed list and study. 3 See the contributions in Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz ed. (2018).

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

159

ers refer to a certain cultural context, e.g. when they ask about coca (Amage, Appendix 2, no. 62) or whether the penitent has adored birds or believes in dreams (Chinchaysuyu, Appendix 1, no. 12; Amage, Appendix 2, no. 9). However, the Spanish manuals also have a number of questions about idolatry, dreams etc., which reminds us that this kind of ‘superstition’ was frequent in Europe as well and must have served as model. 2.2 Provenience and Date The two confession manuals (Figures 6.2 and 6.3) are bound in the manuscript volume Add 25,319 of the British Library,4 together with further Amerindian texts (Arte de la lengua iquechua [sic] …, eighteenth century?). The Chinchaysuyu Quechua text counts seven numbered folios, from 16 to 22; the Amage consists of five folios, numbered from 23 to 27. Nothing is known about the original provenience of the manuscripts. The volume was acquired by the British Library from the London bookseller Quaritch who had bought it in 1863 at a sale of the Belgian linguist van Alstein’s collection of books and manuscripts (ibid., inner title sheet of the volume).5 Van Alstein’s catalogue mentions that they came from Chaumette des Fossés. A diplomat, Amédée Chaumette des Fossés (1782–1848) was consul in Lima in the second half of the 1820s (Rochelle 1842: 168) and he probably acquired the manuscripts when he was in Peru. Chaumette was interested in the missionaries’ work and sympathetic towards it. He knew Manuel Sobreviela,6 the superior of the Franciscan convent of Santa Rosa de Ocopa, and edited and ‘corrected’ the map Sobreviela had made of the Ucayali and Huallaga region in 1791, which includes the Amage territory, and the name “Amajes” can be found north of Cerro de la Sal (see Figure 6.4) (Rochelle 1842: 170). When Chaumette was no longer consul, he went to live with missionaries (from the 1830s until 1841 when he returned to France), but it is not indicated where this was (ibid. 172–173). However, it is possible that he received the documents (at least the Chinchaysuyu and Amage confession manuals) from the Franciscans of Ocopa, but it is not quite clear why they would have given them away. Possibly they were, indeed, copies, and they kept

4 The watermarks indicate that all the documents in the book date from the eighteenth century, but, as will be seen, at least some of them are copies; it is therefore possible that the originals are earlier. 5 Van Alstein (1863: 228). Van Alstein (1791–1862) was a well-known book collector of published and manuscript works about and in many languages of the world (cf. Moermans 2008). 6 Sobreviela arrived in Peru in 1785, too late to have been the author of the confession manuals (Enciclonet s.a.).

160

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

figure 6.2 Confesonario de chinchaisuios, eighteenth century? Courtesy of British Library Board, Add 25,319, f. 16 r

the originals. Thus it is highly probable that they were held in the Franciscan mission of Santa Rosa de Ocopa. As mission in the lowlands was made impossible for a long time, due to indigenous uprisings from 1742 onwards (see section 2.3), it is probable that at least the original Amage text is from before that time. The hypothesis that both documents date from the first half of the eighteenth century is supported by evidence in the collection of documents written by Franciscan missionaries between 1724 and 1743 and edited by Heras (2001), which includes two sample

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

161

figure 6.3 Confesonario de Amages, eighteenth century? Courtesy of British Library Board, Add 25,319, f. 23 r

manuscript pages (pp. 59 and 205) that show great similarity to the handwriting found in the two texts. Both manuscripts are written with the same hand, but at least the Quechua text is a copy, because there are numerous mistakes in Quechua, some of which show that the copyist did not know the language (e.g. no. 14: “ianta nau” has to be “llanta hina”).7 7 Appendix 1, see all cases in parentheses {…}.

162 table 6.1

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus Comparing the Quechua and Amage texts: the use of loanwords and language skills of the author and the target person

Chinchaysuyu Quechua

Amage

Mixture of indirect and direct questions, with a strong tendency towards indirect questions, e.g. “Si ha creido en echizerias …”, ‘if she has believed in witchcraft …’ (no. 12, and passim), translated into Quechua as direct questions in the 2nd person singular: “creerhuanquicho”, ‘have you believed’ (ibid.). In Spanish sometimes mixed in one and the same sentence (ibid.).

Mostly direct questions using the 2nd person singular (except very few, and those are mostly translated as direct questions into Amage: nos. 3, 47–49, 67; there is a mixture of both styles in 13)— clearly conceived of as a direct catalogue of questions.

Uses both the preterite and the present Uses mostly the present perfect: “has deseado”, ‘have you desired’ and only c. a perfect with almost equal frequency. third of the time the preterite (the same tendency can be observed in the 1585 confession manual [Confessionario 1985]). Often both tenses are used immediately one after the other (e.g. no. 74–75).8

As the following overview shows, it is evident that the texts are originally from different authors. There is no consistency in either or across both. This may indicate that the manuals were written at different times or that the original authors were of different geographical origin, or simply that they both reflect the fluctuations of Spanish.9 A possible scenario of how the copy of the Chinchaysuyu confession manual came to be made would be that a friar used a manual or treatise with questions or explanations about what to ask, formulated them in Spanish and for his own 8 Also, the translations of both past tense forms (see section 3.1) are not consistent with the usage of the different tenses in Spanish (e.g. no. 30–32, 42–46). 9 Ever since its introduction into the Spanish tense system (c. 1550–1680), the present perfect has had greater proximity to the present (González Manzano 2006: 16–17). We have not been able to study the usage of the past tenses in Spanish in any depth, but should there be an increase in the usage of the preterite during the centuries, we could date our confession manuals rather later than earlier.

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals table 6.2

163

Comparing the Quechua and Amage texts: the use of loanwords and language skills of the author and the target person

Chinchaysuyu Quechua

Amage

Uses a large number of Spanish loanwords and compositions of Quechua and Spanish (media lengua features, see section 3.2). This implies that the one who wrote the Quechua text was bilingual himself and supposed that the target person would also be bilingual or at least know much vocabulary in Spanish.

Uses a number of Spanish loanwords (mostly Christian terminology) and some Quechua loanwords (numbers and a few more, apparently integrated into the Amage sound system, therefore possibly older) (see section 4.3). This shows that the target person was not expected to know much Spanish or Quechua.10

purpose, often in an indirect style: ‘Ask her if she has done …’.11 He wrote them down like this or even dictated them. Then a collaborator (or another friar, mestizo or native, or even he himself) would have translated these into Quechua (and Amage), using the direct style, ‘Have you done …?’, for the actual sessions in the confessional. And finally, a further collaborator, without (much) knowledge of Quechua (and Amage?) would have copied the text (possibly several times) so that it could be used ‘in the field’. Both manuals are directed mainly at women and not men,12 possibly because it was expected that men had sufficient knowledge of Spanish and/or the missionaries dedicated extra efforts to catechise women. However, it is rather strange that especially the Chinchaysuyu text should use an extraordinarily large number of loanwords and hybrid constructions if these women did not know Spanish (see section 3.2). 10

11 12

Wise (1976: 358) argues that most Quechua loanwords go back to the Inca era when there was close cultural contact (cf. Adelaar 2006: 294, Santos 2004: 175–176). Despite this supposition the confession manual shows that more, new loanwords were used later in the colonial era, but we do not know, of course, in how far these became part of the language at all or are only present in this text (as it is unknown which impact this [kind of catechetic] text would have had). For example, Victoria used these indirect questions in his Spanish Confessionario vtil y prouechoso in 1562 (“El primero mandamiento es …” passim). For example, ‘If she lives illegitimately with a man, a bad life’ (“Si vibe amancebada, en mala vida?”, Chinchaysuyu no. 55), ‘whether she has touched herself …’ (“Si ha tenido tocamientos consigo misma …”, ibid., no. 64), or when asked about her husband (e.g. Chinchaysuyu no. 21; Amage no. 29). A woman uses the word wawa for her children (Chinchaysuyu no. 21), a man churi (or the phonological equivalents in Quechua I). Cf. section 4.2 for Amage.

164

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

Culturally it is interesting to observe that—if one interprets a Yanesha’ myth as Santos (2004: 181) does—in Inca times Yanesha’ women were submitted to severe controls of fidelity, and adultery was punished with death; it is possible that the women would have remembered this very similar treatment in the past, and the Catholic Church’s attitude may have been ‘recognised’ and compared to that of the Incas. 2.3 Franciscan Authorship As the Quechua confession manual shows linguistic Quechua I features (from the central Peruvian highlands) and the Amages lived in the central Peruvian lowlands, we will especially look at the central Peruvian missions. Whilst different orders worked in the highlands, the adjacent lowland areas were in the hands of the Franciscans, and as both manuscripts have the same handwriting, we can assume that the author/translator/copyist would have been a Franciscan or worked for this order. Córdova Salinas gives a detailed idea of what the Franciscan missions in Peru looked like, and for the highland town of Jauja he mentions eight Franciscan houses and churches in an area of 30,000 inhabitants, an example being San Gerónimo de Tuna in 1643 with 13 priests in three convents (Córdova Salinas [1651] 1957: l. VI, cap. II, p. 989; cf. Huánuco cap. I, p. 982). We can therefore suppose that—not in absolute terms, but in the colonial circumstances—the central Peruvian highlands were well provided with missionaries. Córdova Salinas mentions experts in the language, presumably Quechua,13 among them Sebastián Lezana who was “un grande lengua en la nativa de los indios”, ‘very knowledgeable in the native language of the Indians’, lived part of the time in Jauja and died in Lima in 1622 (Córdova Salinas [1651] 1957, l. II, cap. IX, p. 348). De la Puente (2014: 149–150) has information about a mestizo interpreter from Jauja, Juan Vélez: “in 1613 [he] had taught Christian doctrine and the catechism to many Indian children in Jauja, his native region in the central highlands. For this purpose, Vélez translated the [Franciscan] fathers’ sermons into the lengua general” and was said to have spoken “like the Incas did”. This shows two interesting things with respect to the work of conversion in the seventeenth century: first, it seems to have been a Southern variety (lengua general14) which was mainly used in the Christianisation (which explains why— 13

14

There was, of course, Jerónimo de Oré who wrote his exceptional works around the turn of the sixteenth to the seventeenth century ([1598] 1992: 1607; cf. Córdova Salinas l. VI, cap. VII, p. 1015), but in Southern Peruvian Quechua. For a list of probable features of the lengua general, which, however, cannot be seen as a truly unified and normalised version of Quechua, see Itier (2011).

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

165

as mentioned below—texts were only half-heartedly translated into a dialect which differed from the Southern Peruvian lengua general); second, it is possible that a mestizo or native interpreter was involved in the creation of the Spanish confessionary text, not (just) the priest himself. In contrast to the rather sparse information about highland missions, especially in the eighteenth century, there is much more documentation about the lowlands, which may reflect a research bias, or by the eighteenth century the indigenous highland peoples were more thoroughly Christianised.15 The history of the Franciscan conversion efforts in lowland Peru16 was from the early seventeenth century onwards one of campaigns, setbacks, massacres, epidemics and varying constellations of alliances with and among different ethnic groups. The Amages are described as gentle, submissive and reserved.17 Their conversion went back to 1620, according to a report written by Francisco de San José in 1710 (1997: 35). In the entire region the Franciscans established reducciones (resettlements) and built chapels (e.g. Amich [1767] 1854, cap. II: 19), and Amich (ibid., cap. XXVI: 180) admits that, whilst there was a number of converts with real inclination and fervour towards the Christian faith, many Indians were attracted to these places because there they could access European goods. It seems legitimate to see their missions as loosely distributed and not very stable settlements, an impression supported by the descriptions of Amich (ibid., passim). Entry into these regions was gained by following the rivers, especially from Tarma and Huánuco (ibid., cap. II: 18), and new connections with the highlands were continuously created under very hard conditions and with the help of Indians who often lost their lives (ibid. cap. VI). José de San Antonio, for example, mentions that five Amages were killed in a battle by other Andes Indians (San Antonio [1738] 2001: 209). Due to the fact that the Franciscans were the most active and most of the time the only missionaries in this region it is plausible that they created mate15

16

17

The fact that these confession manuals were not published reflects that the Spanish and viceregal governments in the eighteenth century insisted increasingly on a Spanish-only policy (Konetzke 1964). The data from Amich ([1767] 1854), Tibesar (1989) and Heras (1992; ed. 2001) are mainly based on Córdova Salinas ([1651] 1957) and Biedma ([seventeenth century] 1989) and serve as basis for this summary. In the first half of the twentieth century Izaguirre wrote his comprehensive works about the history of the Franciscan missions, using the older books for most of his information. Santos (2004: 176–177) confirms that the only sources we have for the colonial period in the lowland missions are those of the Franciscan missionaries. See Santos (ibid. 178–201) for a summary of Amage history. Amich ([1767] 1854, cap. II: 19, IV: 31, XIX: 128–129 XXII: 145). Cf. Izaguirre (1922, t. I, cap. XIV, p. 163 [2001: 191]). However, the same author (1923, t. II, cap. VIII, p. 44 [2001: 402]) reminds the reader that in 1694 some Amages attacked and killed missionaries; and he

166

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

rials in the Amage language. In the 1630s the Amages lived around Cerro de la Sal (a salt resource of great importance), in 1673 in Quimiri, and they are documented later, in 1712, in Pozuzo; and there were also eighteen Christianised Amage families registered in Quimiri in 1718 (cf. Figure 6.4). All these settlements were founded by the Franciscans,18 and because of the itinerant way of life of the indigenous groups we can suppose that the Amages had originally lived in the areas where these missions were then established, following the model of resettlements. It also becomes clear that frequently the Indians came and left (Amich [1767] 1854, cap. XXII: 150). This unstable character of the missions is evident in Franciscan documents when 59 Amages are said to have lived in Quimiri in 1724, and 134 in the same village in 1733.19 On the whole, it is evident from the Franciscan accounts that the Amages were not a numerous group; there may have been only a few thousand of them, even when not resettled and worn out or annihilated in the almost permanent confrontations between Indians and missionaries and different indigenous groups who took different sides.20

18

19

20

also mentions a letter from 1742 in which the Amages were named as participating in the insurrection of Juan Santos Atahualpa (1923, t. II, cap. XIX, p. 116 [2001: 479]). Cerro de la Sal “esta habitado de indios Amages”, ‘is inhabited by the Amage Indians’ (Amich [1767] 1854, cap. II: p. 19); in Quimiri “se iban cada dia agregando algunos de los indios Amages”, ‘every day there were some more Amage Indians’ (ibid. 31); Pozuzo: “con poco menos de treinta familias de indios Amages … hallaron otras rancherías de indios Amages, esparcidos por aquellos montes”, ‘with somewhat fewer than thirty Amage Indian families … they found more settlements of the Amage Indians, scattered in those forest areas’ (ibid. 129); there were Christianised Amage families in Quimiri (Padrón de Cerro de la Sal [1718]: 1997: 51). Padrón de indios amages de Quimiri [1724] 2001: 21; Visita que hizo el P. Lorenzo Núñez de Mendoza a las conversiones de Tarma [1733] 2001: 77. Amich ([1767] 1854, cap. XX: 136) writes about the “conversion de Guanuco”, ‘the conversion parish of Huánuco’, that in 1730 Fray Honorio Matos was in charge of 64 persons who were resettled in Asunción de Pozuzu. However, with reference to Cerro de la Sal, Biedma ([1682] 1989: 102) talks about 800 persons, including another group, the Pacaríes. According to “Perú ecológico”, today c. 7,000 Yanesha’ (Amuesha) live in the Departments of Huánuco, Junín and Pasco, in the provinces of Puerto Inca, Chanchamayo and Oxapampa (Amuesha 2012). The Ethnologue states that there are approximately 10,000 Yanesha’ in the central and east Pasco Region, the Junín Region, in the western jungle, at the headwaters of the Pachitea and Perené rivers. Although there are bilingual schooling programmes, many children do not learn the language anymore. (Yanesha’ 2014; cf. Adelaar 2006: 291–292; Santos 2004: 166–175 for details, and Santos 2004 as a thorough ethnographic study.) Considering the rather higher number of Yanesha’ in our time, it is also possible that the Franciscans only ever came into contact with very few of them or would not have known which ethnic group some individuals belonged to.

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

167

figure 6.4 Sobreviela 1791: “Plan del curso de los ríos Huallaga y Ucayali y de la Pampa del Sacramento, levantado por el padre fray Manuel Sobreviela, Guardián del Colegio de Ocopa. Dado a luz por la Sociedad de Amantes del País de Lima. Año 1791” courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library

168

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

It is therefore not surprising that no linguistic documentation can be found because their language was certainly spoken by fewer people than that of, for example, the Campas. In one of the few references to them, for 1734 Amich mentions Father Simón Jara as very knowledgeable in Quechua and Amage: “era versadísimo en la lengua general y en el Amage” (ibid., cap. XXII: 149)— may he have been the author of the confession manuals? The first half of the eighteenth century was that of the most intensive efforts of establishing missions in the indigenous peoples’ territories (Santos 2004: 191), and in any case enough Amages must have lived in accessible places to justify the creation of a manual for confession, probably between the beginning of the eighteenth century and 1742. From this time onwards Juan Santos Atahualpa’s nativistic movement and insurgency made mission almost impossible.21 Like almost all groups of the region, the Amages were involved in this movement: Amich mentions that some ‘heathen’ Amages (“infieles”) killed two missionaries (cap. XXVI: 185, cap. final: 283). The heated situation did not seem to calm down, and even later, after 1750, only few persons were converted, against the often armed resistance of some “gentiles”, ‘pagans’ (ibid., cap. XXX–XXXI). Thus, complementing text-internal evidence as to the date of the Chinchaysuyu Quechua and the Amage manuscripts, external evidence indicates that they may have been part of the Franciscan missionary efforts in the lowlands between the 1630s and 1740s (Amage), and in the central Peruvian highlands at any time from the beginning of the sixteenth century onwards (Quechua). The existent copies, however, probably date from the eighteenth century.

3

A Chinchaysuyu Quechua Confession Manual

3.1 The Language Variety Although the name Chinchaysuyu was used by the Incas to refer to the northern region of their four-part empire, the term probably had its origin in the central Peruvian area around Lake Chinchaycocha (Lake Junín), and this bordered on the Anti region where the Amages lived.22 “Chinchaisuios” in the title

21 22

Amich ([1767] 1854, cap. XXVI–XXIX). Cf. Varese (2002, ch. 3). Renard Casevitz et al. (1988: 84–85). However, the usage of the term varied greatly; for example, in an early “relación geográfica” (Descripción de … Abancay [1586] 1965: 16), the province of Abancay, to the southeast of Ayacucho, is called Chinchaysuyo, established by the Incas. Cf. Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz (1999: 506–514). In linguistic terms, in the colonial era ‘Chinchaysuyu’ was applied to any kind of Quechua spoken north of Huamanga (Dur-

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

169

of the Quechua manual can therefore refer to the people of the geographical area and/or to those who spoke this linguistic Quechua variety. The colonial texts we have from Central Peru are limited in number and do not show consistent phonetic-phonological or morphological features so as to map them on specific modern Quechua I varieties (clearly distinct from Quechua II).23 The colonial missionary authors probably recognised the difference, but did not (want to) take the step to write their material in a variety entirely distinct from Southern Peruvian missionary Quechua, maybe because they were not familiar enough with these dialects and had earlier learned the Southern Peruvian lengua general, and/or they preferred not to use a little respected, ‘corrupt’ variety of Quechua.24 In this sense, the Confesonario de chinchaisuios is part of this half-hearted recognition of a different Quechua, but we do not know whether it reflects the regional dialect itself due to an older contact situation or whether the author or translator was responsible for this blending of Quechua I and II elements. The text makes use of a morphology and lexicon which in part is clearly Quechua I. Due to its character of a basic dialogue, many morphological features do not appear in it, and as far as the orthography is concerned, it only partially reflects Quechua I phonetic usage and phonological rules. For example, no vowel lengthening is present (or recognisable), but the pronunciation of

23

24

ston 2002: 232–236). Already in 1616 Alonso de Huerta had recognised that there was a difference between Southern Peruvian Quechua and Chinchaysuyo (Durston 2002: 232, 234). Among the very few Quechua I documents we have is a sacramental manual written by Juan de Castromonte c. 1650, analysed and transcribed by Durston (2002). Diego de Molina’s sermon collection from 1649 is, despite of the author’s origin from Huánuco, written in Quechua II (Taylor 2001: 183–222) although the author acknowledges dialectal differences (cf. Durston 2002: 235). Juan de Figueredo’s 1700 edition of Diego de Torres Rubio’s Quechua grammar and vocabulary has a few northern Quechua words in its vocabulary section. Durston mentions some Quechua I elements in Jurado Palomino’s 1649 Declaracion copiosa (Durston 2002: 235). See Durston (2008: 47–50) for a list of Quechua I documents. The first known texts written entirely in Quechua I date from the beginning of the twentieth century. Gamarra wrote Quechua fables in Tarma Quechua in 1906. Izaguirre’s volume XIII (1927) on indigenous language materials includes an anonymous “Catecismo en quechua huanca” from Ocopa (pp. 531–537). This is, as opposed to the earlier texts, written entirely in Quechua I. Doctrina Christiana ([1584] 1985: Annotaciones, f. 74 [numbered as 83], p. 167). In the case of the Central Peruvian Cajatambo indigenous ritual texts edited by Duviols (2003), Itier (1992a: 1001–1012, 1015–1017) suggests that there had been Southern Peruvian Quechua influence for a long time and that some of the interpreters and possibly the copyist were more familiar with Quechua I than the local dialect. The texts use both lexical and morphological features of Quechua I and II.

170

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

the postvelars, which is quite different from southern Quechua II, is reflected in certain forms of spelling. Here we would only like to mention that there is a clear lenition of apparently velar and postvelar fricatives and plosives, such as “-rha” and “-rhu” and “oll[o]go”.25 These are features which are documented above all for Quechua I, in Tarma and in Ancash. The initial sibilant for ‘to come’ (hamu- in Quechua II), is written as “ss”: “ssamu-” (Appendix 1, no. 4), characteristic of Quechua I. The author/writer also has a few individual representations of sounds in loanwords, such as “mandamendo”, “amihu” and “enemihu”. This may reflect his conception of the Quechua adaptation of Spanish sounds to the Quechua dialect he used and would coincide with the voicing of fricatives (and plosives in other dialects) described above. It can also indicate that the author/translator was a mestizo or even of indigenous extraction. Morphologically, there are also some clear Quechua I features (mostly Ancash). table 6.3

Morphological features

Ex. Morphology (Appendix 1 ms. transcription no.) 1

Description

Source of description

Hintz 2011: 39–41; -rhu-nqui [*?rɣu/rɢu] ⟨-rqu⟩26 cf. Parker 1976: 126 (e.g. no. 15, 16, passim) verbal suffix: inflectional past perfective aspect-tense, temporally bounded in the past; upwards/no resistance, also used as past (here 2nd sg.) -rha-aiqui [*?rɣa/rɢa] ⟨-rqa⟩ Hintz 2011: 42–43, (e.g. no. 25, 26, passim) verbal suffix: inflectional Parker 1976: 107–108 past perfective aspecttense; simple past (here 2nd sg.)

25

26

“-rha” and “-rhu” (passim; frequently written with varying spelling [because it is a copy?]) and “oll[o]go” (Appendix 1, no. 59 ff.). This coincides with Parker’s (1976: 39–40), Adelaar’s (1977: 58–60) and Hintz’ (2011: 19) descriptions for Central Peruvian Quechua. Domínguez (2006) illustrates and describes the phonetic variations across different dialects of this area. ⟨…⟩ represents the modern orthography.

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

171

(cont.)

Ex. Morphology (Appendix 1 ms. transcription no.)

Description

Source of description

Both are used with no apparent difference in meaning in the Quechua text. 2

Ricamai, “veme”, transl. ⟨-ma⟩ Parker 1976: 106, 11427 from Quechua: ‘look at verbal suffix: transition me’ (no. 9) 2nd–1st person imperative

3

-chau (in variation with -pi) (e.g. no. 12)

⟨-chaw⟩ Parker 1976: 83–8428 nominal suffix: locative case (relational suffix), ‘in’

-pa, -pahc (e.g. no. 77, 52)

⟨-paa, -paq⟩ nominal suffix: benefactive case, ‘for’

-pita (e.g. no. 8, 91)

⟨-pita⟩ Parker 1976: 84–85 nominal suffix: separative case (also causative), ‘from’

-nau (no. 15)

⟨-naw⟩ Cerrón-Palomino nominal suffix: compara- 1976b: 138–139 tive

27 28

Parker 1976: 84: -paa in Antonio Raimondi and Huari provinces

Also documented in the seventeenth century Cajatambo texts, for example “comay” (Itier 2003: 790). Also documented in the seventeenth century Cajatambo texts, for example “cayayninchao” (Itier 2003: 789).

172

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

table 6.4

Lexical features

Ex. Vocabulary Translation (Appendix 1 ms. transcription no.)

Source of translation

4

aru- (no. 26) ⟨aru-⟩

to work

Vocabulario políglota 1905: 448/28 Ancash; Parker and Chávez 1976: 37 Ancash; Hintz 2011: 62(89) Conchucos

yarpa- (no. 94) ⟨yarpa-⟩

to think

Vocabulario políglota 1905: 388/6 Ancash; Parker and Chávez 1976: 199 Ancash; Adelaar 1977: 503 Tarma; Hintz 2011: 34(25) Conchucos

iata- (no. 64) ⟨yata-⟩

to touch with Vocabulario políglota 1905: 445/3 the hand Ancash and Junín; Parker and Chávez 1976: 200 Ancash; CerrónPalomino 1976a: 155 Huanca; Adelaar 1977: 504 Tarma

With respect to the lexicon many words—although often in phonetic (and sometimes in semantic) variants—are shared between Quechua I and II.29 However, there are also a few distinctly Central Peruvian items30 present in the text. The numbers (Appendix 1, no. 13) are those of Central (and Northern) Peruvian Quechua, most similar to Ancash-Huaylas (Parker 1976: 78–79). On the whole, there are enough elements to indicate that the manual was written to be used in central Peru.31 Like the other few colonial documents we 29

30 31

However, some of them are different phonologically rather than constituting a different lexical form, for example, “hilla”, ‘lazy’, in the manuscript (Appendix 1, no. 83) and in Junín (Vocabulario políglota 1905: 240/20 Junín), qilla in Ayacucho (Soto Ruiz 1976: 92 s.v. qella); “ollogo” in the manuscript (e.g. no. 17), ullqu in Ancash (Parker and Chávez 1976: 113 s.v. ollqu), urqu in Quechua II (Soto Ruiz 1976: 81 s.v. orqo; in Quechua II only used for animals). These words are not found in Ecuador or Northern Peru (which are Quechua II dialects) (Cordero 1968; Stark and Muysken 1977; Park et al. 1976). On the basis of the data SDS presented at the REELA conference, Adelaar (personal

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

173

know from this Quechua variety, this one also only uses a limited number of these elements—possibly because it was difficult to distance oneself from the prestigious Southern Quechua language destined for Christianisation.32 But in addition to a certain intra-Quechua hybridity, this confession manual differs substantially from most missionary texts in that it relexifies many Quechua words using Spanish loanwords, embedding them in Quechua syntax, and thereby giving the impression of a mixed language, a media lengua.33 3.2 The Reflection of Contact: Towards a Media Lengua? Examples show that the text uses a substantial amount of Spanish loanwords (in italics), almost half of the text, which is rather uncommon. An established Christian religious vocabulary has been in use and documented since the late sixteenth century (without too many changes). It includes a number of loanwords, but these are normally limited to specific terms, such as ‘misa’ (‘mass’), ‘Padre’ (‘Father’), ‘fiesta’ (‘festival’), ‘cuaresma’ (‘Lent’) etc. On the other hand, re-semanticised Quechua words were introduced to express Christian concepts, such as hucha for ‘sin’, supay for ‘Devil’, with an Andean meaning different from the Christian. In the Chinchaysuyu text the established loanword supay is always used for ‘Devil/demon’, and hucha is also often present, but we find the Spanish loanword ‘pecar/pecado’ more frequently. In the Confesonario de chinchaisuios most words, including verbs and wellestablished Christian vocabulary items, are replaced by Spanish loanwords, and these are embedded in Quechua morphology and syntax. As mentioned, the process as such was common for Christian Quechua, but the high frequency of loans was not.34 It is therefore interesting to see which translation methods were used and how these relate to the linguistic contact features present in the text.

32

33

34

communication 10.09.15) supposes that it could be Yaru-type Quechua (Ancash) (except for aru-, see Black et al. 1990: 393, 403 who give “urya-”). This is especially interesting because he (Adelaar 2006: 294–295) supposes that Yaru Quechua accounts for most of the Quechua loanwords in Yanesha’ so that the geographical link can also be seen in the linguistic contact situation. Considering that all the colonial sources we know from that area show this mixture of varieties, we may want to ask if a kind of mixed dialect became established or whether they reflect an artificial, imposed composition of codes. The only text which uses a high percentage of Spanish loanwords is the 1600 Bula de la Santa Cruzada sermon published by Itier (1992b); these mainly refer to European objects and concepts and do not extend to verbs. There are extremely few purely Quechua sentences (15 out of 97).

174

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

table 6.5

Contact phenomena

Ex. Contact phenomena (Appendix 1 ms. transcription no.)35

Translation by SDS

5

Si ha creido en echizerias, sueños paxaros, i bruxas etc.

If she has believed in witchcraft, dreams, birds, and witches, etc.?

Creerhuanquicho echizeriácunachau? Sueñupi? o pizgocunachau? Bruxascunachau? Suprestitionescunachau? (no. 12)

Have you believed in witchcraft? In dreams? Or in birds? In witches? In superstitions?

6

7

Si ha adorado como á Dios las hua- If she has worshipped like God the cas, o zerros, ó otras creaturas. indigenous deities, or mountains, or other creatures? Adorarhonquicho Diostanau huacata; hercata? Ymayhan creaturatapis? (no. 15)

Have you worshipped like God the indigenous deities, mountains, also any other creatures?

Si en la yglesia tubo malos pensamientos con hombres?

If in church she had evil thoughts [about what she would do] with men?

Yglesiachau pensarhanquicho, ollo- Have you thought in church of gocunahuan? men? (no. 17)

35

In these examples we have modified the original forms if necessary in order to make them more easily comprehensible. See the transcription for the actual writing in the manuscript (Appendix 1).

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals Table 6.5

175

Contact phenomena (cont.)

Ex. Contact phenomena Translation by SDS (Appendix 1 ms. transcription no.) 8

Si ha hecho cosas torpes delante de If she has done rude things in the sus hixos, i otros? presence of her children and others? Rurarhonquícho cosas desonestata runa ñaupanpi authoriquipa ñaupanpi? (no. 61)

9

Have you done dishonest things in front of men, in front of persons of authority?

Si ha tenido tocamientos consigo If she has touched herself with her misma con sus manos pensando en hands thinking of a man? hombre? Kam ayca cutin quiquiqui iatapacuspaiqui, pensarhaiqui malos pensamentusta olgouam? (no. 64)

How many times touching yourself with your hands have you thought bad thoughts about a man?

10 Si ha tenido pecados por la parte de If she had sinned from behind with atras con hombre? a man?

11

Olgouam pecanta rurarhaiqui ayca cutim casspaiquipita {quepa/huasa-?}? (no. 65)

Have you carried out his/her [sic] sin with a man [and] how many times from behind?

No hazes casso de tu marido?

Do you not obey your husband?

Manacho casuta rurarhunqui coza- Have you not obeyed your husyquita? band? (no. 38)

176

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

Table 6.5

Contact phenomena (cont.)

Ex. Contact phenomena Translation by SDS (Appendix 1 ms. transcription no.) 12

Pues es preciso restituirsela [honra, Thus it is necessary to return it in the preceding sentence] desde- [honour, to him/her] taking back ciendote, si te quieres salbar. [what you said], if you want to save yourself. [If you have dishonoured your Cotichinqui onrranta desdicecuspayqui almaiquipa salbacionnimpa neighbour] you return his hon(no. 85) our by taking back [what you said], for your soul’s salvation.

13

Si ha dexado de aiunar quando lo manda la yglesia pudiendo?

If she omitted to fast when the Church orders it, [despite] being able to?

Deixarhonquicho aiunata yglesia mandasuptiqui, puede caspaiqui? (no. 27; cf. no. 76)

Have you omitted to fast although the Church has ordered you to, although you were able to?

Most frequently monolexematic loanwords are used, and they are normally a word or several taken from the Spanish sentence. On the sentence level, the translation is sometimes more exact than the original question, although using loanwords, e.g. in ex. 5 (Table 6.4), where Spanish ‘etc.’ is replaced by ‘superstitions’; in ex. 8 the loanword ‘autoridad’, ‘authority’ replaces ‘and others’ of the Spanish text. In other cases, however, a Spanish word is omitted, as in ex. 7 where ‘evil thoughts’ is not translated, but ex. 9 does the contrary: the rather neutral Spanish ‘thinking of a man’ receives an additional object: ‘evil thoughts’. The same is the case when Spanish ‘saving herself’ is complemented by ‘saving your soul’ (ex. 12). One would think that an additional explanation is useful in helping the penitent understand better, but all the additional words are loanwords which would have made the text quite opaque for a Quechua native speaker unfamiliar with so many Spanish words. Only few of these words have become part of the Quechua language, such as ‘hacer caso’, ‘to obey’, which is still used today as Quechua verb: kasu- (e.g. Hurtado de Mendoza 2002: 190).

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

177

As is common and found in other similar texts, the loanwords are adapted to Quechua morphology in a straightforward way, that is by adding the Quechua suffix of the accusative or locative to a Spanish noun, or, in case of a verb, the past tense and personal suffix (e.g. Table 6.4 ex. 5 and passim). But moreover, and this is a rarer phenomenon, the loanwords are embedded in Quechua complex sentences where they form part of the nominalisers, as is the case with the subordinate nominalisation with -spa, which indicates the same subject in the main and the subordinate clause (ex. Table 6.4 12; Appendix no. 85):36 kuti -chi -nki honra -n -ta return -causative -2 sing. honour -3 sing. poss. -accusative you return his honour [to him] desdice -ku -spa take back (3 pers.) -pseudo-refl. -subord. nominaliser same subject -yki -2 sing. possessive you taking it [your word] back Or the sentence even carries a subordinate nominalisation with -spa, same subject, and a switch reference with -pti, different subjects (Table 6.4, ex. 13; no. 27; bolded—the same person; bolded italics—switch reference): Deja -rqu -nki -chu leave/omit -past perfective -2 sing. -yes/no-question Have you left it ayuna -ta Iglesia manda -su fast -acc. Church order -3rd pers. subject -pti -yki -subord. nominaliser diff. subject -2 sing. poss. although the Church clearly orders you the fasting37

36

37

It is also worth noting that missionary texts often ‘over’-used the basic nominalisations (esp. -na and -sqa) and introduced conjunctions modelled on Spanish grammar, instead of the more common subordinating suffixes (-spa and -pti) (Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz 1997: 309–315). A study using a larger corpus needs to be conducted in order to find out whether this is a general tendency or author-specific. The original text indicates that the writer did not copy exactly when penning “ma[n]daicahutiqui”. SDS has read this as *mandasuptiyki, with -su … -yki as transition from 3rd

178

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

puede ka -spa -yki? can to be -subord. nominaliser same subject -2 sing. possessive [although] you could be [doing it]? It is difficult to imagine that these constructions follow an established pattern often typical of a media lengua; rather they may be spontaneous or point to an evolving media lengua. A certain variation and freedom is evident when the subordinators in some cases form a regular Quechua construction with a verb root and modifiers: yata-pa-ku-spa-yki (Appendix 1, no. 64); in others the third person of a Spanish verb is used: desdice-ku-spa-yki (Table 6.4, ex. 12). In another case the verb poder, ‘to be able to’, is also used in the 3rd person singular; however, it is not directly followed by the subordinator, but by the verb ka-, ‘to be’, which carries the subordinating and 2nd person suffixes: puede ka-spa-yki (ex. 13). Thus, when the words are taken over as loanwords, their grammatical category may change: Spanish “pudiendo”, ‘being able to’, becomes puede ka-. The Spanish ‘ayunar’, ‘to fast’, becomes a noun: ayuna-ta (ex. 13) without changing the verb root to a nominal one, which is ‘ayuno’, ‘the fasting’ (cf. “peca-”, ‘to sin’, which becomes peca, ‘(the) sin’ in Quechua, App. 1, no. 68). It is not uncommon in Quechua to use the same root as noun and as verb (e.g. tamya(-), ‘(to) rain’ (Parker and Chávez 1976: 169). In some cases (App. 1, no. 31) the whole Spanish phrase is taken over as a loan, but all the grammatical forms, including the Spanish genitive ‘de’ (‘tratar de malas palabras’), are translated literally into Quechua, as -pa (genitive, possession) (malas palabraspa trata-) although one would expect the instrumental -wan. This shows to what extent the Quechua is relexified, but at the same time the grammar does not become part of the loan—rather it is translated ‘literally’ into Quechua. Sentence no. 50 (in App. 1) shows that in this case a hybrid Quechua-grammar Spanish-words expression had been created (and stabilised?) as it uses the same construction, malas palabraspa, but here with the Quechua verb rima-, ‘to speak’, translating ‘decir’, ‘to say’, although neither Spanish nor Quechua has the genitive in this construction. There are some ‘frozen’ forms, where Spanish expressions are made into a unit embedded in Quechua morphology (kasu-, example 11; cf. Muysken 1996: 384). The word order follows Spanish at least as often as Quechua (examples person subject to 2nd person object (possibly preceded by -yku, intensifier, which can become -yka before suffixes which include the vowel -u [cf. Hintz 2011: 32 (14), although the vowel change is not documented before -su]). The subject transitional 3rd person form -su appears in other sentences of the same text (in the transcription no. 39 it is used in the same structure reconstructed here; see also in 52 and 89).

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

179

passim). Although Ecuadorian speakers consider media lengua to be a separate system (ibid. 408), Muysken’s comparative analysis of data from different varieties shows that there is a certain fluidity38 in them, which, however, still makes them different from interlanguages and pidgins (ibid. 409), and they can even become a native language (ibid. 274). Nowadays there are songs in Ancash in Central Peru (province Bolognesi), some of which show a very close and similar combination of Spanish loanwords and Quechua grammar (Pigott 2012a: 29–39; 2012b: 57). And although these songs have relatively few complete sentences, similarly they have many Spanish vocabulary items and only Quechua grammar. And, not unlike that of confession manuals, the discourse of the songs is of ‘formulaic’ character. Thus there may be a tendency towards a media lengua-type code, possibly for certain genres, in Central Peru, going back several centuries. Obviously we know very little about the sociocultural context in central highland Peru in the seventeenth/eighteenth century, but on the basis of the linguistic data it is apparent that the language used in the manual has tendencies towards a mixed language, seen as a continuum, not a rigid system, and presents much relexified Spanish vocabulary and a general conservation of Quechua morphosyntactic structures, and could therefore only have been spoken and understood by bilingual individuals (unless it had become established as native language, not dissimilar to a creole).39 It may have been not unlike how Gómez Rendón (2020) characterises Paraguayan Guaraní: “a clearly differentiated though non-stable set of registers with different compositions of borrowing and code switching according to the speaker’s level of bilingualism, his/her identity affiliation, and other relevant factors including gender, age and education”. Sociocultural factors lead to different kinds of conservation and development of these mixed languages—from becoming a vernacular to disappearing. In our case, on the basis of the available data it is difficult to know which stage and kind of speaker the confessionary text reflects. The variety described here is also similar to some manifestations of the socalled Spanglish, and as Lipski (2008: 69–71) explores, there is a difference between the spontaneous usage of patterns and words on the one hand and 38

39

Muysken (1996). See also Coombs’ presentation of Cajamarca speech, from ‘fine Spanish’ to ‘good Quechua’, passing through five varieties more or less close to either of the two languages (2011: 55). Cf. Muysken (1996: 274); Gómez Rendón (2008: 20–32). It should be taken into account that different methods have been used to try and understand what the Ecuadorian media lengua really is (apart from numerous groundbreaking studies by Muysken and the mentioned one by Gómez Rendón, there is Lipski’s [2017] most recent empirical study in which he measured speakers’ responses).

180

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

replicable usage on the other, and only a high degree of homogeneity and consistency would enable speakers to form a linguistic speech community. With the reduced data which are available, no hypothesis as to its adoption as the variety spoken by a community can be ventured, although we can see traces of a mixed code in Central Peruvian song lyrics until the present. But on the whole there is not enough information about the language variety or sociolinguistic and diglossic situation in the region and era to allow us to judge whether it was a stable system which could have or did become a vernacular (for some time). However, it probably documents a media lengua or at least the initial steps towards one. As this is clearly a code used between two different groups— missionaries and indigenous people—it does not fit into Muysken’s findings for the Ecuadorian media lenguas as intra-group languages (1996: 375). Rather, it seems to reflect a diglossic situation between Spanish-speaking priests and Quechua-speaking indigenous parishioners, native speakers of their respective languages, but having become bilingual through lasting contact. We may even speculate about the translator and the process of translation: being a fluent Quechua speaker, he did not find it easy to translate the lexicon which, to a certain extent, was not very common in everyday language (e.g. ‘evil thoughts’), and this may have moved him to simply use the Spanish words within the Quechua structure. We are unable to know, however, whether he was adapting a common strategy or, like Spanglish, creating a more or less personal ‘Quechuañol’.

4

An Amage (Yanesha’) Confession Manual

4.1 Introduction and Contextualisation The ms. Add. 25,319 of the British Library includes two versions of an Amage confession manual. The language denominated Amage in the British Library manuscript volume, known today as Amuesha or Yanesha’, belongs to the large Arawakan language family (Adelaar 2006: 292). Nowadays it is spoken in Central Peru, near the Perené river (Muysken 2004: 413). Yanesha’ has predominantly a VSO order. According to Muysken (2004: 424), its sound system is based on three vowels: /e/, /a/, /o/, which can be aspirated or glottalised; and on 24 consonants: the labials /p/, /b/, /m/, /w/; the palatal labials /py/, /by/, my/; the dentals: /t/, /c/, /s/, /n/, /r/; the palatals /ty/, /č/, /š/, /ny/, /ly/, /y/; the retroflex consonants /č/̟ , /ž̟/; the velars /k/, /x/, /γ/; and the palatal velar /ky/. In the Amage texts in the manuscript we can distinguish five vowel symbols: ⟨a⟩, ⟨e⟩, ⟨i⟩, ⟨o⟩, ⟨u⟩, and a number of digraphs representing assumedly a palatal sound, such as ⟨ch⟩, ⟨sh⟩, ⟨ss⟩, ⟨sz⟩. For example, Duff-Tripp’s suffix -

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

181

esha, ‘kind of’, ‘plural’ (1997: 258), is transcribed as “echa” and “eíssa” in the Amage texts. The example shows that in those days the orthography had not yet been standardised. The first Amage confession manual, called Confesonario de Amages (in the following abbreviated as CLA1, f. 23r–27v; transcribed, analysed and translated in Appendix 2), begins with an introduction consisting of general questions and hypothetical answers (Appendix 2, no. 2–7), followed by questions concerning the compliance with eight commandments and the possible sins committed against them. The manual also contains two warnings (no. 10, 42), a list of numerals (no. 12), as well as a brief text for confession (no. 75). The second text, the Confessonario en lengua amage (abbreviated as CLA2, f. 60v–70r), is an extended version of the first one. It begins with an exhortation (f. 61r) and confessionary questions belonging to the eight commandments (f. 61v–67r), followed by two exhortations for married people (f. 67r–69r), an act of contrition (f. 69v–70r) and a few numerals (f. 70r). The extended confession manual may have been written later, when the priest(s) noticed that the first one needed additions, such as the act of contrition.40 4.2 Observations on the Discourse and Linguistic Structure The transcription of the Confesonario de Amages is accompanied by glosses and followed by a list of Spanish and Quechua borrowings. The glossing is based on the grammatical and lexical data of Duff-Tripp (1997, 1998).41 Unfortunately, not everything could be glossed with certainty, due to: (a) the non-standardisation of the orthography42 as a result of which the

40 41

42

The handwriting of both is different. This is the only modern grammar and dictionary on Yanesha’. There is a text in Santos (2004: 345–348), but on the whole very little work has been done (see Wise 1976 and Adelaar 2006 for discussions of loan phenomena). Materials from the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century are included in Sala (1905, following his multilingual dictionary as announced in the book title, pp. 5–191, there are the “Gramáticas amueixa y campa”, pp. 217–245, and the “Catecismo de la doctrina cristiana castellano, inga, amueixa y campa”, pp. 247–267; see Izaguirre ed., 1929, vol. XIV, for another edition of Sala’s materials). Izaguirre (ed., 1927, vol. XIII,) contains—by anonymous Franciscan authors—a “Catecismo amuesha y campa” (pp. 483–505) and an “Interrogatorio de la confesión en amuesha para uso de los reverendos padres misioneros de la prefectura apostólica de San Francisco de Ucayali” (pp. 511–522). The catalogue of questions of this latter confession manual is not identical with the ones of the British Library texts. A comparative analysis of all these materials is still pending. (SDS.) All five vowel symbols used in the manuscript are allographs referring to the phonemes /a/, /e/, /o/; the sounds symbolised by Duff-Trip as rr, ts, ty, s, ss can all be represented by the graphemes ch, r, s, ss, z in the manuscript; in the manuscript an accent may also indi-

182

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

Amage words are not represented unambiguously, so that it is sometimes impossible to recognise the form and to know which word is involved; (b) Duff-Tripp’s description of the language: words that have the same form are sometimes listed in lemmata with a different form and meaning in her vocabulary, and in her grammar and vocabulary the same suffix can have different meanings, so that it is difficult to distinguish them. For example, the suffix -a, -e, -o can be glossed as: ‘second element of a negation’, ‘adjectiviser’/ ‘nominaliser’, ‘3sO’, ‘locative’, ‘genitive’, ‘reportative’; the suffix -(V)cha, -(V)che, -(V)chi, -(V)cho, -(V)chu, -(V)ch(V) as ‘vocative’, ‘future/ intention’, ‘dubitative’, ‘habitual’, ‘emphatic declaration/ question’, ‘verbaliser’, ‘past participle’; and -(V)r(r) as ‘pluraliser’, ‘adjectiviser’, and ‘possessive’; (c) a different translation of the same concepts, so that we do not know which translation is ‘correct’. For example, the question Has pensado de otros, que querian pecar, siendo mentira? [‘Have you thought of others who wanted to sin, which was a lie?’] is translated into Amage as Ahua píerá pahatá netta achamuchahueta, essé paseta? in CLA1, f. 26r, but as Ahua pianchina pensseña ñiapi assinus allusa ssussinat? in CLA2, f. 65v. Therefore we do not know which translation is the more acceptable one. Another example of a difference in translation of the same concept is the following. The Amage expression allúsiñá piáchanetá is translated as darle [de] Palos [‘to beat him’] in CLA1, f. 24v, but as para pecar con el [‘to sin with him’] in CLA2, f. 65v. So, what does allúsiñá piáchanetá really mean: beat someone, or sin with someone? (d) a non-correspondence between the Spanish phrase and its translation into Amage. For instance, the Spanish sentence Mira la Confesion nos libra del Ynfierno en donde se padecen muchos tormentos, i trabaxos, i nos lleva al cielo [‘Look, confession liberates us from hell, where there are many torments and works, and it takes us into heaven’] is briefly translated as ‘Arincha piamichahue, ponpanpuin piuchin alcha pieta confesion.’ [‘Do not be afraid, confess honestly your sins over there’.] (CLA1: no. 6). The phrasing is in general gender-neutral, and both men and women can be asked most of the questions. However, the choice of lexicon indicates that the first question is clearly addressed to a man: ‘Did you confess last year, father?’ (ibid., no. 2), but the following three questions: ‘Did you quarrel with your husband?’ (ibid., no. 29), ‘Did you want to kill your husband?’ (ibid., no. 37),

cate ‘emphasis’, ‘vocative’ or a glottal stop; two separate words can be written as a single word, and one word consisting of two morphemes can be written as two words.

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

183

‘Were you badly fed up with your husband?’ (ibid., no. 38), and almost all the questions of the sixth commandment (ibid., no. 44–58) explicitly refer to women.43 It should be noted that the use of causatives frequently occurs in the Amage confession manual without valency-increasing taking place. In those cases, the causative morphemes “add an extra meaning to the verb” (Aickenvald 2011: 86), relating to an “increase in manipulative effort, intentionality, volitionality, and control; intensive/iterative action; complete affectedness of the object” (ibid. 101). In many instances the causative marker underlines the iterativity of the action, see for example the verbs ‘confess’ and ‘pray’ in no. 2 and 4, respectively. The causative indicates that the penitent should have carried out his/her duty, i.e. confess and pray, all year round. Manipulation as well as control are referred to in question no. 7: ‘Answer me whatever I shall ask you’, in other words: ‘I cause you to answer me, because I ask you to do so’. Intention and volitionality are the motives behind ‘kill’, see no. 37, and a complete affectedness of the object can be the underlying motive for blaspheming someone, cf. no. 56. 4.3 Borrowings Most borrowings are lexical items. Grammatically the language of the manuscript (as far as this can be said due to the insufficient modern data) shows that it has not fundamentally changed during the past 250 years. Borrowings from Quechua: aiche ama apuericha llaquemuneuch 6 – pichapa 7 – cansu 8 – pucha 9 – escune

43

< aycha ‘meat’ < ama ‘no’ < apuchay ‘to honour’ < llakiy ‘to be sad’, ‘sadness’ < munay ‘to want’ < hucha ‘fault’, ‘sin’ = ‘six’ < pichqa, but pichqa means ‘five’ in Quechua < qanchis ‘seven’ < pusaq ‘eight’ < isqun ‘nine’

In Yanesha’ verb persons are marked by suffixes, but the third person is not gender-marked (Duff-Trip 1997: 69); therefore it is not clear in indirect questions (such as in no. 58) if they refer to a man or a woman.

184

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

Borrowings from Spanish: (a) terms belonging to the semantic field of religion: acusareayunaconfesaconfession cruz Dios dominquo erahua misse Nuestro Señor Pacher(e)/ papar perdon quaresmo viernes vigilio

< acusar ‘to accuse’ < ayunar, ayuno ‘(to) fast’ < confesar ‘to confess’ < confesión ‘confession’ < cruz ‘cross’ < Dios ‘God’ < domingo ‘Sunday’ < rezar ‘to pray’ < misa ‘mass’ < Nuestro Señor ‘Our Lord’ < padre ‘Father’ < perdon ‘forgiveness’ < cuaresma ‘Lent’ < viernes ‘Friday’ < vigilia ‘vigil’

(b) other terms: ámiequ-ette hacer (?) cruszaellero manzebar palta tarahuazá traginer viedá

44

< amigo ‘friend’ + otte= hacer ‘to make’ < cruz (?) ‘to swear’ < ayer ‘yesterday’ < mancebo ‘bachelor’ < faltar ‘to miss (an obligation)’, ‘to neglect’ < trabajar ‘to work’ < trajinero(s) ‘hauler(s)’44 < vida ‘life’

‘To miss’, ‘to work’ and ‘hauler’ reflect the relationship the Amages must have had with the Spanish-speaking mestizo and criollo population.

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

5

185

Conclusion

Probably the two confession manuals, one in missionary Central Peruvian Quechua, the other one in Amage, were written by Franciscan authors in central highland and lowland Peru, and what we have are copies from the eighteenth century. It is remarkable that both are (mainly) directed towards women. The Amage text seems to be the most ancient existent text in the language; possibly Simón Jara is the author, the possible date of origin is between 1700 and 1742. Without any further early colonial documentation of Amage, the understanding and analysis of the confession manual in this language has to remain partly hypothetical, especially as the grammar and vocabulary have so far been little studied, and few existing linguistic works are the only source for an analysis. In terms of contact phenomena, the Amage text uses a number of loanwords from Quechua and Spanish. Some of the Quechua words may have been borrowed via Christian texts, such as the re-semanticised ucha, from hucha, ‘fault, sin’; others may be older, for example the numbers from ‘six’ to ‘nine’. Most Spanish words are from the semantic domain of Christianity, and others—such as ‘to work’ and ‘hauler’—reflect the economic character of the relationship of the Amages and the Spanish-speaking mestizo and criollo population. The central Peruvian Chinchaysuyu Quechua confession manual shows two kinds of contact phenomena: in grammatical and lexical terms it consists of Central Peruvian Quechua mixed with Southern Peruvian Quechua. Thus the structure is entirely Quechua, but almost half of the words are relexified in Spanish. It reflects colonial power structures, but at the same time a certain intent at communicative pragmatism. It is probably the earliest documented example of a nascent variety of a mixed language in the Andes, and due to its inconsistent and unsystematic variations it is not unlike Spanglish. Like the Amage text, the Chinchaysuyu manual also has Spanish loanwords; however, not only are they more in number (c. 75), but many sentences consist of mainly Spanish words and Quechua grammar so that the reader/listener was supposed to have had a good grasp of both languages. As the mission of the central highlands began very shortly after the conquest, this text may be as early as this, but considering its similarity in character to the other confession manual (eight commandments, directed at women), it may be from the same time as the Amage text. These texts offer ground-breaking new information on the situation of language contact in eighteenth-century Peru, the linguistic systems of Quechua and Amage (as well as Spanish) at the time, missionary linguists’ translation

186

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

methods and Christian religious discourse of the colonial era. At the same time, many of our answers are tentative, and these thematic fields need further exploration in the future.

Acknowledgements We are very grateful to Katja Hannß for her careful reading of this paper and her suggestions.

References Adelaar, Willem F.H. 1977. Tarma Quechua. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. Adelaar, Willem F.H. 2006. “The Quechua impact in Amuesha, an Arawak language of the Peruvian Amazon.” In Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic typology, edited by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and Robert M.W. Dixon, 290–312. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aickenvald, Alexandra Y. 2011. “Causative which do not cause: Non-valency-increasing effects of a valency-increasing derivation.” In Language at large: Essays on syntax and semantics, edited by Alexandra Y. Aickenvald and Robert M.W. Dixon, 87–142. Leiden: Brill. Alstein, Léopold van. 1863. Catalogue des livres et manuscrits formant la bibliothèque de feu Mr. P. Léopold van Alstein, Professeur agrégé à l’université de Gand … vente publique … 1863. Tome I. Gand: C. Annoot-Braeckman. https://books.google.co.uk/ books?id=9mhbAAAAQAAJ&dq=intitle%3ACatalogue%20des%20livres%20et%2 0manuscrits%20formant%20la%20biblioth%C3%A8que&as_brr=3&hl=nl&pg=P P3#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed 06 September 2019). Amich, José. [1767] 1854. Compendio histórico de los trabajos, fatigas, sudores y muertes que los ministros evangélicos de la seráfica religión han padecido por la conversión de las almas de los gentiles, en las montañas de los Andes, … Perú. Paris: Librería Rosa y Bouret. (Harvard College Library copy.) http://www.archive.org/details/ compendiohistor00mussgoog (accessed 06 September 2019). Amuesha. 2012. In Perú ecológico. ONG Perú Ecológico. http://www.peruecologico.com .pe/etnias_amuesha.htm (accessed 06 September 2019). Arte de la lengua iquechua [sic]; Confessionarios en lenguas varias. 18th cent.? Ms. In: British Library: Add 25,319. Azpilcueta, Martín de [Navarro] and Antonio Bernat. 1580. Compendio y summario de confessores y penitentes, sacado de toda la substancia del Manual de Nauarro. Traduzido de lengua Portuguesa, en lengua Castellana, por el Reuerendo padre fray

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

187

Antonio Bernat, de la Orden de San Augustin. Alcala: Iuan Iñiguez de Lequerica. https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Compendio_y_summario_de_confessores _y_pe.html?id=PknmjRDyntAC&redir_esc=y (accessed 06 September 2019). Biedma, Manuel et al. [17th century] 1989. La conquista franciscana del Alto Ucayali. Selección, introducciones y notas: Julián Heras y Antonino Tibesar. Iquitos, Perú: CETA; IIAP. Black, Nancy, with Verena Bolli and Eusebio Ticsi Zárate. 1990. Lecciones para el aprendizaje del quechua del sureste de Pasco y el norte de Junin. Lima: Dirección Departamental de Educación-Pasco; Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. https://www.sil.org/ resources/archives/29595 (accessed 06 September 2019). Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 1976a. Diccionario quechua Junín-Huanca. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos and Ministerio de Educación. Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 1976b. Gramática quechua Junín-Huanca. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos; Ministerio de Educación. Confesonario de amages. 18th cent.? Ms. In: British Library: Add 25,319, f. 23r–27v. [Figure 6.3 courtesy of the British Library.] Confesonario de chinchaisuios. 18th cent.? Ms. In: British Library: Add 25,319, f. 16r–22v. [Figure 6.2 courtesy of the British Library.] Confessionario para los cvras de indios con la instrvcion contra svs ritos … [1585] 1985. In: Tercer Concilio Provincial de Lima (ed.) 1985: 189–332. [Also on the Internet (copy of the John Carter Brown Library, USA) http://openlibrary.org/works/OL15480197W/ Confessionario_para_los_curas_de_indios (accessed 06 September 2019).45] Confessonario en lengua amage. 18th cent.? Ms. In: British Library: Add 25,319, f. 60v– 70r. Coombs, David. 2011. “Influencia entre el castellano y el quechua en Cajamarca.” In Una mirada al mundo quechua. Aspectos culturales de comunidades quechuahablantes, edited by David Coombs, 49–66. Lima: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Cordero, Luis. 1968. Diccionario quichua-español, español-quichua. [Cuenca:] Talleres de la Universidad. Córdova Salinas, Diego de. [1651] 1957. Crónica franciscana de las provincias del Perú. Notes and introduction by Lino G. Canedo. Washington: Academy of American Franciscan History. http://archive.org/details/cronicafrancisca00cord (accessed 06 September 2019). Cusihuamán G., Antonio. 1976. Diccionario quechua Cuzco-Collao. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos; Ministerio de Educación. Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz, Sabine. 1997. “La descripción gramatical como reflejo e

45

In the cases where the Internet edition is indicated in brackets, the book has been consulted, but it can also be found digitised on the Internet.

188

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

influencia de la realidad lingüística: la presentación de las relaciones hablanteenunciado e intra-textuales en tres gramáticas quechuas coloniales y ejemplos de su uso en el discurso quechua de la época.” In La descripción de las lenguas amerindias en la época colonial, edited by Klaus Zimmermann, 291–319. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert; Madrid: Iberoamericana. Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz, Sabine. 1999. “Las lenguas andinas.” In Historia de América Andina, vol. 1: Las sociedades aborígenes, edited by Luis Guillermo Lumbreras, 499– 536. Quito: Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar. Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz, Sabine (ed.). 2018. “Métodos y contextos de la transmisión y traducción de conceptos cristianos en los confesionarios ibéricos y coloniales de los siglos xvi–xviii. Introducción al dossier” Indiana 35 (2): 9–27. [See Sabine Dedenbach-Salazar Sáenz et al. [2016.] Resumen del coloquio: Estudio interdisciplinario comparativo de los confesionarios ibéricos y coloniales de los siglos XV– XVIII. http://www.dedenbachsalazar.stir.ac.uk/coloquio‑sobre‑confesionarios‑iber icos‑y‑amerindios‑stirling‑2016 (accessed 06 September 2019).] Descripción de Abancay. [1586] 1965. “Descripción de la tierra del corregimiento de Abancay, de que es corregidor Niculoso de Fornee.” In Relaciones Geográficas de Indias: Perú, edited by Marcos Jiménez de la Espada, vol. 2, t. 2: 16–30. Madrid: Atlas. Doctrina christiana. [1584] 1985. Doctrina christiana y catecismo para instrvccion de los indios … In: Tercer Concilio Provincial de Lima (ed.) 1985: 5–188. [copy of the John Carter Brown Library, USA: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24440872M/Doctrina _christiana_y_catecismo_para_instruccion_de_los_indios_y_de_las_de_mas_perso nas_que_han_de_ser_enseñadas_en_nuestra_sancta_fé (accessed 06 September 2019)] Domínguez Condezo, Víctor. 2006. “Particularidades fonéticas del quechua Yaru— Huánuco.” Investigaciones Sociales (Lima) 10 (17): 475–490. http://revistasinvestigaci on.unmsm.edu.pe/index.php/sociales/article/view/7077 (accessed 06 September 2019). Duff-Tripp, Martha. 1997. Gramática del idioma Yánesha’ (Amuesha). Lima: Ministerio de Educación; Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Duff-Tripp, Martha. 1998. Diccionario Yánesha’ (Amuesha)-Castellano. Lima: Ministerio de Educación; Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Durston, Alan. 2002. “El aptaycachana de Juan de Castromonte—un manual sacramental quechua para la sierra central del Perú (ca. 1650).” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 31 (2): 219–292. Durston, Alan. 2008. “Native-language literacy in Colonial Peru: The question of mundane Quechua writing revisited.” Hispanic American Historical Review 88 (1): 41–70. Duviols, Pierre (ed.). 2003. Procesos y visitas de idolatrías. Cajatambo, siglo XVII, con documentos anexos. Revisión paleográfica: Laura Gutiérrez Arbulú y Luis Andrade Ciudad. Selección de los textos y estudios históricos: Pierre Duviols. Textos quechuas

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

189

traducidos, editados y anotados: César Itier. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos & Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Fondo Editorial. Enciclonet. s.a. Sobreviela, Fray Manuel (1784 [sic]–1803). In MCM Biografia.com. http:// www.mcnbiografias.com/app‑bio/do/show?key=sobreviela‑fray‑manuel (accessed 06 September 2019). Gamarra, Abelardo M. 1906. “Fábulas quechuas.” In Apólogos [quechuas] por unos parias. Tarmapap pachahuarainin, edited by Adolfo Vienrich, 75–131. Tarma: Tip. La Aurora de Tarma. https://archive.org/details/tarmappachahuar00parigoog (accessed 06 September 2019). Gómez Rendón, Jorge A. 2008. Mestizaje lingüístico en los Andes: génesis y estructura de una lengua mixta. Quito: Abya-Yala. https://www.academia.edu/9856636/J._A._G %C3%B3mez_Rend%C3%B3n_2008_._Mestizaje_ling%C3%BC%C3%ADstico_en _los_Andes_g%C3%A9nesis_y_estructura_de_una_lengua_mixta._Quito_Abya‑Yal a (accessed 06 September 2019). Gómez Rendón, Jorge A. Online, Feb. 2020 “Language Contact in Paraguayan Guarani.” in: The Oxford Handbook of Language Contact, edited by Anthony Grant. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199945092.013.30 (accessed 06 September 2019). González Manzano, Mónica. 2006. “La evolución de los tiempos verbales en el español del Siglo de Oro a través de las primeras gramáticas.” Res Diachronicae 5: 15–26 (Asociación de Jóvenes Investigadores de Historiografía e Historia de la Lengua Española (AJIHLE).) https://resdiachronicae.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/volumen ‑5‑05_parte2_art1.pdf (accessed 06 September 2019). González Polvillo, Antonio. 2010. Análisis y repertorio de los tratados y manuales para la confesión en el mundo hispánico (ss. XV–XVIII). (Includes a CD-ROM.) Huelva: Universidad de Huelva. Guaman Poma de Ayala, Felipe. 2001. El primer nueva corónica y buen gobierno (1615/ 1616). (København, Det Kongelige Bibliotek, GKS 2232 4°). Edición electrónica, dirigida por Rolena Adorno e Ivan Boserup. Facsímile del manuscrito, transcripción con anotaciones, documentos y otros recursos digitales [y bibliografía] en Internet: http://www.kb.dk/elib/mss/poma/ (accessed 06 September 2019). Heras, Julián. 1992. Aporte de los franciscanos a la evangelización del Perú. Lima: Provincia Misionera de San Francisco Solano. Heras, Julián (ed.). 2001. Comienzos de las misiones de Ocopa (Perú): Documentos inéditos para su historia (1724–1743). Con introducción y notas. Lima: Convento de los Descalzos. Hintz, Daniel J. 2011. Crossing Aspectual Frontiers: Emergence, evolution, and interwoven semantic domains in South Conchucos Quechua discourse. Berkeley: University of California 2001. http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6wb842zj (accessed 06 September 2019).

190

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

Hurtado de Mendoza S., William. 2002. Pragmática de la cultura y la lengua quechua. Quito: Abya-Yala. Itier, César. 1992a. “La tradición oral quechua antigua en los procesos de idolatrías de Cajatambo.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 21 (3): 1009–1051. Itier, César. 1992b. “Un sermón desconocido en quechua general: La “Plática que se ha de hazer a los indios en la predicación de la Bulla de la Santa Cruzada” (1600).” Revista Andina 19 (año 10, no. 1): 135–146. http://www.revistaandinacbc.com/wp ‑content/uploads/2016/ra19/ra‑19‑1992‑05.pdf (accessed 06 September 2019). Itier, César. 2003. “Apéndice. Textos quechuas de los procesos de Cajatambo.” In Procesos y visitas de idolatrías, Cajatambo, siglo XVII, con documentos anexos, edited by Pierre Duviols, 779–822. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos; Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Fondo Editorial. Itier, César. 2011. “What was the Lengua General of colonial Peru?” In History and Language in the Andes, edited by Paul Heggarty and Adrian J. Pearce, 63–85. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Izaguirre, Bernardino. [1922–1923] 2001. Historia de las misiones franciscanas …, tomos I y II (1619–1767). Nueva edición … por Félix Sáiz Díez, vol. I (1619–1767). Lima: Provincia Misionera de San Francisco Solano del Perú. [The original editions also on the Internet at: https://ia802304.us.archive.org/13/items/historiadelasmis01izag/ historiadelasmis01izag.pdf and https://ia802304.us.archive.org/33/items/historiade lasmis02izag/historiadelasmis02izag.pdf (both accessed 06 September 2019).] Izaguirre, Bernardino (ed.). 1927. Historia de las misiones franciscanas en el oriente del Perú (vol. XIII). Producciones en lenguas indígenas de varios misioneros de la orden. Lima: Imp. Arguedas. https://archive.org/details/historiadelasmis13izag (accessed 06 September 2019). [The bibliographical entry on the website is partly incorrect.] Izaguirre, Bernardino (ed.). 1929. Historia de las misiones franciscanas en el oriente del Perú (vol. XIV). Producciones en lenguas indígenas de varios misioneros. Lima: Imp. Medalla. Internet: https://archive.org/details/historiadelasmis14izag (accessed 06 September 2019). [The bibliographical entry on the website is partly incorrect.] Konetzke, Richard. 1964. “Die Bedeutung der Sprachenfrage in der spanischen Kolonisation Amerikas.” Jahrbuch für Geschichte von Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Lateinamerikas 1: 72–116. Lipski, John M. 2008. Varieties of Spanish in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Lipski, John M. 2017. Ecuadoran Media Lengua: More than a “Half”-Language? International Journal of American Linguistics 83 (2): 233–262. Map of Central Peru. s.a. http://www.walterwust.com/uploads/media/La%20gloria/ Mapa3.jpg (accessed 06 September 2019) [high-resolution version from Walter Wust, © www.walterwust.com, 1 February 2018]. Moermans, N. 2008. “Leopold van Alstein (1791–1862).” In In de ban van boeken. Grote

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

191

verzamelaars uit de negentiende eeuw in de Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België, edited by Marcus de Schepper, Ann Kelders, Jan Pauwels, Carine van Bellingen, Koninklijke Bibliotheek Albert I (Brussel) et al., 107. Brussel: Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België. Molina, Alonso de. 1565a. Confessionario breue, en lengua mexicana y castellana. Mexico: Antonio de Espinosa. http://www.primeroslibros.org/page_view.php?id=pl_jcbl _009&lang=en&page=1 (accessed 06 September 2019). Molina, Alonso de. 1565b. Confessionario mayor, en lengua mexicana y castellana. Mexico: Antonio de Espinosa. https://archive.org/details/confessionarioma01moli; also: http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/obra‑visor/confessionario‑mayor‑en‑la‑lengua‑ mexicana‑y‑castellana‑‑0/html (accessed 06 September 2019). Muysken, Pieter C. 1996. “Media lengua.” In Contact languages: A wider perspective, edited by Sarah Grey Thomason, 365–426. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Muysken, Pieter C. 2004. “The languages of the eastern slopes.” In The Languages of the Andes, edited by Willem F.H. Adelaar, with the collaboration of Pieter C. Muysken, 411–501. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oré, Luis Jerónimo de. [1598] 1992. Symbolo catholico indiano. Edición facsimilar dirigida por Antonine Tibesar. Lima: Australis. [Also on the Internet (digitised copy, Memoria Chilena): http://www.memoriachilena.cl/archivos2/pdfs/MC0033186.pdf (accessed 06 September 2019).] Padrón de Cerro de la Sal. [1718] 1997. “Padrón de los pueblos e indios convertidos que tiene la conversión de Cerro de la Sal, que está a cargo de … nuestro padre San Francisco.” AGI: Lima, 537. In: Francisco de San José, Cartas e informes sobre Ocopa y sus misiones, introducción de Julián Herás, 43–52. Lima: Convento de los Descalzos. Padrón de indios amages de Quimiri, 1724. 2001. In Comienzos de las misiones de Ocopa (Perú): Documentos inéditos para su historia (1724–1743), edited by Julián Heras, 21– 28. Con introducción y notas. Lima: Convento de los Descalzos. Park, Marinell, Nancy Weber, and Víctor Cenepo Sangama. 1976. Diccionario quechua San Martín. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos; Ministerio de Educación. Parker, Gary. 1976. Gramática quechua Ancash-Huailas. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos; Ministerio de Educación. Parker, Gary and Amancio Chávez. 1976. Diccionario quechua Ancash-Huailas. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos; Ministerio de Educación. Pérez, Martín. [14th century] 2012. Confesionario. Compendio del “Libro de las confesiones” de Martín Pérez. Edición y presentación de Hélène Thieulin-Pardo. Paris: SEMH-Sorbonne—CLEA. http://e‑spanialivres.revues.org/366 (accessed 06 September 2019). Pigott, Charles. 2012a. “Foreign Encounters in the Pallas of Bolognesi, Peru.”Latin American Indian Literatures Journal 28 (1): 28–53. Pigott, Charles. 2012b. “The Soqomocho of Huayllacayán.” Latin American Indian Literatures Journal 28 (1): 54–61.

192

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

Puente Luna, José Carlos de la. 2014. “The Many Tongues of the King: Indigenous Language Interpreters and the Making of the Spanish Empire.” Colonial Latin American Review 23 (2): 143–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10609164.2014.917545 (accessed 06 September 2019)]. Renard Casevitz, France Marie, Thierry Saignes, and Anne Christine Taylor. 1988. Al este de los Andes: Relaciones entre las sociedades amazónicas y andinas entre los siglos XV y XVII. (Translated from French by Juan Carrera Colin.) Quito: Abya-Yala; Lima: Institut Français d’Études Andines. https://repository.unm.edu/bitstream/handle/1928/ 10543/Al%20este%20de%20los%20Andes.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 06 September 2019). Rochelle, Roux de. 1842. “Notice sur feu M. Chaumette.” Bulletin de la Société de Géographie, Deuixième Série, tome XVII, Mars 1842, 162–174. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/ bpt6k37638m/f1.item (accessed 06 September 2019). Sala, Gabriel. 1905. Diccionario, gramática y catecismo castellano, inga, amueixa y campa. Lima: Tip. Nacional. https://archive.org/details/diccionariogram00salagoog (accessed 06 September 2019). [These materials are also in Izaguirre ed. 1929, vol. XIV, but a close comparison is still pending.] San Antonio, José de. [1738] 2001. “Memoria de los muchos religiosos sacerdotes, … de las cuatro conversiones de Jujuy, Tarma, Huánuco y Tulumayo …, 1738.” In Comienzos de las misiones de Ocopa (Perú): Documentos inéditos para su historia (1724–1743), edited by Julián Heras, 207–215. Con introducción y notas. Lima: Convento de los Descalzos. San José, Francisco de. [1710] 1997. “Informe.” In: Francisco de San José, Cartas e informes sobre Ocopa y sus misiones, introducción de Julián Herás, 35–39. Lima: Convento de los Descalzos. Santos Granero, Fernando. 2004. “Los yánesha.” In Guía etnográfica de la Alta Amazonía 4: Matsigenka, Yánesha, edited by Frederica Barclay and Fernando Santos Granero, 159–359. Panama: Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute; Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos. Sobreviela, Manuel. 1791. “Plan del curso de los ríos Huallaga y Ucayali y de la Pampa del Sacramento, levantado por el padre fray Manuel Sobreviela, Guardián del Colegio de Ocopa. Dado a luz por la Sociedad de Amantes del País de Lima. Año 1791.” John Carter Brown Library at Brown University. https://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/ servlet/s/5ha7j1 (accessed 15 November 2019). Reproduction permitted, courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library. Soto Ruiz, Clodoaldo. 1976. Diccionario quechua Ayacucho-Chanca. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos; Ministerio de Educación. 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.

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

193

Taylor, Gerald. 2001. “Un sermón en quechua de Diego de Molina (Huánuco, 1649).”Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 30 (2): 211–231. Tercer Concilio Provincial de Lima (ed.). [1584/85] 1985. Doctrina Christiana y catecismo para instrvccion de indios … [y] Tercero Cathecismo … [y otros textos]. [Ciudad de los Reyes (Lima): Antonio Ricardo, 1584/85]. [Facsímile del texto trilingüe (del ejemplar de la Biblioteca Diocesana de Cuenca).] Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. The ten commandments. 2005. Part 3, section 2. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ archive/catechism/command.htm. In: Catechism of the Catholic Church. [Rome:] Libreria Editrice Vaticana, http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/docu ments/archive_2005_compendium‑ccc_en.html. (Both accessed 28 September 2019). Tibesar, Antonino. 1989. “Introducción.” In: Biedma et al. 1989: 15–79. Torres Rubio, Diego de. 1619. Arte de la lengua quichua. Lima: Francisco Lasso. http:// www.archive.org/details/artedelalenguaqu04torr (accessed 06 September 2019). Torres Rubio, Diego de, with Juan de Figueredo. [1700]. Arte de la lengua quichua … Y nuevamante van añadidos … y otro vocabulario de la lengua chinchaisuyo. Lima: Joseph de Contreras, y Alvarado. (John Carter Brown Library copy): https://archive .org/details/artedelalenguaqu02torr (accessed 06 September 2019). Varese, Stefano. 2002. Salt of the mountain: Campa Asháninka history and resistance in the Peruvian jungle. Translated [from Spanish] by Susan Giersbach Rascón. [La sal de los cerros, 1968.] Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Victoria, Francisco de. 1562. Confessionario vtil y prouechoso. Santiago [no publ.]. Full text digitisation: Universidad de Salamanca. http://gredos.usal.es/jspui/handle/1036 6/19465 (accessed 06 September 2019). “Visita que hizo el P. Lorenzo Núñez de Mendoza a las conversiones de Tarma, 1733.” 2001. In Comienzos de las misiones de Ocopa (Perú): Documentos inéditos para su historia (1724–1743), edited by Julián Heras, 21–28. Con introducción y notas. Lima: Convento de los Descalzos. Vocabulario políglota incaico. 1905. Comprende más de 12,000 voces castellanas y 100,000 de keshua del Cuzco, Ayacucho, Junín, Ancash y Aymará, compuesto por algunos religiosos franciscanos misioneros … Lima: Colegio de Propaganda Fide del Perú. https://ia800302.us.archive.org/10/items/vocabulariopolg01unkngoog/vocab ulariopolg01unkngoog.pdf (accessed 06 September 2019). Wise, Mary Ruth. 1976. “Apuntes sobre la influencia inca entre los amuesha.”Revista del Museo Nacional (Lima) 42: 355–366. Yanesha’. 2014. https://www.ethnologue.com/language/ame. In Ethnologue: Languages of the World, edited by M. Paul Lewis, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig. Dallas, Texas: SIL International, 17th edition. https://www.ethnologue.com/. (Both accessed 28 September 2018.)

194

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

Yáñez Rosales, Rosa H. 2004. “La frontera norteña novohispánica: diferencias entre órdenes y el clero secular a través de confesionarios del siglo XVIII.” In Angeli novi: prácticas evangelizadoras, representaciones artísticas y construcciones del catolicismo en América (siglos XVII–XX), edited by Fernando Armas Asin, 77–90. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica.

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

195

Appendix 1: Transcription of the “Confesonario de chinchaisuios” Notes on the Transcription Whilst in the original manuscript the Quechua questions are followed by the Spanish ones, here they are presented in a table in which we have numbered the questions consecutively. In the manuscript some words begin with a capital letter; in the transcription the use of upper and lower case follows modern conventions (for example, ‘santo sacramento’, ‘infierno’), as does the division of the words (in Quechua and Spanish).46 Besides some full stops and commas in the original text, which have been maintained, there are forward slashes in order to separate the Quechua questions from the Spanish ones. These have only been kept when they separate phrases or sentences within one question. The manuscript uses numerous abbreviations, such as ⟨p.a⟩ = ⟨para⟩, ⟨P.e⟩ = ⟨Padre⟩; ⟨p.es⟩ = ⟨pues⟩, ⟨q.do⟩ = ⟨quando⟩, ⟨q.e⟩ = ⟨que⟩. These have been completed in the transcription, and the old orthography has been respected. […] indicates the reconstruction of illegible letters or those which are difficult to interpret, normally because they are at the page margin which is sometimes damaged and/or cut. {…} indicates the (re)construction of Quechua forms which are incorrect in the manuscript, i.e. when letters are missing or when the words written in this way lack meaning in Quechua. Letter: letters which are crossed out in the manuscript. In the original text the corrected letter is sometimes written above them or has been inserted. Italics are used in the transcription to indicate Spanish loanwords in the Quechua text. “[sic]” has not been used because there are frequent mistakes in the manuscript, which means that apparent errors reflect the original text. In many instances the Quechua text reflects that the amanuensis—to whom the text may have been dictated—or the copyist did not know Quechua (well). There are also numerous mistakes in Spanish. In the transcription only a few cases have been indicated and commented upon in order to exemplify this.

46

In the era in question words in Spanish were arbitrarily separated, and the same occurred in colonial Quechua. It is therefore difficult to know whether here it is due to the amanuensis’/copyist’s lack of language knowledge, or whether he followed the conventions of the time.

196

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

Confesonario de chinchaisuios

No.

Quechua

Spanish

1

[f. 16r]

Confesonario de chinchaisuios Introducion P. Si rezaste, i hiziste lo que el Padre te mando en la confesion del año pasado? Si ha pensado todos sus pecados? Si viene arepentido de todos sus pecados?

2

P.

3 4

P. P.

5

P.

6

P.

7

P.

8

P.

9

P.

10

P.

11 12

P.

Rezarhaiquicho roranhaiquiho Padre mandassum haiquita confesar canian huata? Yarpanquicho llampa47 pecadosniquip[a?] Ssamunqui repenticum llampa pecadosniquinpa? Lassancho Diosninchita mana cam haiquita [?]? Creeinquicho Diosma todopodero[si]quita? Santisima ley? Creeinquicho cielota allicacunapa? Infierno yahacacunapa?48 Riccuy cay santo sacramentota confesanqui allilla llampa pecados, niquita {pecadosniquita}49 hatun dolorgo ofenderhaiquicho Dios-[f. 16v]ninchita aproposito ama pecamquicho / cieloman tucuicho chaichau llampam hurtumchiqui / libricamunchiqui, ynfiernopita hatum tormenta. Ricamai llapan pecadosniquita chaimi Diosninchi perdonasunqui? [the sentence ends with a question mark] Confessacui llapanta chaichu pecadosniquita faltanqui, mana servíncho51 confesiunta. Primer Mandamiento Creerhuanquicho echizeriácun[a]chau? Sueñupi? o pizgocunachau? Bruxascunachau? Suprestitionescunachau?

Si le pesa mucho de haver ofendido á Dios? Si cre en Dios todopoderoso, i en su santisima ley? Si cre que ay cielo para los buenos? Y Ynfierno para los malos? Le aconseja, que este santo sacramento confesando bien todos los pecados con gran dolor de haver ofendido á Dios / y proposito de50 no pecar mas / nos lleva al Cielo en donde ay todos los gustos / y nos libra del ynfierno en donde ay grandes tormentos. Le dice, veme pues confesando todos tus pecados para que Dios te los perdone. Mira que confieses todos tus pecados, que si callas alguno de nada te sirbe la confesion. Si ha creido en echizerias, sueños paxaros, i bruxas etc., Y si responde au Padre [f. 17r] dice que si, creió, y se le pregunta

47 48 49 50 51

We have not been able to find “llampa” with the meaning of ‘todos’ in any Quechua dialect. However, it occurs several times and is therefore probably not a mistake. Yaqa, ‘malo’ (Huari), according to Parker and Chávez (1976: 265). This example shows that the amanuensis did not know Quechua. There are also corrections in the Spanish text; for example ⟨d⟩ has been modified to form the letter ⟨t⟩. What we have written as accent is a small circle open at the top. It is used in some cases, in Quechua and in Spanish, but not consistently. The same can be observed in the Amage confession manual.

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

197

(cont.) No.

Quechua

Spanish

13

Ayca cutin? Achica cutin52 Huc {c}utim. Ysca cutin. Quiza cutin. Chuscu cutin. Pisga cutin. Zota cutin. Hanchis. Puza cutin.53 Ysgo. Chunco. Chuncahuco. Chuncaucaigo [After the Spanish:] Ama yapay chaita roranquicho Diosta niquita supaycuna apassunqui ynfiernochaumi rupanquipa ianta nau {llanta hina}.

quantas vezes. Y si respon[de] dice que muchas vezes— Vna vez. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Y se le aconsexa que no haga mas esto, porque pierdes á Dios el cielo, i tu alma, i te llevaran los demonio[s] al ynfierno á quemarte como leña. Este consexo se repite en todos los pecados graves. Si ha adorado como á Dios las huacas, o zerros, ó otras creaturas. Si ha faltado muchas vezes a la doctrina? Si en la yglesia tubo malos pensamientos con hombres?

14

15

16 17

P. P.

18 19 20

P. P.

21

P.

22

P.

52 53

Adorarhonquicho Diostanan {Diostanau} / huacata; hercata? Ymayhan creaturatapis? [f. 17v] Doctrinama faltarhunqui asca cuti? Yglesiacha{u} pensarhauquicho {pensarhanquicho}, ollogocunahuan? 2° Mandamiento Llullacuspayqui jurarconquicho? Yma manalli ruraita rurasac ñispa jurachu canqui? Maldiçiunta ruranhonquicho cozayquipa? Huahuaiquiquicunatan {huahuaiquicunatan}? Cozayquita ojala bañunquiman? Supay apassunquiman? huanbrarquicunata supaycunaapa churin? ninquichu Animalcunatapis?

Si ha jurado con mentiras? Si ha jurado de hazer algun mal? Si há echado maldiciones a su marido, ó a sus hixos? Si dices a tu marido ojala te murreras? los diablos te lleven? a tus hixos, hixos de los diablos? y a la gente, y a los animales das a los diablos?

The insertion of a vowel after the first syllable in ⟨achica⟩ is also found in the (hispanised?) Quechua word ⟨chacara⟩ (e.g. Guaman Poma [1615/16: 860] 2001: 874). ⟨Puzacutin⟩; ⟨z⟩ has been corrected from what was ⟨s⟩.

198

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

(cont.) No.

Quechua

23 24

P.

25

P.

26

P.

27

P.

28

P.

29 30

P.

31

P.

32 33 34

P. P. P.

35 36 37 38 39

P. P. P. P. P.

40

P.

41 42

P.

43 44

P. P.

45 46 47

P. P. P.

[f. 18r] 3° Mandamiento Faltarhuanquicho domíngocunapi missamá fiestacunapi dexaita puede chaspaiqui {caspaiqui}[?] Missachau carhaiqui mana atencionniquihua billapanacuspaiqui Yglesiapi? Fiestacunapi aruruhaiquicho mana nescesidadniqui captin? Deixarhonquicho aiunata yglesia ma[n]daicahutiqui {mandasuptyki}, puede caspaiqui? Viernescunapi aychata micurhanquich[o] vigiliacunapi, Quaresmapi? man{a} nescesidadniqui captin? [f. 18v] 4° Mandamiento Ayca cuti mana rurarhonquicho, padriqui mandasum haiquita {mandasuptyki}? Respetunta perderhanquicho padriquicunata malas palabraspa tratahonquicho? Auquicunata respetunta perderhonquí? An{c}iana carhaiquicho tataiquihua? Huambriquicunata allipichu iachachinqui, castiganquichu? Manacho obedecerconque cozayquita? Horhonquicho pesaresta cozaiqui[…?] Cozaiquita quesachanquícho? Man{a}cho casuta rurahunqui cozayquita? [f. 19r] Puñusum ñisuptiqui manan {ay}ñechu canqui? Maldecirhonquicho cassara[sc]aiquita[?] 5° Mandamiento Yarparhaiquícho pitapis hunuchita {huañuchita}? Maihanpatapis huañuinínta desearhaiquicho? Quiquiquipata hu{a}ñuiniquita iarparconquicho? Quiquiquita maldecir corhonquicho[?] Desearhonquicho huañuíta cozayquipata? Ayca cutin machassaiquicama vpíahunqui?54

54

Spanish

Si ha faltado á missa los domingos i fiestas pudiendo oirla? Si há estado a missa sin atencion mirando, y parlando? Si ha trabaxado los dias de fiesta sin tener nescesidad? Si ha dexado de aiunar quando lo manda la yglesia pudiend[o?] Si ha comido de carne los viernes, vigilias, i Quaresma, sin estar enfermo? Quantas uezes no has querido obedecer lo que tus padres te mandaron? Has perdido el respecto a tus padres tratandolos de malas palabras? Si perdio el respecto a los viejos? Si reñiste con tus padres i maiores? A tus hixos los enseñas bien, i los castigas? Sino que obedecer a su marido? Si dá pesares a su marido? Si desprecia a su marido? no hazes casso de tu marido? Si niega el debito a su marid[o?] has dicho mal aia la hora en que nos casamos? Deseaste matar alguno? Deseaste la muerte á alg[una] persona? Si deseaste la muerte a tí misma? Te has echado maldiciones a ti misma? Has deseado la muerte a tu marido[?] Te has emborachado alguna vez?

⟨upía-⟩ (in no. 47) vs. ⟨uxia-⟩ (probably pronounced [ɣ]) (no. 48): interestingly the same word is used first in central Peruvian or Ayacucho Quechua (plosive), and then in Cuzco Quechua (fricative).

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

199

(cont.) No.

Quechua

Spanish Si bebi[ste/o?] hasta perder el juicio? Si ha comido con uicio alguna vez? Si ha dicho palabras malas alguno que aya sentido mucho? Si está enojada con alguno i no trata con el?

48 49 50

P. P. P.

Yarpayniquita vxiashancama? Viciopita ayca cutin micorhaiqui? Ayca cutin malas palabraspa rimarhaiqui?

51

P.

[f. 19v] Jũquampihuanpís {Huquampis}55 piñana huzgachu canqui? Perdonata manei {mañay} enemihuiquícunata56 amihuta rurai manachaita rurariqueha supaycuna apassumquipahc mana chaita ruranquehà? [the sentence ends with a question mark] 6° Mandamiento Pihuanpis huchata rurarchanquicho? Pihuanpis amancebado chucanqui? Ayca tiempo? Ayca Vlai.57 huc uata. huc uata. huc {qu}illa. yscay quilla. achicahuancho? casadohuancho? solterohuancho? turiquihuancho? ayca cutin? [f. 20r] Desearhonquicho olgoam pecaita? Olgota mucharhanquicho? Rura{r}honquícho cosas desonestata runa ñaupanpi authoriquipa ñaupanpi? Alcahueta carhaiqui ayca cuti? Ayca cutin señasta rurarhonguicho olgocunahua pecanaiquipa? Kam ayca cutin quiquiqui iatapacuspaiqui,

52

53 54 55 56 57

P. P. P. R.

58

P.

59 60 61

P. P. P.

62 63

P. P.

64

P.

65

P.

55 56 57

pensarhaiqui malos pensamentusta olgoam? Olgoam pecanta ru{r}a{r}haiqui ayca cutim casspaiquipita {quepa-/huasa-}?

Pidele pues perdon i haste amigo con el, que si asi no lo hazes te llevaran los demonios.

Si ha pecado con hombre? Si vibe amancebada, en mala vida? mucho tiempo. huc uata. huc uata. vn mes. 2 meses. con muchos. [no translation]

quantas Vezes. etc. Si has deseado pecar con hombre? Si há vesado algun hombre? Si ha hecho cosas torpes delante de sus hixos, i otros? Si ha sido alcahuexa? Si há echo senales á algun hombre para pecar? Si ha tenido tocamientos consigo misma con sus manos pensando en hombre? Si ha tenid[o] pecados por la parte de atras con hombre?

Repetition mistake, due to that it is a copy? This is another indication that the manuscript is a copy: enemihuiquicunata—the second ⟨i⟩ is written above the line. This is possibly a variant of unay ‘un rato’, ‘un tiempo’, Quechua II ([Cusihuamán 1976: 155] and Quechua I [Vocabulario políglota 1905: 342/13 Ancash]).

200

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

(cont.) No. 66 67 68 69

P. P. P. P.

70

P.

71 72 73

P.

74 75 76

P. P. P.

77 78 79

P.

80 81 82 83 84 85

P. P. P. P. P. R.

86 87

P. P.

P.

P.

88 89

90 91

P.

Quechua

Spanish

Mana allin taquicunata taquichu canqui? Huchallícorhonquicho bestiacuna[uan] [f. 20v] Olgo camcho peca masiqui? Caricunahuan maguipura pullapa yachucanqui? Caricunahuan huarmicunahuanpas, mapa simicunata rimachu canqui? Cangracho llapai juchaiqui? 7° Mandamiento Suacurhaiquicho runapa huazinta o chacaranta o huco manerapa aparhunqui peca[ta …?]

Si ha cantado cantares dos o mas[?] Si ha pecado con alguna bestia? Si tiene amigo con que peca? Si ha retozado con los hombres?

Zuata yanapachu camqui? Rurarhaiquicho hucupa aciendacho[?] [f. 21r] Precissamente restitunqui suacuvaiquicunata mana chaita rura{p}tiqui ruraspaiqui condenacunquipagme? Pagaránaiquipa diligienciata ruranquicho. 8° Mandamiento Runa maciquita levantarhonquicho falsso testimoniuta? Murmurarhonquicho hucupata? Juzgarhonquicho mayhantapis? Llullacarhaiquicho? Pata hilla camgui? Vnamaciquipa honrranta mastarhonquicho? Cotichinqui onrranta desdicecuspayqui almaiquipa salbacionnimpa = Soverviachu cangui? Ynuidiachu camgui? [Exhortación]

Huchaqui cancho yapay confessacunaiquipa? Ricarpactn [Ricarpacta?] huchaiquita pecanqui mana servissumquicho, confessionniqui? [sentence does finish with a question mark] Cai huchaíquipíta emiendaconquicho cananga? Cananga alli christianacho canquipa huchaiquipita emiendacongiucho {emiendacongicho}.

Entre hombres, o mugeres hablaste palabras desonestas? tienes mas pecados? Has hurtado en casa, ó en chacra, ó de otra manera llevaste alguna cossa a tus proximos? Ayudaste a rrobar? has echo daño en la hacienda ajena? es precisso que restituras todo esso que tienes hurtado, que si no te condenas. hazes diligencias en pagar algun debe[r] Si ha levantado algun falso testimonio a su proximo? Si ha murmurado? Si ha juzgado á otros? Si mentio. Si es aragan. Si quitaste el credito, i honra a tu proximo? [f. 21v] Pues es preciso restituirsela desdeciendote, si te quieres salbar = [no translation] [no translation] [begins with the question in Spanish] P. Tienes mas pecados, que confesar? mira, que si dexas algun pecado por confesar esta confesion no te sirve para salvarte. te has de emendar de aqui adelante de todos tus pecados? has de ver buena christiandad mira; que si pecas mas te ha de llevar el demonio al infierno.

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

201

(cont.) No. 92

P.

93

P.

94

P.

95 96

97

P.

Quechua

Spanish

Diosta palabraiquitahonquícho mana yapay ofendenaiquipa? Capassumquicho58 pecados confessánarquipa?

[f. 22r] Dime te acusas de todos los pecados con que has ofendido á Dios? [No translation] Si responde mana capamacho? [has a question mark] no ay cosas dice. Si responde capananrraros [?]; dice qu[e] ay mas. para quales son? se le dice, que si se acuerda de algunos pecados mas, mañana se reoncialará, i los confesara? [question mark, possibly crossed out]

Maiáhanta? Yarpasspaiquieha huara reconcilianquipa =

Para quando no ay matería Ynmacussas chusco ultimum pecadosniquita contrarhaiquicho mandamendosniquita a la lei de Diosta cay materiata confesionniquita = [f. 22v] Chaipis canta Diosnichita ofendenaiquipa pensarhaiquicho palabra obrata.

Dime te acusas de los 4 ultimos pecado[s] cometidos contra el sesto mandamiento de la lei de Dios, para materia de esta confesion— tanbien te acusas de todo quanto ayas ofendido a Dios por pensamiento palabra, i obra.

Appendix 2: Transcription, Analysis and Translation of the “Confesonario de amages” Notes on the Transcription and Translation The lines: – Amage ms. text bold and italics – Spanish ms. translation italics – [‘AAB’s English translation from Spanish’] in inverted commas and in brackets – Analytical transcription bold – Glosses see ‘Gloss abbreviations’ below – ‘AAB’s translation of the Amage text’ in inverted commas

58

Ka-pa- can mean that something exists for someone (cf. Hintz 2011: 177), i.e. that s/he has it; *kapasunkichu?, ‘do they belong to you; do they exist for you?’. The answers could be: *mana kapamanchu, ‘they don’t exist [for me], i.e. I don’t have any [sins]’; *kapamanraq, ‘they still exist for me’; using the transitional suffixes -su-nki (3–2) and -ma-n (3–1).

202

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

Gloss abbreviations: ABL ADJ ANT CAUS COM CONT COR DISTR DUB DUR EMPH FUT GEN INCH INCL INT INTN ITER LOC NEG O p PRF POSS PST.PART Q REF REG REST s S TERM VOC

ablative adjectiviser anticipation causative comitative continuative coordinator distributive dubitative durative emphasis future genitive inchoative inclusive interrogative intentional modality iterative locative negation object plural perfective possessive past particle question marker referential case marker regressive restrictive singular subject terminative vocative

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

Confesonario de amages (1) Introducion. [‘Introduction’] (2) P. Pie confesá ayañena papi? Dime confesaste el Año pasado? [‘Tell me, did you confess last year?’] pi-e-confesá-ø ay-añe-na papi 2sS-CAUS-confess-PRF that.time-this.one-INCL father [‘Did you confess last year, father?’] (3) Si dice [‘If he says’]: au Pachere ‘Si P[adr]e’ [‘Yes father’], si [‘if’] ama Pachere ‘no P[adr]e’ [‘No father.’] (4) P. Pierá huaniche mantepi Pacher? Dime P[adr]e rezaste lo que te mando el P[adr]e? [‘Tell me father, did you pray what the Father ordered you’?] ø-mante-pi Pacher? pi-e-ráhuani-che-ø you-CAUS-pray-DUB-PRF 3sS-order-2sO Father [‘Did you pray what the Father ordered you?’] (5) Miminina ‘Que si’ [‘yes’] mimin-in-na obey-1sS-EMPH [‘I obey!’]

203

204

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

(6) Ad. Arincha piamichahue, ponpanpuin piuchin alcha pieta confesion. Mira la Confesion nos libra del Ynfierno en donde se padecen muchos tormentos, i trabaxos, i nos lleva al cielo. [‘Look, confession liberates us from hell, where there are many torments and hardships, and it takes us to heaven.’] arin-cha pi-a-micha-hue ponpanpuin pi-uchin alcha not-VOC 2sS-CAUS-be.afraid-NEG honestly 2sS-sin over.there pi-e-ta confesion 2sS-CAUS-do confession [‘Do not be afraid, confess honestly your sins over there.’] (7) Ad. Piana panacha echanachop taypi. Veme p[adre] respondiendo a lo que te preguntare. [‘Look at me father, answering what I will ask you.’] echa na-ch o-ptay-pi pi-a-nap-an-acha 2sA-CAUS-answer-1sO-EMPH thing I-FUT CAUS-ask-2sO [‘Answer me whatever I shall ask you.’] (8) Prim[er] Mandam[iento] [‘First Commandment’] (9) P. Ahuá piminia pichupuñé uchénéissá? Has creido en sueños, i Paxaros? [‘Have you believed in dreams and birds?’] ahuá pi-minia-ø pi-chupuñe uché-n-éissá INT 2sS-believe-PRF 2sPOSS-dream bird-this-kind.of [‘Did you believe [in] your dreams [and in] this kind of birds?’] (10) [23v] Advertencía [‘Warning’] Cheiñapá ariápichá anteses, atache chietássá uñimaipi, illiños neissá, achisnugu[u] No hagas mas esso, que te llevará el diablo al infierno. [‘Do not do that any more, or the devil will take you to hell.’]

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

205

che-iñ-apá arrápich-á anteses atach-e ø-chietássá do-DUR-2sS but.not-VOC these.things so.that-NEG 3sS-seize ø-u-ñimai-pi illiños-neissá achisnugu-[u] 3sS-CAUS-take-2sO devil-this.kind.of hell-LOC [‘But do not do these things, so that the devils do not seize and take you to hell.’] (11) P. Essonachehua? Quantas vezes? [‘How many times?’] esson-ache-hua ‘how.many-DISTR-Q’ [‘How many [times]?’] (12) R. Yllátonache muchas vezes [‘many times’] ylláton-ache [‘many-DISTR’] Passuche una vez [‘once’] eupuche ‘2’ mapache ‘3’ patachus ‘4’ amunaruche ‘5’ pichapache ‘6’ cansuche ‘7’ puchache ‘8’ escuneche ‘9’ chasache ‘10’ chasapaches picha ‘11’ chasaipa picha ‘12’. [The ending -(V )che/ chu(V) is a distributive, AAB.] (13) P. Paltáhuañá Doctrina? Si faltaste a la doctrina? [‘If you missed the doctrine.’]

206

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

palta-ø- hua-ña doctrina miss-PRF-Q-EMPH doctrine [‘Did you miss the doctrine?’] (14) Nepaltá Pachere, dice q[ue] no faltó. [‘S/he says that s/he did not miss [it].’] ne-palta-ø Pachere NEG-neglect-PRF Father [‘I did not miss [it], Father.’] (15) [24r] 2°. Mandam[iento] [‘2nd Commandment’] (16) P. Pié Cruzsahuá piétoumañó? Juraste con mentira? [‘Did you swear using lies?’] pi-e-cruzsa-ø-hua pi-é-touma-ñ-o 2sS-CAUS-swear-PRF-Q 2sS-CAUS-lie-DUR-COM [‘Did you swear with lies?’] (17) P. Ahuá piéchó tanete? Has echado maldeciones? [‘Have you cursed [someone]?’] ahuá pi-é-chótanete-ø INT 2sS-CAUS-speak.ill-PRF [‘Did you speak ill [of someone]?’] (18) P. Pié tohuá piétomain? Dixiste mentiras? [‘Did you tell lies?’] pi-é-to-ø-hua pi-e-toma-in you-CAUS-do-PRF-Q 2sS-CAUS-lie-DUR [‘Did you do tell lies?’]

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

207

(19) 3[er] Mandam[iento] [‘3rd Commandment’] (20) P. Pié paltahuá passuche Dominquó Misse píunté? Dexaste de oyr Míssa algun Domingo? [‘Did you neglect Mass on a Sunday’?] pi-é-palta-ø-hua passu-che dominq-uó misse 2sS-CAUS-miss-PRF-Q one-DISTR Sunday-LOC Mass pí-unt-é? 2sS-be.disheartened-ADJ [‘Did you disheartenedly miss a Mass on Sunday?’] (21) P. Piatá huañá misu[u] orinpiámuñoté, vñerere chipiahuá sespareché, piahua? Has estado á mira sin atencion, mirando, i parlando? [‘Have you been looking around without paying attention, [just] looking and talking?’] pi-a-ta-ø-hua-ña missu-u orin pi-a-muño-te 2sS-CAUS-do-PRF-Q-EMPH Mass-LOC not 2sS-CAUS-hear-NEG uñer-erechi pi-ahua sespa-reche pi-ahua look-PST.PART you-INT talk-PST.PART you-INT [‘Did you not hear the Mass, you, looking [and], you, talking?’] (22) P. Pié tarahuazá huaná Domínquó? Trabaxaste los Domingos? [‘Did you work on Sundays?’] dominq-uo pi-e-tarahuaza-ø-hua-ña 2sS-CAUS-work-PRF-Q-EMPH Sunday-LOC [‘Did you work on Sunday?’] (23) P. Pie paltahuá ayunaché Quaresmo, vigilió? Faltaste al ayuno los Víernes de Quaresma, y vigilias pudiendo? [‘Did you neglect to fast on the Fridays of Lent and on vigils, although you could [have done so]?’]

208

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

pi-e-palta-ø-hua ayuna-che quaresm-o vigili-o 2sS-CAUS-neglect-PRF-Q fast-DUB day.of.fasting-LOC vigil-LOC [‘Did you neglect to fast on days of fasting and on vigil?’] (24) [24v] P. Piessé huañá viernes ssó, quaresmo Aíché? Has comido de carne los Viern[es] y Quaresma? [‘Have you eaten meat on Fridays and in Lent?’] pi-essé-ø-hua-ña viernes-sso quaresma aiché 2sS-eat-PRF-Q-EMPH Friday-COR day.of.fasting meat [‘Did you eat meat on Fridays and days of fasting?’] (25) 4°. Mandam[iento] [‘4th Commandment’] (26) P. Ahuá piquilláchá nich mantepe papar piachor? Hazes de mala gana lo que te mandan tus Padres? [‘Do you reluctantly do what your parents order?’] ahuá pi-quilláchá nich mante-pe p-apa-r INT 2sS-do.reluctantly they order-2sO 2sPOSS-father-GEN pi-ach-or 2sPOSS-mother-GEN [‘Do you reluctantly do [what] your father and your mother order you?’] (27) P. Piánephuá papar apochen? Respondes a tus P[adres] palabras que sienten mucho? [‘Do you give your parents answers that hurt much?’] p-apa-r apochen pi-á-nep-huá 2sS-CAUS-answer-Q 2sPOSS-father-GEN badly [‘Do you answer your fathers in a bad manner?’] (28) P. Llecaqué chachahuá pipie pipapar? Das pesares a tus P[adres]? [‘Do you cause your parents troubles?’] llecaqué-cha cha-huá pi pie pi-papa-r cause.trouble-3pO is.it.true-Q you much 2sPOSS-father-GEN [‘Is it true that you caused your fathers many troubles?’]

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

(29) P. Pichés tahuañép Pereullar? Has renido mucho con tu marido? [‘Have you often argued with your husband?’] pi-chésta-ø-hua ñep pe-reulla-r 2sS-quarrel-PRF-Q together.with 2sPOSS-husband-GEN [‘Did you quarrel with your husband?’] (30) 5°. Mandam[iento] [‘5th Commandment’] (31) P. Ahua piepiétá? Has peleado? [‘Have you quarreled?’] ahua pi-e-pieta-ø INT 2sS-CAUS-fight-PRF [‘Have you fought?’] (32) P. Pié mune huañá muchahueta allúsiñá piáchanetá? Has querido matar alguno, i darle [de] Palos? [‘Have you wanted to kill someone and beat him?’] pi-é-mune-ø-hua-ña mucha-huet-a allúsiña 2sS-CAUS-want-PRF-Q-EMPH kill-3pO-EMPH with.them pi-á-chan-et-á 2sS-CAUS-fight-3pO-EMPH [‘Did you want to kill people and fight with them?’] (33) [25r] P. Piñóssó suiñahuá possomuñé essachon? Deseaste la muerte [a] alguno? [‘Did you want someone to be dead?’] pi-ñóssósuiña-ø-huá p-o-ssomuñe essachon 2sS-CAUS-die someone 2sS-want-PRF-Q [‘Did you want someone to die?’] (34) P. Piñusuissahua, pissúmuiñé? Deseaste morir, tu? [‘Did you want to die?’]

209

210

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

pi-ñusuissa-ø-hua pi-ssúmuñé 2sS-want-PRF-Q 2sS-die [‘Did you want to die?’] (35) P. Pieza mieniahuá, piahachá? Estas mal con alg[una] persona, i no tratas con ella? [‘Are you angry with someone, and do you not have contact with him/ her?’] pi-e-zamienia-huá pi ahachá 2sS-CAUS-be.angry-Q you since.a.long.time [‘Are you angry with someone, you, for a very long time?’] (36) P. Pié sulli miminchihuá? Has deseado vengarte de alg[uno]? [‘Have you wanted to revenge yourself on someone?’] pi-é-sullimimin-ø-chi-huá 2sS-CAUS-revenge(?)-PRF-3sO-Q [‘Did you want to revenge someone?’] (37) P. Pié muché huañá Preullar? Has deseado matar a tu marido? [‘Have you wanted to kill your husband?’] p-reulla-r pi-é-muché-ø-hua-ña 2sS-CAUS-kill-PRF-Q-EMPH 2sPOSS-husband-GEN [‘Did you want to kill your husband?’] (38) P. Piú chí huañá Pereullar apochen? Has tratado mal a tu marido? [‘Have you treated your husband badly?’] pí-ú-chi-ø-hua-ñá pe-reulla-r apochen 2sS-CAUS-be.fed.up.with-PRF-Q-EMPH 2sPOSS-husband-GEN badly [‘Were you badly fed up with your husband?’] (39) P. Pían tu huañá apuchena alláchaiená pichiura nueñé? Has echo cosas malas delante de tus hixos, i de otros? [‘Have you done bad things in front of your children and others?’]

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

211

pí-a-ntu-ø-hua-ñá apuchena alláchaíená pi-chiura 2sS-CAUS-behave-PRF-Q-EMPH badly other.persons 2sPOSS-child nueñé in.presence.of [‘Did you behave badly in the presence of others and your children?’] (40) P. Ahuá pié posnateñot? Te has emborrachado? [‘Have you got drunk?’] ahuá pi-é-posnateñot INT 2sS-CAUS-be.drunken [‘Were you drunk?’] (41) [25v] P. Pié sehuá erseses achenatata puhua? Has comido mucho que te aya echo mal? [‘Have you eaten much that has disagreed with you?’] erseses ø-a-chenatata-pu-hua pi-é-se-ø-huá 2sS-CAUS-eat-PRF-Q much.food 3sS-CAUS-disagree.with-2sO-Q [‘Did you eat much food that has disagreed with you?’] (42) Advertencía p[ara] los enamistad[os] [‘Warning for enemies’] Cheipá piena muericha perdon piá miequetessáchá, néparin, chapa mache, quehueno pie confesio[n], chotassá vñumepi, illínoch neissá. Pidele perdon, i haste amigo con el, porque si no no ay confesion buena, y te llevará el diablo. [‘Ask him for forgiveness, and become friends with him, because if not the confession is not good, and the devil will take you.’] chei-pá pi-e-namueri-cha perdon do-2sS 2sS-CAUS-ask(?)-3sO forgiveness pi-á-miequette-ssa-chá néparin chap- mache quehueno 2sS-CAUS-be.friend.with(?)-FUT-3sO if.not morning-this good pie confesion chota-ssá-ø vñume-pi, illínoch-neissá your confession take-FUT-3sS head-2sPOSS devil-kind.of [‘Do forgive him, be friends with him, if your confession is not good this morning, the devil will take your head’.]

212

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

(43) 6°. Mandam[iento] [‘6th Commandment’] (44) P. Píu chiñá tuhuá nepé Asseñus? Pecaste con alg[un] hombre? [‘Did you sin with a man?’] pi-u-chiñatu-ø-huá nepé asseñus? 2sS-CAUS-sin-PRF-Q together.with man [‘Have you sinned with a man?’] (45) P. Miminina? R. Que si [‘Yes.’] mimin-in-a obey-1sS-EMPH [‘I obey!’] (46) P. Essosiñahua? Con muchos? [‘With many?’] essosiña-hua who.ever-Q [‘[With] whomever?’] (47) P. Acasarañaú? Si era casado? [‘Was he married?’] acasara-ña-ú married-EMPH-COM [‘With a married one?’] (48) P. Mascenache? Si era soltero? [‘Was he single?’]

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

mascenache single [‘A single?’] (49) P. Isuhuá piumuchuhuá? S[i] era pariente? [‘Was he a relative?’] isu-huá pi-umuchu-huá what-Q 2sPOSS-relative-Q [‘What relative?’] (50) P. Piseyhuá? Si era herm[ano]? [‘Was he [your] brother?’] pi-sey-huá 2sPOSS-brother-Q [‘Your brother?’] (51) [26r] P. Piézoñá machuhuá? Deseaste a algun hombre? [‘Did you desire a man?’] machu-huá pi-é-zoñá-ø 2sS-CAUS-have-PRF man-Q [‘Did you want a man?’] (52) P. Píá patahuá Asiñus pieñúsuissá? Tocaste a ti misma con deseos de hombre? [‘Did you touch yourself with desires for a man?’] pí-á-pata-ø-huá asinus pi-e-ñúsuissá-ø 2sS-CAUS-touch-PRF-Q man 2sS-CAUS-desire-PRF [‘Did you touch [yourself], [and] desire a man?’] (53) P. Piñu[u] suisausahuá ñepen sachen asiñus usiñatoch? Des[e]aste pecar con alg[u]n hombre? [‘Did you want to sin with a man?’]

213

214

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

pi-ñuusuisausa-ø-huá ñepen s-achen Asinñus 2sS-desire-PFV-Q together.with something-PL man u-siñat-och CAUS-sin-INTN/FUT [‘Did you want to sin with some men?’] (54) P. Ahua pieztá? As fornicado? [‘Have you fornicated?’] ahua pi-e-ztá-ø INT 2sS-CAUS-do-3sO [‘Did you do it?’] (55) P. Ahuá pianchiñá achahueta allusiñá pia chanetá? Has echo señales a alg[un] hombre p[ara] pecar con el? [‘Have you indicated a man to sin with him?’] ahuá pi-anchiñá-acha-ø-hueta allusiña INT 2sS-sign-audaciously-PFV-3pO.COM and.then pi-a-chan-etá 2sS-CAUS-sin-3pO.COM [‘Have you signed them audaciously and then sinned with them?’] (56) P. Ahua píerá pahatá netta achamuchahueta, essé paseta? Has pensado de otros, que querian pecar, siendo mentira? [‘Have you thought of others who wanted to sin, which was a lie?’] ahua pí-e-rápahatan-ø-etta a-chamucha-hueta essé paseta? INT 2sS-CAUS-think(?)-PFV-3pO CAUS-blaspheme-3pO lie be [‘Have you thought of others [and] blasphemed them, which is a lie?’] (57) P. Nállihuá pí manzebar? Tienes alg[un] Amigo manzebo? [‘Do you have a bachelor friend?’] ñalli-huá pi manzebar be.there-Q you bachelor [‘Is there a bachelor [friend] [for you]?’]

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

(58) R. Ñalli, dice que tiene [‘s/he says that he does.’] ø-ñalli 3sS-be.there [‘It is there.’] ama ñalle, dice que no tiene [‘s/he says that he does not.’] ama ø-ñalli no 3sS-be.there [‘No, it is not there.’] (59) [26v] 7. Mandam[iento] [‘7th Commandment’] (60) P. Pié tuhuá pucullarcho? Hurtaste en alguna casa? [‘Did you steal in a house?’] pi-é-tu-ø-huá pucull-ar-cho 2sS-CAUS-steal-PFV-Q house-GEN-LOC [‘Did you steal in someone’s house?’] (61) P. Pié tuhua chiécherecho? Hurtaste en chacra? [‘Did you steal in a field?’] chiéchere -cho pi-é -tu-ø-hua 2sS-CAUS-steal-PFV-Q field- LOC [‘Did you steal in a field?’] (62) P. Piaña sochahuá traginer puman? Has negado lo que debes a los tragineros? [‘Have you withheld what you owe the haulers?’]

215

216

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

pi-a-ñasocha-ø-hua traginer pu-man 2sS-CAUS-withhold-PFV-Q carrier 2sPOSS-coca [‘Did you withhold [it from] the carriers [of] your coca?’] (63) P. Amahuá pia tarahuá tarahuazena? No trabajas como debes? [‘Do you not work as you should?’] ama-hua pi-a-tarahua tarahuaz-ena not-Q 2sS-CAUS-work work-ITER/DUR [‘Do you not work steadily?’] (64) P. Llaquillepe? Eres Aragan? [‘Are you in low spirits?’] llaquille-pe be.sad-2sS [‘Are you sad?’] (65) 8. Mandam[iento] [‘Commandment’] (66) P. Ahua piéchaneche achin chenatoche? Has levantado falso testimonio alg[uno]? [‘Have you given any false evidence?’] ahua pi-é-chaneche-ø achin chenatoche INT 2sS-CAUS-give?-PFV false evidence? [‘Have you given false evidence?’] (67) Si dice [‘If s/he says’] ‘au’, se le avisa como queda dicho, o, si no, con estas palabras [‘s/he is warned as said, or if [s/he says] ‘no’, with these words’]: Piá pueri chañá, piutépe essé. Pues vuelvele la honra, diciendo [que] dixiste ment[ira]. [‘Well, return him/her the honour, saying that you told lies.’]

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

217

pi-ápu-eri chaña pi-uté pe-essé 2sS-gain-REG honour 2sS-tell 2sPOSS-lie [‘You regain honour [when] you tell your lies’.] (68) P. Piutem illallé minche piuchin inchep confessá? Dime, tiene mas pecados q[ue] confesar? [‘Tell me, do you have other sins to confess?’] pi-u-te-m illallé-mín-che 2sS-CAUS-tell-1sO something.else-CONT-DUB confessá pi-u-chin-in-chep 2sPOSS-CAUS-sin-DUR-REF confess [‘Tell me, is there still something else to confess concerning your sins?’] (69) R. Nalle, dice q[ue] ay mas [‘s/he says that there is more’], ama ñalle, dice q[ue] no [está] [‘s/he says that there is nothing else.’] (70) [27r] P. Piutem lláché piuchutena, ponpanpuin, piucherero chuhusei D[ios]? Dime, te pesa de todo corazon de aver ofendido a D[ios]? [‘Tell me, do you honestly regret to have offended God?’] pi-u-te-m lláché pi-u-chute-na ponpanpuin 2sS-CAUS-tell-1sO sadness 2sS-CAUS-suffer-EMPH honestly pi-u-cher-ø-ero chuhusei D[ios] 2sS-CAUS-insultar-PFV-3sO soul God [‘Tell me, do you honestly suffer from sadness [that] you insulted the soul of God?’] (71) P. Piutem natote piamuninche atin entoc anche piámunin, atin Achisnuhu[u]? Dime, quieres ir al Cielo, o al Ynfierno? [‘Tell me, do you want to go to heaven or to hell?’]

218

dedenbach-salazar sáenz and alexander-bakkerus

pi-u-te-m nato-te pi-a-munin-che atin ent-oc 2sS-CAUS-tell-1sO maybe-DUB 2sS-CAUS-want-FUT go.up heaven-LOC anche pi-á-munin atin achisnuhu-u this.maybe 2sS-CAUS-want go.up hell-LOC [‘Tell me, maybe you will want to climb into heaven, maybe you want this: to climb into hell.’] (72) Entoc pañéllé ponpanpuin hinmañé: Achisnuhu[u] muerustacha zo[o], vineicóp. Mira, en el Cielo, ay muchos gustos, pero en el Ynfierno ay muchos tormentos. [‘Look, in heaven there are many pleasures, but in hell there are many torments.’] p-añéllé ponpanpuin hinmañé: achisnunu-u ent-o be.happy hell-LOC heaven-LOC 2sS-completely? honestly ø-muerusta-cha zó-o vineic-op 3sS-suffer-badly fire-LOC eternally-REF [‘In heaven you are honestly completely happy, in hell one badly suffers eternally in the fire.’] (73) P. Piutem, píacusarenach, p[i] confesach ponpanpuin piuchiñá neissa ñatota pseumuchDios? Dime, te acusas, i confiessas de todos los pecados que has cometido contra Dios? [‘Tell me, do you accuse yourself and confess all the sins you have committed against God?’] pi-u-te-m pí-acusaren-ach p[i]-confesa-ch ponpanpuin 2sS- CAUS-tell-1sO 2sS-acuse-FUT 2sS-confess-FUT honestly pi-uchiñá-neissa ñato-ta p-seum-uch Dios 2sPOSS-sin-kind.of maybe-Q 2sPOSS-husband-REST God [‘Tell me, do accuse [yourself] and confess honestly your sins [to] God, your only husband maybe.’] (74) P. Piutem, piá puiñá huaña Dios Nuestro Señor, pie huñehuaché, pié viedá eluche añerpuche, pie chinátesses? Dime, das palabra à Dios N[uestro] S[eñor] de emendar tu vida de aqui adelante, y de no cometer mas pecados? [‘Tell me, will you promise God Our Lord to mend your ways from now on and not to commit more sins?’]

chinchaysuyu quechua and amage confession manuals

219

pi-u-te-m pi-ápuiñá-hua-ña Dios Nuestro Señor 2sS-CAUS-tell-1sO 2sS-promise-Q-EMPH God Our Lord pi-e-huñe-hua-ché pi-é viedá eluche añerpuche 2sS-CAUS-end-TERM-FUT you-VOC59 life there this.time-COR pi-e-chiná-t-esses 2sS-CAUS-sin-Q-NEG [‘Tell me, do you promise God Our Lord that you will end your life there and that [from] this time [on] you will not sin?’] (75) [27v] Para poner mat[eria] q[uando] no la ay [‘To have material when there is nothing else’] Piú tuhuá ponpanpuin, piuchere pé confessaten, ponpanpuin, uchiña neissá nechuta. jussessumche, chupiezta lleissé patachinta llesses allipuenena Di conmigo, de todo corazon, acusome de todos los pecados que come[ti] contra Dios fornicando, y mui en particular, de los 4 ultimos mas graves. [‘Say with me, wholeheartedly: “I accuse myself of all the sins I committed against God, fornicating, and in particular of the last four most serious ones”’.] ponpanpuin pi-uch-ere p-é-confessat-en pi-ú-tu-huá 2sPOSS-sin-PL 2sS-CAUS-confess-1sO 2sS-CAUS-tell-Q honestly ponpanpuin vchiña-neissá n-echuta-ø ju-ssess-um-che honestly sexual.sin-kind.of 1sS-do-PFV devil-thing-ABL-DUB chupiezta ll-eissé pata chinta llesses allipuenena in.particular(?) 1pPOSS-kind.of four last ones(?) of.this.size [‘Tell honestly your sins, confess honestly to me: “I committed sexual sins, devilish things maybe, in particular our kind of the four last ones of this size.”’] 59

A deferential vocative.

chapter 7

Prosodia da Língua, an Unpublished Anonymous Eighteenth-Century Dictionary of Língua Geral Amazônica Wolf Dietrich

1

The Historical Basis

In colonial Spanish America, “Lengua General” was a term for widespread indigenous languages used by missionaries to teach Indians of different mother tongues. Important examples were “Lengua General de México” (Nahuatl) or “Lengua General del Reino del Perú” (Quechua). In Colonial Brazil, “Língua Geral” was spoken by the descendants of Portuguese settlers and their indigenous wives. It has its origin in the Tupi or Tupinikin language of the São Paulo region in the sixteenth century and of the Tupinambá language of Maranhão in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, extended later on to the whole Amazon basin occupied by the Portuguese. Spoken as a mother tongue by the uneducated Brazilians of the aforementioned times and regions and as a vehicular language by the surrounding Indians with other mother tongues, the language changed through the influence of the non-Indians, though its main features were maintained. According to Rodrigues (1996), Língua Geral did not come into existence in the centers of Portuguese administration and settling, i.e. between Salvador da Bahía and Rio de Janeiro. It only developed in the North (Maranhão and Amazonia) and the South (highlands of the São Paulo region), where it was more frequently spoken than Portuguese. Língua Geral Paulista only flourished in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, whereas Língua Geral Amazônica was used even in cities like Belém and Manaus. There it was the first language until the middle of the nineteenth century, but the language was replaced by Portuguese as late as 1877, when Brazilian politics favored the settlement in Amazonia of half a million people from the Brazilian Northeast (see also Dietrich 2014). Today, Nhe’engatu—which is derived from the ancient Língua Geral Amazônica—is still spoken by caboclos (Nhe’engatu-speaking mestizos) and Indians in the Upper Rio Negro region.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004427006_008

prosodia da língua

2

221

Documentation of Língua Geral Amazônica

Língua Geral Amazônica has been documented in ten mostly anonymous dictionaries, nine of them dating from the eighteenth century. Only a few of them have been published. As it seems, most of them were written by missionaries, because Língua Geral, obviously understood by all Indians of the great rivers of the Amazonian basin, was spoken by Portuguese settlers and also used by Jesuit, Carmelite and Capuchin missionaries. A Jesuit Língua Geral dictionary recently discovered in the Public Library of Trier (Germany) was published by a group of specialists, Ruth Monserrat, Candida Barros, Jean-Claude Muller and Wolf Dietrich ([Dicionário de Língua Geral Amazônica], 2019). This publication is accompanied by a comparative study of two other hitherto rather unknown and unpublished Língua Geral dictionaries, the Prosodia da Língua, to be discussed in this article, and Anselm Eckart’s Vocabulario da língua Brazil. See also Dietrich (2019). 2.1 Prosodia da Língua The Prosodia da Língua was written by an unknown author with good knowledge of the Língua Geral of that time and region. The only manuscript is from Lisbon, of unknown date. We call it “Prosodia da Língua” because the preface of the untitled dictionary (p. 1) begins with these words: “Me declaro, que nesta peq.a Prosodia da Lingoa, entendo pór as palavras conforme as fallão os Indios ordinariamte … e não conforme a arte, q. anda impressa, ou segundo o catecismo …” (cf. Figure 7.1), ‘I declare that in this small Introduction to the Language I will put the words according to how they generally are spoken by the Indians … and not according to the printed grammar or the catechism …’. It seems that the word Prosodia was used, at least in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century missionary linguistics, as a term equivalent with “Arte”. In Covarrubias, Tesoro de la lengua castellana, 1611, I found that for him “prosodia” is not only ‘accent, stress’, but also the art of putting it correctly, which means the art of speaking well. Prosodia therefore is used as an introduction to the correct use of a language. The Portuguese-Língua Geral dictionary (85 pages of four columns) ends with four narrative poems in Língua Geral (10 pages of four columns) and several religious poems in Língua Geral (10 pages of four columns).

222

dietrich

figure 7.1 Page 1 of the manuscript, the introduction, where it is called “Prosodia” courtesy of Academia das Ciências, Lisbon

prosodia da língua

223

2.2 Further Documentation Listing the most important other documents, mostly dictionaries, but also one catechism, we have: – Vocabulario na Língua Brasílica. Probably 1621 or 1622. Anonymous Portuguese-LG dictionary, published twice (1938, 1952–1953); about 9300 entries; – Bettendorff, João Felipe. 1687. Compêndio de Doutrina Christiana na lingoa portugueza e brasilica. Lisboa: Miguel Deslandes; – Arronches, Frei João de. 1739. O Caderno da Língua ou Vocabulario PortuguezTupi, published by Plínio Ayrosa, Revista do Museu Paulista (1935); about 3880 entries; – [Eckart, Anselm]. s.d. Vocabulario da lingua Brazil. Anonymous PortugueseLG dictionary, unpublished; about 5800 entries. Cod. 3143, Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa; – [Meisterburg, Anton]. s.d. (about 1756). Anonymous Portuguese-LG and LGPortuguese dictionary. Ms. no. 1136, Public Library of Trier. About 6100 + 2500 entries. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 2019; – Dicionario Portuguez-Brasiliano e Brasiliano-Portuguez. 1751/1795. Probably compiled by a certain Frei Onofre, first part published by Frei Velloso, Lisbon 1795; both parts published by Plínio Ayrosa in 1934; about 4800 entries; – Vocabulario. 1951. Ms. no. 223 of the British Library. Anonymous PortugueseLG dictionary. The undated manuscript was published by Plínio Ayrosa. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, Boletim 135. In the inner cover we find the year 1751 and the remark “Fazenda Gelboé”, meaning that in that year the manuscript was in the possession of the farm of the Tocantins River. The language of the ms. is that of the middle of the 18th century; – Diccionario da Lingua Geral do Brazil. 1750. Anonymous Portuguese-LG dictionary. Ms. 69 of the Biblioteca da Universidade de Coimbra. No other information; – Diccionario da Lingua Brazilica. s.d. Ms. 94 of the Biblioteca Geral da Universidade de Coimbra. Anonymous LG-Portuguese dictionary (the only one, besides Meisterburg). No other information; – Diccionario da lingua geral do Brasil que se falla em todas as villas, lugares e aldeas deste vastissimo Estado. Belém 1771. Ms. 81 of the Biblioteca Geral da Universidade de Coimbra. Published by Candida Barros and Antônio Lessa, Belém: UFPA, 2006.

224 3

dietrich

The Context of the Prosodia da Lingua

Six of the ten existing LG dictionaries are anonymous and still unpublished. The richest one is the manuscript found by chance in 2012 in the Public Library of Trier (Germany), where it has been since 1791. Since then, the aforementioned group has been working on it. Our group came to the conclusions that the Vocabulario na Língua Brasilica, the earliest LG dictionary was obviously one of the sources of all the later ones. We also identified the names of the hitherto anonymous authors of the Vocabulario da língua Brazil and the Trier dictionary, comparing the handwritings and autographs. According to our research, the author of the first was Anselm Eckart, whereas Anton Meisterburg was the author of the second. In this article I will focus on the Prosodia. Both manuscripts, Trier and the Vocabulario da lingua Brazil, show a certain amount of older German expressions in the comments and explanations, which generally are written in Latin. Besides this, the Portuguese of these three dictionaries and of Prosodia is partially defective, and the quality of the Língua Geral vocabulary and examples sometimes imperfect, especially when they give new examples, beyond the ones which are included in the Vocabulario na Língua Brasílica of 1622. Prosodia gives fewer examples than Eckart and Meisterburg’s dictionaries and therefore has fewer mistakes. All this, the Latin, German, and the imperfect knowledge of Portuguese and the LG, show that the authors must have been Germans or German-speaking missionaries. Add to this that one of the manuscripts was found in Trier. The fact that the manuscript is found in Trier is not a coincidence, since Jesuits of the archdiocese of this city and Mainz had missions, in the first half of the eighteenth century, in Amazonia, on the banks of the lower Xingú and Madeira Rivers. Among the missionaries who were sent there between 1740 and 1750 were Anton Meisterburg and Laurenz Kaulen (sent in 1750) as well as Anselm Eckart (sent in 1752). After we had identified the handwriting of the Vocabulario da lingua Brazil and that of a published autograph letter of Anselm Eckart (see Papavero/Porro 2013), Jean-Claude Muller succeeded in doing the same in the Vatican Library. In 2015, he identified the handwriting of the untitled Trier dictionary, with the autograph of the Final Vow written and signed by Anton Meisterburg, and came to the conclusion that the handwriting of these two texts was identical. The analysis of the dictionaries by Meisterburg and Eckart shows many parallels. In one case we find Eckart’s handwriting in Meisterburg’s dictionary, but in most cases, Eckart seems to have copied new examples from Meisterburg. We know that both were at the same missions of the Madeira and the Xingú Rivers between 1752 and 1756, not always at the same time, but by turns. When

prosodia da língua table 7.1

225

The German missionaries who worked in Amazonia between 1750 and 1756

Archbishopric of Trier and Mainz (Mayence): Jesuitic missions and missionaries in Amazonia in the eighteenth century Piraguiri (lower Xingú River) Abacaxis (lower Madeira River) Anselm Eckart (*1721 Mainz, †1809 Dünaburg/East Prussia, today Daugavpils/ Latvia) Anton Meisterburg (*1719 Bernkastel, †1791 Bernkastel [Trier region]) Lorenz Kaulen (*1716 Köln/Cologne, †1780 Lisbon) Upper German Province of Jesuits (Austria): Rochus Hundertpfundt/Hundertpfund (*1709 Bregenz, † 1777 Bregenz)

the order of the Jesuits was prohibited in 1756, the missionaries were arrested, brought to Lisbon and imprisoned there for 20 years. It is completely unclear how the manuscripts were saved. Meisterburg’s document is in good shape until today.

4

The Prosodia da Língua and Its Author

4.1 The Document Itself After we had established the authorship and the relationship between Meisterburg and Eckart’s works, we started to compare the entries with the hitherto anonymous Prosodia. We came to the conclusion that both Meisterburg and Eckart probably used the Prosodia as one of their sources, since all the entries of the Prosodia are included in the dictionaries of these two authors. Meisterburg’s characteristic is the combination of past and present. He, first of all, gives the traditional equivalent, generally taken from the Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica (VLB), which includes lemmas taken from the variety of the Língua Geral as it was spoken 130 years earlier. Then he adds a great amount of information about the language of his time and region. It generally gives the traditional equivalent of a Portuguese word or expression as it is given in the VLB and in the catechism, which is always that of Johann Philipp Bettendorff (1625–1698), who also studied in Trier. The lemmas of the three works, the Prosodia, Meisterburg and Eckart’s dictionaries, are written in the same style as the VLB. Expressions and Portuguese equivalents are taken from the VLB or from Bettendorff’s cat-

226

dietrich

echism. In the three dictionaries, the Prosodia and Meisterburg and Eckart’s dictionaries, the Latin vel (‘or’), licet (‘it is permitted’) and vulgo (‘commonly’) are used, as is usual in this period. On the other hand, Meisterburg’s dictionary contains quite a few additions not included in the Prosodia, written with different ink or character size, but by his hand. According to my view, this evidences the fact that the Prosodia must be prior to Eckart and Meisterburg. Meisterburg also notes some equivalents in other indigenous languages, Sateré-Mawé, Wayãpi and possibly Ka’apor, although the latter is difficult to prove, due to the scarcity of the data related to this language. If our assumption is true, this would mean that this would be the first documentation of this language, more than two centuries before the first preliminary descriptions given by linguists. A fourth language, called Xapi, is still unidentified. 4.2 The Possible Author: Rochus Hundertpfundt A possible author of Prosodia is the Austrian Jesuit Rochus/Roque Hundertpfundt.1 Born in 1709 at Bregenz (Lake Constance), he came to Maranhão State of Brazil in 1739, eleven years earlier than Meisterburg. He was a protégé of Queen Mary Anne of Austria, wife of King John V of Portugal and thus succeeded in bringing to Brazil all the German missionaries: Laurenz/Lourenço Kaulen, Anton/Antônio Meisterburg, Anselm Eckart, Joseph/José Kayling or Keyling, Heinrich/Henrique Hoffmayer, Martin/Martinho Schwartz, Johann Nepomuk/João Nepomuceno Szluha, and Dávid Fáy, of Hungarian origin, but brought up in Austria (see Barros and Monserrat, 2019, and Arenz and Prudente, 2019). We know that he worked as a missionary in the mission of Abacaxis, on the lower Madeira, until 1749. Some years later he would be followed by Anton Meisterburg first, then by Anselm Eckart. He himself became a spiritual leader in 1749, sent by King John in order to refresh the spirituality of the Portuguese farmers of Maranhão. Therefore, he repeatedly visited all the missions and the important secular persons of the region, a fact which would explain some of the “coplas” at the end of his dictionary, where he tells about the everyday life in the sertão backlands of Maranhão. In 1755, the bishop of Belém, Miguel de Bulhões, accused him of being a foreigner, and of having conspired with the Frenchmen of Cayenne in order to deliver the State of Grão-Pará to the French. Hundertpfundt was called back to Lisbon, where he arrived just after the horrible earthquake. King Joseph I allowed him to return to Austria, but Pombal tried to arrest him before he could leave the country. Pombal, how-

1 In his Final Vows from August 1742 he subscribed as Rochus Hundertpfundt, while in a letter from 1761 he suppressed the final -t: Rochus Hundertpfund.

prosodia da língua

227

figure 7.2 Page 4 of the dictionary courtesy of Academia das Ciências, Lisbon

ever, did not succeed, so that Hundertpfundt returned to his homeland in May 1756, while the other Jesuit missionaries still remained in Brazil until November 1757. Taking into account these circumstances, I come to the conclusion that Hundertpfundt could be the author of the Prosodia. He worked as a missionary in the same parts of Amazonia as the later German and Austrian brothers, and was even the promoter of their activities there. He had the opportunity of composing his dictionary some years earlier than Meisterburg and Eckart, in order to become a kind of a model for them. He spent more time in Amazonia than they could spend and therefore had a better knowledge of Língua Geral. And, last but not least, with his experience as a “Procurador Espiritual”, he is the only person who can reasonably have written the “coplas” we find at the end of Prosodia. There is, however, the problem of his handwriting. As can easily be seen when comparing the handwritings of Figure 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3, the person who wrote Prosodia is not Hundertpfundt, the one who wrote the Final Vow of 1742 (see Figure 7.3). So, Hundertpfundt may be the author of Prosodia, but he did not write the extant copy of Prosodia. It must have been written by some-

228

figure 7.3 The autograph of Rochus Hundertpfundt’s Final Vow, from 1742 Lus. 16-I f. 86 © Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu

dietrich

prosodia da língua

229

one else, whilst the original has been be lost. We do not know who may have been the scribe, but some of his mistakes, although they are very rare, make us suppose that he did not actually understand what he was copying. Two examples may show this: our first one is the entry “Corda qualquer” (‘string, any kind of’; folio 25 verso, 2nd column). The Língua Geral equivalent Cupaçáma is a non-existent word; the correct one would be Tupaçáma (confusion of initial capitals). An expert of the language like Hundertpfundt would not have lapsed in this way. Our second example is the entry “Camalaõ. Potí”. Potí is the Língua Geral word for camarão ‘prawn, shrimp’. The scribe probably mixed up Portuguese camaleão, ancient spelling camaliam ‘chameleon’ with camarão ‘prawn, shrimp’, producing an inexistent camalaõ, which shows that Portuguese was not his mother tongue. It is obvious that copies of grammars, dictionaries and catechisms were frequently made in all the missions because, considering the reduced number of originals and the great need for textbooks, they had to be copied to a large extent.2 We may imagine that Hundertpfundt compiled his dictionary during the period of his activity as a missionary at the Jesuit missions of Abacaxis (lower Madeira River) and Piraguiri (lower Xingú), which means until 1749. However, it is also possible that he did this at the beginning of the 1750s, when he was “Procurador Espiritual” in Maranhão, adding his rhymed secular experiences and religious emotions at the end of Prosodia. He left it to his successors at Abacaxis and Piraguiri in order to give them a model for their own dictionaries. We do not know what happened to the original after it had been copied. Meisterburg took over most of the entries, expanding, however, the information by inserting much more of the tradition given in VLB and adding what he had learnt by using the language every day. As for Eckart, he derived great benefit both from Prosodia and from Meisterburg’s additions. Yet, there is another question which is difficult to explain. Why were new entries inserted into a copy, who did so, and how can we explain the existence of the glosses obviously added at the end of a given line after the first redaction of the entry was completed? Though this does not occur frequently, we may suppose that the scribe himself added something at later moments. Or did he wish, when copying the original, to portray even the external form of the original? We cannot resolve the problem here.

2 Another example is Francisco Lacueva’s grammar of Guarayu (Tupí-Guaraní), written about 1820, the original of which is unknown. We only have a copy made by Manuel Viúdez or Viudes, made in 1841 in Bolivia. Since it is the first grammar of the language, its publication is now being prepared by Wolf Dietrich and Swintha Danielsen.

230

dietrich

4.3 Linguistic Changes in the Língua Geral Amazônica What can we say about Hundertpfundt’s language? In order to answer this question, let us first have a look at the linguistic changes which had happened in the LGA of the eighteenth century. Comparing the Língua Geral Amazônica as documented in the Vocabulario na Língua Brasílica (1622) and in Bettendorff’s catechism of 1687 with the language of the first half of the eighteenth century (Arronches, Prosodia, Meisterburg, Eckart, Frei Onofre), we find some common changes, phonological and morphosyntactical (Monserrat 2006, Schmidt-Riese 1998). First of all, marking the glottal stop, phonologically relevant even in Nhe’engatú until the end of the nineteenth century, was omitted in the whole tradition from Anchieta’s grammar to the documents of Língua Geral, even still in the nineteenth century—as it was neglected in the tradition of works on Guarani, as occurs in Antonio Ruiz de Montoya’s Tesoro (1639), until the beginnings of the twentieth century. However, it was marked rather systematically by Meisterburg and Eckart and very unsystematically by the author of Prosodia. Their solution was putting a dieresis on the vowel before the glottal stop, which generally separates two vowels: mbäé for /mbaʔe/ ‘thing’. This kind of representation gave at least the chance to mark most of the glottal stops correctly, because the occurrence of a sequence of two vowels not separated by a glottal stop is much less frequent in LGA than the sequence VɁV. Voiced bilabial fricative /β/ of Tupinambá had become /b/ in traditional Língua Geral (ai-cuab ‘I know’, ybytu ‘wind’). In the first half of the eighteenth century it had been vocalized in final position (cuao ‘know’) and had merged with the approximant /w/ otherwise: ywytu ‘wind’. The very frequent derivational suffix -ába ‘agent’, ‘active participle’ is -ába or -áua in Meisterburg and Eckart, but always -áua in Prosodia: morocotucába (M), morocutucába (E), morocutucáua (P) ‘what pierces people’, ‘dagger’; ybytú vel yvytú (M), yvytú (E), yvbytú vulgo yuytú (P) ‘wind’. Arronches (1739) has ybetu ‘wind’, showing the beginning of the weakening of the central vowel /ɨ/ which finally merged with /i/ in Nhe’engatú (nineteenth century). Another example of this is poxi ‘bad’ instead of traditional poxy. All three dictionaries I compared have already poxi. There are two morphosyntactical changes in eighteenth-century LGA. One is the simplification of what had become variants of person marking in mostly transitive verbs. The series enlarged by -i- was given up and reduced to the simple prefixes. So instead of ancient ai-cuab, rei-cuab, oi-cuab ‘I know, you know, he/she knows’ we find a-cuab, re-cuab, o-cuab. The same with ai-nupã ‘I beat/hit it’, roi-nupã ‘we (excl.) beat/hit it’: we have a-nupã, ro-nupã. This is what the author of Prosodia is explaining in his short preface, just after the introduc-

prosodia da língua

231

tory passage I cited above. He states that “jaq assim ao presente fallão os indios todos, a saber não dizem Aimonhang, Aimöete, Ainupã, Aimocatyrõ, Aicoatiar &Ca e quase todos os activos: mas dizem Amonhang, Amöete, Anupã, Acoatiar.” ‘because all the Indians now speak in this way, which means they don’t say Aimonhang, Aimöete, Ainupã, Aimocatyrõ, Aicoatiar, etc., and so nearly all the active [he means transitive verbs]; but they say Amonhang, Amöete, Anupã, Amocatyrõ, Acoatiar’. [He does not translate for his readers the verbs “to do, to respect/esteem, to hit, to adorn/decorate, to read”]. The second morphosyntactic change regards the form of verbal negation in indicative mood. Its traditional form was the discontinuous morpheme n(d) … i, for example nd-ai-cuab-i ‘I don’t know’, ne-rei-nupã-i ‘you did not hit it’. This form, which is still in use in most Tupi-Guarani languages (see Dietrich 2017), was replaced by the more analytical niti placed before the verb, probably according to the Portuguese model “negative morpheme + verb”, não sei—LGA niti a-cuab. Niti originally was an existential phrase meaning ‘there is not/there is no’ (niti y ‘there is no water’). 4.4 The Language of the Author of Prosodia Hundertpfundt’s mistakes in Portuguese are rare, but strange because they look like transmissions from Spanish. Some of them cannot be explained by any Romance language: calidade instead of qualidade ‘quality’ or crianza instead of criança ‘child’ (both p. 60), tirar devasa instead of tirar devassa ‘to litigate, bring a lawsuit’ (p. 80), me declaro que instead of declaro que ‘I declare/state that …’, and sobre de instead of sobre ‘about’ in the titles of two of the religious poems at the end of the dictionary (Sobre do Nascimento do Senhor Jesu Christo ‘about the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ’; sobre da Confissão ‘about confession’). These are further indications that his mother tongue was not Portuguese. The title and the plot of the copla O corista europeu ‘The European chorister’ indicate the European origin of Hundertpfundt, but also the opportunities he had of visiting the Archbishop’s Palace and his getting into contact with its officials and attendants. Because of his good knowledge of Língua Geral, I believe that the author must have been Hundertpfundt, who had reached Brazil several years before the arrival of Meisterburg, Eckart, Kaulen and the others. With regard to modernisms in his own texts, this means in the “coplas” at the end of his manuscript, we have a mixture of old and modern forms, but a majority of modern forms. In the copla “Narração que fez um sertanejo a um seu amigo de uma viagem pelo sertão” ‘Tale a countryman made to his friend about a trip through the Sertão (the interior dry wilderness)’ we find both oi-mondó and o-mondó ‘he sent’, but only o-cuáb ‘he knew’, just as in the

232

dietrich

table 7.2

I

The place of “Língua Geral Amazônica” among the languages of the Tupi-Guarani family

Rio de La Plata group Mbyá—Kaiowá—Paraguayan Guarani—Avá Nhandeva Xetá—Aché

II

Bolivian group Western Guarani (Chiriguano) Guarayu Guarasu/Warazu Siriono—Yuki—Jorá

IV Tocantins River—Maranhão III Brazilian coast—Amazonia Tocantins Asurini *Tupinambá —*Língua Geral Tapirapé Amazônica Parakanã—Suruí Aikewára Nhe’engatú—*Língua Geral Tembé/Guajajara—Avá-Canoeiro Paulista Anambé—Araweté Cocama—Cocamilla—Omagua V

Tocantins—Mearim Rivers Xingú Asurini Kayabí

VII Upper Xingú River Kamayurá

VI Mato Grosso—Rondônia Kagwahib subgroup (Parintintin etc.) VIII French Guiana—Pará—Maranhão Wayãpi—Emerillon—Zo’e Guajá—Urubú-Ka’apor

dictionary itself. We find the modern negation, niti cecatëým ixüi ‘he was not stingy with it’, but we also have examples of the progressive use of the old negation, this means a negation beginning with n(d), but omitting the ending -i: n-o-tĩ NEG-3-be.ashamed ‘they were not ashamed’, instead of the classical n-otĩ-ri NEG-3-ashamed-NEG. 4.5 Examples from the “coplas” The “coplas”, popular songs or poems, are an exceptional literary form within the compilation of dictionaries, showing the use of Língua Geral as a kind of secret language among Jesuits. Therefore I think that a study of the Prosodia should be illustrated at least by a short example of a secular copla. Three of the secular “coplas” have been translated and published by Navarro (2003, 2008, 2011). Navarro (2008) discusses the copla “Lida dos missionários com os sertanejos” ‘Struggle of the missionaries with the Portuguese settlers’. It is about their struggle against the slave hunters roaming around in search of Indian

233

prosodia da língua

slaves. Let me cite the initial verses (the original and my translation of Navarro’s Portuguese translation): Cetà catù tàpe aicò Cecè aimocüar aðáma Acuáb catú tapyýia recó. Acuàb abé ïangaturáma Aporomonghetà nhè nhè Iepinhè abé aporomboé. ----Caräíba, Tapyýia bé Opabenhé ïabaetè.

5

‘Very often I am in the villages, I am doing my frequentation. I know well the life of the settlers, I also know their virtues. I converse with many people, always teaching local folk’. ‘Whites and also mestizo settlers, All of them are terrible.’

Comparing Once More Prosodia, Meisterburg and Eckart

Prosodia is different from Meisterburg’s and Eckart’s dictionaries because it seems to have been written with more calmness and composure. It lacks most of the cancellations, erasures, and corrections typical especially of Meisterburg, who as it seems composed his dictionary in the later, already troublesome times about 1756, just before the arrest of the Jesuits. This is, however, a relative difference, because even the copy of Prosodia has its corrections and superscriptions, though considerably less than Meisterburg. Differently from Prosodia, Meisterburg and Eckart, both Arronches, in his Caderno da Língua (1739), Frei Onofre, in his Dicionario Portuguez-Brasiliano (1751) and the Dicionario from 1771 do not give any traditional forms. They only mention the contemporary modern forms.

6

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to highlight some hitherto understudied questions regarding Portuguese-Língua Geral dictionaries composed in the first half of the eighteenth century. In particular, I described the context of the anonymous dictionaries whose authors could be identified. Anselm Eckart was the author of the Vocabulario da língua Brazil and Anton Meisterburg compiled the so-called Trier vocabulary. In addition, we conclude that it is likely that the Jesuit Father Rochus Hundertpfundt authored the Prosodia. The publication by Meisterburg in 2019 should be followed by Hundertpfundt’s Prosodia and then by Eckart. If our assumption is right, we are able now to date the

234

dietrich

manuscript. Hundertpfundt’s Prosodia would have been completed between the 1740s and 1755, the year of his return to Lisbon. The “coplas” describing the life of the settlers of Maranhão must have been written during or after his charge as a Procurator of Maranhão (1749–1750). Therefore, the most probable period is that which precedes the arrival of Kaulen and Meisterburg in 1750, or the first years of their activities in Amazonia (1751–1752). Meisterburg and Eckart reasonably could begin writing their own dictionaries some years after their arrival, which means between 1752 and 1756.

References Arenz, Karl-Heinz and Gabriel de Cássio Pinheiro Prudente. 2019. “Os padres ‘tapuitinga’: a atuação de jesuitas alemães na Amazônia pombalina, 1750–1757.” In Wolf Dietrich, Ruth Monserrat and Jean-Claude Muller, eds., [Dicionário de Língua Geral Amazônica], Manuscrito no 1136, anônimo e sem título, da Biblioteca Municipal de Trier, Alemanha. Potsdam: Potsdam University Press, Introdução, chapter 5. Arronches, Frei João de. 1739. O Caderno da Língua ou Vocabulario Portuguez-Tupi, published by Plínio Ayrosa, Revista do Museu Paulista 21 (1935), 49–322. Barros, Candida and Ruth Maria Fonini Monserrat. 2019. “Fontes manuscritas sobre a língua geral da Amazônia escritas por jesuitas ‘tapuitinga’ (século XVIII).” In: Wolf Dietrich, Ruth Monserrat and Jean-Claude Muller, eds., [Dicionário de Língua Geral Amazônica], Manuscrito no 1136, anônimo e sem título, da Biblioteca Municipal de Trier, Alemanha. Potsdam: Potsdam University Press, Introdução, chapter 4. Bettendorf, Johann Philipp. 1687. Compéndio da Doctrina Christã na Língua Portuguesa e Brasilica. Lisboa: Miguel Deslandes. Diccionario da Lingua Geral do Brazil. 1750. Ms. 69 of the Biblioteca da Universidade de Coimbra. Anonymous Portuguese-LG dictionary. Diccionario da Lingua Brazilica. s.d. Ms. 94 of the Biblioteca Geral da Universidade de Coimbra. Anonymous LG-Portuguese dictionary. [Dicionário de Língua Geral Amazônica], 1ª parte: Português—Língua Geral, 2ª parte: Língua Geral—Português. Manuscrito no 1136, anônimo e sem título, da Biblioteca Municipal de Trier (Alemanha). Missão de Piraguiri, Baixo Xingu, antes de 1756. Edição diplomática, revisada e ampliada com introdução, comentários e anexos por Wolf Dietrich, Ruth Monserrat e Jean-Claude Muller, com a colaboração de Candida Barros e Karl-Heinz Arenz. Transliteração por Gabriel Prudente. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag, 2019. https://doi.org//10.25932/publishup‑41639. Dicionario Portuguez-Brasiliano e Brasiliano-Portuguez. 1751/1795. Probably compiled by a certain Frei Onofre, first part published by Frei Velloso, Lisbon 1795; both parts published by Plínio Ayrosa in 1934: Reimpressão integral da edição de 1795, seguida da 2.a parte inédita. Revista do Museu Paulista 18 (1934), 17–322.

prosodia da língua

235

Dietrich, Wolf. 2014. “O conceito de “Língua Geral” à luz dos dicionários de língua geral existentes.” Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada (DELTA) 30: 591–622 (special volume in honour of Aryon D. Rodrigues, edited by Marcus Maia and Stella Telles). Dietrich, Wolf. 2017. “Tipologia morfossintática da negação nas línguas do tronco Tupi.” Línguas Indígenas Americanas (LIAMES) 17 (1): 7–38. Dietrich, Wolf (2019), “La documentación de la lengua general amazónica (tupí-guaraní) en tres diccionarios de mediados del siglo XVIII”, INDIANA (Berlin) 36 (2): 17–42. [Eckart, Anselm]. s.d. Vocabulario da lingua Brazil. Anonymous Portuguese-LG dictionary, unpublished; about 5800 entries. Cod. 3143, Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa. Hundertpfundt, Rochus. 1742. Final Vow. Lus. 16-I ff: 85–86. © Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu. Literae Patris Rochi Hundertpfund, societatis Jesu, continentes vitam patris Gabrielis Malagrida societatis Jesu, in Lusitania ab haereticis supplicio affecti. ELTE (Budapest), id: edit-10831-19566. Monserrat, Ruth Maria Fonini. 2006. “Observações sobre a fonologia da língua geral amazônica nos três últimos séculos.” In Diccionario da língua geral do Brasil, edited by Cândida Barros and Antônio Lessa, CD-ROM, 11 pp. Belém: Editora da UFPA. Navarro, Eduardo de Almeida. 2003. “O Corista Europeu. Tradução de um texto anônimo em língua geral da Amazônia, do século XVIII.”Língua e Literatura (São Paulo) 27: 383–398. Navarro, Eduardo de Almeida. 2008. “A escravização dos índios num texto missionário em língua geral do século XVIII.” Revista da Universidade de São Paulo 78: 105–114. Navarro, Eduardo de Almeida. 2011. “Tradução de um texto anônimo, em língua geral amazônica, do século XVIII.” Revista USP 90: 181–192. Papavero, Nelson and Antonio Porro (orgs.). 2013. Anselm Eckart, S.J, e o Estado do GrãoPara e Maranhão Setecentista (1785). Belém: Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. “Prosodia da Lingoa”, s.d. Ms. no. M.A. 569 of the Academia das Ciências, Lisbon. Anonymous, unpublished manuscript. Rodrigues, Aryon. 1996. “As línguas gerais sul-americanas.” Papia 4 (2): 6–18. Ruiz de Montoya, Antonio. 1639. Tesoro de la lengva gvaraní. Madrid: Juan Sánchez. Schmidt-Riese, Roland. 1998. “Perspectivas diacrônicas brasileiras: o rastro das línguas gerais.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch (Hamburg) 49: 307–335. Vocabulario na Lingua Brasilica. 1938. Manuscrito Português-Tupi do século XVII coordenado e prefaciado por Plinio Ayrosa, São Paulo: Departamento de Cultura, vo. XX. Vocabulário na Língua Brasílica (1952). 2.a edição revista e confrontada com o Ms. fg., 3144 da Bibl. Nacional de Lisboa. Por Carlos Drumond. São Paulo: Boletim no. 137 da Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras. A-H. 1953. Boletim no. 164 da Univ. de São Paulo, Fac. de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras, I-Z.

chapter 8

Patagonian Lexicography (Sixteenth–Eighteenth Centuries) Rebeca Fernández Rodríguez and María Alejandra Regúnaga

1

Introduction

The first vocabulary of a Patagonian language dates from the early sixteenth century. The earliest vocabularies simply called the language they were describing Patagonian, after Patagonia, the region where these vocabularies were compiled. However, nowadays it is known as Tehuelche (see Campbell 2012). The Italian navigator Antonio de Pigafetta (1480–1540) compiled a vocabulary containing ninety Tehuelche terms in San Julian’s bay around 1520. In the same bay but in 1780, the Spanish explorer Antonio de Viedma (1737–1809) wrote a vocabulary of 185 terms (Vignati 1940). Nine years later, in 1789, the expedition commanded by Italian explorer Alessandro Malaspina (1754–1809) compiled two brief vocabularies on the Patagonian language and in 1791 Lieutenant Juan José de Elizalde (?–?) wrote a longer one. In the nineteenth century, linguists and explorers such as D’Orbigny (1904) and Lista (1879) wrote several vocabularies on the Patagonian languages. In the twentieth century, LehmannNitsche (1903), La Grasserie (1907), Schmid (1910), Chamberlain (1911) and Beauvoir (1998[1915]) also compiled new vocabularies. Greenberg compiled his famous wordlist of Tehuelche in 1987 and Fernández Garay published her dictionary in 2004 when only a couple of informants were still alive. Some of the abovementioned vocabularies have been studied or annotated. Vignati (1940) studied Elizalde’s vocabulary and he compared it with Pigafetta’s (1520) and Pineda’s (1789), which is one of the vocabularies compiled in Malaspina’s expedition. Despite the fact that Malaspina’s expedition has been broadly studied, especially the botanical works (Muñoz Garmendia 1992 and Hernández Montoya 1992), as well as the anthropological, ethnographical (Pimentel Igea 1993 and Monge 2002), and nautical (Martínez-Cañavete 1994) ones, the study of the vocabularies remains brief, mainly because many of them have remained unpublished. Martín-Merás (1984), Martinell and Martínez (1998) and Fernández Rodríguez (2019) have described and analysed, from different perspectives, the compiled vocabularies in different languages of this expedition. In this paper we will analyse the earliest six vocabularies of the so-called Patago-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004427006_009

patagonian lexicography (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries)

237

nian language considering (a) context of compilation, (b) extension, that is, a description of the micro- and macro-structure, (c) semantic fields, and (d) transcription, distribution and organization of lexemes. We will also compare the transcription of the Tehuelche terms with the entries included in the dictionary by Fernández Garay (2004) in order to reconstruct the sounds of the language.

2

Compilation

The earliest name of the language—Patagonian—refers to the territory where the vocabularies were compiled, that is, Patagonia, in Argentina, and more precisely San Julian’s Bay and Carmen de los Patagones. This language has also been denominated Tehuelche or Tsoneka. Lista (1879: 75) says that “los tehuelches ó Chegüelchos se dividen en dos grandes tribus; una que habita entre los ríos Chubut y Limay, y la otra entre el primero de estos ríos y el Estrecho de Magallanes” (The Tehuelches or Chegüelchos are divided into two big tribes: one that lives between the rivers Chubut and Limay, and the other between the first of these rivers and the Strait of Magellan). However, Campbell (1997: 404) believes that the term tehuelche is ambiguous, “for it can mean either the language or the people of Patagonia, who spoke at least three different languages”. Chamberlain (1911: 460), on the other hand, explains that the area where Tsoneka or Tehuelche is spoken is so broad that it covers the whole of Patagonia from Río Negro to the Strait of Magellan, the lands where those nomad Indios travelled for centuries. Schmid (1910) uses the word tsoneka because it is the term that Southern Patagonians used to call themselves, that is, their endonym. Chamberlain (1911: 464) confirms this and explains that it means men or people, while Tehuelche is a Mapudungun exonym. LehmannNitsche (1914: 104) considers this language as a member of the Tshon linguistic family, while Vignati (1940) named it tsonik, which means people. In a more recent classification, Campbell (2012: 88) believes that Tehuelche is a member of the Chon family, to be divided into two geographical regions, Island and Continental Chonan: i) Island Chonan: a) Ona*1 (Selknam, Selk’nam, Shelknam, Aona), Argentina, Chile; b) Haush* (Manekenken), Argentina, Chile.

1 The asterisk, following Campbell (2012: 88), means the language is already extinct. However, Luis Miguel Rojas Berscia is currently supervising the development of a Selk’nam dictionary.

238 ii)

fernández rodríguez and regúnaga

Continental Chonan: a) Tehuelche (Aoniken, Aonek’enk, Inaquen, Patagon), Argentina; b) Teushen* (Tehues, Patagon), Argentina; c) Coastal Patagon* (Viegas Barros 2005: 67).

2.1 Patagon Vocabulary by Antonio de Pigafetta The Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan (1480–1521) tried to discover the route to the Moluccas without trespassing the limits imposed by the Treaty of Tordesillas in July 1494. The first circumnavigation of the globe (1519–1522) had its own chronicler on board.2 The Italian explorer Antonio de Pigafetta published his diary in 1523 and 1524 in Italy, a year after returning to Spain. Outes (1928: 373) states that “la edición Príncipe del relato de Pigafetta se publicó en París en una fecha indeterminada pero comprendida, sin duda, en el espacio de tiempo que media entre los años 1524 y 1536” (The first edition of Pigafetta’s chronicle was published in Paris at an unknown date but, without a doubt, between 1524 and 1536). It was later translated into several languages and it served as a guide to many explorers such as Malaspina. Pigafetta not only compiled a book full of anecdotes and anthropological observations, he also compiled a vocabulary during the five months he stayed at San Julian’s Bay. According to his diary, he got the terms thanks to a Patagonian giant who travelled with them on the ship. He used the common method of signalling an item, asking what it was and then writing down what he heard. He wrote ninety terms in thematic order starting with body parts—the highest number of terms—followed by verbs, natural elements, tools, animals and colours. Pigafetta (1999 [ca. 1524]: 22) explained that all these words were pronounced gutturally, according to the Patagonian speakers: “Tucti questi vocabuli se prenuntiano in gorga perché cussí li prenuntiavano loro” (All these words are pronounced gutturally because that is how they pronounced them). We did not have access to the original “Vocaboli de li Giganti Patagoni”, so we used the edition by Xavier de Castro (2007), who studied the four known manuscripts: three in French: A (BnF, Ms. 5650), B (BnF, Ms. 24224) and C (Yale University Library, Beinecke, Ms. 351) and one in Italian, D (Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan, Ms. L, 103 Sup.). This vocabulary is included in the comparative analysis, because it is the oldest compilation available in Tehuelche and most likely some

2 Magellan left Seville in August 1519 for America. He first reached Brazil, then Río de la Plata and Patagonia, the Strait of Magellan, the Pacific Ocean, Guam, Marianas and Cebú in the Philippines, where he died. The circumnavigation was completed by Juan Sebastián Elcano (1476–1526) in September 1522 when he arrived in Spain.

patagonian lexicography (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries)

239

of the compilers might have known it, e.g. Malaspina mentions Pigafetta several times in his onboard diary. 2.2 Patagon Vocabulary by Antonio de Viedma (ca. 1780) While the Spanish Antonio de Viedma explored San Julian’s Bay, the coast of the current province of Santa Cruz, in 1780, he compiled a “Catálogo de algunas voces que ha sido posible oír y entender a los indios patagones que frecuentan las inmediaciones de la Bahía de San Julián” (Catalogue of some words that have been heard and understood from the Patagonian Indians who live around San Julian’s Bay). This work contains 135 terms in alphabetical order, followed by the cardinal numbers 1–20, and the tens until fifty. In his description of the language, Viedma (Angelis 1837: 68) states that the language is guttural— like Pigafetta—and that they “repiten en sus conversaciones una misma voz muchas veces” (repeat the same words many times in their conversations). One of the members of this expedition was pilot José de la Peña (?–?), who later accompanied first Malaspina and then Elizalde. 2.3 Manuscripts 100 and 462 by Antonio Pineda (1789) In 1788, the Italian explorer Alessandro Malaspina and Spanish explorer José de Bustamante y Guerra (1759–1825) proposed to the Spanish Crown a scientific trip around the world in which they would compile botanical, zoological, and cartographical information for five years.3 For this purpose they had designed different scientific questionnaires in order to describe what they found. However, they had not thought about languages and communication. The first stop of their trip in the American continent took place in Montevideo, but the second was in Patagonia. The expedition docked in Puerto Deseado on 3 December 1789. There they found out that they also needed brief wordlists in order to communicate with the indigenous population. Several explorers worked on that. One of them was Antonio Pineda, who compiled words in his own diary and then showed them to some of his colleagues who also had done the same thing to see whether they had registered the same words and sounds. Then they copied the words in their onboard and corresponding personal diaries.

3 The scientific discoveries of this expedition would not be published until almost a century later. In 1885 Lieutenant Pedro de Novo y Colson (1846–1931) published a book containing most of the materials of the expedition. However, not all of the vocabularies were included and interestingly he has no information about the Patagonian coast.

240

fernández rodríguez and regúnaga

Se dirigían particularmente nuestras preguntas al conocimiento de su idioma y costumbres. Convinimos con D. Antonio Pineda en cuanto al idioma, que trabajaríamos separados; que hecho un pequeño acopio de palabras en una sesión, procuraríamos confrontarlas todas en la sesión siguiente antes de aprender otras; finalmente, que siendo sumamente equívoco el enterarse de las costumbres mientras no se tuviese la menor idea del idioma, dejaríamos en mucha parte este objeto para las visitas sucesivas, en las cuales nos acompañase el Piloto Peña: así lo hicimos, y como ya se ha indicado, nos fueron principalmente útiles dos mujeres que sabían no pocas palabras castellanas, y conocían los pilotos Tafor y Peña. Our questions were particularly aimed at knowing their language and culture. Mr Antonio Pineda and I agree that concerning the language we would work separately, that once we had a small amount of words in a session, we would try to compare them all in the following session before learning others; finally, being very doubtful about the customs without having the least idea of the language, we would leave this object to future visits, in which pilot Peña would come with us. We did it that way, and as mentioned, two women, who knew quite a few Spanish words and knew the pilots Tafor and Peña, were very helpful. Novo y Colson 1885: 66

The on-board diary of the expedition explains how they got the words. Malaspina, after reading older chroniclers such as Pigafetta’s, had the idea that the Patagonians were barbarian and ignorant. However, after his brief stay in the fort of Nuestra Señora del Carmen at the river Negro in Puerto Deseado, he discovered that Patagonians had regular contact with Spaniards and that they were very different from what he had thought at the beginning. Manuscript 100, entitled Vocabuli Patagonico, of the Museo Naval in Madrid, contains a very brief bilingual Spanish-Patagonian vocabulary of 63 entries: body parts: forehead, teeth, nose, ears, beard, lips, tongue, cheeks, head, tummy, foot, throat, breast, eye and skin; family members: mother, child and brother; basic actions easy to describe or perform: shoot, eat, wash, dance, walk, drink, sleep, fly, break, write; animals: dog and armadillo; plants: grass, reed, etc. There are also several proper nouns—Voselihe and Jonás—and animals, specifically a horse: Polen. This vocabulary ends with an expression, ma, meaning ‘si esta (sic) bueno’, that is, ‘if it is good’. Manuscript 462 is longer and was probably meant to be a clean copy of the other one. It has 122 entries in alphabetical order. It includes the name of the cacique (chief) Junchar, his companion Yncher, Sonora’s older brother Jalaque

patagonian lexicography (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries)

241

and ‘God big captain of the sky’, dios capitán grande del cielo Kúrejekén. This wordlist also differentiates types of women: ‘ugly’zununu nnakén, and ‘married’ nakona keshi. There are some expressions like ‘come here’ jaulla or ‘let me see’ manso jajalgui, which will be later found in Elizalde’s vocabulary. Some terms have annotations and explanations on orthography and pronunciation in the margins. Both vocabularies are exactly the same in most of the terms. It proves the method they used was the individual compilation followed by comparison of terms and equivalents. Manuscript 100 is a simple wordlist that was later extended and copied nicely and in alphabetical order. The choice of words is quite basic: objects or visible body parts that are easy to pinpoint, or easy-toperform actions. The terms illustrate that there was no scientific aim, but just the raw necessity of communication with a pinch of curiosity. 2.4 Manuscript Add. 17631 BL (1789) Manuscript Add 17631 of the British Library pertains to the so-called Colección Bauzá. Felipe Bauzá (1764–1834), cartographer of Malaspina’s Expedition, had “un vocabulario castellano, nutkeño, sándwich y mexicano que Juan Eugenio Santaelices Pablo preparó en México para uso de la expedición Malaspina” (a Castilian, Nootka, Hawaiian and Mexican vocabulary compiled in Mexico by Juan Eugenio Santaelices Pablo for the use of Malaspina’s expedition). This collection not only contains the Nootka, Nahuatl and Hawaiian vocabularies, but there is also a vocabulary of the language of Mulgrave, another of the Prince William Strait and a Patagonian vocabulary, all compiled during the Expedition.4 There are different versions of the Patagonian vocabulary.5 The first vocabulary, “Diccionario en lengua patagonica” included in Bauzá’s papers, is a thematic vocabulary of 107 terms in three columns. The second vocabulary has the exact same number of terms and equivalents but is disorganised, probably a draft copy. The third vocabulary is exactly the same as these two but ends with an alphabetical vocabulary of 62 terms. The last vocabulary includes some explanations on pronunciation, e.g. the last vowel of the morpheme with the inhaled /m/. Right after this, there is an “Adición al diccionario por d[o]n …” (addition to the vocabulary by …) without naming the author of the 35 added terms and the 9 names of the caciques ‘chiefs’. One of these vocabularies, the longest, containing 122 terms in clean copy, shares many terms with Manuscript 4 See Fernández Rodríguez (2019). 5 According to Lehmann-Nitsche (1914: 104), Bauzá gave the manuscripts to Von Martius (1863) while Brinton (1892) took the Tehuelche terms of his studies from the manuscript of the British Library.

242

fernández rodríguez and regúnaga

462, and also similarities in the Patagonian equivalents, but with phonological adaptations, meaning that the authors describe the sounds differently from what they heard. However, there are some differences: it includes numbers and new terms, and also descriptions of both Puerto Deseado and the language. 2.5

Vocabulary Composed by Captain Juan José de Elizalde y Ustáriz of the Corvette San Pío (1791) In 1791 the corvette San Pío navigated the Argentinian coasts in order to watch for the presence of British ships in Patagonia. The navigation diary contained, among other things, two vocabularies, one Patagonian and another Fueguino (Vignati 1940: 11–12). The word list entitled “Varios nombres de los indios de Puerto Deseado” (Several nouns of the Indians of Puerto Deseado) has 108 terms. These terms are not arranged alphabetically, although there seems to be some attempt to arrange the words thematically, but inconsistently organised. This vocabulary ends with the names of some Tehuelche chiefs. The inclusion of proper nouns was very common, as we have observed, due to the sailors’ intention to return. Knowing the names of the people they should talk to would help any prospective commercial or communicative exchange. For the first time there are Spanish loans included in a Patagonian vocabulary, such as bizcocho (sponge cake), and pan (bread). Vignati (1940: 166–167) doubts some of Elizalde’s terms and he thinks the differences are due to defective information or wrong interpretation. Vignati (1940: 174) also questions Elizalde’s authorship of the Patagonian vocabulary, but not that of the Fueguino one. He thinks it is possible that Elizalde had access to Malaspina’s vocabularies because of the inclusion of certainly not very common expressions in word-lists such as ‘ven aca’ (come here), ‘anda vete’ (come on, leave). Pilot José de la Peña is the link between Malaspina’s Expedition and the corvette San Pío. Peña was the pilot of both trips, as well as that of Viedma in 1780. However, it cannot be established that Elizalde copied some of the previous vocabularies.

3

Description and Analysis of the Vocabularies

We have analysed and compared all these vocabularies with particular attention to the following aspects: a) Semantic fields: i. Actions, states and verbal forms; ii. Body parts; iii. Concepts related to the human being such as social and family organization, and proper nouns;

patagonian lexicography (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries)

b) c)

243

iv. Objects and tools; v. Animals; vi. Nature (excluding animals) and atmospheric phenomena; vii. Food; viii. Numbers; ix. Non-numeric concepts used to quantify; x. Concepts used for timing and time organization; xi. Concepts used for qualities; xii. Other terms e.g. affirmation;6 The (non) existence of articulatory and phonological descriptions; Order and transcription.

3.1 α-Ms 462 of the Museo Naval a) Terms by Semantic Field The manuscript has 4 folios (r and v), twice numbered: each folio recto has a number between brackets: 66), 67), 68), 69), and right next to them, 97, 99, 101, 103, respectively. The second number probably was meant to be the pages of a bigger volume. The vocabulary “Castellano-Patagon” contains 122 terms classified in the following semantic fields: i. Actions/states (30 terms) = 24.6% ii. Body parts (29) = 23.9% iii. Concepts related to human beings (17) = 13.9 % iv. Objects, tools … (16) = 13.1% v. Animals (5) = 4.1% vi. Nature (14) = 11.5% vii. Food (4) = 3.3% viii. Numbers (0) = 0% ix. Quantification (2) = 1.6% x. Time (2) = 1.6% xi. Qualities (2) = 1.6% xii. Other (1) = 0.8% b) Articulatory and Phonological Descriptions In the margins there are some glosses containing observations about the pronunciation:

6 There are no terms for negation.

244

fernández rodríguez and regúnaga

Labios, Sum(b) (b) La m se inspira hacia adentro (Lips, Sum(b) (b) the m is inspirated towards inside) Manteca, Gul(a) (a) La u parece francesa (Grease, Gul(a) (a) the u seems French) Muger casada, Nakona Keshi ‡ ‡pronunciada como como gdo se dice sh, sh llamando a alguno (Married woman, Nakona Keshi, pronounced like when sh is said to call someone’s attention) Sol, Shrvinn+ +como sh yngles (Sun, Shrvinn+ + like English sh) At the end, the author wrote “Abunda este idioma de KK y de JJ. La K suelen pronunciarla echando el aire hacia el paladar de manera que tropezando con la saliva resulta un sonido mui oscuro como q.do se quiere gargagear” (There are many KK and JJ in this language. K is usually pronounced letting the air into the palate in such a way that it collides with saliva resulting in a very dark sound like when someone wants to gargle). However, the author makes no remark on the language being guttural, like his predecessors. c) Order and Transcription This vocabulary is arranged alphabetically, divided into sections starting with the initial in capital letters: A./ B y V./ C./ D./ E./ F./ G./ H./ Y./ J./ L./ M./ N./ O./ P./ Q./ R./ S./ T./ V. The voiceless velar fricative /x/ is written, in Spanish, with g in mugger (woman), gargagear (gargle), general (general), genérico (generic) but with j in tijeras (scissors). In the indigenous language, j is always used. Although k is not in the alphabetical list, it is widely used in the transcription of the indigenous language to mark the voiceless velar stop, alternated by c in two segments. In final position, k is used in the four registered cases. The distribution of the texts is quite special: on the first page (f.66/97) the vocabulary is organised in four columns (the first column in Spanish with its corresponding Patagonian equivalent in the second column; the same order for columns 3 and 4). There are separation lines between the second and the third columns. However, the rest of the vocabulary is organised only in two columns: SpanishPatagonian. There are some amendments in the text, words or parts of words are crossed out: muchacha (girl), zunum kekalem nn and glosses, usually containing an explanation of the pronunciation, are added in the margins. Some features of the copyist’s writing make the identification of lexical items difficult: – Similar s/g, j/t, j/s in initial position. – Usage of v instead of u in vña and 1. avestruz, elve.

patagonian lexicography (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries)

245

3.2 β-Ms. Add. 17631-British Library a) Terms by Semantic Field The manuscript has two complete folios (r and v) plus seven more lines on the recto of the third folio. Numbers are on the top right on the recto and go from 44 to 46. There are 122 lexemes under the “Vocabulario de los Patagones”: i. Actions/states (28 terms) = 23% ii. Body parts (22) = 18% iii. Concepts related to human beings (14) = 11.6 % iv. Objects, tools … (19) = 15.5% v. Animals (6) = 4.9% vi. Nature (12) = 9.8% vii. Food (5) = 4.1% viii. Numbers (9) = 7.4% ix. Quantification (2) = 1.6% x. Time (2) = 1.6% xi. Qualities (2) = 1.6% xii. Other (1) = 0.8% b) Articulatory and Phonological Descriptions At the end of the vocabulary there is an explanation on pronunciation: En la pronunciación apenas hieren la última vocal. (In the pronunciation they slightly pronounce the last vowel) La letra m. la aspiran. (they aspirate the letter m) La letra o. la pronuncian como en la lengua inglesa. (the letter o is pronounced like in English) There is only one repetition, “Sol” (sun), but with two different translations: sol, kokena, shuina sol, cielo, dios, kosa c) Order and Transcription The order is alphabetical but only taking into account the first letter: armadillo ‘ármadillo’ comes before andar (walk); anda vete (come on, leave) goes before agua (water), amigo (friend) before abichuelas (beans), and so on. The order (without interruption, sections or headings) is A/ B/ C/ D/ E/ F/ G/ H/ J/ L/ Ll/ M/ N/ O/ P/ Q/ R/ S/ T/ U/ V/ Y—notice that y is found at the very end; followed by the numbers 1 to 10. The manuscript is surprisingly meticulous. The regular s is written like a long n or v (see garganta (throat), omes; estier-

246

fernández rodríguez and regúnaga

col (manure), kalso). On the other hand, the initial c is very round and seems almost closed (like in carrillos (cheeks), capank), and sometimes is mistaken for o. As in the other vocabularies, there is a fluctuation in the use of b and v: abestruz (ostrich); lavios (lips); yerva (grass). The voiceless velar fricative /x/ is transcribed by g in muger (woman); but in the other Spanish terms j is used. In Tehuelche, j is always used like in the other vocabularies. 3.3 γ-Ms 100 of the Museo Naval a) Terms by Semantic Field This vocabulary is the shortest, only one folio (r and v) containing 64 terms: i. Actions/states (14 terms) = 21.9% ii. Body parts (18) = 28.1% iii. Concepts related to human beings (7) = 10.9 % iv. Objects, tools … (11) = 17.2% v. Animals (5) = 7.8% vi. Nature (6) = 9.3% vii. Food (1) = 1.6% viii. Numbers (0) = 0% ix. Quantification (1) = 1.6% x. Time (0) = 0% xi. Qualities (0) = 0% xii. Other (1) =1.6% b) Articulatory and Phonological Descriptions The observations deal with pronunciation and are indicated right after the term where the sound appears: mano, han, h aspirada (hand, han, aspirated h) cabeza, gil (la g blanda) (head, gil, (soft g [meaning velar fricative])) c) Order and Transcription There is no apparent order, although some neighbouring terms seem to have certain semantic links (madre (mother), llama and niño (child), calm; mano (hand), ore and el pie (the foot), cal; dientes (teeth), dor, nariz (nose), oo, orejas (ears), cshene, barba (beard), ma, labios (lips), shum, lengua (tongue), del, carrillos (cheeks), capank and cabeza (head), gil). There are also marks before some words whose meaning we have not yet discovered: ♀ auestruz (ostrich), agarrar (pick), andar (walk) and armadillo (armadillo).

patagonian lexicography (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries)

247

ø barba (beard), barriga (belly), brida (flange), bocado de cavallo (bridle), bailar (dance), beber (drink), bolar (fly), beber (drink) (crossed in viento (wind) and vestido (dress); missing in barba o vigote (beard or moustache)). ♒ comer (eat), carrillos (cheeks) and cabeza (head). In spite of certain features that could make the recognition of some graphemes more difficult, like a very open initial g, similar to s, a very short t, similar to r and a short s with slight curves, the writing is very easy to read. As for the Spanish, it is possible to observe: – Fluctuation between b and v: barba o vigote (beard or moustache); la bobeda de la cuna (the arch of the cradle); nonbre propio de un cavallo (the name of a horse); bocado de cavallo (bridle); yerva (grass); bolar (fly). – The voiceless velar stop in /ka/ and /ko/ is alternatively transcribed by two graphemes k and c. At the end of the word, k is always used. – As for the voiceless velar fricative, its transcription in Spanish is g in muger and genérico; while in the indigenous language, only g is used in trenza, gorgegue, probably a transcription mistake (same as in β), and in cabeza (head), gil, where we can find “la g blanda” (the soft g) (which matches with the form both in α and β: guil). In all the other cases, the transcription is j. 3.4

δ-Vocabulary by Juan José de Elizalde y Ustáriz, in “Diario de Navegación con la corbeta San Pío al reconocimiento de Puerto Deseado, costa patagónica, isla de Fuego y de los Estados” (1791) We have not been able to study the manuscript itself, but we thought it was of interest to compare it with the previous manuscripts, because it was compiled by a different expedition but around the same time. We used Vignati’s edition (1940) to compare some features. a) Terms by Semantic Field The vocabulary has 104 terms distributed as follows: i. Actions/states (11 terms) = 10.6% ii. Body parts (22) = 21.2% iii. Concepts related to human beings (17) = 16.4 % iv. Objects, tools … (14) = 13.4% v. Animals (8) = 7.7% vi. Nature (10) = 9.7% vii. Food (6) = 5.7% viii. Numbers (10) = 9.7% ix. Quantification (0)= 0%

248

fernández rodríguez and regúnaga

x. Time (3) = 2.8% xi. Qualities (3) = 2.8% xii. Other (0) = 0% b) Order and Transcription The order of the terms seems quite arbitrary, although there are two organised segments: that of the numbers (1 to 10) and that of the ethnonyms (under the subtitle “Nres. de algs Ynds principales” (Names of some of the chiefs)). Nevertheless, there are four other names7 (being between pipa (pipe), anoc and dedos (fingers), ore) that evidently correspond to proper names and should be under that section.

4

Comparison of the Vocabularies

The first matter to be discussed is the striking similarities between the vocabularies α-Ms. 462 MN and β-Ms. Add. 17631 BL. They have the same terms by semantic field and they share a high percentage of terms per semantic field. There are some differences in the indigenous terms that allow us to hypothesize that β is a copy of α; in particular, the difficulty to differentiate certain letters in words in α (later explained in the same manuscript or by comparison with γ-Ms. 100 MN) that leads to divergent transcriptions in β:

α- Ms 462 MN β- Ms. Add. 17631 BL γ- Ms. 100 MN barriga garganta orejas ojos vever comer romper escopeta tirar, ó escopetear cinta cinta de libro

guin omer o inglen sene gotel jar catan, õ cho kejen sen bak selbak cochél chelda

puin omes jené gosel jaz jaten. catan-ocho kenjen jenbak jelbak, jenbak chelda … cochal

guim omer cshene gotel jar catan / cho kejen selbak cochel chelda

7 Pecona, Ydem; Coynamar, Ydem; Quinquico, Ydem; Peltecuyo, Herma de Julian (Julian’s sister).

patagonian lexicography (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries)

249

In other cases, the divergence in β in comparison with α is confirmed in δ:

ven aca chupar cigarro/fumar dormir dame para ver agua nieve sable fuego

α- Ms 462 MN

β- Ms. Add. 17631 BL δ- Elizalde

jaullà jangue koten manjo jajalgui jara maiga matache mak

yaulla tangue kosen manjo. jabalguia jarra mairga machete juego, mac

jausa yag coter majo yajalqui jara maiga matechas maca

Another similarity with the registered semantic fields is that the largest are the ones corresponding to actions or states and those of body parts. The shortest are the sections of time, quantification and qualification. These two vocabularies differ in some aspects: – The inclusion of the numbers in β, absent in α; – The highest percentage of objects and tools is registered in β. As for γ-Ms. 100 MN, despite being shorter than the others, it contains a higher number of body parts, surpassing those of actions/states. There are no numbers, but there is a higher proportion of objects and tools. The δ-Elizalde vocabulary shares with β the registration of numbers, although with some differences (especially, number ‘two’ is missing in β), their similarities are marked, especially in the terms for ‘eight’ and ‘nine’, that differ (greatly in the first and less in the second) from the terms recorded by Fernández Garay (2004), whose dictionary we have used as a modern source.

1 / una 2 / dos 3 / tres 4 / quatro 5 / cinco 6 / seis 7 / siete

β

δ

Fernández Garay (2004)

jauken

jaujen jaujer jeas kague qulsen benecas oca

čočeʔ xawke ~ xa:one qa:š qa:ge kt’en wenaqa:š qo:ke

keas kekague kaszen goneka oka

250

fernández rodríguez and regúnaga

(cont.)

β 8 / ocho 9 / nuebe 10 / diez

δ

Fernández Garay (2004)

gumeca … jaguen venetejage poš jaamekezon chamegesen xamaqt’en kaken ocaguen oqaken

Also in respect to δ, it can be observed that the distribution of the semantic fields is slightly different than in the previous cases: α, β and γ focus on actions, states and body parts, while the greatest lexical richness of δ is illustrated in body parts and terms related to human beings.

α aguardte manteca gul pan tauaco vino vizcocho

β

δ lam.

gul? gil? pan zaucha vino vizcocho

The comparison of these terms with those recorded by Fernández Garay (2004) shows some very interesting correspondences: lam s/m bebida, vino (drink, wine) o:l ~ ʔo:l ~ ʔol s/m grasa derretida, aceite (melted grease, oil) jawč’ ~ jawč s/n tabaco (Nicotiana tabacum, Solanaceae) (tobacco) This term is not recorded in the other vocabularies, but the following contrast is suggestive:

patagonian lexicography (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries)

α

β

chupar cigarro (α) jangue fumar (β, δ) al fumo (ε1) la fumée (ε2)

γ

251

δ

tangue

yag

Other terms illustrate ingenious resources that covered the absence of an adequate code for transcription: (α) muger casada, nakona keshi ‡ ‡pronunciada como como gdo se dice sh, sh llamando a alguno (married woman, nakona keshi‡ ‡ pronounced the same as when sh is said in order to call someone) (α) sol, shrvinn + +como sh yngles (sun, shrvinn + + like English sh) For this reason, we include the alphabet used in the different vocabularies for the transcription of the non-shared sounds with the Spanish language. We used the more detailed and accurate information of the consonant sounds in Tehuelche, made by Fernández Garay (2004: 6–17):

Consonants Labial Dento-alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular Nasal Simple Glottalised Sound Fricative Continua Other phonemes glottal /ʔ/ lateral /l/ vibrant /r/

M P p’ B

n t t’ d s

č č’ š j

k k’ g x w

Q q’ G X

252

fernández rodríguez and regúnaga

We will focus on the series of glottalised and uvular consonants, as well as the voiceless palatal fricative /š/ and the voiceless glottal occlusive /ʔ/, in order to compare how they were written in each vocabulary. We will use again Fernández Garay (2004) as reference. 4.1 The Voiceless Palatal Fricative /š/ This sound is annotated in the margin in α, even though it is transcribed in this manuscript as s in labios (lips) sum and orejas (ears) sene. Manuscript γ presents, contrary to the former, α, β and γ share the digraph sh in labios and orejas and brida, shum. It might be possible that this word is a metonymic extension of the term for lips. Other graphemes that transcribe the sound /š/ are ch, corresponding to the voiceless palatal affricate, in tomar/agarrar (pick) (α, γ and δ), and s, in olla (pan) (α, γ and δ), added to those cases mentioned before in manuscript α.

α

β

γ

δ

ε Fernández Garay (Ms. 351) (2004)

sum

sum

shum

sam

schiame

šam ~ ša:m s/n

sene che

jené

cshene chen

gene. chá

sane

brida

shum

shum

shum

olla (α, β, γ) ollas (δ) 3 (β) tres (δ) 6 (β) seis (δ)

askin

askin

asjen

keas goneka

jeas benecas

ša:n s/m -ša: ~ -ša ~ -šaʔ v/t1 agarrar, aferrar algo o a alguien ¿šam ~ ša:m s/n labio? ʔašk’om ~ ašk’om ~ ašk’o s/f olla qa:š wenaqa:š

labios (α, γ) lavios (β, δ) orejas tomar (α) agarrar (γ) toma (δ)

4.2 The Voiceless Glottal Occlusive Consonant /ʔ/ This sound, probably one of the most difficult to those who are not familiar with the language spoken in Patagonia, is transcribed in different ways: as j or k (or both, like dientes jor or kor (teeth) in α and β), c (dientes corg in δ, dedo cori (finger) in ε), g (ojos gotel (eyes) in α, β, γ, manteca gul (grease) in α and β) or gu (volar/saltar anguenguen/al-jeguen (fly/jump) in α, β, γ). Only in ε we find the form ph (in dientes phor). In all the other cases (dedo ore in α, β and δ, nariz

patagonian lexicography (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries)

253

o (nose) in α, γ and δ, pluma aujar (feather) in α, β, γ, garganta omer (throat) in α, β, γ, δ and ε) the initial glottal is not transcribed and the transcription starts with the following vowel. An interesting graphical matter is that in δ capital letters are used in the position where the glottal stop should be in garganta (throat) and pescuezo (neck) (EMér and OO, respectively).

α

β

γ

δ

ε Fernández Garay (Ms. 351) (2004)

dientes

jor, o kor

jor … kor

dor

corg

phor

dedo (α,β,γ) dedos (δ) ojos nariz (α,β,γ) narizes (δ) pluma

ore

ore

ore

cori

gotel O

gosel

gotel O

guten oyte

other or

aujar

aujar

manteca

gul

guarina, aujar gul? gil?

garganta

omer o inglen

omes

omer

–

pescuezo

bolar (α, γ) volar (β) saltar (β)

–

EMér

OO

anguenguen al-jeguen

anguenguen al-jeguen

anguenguen al-jeguen

ohumer

ʔor ~ʔo:r s/m diente/ s/n conj. de dientes ʔoreʔ ~ oreʔ ~ oleʔ s/m dedo ʔotel s/m ojo ʔor ~ ʔol ~ or s/n nariz ʔawr ~ awr s/m pluma o:l ~ ʔo:l s/m grasa derretida eʔmer ~ eʔmen s/n faringe // garganta // vena yugular ʔoʔ ~ oʔ s/m cuello, cogote // parte de atrás del cuello del caballo xeʔn ~ xeʔne ~ exeʔn v/i2 saltar // volar

254

fernández rodríguez and regúnaga

4.3 The Glottalised Voiceless Velar Occlusive /k’/ While this phoneme contrasts in the indigenous language with the voiceless velar occlusive /k/ (present in Spanish), the examples illustrate that the transcription assimilates the glottalised phoneme /k’/ to the more familiar /k/ (except ε in pie (foot)):

α

β

γ

δ

ε Fernández Garay (2004) (Ms. 351)

vña (α,β) uñas (δ) 3 (β) tres (δ) 4 (β) quatro (δ) 7 (β) siete (δ) hombros

Cacho

cachiguel

cachul.

colim

keas

jeas

qačwel ~ kačwel s/m < Arauc. uña qa:š

kekague

kague

qa:ge

oka

oca

qo:ke

carrillos pie

Kapank Kael

capank kel

Capank Cal

coa.

sombrero

Koja

koja

kojà

cojoa

Calikeny

tehe

q’a: s/m hombro q’akel ~ q’aqel adv. al hombro q’apenk’en s/? mejilla k’aw s/m pie // pata de animal /// s/n par de pies // par de patas k’o: s/? pañuelo de cabeza k’oxeenwe ~ koxeenwe s/n pañuelo de cabeza // sombrero

patagonian lexicography (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries)

255

4.4 The Voiceless Uvular Fricative /χ/ The only example we find in the vocabularies is tetilla naja (breast), which indicates that the sound is identified with the Spanish voiceless velar fricative /x/ and, therefore, written with j. The interesting thing about this term is that manuscripts γ and δ use the word pecho (chest) (but, as seen in the table, it has a different equivalent in Tehuelche, probably out of modesty).

α

tetilla (α) pecho (γ,δ) la mamelle (ε)

β

naja

γ

δ

ε (Ms. 351)

Fernández Garay (2004)

Naja

sejep

othen

na χ s/m mama (sg.) // s/n par de mamas // leche materna ʔoč’ ~ oč’ s/m pecho

la poitrine (ε)

Ochij

Despite the fact that body parts are one of the most developed semantic fields in all the vocabularies, there is no mention of “partes pudendas” or sexual intercourse, although such terms are present in Pigafetta, for example:

ε (Ms. 351) Le membre Les génitoires Le con L’ habiter ou sperme Le cul

5

ε (Ms. L, 103 Sup.) Scachet Sacaneos Isse io hoi Schiachen

Al membro A li testicoli A la natura delle donne All’usar con esse Al culo

Sachet Sacancas jsse jo hoi schiaguen

Conclusions

We have been able to identify similarities and differences between the vocabularies dating from the end of the sixteenth century. Ms. 462 (α) of the Museo Naval seems to be an original work, while Ms. Add. 17631 of the British Library (β) seems to be a copy of (α), with some own additions from the Ms. 100 of the Museo Naval (γ). As for the latter one, we have already mentioned its brevity and that it shares almost all its content with (α) and, thus, with (β); the question remains, then, is it an original list or a copy?

256

fernández rodríguez and regúnaga

barba

α

β

Maa

maa

barba o vigote vigotes

guinchers guinchers

mano

Jan

dedo

Ore

Ore

γ

Fernández Garay (2004)

ma machen

ʔašč’ex s/m barba, bigote, ceja, pestaña (¿con prefijo 2° sg. ma-?)

han, h aspirada ʔoš ~ ʔo:š ~ oš s/m brazo ore // mano ʔoreʔ ~ oreʔ ~ oleʔ s/m dedo

escrivir

ore

la bobeda de la cuna

caskel

nombre propio de un caballo

polen

qo:lgen ~ qo:lqel s/m hamaca para bebé, especie de cuna

As for the transcription of the sounds, it is evident that the authors used the Spanish alphabet, followed by some comments in the cases where the differences in sound were remarkable: (α) labios, Sum(b) (b) La m se inspira hacia adentro (The m is inspired towards the inside) (α) manteca, Gul (a) (a) La u parece francesa (The u seems French) (β) La letra m la aspiran. (The letter m is aspirated) The presence of a proper name would ratify its originality. Elizalde’s vocabulary, on the other hand, seems to have a different origin than the others. One indication of the possible temporal differences in which the data were recorded comes from the proper names. The only repetitions are in γ and β, which supports the theory that the latter is a copy:

patagonian lexicography (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries)

α El nombre del casique El otro q’ le acompañaba El hermano mayor desonara Patagon joven (β) / el nombre propio de un joven patagon (γ) Joven (β) / ydem de una Patagona (γ) Ydem Ydem Ydem Herma de Julian Cacique gral. Cacique Ydem Ydem Ydem Ydem Ydem Ydem

β

γ

257

δ

Jonchar Incher Jalaque Voshelse Voselshe Jona

Jonàs Pecona Coynamar Quinquico Peltecuyo Chegues Vizte Coayusa Conoria Catiso Orquenque Chaquala Capon

As for the transcription of the indigenous terms, we would like to highlight that, even though the guttural feature of the languages is acknowledged in the annotations, it does not appear in the transcription of those terms, as we saw in the analysis of the glottalised and uvular consonants. In future works we will contrast these vocabularies and other more modern vocabularies in order to establish changes, evolutions and similarities, as well as the possible sources of each of them.

References Angelis, Pedro de. 1837. Colección de obras y documentos relativos a la Historia Antigua y Moderna de las Provincias del Río de la Plata. Buenos Aires: Imprenta Antigua del Estado. Beauvoir, José María. 1998 [1915]. Diccionario tehuelche. Vocabulario de algunas voces de la lengua tehuelche. Tierra del Fuego: Zagier y Urruti. Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

258

fernández rodríguez and regúnaga

Campbell, Lyle. 2012. “Classification of the indigenous languages of South America.” In The Indigenous Languages of South America, edited by Lyle Campbell and Verónica Grondona, 59–166. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chamberlain, Alexander F. 1911. “On the Puelchean and Tsonekan (Tehuelchean), the Atacameñan (Atacaman) and Chonoan, and the Charruan linguistic stocks of South America.” American Anthropologist 13 (3): 458–471. De Castro, Xavier. 2007. Le voyage de Magellan (1519–1522). La relation d’Antonio de Pigafetta et autres témoignages. Paris: Chandeigne. D’Orbigny, A. 1904. Vocabulario temático de los indios Patagonios o Tehuelches de Río Negro. (Ms BF Americain 30). Fernández Garay, Ana. 2004. Diccionario Tehuelche–Español/Índice Español–Tehuelche. Leiden: CNWS; University of Leiden. Fernández Rodríguez, Rebeca. 2019. “La importancia lingüística de la expedición de Malaspina.” In Lingüística Misionera: aspectos lingüísticos, discursivos, filológicos y pedagógicos, edited by Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino, Álvaro Ezcurra, Otto Zwartjes. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hernández Montoya, María Victoria. 1992. La Expedición Malaspina (1789–1794), IV: Trabajos científicos y correspondencia de Tadeo Haenke. Madrid: Ministerio de Defensa. La Grasserie, Raoul de. 1907. “De la langue tehuelche.” In Internationaler AmerikanistenKongress: Vierzehnte Tagung, Stuttgart 1904, ed. by R. Schuller, 611–647. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Lehmann-Nitsche, Robert. 1903. Vocabulario aonük’ünk. Berlin: Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut; Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Lehmann-Nitsche, Robert. 1914. Noticias etnológicas sobre los antiguos patagones recogidas por la expedición Malaspina en 1789. Buenos Aires: Imprenta de Coni. Lista, Ramón. 1879. Viaje al país de los tehuelches. Exploraciones en la Patagonia Austral. Buenos Aires: Martín Biedma. Martín-Merás, María Luisa. 1984. “Vocabularios indígenas recogidos en las expediciones de Malaspina y de las goletas ‘Sutil’ y ‘Mexicana’.” Revista de Historia Naval 2 (6): 57–74. Martinell, Emma, and María José Martínez. 1998. “El interés por la lengua de los pobladores de las (sic) costa noroeste.” In Nootka. Regreso a una historia olvidada, ed. by Mercedes Palau, Marisa Calés and Araceli Sánchez, 37–41. Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores. Martínez-Cañavete, Luis. 1994. La Expedición Malaspina (1789–1794), VI: Trabajos astronómicos, geodésicos e históricos. Madrid: Ministerio de Defensa. Monge, Fernando. 2002. En la costa de la niebla. El paisaje y el discurso etnográfico

patagonian lexicography (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries)

259

ilustrado de la expedición de Malaspina en el Pacífico. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Muñoz Garmendia, Félix. 1992. La Expedición Malaspina (1789–1794), III: Diarios y trabajos botánicos de Luis Nee. Madrid: Ministerio de Defensa. Novo y Colson, Pedro, de. 1885. La Vuelta al mundo por las corbetas Descubierta y Atrevida al mando del capitán de navío D. Alejandro Malaspina desde 1789 à 1794, publicado con una introducción en 1885 por el teniente de navío D. Pedro de Novo y Colson. Madrid: Imprenta de la Viuda e Hijos de Abienzo. Outes, Félix. 1928. “Las variantes del vocabulario patagón reunido por Antonio Pigafetta en 1520.” Revista del Museo de la Plata 31, 3(7), 371–380. Pigafetta, Antonio. 1999 [ca. 1524]. Relazione del primo viaggio intorno al mondo. Padova: Antenore. Pimentel Igea, Juan. 1993. La Expedición Malaspina (1789–1794), V: Antropología y noticias etnográficas. Madrid: Ministerio de Defensa. Pineda, Antonio. 1789. Vocabulario patagón (Ms Museo Naval 100). Pineda, Antonio. 1789. Vocabulario patagónico (Ms Museo Naval 462). Schmid, Theophilus. 1910. Two linguistic treatises on the Patagonian or Tehuelche language, edited with an introduction by Robert Lehman-Nitsche. Buenos Aires: Coni. Viedma, Antonio de. 1972. “Descripción de la costa meridional del sur.” In Colección de Obras y Documentos, Pedro de Angelis, vol. VIII, 845–963. Buenos Aires: Plus Ultra. Viegas Barros, J. Pedro. 2005. Voces del viento: raíces lingüísticas de la Patagonía. Buenos Aires: Mondragón. Vignati, Milcíades Alejo. 1940. “Materiales para la lingüística patagona: el vocabulario de Elizalde.” Boletín de la Academia Argentina de Letras, 8 (30): 159–202.

chapter 9

Language Contacts of Pukina Katja Hannß

1

Introduction

In the following, I will discuss instances of language contacts of the now extinct Pukina language. I will begin by providing some general background information on the languages under consideration and a summary of the lexical sources used for the languages considered in the present paper. In Sections 2 to 2.3, I will turn to an analysis of the contacts Pukina had with Uru-Chipaya, Proto-Takanan as well as with Mapudungun and possibly Kunza. In Section 3, I will present a summarising discussion and some concluding remarks. Before turning to a description of the languages considered in the following, I would like to address briefly the question for the quantity of data. With the exception of Pukina and Uru-Chipaya, evidence for contacts between Pukina and (Proto-)Takanan and between Pukina and Mapudungun and possibly Kunza is weak. With respect to contacts between Pukina and (Proto-)Takanan, there are some more examples available than I will discuss here: all in all, I detected 13 possible lexical elements that point to language contacts between Pukina and (Proto-)Takanan, although not all of these are equally convincing. When it comes to contacts between Pukina, Mapudungun and Kunza, there are no further known examples available. This scarcity of data may relate, among other factors, to the documentation situation of Pukina and Kunza which is not as one may wish for. I will return to the matter of data quantity in Section 3. Pukina is closely associated with the pre-Inca culture of Tiahuanaco at Lake Titicaca, which flourished approximately between 650 and 1050 AD (Isbell 2012: 220). The Pukina language was spoken in the Bolivian highlands, with a centre at the eastern and north-eastern shores of Lake Titicaca and a second one between the present-day highland settlements of Sucre and Potosí. A third Pukina-speaking area was found between modern Arequipa and Tacna on the southern Peruvian coast (Adelaar 2004b: 350). However, there is evidence that Pukina once had influence beyond the borders of the former Tiahuanaco culture (Adelaar 2004b: 350; Isbell 2012: 227). Pukina became extinct in the nineteenth century at the latest, and is as good as undocumented: the only substantial source is a collection of Christian texts from the early seventeenth century, comprising 263 lexical bases (Oré 1607; see also Mossel et al., this volume). This

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004427006_010

language contacts of pukina

261

certainly contributes to the scarcity of data on Pukina language contacts. The following is based mainly on Torero’s (1965, 2002: 448–456.) interpretation of the Pukina data, while additional information on Pukina is provided by Adelaar (2004b: 350–356) as well as by Adelaar and Van de Kerke (2009; see also Mossel et al., this volume). Pukina is genetically unclassified, although Adelaar and Van de Kerke (2009: 126) suggest some relations with Arawakan languages. The languages of the Takanan language family are spoken mainly in the Bolivian lowlands along the Rivers Bení and Madre de Dios (Guillaume 2008: 1). However, at least for the Takanan Ese Ejja language there is evidence that its location in the eastern Bolivian lowlands is a relatively recent one. According to Alexiades and Peluso (2009: 225–230), the present-day location of Ese Ejjaspeaking groups results from several migration movements that ultimately led (or pushed) the Ese Ejja people further downriver, into the eastern Bolivian lowlands. That is, before these re-settlements, Ese Ejja-speaking groups lived further to the west and thus closer to the eastern Andean foothills. For the split of Proto-Takanan into the distinct Takanan languages Holman et al. (2011: 35) suggest a time depth of 1,590 years BP, which coincides with the time immediately before the rise of the Tiahuanaco culture at around 650 AD. With respect to the literature, I used the works by Emkow (2006), Guillaume (2008) and Vuillermet (2012) where the individual Takanan languages are concerned, while the lexical data on modern Takana are retrieved mainly from Ottaviano and Ottaviano (1989) and to a lesser degree from Montaño Aragón (1987). Additional lexical information on the modern Takanan languages is found in the Intercontinental Dictionary Series (IDS) (Key and Comrie 2015). The reconstructed Proto-Takanan forms are taken from Key (1968) and Girard (1971). Kunza (aka Atacameño) was spoken on Chile’s northern Pacific coast (Adelaar 2004d: 375). As Adelaar (2004d: 376; referring to Philippi 1860 and Ibarra Grasso 1958) notes, there is evidence that Kunza once had a greater distribution, reaching into neighbouring parts of Argentina and south-western Bolivia. During the nineteenth century, the Kunza language was rapidly falling into disuse (Adelaar 2004d: 377). The Ethnologue classifies Kunza as an isolate (Lewis et al. 2015). The lexical data on Kunza are provided by the IDS as well as by Vilte Vilte (n/d), while further background information is found in Adelaar (2004d: 375–385). The isolate Mapudungun language (aka Mapuche) is spoken in central Chile, in neighbouring parts of Argentina as well as in southern-central regions of Argentina (Zúñiga 2014: 11; but see Section 2.3). Lexical data on the language are mainly retrieved from the IDS, while additional lexical as well as more

262

hannß

general background information on Mapudungun comes from Adelaar (2004e, 2004f: 502–539). Uru and Chipaya are part of the isolated Uru-Chipaya language family, which had three members: the Uru of Lake Poopó in the south-eastern part of the Bolivian highlands; Chipaya, spoken around Lake Coipasa in south-western Bolivia; and the Uru of Lake Titicaca, once found at the southern and south-western shores of the lake. Of these three members, only Chipaya is still in use today, while the Uru of Lake Titicaca fell out of use around 1950 (Hannß 2008: 5, 21). The Uru of Lake Poopó is almost entirely undocumented and will thus not be considered in the following (Adelaar and Muysken 2004: 622). Structural information on Chipaya is based on Cerrón-Palomino (2006), while the Chipaya lexical data are retrieved from Cerrón-Palomino and Ballón Aguirre (2011). For Uru, the author relies on her own data (Hannß 2008).

2

Language Contacts of Pukina

In the following, I will present three linguistic areas Pukina was in contact with: the area around Lakes Titicaca and Coipasa in the Bolivian highlands, the eastern Andean foothills and neighbouring Bení region of Bolivia and, lastly, the Pacific coast of southern Peru and northern Chile. I will start with language contacts between Pukina and Uru-Chipaya of Lakes Titicaca and Coipasa, before turning to (Proto-)Takanan, Mapudungun and Kunza of the Bolivian lowlands and the Pacific coast, respectively. 2.1 Pukina and Uru-Chipaya Language contacts between Pukina and Uru-Chipaya are relatively well described (e.g. Torero 2002: 448–456.; Adelaar 2004c: 375). The following list of Pukina borrowings in Chipaya is taken from Cerrón-Palomino and Ballón Aguirre (2011: 18).1 Where applicable, I add the Uru equivalents. (1) a. [tʃa] [tʃɁa:] [tʃona] b. [cappa] [tʃhe̥p] [tʃep]

‘cry out’ ‘to quarrel’ ‘to quarrel’? ‘three’ ‘three’ ‘three’

Pukina Chipaya Uru Pukina Chipaya Uru

1 The transcription used by Cerrón-Palomino and Ballón Aguirre (2011) has been adjusted to the one adopted for the present paper.

263

language contacts of pukina

c. [xisi] [hi:ş] [xi:s] d. [mati] [maht] [ma]~[mat] e. [para] [phál] f. [pesk]~[pesq] [piʃk] [pisk] g. [kaxa] [qaxa] [kax]~[kaxa] h. [sisqa] [şiş] [ʃiʃ] i. [taxa] [thḁx] [tax]~[taxa] j. [tu:] [thówa] [to:]~[towi] [yuki]~[yuqi] k. [yuhk] [yuki]

‘moon, month’ ‘moon, month’ ‘month’ ‘fellow’ ‘give birth’ ‘give birth’2 ‘separate’ ‘separate’ ‘one’ ‘two’ ‘two’ ‘debt’ ‘debt’ ‘debt(s)’ ‘know’ ‘know’ ‘know’ ‘to dream’ ‘to sleep’ ‘to sleep’ ‘young (man, woman)’ ‘young man’ ‘child of less than three years, young’ ‘face’ ‘face’ ‘face’

Pukina Chipaya Uru Pukina Chipaya Uru Pukina Chipaya Pukina Chipaya Uru Pukina Chipaya Uru Pukina Chipaya Uru Pukina Chipaya Uru Pukina Chipaya Uru Pukina Chipaya Uru

The Uru data on ‘quarrel’ (example 1a) are not particularly homogenous and apart from [tʃona] mentioned above, the following forms are recorded: [taruk], [saxu], [lusk] and [muru]. However, given its phonological and semantic resemblance to the Chipaya form, it appears justified listing Uru [tʃona] alongside Chipaya as a Pukina loan. The meaning of ‘to separate’ (example 1e) is expressed in Uru by [tax], thus showing no similarity to either Pukina or Chipaya. Another remark concerns Chipaya [maht] ‘give birth’ and Uru [ma]~ [mat] ‘give birth’ (example 1d). Although it is evident that these two instances are related, their semantic relationship to Pukina [mati] ‘fellow’ is not particu-

2 A tilde (~) denotes variants.

264

hannß

larly clear. It remains arguable whether this is indeed a borrowing from Pukina in Uru-Chipaya or whether the Pukina and Uru-Chipaya items resemble each other by chance. Apart from the Pukina borrowings in Uru-Chipaya recognised by CerrónPalomino and Ballón Aguirre (2011), there are further Pukina loan words in Uru-Chipaya, identified by Torero (2002: 448–456.). One of these is Pukina [ʃeki]~[ʃeqi] ‘eye’, which gave rise to Uru-Chipaya [tʃuki] ‘eye’ (Torero 2002: 454), but possibly also to Chipaya [tʃeq] ‘scrutinize, expect, observe’, and to Uru [tʃi]~[ʃi] ‘scrutinize, to count’. Another Pukina borrowing in Uru-Chipaya mentioned by Torero (2002: 453) is Pukina [qeru] ‘stomach’, reflected in Uru as [tʃeri]~[tʃhere] ‘stomach’ and in Chipaya as [ʈʂéri], semantically somewhat modified by referring to ‘food’. My own research yielded some additional Pukina loans in Uru-Chipaya, which include Pukina [kata]~[qata] ‘hear, listen’, Chipaya [kas] ‘obey’ and Uru [kɛts] ‘obey’ as well as Pukina [kare]~[qare] ‘to cry, weep’, Chipaya [qax] ‘tears’ and Uru [khauwi] ‘tear’. One Pukina borrowing that occurs only in Uru is [qa:]~[qɁa:] ‘silver, money’ from Pukina [sqana] ‘silver’. The respective Chipaya form is [pa:ʂ] ‘silver, money’ and thus not based on Pukina. Despite the observation that Uru and Chipaya share many Pukina loans there are no regular sound correspondences observable between Pukina, Uru and Chipaya. While this may be partly explained by the impact several other languages, above all Aymara and Quechua, had on Pukina and Uru-Chipaya in different stages of their development, it also makes determining the direction of borrowing somewhat difficult. However, I propose that Pukina was the donor language, while Uru and Chipaya were the receiving languages (see also Cerrón-Palomino and Ballón Aguirre 2011: 18). There is ethno-historical, sociolinguistic as well as structural evidence to support this claim. The copia de curatos (Espinoza Soriano [1592] 1982), an administrative document made for missionary purposes and listing the languages spoken in the Altiplano communities, suggests that in early colonial times Pukina was still an influential and widely used language. However, other sources of the same time (see Mercado de Peñalosa [1586] 1965: 336; Lizárraga [1608] 1968: 67; Vázquez de Espinosa [1628] 1948; Castro y de Castillo [1651] 1906: 201, 202) mention that Uru-Chipaya speakers suffered from low prestige and had done so even in precolonial times. This sociolinguistic imbalance is probably also reflected in the observation that Uru and Chipaya speakers refer(red) to their respective languages as ‘Pukina’ (see Lehmann 1929: n/p; Vellard 1949: 148; Cerrón-Palomino 2006: 22; author’s personal fieldwork observation). This suggests that Pukina, a lingua franca of the southern Andes (Cerrón-Palomino 2006: 22), was one of the most important contact languages of Uru and Chipaya. From an ethnohistorical and sociolinguistic point of view Pukina was the dominant language

265

language contacts of pukina

and it is therefore more likely that Pukina was the donor language for Uru and Chipaya than the other way around. Structural evidence is found in the above-mentioned Uru word [qa:]~[qɁa:] ‘silver, money’ which is a loan from Pukina [sqana] ‘silver’. Word-initial consonant clusters, such as [sq], are characteristic of Pukina (Adelaar and Van de Kerke 2009: 129), but unattested for Uru and Chipaya (Cerrón-Palomino 2006: 36; Hannß 2008: 59). Had Pukina borrowed this item from Uru or Chipaya, we could expect to find [q] in the initial position of the Pukina word as there is evidence that such as position is licensed for [q] in Pukina (see Torero 2002: 453).3 However, if Pukina was the donor language then simplification of the word-initial consonant cluster [sq] in Uru becomes explicable as Uru does not allow such consonant clusters in word-initial position. Thus, structural but especially ethnohistorical and sociolinguistic evidence suggests that Pukina was the source language for Uru and Chipaya. Note that although today Uru and Chipaya are geographically separated from each other, they share several Pukina loans, which indicates that both languages were equally exposed to Pukina influence and/or that Uru and Chipaya speakers entertained frequent contacts with each other. 2.2 Pukina and (Proto-)Takanan The following instance is another example of Pukina-Uru-Chipaya contacts, but also one of contacts between Pukina and the lowland Takanan languages. Consider examples (2a) through (2h).4 (2) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

[ata-qo] [ata-si] [ata-lo] [ɬata] *[ata] [ata] [ata-pea] [ata]

‘woman, wife’ ‘woman, wife, female’ ‘mother’ ‘female’ ‘village’ ‘tribe, clan’ ‘relative’

Pukina Kallawaya Uru5 Chipaya Proto-Takanan6 Takana Araona Cavineña7

3 See also the above-mentioned Pukina examples of [qeru] ‘stomach’, [kata]~[qata] ‘hear, listen’ and [kare]~[qare] ‘to cry, weep’. 4 Hyphenation in all following examples mine. 5 From: Muysken (2005: 7). 6 Note that Girard (1971) does not provide glosses of the reconstructed Proto-Takanan forms. 7 This item is based on Guillaume (2008: 803). Girard (1971: 55) also has ‘relative’, but lists as additional meanings ‘kinsmen, friend, companion, neighbour, citizen, subject’.

266

hannß

The forms in examples (2a) to (2c) suggest that the lexical base is [ata], to which different markers are attached in Pukina, Kallawaya and Uru. The function of the Kallawaya element [-si] is not entirely certain, although Adelaar (2004b: 360) suggests analysing it as a reflex of the Pukina ergative marker [-s]. The Uru suffix [-lo] of [ata-lo] is probably borrowed from Aymara [-la], where it is attached to kinship terms (Porterie-Gutiérrez 1988: 145). The element *[-qo] of Pukina [ata-qo] requires some discussion. Pukina [ata-qo] ‘woman, wife’ forms a pair with Pukina [raa-qo] ‘male, husband’, where both items are suffixed with an element *[-qo]. The same marker is possibly also attested in Pukina [xani-qo] ‘high’. The Pukina form *[-qo] may be interpreted as an attributive marker with the meaning of ‘belonging to’ (Willem Adelaar p.c.). Further evidence for *[-qo] as a grammatical element comes from Grasserie (1894: 21) who describes [-qo] as a nominal derivational suffix.8 Should the analysis of *[-qo] as an attributive marker be correct then [ata-qo] and [raa-qo] should actually rather mean ‘female’ and ‘male’, respectively. However, it is possible that at a certain point in time the marker *[-qo] became lexicalised and the resulting forms [ata-qo] and [raa-qo] were then re-interpreted as simply referring to ‘woman’ and ‘man’. Quite interestingly, Cholón has an adjectivizer [-ko]~[-o] which, among others, occurs on the terms for ‘man’, [nun], and ‘woman’, [ila], rendering [nun-o] ‘male’ and [ila-ko] ‘female’ (Alexander-Bakkerus 2005: 154– 155; Alexander-Bakkerus p.c.).9 Both form and function of the Cholón adjectivizer [-ko]~[-o] are comparable to that of Pukina *[-qo] and it is conceivable that this is an instance of language contact between Pukina and Cholón. Scrutinizing the lexicon and grammar of Pukina and Cholón for further similarities may be a worthy topic for future research. Taking the above into consideration, I suggest that the lexical base of the Pukina word for ‘woman, wife’ is *[ata]. While it is thus formally identical to the Proto-Takanan and modern Takanan forms in examples (2e) through (2h), Pukina *[ata] is semantically close only to modern Cavineña [ata] ‘relative’. However, contact between Pukina and modern Cavineña seems unlikely for several reasons. First, if we assume that Pukina was the source for the Cavineña term, this leaves lexical similarities between Cavineña and other modern Takanan languages unexplained. If, on the other hand, Cavineña is interpreted as the donor language for Pukina, then this must have happened after the split of Proto-Takanan into the distinct Takanan languages, i.e. after the 8 Note that [-qo] is represented as ⟨go⟩ in Grasserie’s transcription (ibid.). This is in accordance with his representation of ‘woman’ as ⟨atago⟩ (Grasserie 1894: 12). 9 If the nominal base ends in a consonant, the adjectivizer takes the form [-o], while after a vowel it is realised as [-ko] (ibid.).

267

language contacts of pukina

fifth century (Section 1). However, at this time, Pukina was an influential and widespread language and would remain so until colonial times. Thus, from an ethno-historical perspective it is less likely that Pukina would have borrowed from Cavineña. What I therefore suggest is that Pukina provided *[ata] for Proto-Takanan, from where it spread into the emerging distinct Takanan languages. Note that in this case, the (Proto-)Takanan items in examples (2e) through (2h) were shared borrowings, not cognates. The semantic content of Pukina *[ata] has to remain largely elusive. Given that the meaning of [ata] in the modern Takanan languages includes such notions as ‘relative, neighbour, companion’, it is imaginable that its meaning in Pukina was something along the lines of *‘female relative’ rather than ‘woman, wife’. However, if Pukina *[ata] already meant ‘woman, wife’ when it was allegedly borrowed by Proto-Takanan, then semantic broadening is the most likely explanation for the semantic difference between Pukina and the Takanan languages. A change of meaning by the borrowing Proto-Takanan language(s) does not come as a surprise as the alleged recipient language(s) most likely already had a term for ‘woman, wife’ when borrowing from Pukina.10 The semantic broadening must have taken place either in Proto-Takanan or at the latest when the distinct Takanan languages emerged. Example (3) is another instance of Pukina-Proto-Takanan contacts. (3) a. b. c. d. e.

[e-kwiɲa] *[kwina] [kwina] [kwaiɲa] [kwina]

‘go out, remove’ ‘arrive’ ‘arrive’ ‘give birth’

Pukina Proto-Takanan Takana Araona Cavineña

As shown in example (3a), the word-initial [e] of Pukina [e-kwiɲa] is interpreted here as a prefix [e-], indicating ‘reversion’ (Torero 2002: 431; Adelaar and Van de Kerke 2009: 144, footnote 12; Willem Adelaar p.c.).11 However, if [e-] is viewed as a prefix meaning ‘reversion’, then Pukina *[kwiɲa], without this prefix, cannot mean ‘go out, remove’. Rather, it should denote something

10 11

I owe this observation to an anonymous reviewer. Torero (ibid.; emphasis mine) provides further examples of the prefix e-, such as, for instance, eʔ-kuma-ɲ ‘he sat down again’ (transcription adapted to the conventions used here). Moreover, Adelaar and Van de Kerke (2009: 144, footnote 12) also discuss whether the form ⟨hihi⟩ which precedes the verb ⟨stic ha⟩ ‘to hide’ might relate to the reversive prefix e-, although they point out that in the given context this is not an overly convincing analysis.

268

hannß

like *‘go in, enter’. As such, it is formally and semantically comparable to the Takanan forms listed in Examples (3c) through (3e). Thus, the element involved in the borrowing process was more likely *[kwiɲa] ‘go in, enter’ rather than any derived form thereof. No form *[kwiɲa] can be found in the Pukina corpus, but it is possible that [e-] became lexicalised on Pukina [e-kwiɲa] since the time of the alleged Pukina-Proto-Takanan contact. Regarding the direction of borrowing, I propose that it was, again, Pukina that provided for Proto-Takanan. This is suggested by an observation made by Girard (1971: 95) who proposes that Takana [kwina] and related forms may be borrowed, although he does not suggest a possible donor language and does not provide any further evidence for his assumption, either. However, additional support comes from the form of the nasal in the Pukina and (Proto-)Takanan items. While both [n] and [ɲ] are well attested for Pukina (Adelaar and Van de Kerke 2009: 130), evidence for the phonemic status of [ɲ] in the modern Takanan languages is weak (Emkow 2006: 53; Guillaume 2008: 32; Vuillermet 2012: 169). Accordingly, a palatal nasal is not reconstructed for Proto-Takanan (Key 1968: 34; Girard 1971: 23). The observation that a palatal nasal does not have phonemic value in either Proto-Takanan or modern Takanan but is phonemic in Pukina points to the latter as the providing language for Proto-Takanan. The uncommon sound [ɲ] would have been de-palatalized upon borrowing by Proto-Takanan. Lastly, I would like to emphasise again that at the latest from the seventh century until (post-)colonial times Pukina was an influential and widespread language, which makes borrowing from Pukina into Proto-Takanan the more likely scenario. Should this assumption be correct, the forms in examples (3b) through (3e) were again not cognates, but shared borrowings (see examples 2e to 2h). In this context, I would like to point out that neither Proto-Takanan *[ata] nor *[kwina] are among shared Proto-Takanan and Proto-Panoan cognates (Girard 1971; Pilar Valenzuela p.c.). The discussion about the nature of the relationship between Takanan and Panoan languages is far from being settled (see Adelaar 2004a: 39, for an overview; see also Fleck 2013) and elaborating on this discussion is clearly beyond the scope of the present paper. However, the observation that Proto-Takanan words, for which an origin from Pukina is suggested here, are not shared by Proto-Panoan may be interpreted as further evidence for the contact scenarios outlined above. Before turning to language contacts between Pukina, Kunza and Mapudungun, the Uru form [kepitʃ] ‘to return’ should be briefly mentioned. It is based on the verb [pitʃ] ‘come’. Uru [kepitʃ] ‘return’ can thus be analysed as consisting of the verb base [pitʃ] ‘come’ and a possible prefix [ke-], expressing something like ‘back (again)’ and thus ‘reversal of action’ (Hannß 2008: 223). As such, Uru [ke-] is formally and functionally similar to Pukina [e-] and it is possible that

269

language contacts of pukina

Uru [ke-] represents a grammatical borrowing from Pukina. Note, however, that Uru [kepitʃ] is the only instance of this alleged prefix [ke-] and was lexicalised at the time of documentation. 2.3 Pukina, Kunza and Mapudungun Similarly to Pukina-Proto-Takanan contacts, evidence for relations between Pukina, Kunza and Mapudungun is equally scarce. However, there are cases that point to contacts between these speech communities (examples 4a through 4e).12 (4) a. [qu] b. [ku] c. [Xu-tʃɁir]~[ku-tʃe]~[khotʃe] d. [Xu-tʃin-tur] e. [Xu-pa-Xo-tur]~[Xo-pa-Xotur]

‘go, descend’ ‘go’ ‘foot’

Pukina Old Mapudungun Kunza

‘walk’ Kunza ‘to run, run about, Kunza stroll around’

The label ‘Old Mapudungun’ refers to the variety that was recorded by Valdivia (1606) (Adelaar 2004f: 508), contemporaneous with the recording of Pukina by Oré (1607). The use of [ku] in Old Mapudungun implies that contact between Pukina and Mapudungun had already occurred in pre-colonial times. In modern Mapudungun, the item [ku] has been replaced by the verb [amu] ‘go’ (Adelaar 2004f: 509), although Old Mapudungun [ku] may be maintained in modern Mapudungun [aku] ‘arrive’ as well as in [konɨ] ‘enter’. The case of Kunza demands some discussion. As indicated in example (4c), I propose that it is possible to identify an alleged root *[Xu]~[ku]~[kho] which is followed by an element [-tʃɁir]. This element [-tʃɁir] (and its variant [-tʃe]) is a nominaliser, although its exact function remains unknown (Adelaar 2004d: 384). The Kunza expression [Xu-tʃɁir] in example (4c) thus consists of a verbal form *[Xu], which resembles the Pukina verb [qu] ‘go, descend’ and possibly also means *‘go’, and a Kunza nominaliser [-tʃɁir], thus yielding ‘foot’. The elements [-tʃin] and [-pa-Xo] in examples (4d) and (4e) are unanalysable so far, but the ending [-tur] is an infinitive marker (Adelaar 2004d: 384), suggesting that [-tʃin] and [-pa-Xo] are grammatical, and most likely, verbal material. This, again, leaves us with a probable verb base *[Xu]. It is thus possible to isolate from the examples (4c) to (4e) a verbal root *[Xu] with the possible meaning of *‘go’. Note, however, that the modern Kunza word for ‘go’ is [sax], although 12

In the case of Kunza, alleged verb roots are bold.

270

hannß

it is possible that, like Old Mapudungun [ku], Kunza *[Xu] has been replaced by another word. When it comes to the direction of borrowing, things are less clear. With respect to Kunza, no isolated form *[Xu] is attested in the sources and expressions involving an element *[Xu] exist only in derived form. This makes Kunza an unlikely candidate for being the donor language, leaving us with either Mapudungun or Pukina. Old Mapudungun [ku] ‘go’ seems to be present in derived forms of modern Mapudungun, such as [aku] ‘arrive’ and [konɨ] ‘enter’. This, then, might suggest that [ku] had its origin in Mapudungun. However, it could also indicate that [ku] is a very old loan in Mapudungun and as such integrated into the grammatical and lexical structure of this language. Given these considerations, I am reluctant to name a language as donor language here, but would like to suggest, very tentatively, that Pukina might have been, once again, the providing language, bearing in mind that it was an influential and possibly prestigious language. However, this is a very cautious and uncertain suggestion. With respect to Kunza, it has to remain an open question whether it borrowed from Pukina or Mapudungun. Some evidence for possible direct contacts between Pukina and Kunza comes from the forms of the respective nominal plural markers which is [-kata~-qata] in Pukina and [-Xota] in Kunza (Adelaar 2004d: 382, footnote 176).13 A last instance of Pukina-Mapudungun contacts is presented in examples (5a) and (5b) (Adelaar 2004f: 541; Willem Adelaar p.c.). (5) a. [kuma] b. [kom]

‘all’ ‘every, all’

Pukina Mapudungun

The phonological form and the semantic content strongly suggest contact between Pukina and Mapudungun. However, as both languages allow a CVC as well as a CVCV structure for lexical bases (e.g. Pukina [pip] ‘meat, flesh’; Smeets 2008: 38) and as both Pukina and Mapudungun have phonemic /o/ and /u/, the linguistic structure of examples (5a) and (5b) does not reveal anything about the possible direction of borrowing. It thus has to remain elusive. There is further evidence that Pukina, Mapudungun and Kunza were in contact. First, in a study on inverse markers in Pacaraos Quechua, Pukina and Mapudungun (referred to as “Mapuche”), Adelaar (2009: 184) concludes that “linguistic evidence suggests that some sort of interaction between Mapuche 13

The representations of the Pukina and Kunza plural markers have been adapted to the transcription conventions used here. Adelaar (ibid.) transcribes the Pukina nominal plural marker as ⟨-gata⟩, while the Kunza nominal plural marker is represented as ⟨-ckota⟩.

language contacts of pukina

271

and the other three languages (i.e. Pacaraos Quechua, Aymara and Pukina, KH) may have existed at a certain point of time, even though the resemblances are structural rather than formal.” The suggestion that Mapudungun had relations to the Andean languages receives further backup by D’ Ans (1977: 135–138). He states that the so-called Chango language of northern Chile is actually Mapudungun, proposing that Mapudungun was spoken as far north as Cobija (Chile), near Arica, and thus very close to both the Kunza- as well as the Pukina-speaking area (Section 1). Geographic proximity of Mapudungun, Kunza and Pukina has probably facilitated contacts between these speech communities.

3

Discussion and Concluding Remarks

In the preceding sections, I proposed three areas of contact of the Pukina language. One area is around the Lakes of Titicaca and Coipasa in western and southwestern Bolivia; Pukina has been suggested as donor language for Uru-Chipaya. Another area of contact includes the eastern Andean foothills and neighbouring lowlands. Here, I proposed that Pukina was in contact with Proto-Takanan, acting as the providing language. Lastly, the southern Peruvian and northern Chilean Pacific coast has been identified as another area of contact, where at least Pukina and Mapudungun were in contact with each other. Pukina has been tentatively interpreted as the donor language. It remains uncertain whether Pukina was in direct contact with Kunza. Scarcity of instances may lead to suggesting that similarities between the languages under discussion are due to chance rather than to contact. However, the languages considered in the present paper do not only show lexical but possibly also some structural similarities: the Uru prefix ke-, indicating ‘reversal of action’ (Hannß 2008: 223), might be a grammatical borrowing from Pukina e‘reversion’ (Torero 2002: 431; Adelaar and Van de Kerke 2009: 144, footnote 12) (Section 2.2). Also, Pukina and Mapudungun (along with Pacaraos Quechua) developed “similar strategies [of inverse marking, KH] in order to set up a complex personal reference system” (Adelaar 2009: 184) (Section 2.3). If we take furthermore into consideration that all the alleged contact languages of Pukina are/were spoken in proximity to Pukina, in some cases for a remarkable span of time, chance similarity is not the most satisfying explanation for the observed similarities. The lexical items as well as the grammatical structures discussed here also point to more intense contacts between Pukina and its contact languages than are reflected by the available data. However, so far, language contacts of Puk-

272

hannß

ina were hardly studied at all and future research, including languages not considered yet (Section 2.2), may reveal further instances of Pukina language contacts. Finally, it is difficult to establish any chronology for lack of sufficient data, but it appears that contacts between Pukina and the languages under consideration occurred well before colonial times. In the case of Proto-Takanan, we can assume a starting point of contact of around 500 AD. In general, it is quite likely that the contact scenarios discussed in the present paper date back mainly to the first millennium AD, which coincides with the time of the greatest distribution and influence of Pukina (Section 1). However, contacts between Pukina and its neighbouring languages may well have gone on even after the fall of the Tiahuanaco Empire. The considerable time depth may also partly explain the scarce database on Pukina loans, given that in the 1,000 or more years that have passed since then, all languages were subject to quite different developments and influences.

Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank the editors of this volume, Astrid AlexanderBakkerus, Rebeca Fernández Rodríguez, Liesbeth Zack and Otto Zwartjes, as well as an anonymous reviewer for their insightful and inspiring comments and suggestions on several versions of this paper. Their support greatly improved the manuscript. Also, I am indebted to my colleagues at the ROLD meetings and elsewhere for their critical remarks on and discussions of the language contacts of Pukina which helped to shape the hypotheses presented in the paper. All remaining errors are mine, of course. Research on the language contacts of Pukina was carried out during two projects on the Kallawaya language (DFG grant numbers: HA 6340/2–1 and HA 6340/2–2).

References Adelaar, Willem. 2004a. “Other proposals for individual language families.” In The languages of the Andes, edited by Willem Adelaar and Pieter Muysken, 36–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adelaar, Willem. 2004b. “Puquina and Callahuaya.” In The languages of the Andes, edited by Willem Adelaar and Pieter Muysken, 350–362. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adelaar, Willem. 2004c. “The Uru-Chipaya languages.” In The languages of the Andes,

language contacts of pukina

273

edited by Willem Adelaar and Pieter Muysken, 362–375. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adelaar, Willem. 2004d. “The Atacameño language.” In The languages of the Andes, edited by Willem Adelaar and Pieter Muysken, 375–385. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adelaar, Willem. 2004e. “Introduction to: The Araucanian Sphere.” In The languages of the Andes, edited by Willem Adelaar and Pieter Muysken, 502–508. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adelaar, Willem. 2004f. “Araucanian or Mapuche.” In The languages of the Andes, edited by Willem Adelaar and Pieter Muysken, 508–544. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adelaar, Willem. 2009. “Inverse markers in Andean languages: A comparative view.” In The Linguistics of Endangered Languages. Contributions to Morphology and Morphosyntax, edited by W. Leo Wetzels, 171–185. Utrecht: LOT. Adelaar, Willem and Pieter Muysken. 2004. “Appendix: Inventory of languages and language families of the Andean region.” In The languages of the Andes, edited by Willem Adelaar and Pieter Muysken, 610–624. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adelaar, Willem and Pieter Muysken. 2004. The languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adelaar, Willem and Simon van de Kerke. 2009. “Puquina.” In Lenguas de Bolivia, Vol. I: Ámbito Andino, edited by Mily Crevels and Pieter Muysken, 125–146. La Paz: Plural Editores. Alexander-Bakkerus, Astrid. 2005. Eighteenth-century Cholón. PhD dissertation, Leiden University. Utrecht: LOT. Alexiades, Miguel N. and Daniela M. Peluso. 2009. “Plants ‘of the Ancestors’. Plants ‘of the Outsiders’: Ese Eja history, migration and medicinal plants.” In Mobility and migration in indigenous Amazonia: Contemporary ethnoecological perspectives, edited by Miguel N. Alexiades, 220–248. Oxford: Berghahn. Castro y de Castillo, Antonio de. [1651] 1906. “Descripción del Obispado de la Paz.” In Juicio de Límites entre el Perú y Bolivia. Prueba peruana presentada al Gobierno de la República Argentina por Victor M. Maúrtua, edited by Victor M. Maúrtua, 184–234. Vol. XI. Barcelona: Heinrich y Comp. Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2006. El chipaya o la lengua de los hombres del agua. Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo and Enrique Ballón Aguirre. 2011. Chipaya. Léxico-Etnotaxonomía. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit, Lima: Fondo Editorial Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. D’Ans, André-Marcel. 1977. “Chilueno ou Arauco, langue des Changos du nord du Chili (dialecte Mapuche septentrional).” Amerindia 2: 135–138.

274

hannß

Emkow, Carola. 2006. A grammar of Araona, an Amazonian language of Northwestern Bolivia. Unpublished PhD dissertation. La Trobe: Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University. Espinoza Soriano. Waldemar. [1596] 1982. “Los fundamentos lingüísticos de la etnohistoria andina y comentarios en torno al Anónimo de Charcas de 1604.” In Aula quechua, edited by Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino, 163–202. Lima: Signo Universitario. Fleck, David. 2013. Panoan languages and linguistics. New York: American Museum of Natural History. Girard, Victor. 1971. Proto-Takanan phonology. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. Grasserie, Raoul de la. 1894. Langue Puquina. Leipzig: K.F. Koehler. http://pubman.mpdl .mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:405439:6/component/escidoc:405438/puquina _grasserie1894_o.pdf (accessed 27 December 2018). Guillaume, Antoine. 2008. A grammar of Cavineña. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hannß, Katja. 2008. Uchumataqu. The lost language of the Urus of Bolivia. A grammatical description of the language as documented between 1894 and 1952. PhD dissertation. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen. Holman, Eric W., Cecil H. Brown, Søren Wichmann, André Müller, Viveka Velupillai, Harald Hammarström, Sebastian Sauppe, Hagen Jung, Dik Bakker, Pamela Brown, Oleg Belyaev, Matthias Urban, Robert Mailhammer, Johann-Mattis List, Dmitry Egorov. 2011. Automated dating of the world’s language families based on lexical similarity. http://wwwstaff.eva.mpg.de/~wichmann/AutomatedDatingFinal.pdf (accessed 5 July 2014). Ibarra Grasso, Dick. 1958. Lenguas Indígenas Americanas. Buenos Aires: Editorial Nova. Isbell, William H. 2012. “Middle Horizon imperialism and the prehistoric dispersal of Andean languages.” In Archaeology and language in the Andes. A cross-disciplinary exploration of prehistory, edited by Paul Heggarty and David Beresford-Jones, 219– 245. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Key, Mary Ritchie. 1968. Comparative Tacanan phonology. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. Key, Mary Ritchie and Bernard Comrie, eds. 2015. The Intercontinental Dictionary Series. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://ids.clld.org (accessed 27 December 2018). Lehmann, Walter. 1929. Vocabularion de la lengua Uro sacado por Dr. W. Lehmann, en el ́ (“estancia de Ū ̓ ros” el día 12 de octubre 1929. pueblecito de Hănko Hākē o sea Ū ́ ru ērŭītŭ [sic!]. Ms. Berlin: Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut. Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig, eds. 2015. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Eighteenth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com and https://www.ethnologue.com/language/kuz (accessed 27 December 2018).

language contacts of pukina

275

Lizárraga, Reginaldo de. [1608] 1968. Descripción breve de toda la tierra del Perú, Tucumán, Río de la Plata y Chile. Madrid: Atlas. Mercado de Peñalosa, Petro. [1608] 1965. “Relación de los Pacajes.” In Relaciones Geográficas de Indias: Peru, edited by Marcos Jiménez de la Espalda, 334–341. Madrid: Atlas. Montaño Aragón, Mario. 1987. Guia Etnográfica Lingüística de Bolivia (Tribus de la Selva), Vol. 1, 23–52. La Paz, Bolivia: Editorial Don Bosco. Mossel, Arjan, Nicholas Q. Emlen, Simon Van de Kerke, Willem F.H. Adelaar. 2020. “Puquina kin terms.” In From Mesoamerica to Patagonia. Colonial Studies of LatinAmerican Languages, edited by Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus, Rebeca Fernández Rodríguez, Liesbeth Zack and Otto Zwartjes. Leiden: Brill (277–298). Muysken, Pieter. 2005. El Idioma Uchumataqu. Irohito: Distrito Nacionalidad Indigena. Urus de Irohito. Oré, Luis Jeronimo de. 1607. Ritvale, sev manvale Pervanvm, et forma brevis administrandi apud Indos sacrosancta Baptismi, Pœnitentiæ, Eucharistiæ, Matrimonij, & Extremæ vnctionis Sacramenta. Naples: Io. Iacobus Carlinus & Constantinus Vitalis. Ottaviano, John and Ida Ottaviano. 1989. Diccionario Tacana-Castellano. CastellanoTacana. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Philippi, Rodulfus Amandus. 1860. Reise durch die Wüste Atacama auf Befehl der chilenischen Regierung im Sommer 1853–1854. Halle: Eduard Anton. Porterie-Gutiérrez, Liliane. 1988. Étude linguistique de l’Aymara septentrional (PérouBolivie). PhD dissertation. Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris IV. Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A grammar of Mapuche. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Torero, Alfredo. 1965. Le Puquina, la troisième langue générale du Pérou. PhD dissertation. Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris IV. Torero, Alfredo. 2002. Idiomas de los Andes. Lingüistica e Historia. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, Editorial Horizonte. 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). Vázquez de Espinosa, Antonio. [1628] 1948. Compendio y descripción de las Indias Occidentales. Transcribed from the original manuscript by Charles Upson Clark. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute. Vellard, Jean (Jehan) A. 1949. “Contribution à l’étude des Indiens Uru ou Kot’suñs.” Travaux de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 1: 145–209. Vilte Vilte, Julio. n/d. Diccionario Kunza-Español. Español-Kunza. Lengua del Pueblo Lickan Antai o Atacameño. Chile: Codelco. http://www.memoriachilena.cl/archivos 2/pdfs/mc0038216.pdf (accessed 27 December 2018). Vuillermet, Marine. 2012. A grammar of Ese Ejja, a Takanan language of the Bolivian Amazon. PhD dissertation. Université Lumière Lyon 2. http://www.marinevuillermet

276

hannß

.com/wp‑content/uploads/2012/12/a_grammar_of_eseejjaFINAL.pdf (accessed 27 December 2018). Zúñiga, Fernando. 2014. “Nomina compounds in Mapudungun.” In Word formation in South American languages, edited by Swintha Danielsen, Katja Hannß, Fernando Zúñiga, 11–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

chapter 10

Puquina Kin Terms Arjan Mossel, Nicholas Q. Emlen, Simon van de Kerke, and Willem F.H. Adelaar

1

Introduction

This chapter offers an analysis of kin terms in the Puquina language, spoken until the early nineteenth century in the South-Central Andes. Puquina presents a difficult interpretive puzzle for linguists: despite its prominence during the early colonial period, the language survives today only in fragments of a single text, Jerónimo de Oré’s Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum (1607). The Puquina passages of this text are often opaque and inconsistent, limiting the descriptive observations that can be made about the language. The Leiden Puquina Working Group has undertaken a reanalysis of the Rituale,1 and some new aspects of the structure and lexicon of the language have become clear. Our analysis of Puquina kinship terminology, presented here, refines and expands upon that of Torero (2002). First, we find that some Puquina kin terms are distinguished by the gender of ego. Second, the terms appear to be organized in a bifurcate merging system, a type of kinship structure first identified for Iroquois by Morgan (1871). Here, ego’s father and his brothers are called by the same term; ego’s mother and her sisters are called by the same term; and ego’s siblings and parallel cousins are called by the same terms (see Sections 3 and 5.1). Both of these features are also found in the Quechua and Aymara systems (Rodicio García 1980; Webster 1977: 28–32; Zuidema 1977: 265). This analysis of Puquina kin terms may help to understand the kinship structure, and the place of Puquina speakers in pre-colonial Andean society, though only so much can be said in the absence of information about Puquina social structure itself (cf. Zuidema 1977: 240).

1 See https://rituale.gitlab.io/. The Leiden Puquina Working Group currently includes Arjan Mossel, Nicholas Q. Emlen, Simon van de Kerke, and Willem F.H. Adelaar.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004427006_011

278 2

mossel et al.

The Puquina Language and the Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum

At the beginning of the colonial period, Puquina was one of the major languages of the South-Central Andes. It was so widespread in some parts of this region that the synods of Cuzco (1591) and Arequipa (1638) required priests to use it, alongside Quechua and Aymara, in their dioceses (Créqui-Montfort & Rivet 1925–1927; Torero 1970 [1972]; Torero 1987) (Toledo 1575). However, unlike Quechua and Aymara, which both thrived throughout the colonial period and have retained large speaker populations to the present, Puquina dwindled and disappeared from the written record altogether in the early nineteenth century. Our knowledge of Puquina’s geographical range comes mostly from colonial documents; the Copia de los curatos (ca. 1600) is particularly important in this respect (Bouysse-Cassagne 1975; Torero 1987; Torero 2002). According to Torero, there were three predominantly Puquina-speaking areas: around Lake Titicaca; between the city of Arequipa and the department of Tacna (Peru); and between Sucre and Potosí in present-day Bolivia (see also Domínguez Faura 2014, who argues that the presence of Puquina around Potosí was the result of the Toledan mining mita). Puquina toponymy, which gives a good indication of the language’s former geographical extent (Mossel 2009), suggests that it was even more widely spoken before the colonial period. This area roughly coincides with the extent of the Tiahuanaco Empire (around 200–1,000 AD) (Stanish 2003: 8–11), suggesting an association between Puquina and that polity (Cerrón-Palomino 2016: 200). Puquina may have also been the ‘particular language’ of the Inka nobility (Cerrón-Palomino 2012). Puquina has no proven genealogical relationship with other languages, though a connection with the Arawak languages has been proposed because of similarities in the pronominal systems and a small number of lexical items (Créqui-Montfort and Rivet 1925–1927; de la Grasserie 1894: 481–482; Torero 2002). The language has on occasion been confused in the literature with Uru as well as Chipaya, and relatedness with the Aymara and Uru-Chipaya language families has been suggested in the past. A clear link does exist with the Kallawaya language, spoken by herbal healers in Bolivia, which mixes Puquina lexical items and Quechua morphology (see also Hannß 2017; Muysken 1997). The sole surviving document in Puquina is Jerónimo de Oré’s Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum (1607), a multilingual work containing prayers, catechisms, and instructions for confession in Quechua, Aymara, and Puquina, with shorter sections in Mochica, Guaraní, and ‘lengua Brasilica’ (Tupinambá).2 The Pu-

2 Oré copied the Puquina sections of the Rituale from an earlier, unidentified work by the Jesuit

puquina kin terms

279

quina text has been studied by a number of scholars since the late nineteenth century (notably, Adelaar and Muysken 2004: 350–362; Adelaar and Van de Kerke 2009; Créqui-Montfort and Rivet 1925–1927; de la Grasserie 1894; Torero 1965; Torero 2002: 408–456). However, problems of analysis remain. The Rituale’s substantial orthographic variation and numerous printing errors have made it difficult to interpret both the phonology (for instance, regarding a possible distinction between velar and uvular consonants) and the morphology of Puquina. Further complicating the matter is the likely presence of dialectal variations within the text, which may also account for the ubiquity of synonyms and rephrasings (Adelaar and Muysken 2004: 351; Torero 2002: 409).3 Finally, the short length (about 3,600 words in total, about 260 unique lexical items) and the religious nature of the text limit its utility for understanding the structure and lexicon of Puquina more broadly. The analysis that follows examines kin terms that occur throughout the Rituale, as well as those found only in a small section of the Puquina confessionary (text L6, regarding the Sixth Commandment) that deals with sexual relations among family members.4 Note that the standardized Puquina orthography employed in this chapter is not based on an analysis of the sound system— which is still poorly understood—but merely serves the purpose of standardizing and segmenting the text. Our transcription of Oré’s original orthography is given in the first line of each example; where used in running text, it is indicated with ‹…›. For most of the document, our interpretation relies on the corresponding Quechua, Spanish, and Aymara sections, since the Puquina version is often a direct or even word-for-word (though not always faithful) translation of the Quechua and/or Aymara versions. Further comments about text L6 are found in Section 5. Our analysis of the Puquina kin terms is summarized, side by side with Torero’s (2002), in the conclusion.

Alonso de Barzana (Oré 1607: 385), along with unspecified modifications (see also Durston 2007: 335, note 41). The source may have been a work by Barzana mentioned in bibliographic catalogs (e.g. Alegambe and Ribadeneira 1643), which was supposedly published in Lima in 1590 (Brunet 1820), but this work has never been found. 3 Puquina’s large dialectal variation was also mentioned in the constitution of Cuzco’s 1591 Synod: “[…] es tan varia y diferente en cada pueblo á donde se habla” [it is very diverse and different in each village where it is spoken] (Polo 1901: 454). 4 Torero (2002) labeled the twenty-six Puquina sections in the Rituale with the letters A–Z; we follow this organizational system in this chapter, and indicate specific texts in brackets.

280 3

mossel et al.

Mother and Father

Some Puquina kin terms appear frequently throughout the Rituale, and do not present major difficulties in interpretation. For instance, iki ‘father’ refers consistently to both the fathers of the parishioners (see (3) below) and to God. This term corresponds regularly to Quechua yaya ‘father’, Spanish padre ‘father’, and Aymara awki ‘father’ in the other versions of the same texts in the Rituale, as shown in (1):5 (1) Cvhañapi Dios yqui vin atipeno gutta … dios iki vin atipa-eno-guta kuha-ñ a-p-i like-DV say-2S-IR God father all prevail-AG-AL En ‘Do you believe in God, the Father almighty …’ Qu Y, ñinquichu Dios yaya, llapa atipacman … Ay Ya, stati, mayni çapaqui Dios Auqui, taque atipiriro … Sp Creeis en Dios Padre, todo poderoso … [G] The Puquina term iki ‘father’ is also found in the term suka iki ‘brother of father’ (for more on this term, see Section 5.1). This is consistent with the Quechua and Aymara bifurcate merging systems, in which the terms for ‘father’, yaya and awki (respectively), are also extended to father’s brother (Zuidema 1977: 265). Note that Aymara awki ‘father’ is sometimes modified by hila ‘older, greater’

5 The following morpheme codes are used in this paper: 2P second person possessive 2S second person subject 3P third person possessive AB ablative AD additive AG agentive nominalizer AL allative C comitative DV declarative F future G genitive IR interrogative PL plural RF reflexive TO topicalizer VO.FE feminine vocative Other abbreviations include Ay (Aymara), Pu (Puquina), Qu (Quechua), and Sp (Spanish).

puquina kin terms

281

and sullka ‘younger, lesser’ (cf. Puquina hila and suka). We interpret these formal and structural similarities with the Quechua and Aymara kinship terms as evidence that Puquina too extended the meaning of some terms to parallel kin. Similarly, imi ‘mother’ refers throughout the Rituale to the mothers of parishioners, as in (3) below, and to the Virgin Mary (2). This term regularly corresponds to Quechua mama ‘mother’, Aymara tayka ‘mother’, and Spanish madre ‘mother’ in the same texts elsewhere in the Rituale: (2)

ymi huaccha cuyeno imi wakcha kuya-eno mother destitute love-AG En ‘mother who loves the destitute’ (i.e. ‘mother of mercy’) Qu huacchay cuyac mama Ay huaccha cuyri tayca Sp Madre de misericordia [U]

As with iki ‘father’, imi ‘mother’ is extended to suka imi ‘sister of mother’ (Section 5.1), just as Quechua mama and Aymara tayka mean both ‘mother’ and ‘sister of mother’ (see also Aymara sullka tayka ‘mother’s younger sister’, discussed in section 5.1). When iki ‘father’ and imi ‘mother’ follow the nominal possessive markers po ‘your’ and chu ‘his, her’, they are reduced to ki and mi (respectively), as in (3): (3) … poqui, pomihamp yupaychaguepanch. po iki po imi-hamp yupaycha-ke-p-anch 2P father 2P mother-AD honor-F-2S-DV En ‘You shall honor your father and your mother.’ Qu … Yayayquicta, mamayquicta yupaychanqui. Ay Auquima, taycamsa yupaychahata. Sp … Honraras padre, y madre. [L4 and W] The full forms and the reduced forms of these terms are in complementary distribution throughout the Rituale: mi ‘mother’ and ki ‘father’ always appear after po ‘your’ and chu ‘his, her’, and the full forms imi ‘mother’ and iki ‘father’ appear in all other contexts. This may suggest a general rule that /i/-initial kin terms are reduced after vowel-final possessive markers—indeed, the reduction does not take place after the 1st person inclusive marker señ ‘our’ (note that no ‘my’, the remaining possessive marker in the paradigm, is not attested with /i/-initial

282

mossel et al.

table 10.1 /i/-initial kin terms in the Rituale

Full form

After po ‘your’ and chu ‘his, her’

(a) iki ‘father’

po ki ‘your father’ chu ki ‘his/her father’ (b) imi ‘mother’ po mi ‘your mother’ chu mi ‘his/her mother’ (c) iski ‘daughter (of man)’ po ski ‘your daughter (addressed to man)’

kin terms in the Rituale).6 This vowel deletion also takes place with the term iski ‘daughter (of man)’, which we will discuss below. This process is summarized in Table 10.1. Our analysis of the lexemes iki ‘father’ and imi ‘mother’ differs from that of Torero (2002: 451), who posits uki and umi as variants of those terms (respectively). Torero’s evidence for these variants appears to come from constructions in the Rituale such as ‹sancta Dios chumi› ‘Holy mother of God’ [U], which Torero interprets as the third person possessive marker chu ‘his or her’ followed by a variant umi ‘mother’ (2002: 149). Instead, we treat constructions such as chu ki ‘his father’ [T, V] and chu mi ‘his mother’ [L6, S, U] as the result of the process of vowel deletion described in Table 10.1 (i.e. /chu iki/ and /chu imi/). Our analysis thus eliminates the need to posit Torero’s variants uki and umi. Indeed, we have not found other cases of uki in the Rituale or elsewhere, while iki-li ‘father’ is attested both in Kallawaya (Girault 1989: 30; Hannß 2017: 250) and in the Puquina inscription above the portal to the baptistery in the Andahuaylillas church (Mannheim 1991: 47–48; Torero 2002: 394–395).7

6 The deletion of initial /i/ after vowel-final possessive markers only appears to apply to kin terms—for instance, we find ‹po isu› ‘your house’ [K, L3] instead of *po su. Adelaar and van de Kerke (2009: 132) give the form no uqui ‘my father’, on the basis of nuuki presented by Torero (2002: 419). However, this form is Torero’s own proposal, and is not attested in the Rituale. 7 Torero’s reading is also based on occurrences of ‹omi› and ‹umi› in words for ‘queen, noble lady’ (Torero 1987: 348). In text U, we find ‹capacomiye› ‘O mighty queen’ (kapak omi-ye; mighty queen-VO.FE), which corresponds to Quechua ‹çapay coya› ‘only queen’ and Spanish Dios Reyna ‘holy queen’. Bertonio’s Aymara dictionary (1612b: 325) registers the term ‹ccapkhomi› ‘mujer noble’, and Guamán Poma de Ayala (1615: 179–180) includes the description ‹capacumi› for one of the powerful ladies of Collasuyo. Since Quechua mama ‘mother’ was often used to refer to princesses and queens, an etymological connection between the aforementioned instances of umi ‘lady, queen’ and Puquina imi ‘mother’ is plausible.

puquina kin terms

4

283

Sons and Daughters

Puquina exhibits distinct terms for sons and daughters of male and female egos. To begin with, the Puquina term for ‘daughter (of man)’ was iski, as in (4). This term follows the pattern of initial vowel deletion after vowelfinal possessive markers described in Table 10.1, as in po ski ‘your daughter (addressed to man)’ in text L6 (see (13b) below). Example (4) lists the full form, iski: (4) po suca, iqui, isquim po suka iki iski-m 2P younger father daughter.of.man-C Eng ‘with the daughter of your younger father [i.e. uncle]’ [L6] Sons of men are called sku in the Rituale, as in (5): (5) Iesu Christo, Dios chuscu. Jesu Christo Dios chu sku Jesus Christ God 3P son Eng ‘Jesus Christ, son of God.’ Qu Iesu Christo Diospa churintam. Ay Iesu Christo, Diosna yocapahua. Sp A Iesu Christo Hijo de Dios. [E] Our analysis of this term differs from that of Torero (2002: 450) in two respects. First, he interprets chusku as an independent form, while we interpret it as sku modified by a third person marker chu. Evidence for this analysis comes from (14d) below, in which we find po suka iki skum ‘with your uncle’s son’—here, sku ‘son (of man)’ appears independent of chu ‘his’. Furthermore, it is instructive to consult other third person possessive constructions similar to that in (5), such as ‹Dios chumi› ‘mother of God’ (cf. Quechua ‹Diospa maman›, Aymara ‹Diosna taycapa›, and Spanish ‹madre de dios›) [S] and ‹sanctogata chu animagata› ‘the souls of the saints’ (cf. Quechua ‹sanctocunap animãcunacta› and Spanish ‹las animas de los sanctos Padres›) [V]. In such cases, the third person marker chu indicates possession by the preceding noun, as it does in ‹Dios chuscu› ‘son of God’ in (5). For these two reasons, Torero’s chusku is better analyzed as sku ‘son of man’ preceded by a third person possessive marker chu.8 A

8 However, there are two curious passages in which the 3rd person possessive marker chu

284

mossel et al.

second manner in which we differ from Torero is by narrowing of the semantic scope of sku from ‘son’ to ‘son (of man)’. In fact, sku only refers to sons of men in the Rituale, while sons of women are always called haya ‘child’ (see below). Another kin term in the Rituale is chaske, which we take to mean ‘daughter (of woman)’. This term appears just once in the Rituale—in the enigmatic Sixth Commandment section of the confessionary, about which more in Section 5— so this should be considered tentative. The example in (6) is the sole reference to a daughter of a woman in the text: (6) Chumim chazquem pantenoui? panta-eno-p-i chu imi-m chaske-m 3P mother-C daughter.of.woman-C err-AG-2S-IR En ‘Have you erred with a daughter and her mother?’ Qu [yscay ñañantinhuampas,] mamantinhuampas huchallicucchu canqui? Ay … taycapampi, puchapampisa … huchallissiritati? Sp Has peccado … con madre, y hija? [L6] An alternative hypothesis is that chaske comprises chu ‘his, her’ and iski ‘daughter’ (with the attendant vowel deletion described in Table 10.1) and that the vowel /u/ has simply been misspelled as /a/ in the text (note that i/e and u/o variations are common, but a/u variations are not). However, since chu is not necessary in this construction, and given that this form is the sole reference to the daughter of a woman in the Rituale, it would be an unlikely coincidence that the orthographic error would have happened to occur precisely in this form. Absent further evidence, we propose that chaske means ‘daughter (of woman)’.

appears to be doubled with sku ‘son (of man)’: ‹chu çapa chusco› ‘his only son’ [G] and ‹chu vestonca çapa chuscuguta› ‘to his only son’ [T]. These constructions seem to constitute evidence in favor of Torero’s proposal of chusku, but can be easily understood when we take the Quechua text into consideration where we find on both of these spots ‹paypa çapay churin› pay-pa sapay churi-n ‘he-G single son-3P’. It is clear that the Puquina expression is a word for word translation from the Quechua model (also compare the Andean Spanish variant ‘su hijo de Maria’ for the standard variant ‘el hijo de Maria’). Note too that the sku ‘son (of man)’ may have in fact been isku—it only appears after the 3rd person marker chu (in this environment initial /i/ is elided in kin terms, as in Table 10.1) and in the construction po suka iki sku ‘your younger father’s son’, in which the initial /i/ could have been omitted after iki. This would mean that ‘mother’, ‘father’, ‘daughter/sister (of man)’, and ‘son (of man)’ all would have been /i/-initial.

puquina kin terms

285

Another common kin term in the Rituale is haya ‘child’ (‹haya›, ‹aya›), of either a man or a woman.9 This term is used when the gender of a child is not known or specified, as in po haya-gata ‘your children’ in L4, or when the utterance is addressed to both a mother and a father, as in (7). Haya can also be modified with the terms raago ‘man’10 and atago ‘woman’ to specify the gender of children, as in the baptismal text in (7): (7) Quiñ toopi, raago ayai, inque atago ayay? kiñ too-p-i raago aya-i inke atago aya-i what bring-2S-IR man child-IR or woman child-IR En ‘What do you bring to the church, a male child or a female child?’ Qu Ymactam yglefiaman apamunquichic, cari huahuactachu, cayri huarmictachu? Ay Cuna huahuapi yglesiaro apanipiscata, yocallati, ymillacha? Sp Qué traéis a la Iglesia, infante, o infanta? [C] As mentioned above, haya ‘child’ also refers to sons of women (for more examples, see (14e) and (14f) below; however, (14e) contains an exception in referring to the son of a man as haya). Example (8) gives a reference to Jesus, the son of Mary: (8) poquiruch yurieno Iesus po haya … Jesus po haya po kiru-ch yuri-eno 2P belly-AB be.born-AG Jesus 2P son En ‘Your son Jesus, who was born from your womb …’ Qu Vicçayquimanta pacarimua [sic] Iesvs huahuayquiri … Ay Puracamata yuriri Iesvs huahuamasca … Sp … el fructu de tu vientre Iesus [S] A final observation regarding haya ‘child’ is that the Rituale instructs priests to use this term when addressing parishioners (e.g. ‹hayaré, hayayé› ‘o [male] child, o [female] child’ [N]). Table 10.2 summarizes the Puquina terms for ‘son’ and ‘daughter’: 9

10

Haya ‘child’ appears as ‹aya› in the first four of the 36 texts, and as ‹haya› thereafter. This may reflect the document’s hybrid authorship. Haya ‘child’ also appears once as ‹ha› (text K). The sequence aa in ‹raago› ‘male’ is probably separated by a glottal stop or glottal fricative; note the variant ‹rahago› in text O (cf. Kallawaya laja ‘man’). Thus it should not be interpreted as a long vowel. Absent a closer phonological analysis of Puquina, we have let this orthographic convention stand.

286

mossel et al.

table 10.2 Puquina terms for ‘son’ and ‘daughter’

of man of woman

5

Son

Daughter

sku haya ‘child’

iski chaske

The Sixth Commandment of the Confessionary

So far, we have mostly limited our discussion to kin terms that appear throughout the Rituale. However, a larger set of kin terms are found only in the section of the confessionary relating to the Sixth Commandment (Text L6), in which parishioners are asked about various types of sexual behavior. The third passage of the Puquina version of that text inventories family relations with whom parishioners are forbidden from engaging in sexual contact, and thus provides a uniquely comprehensive source of kin terms. A striking aspect of this text is that the Puquina version is far more detailed and voluminous in its inventory of kin relations than either the Spanish, Quechua, or Aymara versions. The Spanish version comprises just two sentences (9): (9) Has tenido quenta con alguna parienta tuya, ò de tu muger? Has peccado con dos hermanas, ò con madre, y hija? ‘Have you had sexual relations with a female relative of yours, or of your wife? Have you sinned with two sisters, or with a mother and daughter?’ The Quechua and Aymara versions of the passage are similarly terse, adding only a slightly elaborated construal of the European concept of parienta ‘female relative’ for an Andean audience. The Quechua and Aymara versions are given in (10) and (11): (10) Yahuar macijqui huarmihuan, cispa aylluyquihuan, huchallicucchu canqui? huarmiiquip yahuarmacinhuampas? yscay ñañantinhuampas, mamantinhuampas huchallicucchu canqui? ‘Have you sinned with a female blood relative, [or] with a close affine? With a blood relative of your wife? Have you sinned with two sisters, [or] with [a daughter] and mother?’

puquina kin terms

287

(11) Vila macima marmimpi, chinquima nacampi, apañamampi huchachassiritati? marmimana vila macipampi, cullaca purampisa? michca taycapampi, puchapampisa, vel, huayupampisa huchallissiritati? ‘Have you sinned with your female blood relative, with your younger sisters/cousins, [or] with your blood relative? With a blood relative of your wife, [or] among sisters/cousins? Or with a mother and daughter?’ At first, the Puquina text follows the brief Spanish, Quechua, and Aymara models, and inquires about a man’s consanguines and affines (12a). In this passage, the Puquina term ‹sallasi› corresponds to Spanish ‹parienta› ‘female relative’ (this may be related to Quechua saya ‘moiety’), which we have simply glossed as ‘family’. In Quechua, this concept is rendered with the opposed terms yawar masi warmi ‘female blood relative’ and sispa ayllu ‘close affine’ (an opposition also recorded by González Holguín 1608). The Spanish question ‹ò de tu muger› ‘or of your wife’ (Quechua ‹huarmiiquip yahuarmacinhuampas›, Aymara ‹marmimana vila macipampi›) corresponds to Puquina ‹po atago sallasi coyemghe› ‘female affines of your wife’s family’. (12) a. Po sallasi ghe ya gatomghe; po atago sallasi coyemghe huchachasquenoui? po sallasi-ghe yagato-m-ghe11 po atago sallasi kuy-m-ghe 2P family-TO woman-C-TO 2P wife family female.affine-C-TO huchacha-ska-eno-p-i sin-RF-AG-2S-IR ‘Have you sinned with the women of your family; or with the women of your wife’s family?’ The Puquina version proceeds to inquire about ‹cuyusun eguitoch›. This construction is rather opaque, but it appears to refer to female affines—perhaps the equivalent of sispa ayllu ‘close affine’ in the Quechua version (10). Kuy refers to ‘female affine’ throughout the text (as in 12a and 12b), while the construction ‹eguitoch›, and its longer version ‹eguitochquineno›, appear to mean ‘affine’ (perhaps comprising a verb of motion egui- and the directional suffix -tochu ‘inward motion’).

11

Yagato appears to be either an error or a variant of atago ‘woman’.

288

mossel et al.

(12) b. cuyusun eguitoch roguenoui? kuy usu-n eguitoch roga-eno-p-i female.affine girl-C affine have.sex-AG-2S-IR ‘Have you had sex with a female affine?’ Like the Spanish, Quechua, and Aymara texts, the Puquina version next addresses the question ‘… with a daughter and mother’, which we address in (6) above. Note that the question regarding ‘two sisters’, which is found in the Spanish (9), Quechua (10), and Aymara (11) versions, is apparently omitted in the Puquina text. The Spanish and Quechua versions end at this point, while the Puquina text goes on to list a bewildering array of kin terms, many of which are not attested elsewhere in the Rituale. This part of the text comprises two versions: one addressed to men (13) and one addressed to women (14). These are arranged side by side in Table 10.3 to show the correspondences in order of presentation between the two texts. Note that (14e) and (14f) are reordered to line up with their apparent counterparts. The profusion of kin terms in these passages presents a difficult puzzle, for which the more economical Spanish (9), Quechua (10), and Aymara (11) texts provide no guidance. In some cases—in particular, singletons that are listed outside of any clarifying context—interpretation is difficult. However, passages (13) and (14) do offer some analytical footholds. First, the frequent appearance of terms already discussed in this chapter gives hints to otherwise opaque constructions. Second, some of the terms are familiar in Quechua, Aymara, Uru-Chipaya, and Kallawaya. Third, as illustrated in Table 10.3, the men’s and women’s texts follow a similar order of presentation that allows for comparison between them. 5.1 Further Kin Terms in the Puquina Confessionary We now offer an analysis of the kin terms found in (13) and (14) that have not already been addressed in this chapter. The examples in this section follow the same numbering system given in Table 10.3 At this point in text L6, both the men’s and the women’s versions give detailed lists of the categories of kin with whom sexual relations are forbidden. (13a) begins by inquiring about a man’s female relative called psami, probably related to imi ‘mother’; the position in the text suggests that this means ‘female progenitor’, or perhaps ‘grandmother’, given its resemblance to aps-ma ‘grandmother’ in Uru (La Barre 1941: 519).

289

puquina kin terms

table 10.3 Men’s and women’s Puquina texts in the Sixth Commandment, arranged side by side in Oré’s orthography. Terms in boldface are discussed in this chapter.

(13) Addressed to men Parents and (13a) Pop samim mighenoui? po mim grandparents pantenoui? ‘Have you slept with your female progenitor? Have you erred with your mother?’ Siblings (13b) posquim pocuy eguitochquineno? ‘With your sister, [or] your female affine?’

Aunts and uncles

Children of aunts and uncles

Children of brothers and sisters

Other

(13c) po vpra, po sucaymi, po quim equitochquineno cuyum ‘[with] the sister of your father, [with] the sister of your mother, or [with] the female affines of your father (and his brothers)’ (13d) po suca, iqui, isquim, po rullin. ‘with the daughter of your father’s brother, or with your female cousin’

(13e) po hilaco, po sucaco ysquim mighenoui? ‘the daughter of your older brother/ male cousin, or of your younger brother/male cousin?’ (13f) po atago imim roguenoui? ‘Have you sinned with your wife’s mother?’

(14) Addressed to women (14a) Po equinom rosinoui? ‘Have you had sex with your male progenitor?’

(14b) po gom, po hilacom: po sucacom eguitochquineno cogatam, ‘with your brother/male cousin, your older brother/male cousin, with your younger brother/male cousin, with your in-marrying brother/male cousins …’ (14c) po suca iquim, po apisam, ‘with your brother of your father, with the brother of your mother’

(14d) po suca yquiscum, ‘with the son of your father’s brother’ (14f) po rutum, po sucaymi raago hayam rosinoui? ‘Have you had sex with your male cousin, or with the son of your mother’s sister?’ (14e) po guio raago hayam, pogogata raago hayam, ‘with the son of your sister, [or] with the son of your brothers/male cousins’

290

mossel et al.

Table 10.3 Men’s and women’s Puquina texts in the Sixth Commandment (cont.)

(13) Addressed to men

(14) Addressed to women (14g) pomi raagon12 mighenoui? sucaymi raagom, chu sua raagom rosinoui? ‘Have you slept with your mother’s man? Have you had sex with your younger mother’s husband, [or] with her cohabitant?’

(13) a. Pop samim mighenoui? po psami-m migha-eno-p-i 2P female.progenitor-C sleep-AG-2S-IR ‘Have you slept with your female progenitor?’ This is followed by the question ‹po mim pantenoui?› ‘have you erred with your mother?’, which does not present any difficulties in interpretation. Turning to the women’s version of the same question in (14a), we find the term ekino ‘male progenitor’. This is likely related to the verb aki- ‘to engender’, or perhaps to iki ‘father’. (14) a. Po equinom rosinoui? Po ekino-m rosi-eno-p-i 2P male.progenitor-C have.sex-AG-2S-IR ‘Have you had sex with your male progenitor?’ Passage (13b) turns to a man’s sisters and the female affines of his generation. Curiously, iski appears to mean both ‘daughter (of man)’ and ‘sister (of man)’ in the Rituale. This would be unusual, but it appears to be the best explanation of the data. (13) b. posquim pocuy eguitochquineno? po iski-m po kuy eguitochkineno 2P sister.of.man-C 2P female.affine affine ‘With your sister, [or] your female affine?’ 12

In (14g), pomi raagon probably should have said pomi sua raagon.

puquina kin terms

291

Turning back to the women’s text, we find the terms ‹go› and ‹co› in (14b), which likely mean ‘brother’ of either a man or a woman, as well as ‘male parallel cousin’. This would be consistent with the kind of bifurcate merging system that is also shared by Quechua and Aymara, in which there is, for example, one term for both brothers and male (parallel) cousins (see also Bertonio (1612a: 62– 63)). Because of this, and since voicing alternations are common in the Rituale, we will treat ‹go› and ‹co› as a single term ko (cf. Torero (2002: 453), who also gives one lexeme, qu). In several cases, the term ko ‘brother/male parallel cousin’ is modified with the loanwords ‹hila› ‘older, larger, first’ (Ay) and ‹suca› ‘younger, youngest, smaller, lesser’ (Qu/Ay sullka). Their use appears to be similar to that in Aymara, where they generally refer to relative age. These terms are illustrated in (14b). Note that ‹eguitochquineno› in (14b), as above, refers to affines. (14) b. po gom, po hilacom: po sucacom eguitochquineno cogatam po ko-m po hila ko-m po suka ko-m 2P brother-C 2P older brother-C 2P younger brother-C eguitochkineno ko-gata-m affine brother-PL-C ‘with your brother/male parallel cousin, your older brother/male parallel cousin, with your younger brother/male parallel cousin, with your in-marrying brother/male parallel cousins …’ In (13c), the men’s text moves on to a man’s aunts. Just as with suka ko above, the term suka imi (lit. ‘younger mother’) apparently refers to a parallel aunt— that is, the sister of one’s mother. Suka imi ‘sister of mother’ is clearly modeled on the Aymara kin term sullka tayka (lit. ‘younger mother’), which Bertonio glosses as ‹Tia hermana menor de su madre› ‘aunt, younger sister of mother’ (1612b: 326)—in other words, ‘parallel aunt’. On the other hand, upra is likely the cross aunt: ‘sister of father’, the equivalent of ipa in both Quechua and Aymara. This term is also attested in the Uru language as upla ‘tía’ (Uhle 1894), though without further detail regarding its meaning. After listing these two kinds of aunts, the text goes on to mention the female affines of a father and his brothers. (13) c. po vpra, po sucaymi, po quim equitochquineno cuyum po upra po suka imi po iki-m ekitochkineno 2P sister.of.father 2P younger mother 2P father-C affine

292

mossel et al.

kuy-m female.affine-C ‘[with] the sister of your father, [with] the sister of your mother, or [with] the female affines of your father (and his brothers)’ The corresponding women’s passage (14c) lists a woman’s uncles in a manner analogous to the presentation of men’s aunts in (13c). The term suka iki ‘lit. younger father’ refers to the parallel uncle (father’s younger brother), cf. Aymara sullka awki. Apisa, on the other hand, likely refers to the cross uncle: ‘brother of mother’, the equivalent of kaka in Quechua and lari in Aymara. This analysis is supported by the analogous pairing of the two types of aunts and uncles, in the men’s (13c) and women’s (14c) texts (respectively), suggesting apisa is the counterpart to upra. However, apisa only appears once in the Rituale, so this analysis remains tentative. (14) c. po suca iquim, po apisam, po suka iki-m po apisa-m 2P younger father-C 2P brother.of.mother-C ‘with the brother of your father, with the brother of your mother’ Passage (13d) of the men’s text moves on to ego’s generation. Here, we find suka iki iski ‘daughter of father’s brother’, or ‘female parallel cousin’, and the term rulli. The latter term is rather unclear, though it may indicate the female cross cousin.13 However, absent further evidence for a more precise definition, we have chosen to simply gloss this as ‘female cousin’. (13) d. po suca, iqui, isquim, po rullin. po suka iki iski-m po rulli-m 2P younger father daughter.of.man-C 2P female.cousin-C ‘with the daughter of your father’s brother, or with your female cousin’ Similarly, the sons of a woman’s uncles are also given at this point in the women’s text, beginning with (14d)—‹po suca yquiscum› ‘with the son of your father’s brother’, or male parallel cousin. This passage does not present difficulties in interpretation, so we do not give a morphemic analysis here. Passage 13

Torero (2002: 454) glosses rullin as “cierto pariente”, and observes that it means “persona que se vuelve pariente al casarse e instalarse en el lugar” in Kallawaya (‘person who becomes a relative upon marrying and taking up residence’). This is consistent with our analysis of rulli as a female cross cousin.

puquina kin terms

293

(14f) lists sons of a woman’s aunts. Here, we find ‹sucaymi raago haya› ‘mother’s sister’s son’ (parallel cousin). We also find the sole instance of the term rutu, which may be the male cross cousin, the male counterpart of rulli. However, since it only appears once in the text, we have chosen to gloss it simply as ‘male cousin’. (14) f. po rutum, po sucaymi raago hayam rosinoui? po rutu-m po suka imi raago haya-m 2P male.cousin-C 2P younger mother male child-C rosi-eno-p-i14 have.sex-AG-2S-IR ‘Have you had sex with your male cousin, or with the son of your mother’s sister?’ The men’s and the women’s texts then proceed to ask about the descending generation—that is, the children of one’s brothers and, in the women’s text, sisters. The men’s text (13e) straightforwardly asks about ‹po hilaco, po sucaco ysqui› ‘the daughter of your older brother/male parallel cousin, [or] of your younger brother/male parallel cousin’, while in the women’s text we find the term ‹guio› (14e). This probably means ‘sister’—and possibly, ‘female cousin’— since it is opposed to ko ‘brother’. However, this too is a singleton, and does not offer much context (the term is simply glossed as ‘hijo’ by Torero (2002: 459)). One question in this passage is why the children of go ‘brother’ are not called sku ‘son of man’ in (14e), but rather raago haya ‘male child.’ (14) e. po guio raago hayam, pogogata raago hayam po guio raago haya-m po go-gata raago haya-m 2P sister male child-C 2P brother-PL male child-C ‘With the son of your sister, [or] with the son of your brothers/male cousins?’ The men’s text concludes with a clear inquiry about ‹po atago imi› ‘your wife’s mother’ (13f). This construction is clear, so we will not discuss it here. On the other hand, the women’s text concludes with a reference to a ‹sua raago›— 14

The root ro- combines with an element -ga for men, while for women the Puquina reflexive suffix -ska and the likely Aymara reflexive suffix -si are used. In a question about homosexual sex addressed to men, the form ro-ga-ska is also used, suggesting -ska may also have had a reciprocal meaning. Similarly migha- ‘to sleep with’ can be combined with -ska when referring to women.

294

mossel et al.

equivalent to the Spanish term mancebo—which we gloss as ‘unmarried male cohabitant’ (14g). The verb sua- means ‘to fornicate’, as in ‹Ama suarquenhuanch› ‘thou shalt not fornicate’ [L6]. The distinction in (14g) between an aunt’s raago ‘husband’ and her sua raago ‘unmarried male cohabitant’ likely reflects the fact that many Andean couples that missionary priests encountered lived together while unmarried. (14) g. pomi raagon mighenoui? sucaymi raagom, chu sua raagom rosinoui? po imi raago-m migha-eno-p-i suka imi raago-m 2P mother man-C sleep-AG-2S-IR younger mother man-C chu suaraago-m rosi-eno-p-i 3P fornicate man-C have.sex-AG-2S-IR ‘Have you slept with your mother’s husband? Have you had sex with your younger mother’s husband, [or] with her cohabitant?’

6

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have reexamined the Puquina kin terminology found in the Rituale, with special attention to the section of the confessionary relating to the Sixth Commandment. Our analysis presents some terms that were left out of Torero’s analysis, and we have clarified both the meaning and the form of several others. In particular, we have refined Torero’s analysis by observing that some of the terms are distinguished by the gender of ego, and that the system appears to follow a bifurcate merging pattern. These observations allow us to posit more precise meanings where Torero gives more general glosses (like ‘hijo’ or ‘hermano’). These reinterpretations of the Puquina terms have been supported by comparison with their Quechua and especially Aymara counterparts (for instance, regarding the similar functions of Aymara hila and sullka). However, in several cases the Rituale provides only enough information to propose general information about the gender of the ego or the kin. Our analysis is summarized, in alphabetical order, alongside Torero’s (2002) in Table 10.4. Beyond its contribution to Puquina lexicography, this analysis may eventually allow a more thorough interpretation of the Puquina kinship structure itself. For instance, features like cross- vs. parallel-cousin marriage; lineality; or exogamy and endogamy might be discerned in this system, particularly in close comparison with the Quechua and Aymara systems. These, in turn, might help us understand the position of the Puquina language and its speakers in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Andean society, though such an endeavor

295

puquina kin terms table 10.4 Puquina kin terms proposed in this chapter, compared with Torero (2002)

Puquina kin terms

Torero (2002)

apisa ‘brother of mother’ atago ‘woman, wife’ chaske ‘daughter of woman’ eguitoch(kineno) ‘affine’ ekino ‘male progenitor’ ko ‘brother/male parallel cousin’ guio ‘sister (of woman?)’ haya ‘child’ iki ‘father’ imi ‘mother’ iski ‘daughter (of man), sister (of man)’ kuy ‘female affine’ psami ‘female progenitor’ raago ‘man, husband’ rulli ‘female (cross?) cousin’ rutu ‘male (cross?) cousin’ sallasi ‘family’ sku ‘son (of man)’ sua ‘unmarried cohabitant’15 suka iki ‘brother of father’ suka imi ‘sister of mother’ upra ‘sister of father’ usu ‘girl’

apisa ‘cierto pariente’ atacu ‘mujer, esposa’

qu ‘hermano’ ckiu ‘hijo’ haya ‘hijo’ iki ~ uki ‘padre’ imi ~ umi ‘madre’ ski ‘hijo’

raacu ‘varón, marido’ rullin ‘cierto pariente’ sallas ‘familia, parentela’ chusku ‘hijo’ sua ‘manceba, amante’

is limited by the paucity of information about Puquina social structure. Thus, further comparative work on Puquina kin terms may have implications not just for the study of the Puquina language, but also for Central Andean ethnohistory.

15

Verbal modifier combined with atago ‘woman’ and raago ‘man’.

296

mossel et al.

Acknowledgements Thanks to Astrid Alexander-Bakkerus, Rebeca Fernández Rodríguez, Liesbeth Zack, Otto Zwartjes, and the John Carter Brown Library. The research leading to these results received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)/ERC grant agreement no. 295918. Funding also came from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation, project number UR 310/1), and from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 818854— SAPPHIRE).

References Adelaar, Willem F.H. and Pieter Muysken. 2004. The languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adelaar, Willem F.H. and Simon van de Kerke. 2009. “Puquina.” In Lenguas de Bolivia, Vol. I, Ámbito Andino, edited by Mily Crevels and Pieter Muysken, 125–146. La Paz: Plural Editores. Alegambe, Philippe and Pedro de Ribadeneira. 1643. Bibliotheca Scriptorum Societatis Jesu. Antwerp: Johannem Meursium. Bertonio, Ludovico. 1612a. Arte dela lengua aymara, con una silva de phrases dela misma lengua y su declaracion en romance. Juli: Francisco del Canto. Bertonio, Ludovico. 1612b. Vocabulario de la Lengua Aymara. Juli: 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 Etnografía y Folklore). Bouysse-Cassagne, Thérèse. 1975. “Pertenencia étnica, status económico y lenguas en Charcas a fines del siglo XVI.” In Tasa de la visita general de Francisco de Toledo, edited by Noble David Cook, 312–328. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Brunet, Jacques-Charles. 1820. Manuel du libraire et de l’amateur de livres. Vol. I. Paris: Crapelet. Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2012. “Unravelling the enigma of the ‘particular language’ of the Incas.” In Archaeology and Language in the Andes: a cross-disciplinary exploration of prehistory, edited by Paul Heggarty and David Beresford-Jones, 265–294. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2016. “Tras las huellas de la lengua primordial de los incas: evidencia onomástica puquina.” Revista Andina 54: 169–208. Créqui-Montfort, Georges de and Paul Rivet. 1925–1927. “La Langue Uru ou Pukina.” Journal de la Société des Américanistes 17: 211–244; 18: 111–139; 19: 57–116.

puquina kin terms

297

De la Grasserie, Raoul. 1894. Langue Puquina: Textes Puquina contenus dans le Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum de Geronimo de Ore, publié à Naples en 1607. Leipzig: K.F. Koehler. Domínguez Faura, Nicanor. 2014. “The Puquina language in the early colonial Southern Andes (1548–1610): A geographical analysis.” Journal of Latin American Geography 13: 181–206. Durston, Alan. 2007. Pastoral Quechua: The history of Christian translation in colonial Peru, 1550–1650. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Girault, Louis. 1989. Kallawaya: el idioma secreto de los incas: diccionario. La Paz: UNICEF, OPS/OMS. González Holguín, Diego. 1608. Vocabulario de la lengua general de todo el Peru llamada lengua qquichua o del Inca. Lima: Francisco del Canto. Guamán Poma de Ayala, Felipe. 1615/1616. Nueva Corónica y Buen Gobierno. Autograph manuscript facsimile available at http://www.kb.dk/permalink/2006/poma/ info/en/frontpage.htm (accessed 27 December 2018) Hannß, Katja. 2017. “The etymology of Kallawaya.” Journal of Language Contact 10: 219– 263. La Barre, Weston. 1941. “The Uru of the rio Desaguadero.” American Anthropologist 43: 493–522. Mannheim, Bruce. 1991. The language of the Inka since the European invasion. Austin: University of Texas Press. Morgan, Lewis Henry. 1871. Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Mossel, Arjan. 2009. Pukina Toponymie: Geografische verspreiding van plaatsnamen in een uitgestorven taal uit de zuid-centrale Andes. Bachelor’s Thesis, Leiden University. Leiden, The Netherlands. Muysken, Pieter. 1997. “Callahuaya.” In Contact languages: A wider perspective, edited by Sarah G. Thomason, 427–448. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Oré, Luís Jerónimo de. 1607. Rituale seu Manuale Peruanum et forma brevis administrandi apud Indos sacramenta per Ludovicum Hieronymum Orerium. Napoli: Apud Io. Iacobum Carlinum; Constantinum Vitalem. Polo, José Toribio. 1901. “Indios Uros del Perú y Bolivia.”Boletín de la Sociedad Geográfica de Lima 10: 445–482. Rodicio García, Sara. 1980. “El sistema de parentesco inca.” Revista Española de Antropología Americana 10: 183–254. Stanish, Charles. 2003. Ancient Titicaca: The evolution of complex society in Southern Peru and Northern Bolivia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Toledo, Francisco de. 1575. Ordenanzas de Virrey Don Francisco de Toledo estableciendo las funciones del intérprete general de los indios en las lenguas Quichua, Puquina y Aimará. Gobernantes del Perú: Cartas y Papeles, Siglo XVI (1925), edited by R. Levillier, 299–303. Madrid: Pueyo for the Biblioteca del Congreso Argentino.

298

mossel et al.

Torero, Alfredo. 1965. Le puquina: la troisième langue générale du Pérou. PhD dissertation. Paris: Université de Paris. Torero, Alfredo. 1972 [1970]. “Lingüística e historia de la sociedad andina.” In El reto del multilingüismo en el Perú, edited by Alberto Escobar, 51–106. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP). Torero, Alfredo. 1987. “Lenguas y pueblos altiplánicos en torno al siglo XVI.”Revista Andina 5: 329–405. Torero, Alfredo. 2002. Idiomas de los Andes: Lingüística e historia. Lima: IFEA, Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos: Editorial Horizonte. Uhle, Max. 1894. Grundzüge einer Uro-Grammatik. Ms. Berlin: Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut. Webster, Steven S. 1977. “Kinship and affinity in a native Quechua community.” In Andean kinship and marriage, edited by Ralph Bolton and Enrique Mayer, 28–42. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. Zuidema, R. Tom. 1977. “The Inca kinship system: A new theoretical view.” In Andean kinship and marriage, edited by Ralph Bolton and Enrique Mayer, 240–281. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

chapter 11

The Representation of the Velar Nasal in Colonial Grammars and Other Pre-modern Sources on the Languages of the Central Andean Region Matthias Urban

1

Introduction

For the linguistic description of any language, analysis of the sound structure is fundamental. When one is dealing with languages documented in colonial grammars and other pre-modern sources concerning languages of Latin America, this particular task is complicated by the unstandardized orthography which colonial grammarians employed as well as the frequent occurrence of sounds in the described indigenous languages which are unfamiliar or not salient for a native speaker of a European language such as Spanish. This is in some cases only exacerbated by descriptions of the articulatory properties of the sounds in question which are well-meaning but sound clumsy to someone with modern training in linguistics. In this contribution, I seek to present an overview of the different ways authors of colonial grammars of Central Andean languages have described and written one particular sound, the velar nasal. My actual interest in the various strategies employed by colonial grammarians to represent the velar nasal is, however, not merely descriptive, but derives also from the potential usefulness of such comparative studies to inductively uncover the sound in yet more poorly documented languages in which it would otherwise not be visible. In modern Spanish, the velar nasal can be heard, but only allophonically as the result of place assimilation of nasals in coda position to the following consonant (Martínez-Celdrán et al. 2003: 258). As far as the velar nasal is concerned, this continues a phonological rule of Latin, but is fed diachronically by syncope and other processes which create new relevant clusters that then undergo the process of place assimilation, e.g. Latin manica > Spanish manga [ˈmaŋɡa] ‘sleeve’ (Lloyd 1987: 81).1 At the same time, some Iberian Spanish dialects and contact varieties such as those of Asturias, Galicia, León, 1 In Latin, the velar nasal could, with disputed phonological status, also occur before /n/, in which case it was represented by ⟨g⟩. Thus ⟨pugna⟩ ‘fight’ represents [puŋna] (Lloyd 1987: 81).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004427006_012

300

urban

Extremadura and Andalusia as well as varieties in Latin America have a rule of nasal velarization in word-final position (Campos-Astorkiza 2012: 99). The predictable occurrence of the sound in Spanish, together with the absence of a dedicated letter to represent it in writing, can be expected to lead to a lack of awareness on behalf of colonial grammarians for the distinct nature of the velar nasal vis-à-vis other nasals with phonemic status. Awareness may increase when the sound is heard in positions where it is not found in Spanish, i.e. wordinitially or prevocalically. The following section discusses colonial grammatical descriptions of individual indigenous languages of the Central Andean region. It will emerge that there existed several traditions for dealing with the problem of representing the velar nasal orthographically, which lead again to traditions specific to the representation of individual languages or even individual authors. At the same time, we will see that it is often the case that the velar nasal was distinguished in writing in languages in which it has phonemic status, while in the case of languages with automatic (non-phonemic) velarization of nasals it is often not distinguished orthographically. After a summary of traditions of representation of the velar nasal in languages of the Central Andean area in section 3, the insights will be applied to shed light on the transcription of the particularly poorly documented Tallán languages of Northern Peru in section 4.

2

Representations of the Velar Nasal in Colonial Grammars of the Central Andean Region

2.1 Quechua The velar nasal is non-phonemic in Quechua, but occurs allophonically in most or even all varieties.2 In Cuzco Quechua specifically, [ŋ] is described by Cusihuamán (1976b: 43) as an allophone of /n/ word-finally, before velar and uvular consonants as well as before the sonorants /m, n, ñ, l, l̃, r, y, w/.3 González Holguín (1608: 1), one of the prime colonial Quechua grammarians who describes the Cuzco variety, prides himself for introducing in his Quechua dictionary for the first time an appropriate orthography for the phonology of the language. In particular, aspirated and glottalized consonants are distinguished in writing, yet he remains silent on the different nasal consonants 2 According to Adelaar (1996: 7, note 2), the velar nasal may have acquired phonemic status in some subdialects of Huanca Quechua, in Tarma Quechua, and in Chachapoyas Quechua, in all cases of recent origin. 3 / ñ/ = /ɲ/, /l̃/ = /ʎ/.

the representation of the velar nasal in colonial grammars table 11.1

301

Selected lexical items from González Holguín (1608) compared with modern Cuzco Quechua and inferred approximate surface realizations as described by Cusihuamán (1976b)

González Holguín Cusihuamán (1608) (1976a) ⟨huanhuahanhu⟩ ⟨ppencay⟩ ⟨anca⟩ ⟨ñan⟩

wanwa p’enqay anka ñan

Inferred surface realization [ˈwaŋwa] [ˈp’eŋqay] [ˈaŋka] [ˈɲaŋ]

‘mosquito’ ‘shame’a ‘(kind of) eagle’ ‘street’

a ⟨ppencay⟩ is, together with ⟨vllu⟩, glossed as ‘verguenças del hombre’ by González Holguín. Ullu is indeed ‘penis’ (Cusihuamán 1976a), but p’enqay with reference to genitals must be a semantic calque.

occurring in the language, to the effect that orthographic practices have to be recovered from the actual data. A selection of comparisons between forms provided by González Holguín (1608) and modern Cuzco Quechua which should feature an allophonic velar nasal according to Cusihuamán’s (1976b) description of the language is in Table 11.1. From these examples, there is no indication that González Holguín distinguished the velar allophone in writing. This may have something to do with the fact that the environments in which velarization occurs are actually very similar to those operative in Spanish (note that coastal Peruvian varieties of Spanish velarize /n/ word-finally, too, cf. Lipski 2012: 7), but this explanation is not available for tokens before resonants such as ⟨huanhuahanhu⟩, where no velarization occurs in Spanish. It is also relevant that González Holguín had clearly grasped the phonemic relevance of sounds as shown by his recognition of the need to write aspirated and glottalized consonants, which he even illustrates with minimal pairs. He may simply not have seen the need for a distinct symbol for a non-phonemic sound. The other major colonial source for Quechua is the work of Domingo de Santo Tomás, which represents the very first grammatical and lexical description of Quechua. Traditionally, the Quechua described by Santo Tomás is taken to be a now extinct coastal variety of the department of Lima, but it is hard to fit into existing classifications of Quechua varieties, showing affinities with certain Quechua varieties in grammar, but with others in lexicon. The Quechua documented in Santo Tomás’s work may hence be a mixture of elements from several varieties (cf. Cerrón-Palomino 1990, Itier 2013).

302

urban

table 11.2 Santo Tomás’s (1560a: 7) inflectional paradigm of the noun ⟨yayánc⟩ ‘lord’

Nominative Genitive Benefactive Accusative Allative Locative Ablative Comitative-Instrumental

Singular

Plural

⟨yayánc⟩ ⟨yayáncpa⟩ ⟨yayáncpac⟩ ⟨yayáncta⟩ ⟨yayáncman⟩ ⟨yayáncpi⟩ ⟨yayáncmanta⟩ ⟨yayancguán⟩

⟨yayánccóna⟩ ⟨yayánccónap⟩ ⟨yayáccónapac⟩ ⟨yayáncconacta⟩ ⟨yayácconamã⟩ ⟨yayãccónapi⟩ ⟨yayãccónamãta⟩ ⟨yayánccónagúan⟩

As Cerrón-Palomino (1990: 343, 1995: 113, note 77) and Taylor (1990: 126) have already pointed out, Santo Tomás transcribes the velar nasal as ⟨nc⟩, in particular word-finally, e.g. ⟨rimanc⟩ for [rimaŋ] ‘speaks’. The spelling is also sometimes used in coda position. Santo Tomás’s (1560a: 7) inflection paradigm for ⟨yayánc⟩ ‘lord’ is instructive, because it not only illustrates the use of ⟨nc⟩, but also that Santo Tomás’s transcriptions are not always consistent (I replace Santo Tomás’s terminology for the Quechua cases by modern terms and omit his “vocative”, which is not a real case in Quechua). It is clear that Santo Tomás’s spelling is influenced by that of the morphologically basic form, the nominative singular, the final nasal of which is spelled ⟨nc⟩ in accordance with its velarized nature. However, on the assumption that in the Quechua documented by Santo Tomás nasals in coda position undergo regressive place assimilation as in other varieties, it is not always given that ⟨nc⟩ represents [ŋ]. For instance, in ⟨yayáncpi⟩, ⟨ncp⟩ may well represent [mp]. In the plural forms, the element ⟨n⟩ of the digraph can be replaced by a tilde (a common practice of the period), but the ⟨c⟩ remains in spite of being only an indication of the velar character of the nasal and having no phonetic reality itself otherwise. In the benefactive plural form, ⟨yayáccónapac⟩, there is no indication whatsoever of the presence of a nasal. The usage of ⟨nc⟩ may also represent a sequence of nasal plus stop, as in ⟨tancani.gui⟩ ‘push’ (cf. Cuzco Quechua tanqay, Cusihuamán 1976a). There are even examples where the interpretation of the sequence ⟨nc⟩ remains obscure, as the environment is not right to trigger velarization. An example is ⟨qincdichallua⟩ ‘eel’ and the possibly related verb ⟨quincdini.gui⟩ ‘wrinkle, dry in sun’.

the representation of the velar nasal in colonial grammars

303

table 11.3 Selected representation of velar nasals in colonial Lupaca Aymara as documented by Bertonio (1879 [1612]) compared with modern data and inferred approximate surface realization

Bertonio (1879 [1612])

Deza Galindo (1989)

Inferred surface realization

⟨mankata⟩ ⟨hanko⟩ ⟨cchancca⟩

manq’aña janq’o ch’anca

[maŋˈq’aɲa] [ˈhaŋq’o] [ˈtʃ’anka ~ ˈtʃ͜ ’aŋka] ͜

‘eat’ ‘white’ ‘wool thread’

2.2 Aymara In some languages of the Aymaran family, in contrast to Quechua, the velar nasal is contrastive in certain environments. This is the case for Central Aymara (Jaqaru and Cauqui) as well as for some southwestern dialects of Southern Aymara. The sound may have to be reconstructed to the proto-language according to Adelaar (1996: 15–16). In varieties without a phonemic velar nasal, the sound nevertheless occurs allophonically as the realization of /n/ in similar environments as in Quechua, namely before uvulars and occasionally before velars.4 “It may also occur in word-final position” (Hardman 2001: 15). The Lupaca dialect documented by Bertonio (1603, 1879 [1612]) is one without a phonemic velar nasal, and already in Bertonio’s time “most velar nasals had been replaced by a velar fricative” (Adelaar 2004: 266). For instance, Tarata aŋanu ‘face, cheek’ (Adelaar 2004: 266) corresponds to ⟨ahano⟩ in Bertonio’s dictionary. Selected examples of a nasal in environments triggering velarization are in Table 11.3, compared with a modern source. As these examples demonstrate, Bertonio, like González Holguín, does not appear to have distinguished a velar nasal in writing.5 However, a more thorough evaluation of the entire dictionary would be necessary to ultimately prove this point. 4 Phonotactic regularities in clusters of nasal plus occlusives suggest that nasal assimilation was once a more productive process in Aymara (Hardman 2001: 28–29). 5 For the case of Aymara, another possible locus of nasal assimilation alongside the lexicon should be considered. As is well-known, Aymara is characterized by complex rules of vowel suppression, triggered mostly by a significant number of the grammatical suffixes of the language, which can lead to nasals underlying in V_V position to come into contact with consonants on the phonetic surface. It is unknown if, and if so to what extent, nasals assimilate under such conditions (Coler’s 2014 phonetically otherwise very well-informed description of Muylaq’ Aymara does not provide information on this).

304

urban

2.3 Mochica Mochica is a language isolate of the North Coast of Peru, documented in a collection of translations of Christian texts in Oré (1607), in de la Carrera’s (1644) grammar, and later, in a second phase of documentation, in the nineteenth and twentieth century (see Urban 2019 for an overview of Mochica scholarship). These materials have been the subject of extensive study, and the phonology of Mochica has received ample attention in the works of Cerrón-Palomino (1995). De la Carrera does not explicitly mention an unusual nasal when describing the phonetic particularities of Mochica. Nevertheless, there are several good reasons to posit the presence of the velar nasal on a phonetic as well as a phonemic level in Mochica: the digraph ⟨ng⟩ is of high frequency in de la Carrera’s Mochica material, and it is not in complementary distribution with ⟨n⟩. There also is a minimal pair: ⟨pon⟩ ‘sister-in-law’ vs. ⟨pong⟩ ‘stone’ (Cerrón-Palomino 1995: 112). Furthermore, Hovdhaugen (2004) points out that ⟨ng⟩ could not have represented a sequence of consonants since the language was strictly (C)V(C) in its syllable structure. Final occurrences of ⟨ng⟩ as in ⟨mang⟩ ‘maize’ are thus incompatible with such an interpretation if one is not willing to accept a glaring inconsistency in an otherwise very consistent syllable structure canon. The use of ⟨ng⟩ for transcribing the Mochica velar nasal is foreshadowed in the earlier material from Oré (1607), as Cerrón-Palomino (1995: 113) points out. Like in Santo Tomás’s Quechua material, in the Oré manuscript, ⟨n⟩ can be replaced by a tilde, as in the form ⟨eyipmãg⟩ in Oré’s translation of the Lord’s Prayer (Salas García 2011: 71). There is in fact more variation in the Oré manuscript: ⟨çũq⟩ is Oré’s transcription of the 2nd person oblique pronoun in which the combination of the tilde and ⟨q⟩ is used to transcribe the velar nasal (Salas García 2011: 79). The form is written ⟨tzhæng⟩ by de la Carrera (1644). As Cerrón-Palomino (1995) points out, the tradition of a digraph to represent a velar nasal (albeit ⟨nc⟩ rather than ⟨ng⟩) had already been established in descriptions of Andean languages by Santo Tomás’s work on Quechua. 2.4 Mapudungun Mapudungun is a language isolate widely spoken in the central and southern areas of Chile, as well as in some adjacent parts of Argentina. The language is the subject of a colonial description by Valdivia (1887 [1606]). Valdivia begins his grammar with a discussion of Mapudungun sounds foreign to Spanish. About one of these sounds, Valdivia says that the sound is similar to a voiced velar stop [g], but articulated “gutturally” (“gutural”). To produce the sound, he recommends imitating someone with a twanging pronunciation (“al modo que la pronuncian los gangosos”). In writing, this sound is distinguished by a superscript bar: ⟨ḡ⟩. Valdivia points out the necessity for this distinguishing diacritic

the representation of the velar nasal in colonial grammars

305

table 11.4 Selected Mapudungun forms from Valdivia (1887 [1606]) compared with Augusta (1916)

Valdivia ([1606]1887)

Augusta (1916)

⟨ḡe⟩ ⟨paḡi⟩ ⟨tú̄ ḡn⟩ ⟨chaḡ⟩

ŋe paŋi tüŋn chaŋ

‘eye’ ‘puma’ ‘give birth’ ‘branch’

in spite of typographic problems, because the sound is frequent in important grammatical affixes of the language, and occurs in nouns and verbs initially, medially, and finally. From a comparison with later Mapudungun descriptions, such as that of Augusta (1916), there is no doubt that the sound referred to is the velar nasal (see Table 11.4).6 As Valdivia (1887 [1606]) observes himself, the velar nasal of Mapudungun indeed has no distributional restrictions, and that it can occur in particular word-initially. However, there is no one-to-one match between letter and sound in Valdivia’s ([1606]1887) work. This is shown by the word for ‘wart’, which is given as ⟨pellḡen⟩ by Valdivia, but as pellqeñ ~ pelleñ by Augusta. The reasons for such inconsistencies are not treated here, since they do not raise doubts as to the general association between ⟨ḡ⟩ with the velar nasal in Valdivia’s work. A more complete comparative investigation of the corpus than possible here would probably lead to the discovery of regularities that can account for such variation. 2.5 Huarpe The extinct Huarpean languages Millcayac and Allentiac, once spoken in central Argentina, were also documented by Valdivia (1607). The presentation and transcription is characterized by less consistency than Valdivia’s work on Mapudungun, and indeed Valdivia freely admits that his command of Millcayac and Allentiac was imperfect. Viegas Barros (n.d.) provides an attempt at a phonologization of Valdivia’s Huarpe materials. Departing from Valdivia’s transcriptions of Mapudungun, he assumes that ⟨g⟩ in the Huarpe materials has the 6 As Otto Zwartjes first pointed out to me in a personal communication, there is a broader tradition in Spanish-language missionary linguistics to describe the acoustic quality of (velar) nasals as “gangoso”. See also Zwartjes (2017) on Pedro de Cáceres’s sixteenth-century description of Otomí and Klöter (2007) for materials on Sinitic.

306

urban

table 11.5 Selected forms from Valdivia’s (1607) work on the Huarpean languages Allentiac and Millcayac

Allentiac ⟨yag⟩ ~ ⟨yam⟩ ⟨telag⟩ ⟨tereg⟩ ~ ⟨terem⟩ ⟨chenen⟩

Millcayac

⟨telam⟩ ⟨cheneg⟩ ~ ⟨chenem⟩

‘man’ ‘maize’ ‘concubine’ ‘elbow’

same value (the barred ⟨ḡ⟩ occurs only once in the Huarpe data according to Viegas Barros (n.d.: 8, note 15)). However, there is more to say: as Viegas Barros notes, in various positions, ⟨g⟩ alternates with ⟨m⟩ in transcriptions of the same lexical items of the same language and in transcriptions of clearly cognate forms across the Huarpean languages. More rarely, the alternation involves ⟨n⟩ or ⟨ng⟩ rather than ⟨m⟩. Relevant forms supporting these observations are in Table 11.5. Furthermore, an apparent derivational relationship between ⟨multutuguina⟩ ‘to count’ with ⟨gultut⟩ ‘four’, which Viegas Barros mentions, shows that the alternation is not restricted to word-final position. Viegas Barros (n.d.: 8) views alternation of ⟨g⟩ with ⟨m⟩ (or other letters representing nasals) as support for the interpretation of some instances of ⟨m⟩ as a velar nasal, too.7 The phenomena in Huarpe are somewhat reminiscent of the situation in Santo Tomás’s Quechua, where, due to place assimiliation, it is possible that the same sequence ⟨nc⟩ could have represented either [m] or [ŋ], as apparently ⟨m⟩ can for Valdivia in Huarpe. 2.6 Cholón Pedro de la Mata’s grammar of Cholón (1748), in a sense, represents a mix of the two traditions of representation of the velar nasal seen in Quechua and Mochica, where the digraph ⟨nc⟩ or ⟨ng⟩ is preferred, and Valdivia’s work on Mapudungun and Huarpe, where a diacritically modified ⟨g⟩ plays an important role. According to Alexander-Bakkerus (2005: 93–95, 100–102), who analyzed de la Mata’s Cholón grammar, there are several distinct manners which are used to represent the velar nasal. First, there is the digraph ⟨nc⟩, already

7 Viegas Barros (n.d.: 8–9) then suggests that [ŋ] and [m] are allophones of the same phoneme in view of precisely this alternation.

the representation of the velar nasal in colonial grammars

307

familiar from colonial Andean grammarians like Santo Tomás. In final position, the alternation of this digraph ⟨nc⟩ with other nasals, viz. ⟨m⟩, ⟨n⟩, or ⟨ñ⟩, as well as the alternation of ⟨m⟩ and ⟨n⟩ themselves, suggests two possible interpretations to Alexander-Bakkerus: first, that the place feature of the nasals was neutralized finally (as in dialectal Spanish), or, alternatively, that not all occurrences of relevant letters have the conventional value of Spanish orthography, but may have represented any of the nasal phonemes of Cholón. In addition, there is a phonetic phenomenon de la Mata describes as “guturazión” which occurs prevocalically. When discussing this phenomenon per se, de la Mata uses the di- or trigraph ⟨ng̃ (u)⟩, though there is a wide array of variants in the grammar, which include ⟨g⟩, ⟨~g⟩, ⟨ĝ⟩, ⟨mg̃⟩, ⟨ng⟩, ⟨ng̃⟩, ⟨nĝ⟩, ⟨ng̃n̂⟩, ⟨ñ⟩, ⟨n̂ ⟩, ⟨ñg⟩, ⟨n̂ g⟩, and ⟨n̂ g̃⟩ (Alexander-Bakkerus 2005: 100). This “guturazión”, as Alexander-Bakkerus (2005: 101) shows, is best interpreted as a velar nasal, in spite of de la Mata’s characterization as a vocalic feature. As seen in section 2.4 on Mapudungun, he is not alone: also Valdivia appears to have thought of the velar nasal not as a consonant in its own right, but as a modification of the following vowel. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that “in word initial position or before a vowel, he [de la Mata, MU] preferred the sequence ng to nc or nqu in order to indicate that the sound in question was not an unvoiced stop”, a regularity that is highly reminiscent of Santo Tomás’s preference for ⟨nc⟩ only in word-final position. In different ways, then, de la Mata’s relatively late grammar shows connections to practices already found much earlier in the works of Andean grammarians.

3

Summary of Traditions

Even though a thorough investigation of the symbology of the colonial sources in their entirety may bring to light further insights into orthographic practices and regularities, the data investigated here already show clearly that the velar nasal was represented in a variety of ways in colonial grammars of Central Andean languages. This begins with no special representation distinct from ⟨n⟩ in particular in Cuzco Quechua and Lupaca Aymara where the sound is non-phonemic. In Santo Tomás’s Quechua and in Mochica, a preference for the digraphs ⟨nc⟩ and ⟨ng⟩ is found respectively. The canonical phonetic values of these letters indeed specify the articulatory properties of the velar nasal: like [n], it is a nasal, but with velar point of articulation, which is indicated by the addition of a letter representing a velar stop with just that property. This association is then again relevant for yet other authors, notably Valdivia, where ⟨ḡ⟩ is the main representation used for the velar nasal. Since a diacritic (even

308

urban

though admittedly the tilde rather than a bar) was commonly used in the era to indicate the omission of a nasal consonant in writing, this is actually not very different from the occasional practice of Santo Tomás of writing a vowel with tilde followed by a letter representing a velar stop. From Valdivia’s ⟨ḡ⟩ used for Mapudungun it is but a short way to ⟨g⟩, without diacritic, in Huarpe.8 In the transcriptions of the Huarpe data, we also find the alternation between ⟨g⟩ and ⟨m⟩ as a diagnostic for the presence of the velar nasal, which recurs about 150 years later in de la Mata’s late colonial grammar of Cholón together with virtually all other traditions surveyed here, and more.

4

Application of Insights: Inferring the Velar Nasal in Tallán

My final point in this contribution is to demonstrate that comparative colonial linguistics, which contrasts the transcription practices found in pre-modern sources, can lead to new insights into the phonetics of languages that were not lucky enough to have become the subject of a full colonial grammar. I had this insight when attempting to analyze the phonetic structure of the Tallán languages (Urban 2019), once spoken on the Far North Coast of Peru, separated from Mochica by the barren and arid expanse of the Sechura desert. The Tallán languages are documented by Martínez Compañón (1985 [1782–1790]), who, alongside a monumental documentation of life in colonial Peru in the diocese of Trujillo, as the bishop of which he served, also provides short 43-item wordlists of its indigenous languages. Tallán is represented by two varieties, named Colán and Catacaos after the towns where they were documented. The 43 words on Martínez Compañón’s wordlists, among which figure some Spanish loanwords, are the only dedicated colonial documentation of the two Tallán varieties. There are some heterogeneous correspondences in the orthographies employed for the two varieties, most conspicuously a ⟨dl⟩ in the Colán variety corresponding to ⟨l⟩ in Catacaos. Another such correspondence involves a ⟨g⟩ or ⟨g̃⟩ in Colán and an ⟨m⟩ in Catacaos, as seen in table 11.6. If one takes the employed orthographies at face value, the correspondence appears odd: the languages of Colán and Catacaos appear to have been dialects of a single language or very closely related languages with a very short time of split from a common ancestor. A correspondence between dissimilar sounds such as [g] and [m] would not only be unexpected because of the divergent 8 An anonymous referee points out the interesting parallel of colonial orthographies for Polynesian languages: those used for Māori employ ⟨ng⟩, but those for Samoan use ⟨g⟩ as representations for the velar nasal (cf. Chung 1978: 383).

the representation of the velar nasal in colonial grammars

309

table 11.6 Alternations involving ⟨g̃ ⟩/⟨g⟩ with ⟨m⟩ in Tallán varieties as documented by Martínez Compañón

Colán

Catacaos

⟨nug̃⟩ ⟨nag⟩

⟨[guayaqui]num⟩ ⟨nam⟩

‘rain’ ‘moon’

articulatory properties of the sounds, but also because of the short time-depth in which it could have evolved historically. The comparative view on transcriptions of the velar nasal provided here points to another solution: we have seen that ⟨g⟩ or ⟨g̃⟩ is a representation of the velar nasal, in particular in Valdivia’s Mapudungun and de la Mata’s Cholón data. Furthermore, orthographic alternation of ⟨g⟩ (sometimes with diacritics like a tilde) with ⟨m⟩ is an indicator of the sound, as is particularly shown by the analysis of the Huarpe data.9 A much simpler solution which also is in much better accordance with the apparent genealogical proximity of the varieties, is that there is orthographic, but no phonetic variation. In both Colán and Catacaos, the forms would have featured the same sound: the velar nasal.

Acknowledgements Without wishing to assign blame for shortcomings and errors that this article may contain to them, I thank Willem F.H. Adelaar, the editors, and an anonymous referee for perspicuous comments and suggestions. Work on this article was supported by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) / ERC grant agreement n° 295918 (PI: Willem F.H. Adelaar) and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)—Project No. UR 310/1–1 (PI: Matthias Urban).

9 As an anonymous referee points out, the fact that /m/ and /n/ do not contrast in final position in native Spanish words predestines the letter ⟨m⟩ to represent the velar nasal, which, as we have seen, surfaces in a number of lanugages of the Andes precisely in that position.

310

urban

References Adelaar, Willem F.H. 1996. “La nasal velar en el aymara y en el jaqaru.” Opción 12: 5– 19. Adelaar, Willem F.H. 2004. “The Aymaran language family.” In The languages of the Andes, edited by Willem F.H. Adelaar with the collaboration of Pieter C. Muysken, 259–319. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alexander-Bakkerus, Astrid. 2005. Eighteenth-century Cholón. PhD dissertation, Leiden University. Utrecht: LOT. Augusta, Félix José de. 1916. Diccionario araucano-español y español-araucano. 2 vols. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Universitaria. Bertonio, Ludovico. 1603. Arte y grammatica mvy copiosa de la lengua aymara. Con muchos, y varios modos de hablar para su mayor declaración, con la tabla delos capítulos, y cosas que en ella se contienen. &c. Roma: Luis Zannetti. Bertonio, Ludovico. 1879 [1612]. Vocabvlario de la lengva aymara. 2 vols. Edited by Julio Platzmann. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner. Campos-Astorkiza, Rebeka. 2012. “The phonemes of Spanish.” In The handbook of Hispanic linguistics, edited by José Ignacio Hualde, Antxon Olarrea, and Erin O’Rourke, 89–110. Chichester: Blackwell. Carrera, Fernando de la. 1644. El arte de la lengva yvnga de los valles del obispado de Truxillo del Peru, con vn confessonario, y todas las oraciones christianas, traducidas en la lengua, y otras cosas. Lima: Joseph Contreras. Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 1990. “Reconsideración del llamado ‘quechua costeño’.” Revista Andina 16 (2): 335–386. Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 1995. La lengua de Naimlap (reconstrucción y obsolescencia del Mochica). Lima: Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Austin/ London: University of Texas Press. Coler, Matt. 2014. A grammar of Muylaq’ Aymara: Aymara as spoken in Southern Peru. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Cusihuamán G., Antonio. 1976a. Diccionario quechua: Cuzco-Collao. Lima: Ministerio de Educación/Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Cusihuamán G., Antonio. 1976b. Gramática quechua: Cuzco-Collao. Lima: Ministerio de Educación/Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Deza Galindo, Juan Francisco. 1989. Diccionario aymara-castellano, castellano-aymara. Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencias y Tecnología (Concytec). González Holguín, Diego. 1608. Vocabvlario de la lengva general de todo el Perv llamada lengua qquichua, o del Inca. Lima: Francisco del Canto. Hardman, M.J. 2001. Aymara. Munich: LINCOM Europa.

the representation of the velar nasal in colonial grammars

311

Hovdhaugen, Even. 2004. Mochica. Munich: LINCOM Europa. Itier, César. 2013. “Las bases geográficas de la lengua vehicular del imperio inca.”Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines 42 (2): 237–260. Klöter, Henning. 2007. “‘Ay sinco lenguas algo difirentes’. China’s local vernaculars in early missionary sources.” In Missionary Linguistics III / Lingüística misionera III. Morphology and Syntax, edited by Otto Zwartjes, Gregory James, and Emilio Ridruejo, 191–210. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lipski, John M. 2012. “Geographical and social varieties of Spanish: An overview.” In The handbook of Hispanic linguistics, edited by José Ignacio Hualde, Antxon Olarrea, and Erin O’Rourke, 1–26. Chichester: Blackwell. Lloyd, Paul M. 1987. From Latin to Spanish. Vol. 1: historical phonology and morphology of the Spanish language. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Martínez-Celdrán, Eugenio, Ana Ma. Fernández-Planas, and Josefina Carrera-Sabaté. 2003. “Castilian Spanish.” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 33 (2): 255–259. Martínez Compañón, Baltasar Jaime. 1985 [1782–1790]. Trujillo del Perú en el siglo XVIII. Vol. 2. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica. Oré, Lvdovicvs Hieronymvs. 1607. Ritvale, sev manvale Pervanvm, et forma brevis administrandi apud Indos sacrosancta baptismi, pœnitentiæ, eucharistiæ, matrimonij, & extremæ vnctionis sacramenta. Neapolis: Io. Iacobus Carlinus & Constantinus Vitalis. Salas Garcia, José Antonio. 2011. “El Padre Nuestro en la lengua mochica.” Boletín de la Academía Peruana de la Lengua 51: 69–111. 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. Santo Tomás, Domingo de. 1560b. Lexicon, o vocabulario de la lengua general del Perú. Valladolid: Francisco Fernández de Córdova. Taylor, Gérald. 1990. “La lengua de los antiguos Chachapuyas.” In Temas de lingüística amerindia. Primer Congreso Nacional de Investigaciones Lingüístico-Filológicas, edited by Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino and Gustavo Solís Fonseca, 121–139. Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología / Programa de Educación Bilingüe de Puno. Urban, Matthias. 2019. Lost languages of the Peruvian North Coast. Berlin: IberoAmerikanisches Institut & Gebr. Mann. Valdivia, Luis de. 1606. Arte y gramática general de la lengua que corre en todo el Reyno de Chile con vn vocabulario y confessonario. Lima: Francisco del Canto. Second edition: Sevilla: Thomás López de Haro (1684). Valdivia, Luis de. 1887 [1606]. Arte y gramática general de la lengva qve corre en todo el Reyno de Chile, con vn Vocabulario, y confessonario. Ed. by Julius Platzmann. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner. Valdivia, Luis de. 1607a. Arte y gramatica en dos lengvas de indios millcayac y allentiac de las ciudades de Mendoça y S. Iuan de la Frontera de la prouincia de Cuyo cõ cathe-

312

urban

cismos, confessonarios, y dos breues vocabularios en ambas lenguas. Lima: Francisco del Canto. Valdivia, Luis de. 1607b. Confessionario breve en la lengva millcayac, de la prouincia de Cuyo. Lima: Francisco del Canto. Viegas Barros, J. Pedro. n.d. Una propuesta de fonetización y fonemización tentativas de las hablas huarpes. http://www.adilq.com.ar/FONEMIZACION%20HUARPE.pdf (accessed 27 December 2018) Zwartjes, Otto. 2017. “Cáceres, Pedro de. Arte de la lengua othomi.” Corpus de Textes Linguistiques Fondamentaux. Edited by Bernard Colombat. http://ctlf.ens‑lyon.fr/n _fiche.asp?n=695 (accessed 1 December 2019)

Author Index Alvarado, F. de 63, 75 Amich, J. 157, 165, 166, 168, 186 Anchieta, J. de x, xii, 139, 142, 144, 146–150, 152, 153, 154, 230 Angelis, P. de 239, 256 Antonio, N. 73–76 Aragona, A. de x, 140, 142, 142n, 144, 147, 149–152, 154 Aristotle 89 Arronches, J. de 223, 230, 233, 234 Asís, San Francisco de 30 Augusta, F.J. de 305, 310 Azpilcueta, M. de [Navarro] 154n, 186

González Holguín, D. 73n, 287, 297, 300, 301, 303, 310 Grasserie, R. de la 236, 258, 266, 274, 278, 279, 297 Guamán Poma de Ayala, F. 189, 197n, 282, 297

Barrera, F. 36 Basalenque, D. de ix, 81–92, 95–109, 111, 114n, 118n, 121n, 156n, 177n, 128n, 129n, 130n Basseta, D. de 35–38, 52 Beauvoir, J.M. 236, 257 Bernat, A. 158n, 186, 187 Bertonio, L. 77, 282n, 291, 296, 303, 310 Bettendorf, J.F. 223, 225, 230, 234 Biedma, M. 165n, 166n, 187, 193

Lagunas, J.B. de viii, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 73, 76, 85, 91n, 108 Lehman-Nitsche, R. 39, 236, 237, 241n, 258, 259, 264, 274 Léon Pinelo, A. de 73, 76 Lista, R. 236, 237, 258

Calvo, Th. 36, 37 Carochi, H. 70, 71, 76 Carrera, F. de la 304, 310 Chamberlain, A.F. 236, 237, 258 Córdova, J. de viii, 59, 61, 63, 64, 69, 73, 76 Córdova Salinas, D. de 164, 165n, 186 Cruz, J. de la 69, 76

Heras, J. 160, 165n, 187, 189, 191, 192, 193 Hundertpfundt, R. 225–231, 233–235 Izaguirre, B. de 165, 169, 181n, 190 Kaulen, L. 224–226, 231, 234

Malaspina, A. de xi, 236, 238, 239, 240–242, 258, 259 Martínez Compañón, B.J. 308, 309, 311 Martínez López-Cano, P. 30 Mata, P. de la xiii, 306, 307, 308, 309 Meisterburg, A. 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234 Mendieta, G. de 4, 8, 11, 31 Molina, A. de 23, 31, 33, 59, 62–64, 66, 69, 72, 73, 76, 82, 84, 109, 158, 169n, 191 Nebrija, A. de 4, 64, 65, 69, 76, 77, 90, 109

D’ Orbigny, A. 236, 258 Oré, L.J. de xii, 164, 191275, 277, 278, 297 Eckart, A. 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231–233, 234, 235 Elizalde, J.J. de 236, 239, 241, 242, 247, 249, 256, 259 Figueira, L. x, 140, 142, 143, 147, 149, 151, 152, 154 Galdo Guzmán, D. 70, 71, 76 Gilberti, M. viii, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 76, 78, 85

Pérez, M. 157n, 191 Philippi, R.A. 261, 275 Pigafetta, A. de xii, 236, 238, 239, 240, 255, 258, 259 Pineda, A. xi, 236, 239, 240, 259 Reyes, A. de los viii, 60–62, 63n, 73, 76 Rincón, A. del viii, 60, 61, 63n, 69, 70, 71, 73, 76 Rochelle, Roux de 159, 192

314 Ruiz de Montoya, A. 73n, 140, 142, 143, 144, 148, 152, 154, 230, 235 Sahagún, B. de viii, 3–12, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 82n Sala, G. 181n, 192 San Antonio, J. de 165, 192 San José, F. [Blancas] de 89, 108 Santo Tomás, D. de xviii, 57n, 59–61, 63, 64, 66, 68, 72, 73, 76, 301, 302, 304, 306, 307, 308, 311 Schmid, Th. 236, 237, 259 Sobreviela, M. 159, 167, 189, 192

author index Tapia, C. de 73, 76 Thrax, D. 90 Torres Rubio, D. de 73n, 158, 169, 193 Valdivia, L. de xviii, 269, 275, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 311, 312 Victoria, F. de 158n, 163, 193 Viedma, A. de xi, 236, 239, 242, 259 Vilte Vilte, J. 261, 275 Ximénez, F. 37, 38, 53

Index of Languages and Ethnic Groups Allentiac 305, 306, 311 Amage x, 156, 157, 159–166, 168, 180–185, 187, 196n, 201, 203 Amuesha x, 156, 166n, 180, 181n, 186, 188, 193 Arawak 156, 180, 186, 261, 278 Aymara xii, xiii, xvi, 66, 193, 264, 266, 271, 277–281, 282n, 283, 286, 287, 288, 291, 292, 293n, 294, 296, 303, 307, 310 Cahita 61 Catacaos xiii Cavineña 265–267, 274 Central Peruvian Quechua 156, 170, 172, 185 Chango 271, 273 Chinchaysuyo Quechua x, 156, 157, 159, 162, 161, 168, 185 Chipaya xi, xii, 260, 262–265, 271, 278, 288 Cholón xii, 266, 273, 306–310 Chon 237 Colán xiii English 38, 141, 143, 145, 201, 243, 245, 251 Ese Ejja 261, 275

Lengua de Guatemala viii, 35 Lengua de Michuacán 66n, 76 Lengua General de México 220 Lengua General del Reino de Perú 12, 220 Lengua metropolitana ix Lengua utlateca 35 Língua Geral Amzônica x, xi, 220, 221, 224, 227, 229, 230–234 Mapudungun xi, xii, 237, 260–262, 268–271, 304–309 Matlatzinca ix, 81–85, 87, 89, 96, 97, 98, 100, 102, 106, 112n Maya 35 Millcayac 305, 306 Mixtec viii, 60–62, 63n Mochica xii, 278, 304, 306–308 Nahuatl viii, 4, 6, 19, 20, 22, 23n, 24, 25, 26, 28, 59, 60, 61, 69, 70, 71, 81, 82, 84, 97, 158, 220, 241 Nentambati 81 Nepinthathuhu 81 Nhe’engatu 220, 230, 232 Otomi 61, 81, 97, 305n

German xi, 56, 221, 224, 225, 226, 227 Guarani x, xii, 140, 145, 146, 148, 230, 232, 278 Highland Maya 34 Huarpe xii, 305, 306, 308, 309 Italian xi, 81, 140, 236, 238, 239 Jaqaru 302, 310 Kallawaya 265, 292n K’iche’ viii, ix, x, 34–41, 43, 45, 46, 48–50 Ka’apor 226, 232 Kunza xi Latin x, xi, 6, 19, 22, 23n, 28, 55, 57, 63–65, 69–71, 74, 81, 84n, 87–93, 97, 98, 102– 105, 125, 127, 128, 151–153, 158, 224, 226, 299, 300

Pacaraos Quechua 270–272 Pidgin 179 Pirinda 81, 82, 83n Portuguese xi, 141, 142, 151, 220–226, 229, 231–233, 238 Proto-Takana xi, 265 Pukina/Puquina ix, xii, x, xi, xii, 260–272, 277–283, 284n, 285–290, 293n, 294, 295 Purépecha viii, 59, 61, 66, 81, 83–85, 91n Q’eqchi’ 34 Quechua x, xii, xiii, 59, 60, 61, 62, 66, 68, 156, 157, 161–164, 165n, 168–173, 176– 181, 193, 185, 186, 195, 196, 220, 264, 270, 271, 277–281, 282n, 283, 284, 286–288, 291, 292, 294, 300–304, 306, 307

316

index of languages and ethnic groups

Sateré-Mawé 226 Spanish x, xi, 6, 22, 26, 28, 35–37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55, 56n, 59, 60, 61, 64–66, 68, 73, 75, 81–84, 87, 89, 92, 93, 95–97, 100–102, 104–107, 118n, 119, 121n, 130n, 140, 142, 143n, 150, 158, 159, 162– 165, 170, 173, 176–182, 184, 185, 195–201, 220, 231, 236–240, 242, 244, 246, 247, 251, 254, 255, 256, 279, 280, 281, 282n, 283, 284n, 286, 287, 288, 294, 299–301, 304, 305, 307, 308, 309n

Tupi-Guaranix xi, 139, 150, 179, 229, 231, 232 Tupinambá xi, xii, 148, 220, 230, 232, 278 Tupinikin xi, 220 Tz’utujil 35, 37 Uru 262–271, 278, 291 Uru-Chipaya xi, xii, 260, 262, 264, 265, 271, 278, 288 Wayãpi 226, 232 Xapi 226

Tallán xiii Tarascan 67, 81, 83n, 84, 85, 97 Tehuelche xi, 236–238, 241n, 242, 246, 251, 255 Tshon 237 Tsoneka 237

Yanesha’ x, 156, 157, 164, 166n, 173n, 180, 181n, 183n Yucatec Maya 61 Zapotec viii, 59, 61

Index of Subjects abbreviation 7, 37, 42, 195, 201, 202, 280 ablative 132, 148, 149, 202, 280, 302 adjective x, 91, 99, 101, 120, 121, 122, 129, 139– 142, 144, 147–149, 151, 153 adverb, adverbial 84n, 89, 90–95, 98, 99, 100, 102, 105–107, 114n, 116n, 120n, 126, 128n, 129n, 135n affix 49, 50, 97, 100, 102–104, 106, 305 allophone 129, 300, 301, 306 alphabet, alphabetic 36n, 42, 43, 44, 84n, 88, 89, 97, 100, 113, 131n, 239, 240, 241, 242, 244, 245, 251, 256, 294 approximant 230 aspect, aspectual 43, 97, 100, 121, 170 aspirated 85, 86, 146, 180, 256, 300, 301 assimilation 144n, 299, 302, 303n attribution, attributive 139, 141, 143, 145, 146, 148–153, 266 bilabial 230 bilingual 4, 35, 36, 37, 39, 58, 69, 81, 82, 84, 163, 166n, 179, 180, 240 borrowing x, 179, 181, 183, 184, 262, 264, 267– 271 catechism xii, 9n, 13, 38, 62, 84, 164, 221, 223, 225, 229, 230, 278 causative 97, 99, 102, 103, 125n, 171, 177, 183, 202 censorship, censura 23, 55, 58, 59, 67, 74 Christian(ised), Christianity, christianisation 5, 7, 12, 38, 43, 49, 60, 62, 156, 158, 163, 165, 166, 173, 185, 186, 260, 304 Christian doctrine, Doctrina Christiana 4, 7, 9n, 14n, 62, 164, 169n circulation of knowledge viii, xii, 54, 56, 56n, 57, 59, 67n, 73, 74, 75 cognate 267, 268, 306 commandment 158, 181, 183, 185, 204, 206– 209, 212, 215, 216, 279, 284, 286, 289, 290, 294 complement 145, 146, 148, 149 compound 25n, 91n, 144n, 145, 146, 149 confession, confessionary x, xii, 49, 57, 62, 63, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162, 163, 164, 168,

173, 179–185, 196n, 200, 204, 211, 231, 278, 279, 284, 286, 287, 294 consonant xi, 11, 21n, 84, 86n, 87, 129n, 180, 251, 252, 257, 265, 266n, 279, 299, 300, 301, 303n, 304, 307, 308 copla xi, 226, 227, 231, 232, 234 copula 142, 149–153 declinable, indeclinable, declination 89, 90n, 91, 92, 93, 126n, 133n, 134 derivation, derivational x, 40, 45, 47, 48, 50, 140, 141, 153, 230, 266, 306 diachronic 55, 146, 299 dialect 165, 169, 170, 172n, 173n, 196n, 279, 299, 300, 303, 307, 308 difrasismo viii, 26, 30 direct object 97, 141 ergative 50, 266 ethnomym 82, 248 evangelization 3, 5n, 12, 14, 22, 25–27, 29, 54, 57, 60–62, 66, 72–75 expletive 90 extinct language xi, xii, 237, 260, 301, 305 fricative 87n, 170, 198n, 230, 244, 246, 247, 251, 252, 255, 285n, 303 gangoso xvii, 304, 305n genitive 70, 145, 146, 148, 149, 178, 182, 202, 280, 302 gloss, glossed, glossing, glosas 6, 9, 50, 51, 82, 84, 88n, 89n, 98, 100, 101, 113, 121n, 148, 150, 151, 181, 182, 201, 202, 229, 243, 244, 265n, 287, 291, 292, 293, 294, 301 glottal, glottalisation, glottalized, glottal stop 43, 84, 180, 182n, 230, 251, 252, 253, 254, 257, 285, 300, 301 grammar vii–x, 3, 4, 54–56, 58–75, 81, 83– 85, 87–93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 102, 106, 107, 126, 139, 140, 144, 152, 153, 169n, 177n, 178–182, 185, 221, 229, 230, 266, 299, 300, 301, 304, 306–308 glottonym 82, 83 guttural, gutturally xiii, 238, 239, 244, 257, 304

318 iterativity

index of subjects 183

kin, kinship xii, 266, 277, 281, 294 lemma, lemmata, lemmatisation, lemmatisers ix, 42–45, 48, 50, 51, 97, 98, 105, 182, 225 lengua general xii, 60, 164, 165, 168, 169, 220 lexicography ix, xii, 34, 35, 38, 43, 236, 294 lexicon 141, 172, 269, 280, 282, 266, 277, 279, 301, 303n lingua franca ix, xi, xii, 35, 60, 83n, 264 media lengua 156, 163, 173, 178, 179, 180 metaphor 20, 38, 43 modifier 178, 295n mood 102, 103, 231 morphology/morphological, morphologically, morphologisation 26, 43, 44, 48, 49, 51, 91, 102, 140–145, 153, 169, 170, 171, 173, 177, 178, 278, 279, 302 morphosyntax/morphosyntactic 139, 179, 230, 231 nasal xii, xiii, 129n, 251, 268, 299, 300–309 negation 92, 105, 135, 182, 202, 231, 232, 243n neologism viii, 24, 25, 26, 30, 38, 43, 49 neutral verb 46 nominal, nominalizer, nominalization x, 23n, 139–145, 148–150, 153, 171, 177, 178, 182, 266, 269, 270, 280n, 281 nominative 70, 124, 302 non-verbal predication x, 149, 152, 253 noun x, 70, 71, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94–101, 103, 106, 113, 114, 119, 120, 122, 124, 129, 139, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153, 177, 178, 240, 242, 283, 302, 305 n-type 144, 145, 149, 150, 152 occlusive 87n, 252, 254, 303n orthography ix, 41, 42, 43, 48, 49, 169, 180n, 181, 195, 241, 279, 289, 299, 300, 307 palatal 180, 251, 252, 268 participle 90, 91, 95, 98, 121, 182, 230 particle(s) ix, 81–85, 87–97, 99–107, 113–129, 131–135

parts of speech ix, 88–95, 98, 99, 106 phoneme/phonetic xiii, 43, 169, 170n, 171, 302, 303n, 304, 307, 308, 309 phonology/phonological 169 plosive 170, 198n possession, possessive 44, 84n, 98, 101, 106, 115, 124, 128, 131, 133, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 153, 177, 178, 182, 202, 223, 280, 281, 282, 283 predicate, predication x, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153 prefix 44, 50, 70, 90, 91, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 105, 106, 117n, 121n, 141, 144, 151, 152, 230, 267, 268, 269, 271 preposition 84, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 98, 100, 105, 114, 124, 125, 126, 132, 134, 135 pronoun 50, 70, 86, 90, 91, 93–95, 98, 102, 127, 144, 151, 304 reconstruction 38, 195 retroflex 180 root 48, 50, 84n, 96, 97, 100, 102, 103n, 104, 105, 121, 141, 143, 144, 178, 169, 193n semantic, semantical, semantical xi, 26, 38, 43, 90, 91, 99, 141, 142, 145, 146, 149, 172, 173, 184, 185, 237, 242–250, 255, 263– 268, 270, 284, 301 sermon, Sermonario vii, 4–10, 14–16, 19– 28, 30, 38, 62, 82n, 83n, 84, 164, 169, 173n subordinate, subordination, subordinator 177, 178 suffix 50, 91, 97, 101, 102, 103, 106, 114, 170, 171, 177, 178, 182, 183, 201n, 230, 266, 287, 293n, 303n superstition 159, 174, 176 synchronic 140, 148, 151n syntax 91, 94, 140, 146, 173 tense 7, 89, 99, 102, 103, 115, 150n, 151, 162, 170, 177 terminology 64, 105, 163278, 294, 302 transcription x, xi, 7, 38, 41, 42, 43, 48, 49, 51, 67, 126, 157, 170–176, 178, 181, 195, 201, 237, 243–248, 251, 253, 254, 256, 257, 262n, 266n, 267n, 270, 279, 300, 302, 304, 305, 306, 308, 309 transculturation 55

index of subjects

319

transitive 50, 98, 99, 141, 230, 231 translation x, xi, 4, 9, 11, 12n, 20, 22, 26, 28, 35, 38, 40, 42, 43, 46–48, 50, 54, 55, 56n, 58, 62, 63, 69, 74, 92, 93, 96, 100, 105, 114n, 143n, 150, 157, 158, 162n, 172–176, 180, 182, 185, 199–201, 216, 233, 245, 279, 284n, 304 trilingual 36, 37, 39, 40

vocabulary xi, 4, 37, 39, 43, 47, 58, 60, 63n, 66, 69, 85, 87, 145, 163, 169, 172, 173, 179, 182, 185, 224, 233, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 249, 252, 256 voiced 230, 304 voiceless 87, 244, 246, 247, 252, 254, 255 volitionality 183

uvular 43, 251, 252, 255, 257, 279, 300, 303

wide-lensed study viii, xii, 54, 56, 64, 74, 75 word-final 300–303, 306, 307 word-initial 265, 267, 305 wordlist vii, 100, 236, 239, 241, 308

velar, velarization xii, xiii, 170, 180, 244, 246, 247, 251, 254, 255, 279, 299–309