Lexical Evidence for Pre-Inca Language Contact of Mapudungun (Mapuche) with Quechuan and Aymaran

in Journal of Language Contact

Mapudungun, often also called Mapuche, is a language isolate spoken in southern Chile and parts of Argentina. It presents structural, phonological and phonotactic similarities to the central Andean Quechuan and Aymaran language families. Many lexical items of Mapudungun have obviously been borrowed from Quechuan and Aymaran during or after the Inca presence in northern Mapuche territory. However, recent language contact may not be the only source of lexical parallels. The aim of the present article is to uncover evidence for alternative scenarios that could account for these parallels. As such, four exemplary Mapudungun roots clearly related to Quechuan and/or Aymaran roots are discussed in detail. First, the possibility that the respective lexical parallels are recent borrowings should be excluded. Second, it must be decided whether there is any evidence for the proposal that the respective Quechuan/Aymaran roots have been transferred into Mapudungun vocabulary via surrounding languages. The two-step approach developed here may undergo further refinement in future investigations of language contact in the Americas and elsewhere.

Abstract

Mapudungun, often also called Mapuche, is a language isolate spoken in southern Chile and parts of Argentina. It presents structural, phonological and phonotactic similarities to the central Andean Quechuan and Aymaran language families. Many lexical items of Mapudungun have obviously been borrowed from Quechuan and Aymaran during or after the Inca presence in northern Mapuche territory. However, recent language contact may not be the only source of lexical parallels. The aim of the present article is to uncover evidence for alternative scenarios that could account for these parallels. As such, four exemplary Mapudungun roots clearly related to Quechuan and/or Aymaran roots are discussed in detail. First, the possibility that the respective lexical parallels are recent borrowings should be excluded. Second, it must be decided whether there is any evidence for the proposal that the respective Quechuan/Aymaran roots have been transferred into Mapudungun vocabulary via surrounding languages. The two-step approach developed here may undergo further refinement in future investigations of language contact in the Americas and elsewhere.

1 Introduction

The issue of historical and phylogenetic relations of South American languages, especially those of western South America, is still a matter of intense scientific debate (for an overview, see, e.g., Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 22–45). Among the indigenous languages of South America, Mapudungun, also known as Mapuche or Araucanian, is exceptional in that this probable language isolate has typological and formal parallels in central Andean and in Amazonian languages, despite the fact that it is spoken far away from both these areas (cf., e.g., Adelaar, 2009; Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 512, 517, 522, 538–539; Croese, 1990; Torero, 2002: 29, 538–539; cf. also Dixon and Aikhenvald, 1999: 8–9). Different publications have mentioned or explicitly dealt with formal and structural parallels between Mapudungun and Quechuan and, to a lesser extent, between Mapudungun and Aymaran (cf. Adelaar, 2009; Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 527, 533, 529, 537–538; Croese, 1990; Díaz-Fernández, 2008; Englert, 1936: 81–82; Golluscio et al., 2009; Márquez Eyzaguirre, 1956; Smeets, 2008: 58; Torero, 2002: 29).

However, evidence for the period and the circumstances at the origin of those parallels is rather inconclusive. Whereas data presented by Adelaar (2009) suggest early, pre-Inca language contact between Mapudungun and the Aymaran languages that led to typological convergence, lexical parallels presented by other authors (e.g. Díaz-Fernández, 2008; Golluscio et al., 2009; Smeets, 2008: 58) suggest instead recent and superficial language contact.

Nonetheless, the possibilities of lexical comparison between Mapudungun and central Andean languages are not yet exhausted. It has still to be identified whether all the lexical parallels between Mapudungun and Quechuan/Aymaran are due to post-Inca language contact, or if room can be made for different scenarios as well. The present paper develops a specific approach to explore these parallels in more depth and presents some initial steps in its application.

Map 1
Map 1

16th century distribution of Mapudungun (Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 503).

Citation: Journal of Language Contact 7, 2 (2014) ; 10.1163/19552629-00702005

2 Mapudungun

Mapudungun is spoken today by approximately 250 000 people in south-central Chile and parts of Argentina (cf. Zúñiga, 2007: 41). Valdivia ([1606]1887: ‘Al lector’) mentions Coquimbo as the northernmost region where Mapudungun was spoken (for the distribution of Mapudungun in the 16th century, see Map 1). In the 19th century, Mapudungun was apparently also the language of fishermen of the northern Chilean coast (d’Ans, 1977). Nowadays, a few dialects of this language remain: Huilliche in the provinces of Osorno, Valdivia and Chiloe (Alvarez-Santullano Busch, 1992), the Mapuche dialect of the central valley (Smeets, 2008), the northeastern Pehuenche dialect of the pre-Cordilleran areas, which is most similar to the dialect of the central valley (Salas, 2006: 52), and Ranquel or Ranquelche in the La Pampa province of Argentina (Fernández Garay, 2001). Generally, Mapudungun dialects do not differ much from one another and Mapudungun shows a great linguistic uniformity despite its wide distribution (Smeets, 2008: 9). This fact is suggestive of a relatively recent spread of the language. As for a possible origin of Mapuche culture, different scenarios have been proposed (for an overview, see Salas, 2006: 20–23), including cultural influence from northern regions and/or from the Pampas areas in the east (Latcham, 1924; 1928; cited in Salas, 2006: 21), or links with Amazonian cultures (Menghin, 1962: 11–12; cited in Croese, 1990: 278; Steward, 1949: 711).

Like Quechuan and Aymaran, Mapudungun is a language with suffixation as the main morphological device and has an elaborate post-base morphology (Adelaar, 2012a: 607). Mapudungun has received substantial attention for its direct-inverse system in bipersonal conjugation (Arnold, 1994, 1996; Grimes, 1985; Salas, 1978; Zúñiga, 2007: 236–237), which Adelaar (2009) has interpreted as the result of convergence with Aymaran. As in many Amazonian languages (cf. Dixon and Aikhenvald, 1999: 8–9), nominal morphology is only weakly developed. In terms of phonology, Mapudungun possesses a six vowel system with a vowel ɨ that can either be realized as a high central unrounded vowel or as a schwa [ǝ] (Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 512). Mapudungun differs from both Andean and Amazonian languages in the use of interdental , , and in some dialects, and in a dual – the latter, however, is also found in languages of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, as in, for example, Yahgan and Gününa Yajich (cf. Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 550–584).

3 Quechuan and Aymaran

Quechuan and Aymaran are the two major language families spoken in the central Andes and are among the most investigated in South America (Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 191–194, 259). Aymaran (also called Aru or Jaqi) at present consists of two languages, southern Aymara spoken in Bolivia, southern Peru and northern Chile, with its different dialects and more than 2,000,000 speakers, and central Aymara, represented by the Jaqaru and Cauqui dialects, still spoken by more or less 1000 people in the province of Yauyos, department of Lima, Peru (Adelaar, 2012a: 577). Quechuan (approximately 8,000,000 speakers), on the other hand, is regarded as a language family in itself or a language with two main dialect groups: central Peruvian Quechua I (Torero, 1964) or Quechua B (Parker, 1963) and Quechua A or Quechua II, including the varieties spoken to the north and south of central Peruvian Quechua I (for an overview, see Adelaar, 2012a: 578–580; Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 183–191). This two-way classification of Quechuan is not without controversy, however, since a heterogeneous subgroup of dialects displaying features of both Quechua I and Quechua II also exists (Adelaar, 2012a: 579).

The relationship between Quechuan and Aymaran is unique due to many phonological, structural, formal and pragmatic parallels (Adelaar, 2012b: 462–463; Cerrón-Palomino, 2008). As a matter of fact, it is often impossible to decide whether a form occurring in both language families is of either Quechuan or Aymaran origin (cf. Adelaar, 1986). The area of initial convergence between Proto-Quechuan and Proto-Aymaran has been localized in adjacent parts of the central Andes (Adelaar, 2012b: 465). The expansion of Quechuan in general (Beresford-Jones and Heggarty, 2011) or of Quechua II (Adelaar, 2012b) has been associated with the Huari horizon and thus must have occurred between 500 and 900 ad. The Aymara homeland has been localized, partly through remnant Aymaran languages, partly through toponymy, in the coastal area between the provinces of Cañete and Nazca in Peru (Cerrón-Palomino, 2000: 290). The split of Aymaran into a northern and a southern branch has been dated to a time period between 200 bc and 200 ad (Cerrón-Palomino, 2000: 291). These data can provide an informative foundation for the framing of place and time of language contact between Mapudungun and Quechuan and/or Aymaran, according to the scenarios developed later on in this paper.

Quechuan and Aymaran have also been in contact with many other languages in the past. The Barbacoan languages, Cholón (a language isolate) and Amuesha (Arawakan) at least must have had intense contact with Quechua-speaking groups, partly in pre-Inca times, as Adelaar (2006), Adelaar and Muysken (2004: 145) and Torero (2002: 538) suggest.

4 Parallels between Mapudungun and Quechuan and/or Aymaran

Whereas there is no doubt that Quechuan and Aymaran have had intense periods of language contact at pre-Inca times with each other and also, to a certain extent, with other languages of the eastern slopes of the Andes, the origin of lexical parallels of Mapudungun with Quechuan and Aymaran languages remains somewhat more unclear.

As a matter of fact, parallels between Mapudungun and central Andean languages that do not originate from language contact at Inca or post-Inca times are difficult to explain (Adelaar, 2009: 184). Mapudungun is spoken in areas far away from the central Andes and several language families or language isolates, such as Atacameño, Lule and Huarpean, were distributed in the area between Mapuche territory and the central Andes (see Map 1). Groups of Mapudungun speakers are definitively known to have been in direct contact with central Andean languages only after the Inca reached northern parts of Mapuche territory under Tupaq Yupanki at the end of the 15th century (see Mostny, 1992). Nevertheless, there are several conspicuous parallels highly suggestive of pre-Inca language contact between Mapudungun, Quechuan and Aymaran: Adelaar and Muysken (2004: 512) emphasize that “the phonological structure of a Mapuche word […] is reminiscent of Quechua”, and Adelaar (2009) further argues that typological convergence took place between Mapudungun and Aymaran in the domain of personal reference marking.1 The observations concerning personal reference marking in Mapudungun suggest early and intense contact with Aymaran, since, as a general rule, language convergence arises above all in long periods of balanced contact (Muysken, 2008: 9–10).

However, the bulk of lexical material shared by Mapudungun and Quechuan and/or Aymaran, as presented by, e.g., Díaz-Fernández (2008), Golluscio et al. (2009), Márquez Eyzaguirre (1956) and Smeets (2008: 58), only suggests recent contact between Mapudungun and both Quechuan and Aymaran, in the context of Inca presence and mitma (forced settlements of Andean populations by the Inca) in Mapuche territory (Márquez Eyzaguirre, 1956: 22). Indeed the lexical parallels often refer to domains of Inca culture (Díaz-Fernández, 2008: 8). In most cases, the shared lexicon discussed in published materials differs only minimally in semantics and phonology between Mapudungun and Quechuan or Aymaran, and there are no conspicuous formal differences. This is all highly indicative of recent borrowing processes (see Campbell, 1995: 182; Golluscio, 2009: 1055).

There are only a few undoubtedly early formal parallels between Mapudungun and Quechuan/Aymaran, such as those published in Cerrón-Palomino (2000: 334), Englert (1936: 81–82) and Torero (2002: 29, 520–521). However, each cited Mapudungun form2 does not only have counterparts in Quechuan or Aymaran languages, but, as the authors emphasize, also in several other languages spoken in the intermediate area between Mapuche territory and the central Andes, such as in Lule or in Atacameño. These latter languages, therefore, may well have acted as intermediaries, passing those forms from the central Andean area to the Mapuche territories in the south.

5 Methodological Remarks

As has been argued above, much remains to be investigated vis-à-vis the origin of lexical parallels between Mapudungun and Quechuan and/or Aymaran. The two possibilities presented in section four – either an origin of lexical parallels in recent language contact or an origin of lexical parallels through intermediary languages – are probably not valuable for the totality of the lexical parallels between Mapudungun and Quechuan and/or Aymaran.

To test this hypothesis, four exemplary Mapudungun roots will be analyzed and discussed more in detail: t�ʃaŋ ‘leg/branch’, pɨʈ�ʂa ‘belly/stomach’, tapɨl ‘leaf’, and moŋkol/moŋkoʎ ‘spherical, intact’. These roots have been selected for several reasons: they exhibit some systematic formal and phonological correspondences, they have no special link with Inca or central Andean culture and some of them show notable semantic differences in Mapudungun compared to their Quechuan/Aymaran counterparts.

In order to accept or reject scenarios that explain Mapudungun-Quechuan/Aymaran lexical parallels, merely checking surface similarities is insufficient, rather a thorough analysis is needed. It should be emphasized here that the available reconstructions of Proto-Aymaran and Proto-Quechuan still leave many open questions, let alone the reconstruction of Proto-Mapudungun that has not yet been systematically undertaken at all (cf. Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 517; Campbell, 1995; Cerrón-Palomino, 2000; Parker, 1969–1971; Torero, 1964; Weber, 1987; Zúñiga and Suter, 2007). Furthermore, there are no firsthand language data from before 16th or early 17th century. For these two reasons, the approach developed and applied in the present paper is as follows: each plausible scenario that may have led to the different present-day lexical parallels between Mapudungun and Quechuan/Aymaran is first reconstructed. By doing so, a possible origin of the parallels in recent contact at Inca or post-Inca times must be excluded in turn, in order to argue for a pre-Inca origin of the respective formal parallels. It should be emphasized that pre-Inca language contact seems to be, for the moment, a more plausible explanation than a putative remote genetic relationship, especially since in the latter case a precise decision would also be required as to whether Mapudungun is genetically related to Quechuan or Aymaran, or both.

In a nutshell, since it is impossible to verify that a Mapudungun-Quechuan/Aymaran parallel originates in a pre-Inca scenario, the possibility that it is due to recent language contact must be excluded in each single case. Second, it must be demonstrated that there is no reason to argue that the respective forms were introduced into Mapudungun by means of an intervening language or languages spoken in the intermediate area.

Some general remarks need to be offered here. First, the strong mutual interaction between Quechuan- and Aymaran-speaking groups often makes it impossible to decide whether (Proto-)Mapudungun shared a root with (Pre-Proto-)Aymaran or with (Pre-Proto-)Quechuan (see Adelaar, 1986). Second, in line with standard practice, the terms Proto-Quechuan, Proto-Aymaran and Proto-Mapudungun will be used to refer to “the stage […] at the point in time just before [the respective languages] first diverged” (Beresford-Jones and Heggarty, 2011: 360), whereas the terms Pre-Proto-Quechuan and Pre-Proto-Aymaran refer to stages long before this divergence. Proto-roots and pre-proto-roots (i.e. primary lexical units of a word, reconstructed for Proto-Quechuan/-Aymaran/-Mapudungun or Pre-Proto-Quechuan/-Aymaran) will both be marked by an asterisk (cf. Weber, 1987: 35).

6 Step one: Excluding an Origin in Recent Borrowing

As indicated above, the aim of the present paper is to identify possible parallels of Mapudungun and Quechuan/Aymaran that are neither due to recent direct language contact nor to transfer from intervening languages. Thus, recent borrowing from Quechuan/Aymaran languages and indirect language contact as a source of shared lexicon have to be excluded in order to make room for an alternative explanation, such as pre-Inca language contact. In a first step, the hypothesis of Inca or post-Inca language contact as a source of the four Mapudungun roots under analysis is to be falsified.

6.1 t�ʃaŋ ‘Leg, Branch’

The root for ‘leg’ is t�ʃaŋ in Mapudungun (t�ʃaŋ, t�ʃan or maʈ�ʂa in the Argentinean Ranquel Dialect [Fernández Garay 2001: 179]), t�ʃanka in Quechua II (cf., e.g., Soto Ruiz, 1976: 169) and ʈ�ʂanka or related forms with retroflex affricate in Quechua I dialects (cf., e.g., Adelaar, 1977: 436–437). In southern Aymara, the root for ‘leg’ is t�ʃara (de Lucca, 1983: 95), in Jaqaru wit�ʃˀu is ‘lower leg’ and aɲanka is ‘thigh’ (Belleza Castro, 1995: 278, 266). Thus, a link between Mapudungun t�ʃaŋ and Quechuan t�ʃanka and/or Southern Aymara t�ʃara is highly suggestive. The scenarios that explain the difference between the Mapudungun and central Andean forms will be presented one by one, in order to falsify, if possible, the hypothesis that the parallel with the Mapudungun form originates in recent language contact. In the case of t�ʃaŋ/ʈ�ʂanka/t�ʃara ‘leg’, there are five possible scenarios: (1) the form of the root shared by Pre-Proto-Quechuan and Proto-Mapudungun was *t�ʃank, final *-k was lost in (Proto-)Mapudungun and final *-a was added in Proto-Quechuan, both for phonotactic reasons. The second possibility (2) is that the shared pre-proto-root was *t�ʃanka, *t�ʃaŋa or *t�ʃara, with Proto-Mapudungun deleting final *-ka or *-a, respectively. According to the third scenario (3) the shared Quechuan and Mapudungun (pre-)proto-root was also *t�ʃanka, with the difference that in Proto-Mapudungun first the root final *-a was deleted, and then, in a second step, the resulting root final occlusive *-k also disappeared, for phonotactic reasons. According to a fourth scenario (4), the shared pre-proto-root was *t�ʃan, *t�ʃaŋ or *t�ʃar, with *-ka as a Proto-Quechuan suffix that became lexicalized and is not in productive use any more. A fifth possibility (5) is that the loss or addition of a single root final vowel or syllable is mere coincidence. As will be demonstrated, if (1), (2), (3) or (4) is correct, the root for ‘leg’ cannot be regarded as a recent borrowing from Quechuan or Aymaran, e.g. in the context of Inca invasion in northern Mapuche territory.

A further form to be considered in the context of the Mapudungun root t�ʃaŋ is its derivation t�ʃaŋɨʎ ‘finger’. This latter Mapudungun lexeme will also become relevant for the discussion later on. The semantic step from ‘leg’ to ‘finger’ is not too big, considering that Febrés ([1764]1975: 441–442) gives ‘little twig’ and ‘part of an argument’ as the meanings of t�ʃaŋ and t�ʃaŋɨʎ respectively, and t�ʃaŋɨʎ-namun for ‘toe’ and t�ʃaŋ-namun for ‘leg’ (namun ‘foot’). Valdivia ([1606]1887) notes that t�ʃaŋɨʎ has the same meaning as t�ʃaŋ. It is quite reasonable to analyze t�ʃaŋɨʎ as t�ʃaŋ-ʎ, the ending indicating meagerness or a diminutive sense and ɨ as an epenthetic schwa-like vowel inserted to retain acceptable word structure of Mapudungun (cf. Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 512–513). A somewhat similar construction is found in Mapudungun paŋi ‘puma’, and paŋkɨʎ ‘puma cub’. The diminutive suffix *-ʎ that is attested in these two Mapudungun forms is not in productive use in modern or colonial-era Mapudungun. A (Proto-)Quechuan or (Proto-)Aymaran origin of Mapudungun -ʎ is suggestive (cf., e.g., Briggs, 1993: 119–120; Weber, 1989: 361–366).

6.1.1 First Scenario

The first scenario states that originally the root for leg shared by Pre-Proto-Quechuan and Proto-Mapudungun was *t�ʃank, becoming t�ʃan or t�ʃaŋ in Mapudungun and t�ʃanka/ʈ�ʂanka with a secondary final vowel in Quechua – in both cases due to different phonotactic rules that appeared at some moment in the separate Proto-Quechuan and Proto-Mapudungun language histories. Whereas neither colonial nor present-day Mapudungun allows for a root ending in an occlusive, Quechuan does not permit roots ending in a consonant cluster. According to this scenario, Proto-Quechuan and Proto-Mapudungun developed different strategies in order to avoid the root final consonant cluster or root final occlusive – vowel addition in Quechuan, loss of root final occlusive in Mapudungun – albeit one of the two strategies would have sufficed for both Mapudungun and Quechuan. For that reason, the formal change of *t�ʃank into t�ʃanka and t�ʃaŋ must have occurred, if it ever did, in the proto-languages, after the Pre-Proto-Quechuan and Proto-Mapudungun speaking populations separated, and populations must have separated at a stage when they both still allowed for roots ending in an nk consonant cluster. Since root final consonant clusters are not allowed in either Quechua I or in Quechua II, according to the present scenario separation of both Pre-Proto-Quechuan and Proto-Mapudungun speaking populations must have taken place before Quechuan split in to its central Peruvian and northern/southern branches, i.e. long before the Inca presence in northern Mapuche territories (see also section 3). Note also that the root for ‘finger’, t�ʃaŋɨʎ, must have been derived from t�ʃaŋ after the change of root-final *-nk > -ŋ had occurred in Proto-Mapudungun, according to the present scenario.

6.1.2 Second Scenario

A second possibility is that Mapudungun t�ʃaŋ and Ranquel t�ʃan display the loss of the entire final morpheme -ka, thus implying *t�ʃanka as root shared by (Pre-Proto-)Quechuan and (Proto-)Mapudungun. According to this scenario, *t�ʃanka would have been shared by (Pre-Proto-)Quechuan and (Proto-)Mapudungun before or at a time when the latter language had a bias for monosyllabic roots.3 The same avoidance of bisyllabic roots must be ascribed to Proto-Mapudungun in the case where we postulate the origin of Mapudungun t�ʃaŋ in a root like *t�ʃaŋa or *t�ʃara, also at the origin of present-day southern Aymara t�ʃara. (Note, however, that *t�ʃaŋa is difficult to be argued as a proto-root for Aymaran, since the Proto-Aymaran intervocalic nasal velar *ŋ did not become a vibrant in present-day Aymaran languages [cf. Adelaar, 1996; Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 266].)

If in Mapudungun history there was indeed such a bias towards monosyllabic roots, this inclination must be assigned to Proto-Mapudungun, not to present-day or colonial-era Mapudungun. In the approximately 200 loans published so far and mainly dating from the time of the Inca presence in northern Mapuche territory, there is not a single case of transformation of bisyllabic roots into monosyllabic ones by clipping root final vowels or CV sequences – cf., e.g., Quechua pirqa ‘wall’ > Mapudungun piɻka; Quechua sankʰu ‘a mixture of toasted cereals with grease and chili pepper’ > Mapudungun saŋku (Díaz-Fernández, 2008: 3) (For further examples, see Golluscio et al., 2009; Márquez Eyzaguirre, 1956). The same is true for Spanish loans (cf. Golluscio, 2009; Smeets, 2008: 55–58). The fact that the present scenario implies pre-Inca language contact becomes still clearer with the following observation: within this scenario, i.e. the Mapudungun deletion of root-final *-ka or *-a, the word for finger, t�ʃaŋɨʎ, remains to be explained. The scenario is only possible in the case where the final *-ka of *t�ʃanka or *-a of *t�ʃara was lost before this root was put together with the diminutive suffix *-ʎ. According to the present scenario, diminutive *-ʎ must be considered to have been in productive use in Proto-Mapudungun at a time after the roots *t�ʃanka or *t�ʃara were shared with (Pre-Proto)Quechuan or -Aymaran and after *t�ʃanka/*t�ʃara lost final *-ka or *-a in Proto-Mapudungun. Since there is no trace in colonial Mapudungun of diminutive *-ʎ as a suffix in productive use, this is a further argument excluding the possibility that either *t�ʃanka or *t�ʃara has only recently been borrowed by Mapudungun from Quechuan or Aymaran. Moreover, it should be noted that the root for finger is not a direct loan from (colonial or present-day) Quechuan or Aymaran, where the root is rukˀana, lukana or rawkis (cf., e.g., Bertonio, [1612]2006; Carranza Romero, 2003; González Holguín, [1608]1989; Rosat Pontacti, 2004).

6.1.3 Third Scenario

The third scenario states that the shared (pre-)proto-root was *t�ʃanka and that Proto-Mapudungun first lost the root-final vowel *-a and then the root-final velar plosive *-k in a subsequent step. This scenario would have meant giving t�ʃanka a form that in modern and colonial Mapudungun is phonotactically impossible – *t�ʃank or *t�ʃaŋk, with root final *-nk or *-ŋk. This implies that loss of root-final *-a in this scenario must have occurred in Proto-Mapudungun, in relatively remote times preceding Inca presence in northern Mapuche territory, when Mapudungun roots still could end in an occlusive. In Proto-Mapudungun, roots ending in a velar plosive seem to have existed, but the root final plosive was later transformed into a glide at the end of a word, for instance in naɰ- ‘to go down’, causative nak-ɨm-, ‘to get/take down’ (cf. Smeets, 2008: 299). Following the loss of root-final *-a, a subsequent loss of the root-final occlusive after the nasal consonant n or ŋ must thus have occurred in more recent times, in order to bring the root into line with present-day Mapudungun phonotactic rules.

Hence, in accordance with this scenario, the root *t�ʃanka must be considered to have been shared in very early times for two reasons: the intermediate form *t�ʃank, ending in an occlusive, and the implied inclination for monosyllabic roots, a tendency that is not attested either in colonial or in modern Mapudungun.

6.1.4 Fourth Scenario

According to the fourth and probably most plausible scenario the shared (pre-)proto-root was *t�ʃan, *t�ʃaŋ or *t�ʃar and root final *-ka or *-a was added in Proto-Quechuan and Proto-Aymaran times, respectively. In this case, Quechuan root-final -ka (probably also attested in parts of Aymaran lexicon) might be considered as a fossilized suffix that originally referred to a part-of-whole relationship. This interpretation of -ka does not seem far-fetched, considering, for instance, Quechua t�ʃaska ‘star, evening star’ (Rosat Pontacti, 2004: 127 – cf. Mochica kos-kik ‘evening star’ with -kik as an element frequently found in absolute forms of body part and kinship terms [cf. Middendorf, 1892: 57–58, 62]), or Aymaran tayka ‘mother’ (de Lucca, 1983: 402 – cf. Mapudungun t�ʃaw ‘father’ [Augusta, {1916a} 1996: 18]). Furthermore, a proto-root *t�ʃan or *t�ʃar would be somewhat reminiscent of corresponding terms in other Amerindian languages, such as the Proto-Chibchan root for ‘bone, stick’ *karə̄ (cf. Constenla Umaña, 1988), Proto-Tol (Jicaque) *kʰele ‘bone’ (Campbell and Oltrogge 1980: 213), Qawasqar qʰar ‘bone, tree’ (cf. Clairis and Viegas Barros, 2007), and Proto-Tupí-Guaraní *kaŋ ‘bone’ (Mello, 2000: 170). Obviously, this scenario suggests sharing of the root for ‘leg’ with Mapudungun at a period before Proto-Quechuan or Proto-Aymaran split and implies pre-Inca language contact. Note, however, that the pre-proto-root *t�ʃan leaves the velar nasal in Mapudungun t�ʃaŋ and in t�ʃaŋɨʎ unexplained. In case *t�ʃar is postulated as the shared (pre-)proto-root it has to be noted that the correspondence of Mapudungun ŋ with Quechuan or Aymaran r may also be found in some further instances (cf. Mapudungun lipaŋ ‘arm’, Aymaran ampara ‘hand’, and Mapudungun wiŋkul ‘hill’, Quechuan urqu ‘hill, mountain’).

6.1.5 Fifth Scenario

Coincidence is not a plausible explanation for the formal difference between the Mapudungun and the Quechuan root for leg, i.e. the fact that the Quechuan and Aymaran roots have two syllables whereas the Mapudungun root is monosyllabic. There are several Quechuan/Aymaran roots with parallels in Mapudungun that have or seem to possess a supplementary vowel or syllable compared with their Mapudungun counterpart, but the reverse never occurs (note that in Aymaran, there is an obligatory vowel at the end of each root, whereas in Quechua this rule only holds for verbal roots) – cf., e.g., Mapudungun t�ʃaŋ ‘leg’, Quechuan/Aymaran ʈ�ʂanka/t�ʃara ‘leg’; Mapudungun kal͎ ‘wool’, Quechuan qara ‘skin’; Mapudungun moŋkol ‘spherical’, Aymaran muruqu ‘round’; Mapudungun tapɨl ‘leaf’, Quechuan t�ʃapra ‘leaf’ and related forms; Mapudungun lɨf- ‘to burn’, Quechuan rupa- ‘to burn’, southern Aymara lupi ‘sunbeam’; Mapudungun t�ʃaw ‘father’, Aymaran tayka ‘mother’; Mapudungun papay, a respectful term to address married women, Quechuan paya ‘old’ (for women); Mapudungun pɨʈ�ʂa ‘belly’, Huilliche paʈ�ʂaɰ ‘belly of a vessel’, Aymaran puʈ�ʂaka ‘belly’. As such, some of these examples might also suggest that Mapudungun could play a certain role in the future reconstruction of Proto-Quechuan/-Aymaran lexicon, freed from residual morphology.

The only case in Mapudungun for which an additional syllable or vowel compared with the central Andean counterpart could be claimed, at first glance, is the wasi/waɻiya parallel, wasi and related forms meaning ‘house’ in Quechuan, waɻiya referring to ‘town’ in Mapudungun. However, there are serious reasons to argue that final -ya in waɻiya is not a secondary addition that occurred in Mapudungun.4

Thus, coincidence is not necessarily a convincing explanation for the absence of the root final vowel or syllable in the Mapudungun root for ‘leg’ presented here. A more general avoidance of bi- and trisyllabic roots in (Proto-)Mapudungun may also have played a certain role in this context. Needless to say, the point discussed here should also be true for other parallels discussed in the paper.

6.1.6 Conclusion

By way of an intermediary conclusion, whatever the (pre-)proto-root for ‘leg’ may have been, we can now state it must have been shared at a period prior to contact between Inca and Mapudungun-speaking groups, for the changes the root underwent in Proto-Mapudungun, Proto-Quechuan and/or Proto-Aymaran:

  1. According to scenario 1, since the root would have ended in -nk, phonotactically impossible in both present-day or colonial Quechuan and Mapudungun.
  2. According to scenario 2, for loss of *-ka (in the case of *t�ʃanka) or *-a (in the case of *t�ʃara) in Proto-Mapudungun before putting together *t�ʃaŋ ‘leg’ and *-ʎ > t�ʃaŋɨʎ ‘finger’.
  3. According to scenario 3, for loss of root-final -a in Proto-Mapudungun, giving *t�ʃank, an impossible form in present-day Mapudungun, then loss of resulting root final *-k.
  4. According to both scenario 2 and 3, for a bias for monosyllabic roots in Proto-Mapudungun.
  5. According to scenario 4, since final *-ka or *-a was added in Proto-Quechuan and Proto-Aymaran, respectively, after having shared the root with Proto-Mapudungun. This last scenario appears to be the most plausible.

A final point needs further explanation: there is a retroflex in Quechua I ʈ�ʂanka (and thus normally also to be reconstructed for Proto-Quechuan) but there is no corresponding retroflex in Mapudungun t�ʃaŋ. As a general rule, for the moment, alveopalatal affricate ~ retroflex correspondences do not seem to be very regular between Mapudungun and Quechua and the topic certainly deserves more detailed investigation.5 However, the retroflex in Quechua I ʈ�ʂanka might also be due to a later analogy with ʈ�ʂaki, foot. In this case, there is no initial retroflex affricate to be reconstructed for the shared (pre-)proto-root.6

6.2 pɨʈ�ʂa ‘Belly, Stomach’

This parallel has already been briefly presented in literature: Croese (1990: 276) points out the similarity between Mapudungun pɨʈ�ʂa ‘belly’ and Quechua I paʈ�ʂa ‘belly’ and interprets the Mapudungun root as a loan from Quechua I. In the central Peruvian Aymaran language Jaqaru, the root for belly is pʰuʈ�ʂaka (Belleza Castro, 1995: 214), in southern Aymara it is puraka and pʰatanka, the latter referring to an animal’s stomach (de Lucca, 1983: 347, 784). Cerrón-Palomino (2000: 365) reconstructs Proto-Aymaran *puʈ�ʂa(ka) and Proto-Quechuan *paʈ�ʂa/*wiksa for belly, the latter root being found in Quechua II dialects. The respective Mapudungun roots are pɨʈ�ʂapuʈ�ʂa according to Febrés ([1764]1975: 412) – and Huilliche paʈ�ʂaɰ ‘belly of a vessel’ (Augusta, [1916b]1996: 49), with the root-final glide a probable reflex of original root-final -k. Four scenarios will be presented to explain this parallel: in the first scenario (1) *pVʈ�ʂak is proposed as the root originally shared by Proto-Mapudungun and Pre-Proto-Aymaran (there is no trace of root-final *-k in the Quechuan roots for stomach or belly), with the subsequent addition of a root-final vowel in Proto-Aymaran. Scenarios 2 and 3 both propose *pVʈ�ʂaka with subsequent apocope/loss of the root final syllable in Huilliche/Mapudungun (Mapuche dialect of the central valley). According to the last scenario (4), the root shared by Proto-Mapudungun and Pre-Proto-Aymaran/Pre-Proto-Quechuan was *pVʈ�ʂa, with final -ka as a now lexicalized suffix added in Proto-Aymaran.

6.2.1 First Scenario

The first possibility is that Pre-Proto-Aymaran and Proto-Mapudungun shared a root *pVʈ�ʂak (*puʈ�ʂak or *paʈ�ʂak). This must have been at a very remote time period, since such a form is in conflict with the phonotactic rules of both (Proto-)Aymaran and Mapudungun: in Aymaran, each root obligatorily ends in a vowel (Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 267), whereas in Mapudungun, every root may end in a vowel or in a consonant other than a stop or affricate (Smeets, 2008: 42). In a later period, but before the Aymaran languages branched off from one another, a vowel was added to the root, giving *puʈ�ʂaka, and the root final occlusive was deleted or transformed into a glide in varieties of Proto-Mapudungun, giving paʈ�ʂaɰ and pɨʈ�ʂa.7 In order to account for Huilliche paʈ�ʂaɰ, *paʈ�ʂak with *a in the first syllable would have to be reconstructed as the (pre-)proto-root. This would also be interesting with respect to Proto-Quechuan *paʈ�ʂak ‘hundred’ (cf. Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 200) a numeral that might be related to *paʈ�ʂak ‘belly’. However, for the moment, the root shared by Pre-Proto-Aymaran and Proto-Mapudungun is best reconstructed as *pVʈ�ʂak within the present scenario, without specifying the first vowel.

6.2.2 Second Scenario

According to the second scenario, the root shared by Pre-Proto-Aymaran and Proto-Mapudungun was *pVʈ�ʂaka, ending in a vowel. The final vowel was deleted in Proto-Mapudungun (> *pVʈ�ʂak). The reason for clipping might have been Mapudungun avoidance of trisyllabic roots. In Mapudungun, it is obvious that the change from a root ending in a vowel (*pVʈ�ʂaka) into a root ending in an obstruent (*pVʈ�ʂak) – which would have to be changed into a glide (as in paʈ�ʂaɰ) or to finally disappear (as in pɨʈ�ʂa) – can only have occurred at a period long before Inca presence in northern Mapuche territories.

6.2.3 Third Scenario

According to the third scenario, Mapudungun cut off root final *-ka all at once. Loss of the entire last syllable in Mapudungun does not exclude the possibility of a relatively recent borrowing. However, this scenario accounts only for the change from *pvʈ�ʂaka to pɨʈ�ʂa, but leaves Huilliche paʈ�ʂaɰ unexplained.

6.2.4 Fourth Scenario

According to the fourth scenario, the shared pre-proto-root is *puʈ�ʂa, and root-final -ka in Aymaran is a (now lexicalized) suffix probably used in part-whole terms (see also Quechua t�ʃanka ‘leg’ in section 6.1.4). Once more, language contact with Aymaran cannot have occurred during or after Inca presence in northern Mapuche territories: -ka is found both in the Jaqaru and southern Aymara term for ‘belly, stomach’, and must therefore already have been added in Proto-Aymaran, according to this scenario. Huilliche paʈ�ʂaɰ is left unexplained. An interpretation of -ka as a fossilized suffix added to the root for ‘belly, stomach’ in Proto-Aymaran may also point to the possibility of contact with languages spoken in other parts of South America, for instance Proto-Jabutí where the root for ‘belly’ is *prika (cf. Ribeiro and van der Voort, 2010: 569).

An anonymous reviewer suggests that Mapudungun pɨʈ�ʂa might also be a recent borrowing of a Quechua I origin. But this scenario, either, does not explain Huilliche paʈ�ʂaɰ.

6.2.5 Conclusion

In summary, it is difficult to argue that the roots paʈ�ʂaɰ ‘belly of a vessel’ and probably also pɨʈ�ʂa ‘belly, stomach’ were borrowed from central Andean languages as late as the Inca invasion into northern Mapuche territories, at least according to scenario 1, 2 and, with some reservation, scenario 4.

  1. According to scenario 1, borrowing must have occurred at a time when Pre-Proto-Aymaran phonotactic rules were not yet fixed as in their modern-day form and so roots could end in a consonant.
  2. According to scenario 2, the root was shared at a time when Proto-Mapudungun still allowed roots to end in an obstruent.
  3. According to scenario 4, sharing occurred at a time when Pre-Proto-Aymaran had not yet added a suffix *-ka to the root.

Scenario 3 – loss of entire root final *-ka – but also scenario 4 imply some difficulties, because they do not account for Huilliche paʈ�ʂaɰ. However, as an anonymous reviewer states, it is not strictly necessary to explain the origin of pɨʈ�ʂa and paʈ�ʂaɰ simultaneously.

6.3 tapɨl ‘Leaf’

The Mapudungun root for ‘leaf’ is tapɨl. The roots for ‘leaf’ are similar both in Quechuan (t�ʃapra, rapra) and, to a lesser extent, Aymaran (laphi) – Cerrón-Palomino (2000: 364) reconstructs *lapʰi for Proto-Aymaran and *rapra for Proto-Quechuan, both with the meaning ‘leaf’. There are further similar forms in Quechuan, Aymaran and Mapudungun that are clearly related to these roots. Examples from Quechuan languages are t�ʃˀaχra ‘twigs, thorns, thorny bushes’; t�ʃˀapʰsa ‘cut branches that will be burnt’; rapra ‘wing, feather’; rapi ‘leaf’; t�ʃˀapi ‘bearded, hairy, a kind of hairy dog’; t�ʃˀapu ‘bearded’8 (Academía Mayor de la Lengua Quechua, 1995: 95; Adelaar, 1977: 471; Carranza Romero, 2003: 195; González Holguín, [1608]1989: 546; Quesada Castillo, 1976: 81; Rosat Pontacti, 2004: 91, 488; Swisshelm, 1972: 116; Taylor, 1979: 147). In Aymaran languages, the following roots, among others, are related: t�ʃˀapra ‘dry straw or leaves’; napʰra ‘leaf’; lapʰi ‘leaf’; t�ʃʰapi ‘thorn’; ʈ�ʂʰapa ‘nest; ruffled, disheveled’ (Belleza Castro, 1995: 51, 62, 250, 273; Bertonio, [1612]2006: 228; de Lucca, 1983: 267). The corresponding Mapudungun roots are tapɨl ‘leaf, twig’ and perhaps also tapitapi ‘San Juan herb’ and ʈ�ʂapi ‘chili pepper’ (Augusta, [1916a]1996: 213; Fernández Garay, 2001: 127; Valdivia, [1606]1887).

In the context of the scenarios presented here, I will mainly discuss the similarities between Mapudungun tapɨl, Quechua II t�ʃapra, Proto-Quechuan *rapra and Proto-Aymaran *lapʰi.

Four scenarios will be presented for this root: according to the first scenario (1) the shared pre-proto-root was *ʈ�ʂapVra (*ʈ�ʂapura or *ʈ�ʂapira) and underwent different formal changes in Quechuan, Aymaran and Mapudungun, each in order to avoid a trisyllabic root. The second scenario (2) proposes *ʈ�ʂapVr (*ʈ�ʂapur or *ʈ�ʂapir) as the original form of the root shared by Proto-Mapudungun, Pre-Proto-Quechuan and/or Pre-Proto-Aymaran. A third possibility (3) is that in later times, (Proto-)Mapudungun borrowed a syncopated form such as *ʈ�ʂapra or t�ʃapra from Proto-Quechuan or from a Quechuan language (not from [Proto-]Aymaran, because of the consonant cluster inside the root [cf. Adelaar, 1986]) and deleted the root final vowel. According to a fourth scenario (4), suggested by an anonymous reviewer, the root at the origin of the Quechuan and Aymaran forms was *rap(V).

Generally, for the pre-proto-root, two different forms must be postulated: one beginning with an affricate, probably a retroflex affricate *ʈ�ʂ-, becoming initial ʈ�ʂ-, t�ʃ-, and t- in later forms. For the other proto-root at the origin of Quechuan rapra and Aymara lapʰi, it is difficult to reconstruct the initial consonant for the following reasons:

Only */r/ is found word-initially in Proto-Quechuan, whereas in Proto-Aymaran, only */l/ is found. To put it differently, Quechuan initial */r/ would have been borrowed as /l/ in Aymaran, and Aymaran initial */l/ would have been borrowed as /r/ in Quechuan. Possibly, the stable phonemic entities of Quechuan, which has /r/ in all positions, may be more original than the asymmetrical situation of Aymara, in which initial */l/ and initial */r/ would have merged into initial /l/. This may speak in favour of a reconstructed initial */r/ for both language groups (p.c. Willem Adelaar, August 2013).

It is also tempting to look for reasons for the root-initial affricate/resonant alternation in sound symbolism. The form beginning with the affricate must be postulated to be at the origin of the Mapudungun roots discussed here.

6.3.1 First Scenario

According to the first scenario, the root shared by Proto-Mapudungun and Pre-Proto-Quechuan and/or Pre-Proto-Aymaran was *ʈ�ʂapVra (with *V as a high front or back vowel). It goes without saying that such a root cannot have been shared by Mapudungun and a Quechua variety as late as the Inca invasion in northern Mapuche territory due to the very different subsequent phonological changes that it underwent in both Mapudungun and Quechuan/Aymaran. According to the present scenario, *ʈ�ʂapVra as well as the form with initial resonant underwent several transformations, such as syncope in Proto-Quechuan *t�ʃapra or *rapra, before Proto-Quechuan split into two branches, and apocope in the (Proto-)Mapudungun form. Pre-proto *u or *i was syncopated in Proto-Quechuan, and was transformed into Mapudungun ɨ.

As for Proto-Aymaran *laphi ‘leaf’, the final syllable of *laphira was possibly truncated in order to avoid a trisyllabic root, a tendency that may have existed in Aymaran at a certain time, according to this scenario. Analogy with Proto-Quechuan *sapi ‘root’ (cf. Cerrón-Palomino, 2000: 365) might have played a role in this context. Note also that Proto-Aymaran *lapʰi ‘leaf’ is more easily derived from a form such as *rapira than from Proto-Quechuan *rapra, a root that had already undergone syncope and had an occlusive coda in the first syllable.

6.3.2 Second Scenario

According to the second scenario, the Pre-Proto-Quechuan/-Aymaran/-Mapudungun root was *ʈ�ʂapVr (*ʈ�ʂapur or *ʈ�ʂapir). While the form of this root was preserved as such in Mapudungun tapɨl undergoing sound change as indicated in scenario one, the shared pre-proto-root later on received a final *-a in Proto-Quechuan, possibly for reasons of analogy (80–90% of Quechua roots end in a vowel) or due to Proto-Aymaran influence, leading to *ʈ�ʂapVra. This step in Proto-Quechuan is difficult to justify, however, since roots ending in -r are by no means problematic in this language family, whereas the transformation of a bisyllabic root into a trisyllabic one calls for further explanation. Another possibility would be that *ʈ�ʂapVr was transformed into *ʈ�ʂapVra in Proto-Aymaran for phonotactic reasons and then borrowed back into Proto-Quechuan. In a third step, the middle vowel of *ʈ�ʂapVra disappeared through a process of syncope in Proto-Quechuan and Proto-Aymaran, in order to avoid a trisyllabic root. Proto-Mapudungun *ʈ�ʂapVr, according to this scenario, was shared with Pre-Proto-Quechuan and/or Pre-Proto-Aymaran before all that had occurred.

The change *ʈ�ʂapVr > *ʈ�ʂapVra > ʈ�ʂapra in Proto-Quechuan or Proto-Aymaran must have occurred long before the Inca presence in northern Mapuche territory, since both in central Peruvian Quechuan as in Quechua II there are forms such as rapra, which can be derived from *rapVra but not directly from *rapVr. A similar argumentation holds for Proto-Aymaran *laphi ‘leaf’.

6.3.3 Third Scenario

The third possibility is that Mapudungun borrowed a root *ʈ�ʂapra from Proto-Quechuan or even from a Quechuan language during Inca times. The form could have been transformed, by apocope, into monosyllabic ʈ�ʂapl or tapl with a root-final consonant cluster, which was broken up by an inserted schwa or schwa-like vowel in later orthographic conventions, in line with Mapudungun word structure (cf. Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 512).

The transformation of bisyllabic roots into monosyllabic ones in Mapudungun would speak against a recent borrowing, as has been argued above. With this scenario, however, Mapudungun ʈ�ʂapi ‘chili pepper’, Quechuan rapi ‘leaf’, and Proto-Aymaran *laphi ‘leaf’ would remain unexplained, since they are not easily deduced from a syncopated form.

6.3.4 Fourth Scenario

An anonymous reviewer objects that a reconstruction *rap(V) in Quechuan is a more likely solution than one which assumes loss of the final syllable in Aymaran, and that final -ra might very well rather be a fossilized suffix both in Quechuan and in Aymaran, although not necessarily used in the same way in the two language groups. According to this view, the final syllable of Mapuche tapɨl would also originally be a suffix, like the final element in t�ʃaŋɨʎ ‘finger’. This fourth scenario for the term for ‘leaf’ in Mapudungun is perfectly plausible and avoids the difficulties of scenarios 1 and 2. But once more, according to this scenario, an origin of the Mapudungun root in recent borrowing is impossible to defend: Mapudungun would have shared the root with (Pre-)Proto-Quechuan and/or -Aymaran at a time when a putative Proto-Mapudungun-suffix *-l or *-ʎ was still in use. This, in turn, would suggest an origin in pre-Inca times. There is no Mapuche suffix still in use during colonial times, reminiscent of -l or -ʎ as it is found in tapɨl ‘leaf’ or t�ʃaŋɨʎ ‘finger’ (cf. Febrés, [1764]1975; Valdivia, [1606]1887). Notwithstanding, as a general rule, that it might very well be possible that Quechuan and Aymaran -ra represent residual morphology, this would explain why we find a form such as Aymaran lapʰi ‘leaf’.

6.3.5 Conclusion

The presented scenarios all imply pre-Inca language contact between (Proto-)Mapundungun and (Proto-)Quechuan. As has been demonstrated, scenario 1 with *ʈ�ʂapVra at the origin of the Mapudungun forms seems to be more plausible than scenarios 2 and 3:

  1. According to scenario 1, the term for ‘leaf’ or ‘wing’ underwent different formal changes due to an avoidance of trisyllabic roots, reflected in Proto-Quechuan (*rapra, syncope), Proto-Aymaran (*lapʰi, deletion of the last syllable), and Mapudungun (tapɨl, apocope). Since the term must have been shared with Mapudungun before all those changes occurred, this scenario implies a pre-Inca time period.
  2. According to scenario 2, a form as *ʈ�ʂapVr cannot have been shared by Mapudungun and a Quechuan/Aymaran language at Inca or post-Inca times, since such a form must have been subsequently transformed, in central Andean proto-languages, into forms as *ʈ�ʂapVra and *ʈ�ʂapra.
  3. According to scenario 3, language contact at Inca or post-Inca times is implausible for a bias for monosyllabic roots and the possibility for a root to end in a consonant cluster in Proto-Mapudungun.
  4. Scenario 4 also excludes the possibility of a recent borrowing during Inca times, since a putative Proto-Mapudungun-suffix -l or -ʎ must still have been in use when or after the term for ‘leaf’ was shared with (Pre-)Proto-Quechuan and/or -Aymaran.

As a final argument for an origin in pre-Inca language contact, it should be mentioned that the many semantic changes undergone by this root in Quechuan, Aymaran and Mapudungun are noticeable and speak well against the possibility of recent contact as a source of the parallel.

With respect to an anonymous reviewer’s arguments for *rap(V) as the origin of the Quechuan and Aymaran forms and -ra as a fossilized suffix, some further remarks should be made here. A shared (pre-)proto-root *rap(V) is indeed a very tempting proposal, considering roots as e.g. Quechua t�ʃˀapi ‘bearded’, Proto-Aymaran *lapʰi ‘leaf’ or Mapudungun ʈ�ʂapi ‘chili pepper’. However, beyond a possible analogy with Proto-Quechuan *sapi ‘root’ (cf. Cerrón-Palomino 2000: 365), there might exist further arguments for an alternative analysis, somewhat more in line with scenarios 1, 2 and 3: There is Proto-Aymaran *ampara ‘hand’, Mapuche lipaŋ ‘arm’, Chayahuita (Cahuapanan) anporoʔ ‘feather’ (Hart, 1988: 340), Proto-Aymaran *pʰuyu ‘feather’, Proto-Quechuan *pʰuru ‘feather’ (Cerrón-Palomino, 2000: 311), Lule (Lule-Vilelan) pily ‘feather’9 (Machoni, [1732]1877: 186), Mochica (isolate) pur/per ‘feather’ (Salas, 2002: 72), Qawasqar (isolate) wes-pel ‘root’ (cf. wes ‘earth, land’ [Clairis and Viegas Barros, 2007]), and Quechuan rapra ‘leaf, wing, feather’ and t�ʃapra ‘leaf’. Considering these cases, *ʈ�ʂa- and *ra- (and also *an-, considering the Proto-Aymaran root for ‘hand’) could also be argued to be fossilized prefixes, originally modifying the semantics of a pre-proto-root like *pVrV with the meaning ‘hand, leaf, twig, feather, wing’ and probably *V as a high vowel.10 Furthermore, somewhat similar roots with the meaning ‘stick’ or ‘bone’ seem to exist in many presumably genetically unrelated Amerindian languages (cf. also, e.g., Mapudungun foɻo ‘bone, tooth’). This point certainly deserves further investigation.

6.4 moŋkol/moŋkoʎ ‘Spherical, Intact’

Moŋkol or moŋkoʎ (sometimes also muɲku) means ‘spherical’ or ‘intact’ in Mapudungun. Muruqu, muʎu, muru or muyu are roots that refer to the concept of roundness or sphericity in both Quechuan and Aymaran languages. The latter roots seem to be derived from *muruqu in that they lost their root final syllable *-qu, probably in order to avoid a trisyllabic root. An alternative interpretation of root-final -qu as a fossilized morpheme is also suggestive, but it is not without problems, as will be argued here. The similarity between the Mapudungun and the Quechuan roots has briefly been mentioned by Greenberg (1987: 251). There are several Quechuan roots to be linked with *muruqu. Some exemplary roots will be given here. Nearly all seem to have deleted a syllable: murqu ‘twisted’; runku/runkut�ʃu ‘round’; muʎka ‘pellet-like excrements of animals’; muyu ‘seed, fruit, bud, round, circle’; murqu ‘old’ (for men or male animals); murkˀu ‘used, ground down, old’ (for objects or clothes); muyu ‘round’; muru- ‘to decapitate, to remove a peak, to cut something protruding’ (Adelaar, 1977: 458; Bravo, 1967: 176; Carranza Romero, 2003: 133; Cerrón-Palomino, 2000: 366; González Holguín, [1608]1989: 251; Quesada Castillo, 1976: 82; Rosat Pontacti, 2004: 627; Stark and Muysken, 1977: 261).11 In Aymaran, the following forms are found, among others: muyu ‘circular, circumference, turn’; muruqa- ‘to cut off’; muʎuqˀu, muruqˀu, muluqˀu ‘sphere’; muru ‘without edge, cut’; mirqˀi ‘threadbare, old’ (for objects, clothes); murkˀu ‘lump in a liquid’; muruqu ‘round’ (Belleza Castro, 1995: 115; Cerrón-Palomino, 2000: 366; de Lucca, 1983: 306, 314–316, 566). The corresponding Mapudungun roots are moŋko-, muɲku-, monkol, muɲkul, moŋkoʎ ‘sphere, (to be) spherical, round, intact, without lesion, entire’ (Augusta, [1916a]1996: 140; Febrés, [1764]1975: 556; Valdivia, [1606]1887).

Considering the vowel fluctuation, those roots are suggestive of an origin in *mVrVqV with *V as an indeterminable high vowel. The Mapudungun roots, however, are more probably derived from a form as *muruqu. Mapudungun moŋkol is not found in Fernández Garay’s (2001) Ranquel dictionary and the Huilliche dialect has a slightly different root, molmol ‘round’ (not with the meaning ‘intact’ as in Mapudungun [cf. Augusta, [1916a]1996: 140]). Note that Mapudungun moyo ‘breast, nipple, udder’ and Huilliche ɻuku or ɻɨku ‘chest’ (Augusta, [1916a]1996: 141, 201), seem somewhat suggestive of a link with (Pre-)Proto-Aymaran/-Quechuan *muruqu as well.

Three scenarios will be presented here, to explain the differences between *muruqu and Mapudungun moŋkol: according to the first scenario (1), the pre-proto-root was *muruqu, and apocope and metathesis occurred in (Proto-)Mapudungun. The second scenario (2) suggests an origin of Mapudungun moŋkol in *muruq, with a secondary final vowel in (Proto-)Quechuan/Aymaran. A third scenario (3) derives Mapudungun moŋkol from the syncopated form *murqu, and a fourth scenario (4) suggests *muru as the shared (pre-)proto-form with *-qu as a suffix that later on became fossilized in Quechuan, Aymaran and Mapudungun.

6.4.1 First Scenario

A first possibility is that the root shared by the three pre-proto-languages was *muruqu and that apocope occurred in Proto-Mapudungun, in order to avoid a trisyllabic root. The resulting root *muruq, in Proto-Mapudungun, was first subject to a metathesis, giving *moqor, the uvular *q lowering *u into o. The change of uvular *q into Mapudungun velar k is regular before non-front vowels (see, e.g., Quechua pirqa ‘wall’, Mapudungun piɻka). Then, in a further step, and more difficult to explain, a velar nasal was added, possibly for analogy with Mapudungun wiŋkul ‘hill’. An origin of ŋ (or ɲ in muɲkul) in progressive assimilation might also be possible. This interpretation, however, is not without problems and would require further explanation. According to the present scenario, root final *-r was transformed into -l or -ʎ for Mapudungun lambdacism tendencies, giving moŋkol or moŋkoʎ (another example for Mapudungun lambdacism tendency is found in Mapudungun kal͎ ‘wool’, kal͎t�ʃa ‘pubic hair’; cf. Quechuan qara ‘skin’, qarat�ʃa ‘scabies, little hair, hide’ with -t�ʃa as a diminutive suffix in Quechuan, but not in productive use in Mapudungun).

For a similar inclination to avoid trisyllabic roots, but by means of different strategies, *muruqu was transformed into *murqu or *muru in Proto-Quechuan and Proto-Aymaran by cutting off the last syllable, or by syncope.

Alternatively muruqu was borrowed into Mapudungun at a relatively recent period. However, metathesis, as supposed to have occurred according to the present scenario, does not make this latter possibility very plausible.

6.4.2 Second Scenario

An alternative scenario is that the shared (pre-)proto-root was *muruq (cf. also Proto-Quechuan *musuq ‘new’ [Cerrón-Palomino, 2000: 312]), with subsequent metathesis in (Proto-)Mapudungun (> *mokor, see also above), and that the root final vowel u in muruqu is secondary in the central Andean language families considered here. This formal change requires explanations and reservations similar to those in the case of *ʈ�ʂapur above and also implies a pre-Inca origin. Furthermore, the velar nasal and the metathesis in the Mapudungun form would require explanations similar to those given in scenario 1. Thus, pre-Inca language contact would be implied.

6.4.3 Third Scenario

According to the third scenario, the (pre-)proto-root shared by Mapudungun and Quechuan/Aymaran was the syncopated form *murqu. According to this scenario, Quechuan/Aymaran r corresponds to a nasal consonant in Mapudungun, as it might also be the case in t�ʃaŋ ‘leg’ and lipaŋ ‘arm’ (see Aymaran t�ʃara ‘leg’ and ampara ‘hand’) or in Mapudungun yiwiɲ ‘grease, fat’ (see Quechuan wira ‘fat’, yawar ‘blood’ – but cf. also Aymaran wila ‘blood’).12 Notwithstanding, if Mapudungun moŋkol/moŋkoʎ is argued to be derived from *murqu, this parallel cannot easily be argued to originate from Inca times either. One would have to explain the root-final element -l or , which is possibly related to the -ʎ in paŋkɨʎ ‘puma cub’, or t�ʃaŋɨʎ ‘finger’, or to the -l in wiŋkul ‘hill’ and tapɨl ‘leaf’. Since this final element -l/ does not correspond to a Mapudungun suffix known to have been productive in any dialect in the recent past, this last scenario also excludes an origin of the parallel in recent language contact.

6.4.4 Fourth Scenario

An alternative interpretation would be that both in (Pre-)Proto-Quechuan and -Aymaran two different forms were in use simultaneously, *muru and *muru-qu, and that only the latter was shared with Proto-Mapudungun, whereas the former was possibly shared with Huilliche. However, the subsequent phonological changes that putative *-qu must have undergone in Quechuan and Aymaran would require supplementary explanations – in case we have to do with this element in the following forms: Aymaran mirqˀi ‘threadbare, old’ (for objects, clothes), and Proto-Aymaran *mat�ʃaqa ‘new’/Proto-Quechuan *muʂuq ‘new’ – the latter two are reconstructed as such by Cerrón-Palomino (2000: 366) and are highly suggestive of a link with muruqu and similar forms. Thus, the status of a (Pre-)Proto-Quechuan/-Aymaran suffix *-qu remains to be established. The alternation between the resonant of the latter form and the affricate/fricative in Proto-Aymaran *mat�ʃaqa ‘new’/Proto-Quechuan *muʂuq ‘new’ might be explained by sound symbolism, similar to Quechuan t�ʃapra/rapra (see above). As in the former scenario, the form *muru-qu shared with Mapudungun was syncopated (> *murqu), either at the moment of contact, or independently at a later period, in Proto-Quechuan/-Aymaran and -Mapudungun. As in the former scenario, too, the subsequently added root-final element -l or in Mapudungun moŋkol/moŋkoʎ remains to be explained. This, however, is impossible if an origin of the parallel in recent language contact is postulated.

6.4.5 Conclusion

Four possible scenarios have been proposed here, deriving the Mapudungun roots moŋkol, moŋkoʎ from *muruqu, *muruq, or *murqu respectively. The syllable reduction tendencies that are postulated in some of the scenarios for Quechuan, Aymaran and Huilliche (cf., e.g., Huilliche ɻuku or ɻɨku ‘chest’) may speak in favour of *muruqu as the shared form, not *muruq or *murqu.

  1. Scenarios 1 and 2, implying a liquid-velar/uvular metathesis for Mapudungun moŋkoʎ, would be suggestive of a relatively remote period of borrowing, since this phenomenon is not found in parallels with Quechuan of more recent origin, as, for example, pukara/kaɻa ‘fortress/town’13 (see Campbell, 1995: 189).
  2. According to scenarios 3 and 4, the final element -l or -ʎ in Mapudungun moŋkoʎ or moŋkol must have been added in Proto-Mapudungun, not in Mapudungun. Since the evolution of the velar nasal in the Mapudungun form in scenarios 1 and 2 is difficult to explain, scenarios 3 and 4 might be considered as more plausible for the moment.

As in the context of the tapɨl/ʈ�ʂapra/lapʰi parallel, deletion of the final syllable (muru, muʎu, muyu, molmol), syncope (murqu, muʎqu, mirqˀi) and apocope (moŋkoʎ, muʂuq) appear to be syllable-reducing strategies at least in some of the languages or language families discussed here, if not in all three, Quechuan, Aymaran, and Mapudungun. There is also a wide range of semantics covered by those historically related roots, and it is noteworthy that roundness or sphericity is a concept that seems to be, from a diachronic point of view, semantically close to the concept of ‘used, worn’ in Quechuan and Aymaran, whereas it is semantically close to the concept of ‘entire, intact’ in Mapudungun.

7 Step Two: Excluding an Indirect Language Contact Origin

As has been demonstrated above, it is impossible to argue that all four lexical parallels discussed here originate from direct language contact between Mapudungun and Quechuan/Aymaran as late as the Inca invasion into Mapuche territory. However, it still has to be decided whether the parallels discussed here could also originate from indirect language contact, i.e., the respective roots passed from Quechuan/Aymaran into Mapudungun via different languages, such as those spoken in the intermediate area or on the Pacific coast.

In this context it should be noted that for some of the languages of the intermediate area, such as Diaguita, there are no linguistic data available beyond toponyms. It is a general fact that historical linguists investigating languages of the Americas frequently encounter lacunae such as this one, which will always remain a major challenge.

Although spoken much more in the north rather than in the intermediate area, some roots similar to the roots discussed here are attested in Mochica, a language isolate spoken until the 1950s in the regions of Chiclayo and Lambayeque on the northern Peruvian coast. Generally speaking, the Mapudungun/Mochica parallels are more different in terms of phonology and semantics than the corresponding Mapudungun/Quechuan/Aymaran parallels. For that reason, it would probably be difficult to argue that Mochica played a role as an intervening language introducing e.g. the central Andean forms discussed here into Mapudungun. Mochica pot�ʃəʊk ‘liver’ (cf. Salas, 2002: 60–61) (besides Mochica lamlam ‘liver’ [Middendorf, 1892: 59]) strongly resembles both the Huilliche root for ‘belly of a vessel’, paʈ�ʂaɰ, and Proto-Aymaran *puʈ�ʂa(ka) ‘belly’ Further Mochica parallels with the roots discussed in the present paper are muʎuː/meʎu ‘egg’ (Salas, 2002: 61), reminiscent of *muruqu and its derivations, and pur/per ‘feather’ (Salas, 2002: 72), somewhat reminiscent of *ʈ�ʂapVra/*rapVra and related proto-forms. Some more parallels between Mochica and Mapudungun can be found in Díaz-Fernández (1993). Considering the semantics and phonology of these Mochica roots, direct language contact between Mapudungun and Quechuan/Aymaran in pre-Inca times is a more plausible explanation for the parallels discussed here than a hypothesized scenario in which Mochica-speaking groups passed the respective roots to Mapudungun speaking populations further south or lived in contact with them. This, however, does by no means preclude the possibility of large-distance language contact of Mapudungun and Mochica along the Pacific coast.

Even further north, in the Chocoan languages, we also find some forms similar to those found in Mapundungun, such as Catío borokʰóa ‘round’ (Huber and Reed, 1992: 291), strongly reminiscent of Mapudungun moŋkol ‘round, spherical’ and its parallels in Quechuan and Aymaran. And even further north still, in Central America we find *mul ‘round’ in Proto-Tol (Jicaque) (Campbell and Oltrogge, 1980: 218). Interestingly, as Mochica, the Chocoan languages, too, are located on the Pacific coast, possibly an important (sea-bound) mobility factor.

There are also some parallels between the Mapudungun roots discussed here and Uru-Chipayan roots. Uru-Chipayan is a language family spoken in the altiplano of southern Peru and Bolivia. In the context of possible language contact between Mapudungun and Uru-Chipayan speaking groups, it should be noted that the Uru have been associated in some documents from colonial times with the Chango, a people from northern Chile who lived on the coastal strip in the regions of Antofagasta and Tarapacá. The reasons for this association may lie in similar socioeconomic patterns of the Chango and the Uru, or in Inca mitma (Wachtel, 1990: 599–600), but there are no linguistic reasons to link the Uru with the Chango, whose language, at least in the 1870s, was Mapudungun (d’Ans, 1977). Furthermore, as the Mapudungun roots discussed here, again, are more similar to their Quechuan/Aymaran counterparts than to their parallels in Uru-Chipayan, the possibility that they were passed from Quechuan/Aymaran into Mapudungun via Uru-Chipayan must be excluded: In Chipaya, parallels to the roots discussed here are θipθ(a) ‘beard’, tʃˀapi ‘thorn’ (probably a recent loan from Quechuan/Aymaran), moloqˀo ‘round’ (probably a recent loan from Aymaran), and pʰut�ʃ ‘stomach/belly’ (Cerrón-Palomino and Ballón Aguirre 2011: 207–208, 235, 274).

There is not a single root that resembles one of the four Mapudungun roots discussed in the present paper either in Puquina (de la Grasserie, 1894; Torero, 2002), an indigenous language formerly spoken in what today is southern Peru, the Titicaca lake region and other parts of the Bolivian highlands (cf. Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 350). The situation seems to be similar in Lule (Machoni, [1732]1877), a language formerly spoken in the Gran Chaco, member of the Lule-Vilelan family. An exception might be Lule pily ‘feather’, and pyly ‘wing’ (Machoni, [1732]1877: 119, 186), somewhat reminiscent of *ʈ�ʂapVra. However, once more, the Mapudungun root tapɨl is more similar to central Andean roots as Quechuan rapra or t�ʃapra than to the corresponding Lule root. There are thus no reasonable grounds for arguing that any of the Quechuan/Aymaran roots discussed here entered Mapudungun lexicon via Lule or Puquina.

In Atacameño, a language isolate spoken until the first half of the 20th century in northern Chile (cf. Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 377), the only parallel might be ckaspa ‘leaf’ (cf. Vilte Vilte, n.d.: 28), possibly related to Quechua II t�ʃapra. This possible parallel could be explained by language contact with Quechua-speaking groups, although the initial consonant is rather different.14 Note also that it is more difficult to derive Mapudungun tapɨl or ʈ�ʂapel from the syncopated Atacameño form with initial uvular plosive and metathesis than from the corresponding (Pre-Proto-)Quechuan/-Aymaran forms. Among the other roots discussed in the present paper, there is no further parallel between Mapudungun and Atacameño which therefore makes this latter language a very implausible mediator candidate for the transfer of Quechuan/Aymaran roots into Mapudungun.

In the Huarpean languages Millcayac and Allentiac, the parallels with the four roots discussed here are Millcayac pochoc ‘belly’ and Allentiac muru ‘testicles’, reminiscent of Huilliche paʈ�ʂaɰ ‘belly of a vessel’ and Huilliche molmol ‘round’, but rather different from the central Mapudungun roots moŋkol and pɨʈ�ʂa. Allentiac has a different root for ‘belly’, taru (Márquez Miranda 1943: 88), and the Millcayac root pochoc might also be regarded as a borrowing of relatively recent origin in this language, possibly from Aymara. The same is true for Allentiac muru, not attested in Millcayac. The Mapudungun roots pɨʈ�ʂa and moŋkol are more easily derived from the (pre-proto)roots *pVʈ�ʂa(ka) and *muruqu shared with central Andean languages than from their Huarpean counterparts. Therefore, Huarpean languages cannot be reasonably postulated as having passed these roots from the central Andes to Mapudungun speaking groups (Mapuche dialect of the central valley) in the south. However, the possibility that the Huilliche roots originate from language contact between Huilliche and Millcayac/Allentiac speaking groups rather than between Huilliche and Quechuan/Aymaran speaking groups cannot be totally discarded.

Considering Gününa Yajich as a mediating language spoken in the intermediate area between Mapudungun and Quechuan speaking populations, the only root that might have passed into Mapudungun via this language cf.ms to be koʈ�ʂɨ ‘salty’ (according to Golluscio et al., 2009) (the corresponding Quechuan roots are kat�ʃi and kaʈ�ʂi ‘salt’; see also Huilliche taʃɨ ‘salty’ [for water], Mapudungun kot�ʃi ‘sweet’, kot�ʃi-/kot�ʃɨ- ‘to be sweet/salty/hot/sour’). The root for ‘leaf’ in Mapudungun, tapɨl, is somewhat reminiscent of a vegetal part term in Tehuelche, another Chon language spoken in Patagonia: tˀapr ‘root’ (Delahaye, 2007). However, semantically speaking, the Mapudungun term does not seem to be very close to its Tehuelche parallel (cf. Urban, 2012:521–4) and the similarity is possibly due to coincidence (nonetheless, a certain similarity with Proto-Quechuan *sapi ‘root’ is suggestive). And despite the similarity between Mapudungun t�ʃaŋ, Quechua t�ʃanka, and Aymara t�ʃara ‘leg’ on the one hand, and Proto-Chibchan *karə̄ ‘stick, bone’, Proto-Tupí-Guaraní *kaŋ ‘bone’ and Qawasqar qʰar ‘bone, tree’ (cf. Clairis and Viegas Barros, 2007) on the other hand, none of the latter can reasonably be argued to have acted as a mediating language between (Proto-)Mapudungun and (Pre-Proto-)Quechuan or (Pre-Proto-)Aymaran, for geographical and/or phonological reasons.

Overall, it can be concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to argue that the four roots analyzed in the present paper were passed into Mapudungun via languages of the intermediate area. However, this possibility cannot be totally ignored for Huilliche molmol and paʈ�ʂaɰ, which may have entered this dialect via Huarpean languages.

8 General Conclusion

As a general conclusion, there is not only structural evidence, as pointed out by Adelaar (2009), but also formal evidence for the fact that Mapudungun has parallels with Quechuan and Aymaran that do not originate in recent language contact, at least as far as the Mapudungun roots t�ʃaŋ ‘leg’, tapɨl ‘leaf’, and moŋkol/moŋkoʎ ‘spherical, intact’ are concerned. It is impossible to identify the specific context from which those lexical parallels arose. But as long as no specific genetic link between Mapudungun and Aymaran and/or Quechuan can be established, direct pre-Inca language contact seems to be the only plausible explanation for those correspondences. It is often impossible to answer the question of whether the roots discussed here were shared by Proto-Mapudungun and (Pre-)Proto-Quechuan, or by Proto-Mapudungun and (Pre-)Proto-Aymaran, or by the three (Pre-)Proto-languages simultaneously. Further research is needed on this subject. Generally, many of the developed scenarios suggest rather remote periods of language contact, most probably at a time before 500 ad (see section 3).

The present article has also made clear that the dialectal differences between Mapudungun and Huilliche deserve further investigation, as far as differences in the lexicon shared with Quechuan and/or Aymaran are concerned.

The falsifying scenario approach developed and applied in the present article is certainly rather laborious. But considering the lack of thorough reconstructions of the (pre-)proto-languages, and given the shallow time-depth of first-hand language data available, it is probably the only one that allows a differentiated assessment of the formal parallels of Mapudungun open to scrutiny. The falsifying scenario approach will hopefully prove its worth in future investigation of language contact in the Americas and elsewhere.

References

  • de la Lengua QuechuaAcademia Mayor. 1995. Diccionario quechua–español–quechua qheswa–español–qheswa simi taqe. Cuzco: Editorial Mercantil.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 1977. Tarma Quechua: Grammar Texts Dictionary. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.

  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 1986. La relación quechua-aru: perspectives para la separación del léxico. Revista Andina 42: 379426. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 1996. La nasal velar en el aymara y en el jaqaru. Opción 1219: 519. Maracaibo: Universidad del Zulia.

  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 2006. The Quechua impact in Amuesha. In AikhenvaldAlexandra Y. and DixonRobert M.W. (eds.) Grammars in Contact A Cross-Linguistic Typology290312. New York: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 2009. Inverse markers in Andean languages: A comparative view. In Leo WetzelsW. (ed.) The Linguistics of Endangered Languages Contributions to Morphology and Morpho-Syntax171185. Utrecht: lot.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 2012a. Languages of the Middle Andes in areal-typological perspective: Emphasis on Quechuan and Aymaran. In CampbellLyle and GrondonaVerónica (eds.) The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide575624. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 2012b. Modeling convergence: Towards a reconstruction of the history of Quechuan-Aymaran interaction. Lingua 122: 461469.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AdelaarWillem F. H. with the collaboration of Pieter C. Muysken. 2004. The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AlphonseEphraim S. 1956. Guaymí Grammar and Dictionary. (Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 162.) Washington: United States Government Printing Office.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Alvarez-SantullanoBuschPilarM.. 1992. Variedad interna y deterioro del dialecto huilliche. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 30: 6174. Concepción Chile.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AnsAndré Marcel d’ 1977. Chilueno ou arauco, langue des Changos du nord du Chili (dialecte mapuche septentrional). Amerindia 2: 135–138. Paris: Société d’Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ArnoldJennifer. 1994. Inverse voice marking in Mapudungun. Berkeley Linguistic Society 20: 2841.

  • ArnoldJennifer. 1996. The inverse system in Mapudungun and other languages. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 34: 948. Concepción Chile.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AugustaFelix José de. 1996. Diccionario araucano-español y español-araucano. [1916a] Tomo primero: araucano-español. [1916b] Tomo Segundo: español-araucano. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Cerro Manquehue.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Belleza CastroNeli. Vocabulario jacaru–castellano castellano–jacaru (aimara tupino). (Monumenta linguistica andina 3.) Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BennettWendell C. 1949. Habitations. In StewardJulian (ed.) Handbook of South American Indians vol. 5120. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beresford-JonesDavid G. and HeggartyPaul. 2011. What role for language prehistory in redefining archaeological ‘culture’? A case-study on new horizons in the Andes. In RobertsBenjamin and van der LindenMarc (eds.) Investigating Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture Variability and Transmission355386. New York: Springer.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BertonioLudovico. [1612]2006. Vocabulario de la lengua aymara. Arequipa: El Lector.

  • BravoDomingo A. 1967. Diccionario quichua santiagueño–castellano. Buenos Aires: Instituto Amigos del Libro Argentino.

  • BriggsLucy Therina. 1993. El idioma aymara. Variantes regionales y sociales. La Paz: Ediciones Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Aymara.

  • CampbellLyle. 1995. The Quechumaran hypothesis and lessons for distant genetic comparison. Diachronica 12: 157200.

  • CampbellLyle and OltroggeDavid. 1980. Proto-Tol (Jicaque). International Journal of American Linguistics 46: 205223.

  • Carranza RomeroFrancisco. 2003. Diccionario Quechua Ancashino – Castellano. Frankfurt/Main: Vervuert.

  • Cerrón-PalominoRodolfo. 2000. Lingüística aimara. Lima: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos.

  • Cerrón-PalominoRodolfo 2008. Quechumara. Estructuras paralelas de las lenguas quechua y aimara. La Paz: Plural editores.

  • Cerrón-Palomino Rodolfo and Enrique Ballón Aguirre. Chipaya. Léxico y Etnotaxonomía. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

  • ClairisChristos and BarrosJosé Pedro Viegas. 2007. Qawasqar. In Ritchie KeyMary and ComrieBernard (eds.) Intercontinental Dictionary Series. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Constenla UmañaAdolfo. 1988. Indicios para la reconstrucción de clasificadores en el sintagma nominal protochibcha. Filología y Lingüística 142: 111118.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CroeseRobert A. 1990. Evidencias lexicales y gramaticales para una posible filiación del mapudungu con la macro familia arawak. In Cerrón-PalominoRodolfo and Solís FonsecaGustavoTemas de lingüística amerindia27590. Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología and Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DelahayeMartine. 2007. Tehuelche. In Ritchie KeyMary and ComrieBernard (eds.) Intercontinental Dictionary Series. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Díaz-FernándezAntonio Edmundo. 1993. Contactos entre el mapuzungun y dos lenguas del Peru antiguo: el quechua y el yunga. In GerzensteinAna (ed.) Actas: Primeras jornadas de lingüística aborigen 6 y 7 de octubre 19928994. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Instituto de Lingüística.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Díaz-FernándezAntonio Edmundo. 2008. Transferencias léxicas del quechua en el mapuzungun. II Congreso Internacional de Lenguas y Literaturas Indoamericanas and xiii Jornadas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche. Temuco: Universidad de La Frontera, Facultad de Educación y Humanidades 22–24 October 2008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DixonRobert M.W. and AikhenwaldAlexandra Y. (eds.). 1999. The Amazonian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • EnglertSebastián. 1936. Lengua y literatura araucanas. Anales de la Facultad de Filosofía y Educación1 (2–3): 62190. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FebrésAndrés. [1764]1975. Arte de la lengua general del reino de Chile. Vaduz, Georgetown: Ediciones Cabildo.

  • GarayFernández Ana. 2001. Ranquel–español español–ranquel Diccionario de una variedad mapuche de La Pampa (Argentina). (Indigenous Languages of Latin America Series 2.) Leiden: Research School cnws of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GolluscioLucía A. 2009. Loanwords in Mapudungun, a language of Chile and Argentina. In HaspelmathMartin and TadmorUri (eds.) Loanwords in the World’s Languages: a Comparative Handbook10351071. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GolluscioLucía A.MellicoFresia and FraguasAdriana. 2009. Mapudungun vocabulary. Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor (eds.) World Loanword Database. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library 1284 entries. Downloadable at: http://wold.livingsources.org/vocabulary/41 (accessed May 19 2012).

    • Export Citation
  • González HolguínDiego. [1608]1989. Vocabulario de la lengua general de todo el Peru llamada lengua qquichua o del Inca. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GrasserieRaoul de la 1894. Langue puquina. Leipzig: K.F. Koehler’s Antiquarium.

  • GreenbergJoseph H. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • GrimesJoseph. 1985. Topic inflection in Mapudungun verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics 51: 141163.

  • HartHelen. 1988. Diccionario chayahuita–castellano. Canponanquë nisha nisha nonacaso’. (Serie Lingüística Peruana 29.) Lima: Ministerio de Educación and Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HuberRandall Q. and ReedRobert B.. 1992. Vocabulario comparativo.

  • Palabras selectas de lenguas indígenas de Colombia. Santafé de Bogotá: Asociación Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

  • Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. 1991. Listas comparativas de palabras en diez idiomas autóctonos ecuatorianos. (Cuadernos Etnolingüísticos 13.) Quito: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LatchamRicardo E. 1924. La organización social y las creencias religiosas de los antiguos araucanos. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Cervantes.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LatchamRicardo E. 1928. Prehistoria chilena. Santiago de Chile: Oficina del Libro.

  • LuccaManuel de. 1983. Diccionario aymara–castellano castellano–aymara. La Paz: Comisión de Alfabetización y Literatura en Aymara.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • de CerdeñaMachoni. [1732]1877. Arte y vocabulario de la lengua lule y tonocoté. Buenos Aires: P. E. Coni.

  • EyzaguirreMárquez. 1956. Intromisión de la Lengua Quichua en Chile. Anales de la Universidad Católica de Valparaíso3:1538.

  • MirandaMárquez. 1943. Los textos millcayac del P. Luis de Valdivia con un vocabulario español–allentiac–millcayac. Revista del Museo de La Plata212: 61223.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MelloAntonio Augusto Souza. 2000. Estudo histórico da família linguística tupi-guarani. PhD dissertation Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MenghinOsvaldo. 1962. Estudios de prehistoria araucana. Studia praehistorica II. Buenos Aires: Centro Argentino de Estudios Prehistóricos.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MiddendorfErnst W. 1892. Das Muchik oder die Chimu-Sprache. Mit einer Einleitung über die Culturvölker die gleichzeitig mit den Inkas und Aymaràs in Südamerika lebten und einem Anhang über die Chibcha-Sprache. (Die einheimischen Sprachen Perus 6.) Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MostnyGrete. 1992. Prehistoria de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria.

  • MuyskenPieter C. 2008. Introduction: Conceptual and methodological issues in areal linguistics. In MuyskenPieter (ed.) From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics123. (Studies in Language Companion Series 90.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ParkerGary John. 1963. La clasificación genética de los dialectos quechuas. Revista del Museo Nacional 32: 241252. Lima.

  • ParkerGary John. 1969–71. Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar. I (1969ª): ClassificationWorking Papers in Linguistics 1 1: 65–87; II (1969b): Proto-Quechua phonology and morphology Working Papers in Linguistics 1 2: 123–147; iii (1969c): Proto-Quechua lexicon Working Papers in Linguistics 1 4: 1–61; IV (1969d): The evolution of Quechua A Working Papers in Linguistics 1 9: 149–204; Corrigenda et Addenda to Chapters I–IV Working Papers in Linguistics 2 2: 111–116; V (1971): The evolution of Quechua B Working Papers in Linguistics 3 3: 45109. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Department of Linguistics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CastilloQuesada. 1976. Diccionario quechua: Cajamarca–Cañaris. Lima: Ministerio de Educación y Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

  • RibeiroEduardo Rivail and van der VoortHein. 2010. Nimuendajú was right: the inclusion of the Jabutí language family in the Macro-Jê stock. International Journal of American Linguistics 76: 517570.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • PontactiRosatAdalbertoA. 2004. Diccionario enciclopédico quechua-castellano del mundo andino. Cochabamba, Bolivia: Verbo Divino.

  • SalasAdalberto. 1978. Terminaciones y transiciones en el verbo mapuche. Crítica y bases para una nueva interpretación. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 16: 167179. Concepción Chile.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SalasAdalberto. 2006. El mapuche o araucano. Fonología gramática y antología de cuentos. Santiago de Chile: Centro de Estudios Públicos.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SalasJosé Antonio. 2002. Diccionario mochica–castellano castellano–mochica. Lima: Universidad de San Martín de Porres Escuela Profesional de Turismo y Hotelería.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SmeetsIneke. 2008. A Mapuche Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Ruíz ClodoaldoSoto. 1976. Diccionario quechua: Ayacucho–Chanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educación y Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

  • StarkLouisa R. and MuyskenPieter C.. 1977. Diccionario español–quichua quichua–español. Quito and Guayaquil: Museos del Banco Central del Ecuador.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • StewardJulian H. 1949. South American Cultures: An Interpretative Summery. In StewardJulian (ed.) Handbook of South American Indians vol. 5669772. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SwisshelmGermán. 1972. Un diccionario del quechua de Huaraz. (Estudios Culturales Benedictinos 2.) Huaraz, Peru.

  • TaylorGerald. 1979. Diccionario normalizado y comparativo quechua: Chachapaoyas–Lamas. Paris: L’Harmattan.

  • ToreroAlfredo. 1964. Los dialectos quechuas. Anales Científicos de la Universidad Agraria 2: 446478. Lima: La Molina.

  • ToreroAlfredo. 2002. Idiomas de los Andes. Lingüística e historia. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, Editorial Horizonte.

  • UrbanMatthias. 2012. Analyzability and Semantic Associations in Referring Expressions. A Study in Comparative Lexicology. PhD dissertation Universiteit Leiden.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ValdiviaLuis de [1606]1887. Arte y gramatica general de la lengua que corre en todo el Reyno de Chile con un vocabulario y confessionario. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vilte Vilte Julio. No date. Diccionario kunza–español español–kunza. Kunza lengua del pueblo Lickan Antai o Atacameño. Santiago de Chile: Codelco.

  • WachtelNathan. 1990. Le retour des ancêtres: les indiens uru de Bolivie XXe-XVIesiècle. Essai d’histoire regressive. Paris: Gallimard.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WeberDavid John. 1987. Estudios quechua: Planificación historia y gramática. Ministerio de Educación. Yarinacocha, Peru: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WeberDavid John. 1989. A Grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 112.) Berkeley: University of California Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZúñigaFernando. 2007. Mapudungun El habla mapuche. Santiago de Chile: Centro de Estudios Públicos.

  • ZúñigaFernando and SuterRafael. 2007. Las palabras mapuches kuse y fücha, y el Dào Dé Jīng 道德經. Lingüística 18: 99129.

* The author wishes to thank Willem Adelaar, Kate Bellamy, and Katja Hannß for their valuable suggestions during the preparation of this article. He is also grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
1 Inverse markers play a crucial role in Mapudungun transitional endings. As a general rule, inverse markers assign the role of an object marker to a subject marker. Mapudungun (but also Quechuan and Puquina) may originally not have had object marking personal reference suffixes, so that inverse markers enabled these languages to develop a personal reference marking system that also encodes the object in its so-called transitional verbal suffixes, in a way somewhat similar to Aymaran languages (Adelaar, 2009: 183–184).
2 Mapudungun ko ‘water’; lɨf- ‘to burn’; l͎ɨml͎ɨm-, ʎɨmʎɨm- ‘to shine’; poŋpoŋkɨ-, poi- ‘to swell’, 3rd  person object marker -fi, 3rd person imperative -pe, and piɻe ‘snow, hail’. As to the latter root, however, see also Mapudungun fiɻkɨ ‘fresh’ and pilinʸ ‘frost’ (Augusta, [1916a]1996: 49, 180) – it may thus be difficult to link the Mapudungun root for ‘snow, hail’, piɻe, to Southern Quechuan para ‘rain’ or Atacameño puri ‘water’ (see Vilte Vilte, n.d.: 42), as Torero (2002: 29) suggests.
3 I thank Pieter Muysken for pointing out to me the possibility of a bias for monosyllabic roots in Mapudungun.
4 The wasi/waɻiya parallel certainly deserves a more detailed discussion: In central Andean language families like Quechuan and Aymaran, there is frequent alternation between ma and wa (see, e.g., the first person object marker in Quechua I and Quechua II [-ma{:} vs. -wa], or Quechuan waman ‘falcon’, Aymara mamani ‘falcon’). Thus, the Quechuan root wasi is not only suggestive of a link with Mapudungun waɻiya, but also with Aymaran/Quechuan masi ‘friend’, maɻimaɻi, the Mapudungun greeting formula, and Aymaran/Quechua I marka ‘town’. The form of the latter root may be explained by syncope, probably with -ka as a now fossilized suffix. The second vowel in *masV(ka) or *wasV(ka) may have been a high vowel i or u (a in some Quechua I forms as masa ‘friend’ might be of later origin). In case the middle vowel is i, this fits Mapudungun waɻiya ‘town’ and also toponyms in northern Peru containing the element wari. In case the middle vowel in *wasV(ka) or *masV(ka) is not reconstructed as i but as u, a link with two other roots is suggestive: Mapudungun ɻuka and Huilliche ʃuka ‘house’, derived from *masuka or *wasuka by fore-clipping in Proto-Mapudungun, in order to avoid a trisyllabic root, similarly to Mapudungun kaɻa ‘town’ (cf. Quechuan pukara ‘fortress’), and possibly also paralleled in Atacameño lickan ‘town, village’ (see Vilte Vilte, n.d.: 62; the symbol ck seems to cover both “velar and postvelar areas of articulation (except for h)” [Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 378]). Smeets (2008: 57) lists some (originally trisyllabic) Spanish loans in Mapudungun where the first syllable has been deleted. The other root suggestive for a connection with *masuka or *maruka is maloka, a word for communal house in Amazonia (see Bennett, 1949: 8), but of obscure origin (p.c. Willem Adelaar, December 2012) – see also somewhat reminiscent words in Zaparo masɨkɨ ‘bed’ (Instituto Lingüístico de Verano, 1991), or Guaymí (Chibchan) mroko ‘family’ (Alphonse, 1956: 99). Generally speaking, the semantic step from ‘house’ to ‘town’ at least does not seem exaggerated, considering similar parallels in other language families, e.g. Old Greek οἶκος ‘house’, Latin vicus ‘village, district’.
5 Other cases in which similar correspondences seem to be rather irregular are Quechuan-Aymaran/Mapudungun punt�ʃu/ponʈ�ʂo ‘poncho, blanket’ (this root is not of central Andean origin but probably has its origin in Mapudungun, as an anonymous reviewer states); Quechuan/Mapudungun itʃ(h)u/it�ʃu, a kind of grass; Quechuan/Mapudungun wit�ʃa-/wiʈ�ʂa- ‘to rise, walk uphill’; Proto-Aymaran/Mapudungun *puʈ�ʂaka/pɨʈ�ʂa ‘stomach, belly’; Quechuan/Mapudungun atawaʎpa/at�ʃawaʎ ‘chicken’; Mapudungun-Aymaran/Proto-Quechuan pataka/*paʈ�ʂak ‘hundred’. In Mapudungun, there is also language internal variation between t�ʃ and ʈ�ʂ, probably due to sound symbolism, e.g. in Mapudungun koʈ�ʂɨ ‘salty/sour’, kot�ʃi 'sweet' (Augusta, [1916a]1996: 90, 95; see also Febrés [1764]1975: 457), and there is some idiolectal variation in Mapudungun, as e.g. t�ʃipa-/ʈ�ʂipa- ‘to come out’ (Smeets, 2008: 33).
6 Borrowing from a variety of southern Quechuan at a more recent stage, e.g. in Inca times, would explain why in present-day Mapudungun we have t�ʃaŋ and not *ʈ�ʂaŋ, as an anonymous reviewer objects, since retroflex and palatal affricates merged into /t�ʃ/ and /t�ʃˀ/ in southern Peruvian and Bolivian Quechua. However, as has been demonstrated above, an origin of the parallel in recent language contact seems impossible to justify – just consider, for instance, the Mapudungun word for finger, t�ʃaŋɨʎ.
7 Vowel correspondences between Mapudungun and Quechuan/Aymaran do not seem, for the moment, to be always regular. Note that intra-language vowel fluctuation is a frequent phenomenon in Quechuan (Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 198) but also in Mapudungun (Smeets, 2008: 34–5). Vowels in Spanish borrowings in Mapudungun are also frequently subject to processes of change difficult to predict (see Smeets, 2008: 57).
8 An anonymous reviewer states that in Quechua I, the word for ‘beard’ is generally ʃapra.
9 For the Lule examples, as for the examples from the Huarpean languages, exact phonetics and phonology are not known. For that reason, they are given here in the orthography of Machoni ([1732]1877) and Márquez Miranda (1943), respectively.
10 Another example for a fossilized prefix in Aymaran languages seems to be the residual element *t�ʃ- found in color terms: see, e.g., Aymara t�ʃˀiyara ‘black’, Quechua yana ‘black’ (this parallel has been mentioned by Campbell, 1995: 192), Aymara t�ʃupika ‘red’, Quechua puka ‘red’ (this parallel has been mentioned by Cerrón-Palomino, 2000: 312). Other Aymaran color terms containing this prefix might be t�ʃˀik(h)u, t�ʃˀiχi ‘grey’ (cf. Quechua uqi, uki ‘grey, greenish blue’), t�ʃˀump(h)i ‘coffee brown’, and *t�ʃˀuχɲa, green (for the Aymara terms, see Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 295).
11 An anonymous reviewer emphasizes that in Quechuan, ‘round’ is usually (r)uyru, and that muyu- means ‘to turn around’ (in a circle).
12 The palatalized nasal ɲ in Mapudungun yiwiɲ ‘grease, fat’, might also be conditioned by the preceding i.
13 Note that the Quechuan/Mapudungun terms for ‘wall’, pirqa/piɻka, are highly suggestive of an ancient link wih pukara. Mapudungun may have changed pukara into kaɻa because of the prefix-like element indicating location pu ‘in’.
14 But see also Atacameño ckunna ‘we’ (cf. Vilte Vilte, n.d.: 76), Quechua -sun 1st person plural (inclusive) imperative and Puquina seɲ ‘we’, ‘our’ (cf. Adelaar and Muysken, 2004: 219, 353).

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • de la Lengua QuechuaAcademia Mayor. 1995. Diccionario quechua–español–quechua qheswa–español–qheswa simi taqe. Cuzco: Editorial Mercantil.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 1977. Tarma Quechua: Grammar Texts Dictionary. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.

  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 1986. La relación quechua-aru: perspectives para la separación del léxico. Revista Andina 42: 379426. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 1996. La nasal velar en el aymara y en el jaqaru. Opción 1219: 519. Maracaibo: Universidad del Zulia.

  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 2006. The Quechua impact in Amuesha. In AikhenvaldAlexandra Y. and DixonRobert M.W. (eds.) Grammars in Contact A Cross-Linguistic Typology290312. New York: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 2009. Inverse markers in Andean languages: A comparative view. In Leo WetzelsW. (ed.) The Linguistics of Endangered Languages Contributions to Morphology and Morpho-Syntax171185. Utrecht: lot.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 2012a. Languages of the Middle Andes in areal-typological perspective: Emphasis on Quechuan and Aymaran. In CampbellLyle and GrondonaVerónica (eds.) The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide575624. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AdelaarWillem F. H. 2012b. Modeling convergence: Towards a reconstruction of the history of Quechuan-Aymaran interaction. Lingua 122: 461469.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AdelaarWillem F. H. with the collaboration of Pieter C. Muysken. 2004. The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AlphonseEphraim S. 1956. Guaymí Grammar and Dictionary. (Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 162.) Washington: United States Government Printing Office.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Alvarez-SantullanoBuschPilarM.. 1992. Variedad interna y deterioro del dialecto huilliche. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 30: 6174. Concepción Chile.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AnsAndré Marcel d’ 1977. Chilueno ou arauco, langue des Changos du nord du Chili (dialecte mapuche septentrional). Amerindia 2: 135–138. Paris: Société d’Études Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ArnoldJennifer. 1994. Inverse voice marking in Mapudungun. Berkeley Linguistic Society 20: 2841.

  • ArnoldJennifer. 1996. The inverse system in Mapudungun and other languages. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 34: 948. Concepción Chile.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AugustaFelix José de. 1996. Diccionario araucano-español y español-araucano. [1916a] Tomo primero: araucano-español. [1916b] Tomo Segundo: español-araucano. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Cerro Manquehue.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Belleza CastroNeli. Vocabulario jacaru–castellano castellano–jacaru (aimara tupino). (Monumenta linguistica andina 3.) Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BennettWendell C. 1949. Habitations. In StewardJulian (ed.) Handbook of South American Indians vol. 5120. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Beresford-JonesDavid G. and HeggartyPaul. 2011. What role for language prehistory in redefining archaeological ‘culture’? A case-study on new horizons in the Andes. In RobertsBenjamin and van der LindenMarc (eds.) Investigating Archaeological Cultures: Material Culture Variability and Transmission355386. New York: Springer.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BertonioLudovico. [1612]2006. Vocabulario de la lengua aymara. Arequipa: El Lector.

  • BravoDomingo A. 1967. Diccionario quichua santiagueño–castellano. Buenos Aires: Instituto Amigos del Libro Argentino.

  • BriggsLucy Therina. 1993. El idioma aymara. Variantes regionales y sociales. La Paz: Ediciones Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Aymara.

  • CampbellLyle. 1995. The Quechumaran hypothesis and lessons for distant genetic comparison. Diachronica 12: 157200.

  • CampbellLyle and OltroggeDavid. 1980. Proto-Tol (Jicaque). International Journal of American Linguistics 46: 205223.

  • Carranza RomeroFrancisco. 2003. Diccionario Quechua Ancashino – Castellano. Frankfurt/Main: Vervuert.

  • Cerrón-PalominoRodolfo. 2000. Lingüística aimara. Lima: Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos.

  • Cerrón-PalominoRodolfo 2008. Quechumara. Estructuras paralelas de las lenguas quechua y aimara. La Paz: Plural editores.

  • Cerrón-Palomino Rodolfo and Enrique Ballón Aguirre. Chipaya. Léxico y Etnotaxonomía. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.

  • ClairisChristos and BarrosJosé Pedro Viegas. 2007. Qawasqar. In Ritchie KeyMary and ComrieBernard (eds.) Intercontinental Dictionary Series. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Constenla UmañaAdolfo. 1988. Indicios para la reconstrucción de clasificadores en el sintagma nominal protochibcha. Filología y Lingüística 142: 111118.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CroeseRobert A. 1990. Evidencias lexicales y gramaticales para una posible filiación del mapudungu con la macro familia arawak. In Cerrón-PalominoRodolfo and Solís FonsecaGustavoTemas de lingüística amerindia27590. Lima: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología and Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DelahayeMartine. 2007. Tehuelche. In Ritchie KeyMary and ComrieBernard (eds.) Intercontinental Dictionary Series. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Díaz-FernándezAntonio Edmundo. 1993. Contactos entre el mapuzungun y dos lenguas del Peru antiguo: el quechua y el yunga. In GerzensteinAna (ed.) Actas: Primeras jornadas de lingüística aborigen 6 y 7 de octubre 19928994. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Instituto de Lingüística.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Díaz-FernándezAntonio Edmundo. 2008. Transferencias léxicas del quechua en el mapuzungun. II Congreso Internacional de Lenguas y Literaturas Indoamericanas and xiii Jornadas de Lengua y Literatura Mapuche. Temuco: Universidad de La Frontera, Facultad de Educación y Humanidades 22–24 October 2008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DixonRobert M.W. and AikhenwaldAlexandra Y. (eds.). 1999. The Amazonian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • EnglertSebastián. 1936. Lengua y literatura araucanas. Anales de la Facultad de Filosofía y Educación1 (2–3): 62190. Santiago de Chile: Universidad de Chile.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FebrésAndrés. [1764]1975. Arte de la lengua general del reino de Chile. Vaduz, Georgetown: Ediciones Cabildo.

  • GarayFernández Ana. 2001. Ranquel–español español–ranquel Diccionario de una variedad mapuche de La Pampa (Argentina). (Indigenous Languages of Latin America Series 2.) Leiden: Research School cnws of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GolluscioLucía A. 2009. Loanwords in Mapudungun, a language of Chile and Argentina. In HaspelmathMartin and TadmorUri (eds.) Loanwords in the World’s Languages: a Comparative Handbook10351071. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GolluscioLucía A.MellicoFresia and FraguasAdriana. 2009. Mapudungun vocabulary. Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor (eds.) World Loanword Database. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library 1284 entries. Downloadable at: http://wold.livingsources.org/vocabulary/41 (accessed May 19 2012).

    • Export Citation
  • González HolguínDiego. [1608]1989. Vocabulario de la lengua general de todo el Peru llamada lengua qquichua o del Inca. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GrasserieRaoul de la 1894. Langue puquina. Leipzig: K.F. Koehler’s Antiquarium.

  • GreenbergJoseph H. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • GrimesJoseph. 1985. Topic inflection in Mapudungun verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics 51: 141163.

  • HartHelen. 1988. Diccionario chayahuita–castellano. Canponanquë nisha nisha nonacaso’. (Serie Lingüística Peruana 29.) Lima: Ministerio de Educación and Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HuberRandall Q. and ReedRobert B.. 1992. Vocabulario comparativo.

  • Palabras selectas de lenguas indígenas de Colombia. Santafé de Bogotá: Asociación Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

  • Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. 1991. Listas comparativas de palabras en diez idiomas autóctonos ecuatorianos. (Cuadernos Etnolingüísticos 13.) Quito: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LatchamRicardo E. 1924. La organización social y las creencias religiosas de los antiguos araucanos. Santiago de Chile: Imprenta Cervantes.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LatchamRicardo E. 1928. Prehistoria chilena. Santiago de Chile: Oficina del Libro.

  • LuccaManuel de. 1983. Diccionario aymara–castellano castellano–aymara. La Paz: Comisión de Alfabetización y Literatura en Aymara.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • de CerdeñaMachoni. [1732]1877. Arte y vocabulario de la lengua lule y tonocoté. Buenos Aires: P. E. Coni.

  • EyzaguirreMárquez. 1956. Intromisión de la Lengua Quichua en Chile. Anales de la Universidad Católica de Valparaíso3:1538.

  • MirandaMárquez. 1943. Los textos millcayac del P. Luis de Valdivia con un vocabulario español–allentiac–millcayac. Revista del Museo de La Plata212: 61223.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MelloAntonio Augusto Souza. 2000. Estudo histórico da família linguística tupi-guarani. PhD dissertation Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MenghinOsvaldo. 1962. Estudios de prehistoria araucana. Studia praehistorica II. Buenos Aires: Centro Argentino de Estudios Prehistóricos.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MiddendorfErnst W. 1892. Das Muchik oder die Chimu-Sprache. Mit einer Einleitung über die Culturvölker die gleichzeitig mit den Inkas und Aymaràs in Südamerika lebten und einem Anhang über die Chibcha-Sprache. (Die einheimischen Sprachen Perus 6.) Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MostnyGrete. 1992. Prehistoria de Chile. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria.

  • MuyskenPieter C. 2008. Introduction: Conceptual and methodological issues in areal linguistics. In MuyskenPieter (ed.) From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics123. (Studies in Language Companion Series 90.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ParkerGary John. 1963. La clasificación genética de los dialectos quechuas. Revista del Museo Nacional 32: 241252. Lima.

  • ParkerGary John. 1969–71. Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar. I (1969ª): ClassificationWorking Papers in Linguistics 1 1: 65–87; II (1969b): Proto-Quechua phonology and morphology Working Papers in Linguistics 1 2: 123–147; iii (1969c): Proto-Quechua lexicon Working Papers in Linguistics 1 4: 1–61; IV (1969d): The evolution of Quechua A Working Papers in Linguistics 1 9: 149–204; Corrigenda et Addenda to Chapters I–IV Working Papers in Linguistics 2 2: 111–116; V (1971): The evolution of Quechua B Working Papers in Linguistics 3 3: 45109. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Department of Linguistics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CastilloQuesada. 1976. Diccionario quechua: Cajamarca–Cañaris. Lima: Ministerio de Educación y Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

  • RibeiroEduardo Rivail and van der VoortHein. 2010. Nimuendajú was right: the inclusion of the Jabutí language family in the Macro-Jê stock. International Journal of American Linguistics 76: 517570.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • PontactiRosatAdalbertoA. 2004. Diccionario enciclopédico quechua-castellano del mundo andino. Cochabamba, Bolivia: Verbo Divino.

  • SalasAdalberto. 1978. Terminaciones y transiciones en el verbo mapuche. Crítica y bases para una nueva interpretación. Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 16: 167179. Concepción Chile.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SalasAdalberto. 2006. El mapuche o araucano. Fonología gramática y antología de cuentos. Santiago de Chile: Centro de Estudios Públicos.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SalasJosé Antonio. 2002. Diccionario mochica–castellano castellano–mochica. Lima: Universidad de San Martín de Porres Escuela Profesional de Turismo y Hotelería.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SmeetsIneke. 2008. A Mapuche Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Ruíz ClodoaldoSoto. 1976. Diccionario quechua: Ayacucho–Chanca. Lima: Ministerio de Educación y Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

  • StarkLouisa R. and MuyskenPieter C.. 1977. Diccionario español–quichua quichua–español. Quito and Guayaquil: Museos del Banco Central del Ecuador.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • StewardJulian H. 1949. South American Cultures: An Interpretative Summery. In StewardJulian (ed.) Handbook of South American Indians vol. 5669772. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SwisshelmGermán. 1972. Un diccionario del quechua de Huaraz. (Estudios Culturales Benedictinos 2.) Huaraz, Peru.

  • TaylorGerald. 1979. Diccionario normalizado y comparativo quechua: Chachapaoyas–Lamas. Paris: L’Harmattan.

  • ToreroAlfredo. 1964. Los dialectos quechuas. Anales Científicos de la Universidad Agraria 2: 446478. Lima: La Molina.

  • ToreroAlfredo. 2002. Idiomas de los Andes. Lingüística e historia. Lima: Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, Editorial Horizonte.

  • UrbanMatthias. 2012. Analyzability and Semantic Associations in Referring Expressions. A Study in Comparative Lexicology. PhD dissertation Universiteit Leiden.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ValdiviaLuis de [1606]1887. Arte y gramatica general de la lengua que corre en todo el Reyno de Chile con un vocabulario y confessionario. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vilte Vilte Julio. No date. Diccionario kunza–español español–kunza. Kunza lengua del pueblo Lickan Antai o Atacameño. Santiago de Chile: Codelco.

  • WachtelNathan. 1990. Le retour des ancêtres: les indiens uru de Bolivie XXe-XVIesiècle. Essai d’histoire regressive. Paris: Gallimard.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WeberDavid John. 1987. Estudios quechua: Planificación historia y gramática. Ministerio de Educación. Yarinacocha, Peru: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WeberDavid John. 1989. A Grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 112.) Berkeley: University of California Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZúñigaFernando. 2007. Mapudungun El habla mapuche. Santiago de Chile: Centro de Estudios Públicos.

  • ZúñigaFernando and SuterRafael. 2007. Las palabras mapuches kuse y fücha, y el Dào Dé Jīng 道德經. Lingüística 18: 99129.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 2 0 0
Full Text Views 376 376 21
PDF Downloads 56 56 1