/nsoe 1 of 35

CLOSE X

The Barbacoan UmRuages of Colombia and Ecuador

NEXT

TlMOTlIYJOWAN CURNOW AND ANTHONY J. LlDDICOAT

Austrslian Notional University

Atmlract. ITiis article applies the comparative method to show that there is a
genetic relationship between the Colombian and Ecuadorian indigenous lan-
'

guages Guambiano, Toloro, Awa Pit (Cuaiquer). Cha palaachi (Cayapa), and
Tsafiqui (Colorado). These five languages form the Barbacoan group. This
family does not contain Paez, although that language is often grouped wiUi
(some of) Uie Barbacoan languages. In addition, Moore's (1962) analysis of the
South Barbacoan languages (Cha'palaachi and Tsafiqui) is reexamined, and it is
shown that by correcting his data, Proto-South Barbacoan can bo reconstructed
without a palatal series ofconsonants.

1.
Introduction. In recent years, there has been an upsurge of interest in the
genetic classification of South American languages, with a great deal of discus-
sion and debate, especially following the publication of Greenberg (1987). While
there has been some acrimonious debate this is fortunately being replaced by a
,

clearer examination of the data, with Greenberg s classification (often based on

'

earlier work) being taken as a guide to potential relationships that should be

tested on an individual level.
Throughout the history of research on American Indian languages there ,

has been a strong emphasis on distant relationships rather than on low-level

relationships (cf. Campbell and Goddard 1990:18), in part, perhaps because of a
,

lack of adequate data allowing low-level reconstruction. However with more ,

reliable data becoming available for many South American languages it is now ,

possible to begin careful low-level reconstructions on individual groups of lan-

guages. which can then be compared with the results of more impressionistic
techniques, such as Greenberg's multilateral comparisons.
The Barbacoan languages of Colombia and Ecuador-Guambiano Totoro, ,

Awa Pit or Cuaiquer, Cha'palaachi or Cayapa, and Tsafiqui or Colorado-have

been grouped in a variety of ways by different classification schemes (see section
3). and the first two have also often been linked with Paez (or Nasa Yuwe).
Through the rigorous use of the comparative method this article demonstrates
,

that these five languages do indeed form a low-level family with cither two or
,

three subfamilies. However as discussed elsewhere by Cumow (1997a in

,
,

press), there is no evidence of a relationship between these languages and Paez,

despite the popularity of this link in classifications of South American lan-
guages. Equally, the hypothesis that the Barbacoan languages are related to
others (as Macro-Chibchan) is left aside as an as yet unsubstantiated claim .

3S4
Efnace 3 of 25
CLOSE X

1998 Timothy JowanCurnow and Anthony J. Liddicoat 385

2. The Barbacoan languages. TTie five languages focused on in this study

'
are, from north to south, Guambiano, Totoro, Awa Pit, Cha palaachi, and
PREV Tsafiqui These languages, and other neighboring indigenous languages, are
. NEXT
shown in map 1.

COLOMBIA
PACIFIC
SusmHim
OCEAN ana Jafaio

-
Awa

I "0.1 QilKhUl
1

Coffln
Cha'paiadii
mDafi
Quachua
1
aans

ECUADOR

PERU
r

Map L Indigenous languages of .outhem Colombia and northern Ecuador (based on

ConstenlaUmana 1991:70).

There are somewhere between 8,000-9.000 (Adelaar 1991:66) and 18,000

Guambianos and 1,000 Totor6s(Huber and Reed 1992:xiv)l living in the Andes
in the Colombian department of Cauca In many works, the two groups are not
distinguished, with Totoro being considered a name given to the Guambiano in
the municipality ofTotoro (see. for example, Telban 19881236). The vast major-
ity of Guambianos and Totorda are bilingual in their traditional language and in
Spanish, although there are some monolinguals in each language (Vasquez dc
Ruiz 1988:40). The Guambianos and their language are known as Moguex by
the neighboring Pacz (Telban 1988), although some language classifications
 AWmROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 40 NO, 3

have erroneously given Moguex status as a separate language (Cumow 1997a ,

in press).
No data is available on the phonemic system of Totord, with the Totoro data
in Hubcr and Reed (1992) being phonetically transcribed. Given the usual con-
sideration of Totoro as a dialect of Guambiano spoken in the municipality of
Totoro (see, for example, Conslenla 1991:72), the two presumably have a high
degree of mutual intelligibility, and the phonemic system of Totoro would thus
be simitar to, although not necessarily identical with, that ofGuambiano.
Guambiano (Vasquez de Ruiz 1988) has five vowels i. e. a, a, and u, with u
,

having an allophone [oj. It has seventeen consonants, p, 1$, k, t, ts, if, s, s./.j. w,
m. n, ji. \, A, and r. The phonemes p, %$, and h have additional conditioned
allophones IbJ, [d l, (gl; Ip]r IO, Mi and 1*1. ttl W? Phonemes i ts. and tf have
.

additional conditioned allophones (d), [dzl, and (dg). There are a few other minor
allophonic variations,
The Awa. previously known as the Cuaiquer, Cuayquer, Kwaiker, or Coay-
quer, to give the more common spellings, live in the border regions of Colombia
and Ecuador, in the western foothills of the Andes. Estimates of the population
vary wildly with perhaps the most accurate being about 5,000 people (Ceron
,

Solarte 1986:17), although there are suggestions of up to 20,000 (Adelaar 1991:

66; Huber and Reed 1992:xiv). TTic Awa live in extremely inaccessible areas and
"
are known for their culture of secrecy' or 'dissembling behavior" (Ehrenreich
1989:252-57). and these factors contribute to the uncertainty of the figures. In
addition, in many areas the Awa are increasingly monolingual in Spanish with ,

perhaps only 5-10 percent of the population still being able to communicate in
Awa Pit, and thus the number of speakers is well below the figures given above
for population.
Awa Pit (Cumow 1997b) has two series of phonemic vowels voiced and ,

voiceless. The voiced vowels are i t, a, and u; only the three high vowels have
,

voiceless counterparts. The consonant phonemes are p r, fe, s, f. z, j, i (or x.

,

depending on the dialect), m, n. rj, I, w. and >. The phonemes p and k have
.

conditioned allophones [b]. Id] Igl and [p], |r|( tyl. Phonemes s and / have
,

allophones (ta| and [t/J.

The Chachis (or Cayapas) live in the province of Esmeraldaa in the north-
west of Ecuador. The majority of the 3 000 Chachis are monolingual in their
.

traditional language, Cha'palaachi, with only about 20 percent bilingual in

Spanish (Stark 1985:162).
Hie Cha'palaachi phoneme system is not clear. IJndskoog and Lindskoog
(1964) contains only orthographic symbols, and some of these are clearly not
phonemic-for example, c and qu are clearly one phoneme. However, it appears
to contain four short vowels, 1, c, a, and u and four corresponding long vowels.
,

There are consonants p. 1.1', k, b. d d', g. ts. tf, f. s. f. h (or perhaps x).m.n.r)./i,
.

rJ.A.w.j.md ?.
TheTsachilas (or Colorados) also live in Ecuador in the province of Pichin-
,
1906 TlMOTHYjOWAN CURNOW ANDAVl'HONY LtDDICOAT

cha. At least in the 1970s, about 50 percent of the l.OOOTsachilas were bilingual
in Tsafiqui which is their traditional language, and Spanish (Stark 1985:160),
,

with the remainder being monolingual in Tsafiqui.

Like Cha'pslaachi, there is little clear inforrnation on the phonemic system
ofTsafiqui. Based on Moore (1966), it appears to have five oral vowels, i, e, a, o.
and u, plus corresponding nasal vowels, and consonants p. t, k, b, d. Is (with an
allophono (l/J), s (with an allophone {/)), h (or perhaps x), m, n, r, I, w, and/.
TTie status of ? is unclear, as while Moore (1962) claims that there is a phonemic
glottal stop, his tat«r dictionary (Moore 1966) does not mark glottal stops. In
addition, there is preaspiration of consonants, indicated by an apostrophe in the
orthography. While originally phonemic {from Proto-South Barbacoan ft), this
'

is now almost predictable, due to its analogic extension to almost every stem
having u medial voiceless consonant (Moore 1962).
As far as grammatical typology is concerned, the five languages are quite
similar. All five are SOV languages, with the usual typological correlates, such
as adjectives before nouns and adverbs before verbs. Guambiano (Vasquez de
Ruiz 1988) and Awa Pit (Curnow 1997b) are completely suffixing; Cha'pataachi
(Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964) and Tsafiqui (Moore 1966:97) are largely suf-
fixing with a few prefixes. Verbal categories such as tense, aspect, and mood
'

appear to be largely inflectional in Cha palaachi (Abrahamson 1962:233). Tsafi-

qui (Moore 1966:99-104), and Awa Pit (Cumow 1997b), although in Awa Pit, at
least, there are a variety of expressions of aspect through auxiliaries. Guam-
biano (Vasquez de Ruiz 1988) has some tense, aspect, and mood categories ex-
pressed through verbal suffixes, but in general these categories are shown by
auxiliary verbs.
All five languages are nominative-accusative and use noun suffixes or post-
positions to show case. Nominative is zero, and accusative is marked. In Guam-
biano, the accusative wan/n is used only for marking definite objects. In Awa
Pit. the postposition ta is used only for referential human objects and is also a
locative marker (Cumow 1997b).1 In Cha'palaachi (Abrahamson 1962:229) and
Tsafiqui (Moore 1966:98), the accusative markers nu and fea respectively mark
all objects and are also used as locative markers. The postpositional status of
some of these markers, their common identity with locatives, and, above all. the
'

complete lack of cognacy even in the (relatively) closely related Cha palaachi and
Tsafiqui suggest a fairly recent development of these accusative markers.
Tsafiqui appears to have a system of classifiers used with adjectives (Moore
'

1966:99). and Cha palaachi appears to have at least numeral classifiers, given
the description of words such as puka as 'a single one of anything small and
*
round (Lindskoog and Lindskoog 1964).

3 The history of classifications of Barbacoan lantcua es. The earliest

.

classification involving the Barbacoan languages appears to be that of Brinton

(1891:194-99). who classified these languages into two groups, the Cocanuca
 Anthropological Linguistics 40 no. 3

linguistic stock and the Barbacoa linguistic stock. The former includes Guam-
,

biano and Totoro, as well as a number of extinct languages about which little or
'

nothing is known; the latter includes Cha palaachi, Tsafiqui, and Awa Pit, and
some unknown extinct languages. While the Barbacoan languages were thus
classified into two groups, Brinton notes that this may not be the case, claiming
that he has,

i n obedience to a sense of caution, treated of this slock [Barbacoa) ns sGpitmle

from the Cocanuca; but the fragmentary vocabularies at my command offer a
number of resemblances between the two, and I expect that ampler material
will show increased analogies probably to the extent of provini; them branches
,

of the same family tree. (Brinton 1891:199)

He reiterates this suggestion in the appendix (Brinton 1891:347) where he gives

,

twenty-one sample words from Tsafiqui, Cha'palaachi, Guambiano, and Totoro.

Brinton also discusses the Paniquita linguistic stock, which contains the lan-
guages Pacz and Paniquita, with the latter perhaps being simply a dialect of
Paez. Thus, Brinton groups Guambiano and Totoro; Awa Pit Cha'palaachi, and
,

Tsafiqui (possibly grouping these together with the previous); and Paez.
Brinton's classification formed the basis for the classification of languages of
the region by Beuchat and Rivet (1910). This study assumes the existence of
Brinton's three groups and freely uses single words from any of the languages to
'

represent the group in comparing Brinton s Barbacoan" group with the Pani-
"

quitan and Coconuco (Brinton s Cocanuca) groups of languages.1 On the basis of

'

this comparison by inspection, Beuchat and Rivet (1910) placed Awa Pit, Cha'pa-
laachi, and Tsafiqui together in the ' Barbacoan ' subgroup of Chibchan ,
most
closely related to the Talamancan subgroup-containing languages such as
Bribri and Borneo, which are "true" Chibchan languages (Constenla Umana
I98l). Guambiano Totoro, and Paez were placed in a separate subgroup of Chib-
,

chan, the Paniquita-Coconuco subgroup, most closely related to languages such

as Move and Bocala-also true ' Chibchan languages (Constenla Umana 198l).
'

Beuchat and Rivet's (1910) classification has essentially been used as the
basis for all classifications since and has often been taken as established truth.
Occasionally, the names of the various groups have been changed, but the
general form has persisted from Beuchat and Rivet through to Creenberg
(1987). who considers Tsafiqui, Cha'palaachi, and Awa Pit to be in the family
Barbacoa"; Guambiano, Totoro, and Paez to be in the family Paez; the families
Barbacoa' and Paez (together with Andaqui) to form Nuclear Paczan
"

,
within
Paezan, within Chibchan-Paezan one of the branches of Amerind.3
,

While Beuchat and Rivet's (1910) classification has been generally accepted
in summaries of the languages of South America since its publication there are ,

recent dissenting voices both at the macro level and the micro level.
,

While the " Barbacoan" and Paezan languages are usually considered as
. ,

part of Macro-Chibchon or Chibchan-Paezan. a few comparativists have rejected

1998

p«)c«l&«a slw y oftite OxT&ht&i iaAgsta Cmateeh. timfis&a <3 S* n- tw

tSjes* vsii -.S«s*fi<»ea.M .Pw .>S5t 0J KaiiSaac o<ffl6vto th&i &ttife of hie

s up wtth wvrfa tatgiutgtt $uluAfii|tf pamisai 'i SooislbSfiiu B?d

?n , weft & jswj* c sjr g Pftf Ottobdiiaiio I Um fitoawb

EIm mfaitdBMiL duodficBtfeR of ifaos* SoanUS ft«*0M fasaifc'

EftrfeRw . j Euss iaii awKiathss it Feu* SSete UEMn wc cfe in

sfi Awa Itv CSu aleatidt fiaasabteiss ki, bAsB Kubw sis

Paw. SS*«! wavti » w«S siuKBiM w Btw«? <2S&S> £i.*t

rus t ift wag; tesiaUw tould w pfc i with ih#> mndto of io tttSiv
 380

.
raws IteiafMMi i>U«on% (lMti«aiMi% teoM .'jft ww asprajAjttflw

iwne fic iahscfl feag tt L«a3itott (iSSSiSJtS m M&k tbe «*

'

tA'ilt. is rcii tt fe* SB Sfesft.;: AtiWil lis pitf W' $ (M&&))iK.&&wMiS.

«it -wald S»e SKftes ttag-fej ifc ec»stem&** f*** *** Ott«tAfc«**« «<ji
f

amatp hte and8wd i® sr). "Bnut iMwif.« Mjg5«i>fee bate te-i

t
rrev Vta Kttic jjfsawiailcjai. t£S*ata6i(a k a'-wiiiaiife & Tfi«« 4bs 3i ii£X«af;w?- NEXT
Var. litfflcpi ?l,a oixiv /awi*e ia tab ps efl e? vaaifgh&iiQS fct the fc a ing

9*t v«tJ4i!i i-y a weds »«. &i ffownj)?*, C«a>,p4>S!*. S96 1 «O0uelM wft

csr fee eM&%iiJ»dfer; sea n&Kw&riS&fti&fi- -bo S et tCs1), mfy

ebj 'flho Viii.'. ip s iifestsfl list i w vb&bfe? «eean°e& Mffc

'

shjdsJw;
'

cats- tisa Bail«Ma laafiuves eBatelsto44tiS>£t Qrt&£t9C9«

V ?. jwis&fch'tfc. wfi&ltoeswflptiiM rf4b»»«fe«ff abates,sil KiteiMiiiMAi

Hfiv iKBsta« » w aas&SMgJfefe M -.5te- :a53 9m#{tt e9«i SMSss«SM« a 0 nexi

mom

4 -
m
i® . g-

'
1 - K?S
a . ftps

Hi.***-
a

& i*
t&A w

ai

MS

sow
*. if

PS »s & »
«
#* ?-*

tais

m m
18S6 m

llff

4« tdim

ffX Stone. <fi«3* iwws5ie»ii s*e£awftna Step snt s ui %

fe .*Jti&aW'i te ts
"
w 3 helm?.

SHi«fc

feu*

S / «lktra9riE« , % ?«, S8i 3% >

 394 anthropolchjIcal LiNcwsmcs 40 NO. 3

Thy dejv lopnufftt. oF the stopa from the prot liitigufifte %o the fiv« daughter
languages is relatively straightforward. In Gnambiano and Tctord, "{ has been
PREV a/tricated, and in Awa Pitj it has been fricativiaed nonftrtaEly (possibly pas&ing NEX1
through an intcTmediato affjicatioii stage sspocially given the frequent [t|) aWa-
,

phone of / and [ts| allophone of 5)h with differing results before i and in other
contacts.
Final *p and *k have been lost in Cha'paLaochi and Tsafiqui. There is not a
'

grtat tina.) (if evitltnt-e for Ihia in the case of *p! with onl oee wbrd i'.yti wht*re
' r

r ,

the oonBonant is no longer final, being followed in both languages by classifier

morphemes. There is language-internal evidence in both caseSj for on original
ward '

kap from thy word 'ttar', literally 'eye water1. There are two examples of
,

the loss of final 'k in Cha'palaachi and T afiquir

In Cha'paUachi and Tsafiqui, the situation of the protophoneme 9t is un-
* '

clear in final position. There is only one word in which final i app&arp mouth
'

, .

[n this word, as inHeye', a classifier follows the cognate in both languages. In

Cha'palaachij a glottal atop appears, while in Taafiqui the fmal aegment has
beeri lost. The stHtus of plnttal stops in Tsafiqui is unclear, as while Moore (19 2)
claims that there is a phouemk: glottal etopj hiu later dictionary (Moore 19661
does not marl? glottal stops. Hence, here it will be postulated that *t Jiaw became
a glottal stop in both languages word-ftnally, but this is highly tentative.
Thtre is some interesting additional support for considering bo have
developed from *t in Guambiano, with Vasquez de Ruia U " ) placing p tf, ,

[irid fc togEithtr iu omt vhwu on the hwsis of their similar allophonie behavior [ncu
section 2); these similar behaviors are not shared by Gnambiano t,

52
.
Fricatives and affrieates. The mo&t eonnplex changes from the proto-
.

language to daughter languages appear to have occurred in the fricatives and

affricates, shown here in table 4- Unfortunately, for many of these there are ,

only a small number of cognateSj with some languages having no tugnate watcIh
containing various of the protoforms.

Table 4, Reeonstmclcd FrJeaiives and Affricate*

Cre (23)
Ts:
AP: *
p (23, ee)

Cri.TS: * h (3,14,30,40>
'
Gu,AP: h (3.14.30,40)

*
Gu,To, Ts: ts -
xs (20, 35rnear-maUh45>
CH; to (35)
t*/elsewhere (20)
*
-

t {20, near-mutch 45)

 1896

AS8:
PREV w KKTT

!tBe

as?

or waaSa tntf&n
" It agj*ws ft UmS»Sb*A wHfcww an1

ttfdh&f-m «n».'fea » s ly pteasek i5a«. Sfttk wdtesen 9ff«Wi» amWia-

sp w mmfe ff tf3t'ii-J wjs; cart

ifeaaafflx* vii! as-qnsK tet fl 'date. Ck . : tbeenviranBucifar Sk' fee

is fit '/) i feKftfit sntefiM*. ara s4*w ft» o&cBsnaMM of 4h*.

'

aal/ tK* c liABi/ V4c** sw? 0«eiK-hVji«., v efi*/«{3i**!j?a if. Stondftit,

RsiHft w efo is tt*© wwd fe - 'Siw'. Hwtfts, Totuvy At feaus,

iakftninm.

tlrRfet ai Mforstf *30-£Bt6f»'A, as teas *o?a *ii tshle 5,3lia&T4(viwtftiy,

Tote heaMi jilted iatibaniftnga

*
89

KPvTa -* t$ Jis, aa, gfc

{sc-a fttjcl«?iirag Aw H*; lads f pho&eiae, ar i «Na-il3M3M ttist i sve f

 aw

tab?«? T eftc* ibtc* k w|y Ut&»mAn» for uh oaaflsr two iti

f

eui. D& ito the s rw !tvMeaw iff 610 iw>miA w: n the &cflBiiKp«dai

Co, to, ap. oh, « 0$ ac)

cm S a » a mh ioft> sad Tftsp k te as K3s >a> vwra? sjtwai*

caore fewif- Hum frost «RnS8»«injolo cftU? y»i a? s rifew. Ho r w;

ft t ifiit iao TOfvA qcftlftiwa tfasnra ifit i** sriiw toUs wi? in fbe
f

ifiK4&c>aK lansn - ratl d tiii*. wwd a iiiffiiMi; ad w ks

mIsAfe A i tttt Said 'iidccuv M iwtfad fa Awa feufe

' *
twj« raid i feft s gj ev&i; m$ bccuraB * » vfe i
svAw?.PKfrfihenWBvl&Bee1 ftpfe,

aasaJtiai cB & *cc &ji tow I !t!t 9ii*?swCTȣi&a! pfM ov. ii ws and

BiHaS saMBfumti Ss'Jiaacjias i' wftb tita Ja& og tfeftriA ; jaw&-j!r>s sttiuli-

IdOS : fe. .»wS?w» te ws 4«al v o»0 ?b>«««Had«« ttusfc Sfca« firs

fiHi4> ar«ieafj? «f ite ISdl r .itfi sasiwB Bi fee fifqjisfttft Slab ?s. 6 tafeto )).

gi!EA&w< ladttSfittS TAdSqyL 'Kw .fe w b«tt » cv vif (5 ryitk « faai*!ti

tw ttritee sc vtia, fis M dKK feAsW* IfMlb .nsiilittaj jv

f

ti t a ana it curs itti giw <tifiijj ia Tetta , 2f n'nw k tao ein,

PREV

"
ft-*-* <S, l * 35. nawmi aa .
Ift Si. asw-tjtsfcewi 4, 7)

0!)

X 'fe ia
to.

i (eawAfiftsv.fei»5>eaBbiflssaiailly cftt a ItitiS SS). Kwe t>SBte« wkAs

'

Sift ti»-*S9SBWii<fi »w irf3feo« s6S) Mi a*» «s;«?#«??.'iu&Sik. ffa-

Hltts -piMws.* i:S?«vrjS£,,.*a:'& Sia*?
'
noj. *!tefEJi*~ d'i'm* (fa E S qS* .

a at.ft.jss'R&i-iC Hc so orw . / ip Ti sd, 61$ .

«!«sfe».<a»$« fi&j,2 a.i jit« t 'alto. M i a

 4'«' 4.

# . / ii »

I
p

ooisMv ««a« fena nnse 4?9 a-Kam m fbssimM vsaSm <*Eferiis esJsS-
&OBia$ Sfe oav t9tQ& fcitf'* ai/fi ews& saen Kae** <>K ni Jatr iw»Bife? efc lw> mads
fli»0Bt mna fe-s dav tM jaQ£ps« pfan»aiew.
TMfiQtt ?> s d r«cajyc i»iDf*s,cuvsis£ his; ow rssas '?7fesb then i-j na
dBjd&t'-w, it isassffi; poevxblo &aS. ? STeaSgfli is a jsfks ijf if fihe csoti

tie fiMQWfQK ySfeKwrivfi? w?s fttestos moot ofttw i?,! aeeisB niCSidlpa-
Jbm U cro. be (y«i >iMiCJ cies as; fef a &b ilv«darMS Mf,t«&Jte ws**te cfm-

wvtfe stcrUfi'* 5> "mkS . BfcSSMB r ©oir « have beet1. «5>iairfs ; bswwwPj, aw

asaaa-nf o 'S k liS 3 icfiviiiff ftowt % Wbiileshe?nst&HSk«stseiiaw Ji is

aTsbm mild Cfi cimy&i V, feca ar, i&i ' ei&rs ofJfea in
jnSset / as t eti rf Q?t«a; rad *i, h kss ecosavdl fa GMTdatfwbi
'

before i
WiWiia .fe-ffa Ptt, t&ar® ax# / frtsw r jfl«5f«s«i*e3£ i cewnsa tfcaf- hen
jwawmfiiwi e»i»wapft Stt-gk c. fete f« .s*&*&i faemat-td liw Hatfe of
'

'

wMsomi o*w jfeft fee y ff da iac tti jsfi «&£dt

sja'rwr ?Ma& i'a«s Meld*wjOBA-KimwnB-p £3wf« i aMt ftatoss.

mwfi ? >3a?»« t*£rs3-&9v eti««*a? .*waH*, srialdi mow;«*i?He-

wabftl u£.' l cm.h t& beat feuaSte fto amsAM&ao c

3% costJatandiiag itmiK fidSaitiw. la Aks «fef* dk&k

 '

ti ftmptftiaOBfclanilWttow BUffbt '. his P>inva. liA ivvwi ido* of 'ecvoae-

one vho vertof, hwihtiwe in CSirf sKfeaeai. ssA-ttHr term. -y> s TO»r«I!

wateBMtty11 vs b auJ'ftK -aw *i> " sfifiqiil, pad this &>n&at Is dm, of Hit mnrt
frc uwit uom fet -ma to Awe FSt Oitw igftk 'vftfp ftsUirAaS X9C»Mtruclii«

iuwmitowijlto. An wctrIMS* JIi'kiwvmw tftfld* Mv imedon 5. latte 1),.OtHOA

Oft*m, twjit uot tjed'c viij, Udt-noKphccDM uUi'NBM manaBto* eWttMttf to .AImi
word steeo c <0aeaanr iQ&ft$* Qqa <tf&ces pa&a olwwoa ift 'fcfiat' arjt'

O laMh' "wtito ffMW- 'ft-f' mpciir- OWm Sio variatiju MwMtt

li>iv «Ji<w6 v.-.-soi? not»t£ s.V'w-, tiuas flia tP6.iA.z iew tff inte>%, Hknmvnv,
thcrw i» b ' wfitsd wad norAr 'famav Iistea'. 'Jlilfi i& dmriF to Bis
Cba'palaocki '. wud find wwi w notsfi lis fsW' ** (59 / c*

!f tho /vro ]trii or.tS ChB*pnl«&fM fonu* ar« :Dt&it& w Jfec ncv ftmfMtod
.

i-T-tt kctf ;-»iis oi'l ;/ wi«3w>i 'iifct U'» /or-a Fit

, ird baewnw i. CwwiWBfly
"

oomecB--SOV VMM wi&tr. frWawlBtoBft.w||w&<i>-wd'tfoiWOw* lb»

jffpirtlW tf&tfVfW elthauji *t tfittt afflitft be a£«il en Wftncc d a fa'-mfy f*

 fiii«*tliy i&ih&ti vySXfckC wSfe ' it ybrt4!0SXft*4;>g

cs as vft&t l i?c giK l£6cffl% ci A' 6 3 we wiioH ie fiurt

.

tev4 w<WMa z fiftx l t &ixiv : i comit tfteBle iStii

idwpliiiii CtsGoqt SfilH - U aiii&dg JWrw mht miij|im|it

f; W ''Ji ofam/to/
eiMMv-'I'srtara wad Aww Ht, Hiirt B S SK k sat Qto«B3nm»-
f

mo*

ciAb <5i«ir&S'-d<> aci "'aioto, but iww «ft BifAtiosid BfiSptoEo ifi 'otia A.«'E !
f

(fetatpfi*) »fi<|ui fe'sJ* ). Hfsese?, SsstSod «ftfeofi« OaA Jia wa-

i Sit in»w ewe f1ifc(«f«ei5fl,«, f& swtesfiki aie t4«tti B«ffe««#?!>

t into QsnslnGm MWe fle yifiip m?4» OuaraiiHaw ajis T os V issii

g!is ft>-43\iSjaf«ic5o, Totcrs, *y-'fi FS, Chrf*ia3wxhi-, andT5;a&3»»--7Hih Gw aim

Fi.stlf; «*j*h t>;s jyomssSni-rtwtft of «lawst fifty Sttskail '.t*sc* =rafitch<w octd
neac-tai chBrf) acit s thcee ii'fe )AagBit*fi&: ifc is enow dtua t eitr i l uagea ss c

Cumfw ISOTa, an pzase) wtgwl 1* * tn i! isao Tiettw: that swiy oj iJie<ffi'< lan?

til**»*t>i» of A'pa Pit-Mot etsrs doady ?ebl*<J (t* oas giowp «i ia nt&w »
svit costciufri eiy d anuAsvtBd, fcist it a eaM in be pvjm fea iy ?filflJ»i4 to

iirttiGr cflmpaitatiwi "ortt map E&sd 1* sato i tiiu o? Uflfta baft»a«a

t e BBAaoeas ic?>suRiit e Sy fffid s it? lai uega ftmflM of Swtifc ftsnKiea.
f

Hi3,*wft*- '>« the fcei&i cf (sar«n?. eaa MntttVa srHtf&cs, vt w ouajf pejei te to
pf a thafc ti>*ffs ie s BadMiwon EangBB a iVmiiy ««i«sthtg of GawflH: .
 406 AtTmROPOLOGicAL Linguistics 40 WO. 3

Notes

Acknowledgments. Tho uuthore Wfluld like to think Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald &nd R.

PREV M . W. Dixon for having read and commeoted on a draft of this article. NEX
Abbreuuitiona. The follawing abbreviationa are used: AP = Awa (Jl I = i'ii.i
puLaacbi;Gu = Guambiano; To = Totorp; T& = Taadqui.
N&te that i« elso an accu»etive-]«ative marker in Quechua.
1.

As two flet« &f language have been Miven&d by the term Barbacoan. in the tc~
2.

m&indftr of tbis atud Barbitco&n will be ii*cd cover the five lanpuapes under
discuwionj while 'BirbatiMn' will cover Awa PSt. Cha'palaachi, and Tsaftqvi when these
have been grouped separately from Guamhiano and Totoro.
3 It should be noted that while Greenberg'a (l B?) subgrouping is used here as rt'
.

presentative of the qflen-accepted duailication, Greenberg himself is not especially

interested in sufcurrfluping at this level and Mmments that "the internal sub rouping of
*

the 11 Amerind groups remains largely unknown (Oreenberg 1967 64).

4 The variation between hi/n and *im*u ia unaccounted for,
.

See the discuegion i n section 5.2 regarding

5 .

The probrform may end in *J, lost in Tsafiqui.

6 .

7 Note that final stops are lost in TsaTiqui, hence; the protofoim may be mtuh. How-
.

ever, in all languages, verb roota do not appear without suffixe*; ovnaequenUy, the posi-
tion of this" final A ia morpheme-final, but net necessarily word-final.
The firat vertion is from Vasquez de Ruiz (19S8), the latter from Huber and Reed
8 .

(1992).
9 The protoform here may b* 'mita, with los* of fmu! a in nonmonooyllablea in
-

Guamhiano and Totoro (<f, TlffiEE) and change of final i to (f or #.

10. Poaaihly this form is *pimar with loss affinal«in a nonmotiMyliable in Guam-
hiano and Totoro (cf. TAIL) and change from final m to n. The final vowel inTaaTiqui has
been nasalised after
11- Possibly *to(Htla. Guamhiano and Totoro hava lost the final h (ur in tihu-lk and
TAtL); Awa Pit baa simplified utu (which would synchronically be [unru)> to u.
3 2. The present* of voieelsiflvoweU in Awa Pit and of preaapiraled atops in Tsafiaui
ia intaresting, given Miller'a {19fi0:153) claim that preaapirated stops in ShoEhoni devel-
oped from geminated conaDnants following voiceless vowels.
13. The treatment of 'o ia not counterevidencje. While only Awa Pit has uvidence of
.
o * word-finally, no words in Guamhiano or Totoro are found that At the environment
for the suggeated chang*.

Befarcnoei
Abrahamaon, Am*
1962 Cayapa: Grammatical Notaa and Texts. In Studies in Ecuadorian Indian
Languages, Vol. 1. edited by Benjamin F, Eleon, £17-47. Nottnan Okla-,

homa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Adelaar, WillemF.H,
1991 The Endangered Language* FVoblcm: South America. In Endangered Lan-
guages, edited by Robert H. Robins and Eugenius M, Uhlenb«tk 45-91.
OutfonL Bsrg.
Beuchat. Henri, and Phul Rivet
1910 Affinites de* languea du sud de la ColHimbic ct du nond de I "Squaleur. 1 *
Mouaeon 11:33-68, Ml- ft-
1998, -mmwrtwawxitm** «® ahsre tj . tJBm&iti* 407

line lif feeJ cffw.SliSwe-ofJv&?,i3t vowfiat. ?fdC! S. &

Ottaj M::j X ?s. sad tnpSfl S*:

S&Bp 8*3*. Mtoi WateaiS*Q&g*w.

' Wui Swi (W Shetv? &mff.$a. h'Aav'Mia&ti ittrgsredS -af lAMMtfiStta

BaBK ap. iftv Sdlrfes** Afoja-'i'tTs nail aawstw a it&sey*

 Colatt&Uf, *|ttad M«i»5 Lb sk livw iwi «fc JictiiWf .SJiHiO. £t«5S«:

lea? @»tt«iiwi is«Q ]iifii ew&s

jBaj-, j »?*fr( tos civ iBd SJifafaySlffv 'ft<« It ws tSorini.

Stats fiau .<ai¥ iadten ti/Bfi?i*#««' §?6C<rTa|«K« asd irw?

HAAirt S. ». £Ii&a tad Loom R { m tovtiai V N? e«

iftS® Ow flflwdiU S3 Mkuaft C aVfc Qmv* SUt aSs feiTwrftsd e»-