Chimakuan languages

Last updated
Chimakuan
Geographic
distribution
Olympic Peninsula, Washington
Linguistic classification One of the world's primary language families
Proto-languageProto-Chimakuan
Subdivisions
ISO 639-2 / 5 nai
Glottolog chim1311
Chimakuan langs.png
Pre-contact distribution of Chimakuan languages

The Chimakuan languages are a group of extinct languages that were spoken in northwestern Washington state, United States, on the Olympic Peninsula. They were spoken by Chimakum, Quileute and Hoh tribes. They are part of the Mosan sprachbund, and one of its languages is famous for having no nasal consonants. The two languages were about as close as English and German.[ citation needed ] Due to proximity, the Chimakuan languages are also similar to Wakashan.

Contents

Family division

Chemakum is now extinct. It was spoken until the 1940s on the east side of the Olympic Peninsula between Port Townsend and Hood Canal. The name Chemakum is an Anglicized version of a Salishan word for the Chimakum people, such as the nearby Twana word čə́bqəb[t͡ʃə́bqəb] (earlier [t͡ʃə́mqəm]).

Quileute is now extinct. During the late 20th and early 21st centuries a revitalization effort began, and it is today spoken as a second language by a relatively small amount of the Quileute tribe on the west coast of the Olympic Peninsula, south of Cape Flattery. The name Quileute comes from kʷoʔlí·yot'[kʷoʔléːjotʼ], the name of a village at La Push.

Phonology

The Chimakuan languages have phonemic inventories similar to other languages of the region, with few vowels, ejective consonants, uvular consonants, and lateral affricates. However, both languages have typological oddities — Chemakum had no simple velar consonants, and Quileute has no nasal consonants — because of regular sound changes in these languages.

Proto-Chimakuan

The Proto-Chimakuan sound system, as reconstructed by Powell, [1] contained three vowels, long and short, and lexical stress (accompanied by a higher pitch as in English). It had the consonants listed in the following table. In angle brackets following each IPA symbol are Powell’s own (Americanist) notation, which shall be used henceforth instead of the IPA. The plain voiceless stops and affricates were probably mildly aspirated as in modern Quileute.

Bilabial Alveolar Palatal Velar Uvular Glottal
plainsibilantlateralplainlabializedplainlabialized
Plosive/
Affricate
voiceless p p t t t͡s c t͡ʃ č k k q q ʔ ʔ
ejective t͡sʼ t͡ɬʼ ƛ̓ t͡ʃʼ č̓ kʷʼ k̓ʷ qʷʼ q̓ʷ
Fricative s s ɬ ƚ ʃ š x x χ χʷ x̣ʷ h h
Sonorant normal m m n n l l j y w w
glottalized ˀm ˀn ˀl ˀj ˀw

The Proto-Chimakuan palato-alveolar fricative and affricates *š, *č, *č̓ developed as positional allophones of Pre-Proto-Chimakuan *, *, *k̓ʷ before the front vowel *i. This is why the Quileute and Chemakum reflexes of Proto-Chimakuan *, *, *k̓ʷ and *š, *č, *č̓ are largely in complementary distribution, though they are clearly phonemized in the modern languages (and probably already was in Late Proto-Chimakuan before it split) owing to loans and some irregular and analogical developments, especially in Chemakum. [2] Note that the palatalization and delabialization of Pre-Proto-Chimakuan *, *, *k̓ʷ did not cause a merger with *x, *k, * at any point.

The regular reflexes of the Proto-Chimakuan consonant phonemes in the attested Chimakuan languages are tabled below. Where the official Quileute orthography [3] or Boas’ Chemakum transcription [4] differ from the Proto-Chimakuan transcription (on whose IPA values, cf. table above), the orthographical representations have been given in angle brackets.

Pre-Proto-ChimakuanProto-ChimakuanQuileuteChemakum
plain stops and affricates*p*ppp
*t*ttt
*k*kkč tc
*c*cc tsc ts
*kʷč ch
*kʷku
*q*qq q ʞ
*qʷ*qʷḳʷʞu
glottalized stops and affricates*p̓*p̓p!
*t̓*t̓t!
*ƛ̓*ƛ̓ƛ̓ t̓ƚƛ̓ t!lʻ
*k̓*k̓č̓ tc!
*c̓*c̓t̓sts!
*k̓ʷ*č̓č̓ c̓h
*k̓ʷk̓ʷk̓ʷ k!u
*q̓*q̓ḳ̓ʞ!
*q̓ʷ*q̓ʷq̓ʷ ḳ̓ʷq̓ʷ ʞ!u
ʔʔ
fricativesƚƚ
*x*xxš c
*s*sss
*xʷš sh
*xʷqu
*x̣*x̣q
*x̣ʷ*x̣ʷx̣ʷx̣ʷ qu
*h*hhh
resonants*m*mbm
*n*ndn
*l*lll
*y*yyč tc
*w*wwku
glottalized resonants*m̓*m̓b, ʔbm, ʔm
*n̓*n̓d, ʔdn, ʔn
*l̓*l̓l, ʔll, ʔl
*y̓*y̓y, ʔyč tc, ʔč
*w̓*w̓w, ʔwku, ʔkʷ

Glottalized resonants, common in neighboring language families like Salishan, do not occur in either daughter language synchronically, but they must be reconstructed to account for some seemingly irregular correspondences between the languages with respect to occurrences of a glottal stop before resonant-reflexes, as well as language-internal evidence showing presence and absence of glottal stops around resonants in various related morphological forms, cf. Powell (1974) for more details.

Apart from the loss of glottalized resonants, Quileute has more-or-less kept the Proto-Chimakuan phonemic inventory unaltered. The only major change (sub-phonemic) is the infamous denasalization of *m (*) and *n (*) to (ʔ)b and (ʔ)d, respectively, ridding the language of nasal consonants except in certain archaïcizing narrative registers. Quileute also acquired the (presently rare) phonemes ƛ and g which occur primarily in loans but also a few words and morphemes of uncertain origin (and in the case of ƛ, phonemization of the biconsonantal sequence *t‿ƚ).

The development of Chemakum, on the other hand, has seen more significant changes. The Proto-Chimakuan palato-alveolar sibilants *š, *č, *č̓ were fronted and merged with the alveolar sibilants *s, *c, *. Thereäfter the plain velars *x, *k, * were palatalized and affricated to š, č, č̓. The Proto-Chimakuan glides *y, *, *w, * were subsequently (or concurrently) hardened to (ʔ)č and (ʔ) causing mergers (a few instances of the glides survive without hardening in Chimakum, e.g., in a demonstrative). A sub-table from the table above is reproduced below to illustrate these mergers more clearly. All of these developments have parallels in neighboring Salishan languages.

Pre-Proto-ChimakuanProto-ChimakuanChemakumQuileute
plain stops and affricates, along with plain and glottalized semi-vowels*y̓*y̓č tc

(ʔč)

y (ʔy)
*y*y
*k*kk
*c*cc tsc ts
*kʷč ch
*kʷku

(ʔkʷ)

*w*ww (ʔw)
*w̓*w̓
glottalized stops and affricates*k̓*k̓č̓ tc!
*c̓*c̓ts!t̓s
*k̓ʷ*č̓č̓ c̓h
*k̓ʷk̓ʷ k!uk̓ʷ
fricatives*x*xš cx
*s*sss
*xʷš sh
*xʷqu

As an illustrative example, consider Chemakum čā́ʔᵃčistcā′atcis, Quileute káʔyis ‘aunt’ < Proto-Chimakuan *káy̓is.

The vocalic system of Proto-Chimakuan is much harder to reconstruct as Boas’ Chemakum data don’t allow for an unambiguous reading of the phonemic vowels in that language. However, assuming a Quileute-like 3-vowel system with an extra parameter of vowel length, Powel was able to reconstruct a similar provisional vocalic inventory for the proto-language: short *a, *e, *o, and long *, *, *. Stress was phonemic. In Quileute, the stress became fixed to the penultimate syllable, though subsequent changes made it somewhat unpredictable. Open syllables developed long vowels.

Morphology

There are more than 20 known common inflectional suffixed and about 200 derivational suffixes. No common prefixes are known. In some cases, infixes are used in both languages.

Lexicon

Below is a table listing numerals from 1 to 10 in Chemakum and Quileute. Only 1 through 4 and 6 are cognate, the rest being independently innovated in the two languages.

NumeralChemakumQuileuteProto-Chimakuan
1kuē′lʻ *[kʷʰíːɬ]wı̇́·ƚ [wéːɬ]*wé·ƚ
2lʻa′kua *[ˈɬä́(ʔ)kʷʰä]ƚáʔw [ɬä́ʔw]*ƚáw̓-
3ʞoā′lē *[ˈqʷʰä́ː(ʔ)li]ḳʷáʔl [qʰʷä́ʔl]*qʷál̓-
4mĕ′ēs *[mɘˈʔís]báʔyas [ˈbä́ʔjəs]*may̓ás
5tcā′aa *[ˈt͡ʃʰä́ːʔä]tá·si [ˈtʰä́ːsɪ]
6tsĕ′lʻas *[t͡sʰɘ(ʔ)ˈɬäs]chiƚá·si [t͡ʃʰɪˈɬä́ːsɪ]*čiƚás-
7ts!ʞō′olkoant [t͡sʼɵˈqʰóːʔolkʰʷɐntʰ]ƚaʔwáḳt̓sisi [ɬəʔˈwäqt͡sʼɪsɪ]
8ʞ!ʼoa′yēkoant *[ˈqʷʼä́jikʰʷɐntʰ]ƚaʔwı̇́·t̓aƚi [ɬəʔˈwéˑˀtʼəɬɪ]
9kuē′lʻtsqal *[ˈkʷʰiɬt͡sχɐl]wı̇́ƚt̓aƚi [ˈwɪ́ɬtʼəɬɪ]
10tc!ʼē′taa *[ˈt͡ʃʼí(ː)tʰäʔä]t̓ó·pa [tʼoˑʰpʰə]

Related Research Articles

Velars are consonants articulated with the back part of the tongue against the soft palate, the back part of the roof of the mouth.

The laryngeal theory is a theory in historical linguistics positing that Proto-Indo-European had a number of laryngeal consonants that are not reconstructable by direct application of the comparative method to the Indo-European family. The 'missing' sounds remain consonants of an indeterminate place of articulation towards the back of the mouth, though further information is difficult to derive. Proponents aim to use the theory to:

Chemakum is an extinct Chimakuan language once spoken by the Chemakum, a Native American group that once lived on western Washington state's Olympic Peninsula. It was closely related to the Quileute language, also extinct but undergoing revitalization in the early 21st century. In the 1860s, Chief Seattle and the Suquamish people killed many of the Chimakum people. In 1890, Franz Boas found out about only three speakers, and they spoke it imperfectly, of whom he managed to gather linguistic data from one, a woman named Louise Webster. Several years later in the 1920s, Manuel J. Andrade cross-checked some of Boas' materials with the same speaker. A few semi-speakers continued until the 1940s on the east side of the Olympic Peninsula, between Port Townsend and Hood Canal.

Labialization is a secondary articulatory feature of sounds in some languages. Labialized sounds involve the lips while the remainder of the oral cavity produces another sound. The term is normally restricted to consonants. When vowels involve the lips, they are called rounded.

In phonetics, ejective consonants are usually voiceless consonants that are pronounced with a glottalic egressive airstream. In the phonology of a particular language, ejectives may contrast with aspirated, voiced and tenuis consonants. Some languages have glottalized sonorants with creaky voice that pattern with ejectives phonologically, and other languages have ejectives that pattern with implosives, which has led to phonologists positing a phonological class of glottalic consonants, which includes ejectives.

Americanist phonetic notation, also known as the North American Phonetic Alphabet (NAPA), the Americanist Phonetic Alphabet or the American Phonetic Alphabet (APA), is a system of phonetic notation originally developed by European and American anthropologists and language scientists for the phonetic and phonemic transcription of indigenous languages of the Americas and for languages of Europe. It is still commonly used by linguists working on, among others, Slavic, Uralic, Semitic languages and for the languages of the Caucasus, of India, and of much of Africa; however, Uralists commonly use a variant known as the Uralic Phonetic Alphabet.

Proto-Polynesian is the hypothetical proto-language from which all the modern Polynesian languages descend. It is a daughter language of the Proto-Austronesian language. Historical linguists have reconstructed the language using the comparative method, in much the same manner as with Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Uralic. This same method has also been used to support the archaeological and ethnographic evidence which indicates that the ancestral homeland of the people who spoke Proto-Polynesian was in the vicinity of Tonga, Samoa, and nearby islands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Saanich dialect</span> Language of the Saanich people of North America


Saanich is the language of the First Nations Saanich people in the Pacific Northwest region of northwestern North America. Saanich is a Coast Salishan language in the Northern Straits dialect continuum, the varieties of which are closely related to the Klallam language.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proto-Indo-Iranian language</span> Reconstructed proto-language

Proto-Indo-Iranian, also called Proto-Indo-Iranic or Proto-Aryan, is the reconstructed proto-language of the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European. Its speakers, the hypothetical Proto-Indo-Iranians, are assumed to have lived in the late 3rd millennium BC, and are often connected with the Sintashta culture of the Eurasian Steppe and the early Andronovo archaeological horizon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Proto-Mayan language</span>

Proto-Mayan is the hypothetical common ancestor of the 30 living Mayan languages, as well as the Classic Maya language documented in the Maya inscriptions. While there has been some controversy with Mayan subgrouping, there has been a general agreement that the following are the main five subgroups of the family: Huastecan, Yucatecan, Cholan-Tzeltalan, Kanjobalan-Chujean, and Quichean-Mamean.

The phonology of the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) has been reconstructed by linguists, based on the similarities and differences among current and extinct Indo-European languages. Because PIE was not written, linguists must rely on the evidence of its earliest attested descendants, such as Hittite, Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, and Latin, to reconstruct its phonology.

Proto-Austronesian is a proto-language. It is the reconstructed ancestor of the Austronesian languages, one of the world's major language families. Proto-Austronesian is assumed to have begun to diversify c. 4000 BCE – c. 3500 BCE in Taiwan.

Taos is a Tanoan language spoken by several hundred people in New Mexico, in the United States. The main description of its phonology was contributed by George L. Trager in a (pre-generative) structuralist framework. Earlier considerations of the phonetics-phonology were by John P. Harrington and Jaime de Angulo. Trager's first account was in Trager (1946) based on fieldwork 1935-1937, which was then substantially revised in Trager (1948). The description below takes Trager (1946) as the main point of departure and notes where this differs from the analysis of Trager (1948). Harrington's description is more similar to Trager (1946). Certain comments from a generative perspective are noted in a comparative work Hale (1967).

This article is about the sound system of the Navajo language. The phonology of Navajo is intimately connected to its morphology. For example, the entire range of contrastive consonants is found only at the beginning of word stems. In stem-final position and in prefixes, the number of contrasts is drastically reduced. Similarly, vowel contrasts found outside of the stem are significantly neutralized. For details about the morphology of Navajo, see Navajo grammar.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chepang language</span> Sino-Tibetan language spoken in Nepal

Chepang is a language spoken by approximately 37,000 people in South-Central Nepal. The people are known as Chepang. Randy LaPolla (2003) proposes that Chepang may be part of a larger "Rung" group. Another group who speaks Chepang, living across the Narayani river, call themselves Bujheli.

The phonology of the Zuni language as spoken in the southwestern United States is described here. Phonology is a branch of linguistics that studies how languages or dialects systematically organize their sounds.

Quileute, sometimes alternatively anglicized as Quillayute, is an extinct language, and was the last Chimakuan language, spoken natively until the end of the 20th century by Quileute and Makah elders on the western coast of the Olympic peninsula south of Cape Flattery at La Push and the lower Hoh River in Washington state, United States. The name Quileute comes from kʷoʔlí·yot’, the name of a village at La Push.

Proto-Athabaskan is the reconstructed ancestor of the Athabaskan languages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Linguistic areas of the Americas</span>

The indigenous languages of the Americas form various linguistic areas or Sprachbunds that share various common (areal) traits.

Adyghe is a language of the Northwest Caucasian family which, like the other Northwest Caucasian languages, is very rich in consonants, featuring many labialized and ejective consonants. Adyghe is phonologically more complex than Kabardian, having the retroflex consonants and their labialized forms.

References

  1. Powell, James V. (1974). Proto-Chimakuan: Materials for a Reconstruction. Working Papers in Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaiʻi.
  2. Powell, James V. (1974). Proto-Chimakuan: Materials for a Reconstruction. Working Papers in Linguistics, Department of Linguistics. pp. 50–67.
  3. The Quileute Nation (2017). "The Quileute Language".
  4. Boas, Franz (1892). "Notes on the Chemakum language". American Anthropologist. 5 (1): 37–44. doi: 10.1525/aa.1892.5.1.02a00050 . JSTOR   658768 via JSTOR.

Bibliography