Malcolm Miguel Botto Wilson
Linguistics 450
Dr. Hallen

I found myself walking in the mountains of Guatemala asking myself a number of questions. I was walking on an ancient cobbled path on our five hour trek across the mountains to the village of Chijolom. The people that passed us on the path spoke Q’eqchi’, wore beautifully woven blouses, and carried everything on their backs or heads. The very name of the village meant 'at the head or top’. Some of my first questions were: Where did this path come from? Who built it? How long ago? Where did these people come from? How long have they been here? Why was this village called 'at the head/top’? How did their language develop? How long have they been speaking it? What was its relation to the other languages in Guatemala? In Mesoamerica? In the American continent?

After two years, these questions have not left my mind. "Nab’ee Maya’ Tz’iij" means 'the first Mayan word’ in Kiche’. Where did the first Mayan word come from? This work is intended to answer several questions on Mayan language history and its relationship to other Native American languages.

My first extensive experience with a Mayan language was with Q’eqchi, which is spoken today in Guatemala and Belize. Nora C. England in Autonomia de los Idiomas Mayas identifies a total of 30 different Mayan languages spoken today in Guatemala, Mexico, Belize, and Honduras (plus one that is extinct). There is also linguistic information on the "classical" (16th century) forms of at least four Mayan languages: K’ichee’, Kaqchikel, Maya Yukateko, and Ch’olti’ (England 20).

Growing up in Argentina I had heard of Guaraní and Quechua. These are two indigenous languages spoken in South America. Guaraní is a Tupían language spoken in Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, and Bolivia; Quechua is the most widely spoken Native American language in the Americas. It is spoken by more than 8 million people in Perú, Bolivia, and northern Argentina. I wondered how similar Q’eqchi’ is to Guaraní, or Quechua. This leads to further questions on the relationship between the Mayan languages of Mesoamerica and the many Native American languages of Canada, USA, Mexico, Central and South America. Sapir is quoted by Campbell in The Languages of Native America as saying that "Middle America, in spite of its special cultural position, is distinctly a part of the whole North American linguistic complex and is connected with North America by innumerable threads"(Campbell and Mithun 959). This speculation has generated much research and debate.

Campbell and Mithun have suggested that there are some 200 independent language families in the Americas (21). A lot of controversy arose when Joseph H. Greenberg followed Sapir’s speculation and proposed that the indigenous languages of the Americas be classified into just three major families. Campbell and Mithun observed that "Greenberg’s amalgamation of all these families save two has met with incredulity, outrage, and dismay" (21). Greenberg’s division of the "New World" languages include 1. Eskimo-Aleut, 2. Na-Dene, and 3. Amerind. Greenberg identifies the pronominal pattern of na - ‘ I ‘ and ma- 'you (sing)’ as the uniting factor of all the Amerind languages (Ruhlen 21). Boaz did not agree that this pattern alone would result in genetic relationships. On the Origin of Languages states that Boaz "attributed [these] similarities to diffusion" (24). I agree with Boaz, for all the second person singular pronominal in the Mayan languages are very different from Greenberg’s pattern. The Proto-Mayan being *at instead of ma- 'you (sing)’ (England 139).

Many linguists have criticized Greenberg, arguing that his evidence for proposals of distant relationships are not explicit enough. Lyle Campbell in American Indian Languages describes two general approaches to the classification of American Indian Languages. The "inspectional" approach "seeks to reduce the number of language families (or genetic units) in the Americas by proposing more inclusive, more remote relationships among the languages groups"(Campbell 93). The "assessment" approach contrasts with the "inspectional" one rejecting all proposals that do not have explicit evidence (Campbell 93). I find both approaches beneficial to the field of linguistic. The "inspectional" approach ignites curiosity and formulates, questions while the "assessment" approach thrives in finding detailed answers to linguistic questions. They both promote research. We do not have all the information possible to answer all the questions about history. We do with what we have till we find more information. Nora C. England mentioned that "history is not an absolute truth, it is an interpretation of available data, within a specific intellectual framework at the point where a version of the past is constructed" (translated from England 13).

So, how closely related are the Mayan languages to the other American Indian languages? Some speculate that the closest relatives found are presented in the Macro-Mayan Proposal. This proposal claims Mayan, Totonacan, Mixe-Zoquean, and sometimes Huave to be linguistically related. According to Campbell in American Indian Languages, scholars studying these relationships find "distinguishing borrowed material from potential cognates" to be the major challenge (324). It is accepted that the Mayan languages have participated extensively in the Mesoamerican Linguistic Area. The Mesoamerican Linguistic Area is not a genetic grouping in itself. It refers to an area where much linguistic contact and diffusion took place. Aztecan, Mixe-Zoquean, Mayan, Xincan, Otomanguean, Totonacan, Tarascan , Cuitlatec, Tequistlatecan, and Huave all participate in the Mesoamerican Linguistic Area. They all share linguistic as well as cultural elements, including a well developed agricultural system with a focus on the maize complex. There are certain traits that are common to nearly all the Mesoamerican languages. Campbell identifies five of them in the following manner:

1. Nominal possession. Illustrated by Pipil (Aztecan) and Q’eqchi’ construction: i-pe:lu ne ta:ka in Pipil and x-tz’i’ li cuink in Q’eqchi’, literally 'his-dog the man’, to mean 'the man’s dog’.
2. Relational expressions composed of a noun root and possessive pronominal affixes, as in Ts’utujil (Mayan): (ch-)r-i:x 'behind it, in back of it’. Composed of ch- 'at, in’, r- 'his/her/its’ and i:x 'back’.
3. Vigesimal numeral systems. A number system composed of combinations of twenty.
4. Word order that is not verb-final (SOV). Languages surrounding Mesoamerican borders have SOV word order but the languages within this linguistic area have VOS, VSO, or SVO word order.
5. Mesoamerican languages have many shared semantic loan translations (calques). They include examples such as 'boa’ = 'deer-snake’, 'egg’= 'bird-stone/bone’, 'lime’=’(stone-)ash’. ‘Knee’= 'leg-head’, etc. (Campbell 344)

These linguistic and cultural similarities have formed because of the constant contact and exchange these people had throughout the years. Thus diffusion was a regular factor in the Mesoamerican Linguistic Area. As scholars began to formulate cognate relationships among the Central American languages they found that many of these proposed cognates were simply loan words from Mixe-Zoquean or other languages. It has been through this identification of loan words that scholars have established that the "archaeological Olmecs spoke a Mixe-Zoquean (not Mayan) language" (Campbell and Kaufman 191). Because of the diffusion factor in the Macro-Mayan proposal Campbell and Kaufman do not find the evidence convincing enough. In "Mayan Linguistics: Where are we now?" they boldly state that "the Mayan family has no known relatives beyond the 31 languages "(191). Yet, it is understood that the majority of the worlds languages have "genetic" relationships with other languages because they have a shared "mother" language. The "mother" language for these 30 Mayan languages has been reconstructed and is referred to as Proto-Mayan (in Kichee’ "Nab’ee Maya’ Tz’iij").

Unknown to many is the fact that many of the Mayan languages have linguistic documents that date as far back as several of the European languages. Grammars for the Mayan languages were written at about the same time as some of the European languages. Campbell compares "the early Mayan grammars of Cakchiquel 1550, Quiche’ 1550, Kekchi 1554, Huastec 1560 . . . . with the earliest four European languages, i.e., German 1573, Dutch 1584, English 1586, Danish 1688 " (Campbell 1990). These grammars have helped scholars with linguistic reconstruction. It is also impressive to know that there are Pre-Columbian hieroglyphs that have assisted in historical linguistic research. Philological studies in hieroglyphics and Mayan languages identify Cholan as the principle language of the older glyphic texts (Campbell 1990). Today scholars use Mayan glyphic texts to understand and define older stages of the language. All this information has helped linguists classify the different Mayan languages. These records have allowed researchers to reconstruct an ancestor language from which the modern languages descend. Kaufman identifies six steps in the process of linguistic reconstruction; they are:

1. Recognizing a genetic relationship through a preponderance of similarities in the vocabulary and grammar of different languages.
2. The establishment of corresponding regularities between the sound of cognitive words in various languages.
3. Subgrouping by glottochronology and other means to determine the common history.
4. Word reconstruction.
5. Reconstruction of Grammatical patterns.
6. Reconstruction of population migration and diversification. (Translated from England 20)

Early classification efforts came mainly from phonological studies. Because there are less sounds than morphemes, it is easier to compile phonological information. Compared to morphological and syntactic change phonological change is much more consistent and regular. There are more restrictions in phonological studies than in grammatical studies. Through the years Mayan phonology has been thoroughly studied. England suggests that "Future adjustments in the classification should be based on additional achievements in understanding the grammatical history" (translated from England 24, emphasis added).

Proto-Mayan has been classified as an ergative language. It is also identified as having all the characteristics of the Mesoamerican Linguistic Area mentioned earlier. The proof of this classification is found in its morphology and syntax. The glyphic writings in Cholan verify that even the very early stages of this language had a "VOS word order, split ergativity based on aspect, and had already undergone several sound changes since Proto-Mayan" (Campbell 97).

Although most of the classification of the Mayan languages goes unquestioned, I have found two major disagreements on early Mayan classification. 1) Kaufman argues Huastec to be the first to separate from Proto-Mayan while Robertson proposes Huastec "to have come from [an earlier] Western Branch and not directly from the common language" (Robertson 3). Some of the reasons why Robertson groups Huastec with a Western Mayan language include "(a) sibling-in-laws have reflexes of *b?al (male speaking to male, *mu? (female to male or male to female) . . . which all Western Mayan languages share, (b) palatalization of Common Mayan *k occurs in both groups, [and] (c) the . . . influence of NOM-VOICE on the INCOMPLETIVE affected Huastec" (Robertson 217). He argues that "it is doubtful that Huastec would have made [the above traits] up by itself in its isolated, northern existence" (217). The other disagreement is with 2) the placement of Tojolabal. Kaufmann states that Tojolabal is more closely related to the Chujean branch of the Greater Kanjobalan family (Campbell and Kaufman 188-190). Robertson classifies Tojolabal as belonging to the Tzeltal branch and not the Kanjobalan (Robertson 3). One of the reasons for this argument is that in both Tzeltalan and Tojolabal "the OPTATIVE has a to mark the THIRD PERSON, and la- to mark FIRST PERSON" (Robertson 187). Compare Robertson’s language subgroupings with Campbell and Kaufman’s in the charts attached.

Campbell, when referring to Native American Linguistics said: "this is an enormous field, encompassing by some counts more than one-quarter of the world’s languages " (Campbell 1997, preface). There is much research to be done in the field of Mayan historical linguistics, especially in the field of grammar. There are many more questions to be answered. I must conclude that there are no definite answers to any distant relationships Proto-Mayan may have with the other languages of the Americas. As the study of Proto-Mayan continues, the ambiguities between the Native American languages and Proto-Mayan will begin to disappear and some connections will arise.

Campbell, Lyle. Quichean linguistic prehistory. U of California P, Berkeley: 1977.

Campbell, Lyle. "Quichean linguistics and philology", in: W. C. McCormack and S. A. Wurm (ed). World anthropology: approaches to language, anthropological issues Mouton, The Hague: 1978. 223-233.

Campbell, Lyle. "Philological studies and Mayan languages". In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.) Historical linguistics and philology. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin: 1990. 87-105.

Campbell, Lyle. American indian languages : the historical linguistics of native america. Oxford U P, New York: 1997.

Campbell, Lyle and Terrence Kaufman. "Mayan linguistics: where are we now?", Annual Review of Anthropology. 1985. 14: 187-198.

Campbell, Lyle and Marianne Mithun (ed). The languages of native america: historical and comparative assessment. U of Texas P, Austin: 1979.

England, Nora C. Autonomia de los idiomas mayas: historia e identidad. Cholsamaj, Guatemala: 1994.

Robertson, John S. The history of tense/aspect/mood/voice in the Mayan verbal complex. U of Texas P, Austin: 1992.

Ruhlen, Merritt. On the Origin of Languages; studies in Linguistic Taxonomy. Stanford U P, Stanford: 1994.

Sebeok, Thomas A. (Ed) Native languages of the Americas. Plenum Press, New York: 1977.