EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL RELATIONS OF THE SOUTH TEXAS TONGUES

Swanton]

LINGUISTIC MATERIAL FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS 137 Cabeza de Vaca

also

mentions two words

of

an unidentified

lan-

guage, mira aca or

arraca,

"men," and

x6,

"dog," the

last

mentioned perhaps pronounced "sho." There

is

an s-sound

in

the names

applied to dogs

in

the extant

dialects

but otherwise there

is little

resemblance between these words and any

su;rviving

terms

of

com- parable

significance.

EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL RELATIONS OF THE SOUTH

138 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY

[Bull.127

•^ u

>^-s

52 ^^-^^S^ga

E5

oot

Si's

-r3 o 2

—•2_.a'"S

PQ

c^atd o .^unm

r" 0-"-

E.25 "^^M rtftrt>;&>?&

aSS

^I

'OSC3

-S:i

S

^'^Oicio0)o

W_Ci" 4J c5

rtQJs.'-^rtQ.cCrted rtt>o3*o

a^

^03p,cijP.a ao.^

a^

o

s

«

Et<

ctaS

o^{<^}

^-.f-r!r UJ3^

Km

3

cs(Scij

i_;-"o^x!

ooc

o S^oJEfeSl«SSS'S

£55o^'S

c4.0^j3A^^^^^^.^.I2X!J3,a.aX!X! ^{.So o}oo

Swanton]

LINGUISTIC MATERIAL FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS 139

ee«:

.2

S^

^o

L,-T O33 .

Sm

<U'3W

COcC3 01ES

d)4^C3^cd

ci£a

140 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY

^[Bull.127

Si

fi

^s

ss

&2

o

62

Cen

Swauton]

LINGUISTIC MATERIAL FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS 141

CO .00,

Is

^s.

S2 aS

..2^{"^}

5^^D-

ox

ja;e3

5E

(Uocit

Si!&

u>OJ

^

^{3 Sid'*}

-i5 "•^^{<- J} la 54i«

ao)'^

Gm

E3

, "3 ^{"^}

a 2

^

SS?E-^

~<D-2 .13

^5pC

» P P05

K&"«

Is

Sf

S^

c

CD.fc*uki^tl^^H)^^<oao a^:4ua>c

B^

•SStiS.

ICQCQCGn03

«-•«g?

I - !

*^ _-si*^ o^a;2

3 3Sfe^~o-S S_'-' M.S.S^Sct

142 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY

^[Bull.127

3 C a

o

o

Swanton]

LINGUISTIC ]\IATERIAL FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS 143

WW WW

.K^rtrt«

rtOJ

2c-«

"3rt73rt1^rtflo

,33

3:=.~r^=«

r'33Et

n > as^ E-3

M

CJ?.CEC,D.T3

•ao

5a

. -03<:3 Icdtco

'ftC0.1C3Bft

ftrteUftxiSftx

'le^n-^'o^t-i-i

144 BUKEAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY

^[Bull.127

An adequate comparison

of

these languages

is

extremely

difficult

owing to the divergent motives which actuated the various

recorders,

the

different nationalities of

the

latter,

and, as

I

have

said,

the fragmen- tary character

of

the

material.

Nevertheless,

it is

plain that these

several

forms

of

speech

differed

widely, and, indeed, from an inspection

of this table

one would hardly be assured that any two

of

them belonged to the same

stock.

The two

listsof

words that present most analogies

are,

as might have been expected, Comecrudo and Cotoname, which were

collected

by the same

linguist

at the same time and place from Indians who had long been on terms

of

intimacy. For

this

reason the considerable

differences

between the two tongues are

surprising.

In some cases

it will

be noted that one

of

them

is

nearer Karankawa than to the supposedly

sister dialect.

Both Comecrudo and Cotoname are further removed from Coahuil- teco as represented

in

Garcia'

s

Manual than the

classification of

the three

in

one stock would lead one to suppose. Comecrudo appears to be nearer Coahuilteco than does Cotoname, but neither

is

much

closer

than Karankawa, though the last-mentioned has been assigned to an independent family. Indeed, a comparison

of

Texas languages made by the present writer some years ago

^{^}

seemed to

link

Karan- kawa more

closely

with Coahuilteco than with

either of

the

others,

but

it

must be

said

that the older vocabularies now brought to

light

tend to discount

in

part the

results of this

study.

In view

of

the marked divergencies exhibited by the three sup- posedly "Coahuiltecan"

dialects,their

almost equally

close

connection with the supposedly independent Karankawan, and the further

diver-

gence shown by the San Francisco Solano vocabulary,

I

am

of

the opinion that the present

classification of

the tongues

of this

region into Coahuiltecan, Karankawan, Tamaulipecan — ^{and probably}

^also

Olivean and Janambrian —

^{families is}

^wholly

artificial,

and that we do not know how many stocks there were. Except perhaps

for

Janam-

brian

(see p.6), I

am very much

^inclined

to

believe

that

allof

these are but widely separated

dialects of

a

single one.

My experience has been

that,

when the

dialectsof

a ^stock vary widely, the

lexical

resemblances are very much

less

than the resemblances exhibited by the verb complex, the

affixes,

and the

structure.

The present material by

its

fragmentary nature, tends to exaggerate

differences

and conceal the more fundamental resemblances, though such

structural

elements as

we have seem to indicate the same condition that we

^find

elsewhere.

A more complete examination

of

the material here brought together

will

perhaps

establish

or disprove my conclusion.

It is also possible

that a greater degree

ofrelationship will

be found to extend to Ton- kawa, formerly spoken northeast

of

the Coahuiltecan

territory,

and

3Linguistic positionofthetribes ofsouthernTexas andnortheasternMexico, Amer. Anthrop.,n.s., vol. 17,pp. 17-40, 1915.

Swanton]

LINGUISTIC MATERIAL FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS 145 to the Tunican languages beyond the

Trinity,

which are now being

made the subjects

of

intensive

investigations.

Professor Sapir

^{^}

has

also

suggested a much wider connection

for

the old south and

central

Texan tongues, aligning them as he does with the great Hokan family

of

the

Pacific coast.

This contention has

still

to be placed beyond reasonable doubt, but there are

certain

considera-

tions

which lend considerable

color to

the

idea.

We note

that,

north of Mexico, there are two regions

of

high

linguistic

complexity. The

better known area

is, of course,

California and Oregon, but the lands about the northwestern angle

of

the Gulf

of

Mexico exhibit a

similar

condition, yet one which has been obscured to some extent by the fragmentary character

of

the material from

this section. It is

not only that we have a number

of

small

linguistic

stocks but that there

is

evidence

of

very considerable divergence among the

dialects of

those

stocks.

Now, between the

Pacific

and Gulf areas

are,

or rather were, two great

families,

one

of

which, the Athapascan, appears to have intruded

itself

from the north at a

relatively late

period while the

other,

the Uto-Aztecan, seems to have moved

in

a north-south

direction

one way or the other considerably

earlier.

May

it

not be that the aboriginal Californians and south Texans represented remnants

of earlier

waves,

split in

two by these

later

comers and driven west and east respectively?

*Sapir, E.,TheHokan and Coahuiltecanlanguages.Int.Journ. Amer.Linguistics,vol.1,No.4,pp.

280-290,Dec.1920.

o

"f^

31 ^{k 8^}