1910. Die Ruinen von Chichen Itza in Yucatan.

Sologuren

16th Internationa' Congress of Americanists, Vienna, 1908 pp. 151-239. Vienna, 1910.

1888. Compte Rendu du Congrès Internat. des Américanistes. pp. 125131. Berlin 1888.

1857. Incidents of Travel in Central America. (Edited by Catherwood),

p. 366, pl. 42. (London.)

Thompson, Edward H.

1897a. The Cave of Loltun.

Mem. Pea. Mus. Harv. Univ., vol. 1, No. 2.

1897b. The Chultunes of Labna.

Mem. Pea. Mus. Harv Univ., vol. 1, No. 3.

1898. The Ruins of Xcichmook, Yucatan. Field Columbian Museum. Anthrop. Series, Pub. 28 vol. II, No. 3.

1904. Archaeological Researches in Yucatan.

Mem. Pea. Mus. Harv. Univ. vol. III, No. 1.

(Unpublished photos of Graves in Mound 6, Labna, in Peabody Museum, Harvard University.)

Waldeck, Frederic de

1866. Palenque et antres Ruines de Mexico.

(Page 4, under the head: 'Description des Ruines de Palenque etc.' Edition by Brasseur de Bourbourg.)

PEABODY MUSEUM,

HARVARD UNIVERSITY,

CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

I. Demonstrative, Interrogative, and other Pronominal Stems.

J. Particles...

K. Grammatical Elements.

II. Notes on Subtiaba Phonology

Vocalic Changes.....

Monophthongization of Diphthongs.

405

405

408

409

411

412

413

416

418

421

422

424

426

428

I

Loss and Contraction of Vowels..

INTRODUCTORY

T IS the purpose of this paper to follow up a valuable hypothesis which Dr. W. Lehmann has recently proposed in regard to Subtiaba, a language now spoken by only a small number of Indians in a village near Léon, on the Pacific slope of Nicaragua.1 This language is known to us also under the names of Maribio and, mistakenly, of "Orotina" and "Nagrando." Our material

1 See W. Lehmann, Zentral-Amerika, I. Teil: Die Sprachen Zentral-Amerikas, II. Band (Berlin, 1920); see pp. 910-978, which are devoted to Subtiaba and Tlappanec. The close relationship of these two languages was first demonstrated by Lehmann in 1915 (see Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1915, pp. 1-34).

is due mainly to what Dr. Lehmann could obtain in 1908 and 1909 from an aged woman in the village of Subtiaba (Jiquilapa), but is supplemented to some extent by earlier vocabularies collected by Squier, Don Francisco Arragon (published by the Comte de Charencey), and Berendt (published in Brinton's American Race). For a long time the language was believed to be an isolated one, aside from a small enclave (Guatajiguala) further north in the Lenca country in Salvador. But it appeared later that it is very closely related to Tlappanec or Yopi, a language spoken in the state of Guerrero in southern Mexico, on the western border of the Mixtec area. Though what we know of this second language is apparently limited to a vocabulary of 69 words published by N. Léon in 1912, it is quite enough to show at once that Subtiaba and Tlappanec are really only dialects of a single language, differing no more, say, than Cree and Fox or than Ute and Southern Paiute. It is probable that they are mutually intelligible or nearly so. This is surprising in view of the tremendous distance which separates them, though there is plenty of precedent for this kind of distribution in America (cf. Pipil-Nicarao and Nahuatl; MangueChorotega, Chiapanec, and Mazatec).

This Mexican and Central American language is of very special interest to students of the languages and cultures of the United States because of the great likelihood that Dr. Lehmann is correct in his surmise that it is related to certain languages of California. He seems to believe in a special relationship with Washo, of eastern California and western Nevada, but I believe that this specific formulation of the theory is not quite acceptable. Since Dr. Lehmann first observed the remarkable analogy between the nominal d-prefix of Subtiaba and that of Washo, Dixon and Kroeber, J. P. Harrington, and the writer have been led, independently of each other, to affiliate Washo with the Hokan group (then consisting of Karok, Chimariko, Shasta-Achomawi, Yana, Pomo, Esselen, Yuman, Chumash, Salinan, Seri, and Chontal or Tequistlateco). The present writer was further led to connect with these Hokan languages a group of languages (Coahuilteco, in

2 See pp. 973-975 of Zentral-Amerika.

cluding Comecrudo and Cotoname; Tonkawa; Karankawa; and perhaps Atakapa) spoken in northeastern Mexico and southern Texas, along the Gulf of Mexico, and introduced the term "HokanCoahuiltecan" for this enlarged group. An examination of Dr. Lehmann's material has convinced me that he is essentially correct, but that Subtiaba and Tlappanec are to be regarded as a southern outlier of the Hokan-Coahuiltecan stock as a whole, not of a subdivision of this group to which Washo belongs in particular. Aside from the d- (or t-) prefix, which is shared by Salinan and Chumash (San Luis Obispo dialect), and of which reflexes probably exist elsewhere in Hokan-Coahuiltecan, there seem to be no lexical or morphological agreements that would justify our setting off Washo and Subtiaba-Tlappanec against the other Hokan and Coahuiltecan languages. Of the seven lexical parallels that Dr. Lehmann gives between Washo and Subtiaba, four are probably correct; they are noted below. Each of them has other Hokan cognates as well.

In preparing the following list of cognate words and elements in Subtiaba (and Tlappanec) and Hokan-Coahuiltecan I have not by any means made use of all the dialectic Hokan and Coahuiltecan material which is available for comparison, scanty as that really is, but have limited myself in the main to the material which has already been presented in comparative form in other papers.

3 These are words for "mouth," "nape," "sun" ("day"), and "frog." His comparison of the words for "tree," "silver," and "elbow" can hardly be correct and are partly due to misunderstandings. Washo bēcu "silver," which he compares with Subtiaba baxka, is to be read with c= - English sh and is obviously borrowed from Spanish peso. Washo d-utsu "elbow" cannot be compared with Subtiaba isu, which Dr. Lehmann inadvertently translates as "elbow." His material shows that this word really means "bone"; "elbow" is isu-paxpū, literally "bone of arm." For Hokan cognates to Subtiaba isu, see no. 4 of our list.

4 See E. Sapir, The Position of Yana in the Hokan Stock (University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 13, pp. 1-34, 1917), cited as Yan.; R. B. Dixon's and A. L. Kroeber's list of Hokan elements which have cognates in Washo and my own similar list in their Linguistic Families of California (ibid., vol. 16, pp. 104-112, 1919), cited as Was.-Hok.; E. Sapir, The Hokan and Coahuiltecan Languages (International Journal of American Linguistics, vol. I, pp. 280-290, 1920), cited as Hok.-Coa.); E. Sapir, A Supplementary Note on Salinan and Washo (ibid., vol. 2, pp. 68-72, 1922), cited as Sup.

It is highly probable that a detailed comparison with such HokanCoahuiltecan languages as Seri, Yuman, Chumash, and Tonkawa would disclose a great many additional Hokan cognates in Subtiaba. The orthography has been slightly simplified and normalized, so far as possible, to current Americanist usage in this country. Stress accents have been omitted. A number of phonetic and morphological observations on Subtiaba follow the list of suggested cognates.

I. HOKAN ELEMENTS IN SUBTIABA5

A. Body-Part Nouns

1. arm: paxpu, Sq. pa'pu, Ar. pahpa (probably "thy arm"; -u', -yu' is "my," -a, -ya "thy" in Sub.). Cf. Chim. -pu in h-itan-pu "arm" (itan- is "hand"); Chum. pu "arm, hand"; Sal. puku “arm."

2. back: su-gitcu "back," gitcu (e. g. gitcu-naxku "back of foot"; gitcu is compounded of local gi-, see no. 113, and stem -tcu or itcu, hence literally "at rear"), gitca "behind, back of." Cf. Sal. -itcom" "back," -itcomo "behind"; Com. semi "after."

3. blood: eedi, e'di, Sq. e'ti, Ar. edi. Cf. Sh. axta, Ach. axdi; Kar. ax; Yan. wat'du-wi "blood," -wat'- "red"; S. Po. hata "red"; Moh. ahwata "blood," Dieg. axwat "blood"; Yum. xwat "red"; Se. avat "blood"; Chon. awas; Sal. p-akata, ekata; Chum. axuli-s. Hokan *axwati ?

4. bone: isu. Cf. Moh. isaka, Dieg. hak, Wal. tyaga; Sal. axa k', (p-)axak "bone," k-exakop "bony"; Chum. se'; Se. itak;

Es. iya; Po. ihya, iya, iha, hiya, ya; Sh. ak; Yan. i'dal-la.
Hokan *ihyaka?

Subtiaba forms not otherwise indicated are from Lehmann's material; Squier's Arragon's, and Berendt's forms are respectively marked Sq., Ar., and Br. The following abbreviations are used:

I quote different Pomo and Chumash dialects without specifying them in each

case.