A HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PEBA-YAGUAN
LINGUISTIC FAMILY
by
JAIME G. PENA
A THESIS
Presented to the Department of Linguistics
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Arts
September 2009
ii
"A Historical Reconstruction of the Peba-Yaguan Linguistic Family," a thesis
prepared by Jaime G. Pefia in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Arts degree in the Department of Linguistics. This thesis has been
approved and accepted by:
/7Date i
Committee in Charge: Dr. Doris Payne, Chair
Dr. Spike Gildea
Accepted by:
Dean of the Graduate School
iii
? 2009 Jaime Pefia
iv
An Abstract of the Thesis of
Jaime G. Pefia for the degree of Master of Arts
in the Department of Linguistics to be taken September 2009
Title: A HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PEBA-YAGUAN LINGUISTIC
FAMILY
In this thesis, a reconstruction of Proto-Peba-Yagua is attempted using the
comparative method. Peba-Yagua had three members in the past: Yagua, Peba
and Yameo. Yagua is the only extant member of the family. Information about
the sound inventory and the morphology of the proto-system is provided and
discussed based on comparisons of all three varieties. Results show that Proto-
Peba-Yagua had at least the consonants *p, *t, *k, *m, *n, *tJ, *R, *h, *w, *j and
at least the vowels *a, *e, *i, *u. Peba and Yameo show more similarity with
vregards to the historical development of their sound inventory. With regards to
morphology and grammar, because of lack of evidence for all involved linguistic
varieties, the only categories that can be reconstructed are parts of the
pronominal system, some classifiers and the locative morpheme *-mV.
vi
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Jaime G. Pefia
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene
Pontificia Universidad Cat6lica del Peru
DEGREES AWARDED:
Master of Arts, Linguistics, 2009, University of Oregon
Bachelor of Arts, Linguistics and Literature, 2002, Pontificia Universidad
Cat6lica del Peru
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Language description and documentation; Amazonian and Andean
languages; historical and comparative linguistics; morphosyntax;
typology; semantics, language contact
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Graduate Teaching Fellowship, UO Department of Linguistics, 2006,
2007,2009
Graduate Teaching Fellowship, UO Department of Romance Languages,
200S-present
vii
Instructor, Linguistics and Literature, Department of Arts, Universidad
Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Peru, 2004-2005
Tutor, Linguistics Area, Department of Arts, Universidad Peruana de
Ciencias Aplicas, Peru, 2002-2003
Teaching Assistant, College of Arts-General Studies, Pontificia
Universidad Cat6lica del Peru, 2000-2005.
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
UO General Scholarship, University of Oregon, 2009.
Clarice Krieg Scholarship, University of Oregon, 2008.
Luvaas Fellowship, ,College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oregon,
2008.
Summer Research Grant, Proposed Center for Latino/a and Latin
American Studies, University of Oregon, 2008.
Everett del Monte Scholarship, College of Arts and Sciences, University of
Oregon, 2007.
General Development Scholarship, University of Oregon, 2007.
Graduate Teaching Fellowship, University of Oregon. 2005-2009.
Member of the Sociedad Peruana de Estudios Lexicos (Peruvian Society of
Lexical Studies), since 2005.
PUBLICAnONS:
Pena, Jaime. "Review of Katja HannB, Uchumataqu: The Lost
Language of the Urns of Bolivia. A Grammatical Description of
the Language as Documented between 1894 and 1952". Studies
in Language 33.4 (forthcoming)
viii
Pena, Jaime. "Complex clauses in Chipaya: main strategies for
complementation, relativization and adverbial subordination".
Proceedings of the Conference on Indigenous Languages ofLatin
America III, University of Texas at Austin, 2008.
Payne, Doris and Jaime Pena (eds.). Selected Proceedings of the 37th
Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla,
2007.
Pena, Jaime. "Perdere il cielo. Breve revisione dei concetti di
contatto, colpa e contagio nei popoli indigeni del Peru". Trickster 4,
rivista del Master in Studi Interculturali, Universita di Padova, 2007.
Pena, Jaime. "La primera lexicografia andina: paralelismos, prestamos y
reajustes semanticos en Quechua y Aimara (1532-1640)". Ed. Mar
Campos, Felix Cordoba and Jose Ignacio Perez Pascual. America y el
Diccionario. A Corona, Spain: Universidade da Corona, 2006.
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Professor Doris 1.
Payne for her patient guidance during the process of gathering the data
and analyzing it, and also for her many comments on my work. My
especial thanks also to Thomas Payne for his communication and quick
answers to my questions. To Spike Gildea for his confidence in me. During
this time I have met many people whose ideas about linguistics have
directly or indirectly int1uenced the writing of this thesis. I would like to
acknowledge some of them here: Scott DeLancey from the Department of
Linguistics at the University of Oregon, and my former professors Rodolfo
Cerr6n-Palomino, Jorge I. Perez Silva and Carlos Garatea from the
Department of Linguistics and Literature at the Universidad Cat6lica del
Peru. All of them have helped me approach the study of language from
xdifferent and exciting perspectives that I hope to have represented
somehow in the present work.
In addition, many thanks to the people who have supported me
during this time: first and foremost to my family. Without the material
and spiritual help of Jaime, Zadith, Ketty, her husband Yuri and little Ivan
Paolo; and Teresa Arellano, Rafo, Naty and Paty, my wife's family, all of
this would not be the same for me. And, of course, thanks also to all my
friends in Oregon, back at home or somewhere around the world.
Thanks to Adriana and Joaquin 'Ikam' Alejandro, for the joy of
working together.
xi
Dedicated to Adriana and Joaquin Alejandro,
and to the Yagua People
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. AN OVERVIEW OF THE PEBA-YAGUAN FAMILy....................................... 1
1.1 Introduction.. 1
1.2 On the History of the Peba-Yaguan Peoples 6
1.3 The Peba-Yaguan Groups: Names and Location.................................. 27
1.3.1 The Yagua................................................................................... 29
1.3.2 'rhe Peba..................................................................................... 32
1.3.3 The Yameo 35
II. THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PEBA-YAGUAN LANGUAGE FAMILY:
THE SITUATION THUS FAR :.................... 40
2.1 Introduction 40
2.2 First Classifications 43
2.3 The Classification of Paul Rivet 54
2.4 After Rivet........................................................................................... 64
Chapter
xiii
Page
III. SOURCES AND DOCUMENTATION.......................................................... 73
3.1 Introduction 73
3.2 Documentation on yagua.................................................................... 75
3.3 Documentation on Peba...................................................................... 82
3.4 Documentation on yameo................................................................... 83
IV. THE HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUND SYSTEM.. ......... 87
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................ 87
4.2 A Phonological Survey of the Peba-Yaguan Languages 89
4.2.1 Yagua.......................................................................................... 90
4.2.2 Peba............................................................................................ 94
4.2.3 Yameo......................................................................................... 95
4.3 The Reconstruction of the Proto-Phonemic Inventory 100
4.3.1 Consonants 104
4.3.1.1 Stops 105
4.3.1.2 Nasal 110
Chapter
xiv
Page
4.3.1.3 Fricative 121
4.3.1.4 Affricate 124
4.3.1.5 Rhotic 127
4.3.1.6 Approximants 132
4.3.1.7 Other Residual Cognates and Correspondence Sets? 137
4.3.2 Vowels 141
4.3.2.1 The Variation of Vowels in the Data 141
4.3.2.2 The Vowel System (that can be reconstructed) 143
4.3.2.3 Nasal Vowels 150
4.3.2.4 Short and Long Vowels 152
4.3.3 Syllable Structure 154
V. MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX. 157
5.1 Introduction 157
5.2 The Pronominal System 160
5.3 The Question of Classifiers 177
xv
Chapter Page
5.4 Postpositions 184
5.4.1 The Locative Morpheme *mV 184
5.4.2 Other Postpositional Forms in Yagua and Yameo 186
VI. CONCLUSIONS 190
APPENDICES 197
A. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 197
B. SAMPLE YAMEO-MASAMAE TEXT 198
C. COMPARATIVE WORD UST 207
BIBUOGRAPHY 223
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Map of the Peba-Yaguan Languages (Peru) 6
2. Map of Indigenous Groups of the Northern Peruvian Amazon
(reproduced from Espinoza 1955) 39
3. Schmidt's North-Western Cariban Languages 65
4. The Peba-Yaguan Family Tree 193
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. The Yameo language matrix 44
2. Sample of Brinton's comparative material. 52
3. Brinton's evidence for postulating a Yagua-Pammari connection............. 53
4. Sample of Rivet's cognate set.................................................................... 57
5. Comparison of Yagua data 60
6. Graphemes used in the representation of Yameo sounds and their
interpretation for this thesis........................................................................... 99
7. Consonants of Proto-Peba-Yagua 104
8. Correspondences of *n 121
9. Development of *s and *ifand their synchronic merger in Yameo 126
10. Vowels reconstructed for Proto-Peba-Yagua 143
11.Yagua Set I Clitics (adopted from Payne and Payne 1990) 161
12. Yagua SET II Clitics (adopted from Payne and Payne 1990) 164
Table
xviii
Page
13. Comparison of pronominal forms found in Yagua, Peba and Yarneo ........ 166
CHAPTER I
AN OVERVIEW OF THE PEBA-YAGUAN FAMILY
1.1 Introduction
The Peba-Yaguan languages were formerly spoken in the northeast
lowland Peruvian Amazon forest, in a territory located in the department of
Loreto, from near the border line with Brazil and Colombia along the Putumayu
and Yavari rivers to the east, to the Tigre, Napo and Marafion rivers to the west.
Although little comparative work has been done, in the past a fair number of
language names has been claimed as belonging to this family. Early references,
like that of the American ethnologist Daniel G. Brinton (1891), for example,
count as many as fifteen different languages making up two different language
stocks, the Peba and the Lamas. 1 The number of peoples and languages
estimated to belong to the Peba-Yaguan family would be subsequently redefined
1 I will come back to Brinton's work later on in chapter 2.
1
2by later works, as the family internal classification itself would be reconfigured
by the French scholar Paul Rivet (1911), who grouped together all of these
names in three languages: Peba, Yameo and Yagua. As we will see, the
multiplicity of names was due to external factors: for instance, a tribe could
receive the name of the chief or shaman, and the language they spoke be given
this name, but in fact they spoke the same language spoken by another tribe
with a different name. However, the lack of information on most of the Peba-
Yaguan languages would continue to exist. In the present day, unfortunately,
there is only one surviving member of the family: Yagua, spoken by around
4,000 people to the east of the city of Iquitos, capital of Loreto. 2 Thus, with the
exception of the latter, overall very little is known about the Peba-Yaguan
languages. Yagua has been extensively described by P. Powlison (1995), D.
Payne (1985, 1990), T. Payne (1987) and D. Payne and T. Payne (1990);
nevertheless there is scattered information about the other languages, often
times only in small quantities. As far as I know, of the other names mentioned in
2 This is according to Gordon (2005). There is a notice that it is also spoken in Colombia.
3colonial and modem texts, only Peba, Yameo and Masamae (a variety closely
related to Yameo) have some sort of linguistic data attested, at least in the form
of small glossary lists, although incidental information on the people, habits or
at least some kind of anthropological description could be found in passages of
old colonial and early Peruvian Republican era texts (18th and 19th centuries).
As all except Yagua are completely extinct, there is little we can learn
about other relevant languages pertaining to this family. Yameo became extinct
some time in between the 1950s and 1960s. Espinoza Perez (1955) was still able
to collect data from elderly Yameo speakers, reporting that there were just a few
speakers at that time in the locality of San Regis (formerly San Francisco de
Regis), and that therefore the language was facing extinction as most people in
town would use either Spanish or Quechua for communication and social
interaction. Data from Masamae -which seems to be a variety very close to
Yameo- and Peba, on the other hand, are available in old texts dating from
before the 20th century, and indirectly available through more modem works
such as Rivet (1911), Loukbtka (1968) who relied on previous works of other
4people, or the already mentioned Espinoza Perez (1955). To my knowledge,
there is no reference to an approximate date for the extinction of the Peba and
Masamae. They are mentioned in documents from the Spanish colonial era (18th
century) and in documents of the early Peruvian Republican times (19th
century), but by the beginning of the 20th century they seemed to have already
disappeared or on their way to extinction and there is no news about them being
fluidly spoken in the regions where they used to be.
Due to the lack of descriptive work on these languages, it is certainly
difficult to compare and establish classifications with an optimal level of
accuracy. Rivet's claim about the Peba-Yagua in his 1911 article mentioned
above, in which he considers that Peba, Yameo and Yagua constitute one single
family, has not been disputed at its core3 and with good reasons, as we will see.
However, there is still the need to thoroughly explore the Peba-Yaguan family in
terms of internal affiliations to confirm Rivet's ideas about its status as a family;
in terms of its possible reconstruction (at least in as much as this is doable); and
3 Actually, his claims are commented upon very little in the literature about Peba-Yagua.
5finally, in terms of its external history taking into consideration, for example,
possible language contacts with other non-family members or its status with
regards to other language families and larger areal classification. The area of the
Peba-Yaguan languages is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Map of the Peba-Yaguan Languages (Peru)
-. ~, - "". '-} .~--'." .
, ;~ ,
1.2 On the History of the Peba-Yaguan Peoples
The history of the northern Peruvian Amazon is obscured by the lack of
information about early cultures' settlements and the confusion between legend
6
7and factuality in the early documentation about this area. It seems to have been
long populated by a significant number of groups and there is still much work to
be done to actually understand this area geographically and culturally. With
regards to linguistics, it is common to find testimonies about the major
communication difficulties that this region presented to the outsider who
happened to travel there. In the 17th century, for example, the Jesuit Francisco
de Figueroa (1661 [1986]) wrote about the difficulty of spreading Christian
teachings to the 'gentiles and barbarians' given the diversity of languages
because there were as many as there were 'nations', which they called provinces.
Because of the relatively small amount of information about the different groups
that could plausibly be identified as Peba-Yaguan, literature about the history of
the these people is scanty and inconclusive, perhaps with the exception of
Fejos's ethnographic description of the same group (1943), Espinoza's
introduction to the Yameo (1955), Powlison's analysis of the Yagua folklore
(1977), and Chaumeil's history of the Yagua (1981) and description of their
culture (1987). Up until the middle of the 20th century, most of the information
8that was available was the result of missionary or expeditionary accounts by
people who happened to have a charge in the mission towns or traveled around
giving incidental descriptions of the groups they found. There are passages in
books by modern travelers (mid-18th, 19th and 20th centuries), for example,
where they talk about these people and describe them (Condamine (1743)
[1993], Marcoy (1875), Castelnau (1851), Orton (1870); to name a few). As far
as I know, there is not any new publication that could provide more evidence to
shed light on the Peba-Yaguan history.
Pre-columbian contact between the Peba-Yagua and other Amazonian and
even Andean groups is very likely. A quick survey of a Yagua dictionary
(Powlison, 1995) shows words that are borrowed from Quechua,4 for instance.
The Incas explored the region that the Peba-Yagua occupied (Garcilaso de la
Vega, 1609 [1991]), though they did not have the time to settle down for long
4 For sake of clarity, it is important to distinguish words that may have a Quechua origin but that
may (or may not) have come into Yagua through regional Amazonian Spanish, and words of
Quechua origin that are not present in the regional Spanish but exist in Yagua. These latter are
more useful in demonstrating previous contact between Yagua and Quechua, as for example
watha 'year' from Quechua wata 'year'.
9over there. Fejos (1943: 17-19) suggests that given that the name of "the
neighboring rivers, such as the Putumayo, Yavas Yacu, and Ampi Yacu" are
Quechua, there is a strong possibility that the Incas knew of the Yagua and that
they actually came in contact with one another. 5 Whilst there is some truth to
this suggestion, notice that Quechua does not equal Incan culture; in fact, it
seems that this language was present in the area much before Inca times as a
vehicle of intercommunication6 (Mercier, 1985), and therefore it is almost
certain that the Yagua (or Peba-Yagua, to make the statement slightly more
accurate given the lists of vocabulary that we have at hand from Yameo, Peba,
Masamae and Yagua which include Quechua words or borrowings) did have
5 Incidentally, in the name Yavas Yacu, the second part is Quechua (from yaku 'water'), but the
first yavas is not, unless one's interpretation is that it refers to the Quechua word yawar 'blood'.
Phonetically, though, it would be difficult to explain the final [s] of yavas or, if one believes that
it comes from the Spanish plural morpheme -s, then an explanation about the loss of the final [r]
in the original Quechua is missing (add to that that semantically it would make no sense to use a
plural morpheme with a name meaning 'river of blood' when neither Quechua nor Yagua (nor
even Spanish) has an obligatory plural category for these cases). Thus, neither option seems
plausible. The river Ampiyacu or Ambiyacu did have a local name of Tupian origin used
extensively in the missionary literature of the 16th and 17th centuries: < Uerari> or
< Guerari >.
6 Language contact in the area is an issue that must be researched. Old texts tell about a complex
multilingual situation. With the establishment of Quechua as lingua franca and the later arrival
of Spanish, the situation became even more complex.
10
contact with Quechua speaking groups, albeit not necessarily Incan. Yet there
were stories about the bonds of relationship between the Yagua and the Andes,
of which little is credible (Maw 1829: 200). Marcoy, for example, was told by
the Yagua themselves about their Quechua origin and how they were
descendants of an ancient Inca ruler. He addressed this by saying that "I
reflected that the characteristic traits, the physique, the manners and customs of
the Yahuas present no analogy whatever with those of the natives of the Sierra"
(1875: 354). At most, these stories could point to an Andean origin of the Peba-
Yaguan people, but that is highly unlikely as there is no evidence to support (or
even postulate) such an idea. All in all, however, more work is needed to
establish comparison with other languages that seemed to have had a presence
previously in the vecinity of Peba-Yaguan groups such as the Kokama (probably
Tupian), Iquito (Zaparoan), Bora (Bora-Witotoan) and Omagua (Tupian) -notice
that these other languages had contact with each other also. In this vein, Payne
(2007) speculates on whether the classifier system of the Yagua could have
formed from contact with Bora Witotoan languages. The question still remains:
11
was there some sort of contact among these peoples that is traceable in their
vocabularies or grammars?
The first bits of cultural information available about the Peba-Yaguan
groups come from colonial times. According to old Spanish chronicle references
as well as missionary texts, the Peba-Yagua used to live dispersed in the lowland
Amazonian rain forest territory surrounding the central areas of northeast Peru,
from the immediacies of Iquitos to the border with Brazil and Colombia, close to
rivers and other water sources. By all accounts, they were neither consummate
farmers nor herders; rather, they practiced subsistence slash and bum
agriculture for they did extensively cultivate certain crops such as manioc and
banana, and also had knowledge of plants with medicinal and shamanistic
powers, which is common in the Amazon. However, their main activities were
hunting and warring, and their social organization seems to have been based on
small clans with strong local autonomy that was still in practice in the 20th
century, as witnessed and described by Chaumeil and Fejos. These clans had
tighter links especially if they were geographically close to each other
12
(proximity usually meant that there was close-family, parental bonds) with
geographically distant clans more prone to fight among themselves. Fejos (1943:
10) suggests that in ancient times it is possible that at least for the Yagua the
clans were strongly localized and at some point the Yagua also had a dual social
organization. War could be also a means of preserving political independence
from other clans.
The original homeland of Proto-Peba-Yagua was probably a small area in
the immediacies of the border of Brazil, Colombia and Peru along the middle
course of the Amazon, on the north (or left) margin. Unfortunately, there is so
little archaeological and historic-cultural evidence at hand that this suggestion is
rather inconclusive and needs to be studied further. The Peba-Yagua have
occupied the same territory for at least the last five hundred years: this area lies
approximately between 2? to 4? South latitude and 74? to 70? West longitude,
from near the Mazan River to the border with Peru and Colombia in the west-
east direction and from the Putumayo River to some tributaries of the Amazon
like the Mayoruna or Cochiquina Rivers in the direction north-south. This
13
territory has slightly narrowed with the disappearance of the Peba and Yameo.
According to Yagua myths of origin, migrations happened from east to west
following the main course of the Amazon River until they settled in the area
described above. As stated by Chaumeil (1987:23), the oral tradition of the
Yagua tells of successive migrations westwards from an unspecified 'land of
origin' in the forest: "los Yagua emigraron en oleadas sucesivas de aruwawa, del
Este, mas exactamente de mekandi mbahacera "cabecera de la tierra", que
para los Yagua, se situa mas alIa de la desembocadura del rio Amazonas"? (bolds
in the original). In waves of migration, the Peba-Yagua would have settled in
their current territory, along the affluents of the Amazon River with the Yagua
in the eastern-most part of that territory, the Peba in the middle and the Yameo
to the west. The Yameo, who established themselves more towards the Upper
Amazon (near the Marafion River), seem to have arrived at the areas contiguous
to the Tigre and Ucayali rivers after wars and skirmishes forced them to move
7 "The Yagua migrated in successive waves of aruwawa, from the East, more exactly from
mekandi mbahacera 'the headwaters of the earth', which for the Yagua is located beyond the
mouth of the Amazon".
14
towards the west. With regards to this, an interesting note has been left by the
Jesuit priest Pablo Maroni: "El primero [pueblo] a que llegamos fue el de los
Amaonos, que son Yameos del rio Nanay, de donde por las invasiones de los
Masshamaes, se retiraron al ItayayS"9(p. Maroni 1889: 553). This and the
pressure of other tribes, like the Tukanoan and Zaparoan from the north, would
have separated the Yameo from their Peba and Yagua counterparts. When the
Jesuits arrived in the Amazonian region (which they called Maynas Province),
they still found groups of Yameo populating the Tigre River borders:
Por fin, ya cerca del Marafi.on, viven unos Yameos que se estan
recien poblando en un rio que llaman Nauapo... Desde la boca de
este rio hasta las juntas de Napo se extiende la nacion poco antes
memorada de los Yameos. Su principal reduccion es hoy la de San
Francisco de Regis, fundada como a cuarenta leguas mas abajo del
8 The Itayay is a small river to the west of the Mazan River, where the Masamae ('Masshamaes'),
an important Yameo group, lived.
9 "The first town that we reached was that of the Amaonos, that are Yameos of the Nanay River,
from where because of the invasion by the Masamaes they went to the Itayay".
15
Tigre en la ribera del Maraiion. lO (P. Maroni 1889: 47)
In general, all Peba-Yagua groups lived in the hinterlands of the Amazon,
as the banks were primarily settled by the Omagua, of Tupian origin. Whether
they had to retreat to the forests as the Omagua (who came also from the east)
expanded their territory is an unresolved question. In every old account of first
explorations and missionary texts, however, the Omagua are portrayed as
excellent sailors and as having a sophisticated fluvial culture, unlike the Peba-
Yagua, who were hunter-gatherers of the forests. Among the Yagua, hunting,
warring and gathering are more important activities whereas fishing or trading
are secondary (Chaumeil 1981: 32-33). Similar descriptions of the Peba and
Yameo appear in different texts. Only after the Omagua, as a culture, gradually
declined, almost vanishing from the banks of the Amazon River, would the
Yagua come closer to the banks and establish themselves in towns and villages
on the shores.
10 "At last, near the Marafion River live [a group called] the Yameos that are recently populating
an area near a river called Nahuapo... From this river to the Napo [River] one finds the 'nation'
not long ago remembered of the Yameo. Its main 'reduction' (town) is today San Francisco de
Regis, founded around 120 miles down the River Tigre on the Marafion shores".
16
The idea of a migration from east to west staying mainly in the northern
hinterlands of the Amazon course is further supported by the fact that the Yagua
are not really familiar with the upper Amazon basin or the Andean mountains;
neither are they familiar with the northern-most territories with the exception of
the Putumayo River (Chaumeil 1987: 23). In the case of the Yameo, there are
testimonies that depict how they were populating the Upper Amazon and the
Marafion when the Jesuits arrived. The Peba-Yagua would have stayed in the
area right next to the north of the Amazon River Cleft side), with settlements on
the right side as well but without venturing too far south. One reason to believe
this is that the "only" historical memory that the Yagua have of a great
intertribal war is that against the Mayoruna, who lived to the south, by the end
of the 19th century (Fejos 1943). This war (which is an attested historical fact)
was due to the movements of Yagua people outside their territory, far too south
into Mayoruna's territory because of the pressure they received from rubber
patrons. The main affluents where the Yameo and Pebas were located (Mazan,
Nanay, Chichita and Ampiyacu rivers) were also on the left side of the Amazon.
17
Thus, although they would move south, the Peba-Yagua were always close to the
great river, staying mainly in the northern hinterland areas in small social units,
occasionally moving southwards but always close to the Amazon. In summary,
though myths of origin and legends are not to be confused with historical facts,
there are bits of information in these legends and myths that, when analyzed,
can support the idea portrayed by them about the possible geographic origin of
these peoples.
According to Fejos (1943: 18) and Chaumeil (1981: 16), the first
European contact with an identifiable Peba-Yagua group was without doubt
recorded during conquistador Francisco de Orellana's very first trip into the heart
of the Amazon River from the Ecuador-Peruvian mountains. He and his
companions passed through Yagua territory, navigating down the Napo and
Curaray rivers into the Amazon, coming into contact with groups located in the
area. Accounts of the first trips to the Amazon, such as that of Orellana by
Carvajal (1942 [1540-15427]) or that of Lope de Aguirre by Pedrarias de
Almesto (1986 [1561?]) describe an important cacique by the name of Aparia,
18
after whom the province is named. They also mention the indigenous group
Irimaraes, ruled by one cacique Aparia, who came to meet the Spanish in the
place they called Aparia the Great. It turns out Aparia is the Yagua word for 'red
macaw clan'. Mejia (1894) and Jimenez de la Espada (cited by Mejia) confused
the 'Irimaraes' with the Omagua, of Tupian origin; confusion that still happens
nowadays (see, for example, Meggers and Evans 1981, Barletti Pascuale 1992,
dos Santos 2006, among others). Partly, this confusion is due to the fact that the
Peba-Yaguan history is obscure and they are scantly attested in the different
sources; besides, sometimes they are not properly identified as a separate group
when they are mentioned. The Omagua, on the other hand, had an active
presence in the area and are mentioned constantly in different documents as
they were excellent sailors who lived on the Amazon and made deals with --or,
alternately, fought- the Spaniards. But in the 16th century expeditions like the
ones headed by Orellana or Ursua undoubtedly had contact with a group of
Yagua people; actually, the Yagua were one of the most helpful groups in their
adventure. According to Gaspar de Carvajal, chronicler of Orellana, the first non-
19
native European person who learnt Yagua would have been none other than
Orellana himself: in different parts the chronicle tells how he could
communicate with people of Aparia in their language. Though unlikely, this
would not be surprising given that Orellana stayed around two and an half
months with the chieftain Aparia in the 'city' that they called 'Aparia the Great' -
certainly, Orellana might as well have been using some Quechua words that he
had learnt before and the level of 'real' communication was likely poor and full
of misunderstandings by both parties. The legal documents written by Orellana
and members of his army like scribe F. de Isasaga also tell how then they
'peacefully' took over several towns: "y tomo en nombre de Su Majestad, por el
senor gobernador Gonzalo Pizarro, posesion de este pueblo de Aparia y de
lrimara, la cual dicha posesion tomo sin contradiccion alguna"n (Mejia, ed.
1894: 97). They also mention a list of caciques, or tribal leaders, that were
subjugated by Orellana on behalf of the king of Spain 'on their own will' while
they were near the place where the current town of Pebas would be founded by
11 "And he took possession of this town of Aparia and of Irimara on behalf of his Majesty, and the
Governor Gonzalo Pizarro, without any resistance".
20
the Spanish missionaries in the next century:
en nueve dias del mes de Enero, afio de mill e quinietos e cuarenta
y dos, el sefior Teniente pidi6 a mi el dicho Francisco de Isasaga,
escribano, Ie de fee y verdadero testimonio de como toma posesi6n
en once caciques que han venido de paz agora nuevamente, sin
otros que tengo tornados, los cuales son: Hirimara, Paraita, Dimara,
Aguare, Piriata, Ayniana, Hurumara, Aparia, Macuyana, Guaricota,
Mapiare ...12 (Mejia, ed. 1894: 102)
As we saw, the name Aparia (modern Yagua apwirja or hcipwiidci)13 refers to
the Yagua word for 'red macaw clan'. Dimara is the word for 'shaman' and could
be referring to a Yagua or Peba chifetain (modern [imjara in Yagua, dimasa in
Peba as attested by Erben (1948)), and it is probably related to Hirimara. This
12 "On the ninth of January of 1542, the Lieutenant asked me, Francisco de Isasaga, scribe, to
bear witness of how he took possession of eleven caciques that have come in peace again,
besides those [whose names] that I have already taken, and who are: Hirimara, Paraita, Dimara,
Aguare, Piriata, Ayniana, Hurumara, Aparia, Macuyana, Guaricota, Mapiare... ".
13 In this thesis, I will use IPA symbols to transcribe sounds. h is a pharyngeal approximant. High
tone in Yagua is marked by an ' as in a. In later chapters, especially for Yameo, an accent means
that the vowel is stressed but it does not necessarily indicates tone since tone is not represented
in the Peba or Yameo sources used for this thesis.
21
seems to be the source of the castellanized name of 'Irimaraes' that the
Spaniards used and that Mejia and Ximenez de la Espada confused for a group of
Omaguas. Other names mentioned seem Yagua in their form, but their meanings
are unclear (for example, Hurumara and Apiria, which appear in another
document, look like variations (perhaps dialectal, perhaps they are variations of
local names as heard by the untrained Spanish ear) of Dimara and Aparia,
respectively).
From that first encounter on, the history of the Peba-Yagua would be
related to the work of missionary religious groups. From around the 1690's the
Jesuits attempted repeatedly to establish mission towns in the area under the
rule of the Spanish Crown and the protection of the Pope. With the arrival of
missionary people (Jesuits -until their expulsion in the 18th century- and,
later, Franciscans), different cultural groups were moved to live in these towns
and be catechized. From the end of the 17th century to the 18th century these
towns would be founded throughout the Amazon basin and would face different
problems (from violent revolts to plagues and Portuguese raids), some would be
22
destroyed and re-built, some others abandoned, and still a few survived. The
Jesuit Samuel Fritz established the first mission of San Joaquin de Omaguas on
an island in the Amazon in 1686 and then moved said mission to Peba territory
in 1693. In San Joaquin, Fritz first contacted the Pebas, and then he tried to do
the same with the Yagua who lived more to the northeast. Probably the most
significant town founded by the Jesuits was Nuestra Senora de Pebas, near the
mouth of the Ampiyacu river. There, they 'reduced' (Le., moved) the different
Peba and Yagua groups, as well as people from other ethnic origin like the
Ticuna or Omagua.
As for the Yameo, they were brought to different mission towns as they
were separated geographically from the Pebas and Yaguas by the Napo River
and by Tukanoan groups that lived along its shores. The first missions for Yameo
people were established between 1691 and 1700 around the Yarapa lake, near
the Ucayali River. Probably the most important Yameo mission town was San
Francisco de Regis, that continues to exist until today. With the years, more
mission towns would be formed, but many of them existed only temporarily as
23
most would be abandoned either because of epidemics or war (many missions
were also attacked by the native people).
Although there were different mission towns for different groups, it was
not uncommon to have more than one ethnic group in one place, and for around
one century the Peba, Yagua and Yameo lived alternately in towns with people
of different ethnic/cultural origin like the Cocama (Tupian?), Omagua (Tupian),
Iquito (Zaparoan), Mayoruna (Panoan), Payaguas (Tucanoan) or Ticuna
(isolate). Sometimes inter-ethnic marriages happened, but the groups where
otherwise well-differentiated and there is not any evidence of major linguistic
mixing or pidginization processes coming out of the towns, in large part due to
their inconstant nature.
In general terms, these mission towns, to where the indigenous
populations were 'reduced' to live, failed in their purpose of gaining souls and
establishing flourishing, 'civilized' places. In fact, not all of the native people
were taken to the mission towns. There are constant references to people who
were still in el monte -the forest- and who were reluctant to abandon their
24
places. The missionaries would either come -sometimes even forming small
armed bands for these excursions- or sent people to preach among them,
bartering 'valuable' objects (like machetes, tools or food) to attract them to their
towns.
The history of the people who did not come to the towns is unknown. At
the time of Orellana, it seems that some clans of the Yagua or Peba had certain
preeminence in the area but, if any, this was only temporary -the Yagua were
subsequently dominated by the Omagua (Chaumeil 1987: 24), the largest group
that ruled in an extended area along the Amazon River banks in territory that
today belongs to Peru and Brazil. Actually, it is possible that the Omagua
already had dominated Peba-Yaguan groups long before the Europeans came.
On the other hand, as we saw before, according to Fejos (1943: 24), it is
interesting that there is no recollection of great wars amongst the Yagua and
other groups, with the exception of that against the Mayoruna (Matses), a
Panoan group who live to the south of the Yagua, near the Yavari River,
probably due to the movement of these groups because of the rubber boom
25
which enabled a system of virtual slavery from which local groups tried to
escape if they could, clashing while moving throughout the forest. 14 However,
small wars and fights with the Cocama, Omagua, Ticuna, Witoto or among the
Peba-Yagua themselves are often described by missionary texts. In sum, the
Peba-Yagua must have been in constant uncertainty because of these wars, not
to mention the Spanish and Portuguese raids, and the plagues they had to face
after the contact with Europeans.
Following the expulsion of the Jesuits from America in 1768, the missions
were abandoned, only to be re-taken by the Franciscans in the middle of the
next century. The Franciscan missionaries in tum had to abandon the missions
in the 1860's, after which the Peba-Yaguan territory was open to settlement of
different kinds. During the 19th and 20th centuries, during Republican times in
Peru, the Peba-Yaguan groups were decimated by epidemics and virtual slavery
as they were taken for labor by different patrones -'bosses'- to work either in
14 A good source of infonnation about the rubber boom and the relationship between the rubber
barons and the Yagua -with all the negative consequences to the Yagua society that continue to
be replicated under other fonns today- is Chaumeil (1984).
26
plantations, or mineral and rubber extraction. Fights against the caucheros (as
the rubber extractors were known) was not uncommon, and many natives would
go away to hide in the forest. During this time, though it is uncertain exactly
when, both the Pebas and the Yameos vanished without major notice. According
to Powlison (1956:1, cited by Chaumeil, 1987: 23), the Peba perished after
successive wars against other native groups. Chaumeil adds that another reason
for the extinction of these groups was the different illnesses brought by the
Europeans. It is not unlikely that while the population of Peban people
diminished, a few survived by mixing through intermarriage with the Yagua or
their neighbors the Tikuna (Steward and Metraux 1948: 728), making their
identification almost impossible. For all we know, since the last decades of the
19th century, the Peba disappeared slowly from the literature and only the
Yagua are referred to, with few exceptions like Erben (1948) who mentions the
Peba -probably the last few distinguishable individuals who were still living
around the town of Pebas. On the other hand, in 1925, according to Tessman
(1930), there were around 50 speakers of Yameo in San Regis. By the 1950's
27
Espinoza (1955) found only a few Yameo-speaking people, stating that the
Yameo language was on its road to total extinction. Thus, to the present day
only the Yagua have survived and some 4,000 continue to speak the language. 15
1.3 The Peba-Yaguan Groups: Names and Location
There are many names associated with the Peba-Yagua, but we can say
that there were three major groups in the family: the Peba, the Yagua and the
Yameo.
As we saw in the previous sections, the known Yameo history is relatively
independent from that of the Peba and Yagua. The Yameo, in general, were not
located in the same mission villages. The territory of the Yameo was separated
from the territory of Pebas and Yaguas by the lower Napo River course. Cutting
across that territory to the north were the culture of the Payaguas (also known
as Orejon or Coto), a Tukanoan group, and further south to the right of the same
river were the Iquito, a Zaparoan group.
15 Two good sources about the modern situation of the Yagua and the migrations they have
carried out are provided by Chaumeil (1984 and 1987).
28
On the other hand, the Peba and Yagua were grouped in the same
missions, though they are differentiated in the texts. The different Peban and
Yaguan groups are often described as having essentially the same language -no
problems of communication between them are ever mentioned- and warring
culture, though their behaviors and attitudes were different to the eye of the
European. The franciscan Manuel Uriarte, who was? in Maynas in the 18th
century, described these groups:
Hace como una C el pueblo, en gran altura (por 10 que no tiene
mosquitos), yes mas fresco. Los pebas son despiertos y robustos,
aun algo toscos; los caumares, bien ladinos, y el brazo del
Misionero, para todo (estaban desterrados los matadores y
complices del P. Casado); los cauachis, mas broncos, que ni lloran
sus muertos ni entienden de polida; mas son constantes y
trabajadores de chagras. Los yauas, muy inconstantes, van y vienen
y tienen sus peleas en el monte, en que se matan familias enteras;
andan desnudos, con solo un como rabo de zorra en 10 mas preciso;
29
Y as! los cauachis; algunos usan camisetas de llanchama (corteza de
arbol) ...16 (Uriarte 1986: 240)
1.3.1 The Yagua
The Yagua language is currently spoken in the territory around the lower
Napo, Nahua and Nauta Rivers, tributaries of the Amazon. It is also spoken in
affluents of the Putumayo River such as the Yaguas, named after the population
of Yagua that used to lived there. Their territory was confined historically to the
upper Huerari (known today as the Ampiyacu River) and the Yaguas River, not
far east from the town of Pebas. Their geographic habitat would be around 3,25?
South latitude and 73? West longitude approximately. The Yaguas lived to the
north of the Amazon in the immediacies of the lower Apayacu, the Ampiyacu
16 "The town has the form of a 'C', [it is located] at good height (so it does not have mosquitoes)
and is fresher. The Pebas are lively and robust though a bit rustic; the Caumares are ladinos [ie.
they are good interpreters] and they are the support of the Missionary for everything (the
murderers of Father Casado and their accomplices had been exiled); the Cahuachi [are] so tough
that they do not even cry for they dead nor do they understand policy, but they are constant and
hard-working in their farms. The Yaguas, very inconstant, come and go and they have their
fights in the forest, in which entire families are killed, they go about bare just with a loincloth;
and so the Cahuachi; some also wear llanchama shirts ([made of the] bark of the llanchama
tree)".
30
and the Yaguasyacu rivers, and also in the Atacuari and Yaguas rivers. To the
south of the Amazon they could be located along the Yanashi, Oroza and
Cochiquinas ravines. The old system of clans and clan names that was probably
shared with the Yameo and Peba still exists in Yagua.
The Yagua are dispersed in many village communities nowadays.
Chaumeil states that the Yagua live in "dispersed habitat consisting of about
sixty local groups whose numerical importance varies from 10 to 180
individuals" (1984: 4). Probably the most notable town where the Yagua lived
was Pebas (which is where the Peba group also lived), which was the last
important mission town in the Province of Maynas in the by then Spanish
territory during the 18th century (after Pebas, continuing down the River
Amazon, one would reach the Portuguese colonial territories of Brasil). Pebas
still exists today. Throughout the 18th, 19th and the first decades of the 20th
century, several explorers visited this town and others where the Yagua lived,
leaving varying descriptions: some would stress their 'naivete' and 'uncivilized
modals' (for example, Condamine 1993 [1743]), while others talk about their
31
intelligence and aptitude for labor or expertise as craft workers (Woodroffe
1875, Marcoy 1875, to cite some names). In all accounts, the Yagua are very
well distinguished from other ethnic groups. Woodroffe, for example, says that
"They speak their their own language quite distinct from other Indian tongues,
and though not in the habit of using any other than their distinctive dress, are
semicivilized" (1914: 37-38). Similar descriptions are provided by Marcoy
(1875) and Orton (1870).
The name 'Yagua' is of uncertain origin. The Yagua call themselves
nihjiimwaj or nihamwo, 'people'. It is likely that the population of the Yagua
diminished profoundly after the arrival of the Europeans conquerors. The
numerous diseases and epidemics had to have affected them greatly. For
example, the spread of measles in 1932 caused the death of around one third of
the population (Fejos 1943: 16, footnote 2). In 1930, according to Tessmann
(1930: 459), there were around 1,500 individuals; by the 1950's Espinoza gives
the same number -probably they were recovering from the measles epidemics.
Today their number reaches some 4,000 people spread in northeastern Peru, and
32
into Colombia and Brazil.
1.3.2 The Peba
We know that in the 17th, 18thand 19th centuries, according to
missionary documents, the Peba lived near the source of the Shishita River (in
the upper basin), an affluent of the Amazon between the Napo and the lea
Rivers (Latitude 3?30' S., Longitude 72? W., approximately). The town of Pebas,
where now Yagua people are located, was undoubtedly named after them. This
has led to some confusion: For example, Fejos refers to the 'mistake' made by
other people that distinguish the Peba from the Yagua stating that there is in
fact only one group:
Some nineteenth century writers and travelers, notably Sir
Clemens Markham and Paul Marcoy, erroneously speak of Yagua
or Yahua and Pehua or Peba, as if they were different tribes,
although they describe them as living in approximately the same
area. This error is most likely due to the practice of naming Indian
33
tribes after the locality in which they happen to be encountered;
during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for instance, Pebas
was the trading center of the region inhabited by the Yagua, hence
the latter were called the Indians of Pebas and later simply the
Peba or Peva. (1943: 15)
Nevertheless, the tradition of dividing Peba from Yagua comes from
colonial era, not from modem-age explorers. They are always distinguished as
different albeit related groups, Peba being the ones first contacted by Father
Fritz when he began the mission in their territory. The Yagua were talked about
as related to the Peba, but it seems that they were not 'mixed' groups. In fact,
some of the Yagua missions of the 17th and 18th centuries were to the north of
Pebas, in the district of San Ignacio de Yaguas (Wilkens de Mattos 1984 [1874]).
Thus, Pebas and Yaguas were separate groups with a related modern history, not
only with some geographical overlapping but also with ties because of some
mission towns where they lived together.
.Whether we regard Peba and Yagua as dialects or two different languages
34
is relative: it is rather a matter of the point of view we choose. In this work, I
will assume the tradition of three different branches (Peba, Yameo, Yagua). I
think that there is some comparative basis to do this, and it will help present the
data in a clear manner. If, in the outcome, undeniable facts can safely be shown
such as to state unequivocally that Peba and Yagua were indeed one and the
same language, then those facts and their consequences for classification will be
pointed out in the conclusions. In the meantime, I will continue to consider them
as two different linguistic varieties.
Groups regarded as Peba included the Cahuachi, the Caumari and the
Pacaya. Castelnau confirms the linguistic unity of these groups and distinguishes
them from the Yagua:
Le village de Pebas est construit sur un terrain tres inegal, et se
compose d'une trentaine de maisons... Qui appartiennent aux
nations des Yaguas et des Pebas: ces demiers, aujourd'hui tous
convertis, se repartissent entre les deux tribus des Caumaris et des
Cauwachis. Nous y vlmes aussi les Pecayas [sic], qui parlent la
35
meme langue que les precedents. 17 (1851: 9)
Both Peba and Yagua populated a continuous territory that extended from
the Ampiyacu to the margins of the Putumayo near the border with Colombia.
This territory was not exclusive to the Peba and Yagua though, as they had to
share the Amazon banks with the Omaguas. Further South, to the right of the
Amazon there were the Mayoruna 0 Matses, a Panoan group; while to the North
their neighbours were Witotoan groups such as the Bora, Witoto, Ocaina and
Muinane and the now extinct Resigaro. To the East, there were the Ticuna, a
small group considered an isolate; and to the West towards the Napo River there
were the Payagua, as well known as Coto or Orejon, a Tucanoal). group.
1.3.3 The Yameo
The Yameo were numerous at the time of the first missions. The towns
where they were re~grouped by the Jesuits flourished with relative success.
17 "The village of Pebas is built above an irregular terrain, there are around thirty houses...
which belong to the 'nations' of the Yaguas and the Pebas: the latter, nowadays all converted [to
Christianity], are divided between the Caumari and the Cahuachi. We also saw the Pacayas
there, who speak the same language than the preceding [Le., the same language as the Caumari
and CahuachiJ".
36
Tessmann (1930) says that the name yameo is how they called themselves, but
Espinoza (1955) points out that this word was not in used anymore when he
visited San Francisco de Regis and they preferred the denomination of san
reginos instead, though there were people who remembered the term yameo. He
hypothesizes that yameo could come from fiiame-u 'dog arm', which in
Cocama -neighbours from whom the Spanish would have borrowed the term-
would be pronounced [A:amju], and refers to a possible totemic cult as the origin
of this denomination. Espinoza (1955: 259) further states that the motivation
could be "la fonetica predominante de los Yameos"18 which would includes the
trill sound [r] and its relaxed variations which are pronounced as though they
were 'the sounds of an angered dog'. There is a 'clan of the jaguar' verifiable in
Yagua CnFbjifhrJrirja)19, so one could think that there was probably one for the
Yameo. However, the semantics of 'dog-arm' do not make much sense, and the
18 "The predominant phonetics of the Yameos".
19 Yagua ni"'bjii and Yameo niame, 'tiger' (or 'dog') are cognates. Notice that by 'tiger' the old
texts meant 'jaguar' -there are no tigers in the Amazon.
37
gratuitous, expressionistic link between the term and phonetics of Yam~o (the
trill sound) make this idea seem like an example of a folk etymology: there is no
objective reason to think Espinoza was right. Thus we must conclude that the
origin of the term yarneo is simply unknown and not necessarily of native origin.
As in the other cases, many of the names under which Yameo groups
appeared are taken from the names of their curacas (chieftains) or places they
inhabited (perhaps the word yameo has this origin as well). Maroni, in a letter
published in his Noticias Autenticas, provides an example of this naming
tradition: "He comunicado hasta ahora con veintid6s Curacas 0 Principales, de
quienes toman su nombre las parcialidades. Las mas numerosas son: Pativas,
Zamuas, Parano [usually appears as Parranos], Necaonos, Muenos,2? Baulines,21
Molouceos,22 Nicahalaes, Miguianos, Mohalas, Amaonos y Masshamaes,,23 (1889:
20 The denomination is based on the name of the curaca Mueno.
21 Mter the name of the curaca Baulfn.
22 Mter a curaca by the name of Molonceo or Moluce.
23 "I have communicated with twenty two chieftains so far, from whom the groups take their
names. The more numerous are: Pativas, Zamuas, Parano, Necaonos, Muenos, Baulines,
Moluceos, Nicahales, Miguianos, Mohalas, Amaonos and Masamaes".
38
515). More Yameo "group" names include: Nahuapos (from the River Nahuapo
or Navap624), Napeanos,25 Alabonos, Maynos,26 Taracurus, and Yarapas.
The Yameo occupied a territory between the lower portions of the Tigre
(around its confluence with the Maraiion) and Napo rivers (latitude 4? S.,
longitude 74? W.). They lived in the forests and ravines surrounding their main
smaller rivers, the Curaray, Mazan, Nahuapo, Nanay and Itayay. They were
surrounded by several different groups: to the west, there were the Itucales (of
the Urarina family); to the north, the Semigae, Zaparo and Iquito (all of them
Zaparoan groups); to the east, the Payagua (Tucanoan) to the west of the Napo
River, the Mayoruna or Matses (Panoan) to the south of the Amazon, and
eventually some Peban groups like the Caumari; finally, to the south, and along
the banks of the Amazon and Ucayali rivers, the Omaguas and Cocamas
24 The etimology of this term is probably from Yameo nawa or na1]wa 'water' and papa 'earth,
clay'.
25 Probably the name is based on the name of the curaca Nape.
26 After the name of the curaca Mayno.
39
(Tupian). All these different groups are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Map of Indigenous Groups of the Northern Peruvian Amazon
(reproduced from Espinoza 1955)
CHAPTER II
THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PEBA-YAGUAN LANGUAGE FAMILY: THE
SITUATION THUS FAR
2.1 Introduction
The intemallinguistic classification of Peba-Yagua is especially difficult
because of the lack of knowledge of the languages that used to be constitutive
parts of this family. Little is known about Peba or Yameo, much less about any
other members of the family, besides Yagua. The first studies attempting to
classify the Peba-Yaguan languages date back to the 19th century. To my
knowledge, there has not been any single work dedicated exclusively to the
classification of the Peba-Yaguan family with the exception of Rivet (1911).27
The rest of the studies are parts of broader classificatory efforts, or rather
27 There is a small note by Powlison (1971) that I have been unable to read. Judging by the
number of pages (only two), it is unlikely that it is a defining study.
40
41
cataloguing efforts, often times concerning areal groupings based on small word
lists with the aim to simply establish relationships. These posited relationships
have relied on 'scanning' the similarities in vocabulary items (and, not
uncommonly, they confuse or mix different languages in doing so), but without
really comparing the information at hand; sometimes authors have not even
provided data. Other times, the classification criteria are historical or
anthropological but without any linguistic basis; for example, such is the case of
Steward and Metraux's "The Peban Tribes" (1948). Though they may be
interesting for other reasons, examples like Steward and Metraux's work cannot
be taken into account for the purposes of this thesis.
In this chapter, I shall give a fairly general view of the history of Peba-
Yagua classification. It will cover a history that is essentially short in number of
works. However, it is important to review the research situation so far. We will
notice that, overall, one of the characteristic of the works that have attempted to
assign these languages to a certain linguistic family is the primacy of different
classifying criteria (anthropological, geographical, historical) and the failure to
42
based their analysis on comparative linguistic data which would serve better to
identify historical linguistic relations. The major drawbacks in the study of the
Peba-Yaguan family, thus far, are the lack of comparative data (and their
analysis) and the common assumption that Peba, Yagua and Yameo, regarded as
languages or linguistic entities, are related either by geographic, ethnographic,
historic or cultural bounds but without really exploring the languages
themselves. In part, this situation is due to the little amount of linguistic
information available; therefore studies often rely on information provided by
missionary texts that make reference to an assumed linguistic unity of these
peoples. As reliable as the information in these texts may be, there is still the
issue of not having actual comparative studies to support the claim of the Peba-
Yagua linguistic unity. In that regard, Rivet (1911) is the most valuable work. It
was pointed in the right direction (at least 'instinctively'), even though it did not
attempt a reconstruction of the proto-language, or make a real comparative
analysis based on clear sets of correspondences.
43
2.2 First Classifications
Probably the first notice on the classification of the Peba-Yaguan family
was made by Lorenzo Hervas y Panduro. A Jesuit father, Hervas was also a
philologist and his famous work Catcilogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas
(1800) likely contained the best information available in his time about
languages of the world, though it still lacked a lot of information and is
confusing because of the mix of language names and their often arbitrary sub-
grouping. Like other scholastic people of his time, Hervas tried to study the
origin and anthropological connections of different nations or ethnic groups by
studying the languages spoken by those ethnicities. Though a clear precursor of
modem studies, his work is not 'linguistic' or 'philological' in the sense we
understand these words today, but his purpose was to search for the 'distinctive
character' of a nation in the language that their people spoke.
When he talks about the languages of the Province of Maraiion, Hervas
refers to the missions and their 'chaotic' mosaic of languages and nations. The
data that appears in Hervas was received from several communications with
44
other Jesuits who were in the area. Hervas proposed sixteen different 'matrix'
languages with their respective 'dialects'. The Yameo language is 'matrix'
language number fifteen in this catalogue of languages, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. The Yameo language matrix (Hervas 1800: 263)
Matrix Language Dialects
( ... ) Amaono
XV. Yamea Nahuapo
Napeano
Masamae
According to Hervas, the sixteen matrix languages that he proposes have
little in common among them. Notice that Hervas does not list the Peba or the
Yagua either as Matrixes or as dialects (nor does he list any of the other names
by which they were known). Interestingly, however, apart from his sixteen
Matrix languages, Hervas lists three other groups of different languages, labelled
(1) "Languages notably diverse, which the missionaries consulted have not been
45
able to find any affinity [to any of the other languages listed before]", (2)
"Languages that are known to have disappeared" and (3) "Unknown languages".
In each of these three lists of languages, we find names that have been linked to
the Peba or the Yagua.
In his subsection 82, "Languages notably diverse, which the missionaries
consulted have not been able to find any affinity [to any of the other languages
listed before]", Hervas lists -among others- the names Alabona, Cahuaci and
Cahumari. The Alabono are always identified as another Yameo name (or group)
in different colonial sources, while the Cahuachi and Caumari are also identified
as partialities or sub-groups of the Peba.
In his subsection 83, "Languages that are known to have disappeared",
Hervas lists one language Yapua, which is probably an orthographic variation
(or more likely a typographic error) of the name 'Yagua'.
In his subsection 84, "Unknown languages", Hervas lists also some
familiar names: Mighiana and Pativa. Mighiana and Pativa refer to the Yameo
subgroups known as Migueanos and Pativas, respectively, both of whom were
46
mentioned in the first chapter.
Although they are not mentioned in the catalogued languages, in his
subsection 85 Hervas says "las lenguas peva y ticuna se hablan aun, y tienen
afinidad"28 (1800: 265). We have seen that Ticuna is an isolate and there is no
evidence that supports any link with Yagua or Peba. Hervas was probably
referring to the fact that the Ticuna, the Peba and the Yagua, besides being
neighbours, lived in more or less the same situation and missions. Thus the
information provided about them as having some degree of communication or
relationship likely confused him. Hervas may have thought that there was some
kind of linguistic bond. Furthermore, Hervas considers Yagua to be a Tupi-
Guarani language, as he states that it is related to Omagua, which he considers
as a relative of the Guarani of Paraguay and Brazil:
con la lengua omagua tienen afinidad las lenguas jurimagua,
payagua, yagua y cocama (con sus dialectos llamados cocamillo y
huebo) la lengua yete (que se habla por una naci6n barbara
28 "The Peba and Ticuna languages are still spoken, and they have affinity".
47
establecida en las riberas del rio Napo en el pais de los
Encabellados), y quiza otras lenguas ...29 (1800: 269)
Hervas does not show evidence for his claims. He communicated with
people in Quito, not with the missionaries that were working directly with the
different groups. It is not surprising that despite his efforts he mixed languages
of different origin and confused some others. Also, the history of the peoples of
the Amazon River, as we have seen, is as confusing as the number of language
names one can find from text to text, hence the bewildering statements about
languages that are found in works like Hervas'. As we have seen in Chapter 1,
the Omagua were present on the Amazon River from Brazil to Peru, and the
Yagua had to 'share' the river banks with them. Again, there are different
references to the Omagua language as a sort of intercommunication code that
was spread in the area, along with Quechua language. The people who were
asked by Hervas about the linguistic situation in the Amazonian area may have
29 "The Yurimagua, Payagua, Yagua and Cocama (with its dialects Cocamillo and Huebo)
languages, the Yete language and maybe some others languages have all affinity with the
Omagua language".
48
referred to this circumstance (or, not being in the actual area but in cities like
Quito or Trujillo, far from the Amazon, they may have been as confused as
Hervas); and then Hervas may have surmised that the languages mentioned just
were related. Rather than referring to a linguistic unity, the situation described
above may be referring to a multilingual situation where Omagua was prevalent
as a vehicle of intercommunication among people of different languages. A
simple look at a vocabulary of Yagua, Omagua and Secoya (the "Encabellados"
in the paragraph cited), for example, will suffice to show that there is likely no
relationship whatsoever between them. So, despite the notable effort for his
time, Hervas made many errors mixing languages (not only Peba-Yagua) that
actually belong in different families.
It took almost 90 years until Brinton newly attempted classifying the
languages of the Amazon, citing Hervas' suggestions in his work. Brinton
criticizes Hervas' statements due to its "general inaccuracies" (1891: 278). With
regards to the Peba-Yaguan family, the American anthropologist proposes
instead two different stocks: the "Lama" and the "Peba" stocks. Both of them, he
49
says, are connected to the Javari River. His so-called "Lama stock,,30 is basically
composed of Yameo groups. Brinton classifies the following 'sub-tribes' in the
Lama stock (1891: 285):
Aguanos
Alabonos
Amoanos
Cahuaches
Massamaes
Miquianos
Nahuapos
Napeanos
Parrranos
Yarrapos
Notice that the term 'sub-tribes' used by Brinton tells again of a non-
linguistic criterion. In effect, the American author does not provide linguistic
evidence for the linguistic unity of these groups, which as we have seen, are not
necessarily to be understood as different or independent sub-tribes (with varying
30 The term Lama seems another example of the history of confusing information about this
region. Lama is actually the area around the town of the same name, where there were (and are)
Quechua speakers called the 'Lamisto' 0 'Lamas'. Lamas is relatively far from Yameo territory,
going south along the Mayo River valley, an affluent of the Huallaga. The Yameo territory was
bounded by the Ucayali River, to the east of the Huallaga. If there were ever Yameo people near
the Huallaga, it must have been because they were brought to the mission of Yurimaguas when
the Portuguese raids came too close to the the Missions of Omaguas. Yurimaguas was near the
confluence of the Huallaga and the Marafion rivers, but it was not the natural territory of the
Yameo.
50
habits or cultural patterns) but as different names for closely-related groups,
names taken from their leaders or territories where they lived. Brinton heavily
relies upon previous descriptions of the Yameo as he writes that it is "stated by
various writers to belong to"(285) the Lama stock. The criterion for linkage then
turns anthropological: "Poeppig describes them as agricultural and industrious ..
. They are small, dirty and Mongoloid" (286).
The other 'stock' proposed by Brinton is the Peba stock, in which he
classifies languages spoken "higher up in the Javary [River]" where "there are a
number of tribes speaking related dialects" though, he continues, "there are
some reasons to consider it a corrupt dialect of the Omagua, and hence related
to the Tupi" (286). In the Peba stock, as conceived by Brinton, the following are
listed:
Caumaris
Cauwachis
Pacayas
Pebas
One first note concerns the names Cauwachis and Cahuaches -this latter
previously appearing in the Lama stock- which are obviously referring to the
51
same Peban group (Le., they are just orthographic variations of the same name).
Secondly, Brinton is distinguishing the Pebas (from whom the Pebas mission
town received its name) from the other Peban groups (Caumaris, Cauwachis and
Pecayas) that I listed in the first chapter; this is understandable as Caumaris,
Cahuachis and Pacayas lived around, but are always given as 'parcialidades' (or
subgroups/tribes) of the larger Peban group. The idea of being a corrupt dialect
of the Omagua language is simply linguistically invalid; and, besides, they are
different languages. To the list above, Brinton adds the Yagua, "found in the
same vecinity" (286). In doing so, Brinton is the first to provide linguistic
evidence, presenting some words from the Peba and Yagua vocabularies
gathered by Castelnau (1851), and stating that the Yagua vocabulary "shows
unmistakable affinities to that of the Pebas". Some items of the Peba and Yagua
vocabulary that were compared by Brinton (287) are exemplified next by Table
2.
52
Table 2. Sample of Brinton's comparative material
Yahua [Yagua] Peba
Bow cano canou
Ear on-tisiu mi-tiwi
Hair rinoncay rainosay
Woman huata uatoa
Further in the text, Brinton also states that "The jargon of the Yaguas, on
the Amazon between Nauta and Pebas, seems to have borrowed from this stock
[the Araua stock]" and then gives as evidence just two words from the languages
Yagua and Pammary (Le. PaumarO. However, at least modem Yagua forms do
not quite match the forms given in Brinton31 (as we will see later). The words
given by Brinton are shown in Table 3.
31 Notice that Brinton's data surely comes from indirect sources and lacks analysis -it could not
be thourougly studied at that time because there simply was no information about Yagua.
53
Table 3. Brinton's evidence for postulating a Yagua-Pammary connection
Yagua Pammary
Sun ini saf-iny
Water haha paha
The Paumar! language belongs in the Arauan family spoken in Brazil on
the Purus River banks. A quick survey of vocabulary and grammar would show
that there is no relationship with the Yagua language (d. Loukotka 1968,
Chapman and Derbyshire 1983).
In general, it seems that Brinton failed to see the relationship between his
proposed Lama and Peba stocks. It is most probable that when Brinton was
sorting families, like the Lama, he was being guided by references and second-
hand information and not with actual data. At that point, in effect, there was no
data on Yameo (the Lama stock) except for some prayers published in Adelung
and Vater's Mithridates and in a couple of missionary texts which were not
available to the general public.
54
Brinton's classification, specifically regarding the grouping together of
Peba and Yagua, was subsequently disputed by Chamberlain (1910).
Chamberlain compared small Peba and Yagua lists provided by Castelnau (1851)
and Marcoy (1875), proposing that it was better to separate Peba and Yagua
provisionally, albeit he does not provide the reasons nor does he justify this
proposaL One year later, Chamberlain would be corrected by Rivet (1911) who
proposed the link between the Yagua, Peba and Yameo.
2.3 The Classification of Paul Rivet
In an article written in 1911, "La Famille Linguistique Peba", the
renowned French scholar Paul Rivet established the Peba language family,
grouping together for the first time (at least to my knowledge) all the known
Peban-Yaguan sub-groups, sorting names and clarifying statements about those
languages or dialects which were not members of the family.
Rivet corrects Brinton's separation of Lama and Peba, stating that they
should be combined together in only one family. Thus the French scholar
55
proposes the re-constitution of the Peba family with the following groups: Peba,
Yagua and Yameo.
Rivet groups the Cahuachi, Caumari and Pacayas within the Peba
language. He distinguishes then the Yagua and, finally, the Yameo which he
considers is formed by the Nahuapo, Amaono and Massamae as well as the
Migueano, the Parrano, the Yarrapo, the Alabono and the Napeano who lived on
the Nanay River. Further, Rivet sorts out some names that appeared in previous
classifications but which were not Peba-Yagua, specifying that Brinton's Lama
stock member called Aguano were probably Cahuapanas or Jeberos and not
related to Peba-Yagua at all.32 For Rivet, this new configuration gives the Peba-
Yagua a continuous geographical area, only interrupted by Tukanoan groups,
that was more or less described in Chapter One:
Ainsi compris, Ie group linguistique Peba occupe au nord de
32 The Aguano are considered unclassified. According to infonnation from the Ethnologue, they
may be related to the Chamicuro language, though this seems disputed (Gordon 2005). Crevels
(2007: 104) says that in 1959 they consisted of some forty familial groups, stating that, as a
group, the Aguano did not use their own language anymore (they had probably switched to
Quechua), and today they are likely extinct. According to CreveIs, the Aguano may have been of
Arawakan origin, though this is uncertain.
56
l'Amazone un territoire allonge dans Ie sens est-ouest, dont la
continuite n'est interrompue qu'au niveau de la rive orientale du
Bas-Napo, ou les Payaguas, peuplade du group Tukano ou Betoya,
s'interposent entre les Yameos et les Yaguas.33 (1911: 174)
Rivet's analysis is based on two main sets of data: for the Peba and Yagua,
he uses small lists of vocabularies gleaned from his readings of nineteenth
century explorers (Castelnau 1851, Marcoy 1875 and Orton 1870); for the
Yameo he uses prayers that appeared in Adelung and Vater (1813), Chantre y
Herrera (1901) and Gonzalez Suarez (1904).
Rivet's methodology for exploring possible relationships between Peba
and Yagua is making lexical comparisons. His calculations are basic as he does
not intend to reconstruct the protolanguage or establish sets of cognates for
reconstructions, but rather to see if the languages can be related to one another;
he points out similar items but without really stating what is the historical form
33 "Understood in that way, the Peba linguistic group occupies a territory to the north of the
Amazon River in the sense east-west, whose continuity is not interrupted but around the eastern
shores of the lower Napo, where the Payaguas, a Tukanoan or Betoyan group, are inserted
between the Yameos and the Yagua".
57
or rule that derives them. Rivet's procedure, using the available vocabularies
and texts, was thus to compare the languages to diagnose whether there is a
relationship or not based upon 'similarity' of forms. He finds, however, that
thirty four out of seventy words between Yagua and Peba correspond to the
same lexical roots (as we will see, a comparison of additional Yagua words from
more modem vocabularies with Rivet's Peba list will reveal that there are even
more coincidences between Peba and Yagua). An example of Rivet's comparison
follows here in Table 4.
Table 4. Sample of Rivet's cognate set
Yagua Peba
ara macao [scarlet Macaw] apa appa
bow kano kanu
arm sa-mutu vi-omote
dog, jaguar nimbu nemey
sand tisin, kinca tensa
58
Based on his findings, Rivet affirms the family relationship amongst
Yagua and Peba, adding that there are certain grammatical or morphological
similarities as well: "Dans l'une et l'autre langue, les substantifs se trouvent
precedes de prefixes qui indiquent vraisemblablement les diverses relations de la
possession"34 (177). The forms that Rivet calls attention to, in effect, are parts of
the Yagua pronominal system that are used to refer to the possessor in
possessive phrases, among other things, and that can be reconstructed for Proto-
Peba-Yagua as well. Forms like rai-huana 'husband', hiii-rana 'finger' (Yagua), vi-
omate 'arm' (Peba), cited by Rivet, can be more properly translated as 'my
husband', 'our finger', 'our arm', respectively.
The other morphological aspect noticed by Rivet is the use of certain
suffixes that are analogue in both languages, or used in the same slot, such as -s~
or -sey in Yagua hii-nisa-s~ 'eyebrow' and Peba nema-sey 'fruit', respectively.
Rivet spotted the similarity and believed that they were the same form in both
instances. He does not say what these suffixes are, however. He was wrong in
34 "In both languages, nouns are preceded by prefixes that indicate possessive relationships".
59
assuming that these were instances where we have the same forms, but his
instinct in assuming they could be representing another morphosyntactic
similarity was correct. For example, the French author considers the suffixes -say
and -sey as the same in Peba examples such as reno-say 'hair' and nema-sey 'fruit'.
Rather, they correspond to the Yagua classifiers -hasij for 'hair' and -sij for 'fruits,
grains, seeds and small rounded objects in general', respectively. Notice,
however, that these are both instances of classifiers, a category that Rivet was
not aware of per se.
For Yameo, Rivet uses data from ecclesiastic texts, giving a general
overview of what grammatical points he was able to discern from the rather
difficult-to-interpret documents. Rivet thus talks about gender, number,
declinations and other affixes. He also briefly touches on pronouns and lists a
few interrogative and verbal particles. Rivet's analysis, understandably, lacks the
sophistication of modern analysis. However, his brief description of Yameo sheds
light into an otherwise -at least in his time- unavailable language.
Rivet did not have any idea about Yagua grammar. However, he was able,
60
to see the affinities between the Yameo and Yagua pronominal system, though
he only lists these pronouns: "Au prefixe ra- <~e, mon? du Yameo correspond en
effet Ie prefixe rai- du Yagua, aux prefixe hoe-, he-, hi- ?tu, ton?, les prefixes hili-,
fi-, hil-, il-, u- (et son correspondant peba vi-), en fin au prefixe za- ?il, son?, Ie
prefixe sa_,,35 (1911: 183). As an example, he lists the following Yameo
conjugations in the 'present indicative', as he calls it, for the verb besia 'to live'.
Though Rivet did not have much information about the Yagua pronominal
system except what he could extract from a few nouns listed in the vocabularies
he read, his idea about the correspondence between the pronominal systems
proves correct overall. I have added the modem Yagua correspondences next to
the Yameo forms given by Rivet in Table 5:
Table 5. Comparison of Yagua data
Yameo (Rivet) Yagua
I live ra-besia raj-witJa [ra13jitJa]
You live hoe-besia hij-witJa [hi13itJa]
He lives za-besia sa-witJa [sa13itJa]
35 "To the prefix Yarneo ra- 'I,'me' corresponds the Yagua prefix rai-, to the prefix hoe-, he-, hi?
'you, your', the prefixes hiii-, fi-, hii-, ii-, u- (and the correspondant Peba vi-), and to the prefix za?
'he, his' [corresponds] the prefix sa-".
61
Based on these bits of information plus a short list of word items, Rivet
concludes that the Peba, Yagua and Yameo languages were indeed related:
cette important correlation, venant aFappui de resemblances
lexicologiques evidentes entre Ie Yameo, Ie Peba et Ie Yagua, me
semble suffisante pour justifier la reunion de ces trois langues dans
une seule famille linguistique.36 (183)
Though he did not explicitly say it, Rivet seems to suggest that Yagua and
Peba were most closely related, whereas Yameo would be in a different branch
of the family. He pointed out that the observed similarities between Yameo on
one hand, and Peba and Yagua on the other hand, were difficult to put together
because of the few words that Yameo had in common with Peba and Yagua.
In the final part of his 1911 article, Rivet compares the Peba, Yameo and
Yagua languages in question with whole families, like the Carib, Arawak,
36 "This important correlation supports the evident lexical resemblances between Yarneo, Peba
and Yagua, and it seems to me that they are enough to justify the grouping of these three
languages in one single linguistic family".
62
Zaparo, Tukano, Ticuna, Witoto and others. This is the least successful and most
impressionistic part of his work. In effect, Rivet concludes that
si, comme je Ie crois, les langues de la famille linguistique Peba ne
sont que des dialectes caribes fortement melanges d'elements
etrangers, leur corruption actuelle me semble facilement explicable
en admettant que les tribus qui les parlent sont installees depuis
fort longtemps dans la region et que par suite elles ont ete brassees
par les multiples migrations qui se sont produites Ie long de
l'Amazone.37 (187)
Rivet's comparisons with other languages/families are very basic in this
respect. As Rowe explains,
If, for example, he [Rivet] finds a new language, which he thinks
may be Arawak, he compares each word of its vocabulary with
37 "If, as I believe, the languages of the Peba linguistic family are but dialects of the Carib
languages strongly mixed with foreign elements, their current corruption seems easily
explainable admitting that the tribes that speak them have been for a long time in the region and
therefore they have intermingled [with other groups] because of the multiples migrations that
have occurred along the Amazon".
63
words of similar meaning in perhaps thirty languages that he has
already classified as 'Arawak'. If he finds any similar form in any of
the thirty languages, it is evidence of relationship, and the fact that
the total number of similarities to anyone 'Arawak' language may
be very small is lost in the comparative table. Rivet is looking for
similarities rather than systematic sound correspondences, and he
does no reconstructing. (1951: 15)
Rivet's idea about the relationship between the Cariban languages and the
Peba-Yaguan languages was adopted by several authors, among them Greenberg
(1960, 1987), who repeated the idea that Peba-Yagua was ultimately connected
to Cariban in a "Macro-Carib stock". However, recent work by Gildea and Payne
(2007) on this proposed affiliation shows that there is no support for the
hypothesis.
In sum, while Rivet's classification of the Peba-Yagua (or 'Peba' in his
terminology) family was, in general, correct, he did not analyze the structure of
64
words, do a reconstruction or propose systematic rules that derived one
language sound from another. In that respect, his work is still impressionistic as
he shows items that seem to have a resemblance but does not prove that such a
resemblance is really systematic or is a motivated true genetic relationship.
Despite its problems, Rivet's study was in the right direction and has been
accepted by all subsequent investigators in the small literature that exists on the
classification of the Peba-Yagua.
2.4 After Rivet
As just noted, other subsequent authors have adopted Rivet's
classification in their own studies about Amazonian languages. However, while
Rivet was basically correct in his analysis, some subsequent authors did not
review his methods for establishing his classification and took Rivet's Peba
family study as final without criticizing possible problems or adding further
proof.
For example, Schmidt (1926) classified the Peba-Yagua in a North-
65
Western Group, a sub-group of the putative "Northern Amazonian Cariban
Languages". He distinguishes two branches here: one is arbitrarily composed of
the Motilon, Chake, Opon-Carare, Amarizano and Camaniba languages; the
other is the Peban Languages. Figure 3 illustrates Schmidt's classification.
Figure 3. Schmidt's North-Western Cariban
Languages
Carib
Southern Amazon Languages
~
Nor-West Group
/~
Motilon, Chake, Op6n-Carare,
Amarizano, Camaniba
Peba Languages
/I~
Yarneo, Peoo, Yagua
Jijon y Caamafio (1943) assumed Rivet's Macro-Carib phylum and listed
Peba, Yagua and Yameo in his "group VI". Notice that the incorporation of the
Peba-Yagua into the Macro-Carib phylum is unsubstantiated because, as I said,
so far there is no conclusive evidence of its belonging into this stock (Gildea and
Payne 2007). Jjjon y Caamafio, based on Schmidt (1926), further divided the
66
groupings of Cariban languages based upon a geographic criterium, proposing
basically the same idea as Schmidt. In particular, Jijon y Caamaiio divides the
Macro-Carib Phylum in two: Northern Amazon languages and Southern Amazon
Languages. However, he further distinguishes the Northern Amazon Languages
into four:
a. The North-Eastern languages
b. The Northwestern languages
c. Languages of Cauca and Atrata (Choco group)
d. Peban languages: Yagua, Peba and Yameo
No evidence is provided for this subgrouping by Jijon y Caamaiio, who
refers to other people's vocabularies or texts, like those of the 19th century
explorers mentioned before. Other sources for Jijon y Caamaiio's classification
are texts by explorers and researchers with ethnological or anthropological data.
Years later, Rivet's disciple and former student Cestmir Loukotka would
provide his own classification in his book Classification of South American
Languages (1968), expanding on Rivet's ideas. Overall, the methodology and
67
information that he used was more comprehensive, yet his analyses are
sometimes not systematic and other times they are simply not justified.
Loukotka worked with all the vocabulary material that he could find. For
instance, Loukotka (1963) contains new information from very little known (at
his time) languages of the Amazon, including a few notes about Peba-Yagua.
Loukotka relied on mass comparisons and lexico-statistics for his classifications,
though again he does not always clarify the main reason why he classifies one or
another language in a certain family. He also used an expanded basic
vocabulary. Since he had access to more information than Rivet did, Loukotka
knew of Masamae texts that Rivet did not use, plus he also worked with a few
more Peban words from other sources (he cites, for instance, Erben's 1948 book
on Amazonian groups that he had "re-discovered', which contained a small list of
Peba words).
Loukotka (1968) classifies the Peba-Yagua (he calls it 'Yagua') as a stock
of the "North Central Division" of the "Tropical Forest Tribes". Notice thus that
he, as other authors, also mixes geographical, anthropological and linguistic
68
criteria to establish his classification. Besides he is not very coherent with his
own proposed ideas of using lexico-statistical and mass comparison as the
criteria for establishing relationships. In this book, Loukotka does not seem to
consider Yagua to belong in the Carib stock, or at least he does not mention the
idea at all. However, Loukotka and Rivet (1952) and Loukotka (1963) had
proposed that Peba-Yagua was a member of the Macro-Carib group. Loukotka
classifies his 'Yagua' stock with the following languages in it (1968:152-153):
a. Yagua or Mishara - spoken on the Nauta, Nahua and Napo Rivers,
department of Loreto, Peru.
b. Peba or Nijamvo - spoken in the village of Peba in the department of
Loreto.
c. Caumari or Cahumari - once spoken on the Guerari River, a tributary of
the Napo River, department of Loreto.
d. Yameo or Llameo or Camuchivo - spoken on the Nanay and Tigre
Rivers in the department of Loreto.
e. Masamae or Mazan or Parara - spoken in the departmen of Loreto on
69
the Mazan River.
Loukotka does not provide any data about Caumari as a stand-alone
member of the family, which is -at least- arbitrary. He provides a small list of
Yagua, Peba, Yameo and Masamae words, although this list is reduced to only
five items in the case of Masamae. Loukotka's classification, while partially
correct, cannot be supported by the evidence since there is no data on Caumari.
How he classifies it as a different language when all evidence from colonial texts
point out that it was the name of a tribe linguistically not distinct from Peba
remains a mystery. Besides, the name 'Nijamvo' attributed to the Peba and not
to the Yagua is not justified either, since modem Yagua has nihjamWaj or nihamwo
'people'. As we can see, in certain respects, and despite being based on Rivet's
classification, Loukotka's classification is overall less reliable than that of the
French author.
The subsequent classifications of the Peba-Yagua would continue to be
basically the same as proposed by Rivet, despite some dissimilarities such as we
have seen with Loukotka. Both authors' classifications and methods would be
70
criticized later by different scholars, but Peba-Yagua as a family has been
usually assumed to be correct in subsequent literature -and thus far there is no
reason to think otherwise. McQuown (1955), for example, while criticizing the
validity of existing classifications of South American Languages, maintains the
Peba-Yaguan family in his list. Voeglin and Voeglin (1977) have considered
Peba-Yaguan as a family under the Macro-Cariban phylum (following
Greenberg's proposed Macro-Carib phylum (Greenberg 1960)). Antonio Tovar in
his Catdlogo de las Lenguas de America del Sur puts Peba, Yagua and Yameo
together and follows Rivet and Loukotka in considering them only as one family,
though he advises that they are little known and that he is mentioning them in
his work "s6lo por razones geograficas"38 (1961: 149), stating that some think of
Yagua as mixed with Panoan and Cariban, while others regard Yameo as mixed
with Arawakan and Panoan languages. He does not cite the sources of these
hypothesized relations. More recently, Greenberg (1987) continued to propose
the Peba-Yagua ('Peban' in his work) as a member of above mentioned "Macro-
38 "only for geographic reasons".
71
Carib" phylum.
Kaufman (1990) also proposes the unity of the Peba-Yagua family under
the name "Yawan" or Spanish "Yaguano,,39 containing three languages, two of
them dead. 40 Also, Kaufman includes the Peba-Yagua in his "Northern Foothills"
region [Le. pre-Andean] and not in the "Western Amazonian II" region where
the Peba-Yagua would seemingly belong. While Kaufman probably had in mind
the relative proximity of the Peruvian Amazon River area to the Andes, the
natural habitat of the Peba-Yagua is the lowland rainforest; plus, there is no
basis to think that Peba-Yagua is of pre-Andean origin (unlike, for example, the
Jivaroan family, which is listed in said Northern Foothills area; d. Taylor and
Descola (1981) for a discussion on the origin of the Jivaroan languages).
Kaufman also follows Rivet and Loukotka, among others, in contemplating the
place of the Peba-Yagua within his "Macro-Kariban" phylum. However, Kaufman
39 In Spanish the term Yagua is more common and that is the name of the language used by the
Peruvian Ministry of Education's educational texts.
40 Kaufman does not mention them, but it is understood that he is referring to Peba and Yameo
as the dead languages.
72
prefers to use the term 'cluster', noting that these are only proposed genetic
groups and need to be evaluated and justified.
Unlike Kaufman, Campbell (1997: 186) lists "Yagua, Peba and Yameo
(Masamae)" as members the "Yaguan" family, without assigning this family any
particular place under a Macro-Cariban superstock; rather, he considers that
many of the proposed South American 'Macro-families' lack support and need to
be more investigated.
Finally, D. 1. Payne (1985a) speculates about a potential Zaparoan-
Yaguan grouping based primarily on her analysis of a shared morphological
feature in the form of the unit -ta which is used as an instrumentallcommitative
mark as well as a transitivity suffix in both Yagua and some Zaparoan varieties.
However, this idea has not been further investigated; also, a grouping of Zaparo
and Peba-Yagua would require more support from other parts of the grammar
and vocabulary of the languages involved. While a shared trait such as the one
described by Payne is interesting to look at, more evidence would be needed to
propose a Zaparoan-Yaguan stock.
73
CHAPTER III
SOURCES AND DOCUMENTATION
3.1 Introduction
In this brief chapter, a short description of the sources used for the
reconstructions in this thesis and methods of interpreting them will be given. As
has been said in previous parts, available data on Peba and Yameo are not rich
or numerous. Interpreting the few documents of these languages has been a
lengthy part of the research undertaken f<?r completing this work. To a certain
degree, a philological approach has been used in interpreting the documents that
form the basic corpus for this thesis in order to attempt an accurate idea of the
sound systems and their representation, and to translate the symbols used in the
different original texts and vocabulary lists into modem IPA symbols. Three
considerations have been followed in doing so: Firstly, if the author gave clues
as to how to interpret what he is writing, then I have stuck to those clues.
74
Secondly, the original languages of the authors have been considered for
interpretation of the data -for example, a text may be representing a sound that
in the author's native language was written by the use of two letters of the
alphabet. (More specific decisions will be discussed further on in this chapter
and in subsequent sections of the thesis when necessary). Thirdly, sometimes an
author's own explanation of his data is not enough: several things can be
happening in one word. The most common is the occurrence of more than one
morpheme in a word, which often involved an incomplete understanding of the
language by a given author. For instance, it is common to find examples like
viomote 'arm' which has the first person plural possessive vi- attached to the stem
for 'arm'. Also, classifiers -which were unknown for all authors on whose
material this thesis is based41- often occurred already attached to a stem, so it
is necessary to parse the word in order to do a proper analysis. Finally,
phonological processes, while difficult to spot, have been taken into account and
constitute another example of the third consideration.
41 With the exception of P. Powlison, D. Payne and T. Payne.
75
In what follows I provide a short overview of the specific materials used
for the reconstruction in this work. In subsequent chapters I present the data as
already interpreted and analyzed according to the criteria pointed out in this
chapter; Le., they represent my interpretation of other authors' data. All
cognates and texts given as examples are thus interpreted, and the 'filtered'
material is put together to establish a reconstruction of the Peba-Yaguan family.
Other philological discussion about the material presented will not be further
detailed as it would be outside the goals of this work. The reader interested in
finding out more about the original sources is referred to the works cited in the
subsections below.
3.2 Documentation on Yagua
The primary documentation on Yagua used for this work is Powlisons's
(1995) dictionary. This is the main source of vocabulary and the standard for
comparison with other data in this thesis. Powlison's work is the most reliable
with regards to representation of sounds. Although there are some
76
inconsistencies here and there throughout the dictionary it is an overall modern
accurate description of the language. Powlison's data have been complemented
with Doris and Thomas' Payne own fieldwork data, and with personal study of
that data and personal communication with the latter linguists when a
clarification was necessary -which happened often. Grammatical references on
Yagua are based on D. Payne and T. Payne (1990), D. Payne (1985b, 1990), T.
Payne (1987, 1992) and P. Powlison's "Introduction" to his Diccionario Yagua-
Castellano (1995). More texts that helped me understand Yagua phonology and
other parts of the grammar of this language will be cited in other sections of this
thesis when necessary. I will not comment on the works just cited in the
preceding lines as they are quite easily available to the general public, and I
simply refer the reader to them for further information.
Other sources for Yagua, considered secondary here, are the vocabularies
left by Castelnau (1851), Marcoy (1875), Tessmann (1930) and Fejos (1943).
Also, Chaumeil (especially 1987), while not a formal vocabulary list, provides
lots of lexical information and is probably one of the most notable resources for
77
cultural concepts and vocabulary available for Yagua. Because of time
constraints and the difficulty in accessing the text I have not been able to go
over all of Chaumeil's lexical material, but the wealth of information would
merit future checking and comparison with what is available from other sources.
Castelnau (1851), whose native languages was French, gives a glossary of
Yagua and Peba. Castelnau is considered a secondary source for Yagua, but in
view of the lack of other sources he is considered a primary source for Peba
because his transcription is the oldest for Peba (and Yagua), it does not have
confusing alternation of symbols (like Tessmann, for example, who can write
one word with a long vowel and another word with the same root with a
different type of vowel), and it is generally clearly interpretable according to the
French alphabet-sound pattern. Thus, for example, I interpret his word for 'blue',
< wasanou >, as [wasanu] with the last vowel as a high back vowel. This makes
sense especially when we are confronted with Yagua wc1sunil 'blue'. There are
some exceptions to this claim about clarity, like his symbol < r >. I have
interpreted this symbol, in principle, as a flap (by comparison with Yagua) or a
78
trill (because a trill also appears in Yameo).
Paul Marcoy, in his description of his travel throughout South America,
notes that he passed by the Mission of Pebas and the towns of San Jose and
Santa Maria where he visited the Yagua, accompanied by priests and local
people. He left a brief description of some traditional Yaguan customs, and
included a small glossary of around eighty terms. Marcoy's vocabulary was made
to compare the Yaguan words with Quechua, as he had heard that the Yagua
were supposedly related to the Inca. However, it gives an overall fair idea of the
vocabulary, especially when compared with Powlison's modern Yagua. No major
changes seem to be in place when we compare Powlison's and Marcoy's data,
although Marcoy does not represent nasal or long versus short vowels. Accent is
represented in a few words only, but there is no way to say if it represents tone
or just stress.
In his volume about the indigenous cultures of the northern Peruvian
Amazon, G. Tessmann -whose native language was German- offered a huge
amount of data on the languages of the area for his time, most of them barely
79
known during the 1930's. He provides an account of the culture and then a
vocabulary for each of the groups described in the volume, which included
Yagua and Yameo. His vocabulary list was formed by two hundred and thirty
three lexical items comprising human parts, culture, numbers, names of animals
and plants. To this two hundred thirty three item list he adds a few at the end,
which are not numbered, with very basic phrases of the kind 'I eat', 'good thing'
or 'my head'. The problem with Tessmann's work, as far as its use for this thesis
goes, is his hyper-corrected fashion of representing the phonetics of the
languages. He writes short, long, open, nasal, tense, lax and 'whispered'
(aspirated) vowels, and a varied number of consonants. On one hand, the
problem with the data is that it is not very accurate or reliable because of his
hyper-phonetic tendency of representing sounds without regards to their
systematic phonemic nature (Tessmann does not differentiate phone from
phoneme).
1 have reinterpreted Tessmann's data according to Tessmann's explanation
of his symbols, and by comparison with the Powlison, Castelnau and Marcoy
80
vocabularies. For example, all of the vowels represented by Tessmann can be
reduced to five cardinal vowels Ca, e, i, 0, u) plus, though occurring more rarely,
fronted vowels represented by < 0 > and < i.i > which Espinoza (1955: 292)
attributes to Tessmann's first language CGerman)42. His open and close vowels
are also taken as allophonic variations as explained by Espinoza (1955:
292-293). Consonants are more 'standardly'-represented and will be discussed
when/if necessary.
Finally, Fejos (1930) also offers a Yagua glossary in the final parts of his
ethnography about this group. However, Fejos states that "no linguistic analysis
was attempted", informing the reader that "the transcription was devised outside
the field" by another person who transcribed Fejos' pronunciation of his own
42 The few items with these vowels in Tessmann's Yagua vocabulary seem rather capricious. In
some cases, especially word-finally, it seems that Tessmann is representing an lujl syllable. In
Yagua, word-final Ijl is barely pronounced (Payne and Payne 1990: 432), thus compare:
Tessmann <jilu> (which I interpret as Uilzi], most probably from hij-hilzi 'your-lip'] with
modem Yagua h{i"duj 'lip'). Other cases seem more arbitrary and, as Espinoza says, the
occurrence of the vowels in question seem to be due rather to a predisposition of Tessmann to
hear them than their actual occurrence. For Tessmann's Yameo data, the few items containing
the German umlaut graph (which are rarer than in his Yagua data) cannot be interpreted as
there is no words in Yagua or Peba to compare them with. Therefore, I have not taken them into
consideration for the present work.
81
notes since Fejos "acted as a informant for the words given in the glossary"
(I943:118); therefore, his forms are based on a non-Yagua speaker. Thus, Fejos'
glossary has not been considered in forming the vocabulary data-base of this
thesis except to confirm some items that appear in sources that differ from
Powlison's dictionary.
In general, all the information on Yagua should be understood as coming
from Powlison's dictionary and D. and T. Payne (either their database or one of
their works). However, when an item is not found in Powlison but appears in
one (or more) of the 'secondary' sources, then I have considered it (or them) for
establishing the due comparison. Also, Powlison's data have been re-interpreted
to use IPA symbols because he uses his own manner for representing sounds (his
dictionary contains an alphabet proposed as a practical orthography based on
Spanish writing conventions). While re-interepreting Powlison's data I realized
that he was not always consistent with his own explanations on the phonetics/
phonology of Yagua. In those cases, I have analyzed his data considering Payne
and Payne (I990) and personal communication with these authors: these are the
82
forms that are being used in this thesis (though largely based on Powlison).
3.3 Documentation on Peba
To the best of my knowledge, there are only two works with linguistic
data about the Peba variety. Both Francis de Castelnau (1851) and J. Erben
(1948) published descriptions of their trips through the Amazon forests, which
included visits to Pebas and surrounding towns.
Castelnau's glossaries are one of the first accounts of any Amazonian
language, and they contain Peba and Yagua lists. The Peba glossary consists of
around one hundred words including human body parts, cultural and geographic
concepts, numbers and names of animals and plants. For more discussion on
Castelnau, vid supra the previous subsection of this chapter.
Erben's book, written in Czech, was 'rescued' from oblivion by Loukotka
(1963) who used it for his study of the Peba-Yaguan family. Erben does not
provide a glossary or vocabulary, but in his description of his travel through the
Amazon he gives a few words in Peba and Yagua that Loukotka was eager to
include in his research. Erben gives only twenty one words, including numbers,
83
a couple of names of animals and some cultural concepts.
3.4 Documentation on Yameo
Yameo is the other language for which there is not only vocabulary but
also a description of the grammar. Vocabularies used in this thesis come from
Tessmann (1930) -with the criticism noted above- and Espinoza (1950).
Espinoza also provides an overview of the grammar of Yameo. His work presents
several difficulties and is a mix of traditional and made-up categories that would
not fit in a modem linguistic description of a language; for instance, it is heavily
influenced by Latin and Spanish traditional grammar descriptions, and he based
parts of his work also on translations or comparisons with Spanish and other
languages like Quechua that have nothing to do with Yameo. He often notes the
difficulty of working with a language like Yameo, in his case even more as he
was working with undoubtedly one of the last generations of Yameo speakers.
However, Espinoza is the only work available that looks at the grammar of this
language and an interpretation of his text is the only thing available for a true
historical work. Also, Espinoza includes a valuable small vocabulary of Yameo
84
along with another comparative vocabulary where he compares Tessmann's
words with his own gathered material. Despite its difficulties, much of
Tessmann's data is interpretable through Espinoza explanations. Even so,
Espinoza also gives more symbols than needed to represent the sounds (Espinoza
is also concerned with the phones and not the phonemes of Yameo).
The other information available for Yameo comes in the form of old
missionary texts. These missionary texts, doctrines to teach the Christian
catechism, were supposed to be used in the missions. These texts are listed here:
a. A Pater Noster by an anonymous author from Adelung and Vater's
Mithridates (1813).
b. A group of short ecclesiastic texts found in Gonzales Suarez (1904)
written by an anonymous author which comprises the Pater Noster, The Sign of
the Cross, Ave Maria, Credo and a short question-and-answer Catechism.
c. A "Doctrine in Yameo and Masamae Language"43 copied in Espinoza
(1955) and Manuel Uriarte (1986). Manuel Uriarte was a Jesuit missionary who
43 The name in Spanish, "Doctrina en lengua Yamea y Masamea" clearly refers to one language
only, the word lengua 'language' appears in singular.
85
was in the Yameo area in the 18th century. His diary was edited by Constantino
Bayle in 1952 with Uriarte's letters and other documents from the mission
Uriarte led as a member of the Jesuit society. One of the documents inserted in
the book that Bayle edited was the Doctrine cited above. I have not been able to
access Bayle's 1952 version. According to Espinoza, Manuel Uriarte himself or
Jose Bahamonde, another Jesuit missionary, may have written the doctrine. The
doctrine text found in Espinoza (1955 -copied from Bayle's 1952 version) and in
Uriarte (1986 -which is a re-edition of Bayle's 1952 book) are two versions of
the same Doctrine. Nevertheless, there are some differences in the writing or the
interpretation of a graph in the old document whence the Doctrine comes.
Whenever possible, I have analyzed the texts in a morpheme by morpheme basis
by referring to Espinoza's grammar or by comparison with Yagua. This is not
always possible because there are forms that are unknown and other times the
transcription in Espinoza (1955) and Uriarte's modem version (1986) differ,
rendering the text ambiguous. 44 Incidentally, the doctrine, written for preaching
44 As I say, I have not been able to get a copy of the 1952 edition by Father Constantino Bayle
(but originally written in the eighteenth century). I have used a modem version from 1986, but
86
the catechism in both Yameo and Masamae, is further proof of the closeness of
both varieties.
From all of the texts cited in (a), (b) and (c) above, some Yameo
vocabulary has been extracted. In the case of the "Doctrine in Yameo and
Masamae language", if the words were the same in the two copies cited above
(Espinoza 1955 and Uriarte 1986), they have been used for comparison. But
overall, these texts have been interpreted and used primarily for an analysis of
the grammar, for which there are fewer consequences from problems with the
differences in transcription.
errors in transcribing may have occurred considering some words written in different way.
Espinoza says that he is copying a literal (i.e. supposedly 'exact') version; however differences
with Bayle's text may be due to errors in any of the versions.
87
CHAPTER IV
THE HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUND SYSTEM
4.1 Introduction
The goal of this chapter is to clarify the genetic classification of the Peba-
Yaguan languages. In this chapter, I focus on the application of the comparative
method, which constitutes the major means for reconstructing previous stages of
languages. By comparing data from different languages it is possible to confirm
(or disconfirm) the grouping of languages into a family, to reconstruct the
protolanguage and to specify the major changes in patterns from past phases of
the languages involved to the modem system(s). While the lack of more
information may prevent fulfilling these general objectives for Peba-Yagua with
a high degree of completeness, the specific aim of the analysis presented here is
to give, as precisely as can be done, a good idea of the characteristics of the
88
Peba-Yaguan phonemic proto-system as well as a set of changes that explains its
development through history. Therefore, despite the limitations proper of this
kind of work, and particularly in the case of Peba-Yagua, the limitations of the
quality of the data, an approximation of its interpretation and confirmation of
the classification of the linguistic family is viable.
The analysis will be based on sets of cognates extracted from vocabularies
available for all three Peba-Yaguan languages: Peba, Yagua and Yameo. To this I
will add, when available, data from Masamae, a variety of Yameo. The Masamae
variety was, in any case, very closely-related to the Yarneo to the extent that
there is not a single piece of information that denies its Yamean connection in
the texts cited in this thesis. To keep the data separated and give a better
impression of the original sources to the reader, I will write the Masamae
cognates on their own column. I will refer to these data as 'Yameo(-Masamae)',
because, as we saw in the preceding chapter, there was even a single 'Doctrine
in the Masamae and Yameo language' attesting their close link. The Yameo(-
Masamae) items come from this Doctrine. In addition, I will refer to the cognates
89
extracted from Espinoza's and Tessmann's works as 'Yameo'.
Before starting the actual comparison, a quick synchronic overview of the
languages involved will be provided. After that, a series of correspondences on
which the reconstruction of the proto-sound system is based will be presented.
4.2 A Phonological Survey of the Peba-Yaguan Languages
It was argued in the previous chapter that despite the numerous names of
different 'partialities' or tribes of Peba-Yaguan people, there are no major
reasons to consider that the Peba-Yagua family should not be conceived of as
having three main members: The Yagua, the Peba and the Yameo. The
comparison does not consider all varieties of these languages as unfortunately
most of them have disappeared. The Proto-Language, however, is always a
theoretical construct, Le. a hypothesis of what the language could have been
like. In that regard, the data available still provide a good basis for approaching
the question of whether Peba-Yagua is really a language family, and if so, what
the proto-language was like.
90
Given all the limitations described above, I have decided to use the
language on which there is more available information (Le. Yagua) as the 'basis'
for comparison. This basically means that whenever I have been able to compare
an item to Yagua, even if the item was not present in all three languages,45 I
have nevertheless compared the item to Yagua and then established whether or
not the pair or triplet is relevant for establishing a given pattern in the history of
the system by comparing it with other examples of similar sets of
correspondents.
4.2.1 Yagua
The Yagua language has been described extensively in different works by
Doris and Thomas Payne, and by Paul Powlison (see the References).
Most Yaguan dialectal differences are phonological or phonetic with
regard to certain lexical items only, although some non-mutually shared lexical
45 Only on one occasion a word not present in Yagua is present for Peba and Yameo. I have used
this pair of cognates for comparison, but because of the limitations in vocabulary for the other
languages, most 'evidence-supporting' partial cognate comparisons are Yagua-Peba or Yagua?
Yameo.
91
items and some grammatical differences have been observed (Payne & Payne,
1990: 252). In general, all dialects are mutually intelligible but they have not
been studied in depth. The Yagua data gathered for this thesis come from the
Cahocuma and Vainilla dialects, which are the ones described in Payne and
Payne (1990) and Powlison (1995).
According to Payne and Payne (1990), Yagua has eleven contrasting
synchronic consonants: Ip, t, k, m, n, s, if, [, W, j, hi. Notice that [ is a retroflexed
flap and h a pharingeal approximant. This coincides in general with Powlison's
(1962, 1995) analysis, although Powlison does not say anything about the
retroflexed realization of the flap. However, Powlison and Gordon de Powlison
(1971), who give a flap phoneme Irl, state it can be realized as a voiced
retroflexed fricative [(I. Also, Powlison and Gordon de Powlison (1971) consider
h as a fricative velar and not as pharyngeal, but they state that it has a very light
friction and sometimes it surfaces as a glottal stop which suggests that h does.
not have an oral-cavity source of articulation. In this work, following Payne and
Payne (1990), I will use the retroflexed flap [ and the pharyngeal h to represent
92
the Yaguan words. Other interesting allophonic variations in Yagua occur for the
nasal consonants Iml and Inl which have pre-nasal oral realizations before oral
vowels (["'b] and rd], respectively). I represent these allophones because we will
see that they are important for understanding the nasal consonants in Proto-
Peba-Yagua. Finally, before Iii and lei the labial consonants IpJ m, wi and ["'b]
are labialized [pWJ mWJ mbw]. I will not represent these allophones but I will refer
to them in later sub-sections of this chapter because I consider that some
sequences of words written <bue> in Yameo, for example, may represent
cognate instances of Yagua ["'bWe].
Perhaps the main difference in analysis between Powlison (1962, 1995)
and Payne and Payne (1990) is with regards to vowels. Powlison (1962) argues
for a four vowel system46: Ia, iJ OJ ul -he states that [e] is an allophone of lal
and [i] an allophone of Ii/- whereas Powlison (1995) presents four vowels: Ia,
iJ OJ ul. On the other hand, Payne and Payne (1990) argue for six vowels: Ia, eJ iJ
46 Actually, Powlison argues for eight vowels because he says that the four vowels given here
have their nasal counterparts. Payne and Payne (1990) also state that the six vowels that they
propose have their nasal counterparts.
93
IJ OJ ul. The oral vowels have nasal counterparts, and also have a length
distinction. These authors state that e, 0 and 1"are defective in tenns of
frequency in the lexicon" (1990: 429). Also, alternation between [ and n has
been observed in some dialects of Yagua. For example, Chaumeil (1987: 19)
gives the fonns for 'shaman' as < rimara> for the dialect of the Pebas town
area, and <nemara> for the dialect of the Sarko group (who are located around
Atacuari and Cotuhe-L-Yacu).47 In addition, sometimes there are alternations
between the vowels a ~ u and a ~ i (Doris Payne, personal communication).
Further, Payne and Payne state that "the norms of high front and high back
vowels are relatively lower than in Spanish counterparts. For non-native
speakers of Yagua, this may lead to frequent confusion between lei and Iii on
the one hand, and between 101 and lui on the other" (1990: 249). This
description may be important in understanding the variations in vowel
representation in the Peba and Yameo languages when compared to Yagua.
47 This kind of alternation also seems to occur diachronically. For example, the word for
'shaman' in Peba is dimasa whereas Yagua has the form [imara or nema[a, as we saw previously.
No explanation can be provided (at least at this point) because there is no evidence to argue for
a systematic pattern. In this work, I assume that these are random alternations.
94
4.2.2 Peba
There has not been any kind of phonemic analysis for Peba in the past.
From what can be analyzed from the data, the Peba inventory coincides in
general with that described for Yagua. It shows the grapheme consonants <p, k,
t, m, n, s, ch, r, 1., w, j>. Given that the main source for Peba was written by
Castelnau, who had French background, we can interpret some graphemes with
French orthography in mind. Thus, for example, I interpret < ch > as
representing a voiceless alveopalatal fricative If!. The graphemes are being
interpreted as Ip, k, t, m, n, s,1, w, jl. There are certain issues when it comes to
analyze specific graphemes in Peba. The grapheme < r> is difficult to interpret.
I do not interpret it as the uvular sound that is so common in French. I think
that it is representing a sound similar to the Spanish flap Irl or the Spanish trill
Irl. The grapheme <l> represents the lateral [l] but, as we will see, I consider
it a synchronic allophone of Inl in Peba, which corresponds to Yagua rd].
Notice that there are a few words in Peba that have an < l> grapheme but for
95
which there are no cognates in Yagua or Yameo (the word <malayere>
'thunder', for instance). Whether the < l> 's in such words are real synchronic
phonemes or not in Peba is unknown because there is no evidence to prove it.
With regards to vowels, Peba shows five: Ia, eJ iJ OJ ul (written also < a, eJ
iJ OJ u?. Besides, some instances of vowels written < ai> seem to parallel the
Yagua lei occurrence (in French <ai> usually represents an open front vowel
[E:], which is a possible realization of Yaguan lei); but sometimes <ai>
matches the phonological sequence lajl in Yagua, as in the l.SG pronoun Yagua
raj: Peba <rai> ([rel or [raj}?). The vowel 101 in the data for Peba occurs in
just a few lexical items. These problems will be discussed in further sub-sections
of this chapter.
4.2.3 Yameo
There has not been any phonemic analysis of Yameo in the past. The first
impression after looking at Yameo, as portrayed by Tessmann (1930) and
Espinoza (1955), is that it seems to have had a vast inventory of sounds.
96
Nevertheless, one can notice quickly that both authors are concerned with
representing phonetic realizations and not with distinguishing phonemes. After
analyzing both authors' texts, it is in fact clear that they are over-representing
the Yamean language sounds. To write a philological essay about interpreting
both authors would demand another long paper -which goes beyond the goals of
this thesis; however I will discuss some points later on when clarification is
needed. For the moment, it can be stated that Yameo can be described as having
the following phonemic consonants: Ip, t, k, m, n, 5,1, w, jl and possibly Ill,
which is interpreted as a synchronic allophone of Inl as in Peba. That is, in both
Peba and Yameo <l> corresponds to Yagua f'd] -an allophone of Inl. However,
there are several more examples of < l> occurring in words for which there are
no cognates in Peba or Yagua, Since its status as a phoneme in Yameo does not
depen on whether the other languages have cognate words; but on whether Peba
lacks any conditioning environment, I tend to conclude that III has emerged as
a phoneme in synchronic Peba. The flap r and the trill r will be discussed in the
sub-section of this chapter about a hypothesized rhotic. It seems that Yameo may
97
have distinguished a flap from a trill -at least as I read Espinoza's work, but this
cannot be confirm from Tessmann's work. Espinoza also mentions the palatal
lateral Abut it has not been taken into consideration as a possible phoneme
because not enough information is given: some examples are borrowings from
Spanish, for example sapcU6 'squash'; or Quechua, for example sikwaAa 'a bird'.
Espinoza provides very few examples of A. In his small vocabulary there are only
two or three words with this sound, all of them with a high front vowel (Le. Ai)
except for spaaaAci 'dish' and SAa 'axe' ('axe' is probably not an original tool of
the Peba-Yaguan people an the form given looks similar to the Spanish word for
'axe', atJa). Tessmann represents fronted rounded vowels < 0> and < e> in a
few cases, but Espinoza states that it is due to his predisposition to hearing them
because Tessmann was German. Espinoza only gives one example where he
'seems' to have heard the vowel o. The examples of these vowels in Tessmann
and Espinoza are very few and I do not find correspondences in Yagua or Peba;
thus I have not taken them into consideration for this work. The vowels that can
be proposed as phonemes for Yameo, from Espinoza's description, are fa, e, i, 0,
98
uf. As I said before, Espinoza and Tessmann over-represented Yameo vowels, but
without pointing out any evidence with regards to their phonemic status.
To summarize the Yameo representation of sounds in the data, I provide
the following correspondence in Table 6 (see next page), with graphemes and
my interpretation of their respective phonetic value in an IPA representation. If
a symbol is used only by one author (either Tessmann or Espinoza), I write the
author's name between parenthesis. Otherwise, symbols should be understood as
used by both authors.
99
Table 6. Graphemes used in the representation of Yameo sounds and
their interpretation for this thesis
Vowels
<a> a
<e> e
<i> i
<0> 0
<u> u
<0> re, i?
<ti> Y, y?
*Diacritics for vowels are explained
when necessary throughout this
chapter
Consonants
<p> p
<t> t
<k> k
<b> b
< d > d, occurs marginally
< <;l> <t (retroflex), occurs marginally,
a variation of d (Tessmann)
< g> g, mostly representing IwI
<m> m
<n> n
< l). > IJ (Tessmann)
< IJ > IJ appears marginally,
especially in sequences < IJg >
< fi > ]1, allophone of n
Consonants (continuation)
< ? > ?, occurs marginally, likely
represents an allophone of IwI
< 8 > 8, allophone of lsi or IS!
(Tessmann)
<c> tS
<y> J
<s> S
< Z > z, allophone of lsi, in Yameo?
Masamae doctrine (according to
Espinoza) it likely represents an
affricated sound [ts]
<5> J
< r> it represents a retroflex
assibilated flap
< l, 1, r> l, 1 (assibilated), f, all
allophones of IfI (flap) (Espinoza)
<l, f> l ('relaxed' r), r, allophones of
Irl (trill) (Espinoza)
<1> 1
<1> A
*A consonant with an accent mark
( < s> )represents a syllabic consonant
(Espinoza)
100
4.3 The Reconstruction of the Proto-Phonemic Inventory
This section presents regular correspondences that can be identified on
the basis of the available materials, and its goal is to reconstruct the inventory
of sounds in Proto-Peba-Yagua. In the following parts of this section the
inventory of the proto-system will be justified.
Ideally, comparative series of regular sets of cognates will attest any given
sound in question in several positions (initial, medial, and final position in a
lexical form). For Peba-Yagua, in some cases there is more than enough evidence
exemplifying the phonemic nature of a proto-sound in a relevant comparative
series; in others, though, the number of attesting examples found is small. I have
taken the following approach to this problem: proto-phonemic segments for
which there is substantial information are considered to be 'first-level
hypothetical' units, Le. their nature as part of the proto-system can be
established with full confidence. Phonemic segments for which there is not a
strong amount of information but whose place is thought of as likely in the
101
proto-system are considered as 'second-level hypothetical' units, i.e. they may
have been part of the proto-system but there is not enough evidence to confirm
it, and thus other criteria (apart from cognates) are brought into the discussion
to complement the idea of their possible 'proto' nature. These criteria include
context of occurrence, possible variation in representation (i.e. whether there
are more symbols representing a variation -possible allophones- or not),
linguistic typology and phonological asymmetry, among others. The 'second-
level hypothesis' units are presented between parenthesis as in (*p), unlike the
'first-level hypothesis' units which appear without them. Thirdly, if there is
even weaker evidence for a proto-phoneme, then I will be limited to comment
on the occurrence of instances of possible cognates that may suggest a series of
correspondences if I find it relevant. In general, I will avoid over-exercised
explanations of correspondences that appear only once, for example, and that
can be considered exceptions, as the result of idiosyncratic transcription or
simply representations of uncertain origin.
In the next sections, if there are cognates from all three languages, I
102
propose a proto-fonn for the words being compared. Vowel length is not being
reconstructed at this time. Also, Yagua has two tones (high and low) but it has
to be studied yet. I will not cover tone in this thesis. If a cognate is attested in
only two languages, I only use the words for partial comparisons but I do not
attempt to reconstruct the lexical item for proto-Peba-Yagua. The fonns in the
cognate sets are phonemic for Yagua and also my phonemic interpretation of the
Peba, Yameo and Masamae data. The only exceptions where phonetic forms are
presented are: (1) the pre-nasalized consonants mb and nd48 in Yagua for reasons
given later (basically, nd is cognate with Peba and Yameo); (2) in certain cases,
in Peba and Yameo there are cognates that have a [d], [l] or some other segment
not considered phonemes in the languages but which correspond to Yagua
fonns, for example Yagua satja 'row' and Peba sadja < sadya > 'row' are
obviously related. In these cases, I consider the fonns like sadja as random
variations that could have occurred for one of many reasons (e.g. it could be an
error in transcription, a problem in interpreting the sound, or just a speaker's
48 These symbols correspond exactly to what Payne and Payne (1990: 430) represent by [mb]
and [nd].
103
idiosyncratic pronunciation), but I provide the form with the [d) to remain
faithful to the sources; (3) the vowels in Yameo, for which I use phonetic
interpretation in the sense that I am writing long (m), shortened (d), opened (q)
and accented vowels (d) just as they are described in the sources -this is done to
give a closer representation of vowels as they appeared in the sources; because
there is a lot of variation, I think it is better in this case not to have the original
source 'out of sight' to avoid the introduction of more confusion. However, I am
taking an a in Yagua and Peba as corresponding essentially with d, m or q in
Yameo. I consider these as realizations of an underlying /a/. As I said before,
there is no basis to claim that they are different phonemes in Yameo; Espinoza
himself states that there are five vowels a, eJ iJ OJ U and thus the rest are
understood as allophones. Remember that an accent mark (d) in Yagua words
means that the vowel has a high tone. Because of lack of evidence, an accent
mark in Yameo is interpreted as just marking stress. Length in Yagua is
represented with a doubled symbol as in: aa.
104
4.3.1 Consonants
The consonants postulated for Proto-Peba-Yagua are given in the table 7
shown below. The justification of the proto-phonemes is given in the following
sections.
Table 7. Consonants of Proto-Peba-Yagua
Stop
bilabial (*p)
Nasal
bilabial *m
Fricative
Affricate
Rhotic
Approximant
bilabial *w
alveolar *t
alveolar *n
alveolar *s
*R
velar *k
alveo-palatal *tJ
palatal *j pharyngeal *h
105
4.3.1.1 Stops
The voiceless stops (*p], *t and *k are postulated for Proto-Peba-Yagua.
They occurred in initial and middle position but not in final position.
Bilabial (*p)
There are few examples of the voiceless bilabial stop for real comparison.
Despite the small quantity of examples, we can take into account the fact that
there is no variation in the representation ofp in the data: no plausible alternate
symbol is given and its occurrence does not appear to depend on the influence of
surrounding sounds or position in the word that it occupies. Also, by asymmetry
*p is a very probable proto-sound as there is solid evidence for the stops *t and
*k.
The segment *p occurs in initial and middle positions. The following are
examples of *p in Yagua, Peba and Yameo. The only word that I have found as
cognate across all three languages is the one for 'macaw'. Other words provide
partial comparisons, either Yagua with Peba or Yagua with Yameo and one for
106
Masamae.
Vag Peb Yam Yam-Mas P-P-Y
pupa- 'white' papa
paru-j 'become white' parlo 'white'
pisij 'throat' p~iJi
-puu 'CL.short.cilinder' -puu
hapa 'red macaw' apa'macaw' apa'macaw' *hapa
popo-ko 'white earth'49 popa 'earth' popo 'earth' *pVpV
Alveolar *t
In all languages a voiceless alveolar is found in initial and middle
position. Cognates considered for reconstructing *t have been the words for 'ear',
the root for 'one', 'woman' and 'caiman'. Partial comparisons to complement the
full cognate series, either Yagua-Peba or Yagua-Yameo-(Masamae), also occur.
Consider the following examples that support the reconstruction of *t
Vag Peb Yam P-P-Y
tuwaj 'ear' tiwa tiwe (Tess), tuwad (EG) *tiwaj, tuwaj
ta- 'one, another' te- ta- 'other' *ta
wa-tu-ra 'woman wa-to-a 'woman' wa-t-r~ 'woman' *wa-tV-Ra
without children'
nurutu 'caiman' nuerto nurta *nuRutV
49 This item comes from Chaumeil (1987).
107
Sets of partial cognates follow here to give a broader idea of the
occurrence of *t. The first shows examples of cognates for Yagua and Peba in
initial and middle position:
Vag
tandaj- 'five, half'
hiito 'head' (compared to Peba initial?
position to )
hdndtij 'root'
homiitu 'hand'
-muta 'eL. tube.of.musicaLinstrument'
Peb
taone- 'five'
to (most likely from a middle-position
*hiito)
nataj
omote 'arm'
-mata
The following partial cognate sets occur between Yagua and Yameo,
including Yameo-Masamae when available.
Vag
too 'forest'
fi 'someone, other'
tara 'thing'
niimiitd 'shoulder'
niitju-ra 'what'
Yam
tQ:<;>_la50
aetln (aefO 'people'
tara
nemata
nit-ra 'how' (There is
more likely a vowel after
t that would give a
reconstructable form
*nujtu- - nijtu-)
Yam-Mas
atin'man'
talan
50 It seems that this fonn may have a particle -La that corresponds to Yagua _nda, a classifier for
108
Finally, there is only one example in which a tin Yagua appears as din
other languages. Thus compare:
Yagua: scicitjiiii'row' Peba (Erben): sadja 'row'
This is, incidentally, the only example where a voiced stop appears in the
data for Peba and with so little data it is hard to say anything about it. Espinoza
(1955: 207) says that in Yameo voiceless stops 'predominate', adding that he
only found d in one word, indelo 'red' (for which we find no cognates in the
other languages). If this were enough to establish anything regarding the proto-
system, and provided that the comparative series for p, t, k are well established,
this problem would have to be solved by positing another different proto-sound.
In this case next in the list would be *d. However, as I say, with so little
information this is only speculative. Evidence to the contrary (Le. that the d in
indelo was really a t) is provided by Tessmann who gives the Yameo form nteld
for 'red'. Thus, for the moment we can say that Yameo d is at best an
tree trunks.
109
idiosyncratic variation of t, and possibly a misinterpretation or a
mistranscription of a voiceless sound after a nasal.
Velar *k
The voiceless velar stop tends to occur in word-initial position, though
there are some examples where it appears in middle position. Here are a few
examples that support the presence of *k in the proto-system:
Vag
kaasij 'parroquet'
kaanG. 'bow'
Peb
koasi
kanu
Yam
koaJi 'parrot'
kanu-tr51
P-P-Y
*kVasi
*kanu
Vag
Partial comparative series of examples are given next.?
Peb
kana 'howler monkey'
-kunjo (Castelnau) 'four'
. tTIkii 'one (animate)
kan~
-koni
teki
51 The particle -tl may be a classifier. Compare to Yagua -tii that classifies long, big branches and
similar objects. Note, however, that the word kanuti can be a borrowing from Cocama, where it
is also present (ct. Espinoza 1955: 304, Castelanau 1851: 294). It seems that the bow may not be
an original weapon of the Peba-Yagua, information about the Yagua (Chaumeil1987) confirms
that the preferred weapon of the Yagua is the blowgun. We would have to explain why and how
the last syllable was dropped in Yagua and Peba if this is really a borrowing.
110
For Yagua and Yameo there are just a couple of pairs, but they
corroborate the correspondence between those languages:
Yag
kar66siij 'clay pot'
nikee 'speak'
4.3.1.2 Nasal
Bilabial *m
Yam
kaIJe'pot'
l~ke
The bilabial nasal sound is found in initial and middle position in Yagua,
Peba and Yameo. In Yagua, Iml has two allophones: a prenasalized Fb] before
oral vowels and [m] before nasal vowels. For Peba and Yameo, Iml is also the
phoneme. No allophones of Iml in Peba and Yameo are evident from the data.
However, there is one instance in Peba where we can have a possible allophone
of Iml realized as [b], or perhaps ["b], written < b >. In the word for 'dog' or
'jaguar' we have two different forms, nebi (given by Castelnau) and nemej (given
by Erben). As we will see in the next section, it is possible to think that in Proto-
Peba-Yagua there were competing forms with either an oral or nasal grade
-------------
111
vowel. The alternations shown in forms like nebi - nemej suggest that in the first
form there was an oral vowel, whereas in the second there was a nasal vowel.
Unfortunately, this is the only example of an instance of < b> in Peba, so it is
difficult to expand on this idea for the moment. The reconstruction of *m is
based on the examples below.
Yag Peb Yam Yam-Mas P-P-Y
rna 'forehead' mo mda *mo
-mu'LOC' -mo -mu -rna *mV
-mlj, -muj 'PL.ANIM' -mue -mue -m, -rna *muj - mij
humuJ1u 'canoe'
,
*humVnVmunjo m~nda, m~:n~
nIbjH 'dog, jaguar' nebi (Cas), niam~, niaml *nimji
nemej (Erb) (Tess), J1iame (Esp)
'dog'
Alveolar *n
There are up to four correspondence series that I discuss in this section:
Yag
n
Peb
n
I
n
O)?
Yam
n
I
n
I
112
First, an alveolar nasal *n can be reconstructed. In Yagua, en] occurs
before nasal vowels. In Yameo and Peba, it is difficult to say if there is a nasal
vowel after en]. Sometimes, Tessmann, for example, gives a nasal vowel after
en], like in an-illara 'here'; but many other times the nasal vowel does not appear
(or is not represented), as in the examples below. However, I think that it is
plausible to postulate nasal vowels in the context of a nasal consonant. The
other hypothesis would be that the distinction oral versus nasal was gradually
lost after n in Peba and Yameo, but there are a few instances that represent them
in that environment in Yameo. As for Peba, the occurrence of nasal vowels is
uncertain. The following series of cognates support the proto-phonemic nature of
*n.
Yag Peb Yarn
n'fbjif 'jaguar, dog' nemej(Cas), nebi(Erb) niami
,
'nose' narllaniiriiii nero
niirutu 'caiman' nuerto nurt6
kaanii 'bow' kanu kanu-tr
P-P-Y
*nimji
*nVRV
*nuRutV
*kanu
113
Further partial cognate sets of Yagua and Peba for *n:
Yag
hdndtij 'root'
-nihjchee 'number suffix'
Peb
nataj
-neti
And for Yagua and Yameo (and Masamae), these cognates show further
correspondences for *n:
Yag
nutjura 'what'
numuto 'shoulder'
-hanu 'NOMLR'
Yam
nitra 'how'
nemata
Yam-Mas
-ano 'NOMLR'
Apart from the series illustrated above, there is a second series of regular
correspondences. This concerns the pre-nasalized variety nd which has a lateral
approximant I correspondence in Peba and Yameo, as shown in the following
sets:
Yag
ndeera 'boy'
_ndasij 'CL.long.cilinder'
Peb Yam
lera (Castel. < laira > ) laer
-lase -las
P-P-Y
*neRa
*nasij
In modern Yagua, [nd] is an allophone of Inl before oral vowels. There is
no evidence that I was realized with nasal vowels in Peba and Yameo; thus we
114
can consider l as a cognate of the Yagua pre-nasalized allophone. Notice that I
am considering vowels in Peba and Yameo to be nasalized in the context of a
nasal consonant. As I said, the data for Peba and Yameo does not always
represent nasal vowels (many times, it does not but some other times it does
represent them); but it is natural to assume a degree of assimilation from a nasal
consonant.
Thus I propose that at some point there was a synchronic allophonic
variation (that is still present in modem Yagua) due to a rule of the type:
Yagua: Inl -----. [Ud] I _V[oral] (verified in modem and in old attestations
of Yagua)52
Peba and Yameo: Inl -----. [l] I _V[oral]
If we can establish that Peba and Yameo branched off from an
intermediate daughter of Proto-Peba-Yagua, Le. Proto-Peba-Yameo, then perhaps
this allophonic rule can be attributed also to this hypothetical Proto-Peba-
52 Castelnau (1851) gives the fonns < raluya > (Peba) and < randulia > (Yagua) 'lightning'
(modem Yagua [raff>duuzja]). I think that the <d> or <nd> sequence in Yagua is representing
the allophone [nd], and corresponds to < 1> in Peba. It seems, then, that the Yagua allophonic
variation is a relatively old one.
115
Yameo;53 and I hypothesize that it is the same allophonic variation that we
observe synchronically for Peba and Yameo. On the other hand, Yagua -which
would be in the other branch- seems to have developed its own allophonic rule
that can be still observed synchronically in modem Yagua.
The third and fourth correspondence series unfortunately need more
exemplification but I would like to discuss them based on the available data. So,
first is the correspondence of Yagua nd, and Peba and Yameo n; and second is the
correspondence of Yagua n, and Peba and Yameo I. Examples of the
correspondence nd: n: n are provided here below. They are all partial except for
'blow':
53 I discuss this idea in the conclusions.
116
Vag Peb Yam P-P-Y
wa-nda 'bright' wana'sun'
ndij 'see' nit~
ndaku-54 'become dark' neko- 'night'
nduu55 'to blow' no nu *nu
Above, I stated that nd was an allophone of the alveolar n in modem
Yagua whose mirrored form in Peba and Yameo would be l. But the examples
just shown would say otherwise. There is a good basis for maintaining that in
Yagua nd is an allophone of n, though: it occurs only before oral vowels. On the
other hand, albeit rarely, there are examples of alternations between nd and n in
Powlison's dictionary for the same lexeme, according to the vowels that occurs
after them. For instance, the number 'two' can appear with either a nasal or oral
vowel: niirah;1j ~ ndarah;1j. The fact that we can find similar variation across
Peba-Yaguan languages, however, may suggest that this is not just a case of
54 Notice that in Yagua the lexeme for 'black' is wci-ndaku, in which ndakuj 'become dark' is the
base root. The morpheme wci- is a nominalizing prefix that derives abstracts names in Yagua. The
partial coincidence of forms with the word for 'bright' wci-nda is interesting, but I failed to see
any semantic bond between them. Wilson (2008) discusses the Yagua root _nda in more detail.
55 The forms come from Yagua ndundasij 'blowgun', Peba nolase < naulase> and Yameo nulas. In
Yagua, ndu means '(to) blow'.
117
synchronic 'free variation', but rather that it reflects a moment in which there
were competing forms in the proto-language.
Although more concrete evidence is needed, for the moment I will discuss
two possible hypotheses. The first is that a pre-nasalized phoneme (*nd) was
present in the proto-language. This phoneme *nd would have merged with *n in
all three languages as a consequence of a change *nd > n at a further stage in
the proto-language. Thus there would be two historical moments for nd. The first
was as a proto-phoneme *nd that merged with n. Then, in a second point in time,
another [nd] would appear before oral vowels but as a result of an allophonic
rule in Yagua, while [l] would appear in Peba and Yameo in the same
environment. The protophoneme *nd would be still traceable by its reflex n in
Peba and Yameo.
There are a number of issues with this first hypothesis as just described.
First, there is no support for suggesting *nd as a proto-phoneme except that it is
the next consonant sound to consider if there are no better explanations for the
alveolar nasal correspondence sets. Second, it is too suspicious -though not
118
impossible- that the same sound that disappeared as a result of a supposed
merger between *n and *"d in the proto-language, appears again in one of the
daughter languages as an allophone. Third, postulating *"d would have serious
consequences for the distinction between oral and nasal vowels. It would mean,
for example, that oral vowels became nasal vowels when *"d and *n merged; and
those 'new' nasal vowels became oral vowels again when ["d] supposedly
reappeared in Yagua. Sounds simply do not go on and off in that way. Fourth,
there is no evidence to postulate an analogous *mb phoneme in Proto-Peba-
Yagua, which -while not necessary- would be the optimal system to have, in
view of natural linguistic asymmetry.
Thus, there must be another more plausible hypothesis, involving vowel -
and not consonant-variation. But first let us look at the fourth correspondence
series en in Yagua: I in Peba and Yameo). The case of the series corresponding to
n - I offers more difficulty because I find only few examples to work with in
Yagua and Yameo:
Vag
nikee 'to say'
nee 'no'
Yam
leke
Ie
Yam-Mas
leke
119
There are no true correspondences with Peba for this case, except maybe
a form given by Erben for the 'number four', although Castelnau gives a form
with an n:
Vag
naj- 'four'
Peb
na- (Cas), lau- (Erb)
Now that we have the four correspondences series, we can discuss in
more detail a second hypothesis for the problematic series nd-n-n and I will add n
- (l?) - I to the discussion as well. It is possible that the situation in Proto-Peba-
Yagua was one such that there was allophony based on the nasaVoral quality of
the vowel following the alveolar nasal consonant -as we still have in modem
Yagua-, described by the following synchronic (in the protolanguage) rule:
*n ----t *[n] [+nasal] / _ *V[nasal]
----t * [nq] ,[1] [coronal, +oralized) / _ *V[oral)
For some words, however, there were alternate competing pronunciations
120
-some with the oral vowel, and some with the nasal vowel (Le., 'oral grade' and
'nasal grade' options) In those cases where we have the correspondence set nd - n
- n, Yagua took the oral vowel variant, whereas Peba and Yameo took the nasal
vowel variant. In those cases where we have n - (l)? - I, Yagua took the nasal
vowel variant, and at least Yameo took the oral vowel variant. This hypothesis
suggests also that there were nasal vowels in the proto-language (this will be
discussed later on in this chapter). It seems that at least Yameo had nasal
vowels, though they are not always transcribed, as we have seen before. In any
case, if Peba did not have nasal vowels -Le. if it lost nazalization- and if Yameo
was losing the nasal/oral distinction (or had lost it) then we would have loss of
the V[nasal] environment and emergence of a phonemic distinction Inl versus
III in Yameo and, perhaps, Peba.56
56 Judging by Espinoza's description of Yameo and the texts in Masamae, it looks like Yameo(?
Masamae) may have a lateral approximant l phoneme (at least its distribution seems
unpredictable) but more data is needed to attest it. The words that in Yagua occur with "d have a
cognate with lin Yameo. But there are more words with lin Yameo that do not have cognates
with Yagua or Peba. These words may present a phoneme.
121
The second hypothesis outlined above accounts for all the
correspondences shown in this section. To summarize, consider Table 8 that
shows the correspondences for the alveolar nasal consonant:
Table 8. Correspondences of *n
Correspondence Competing oral vs. nasal in Hypotesized phonemic
p-p?Y? form
Yag Peb Yam
n n n --- *nV
nd I I --- *nV
nd n n ~ *nV (Yag), *nV (Peb, Yam)
n I I ~ *nV (Yag), *nV (Peb?, Yam)
3.1.3 Fricative
Alveolar *s
Evidence to postulate a Proto-Peba-Yagua alveolar fricative is present in
the material for all languages. The alveolar fricative appears in initial and
middle position in Yagua, Peba and Yameo. Yameo shows s in final position
although it is obvious that the underlying synchronic form has a vowel after the
/s/ (see, for example, the word for 'trunk (of tree)' below).
122
The following examples illustrate cognates in Yagua, Peba and Yameo,
allowing us to reconstruct *s in Proto-Peba-Yagua.
Vag Peb
kaasij 'budgerigar' koasi
- ndasij 'CL.long.cilinder' -lase
Yam
koaJi, kwaJi
-las
P-P-Y
*kVasij
*nasij
Examples of *s in initial position are partial, but there are instances for
Yagua-Peba and Yagua-Yameo comparison. Here are a couple of Yagua-Peba
cognates with initial s:
Vag
saatja~ 'row'
-sij 'CL.small.round'
Peb
sadja
-sej
For Yagua, Yameo and Masamae, the following examples are provided
initial and middle position:
Vag
sa- '3.SG.Animate'
pisij 'throat'
Yam
sa- (Tessmann)
p~: iJi 'throat'
Yam-Mas
J
57The Yameo-Masamae doctrine writes this morpheme as <za> which was probably
representing ['sa] (cf. Espinoza 1955: 562). ['s] is also found in Yagua as an allophone of /s/
(Payne and Payne 1990: 432). The sound of modem Spanish < z >, the voiceless dental fricative
[8], is not found in any Peba-Yaguan variety. Tessmann represents it, but it is clearly an
allophone of Irl or lsi between vowels or word-initially. For example, where Tessmann gives
Yameo 8inJe 'manioc', Espinoza gives senJe; for 'house' laQ8e is given by Tessmann, while
123
Notice from the examples that Yameo has an alveopalatal fricative f
corresponding to Yagua and Peba s. However, f occurrs in the environment of a
high front vowel; thus I take this f as a synchronic allophone of s in modern
Yarneo. Gutierrez also gives a dental [?] and a voiced [z] but they are also just
allophones of lsi. The dental variety only occurs before a It/: ~tawa 'more', a?ti
'to fish'. The voiced allophone occurs before liquid (sonorant) segments: cizle'to
be' (notice that in the old doctrine texts we find asele as a clear form with the
voiceless s), kcizle 'black', and so on. Therefore, [?], [z] and [j] are all allophones
of lsi in Yameo. With this said, the proposal of *s for Proto-Peba-Yagua is re-
confirmed.
Espinoza gives lae1. In the last example, Espinoza shows an instance of a fricative alveolar rhotic
(an allophone of the alveolar sonorant in word-final position); the same fricativization is shown
by Tessmann, though he gives a dental sound. The examples are just few, but it seems like
Tessmann is again exaggerating the representation of the sounds by trying too hard to
differentiate small non-systematic differences
124
4.3.1.4 Affricate
Alveopalatal *tJ ( > Yagua if, Peba J, Yameo j)
I propose the alveopalatal *tffor Proto-Peba-Yagua. This proto-phoneme
has fricative reflexes in Peba and Yameo which yielded J, while Yagua
maintained the original segment. The change of an affricate into a fricative is
attested in many languages and it seems more natural: an affricate may become
a corresponding fricative because the stop closure is not totally completed before
the fricative release of the affricate happens. In modern Yagua, though, many
instances of intermorphemic [tJ] derive from Ijl plus lsi, for example raj '1.SG'
+ suuta 'wash' gives the form [ratfuuta] 'I wash'. However, there are some
instances of words in modem Yagua without any evidence of morphologically
distinct Ijl plus lsi coming together. Therefore, said words constitute a good
basis for establishing comparisons.
The alveopalatal affricate *tf can be reconstructed on basis of the
following correspondences:
Vag
haatJi 'heart'
Peb
kaiJi
Yam
aJe
P-P-Y
*CatJi
125
There are plenty of partial cognates sets that confinn this correspondence.
For Yagua and Peba, here are some cognate examples:
Yag
tJ~~ 'flesh of breast (of birds), breast'
mitJa-rij 'black (people)'
watJuuj 'herb, grass'
Peb
Ja-mo 'stomach, belly'
miJa-Iaj 'black'
vaJi
Yag
More examples showing cognates between Yagua and Yameo follow here:
Yam
rawitJu 'rock'
waatJa 'kind of small monkey'
ndatJij 'tongue'
ruwiJii, ruwisu
waJam 'capuchin monkey'
le?Ji (Tess), leJe (Esp) 'tongue'
Interestingly, then, we have to distinguish two types of palatal fricative f
in Yameo: a) one that is a synchronic allophone of /s/ as a result of a
palatalization before a high or middle front vowel, as we saw in the previous
section; and b) the other is a phoneme in Yameo which is the result of the
diachronic change *tf > f (i.e. this phonemic f is a reflex of *tj). Synchronically,
both fs (the allophone and the phoneme) became neutralized before a middle or
high front vowel; in other words, this is a case of a merger. To illustrate this
126
point consider Table 9, which summarizes the development of fricative sounds
for Yameo.
Table 9. Development of *5 and *tJ and their synchronic merger in Yameo
*lsi *ItJ/ P-P-Y
lsi
lsi --. [JV_ i,e
IJ/
IJ/ --. [JJ
Yameo
(merger)
There is a cognate series in which the correspondences differ a little from
the one stated above:
'sky' haritJu (Yag) : riese (Peb) : reJi6 (Yam)
I still think that this is showing a reflex of *tJ. What is probably occurring
is that in Peba and Yameo there was an 5 in a free variation with J, probably
through a likely fricativization path of the form *tJ > J > 5 that was not
generalized. Notice that in Yagua, Powlison and Gordon de Powlison (1971: 78)
127
observes that the affricate varies freely in its realization between [tJ] and [5J.
This random alternation would explain .the forms ruwiJii - ruwisu 'rock' that are
found in Yameo. An alternative hypothesis would be that there was another
consonant but a voiced affricate *dS analogous to the voiceless *tj", based on one
example, seems unlikely.
4.3.1.5 Rhotic
*R (flap?)
Postulating the reconstruction of a rhotic in Proto-Peba-Yagua can be
challenging because of the varied symbols used especially for Yameo, which can
lead the hypothesis that there is more than one phoneme involved. Tessmann
represents by a symbol <r> a sound "not rolled or only softly rolled" (Le. a
flap) and by another symbol <r> -with the dot under it- a sound that is a
"hissing cerebral"s8 (1930: 47). However Tessmann, as pointed out earlier, is not
58 A 'cerebral', as understood in other linguistic traditions such as in Indic linguistics, is another
tenn for a retroflex sound, while by 'hissing' I understand that a sibilant-like pronunciation is
accompanying the retroflex flap. The assibilated pronunciation is also present in Yagua and is
attested by Espinoza for Yarneo.
128
constant in his representations. Therefore we have examples like i.r~famta(mela
'thigh' and ir~famtitzi 'leg-below the knee', iriwis$ 'knee' and iriwus? 'heel' that
are likely referring to the same thing or at least the same nominal root; but
Tessmann writes them representing different 'r-sounds'. In other words, there
does not seem to be a contrast that distinguishes them phonemically, but it looks
like Tessmann is representing the realizations of one and the same phoneme.
On the other hand, Espinoza (1955: 299-300) distinguishes up to five
phonetic realizations of rhotic sounds, but apparently for two phonemes (he
does not distinguish phonemes from phones most of the time): the flap r and the
trill r. The flap has two fricative (approximant?) realizations: -a voiced alveolar
<1> and an assibilated voiceless alveolar <1>. So <1> appears in final
syllabic position: asci1 'fat', lcie.J. 'boy'; <1> occurs mostly in initial position
preceding a vowel that has been dropped: 1m6fe 'cotton', 1nuwa 'curare
(poison)' -only in one example does it occur in final position. Meanwhile, the
trill r, according to Espinoza, can have a 'relaxed' apico-alveolar fricative
realization that he represents by <-!>. That being said, Espinoza -like
129
Tessmann- is not always consistent with his own notations: for example, he
gives '3.SG' as ra or ra, '1.SG' as rae or raa, and so on with other words. Given
these alternations in Espinoza, a question that arises is: is he really representing
two (or more) phonemic units or just one?
Another question related to the last one is thus what happens with the r-
sounds in Yameo? In comparison with Yagua, where there is one segment-a
retroflexed flap Irl (which, in coincidence with Tessmann and Espinoza, can
also be realized as assibilated (Powlison and Gordon de Powlison 1971: 78, T.
and D. Payne, personal communication))-, Yameo shows either one or two
rhotics according to which author we follow, Tessmann or Espinoza. One answer
is that they are describing different dialects, but it is unlikely that at the time
they were gathering their material for Yameo there was much dialectal
variation, as the language was already in the path of becoming extinct -there
were not many Yamean groups aside from the one that lived around the town of
San Regis. The other explanation, more appealing to me, is that by the time
Espinoza was there, the language was already almost obsolescent and the system
130
was dying away. In this situation, it is possible that Yameo had begun to
'acquire' sounds from other dominant languages like Spanish or Quechua.59 In
this case, it is plausible that the trill is a loan from Spanish given the distinction
that it has from the flap in Espinoza's work. Tessmann does not give a trill and
there are no traces of a trill in Yagua. In the early Masamae texts there are also
not many trills represented: they are scarce, and some words even show
variation in their writing between the graphemes < rr> and < r> like mari.nra
~ mamnra 'good'. Thus rand r seem to have been realizations of a single
phonemic unit in Yameo(-Masamae). What is more, a conceivable phonemic
distinction between the two is not attested, except in Espinoza at a time, as I
said, when Yameo was being replaced by Spanish and Quechua. This issue,
nevertheless, is not clear and remains unresolved due to lack of more evidence.
However, there is still one more problem: in Peba we are not sure what
the symbol < r> represents. Castelnau and Erben did use the grapheme < r> to
59 The palatal lateral Athat Espinoza describes, and distinguishes from the alveolar 1, appears in
loan words from Quechua and Spanish, for example. For other few instances in which A occurs,
there are no cognates in Peba or Yagua, so no comparison is possible.
131
represent, of course, a rhotic sound. I will rule out that Castelnau is representing
the characteristic French uvular as there is no evidence to think so -no such
realization is ever mentioned anywhere in the Peba-Yaguan literature. Castelnau
was most probably representing a Spanish-like sound, either a flap or a trill. The
fact that Castelnau uses < rr> in one word60 (but, again, marginally in only one
word) may be indicative that by <r> he is representing the flap. Erben, who
was Czech, uses < r> only twice, so it is difficult to interpret (he does not use
<rr>, only <r?. In Czech <r> represents a trill (there is no flap), but he
may have been representing a flap as well.
Under the hypothesis that the distinction between rand r was, at best, a
late one in Yameo (if there was ever such a distinction) and that the different
symbols represent one phoneme in all other parts of the data, we can reconstruct
a rhotic in the proto-language based on the following examples. Notice thus that
I am not reconstructing a distinction between a flap and a trill (but see the
section about 'Other residual cognates and correspondence sets?' further on in
60 In the word vinerro 'nose', which is composed by vi- '3.PL' and nerro 'nose'.
132
this chapter). I will represent this rhotic as *R since it is not possible to know the
exact nature of the sound because of the problems mentioned above.
Vag Peb Yam Yam-Mas P-P-Y
raj '1' n: (-raj?) rad, rae ra, ra *Raj
[Uwee 'arrow' rue ruwe *Ruwe
haritJu'sky' riese reJj6 (Esp), reJjo (Tess) aresio *haRitJV
ndeera 'boy' lrra laer *neRa
nurutu 'caiman' nuerto nurto *nuRVtV
4.3.1.6 Approximants
Palatal *j
In word-final environment, the palatal approximant j seems to have
undergone a process of reduction of varying degree in Peba, Yameo(-Masamae).
Notice that in Yagua, j is barely pronounced word-finally, and when it is in a
sequence with Iii and lei, its occurrence is not noticeable (Payne and Payne
1990: 433). Word-finally and sometimes syllable-finally j becomes [e] or [a] in
Yameo. In Peba, it is sometimes mantained in these environments, but some
other times it seems to occur fused (and represented) with an < i> or < e>.
Thus consider the following examples:
133
Vag Peb Yam Yam-Mas P-P-Y
wuuj 'l.PL.INCL' vi wi wue *wuj
raj'l.SG' re, (raj? < rai > ) rad, rae ra *Raj
hij '2.SG' hi, i
-tuwaj 'ear' -tiwa tiwe, tiwad *tiwaj, tuwaj
satja~ 'row' sadja
rda (-rajla?) 'rain' raela
Bilabial *w
The bilabial *w can be reconstructed on basis of the correspondences in
initial and middle position given below. In Yameo, Tessmann and Espinoza use
sometimes a velar ?g> or its fricative counterpart <y? to represent the
semiconsonant /w/; Espinoza also uses <gw> in between vowels. I am
interpreting these as variations of /w/. Also, Tessmann and Espinoza sometimes
write < 1]g>. Notably their use of these letters are only on occasions when there
is a preceding nasal vowel. I think that they are representing (and maybe
analyzing?) the nasal vowel as an [n] after the vowel, and that it becomes a
phonetic velar before the <g>. The other possible explanation is that in Yameo,
after a nasal vowel, /w/ underwent a process of fortition (Le. a strengthening of
its pronunciation), resulting in [gw]. In either case, in Yameo, [gw] is considered
134
an allophone of /w/. Besides, in Peba, in initial position and especially in the
context of a high front vowel, /w/ becomes fricativized labiodental [v}. In other
contexts, it remains w. The fricativization of /w/ is also observed in Yagua
(Powlison 1995: 32), but as a bilabial [13]. Thus consider these cognates:
Yag Peb Yam Yam-Mas P-P-Y
nawa 'any kind of nowa'Marafi.6n naIJgwa 'water' *nawa
big river' River,61
wcitura 'woman watoa watdi *wa-tV-Ra
without children'
-tuwaj 'ear' -tiwa tiwe (Tess), *tiwaj,
tuwa~ (Esp) tuwaj
wddj 'l.PL.INCL' vi'l.PL' wi wue <bue> *wuj
'l.PL'
(Uwee 'arrow' rue ruwe *Ruwe
Pharingeal *h (> Yagua h, Peba 0, Yameo 0)
There are basically two patterns for the pharingeal approximant *h that I
present here for consideration:
61 In Yagua, the name of the Amazon River is Niiwa. In general, niiwa seems to be the term for
'big water', so to speak informally. In Yameo, Tessmann provides Nawapai as the name for the
Amazon River. Two other rivers, Nawas ?Navas? and Nawapa ?Naguapa? are rivers that
one finds in the Peba-Yaguan territory.
135
Yag
hV
hV
Peb
o
0V
Yam
o
0V
Notice that the vast majority of the correspondences for *h are instances
of said sound appearing in word-initial position. The correspondences show that
*h becomes zero in initial position but this deletion affects the vowel
immediately after it within the syllable as well, resulting thus in *hV > 0 for
Peba and Yameo. Alternatively, in the other pattern *hV becomes V, with *h
equally becoming zero in Peba and Yameo. Sometimes these two patterns
appeared mixed as in, for example, the series hilmuj - hilmij (Yag) : me (Peb) :
amueJ amu (Yam) 'lake, spring'.
Yam-Mas P-P-YVag
haritJu'sky'
hiimuJ1u 'canoe'
hiimuj-, hiimij
'lake, water spring'
hapa 'red macaw'
hiJ1a 'celebration'
himij 'eat'
Peb
reJi6
j
muno
me 'lake'
apa'macaw'
J1a
Yam
reJi6
men;:}a
amue (Tess), amu
(Esp) 'lake'
apa'macaw'
m~, mja 'eat'
aresiu *haRitJV
*humunjV
*hVmuj
*hapa
136
Checking the list of cognates offered above, we can see that Yagua
presents an h while Peba and Yameo(-Masamae) present a zero in the same
position. In view of the data, we can postulate that the proto-language possessed
a pharyngeal approximant that would be eliminated in Peba and Yameo(-
Masamae). The different examples show a weak syllable-initial particular
characteristic that is similarly present also in Yagua. In this language a vowel or
the whole syllable may be dropped in a word beginning with a syllable that
contains an /h/. For example, we can have in Yagua: hiino ~ hno ~ no 'head'.
The fact that h appears almost always in initial position can be indicative of a
non-phonemic status, inserted there in Yagua by epenthesis. This is briefly
discussed in Payne and Payne (1990: 438) who differentiate two types of h, one
phonemic and the other not; however the authors present only two examples for
the non-phonemic one stating that the epenthesis is optional. Of the two
examples, one is a loan from Spanish (Janita /hanzta/ from the proper name
Anita /anita/). In this section, given the lack of evidence to the contrary (Le.,
there is no evidence of any epenthetical-h in the Yaguan words given in the
137
cognate list; for example, no evidence of variation of the type haritfz1 ~ (aritfz1)
'sky' or hilno ~ (ilno) 'head' in Yagua), I take *h as a proto-phoneme with a
defective distribution already in the proto-language, which does not mean that it
necessarily occurred only in initial position. An example of it in non-initial
position is the number suffix number -nihjci.tee (Yagua) : -neti (Peba).
Interestingly, there are some grammatical morphemes in Yameo and
Masamae where the *h seems to have been retained marginally. Thus, for
instance we find Yagua hfj : Yameo i ~ hi '2.SG', Yagua 'directional, dative' -hil :
Yameo -u (Espinoza 1955), but -hil ?hun? in the Yameo-Masamae text.
4.3.1.7 Other Residual Cognates and Correspondence Sets?
I have mentioned before that there are some problematic alternations
across languages. For example, there is an instance of din Peba that corresponds
to tin Yagua (saatjaa (Yag) : sadja (Peb) 'row'). There a number of instances
where we have alternations of consonant sounds that cannot be accounted for
because they occur marginally. I have not considered them for establishing
138
comparisons because of the lack of supporting evidence, but I will describe some
of these data in this section.
Sometimes there is alternation between I and [in the data. The example
below is the only in one for which there is data for all three languages and a
correspondence [ - I - I may be suggested. Consider the word for 'house':
[oo[(j (Yag) : lowarej (Peb) : lao.L (Yam)
There are more partial correspondences of the same nature between
Yagua and Peba; and Yagua and Yameo. For instance, compare Yagua kci[66sifj
'clay pot' and Yameo kalfe 'pot'. It is interesting that Castelnau in the 19th
century writes the Yagua form < randulia > (probably [[cfldugaJ) 'lightning',
whereas modem Yagua has the form [iiffduria with the same meaning. The
alternation between I and [ in the last syllable is certainly intriguing. The
alternation between a flap and a lateral approximant have been observed in
well-known languages like Japanese or some dialects of Spanish. Ladefoged
(1996: 243) says that there are patterns of alternations between rhotics and
laterals that associate these classes together (hence the category of liquids);
139
however this author also observes that sometimes some of the reports of
alternations between a flap and a lateral may be because of different
interpretations of what is actually a consistent articulation, especially in an
environment conditioned by the occurrence of a vowel. For example, this
happens systematically in Tucano, a Tucanoan language from Colombia and
Brazil, where the flap becomes a lateral flap following mid and back oral vowels
(West and Welch 1967: 16). However, it is difficult to say that something similar
occurred in Peba-Yagua (for example, could it occur before mid and back vowels
like in the examples?) since there is little information for testing this idea.62
Another interesting case is the trill sound T. I have said before that the
62 Remember that Orejon (also known as Payagua or Coto), another a Tucanoan language, was a
historical neighbor of Peba, Yameo and Yagua. Coincidentally, Peba-Yagua and Orejon treat
some consonants in a similar way. According to Velie (1975), in Orejon voiced stops band g are
realized in front of oral vowels, and nasal consonants m and 1] occur as allophones of the stops in
front of nasal vowels (as we have seen, Yagua m and n are realized in front of nasal vowels and
their allophones mb and nd in front of oral vowels; whereas in Yameo and Peba at least the
alveolar n changed to l). There is also variation between d and r in Orejon, where the flap occurs
as an allophone of the stop between vowels. As we have seen, alternations between d, n, r and I
occur across Peba-Yaguan languages, although such alternations do not seem to be systematic as
in Orejon --or rather, perhaps more evidence is needed to find a rule that accounts for a
systematic change in Peba-Yagua. Maybe a study of linguistic contact between Orejon (and by
extension, Tucanoan) and Peba-Yagua could shed more light on the matter of (or reveal an areal
feature with respect to) the treatment of these sounds.
140
distinction trill versus flap is difficult to posit in Yarneo and Peba, thus it is
improbable for Proto-Peba-Yagua. There is one example, though, that may
suggest a different story. The word for 'nose' is one of the scarce words that
Castelnau writes with the grapheme <rr> ?vi-nerro> 'our nose'), suggesting a
trill interpretation. There is also a trill in the Yameo form, which would give us
the correspondence r- r - r:
nii[li (Yag) : nero (Peb) : nar?d (Yam)
Finally, there are some instances in which we get kin Yameo where we
have h in Yagua. In the example below, we can see the correspondence nd - l- I,
but the k in Yameo seems to be analogous with h in Yagua. If there was a vowel
in the first syllable in the words for Yameo [kVlareIil, it may be clear how Yagua
h corresponds to Yameo k. There is also the same h - k correspondence but this
time for Yagua and Peba, in the word for 'heart'. Whether this is indicative of
another change or not is almost impossible to establish.
'star' hirdaritJfj (Yag) : larse (Peb) : khireJi (Yam)
'heart' haatJfj (Yag) : kaifi (Peb) : dIe (Yam) :Iasi (or sasi) (Yam-Mas)
141
4.3.2 Vowels
If the analysis of the data has some difficulty with consonants, this
difficulty is even greater with vowels. There is so much variation in the
transcriptions available that many of these variations will remain unexplained.
This problem is briefly described in the next section. After that, I hypothesize
the phonemic inventory of Proto-Peba-Yagua. The final sections discuss the
possibility of positing nasal vowels and vowel length contrasts for Proto-Peba-
Yagua.
4.3.2.1 The Variation of Vowels in the Data
The aim of this short sub-section is to present examples of variation of
vowels in the data that I have gathered. I will not discuss these kinds of
examples because most of them do not seem to show systematic correspondences
and/or changes between vowels, thus it is little what one can say about them.
Simply put, there are no patterns on which one can work. I assume that these
examples represent variation in the informant's idiolect, or a 'problem' of the
142
investigator in interpreting and representing the sounds; besides,one should note
that some dialectal variation seems to have been important, but was never
studied. For example, although it has been reported that the dialects of Yagua
are mutually intelligible, they have yet to be thoroughly investigated. It is
important to add that in Yagua there is idiolectal and dialectal variation
especially for the vowels a ~ i ~ u (Doris Payne, personal communication) and
dialectal variation for the same vowels plus a ~ e (for a handful of examples, d.
Chaumeil 1987: 19). Also, remember that, according to Payne and Payne (1990:
429), a non-Yagua speaker may easily confuse the pronunciations of Iii and lei,
and of lui and 101 because the high vowels are not pronounced as high as in
other languages like Spanish. Here are some instances where we can see these
problematic variations:
ndaku 'black' (Yag) : neko 'night' (Yam) a~e, u~o
tandaj 'half, five' (Yag) : taone 'five' (Yam) a~ao
nihjatee 'number suffix, on top of (Yag): neti 'number suffix' (Peb) ee~i
nikee 'say' (Yag) : leke 'say' (Yam) : leke 'say' (Yam-Mas) i~e
143
haritJu 'sky' (Yag) : riese (Peb) : reJi6 (Yam) u-e-o
-tuwaj 'ear' (Yag) : tiwa 'ear' (Peb) u-i
nilmG.tU 'shoulder' (Yag) : nemata 'shoulder' (Yam) G.-e, G.-a
4.3.2.2 The Vowel System (that can be reconstructed)
In this part I will deal with the vowel system in Proto-Peba-Yagua,
focusing on vowel quality. The vowel phonemes postulated for Proto-Peba-
Yagua are given in Table 10.
Table 10. Vowels reconstructed for Proto-Peba-Yagua
Front Central Back
High
Middle
Low
*i
(*e)
*a
*u
I reconstruct *0, (*e)J *iJ *u. As with consonants, the parenthesis (as in
(*e)) means that it is possible to reconstruct the sound but more evidence is
needed to postulate it with an optimal level of certainty. I also discuss briefly the
possibility of reconstructing *0. It is very possible that Proto-Peba-Yagua had
144
more vowel quality distinctions. The varied realizations of vowels could indicate
that there were more vowels in the past, but as I tried to reconstruct vowels the
non-patterned variability was cumbersome -leaving little room for systematic
reconstruction. A comparative study of the high central vowel i present in Yagua
as proposed by Powlison (1962), Powlison and Gordon de Powlison (1971),
Chaumeil (1987), Payne and Payne (1990) and T. Payne (1992) is not possible
because this is not represented in the data. Notice that Powlison (1995), which
constitutes the main source of the lexical data gathered for this thesis, does not
consider i to be a phoneme in Yagua and he mixes its representation with either
<i> or <u>.
A mid close central vowel represented as < e> in Chaumeil (1988) seems
to be a relaxed realization of i or a in some dialects of Yagua. It has not been
possible to compare this vowel either, though it seems not to be phonemic, as
opposed to i. 63 Informally speaking, there is an example that may suggest a
63 Notice that Payne and Payne (1990) do not provide any example or evidence of the phonemic
status of i. Powlison (1962) and Powlison and Gordon de Powlison (1971) give a few examples
of its occurrence -though not minimal pairs-, but Powlison (1995) seems to have changed his
mind about i -however, his dictionary is meant to be for educational (alphabetization) purposes
145
central vowel (not necesarily i) in Proto-Peba-Yagua, especially for a some words
found in Yameo and Yagua. It is interesting to at least mention this instance:
comparing some of the early work of Powlison (1962), and Powlison and
Gordon de Powlison (1971), I find one word with the vowel i: redu 'com', that
has a correspondence in Yameo,64 where Espinoza gives the word r9lz1 'maiz',
with a closed 0, Tessman gives roM with a 'normal' o. Whether this is telling that
Yagua high central vowel i corresponds to a Yameo back middle vowel is
uncertain though, because there are no more examples to examine this idea.
*a
The following cognates sets allow for the reconstruction of *a in the
Proto-Iaguage.
mainly, not as an accurate linguistic tool. This vowel in question is not very productive in Yagua,
but its phonemic status is suggested specially by some morphemes (Thomas Payne and Doris
Payne, personal communication).
64 Remember that Powlison (1995) would later give the form i instead.
146
Yag Peb Yam P-P-Y
wa-tu-ra 'woman without watoa
children'
watdi *wa-tV-Ra
rimjara'shaman'
-lldasij 'CL.long.cilinder'
hapa 'red macaw'
ha-llda, ha-nu 'teeth'
(*e)
dimasa65 rmaUi 'devil, spirit of plants' *Rima-
-lase -las *nasij
apa 'macaw' apa 'macaw' *hapa
a-Ia 'teeth' a-Ia 'teeth' *ha-
The vowel *e is more controversial. It does occur in all materials for
Yagua, Peba and Yameo without being predictable in its distribution, but there
are few true clear cognates. In the data for Yameo, e is one of the vowels
represented with the most different realizations: opened (~), close (~), shortened
(e), long (e:), with accent (eJ, etc. However, Espinoza clearly considers all of
them to be basically allophones of e; he says that there are five vowels in Yameo:
a, e, i, 0, U, which are predominant, plus two vowels that appear rarely (in only
three words), the fronted 0 and ii (Espinoza 1955: 291). He treats the rest as
65 Ai; indicated in the first part, there are some alternations between [, nd, and n in some dialects
of Yagua. These alternations may be found as well in some cognates like in the forms for
'shaman' in Peba dimasa and Yagua [imjara. There is probably a root [imja- ~ dima- in these
words. For example, [imjinda means 'shaman darts' in Yagua, and it has the same root.
147
phonetic realizations, some of them with a clear distribution (for example, he
says that short vowels occur in unstressed final syllables). In Peba (in the data
from Castelnau), certain graphemes < ai > neatly match an e in Yagua; thus I
analyzed these words as having an open e (Le. [rJ) since < ai> would represent
lei in French.66 The cognates to argue for an *e are given below:
Vag Peb Yam P-P-Y
ndeera 'boy' lera lea *neRa
ruwee 'arrow' rue ruwe *Ruwe
-see 'CL.short.stick'
-Je J~, Je *-see
*.1
As with e, the high front vowel also occurs in different unpredictable
environments throughout the data, Le., it is a phoneme in all languages.
However there is a small number of examples showing genuine series of
cognates. In spite of this, positing an *i is less problematic because it is a
cardinal vowel that appears in the inventories of all three languages (plus
66 For Yagua, Chaumeil (1987: 18) also suggests an opened mid-vowel [E] as a possible
realization of lei.
148
Masamae). An environment where the vowel i seems to have been more
maintained (taking into consideration the problems with variation cited above)
is at the end of the word. Some examples show its occurrence for Yagua, Peba
and Yameo-Masamae:
Vag Peb Mas Yam-Mas P-P-Y
nIbjif 'dog, jaguar' nebi niami *nimji
rimjara'shaman' dima-sa r(i)ma-Ui 'devil, *Rima-
spirit of plants'
mitJa-rij 'black miJa-Iaj
(people)' 'black'
tifki 'one' teki 'one'
pisij 'throat' p~:Ji
-witJu 'rock' -wisu
tI 'someone, other' aetin (prob. atI ?atin?
aetf) 'people' 'man'
nn '3.SG.ANIM' nT ?nin?
'3.SG.ANIM'
*0 (?)
The reconstruction of *0 is perhaps the most problematic of all because
there are few words with this vowel. Indeed, it cannot be reconstructed despite
the fact that it appears in Yagua, Peba, Yameo and Masamae. The instances
where it occurs do not have clear cognates except in very sporadic cases. If we
149
expand the idea that 0 is less frequent in the lexicon of Yagua and apply it to the
lexicon of Peba and Yameo (as it seems to be defective in these languages as
well), we can find an explanation for the lack of evidence. Notice that though
less frequent in Yagua, it clearly occurs as both long and short forms. In Peba
and Yameo the occurrence of 0 seems to be unpredictable, but that is about all
we can say. Also, there are some instances in which 0 in Peba and Yameo
corresponds to u in Yagua, as in:
ndaku 'black' (Yag) neko 'night' (Yam)
Whether the confusion u ~ 0 stated in a previous section of this chapter
(see section 4.3.2.1) is working here or not is difficult to say.
Here are some examples of 0 corresponding to 0 (but notice that it not
always happens, even in the same word):
homutu 'hand' (Yag) omote 'arm' (Peb)
too 'forest' (Yag)
hut66 'head' (Yag)
tQ:<;> 'forest' (Yam-Tess), tao 'forest' (Yam-Esp)
to 'head' (Peb)
popoko 'white earth' (Yag) : po:po:? 'earth' (Yam) : p6po (Yam-Mas)
150
*u
The case of the high back vowel is similar to *i. We find examples for its
reconstruction in the following series of cognates.
Yag Peb Yam Yam-Mas P-P-Y
nu'road' nu nUl) *nu
[UWee 'arrow' rue ruwe *Ruwe
kaanu 'bow' kanu kanu-tf *kanu
nu[utu 'caiman' nuerto nurtu *nuRutV
mu- 'three' mu-
-hu'DAT' -u, -u hu ?hun?
4.3.2.3 Nasal Vowels
Nasal vowels occur in Yagua and Yameo. There is no direct evidence that
they occurred in Peba, but Castelnau may have represented them without any
diacritic symbols, like they usually appear orthographically in French, or
sometimes reflecting with a syllable final orthographic nasal consonant < n>. I
will not attempt to reconstruct nasal vowels per vowel quality because words in
which nasal vowels likely appear in Peba and Yameo do not always have them
represented explicitly, and sometimes a nasal vowel in Yagua does not have a
151
nasal counterpart in Yameo, or at least it is difficult to interpret that there is a
nasal there from the written forms. However, I postulate that nasal vowels
existed in the proto-language as a phonological category. In fact, hypothesized
nasal vowels account for series of puzzling correspondences that otherwise
would be not possible to resolve, like the correspondences for the nasal
consonants *m and *n. There are examples in Yagua and Yameo where nasal
vowels have correspondent forms. Thus consider:
hiiii 'water' (Yag) : ?a 'water' (Yam)
If'someone, other' (Yag) : aelfn 'people' (Yam) : alf'people' (Yam-Mas)67
nu'3SG.ANIM' (Yag) : nf'3SG.(ANIM?)68 (Mas)
mil 'LOC' (Yag) : mil 'LOC' (Yam)
67 This word is written < atin > , and a nasal vowel in that environment is more than likely. The
other idea here could be that nasal vowels come from an assimilation in the environment of old
nasal consonant (the < n> that appears in Masamae for example) that was lost at the end of the
syllable. However, more evidence would be needed to postulate that.
68 Written < nin >.
152
4.3.2.4 Short and Long Vowels
In Yagua, vowel length is clearly contrastive. For example, we can have
sa-sfj 'his seed' vs. sa-sifj 'he runs', hci.nfr 'type of firefly' vs. hcicinfr 'type of fish'.
Short versus long vowels are not represented for Peba. For Yameo, however,
they are represented. For example, Tessmann represents long and short vowels,
though Espinoza criticizes him because the German author "llega hasta el
absurdo en esta materia,,69 (1955: 293) -that is to say something, since
Espinoza is also of a hyper-phonetic tendency in representing sounds. Espinoza
(1955:293) states that in Yameo the pronunciation of vowels in unaccented final
syllables is shortened, thus the vowel is short. Therefore, the vowels in the other
syllables are perceived as long, he concludes. Further, Espinoza says that he is
marking the stress syllable with an accent, indicating both that it carries the
stress of the word and that the vowel is 'longer' than the ones in other syllables
(294). Thus notice the following examples70 as possible correspondences:
69 "He is even absurd in this matter [of representing short and long vowels]".
70 All of the Yameo forms are from Espinoza (1995).
153
-haa 'water' (Yag) : ?~ 'water' (Yam)
nikee 'say, speak' (Yag) : nike (Yam)
ruwee 'arrow' : ruwe (Yam)
If Espinoza were representing 'longer' vowels with an accent mark, then it
would be possible to think about the possibility of long vowels for Proto-Peba-
Yagua. However, coincidences aside, the majority of supposedly 'long vowels' in
the Yameo vocabulary do not correspond to long vowels in Yagua. Besides, there
are words in Yagua that have long vowels in different syllables, while Espinoza
describes Yameo as having long vowels in just the stressed syllable. This, added
to the unreliability of Tessmann and the inconsistencies of Espinoza, leaves the
question of long versus short vowels in the Proto-language unresolved. I think
that at best such a distinction could have been categorial indeed, but it is not
possible to trace it (with cognate correspondences) from the material available.
Thus, from what we can see, vowel length, while possible as a categorial
distinction, may have followed its own specific development in each language.
-------- ---
154
4.3.3 Syllable Structure
From the comparisons and lexical reconstructions presented so far, the
basic syllabic structure reconstructable for Proto-Peba-Yagua is eV(j).
Consonants in Proto-Peba-Yagua occurred in onset position but not in coda
position, where the only consonantal sound allowed was the palatalj. There
were at least two restrictions in Proto-Peba-Yagua:
a. Vowels needed a consonantal onset. In other words, patterns like Vor
ve were not allowed.
b. Syllables were specified as [+ /- nasal]. This would account for the
different variations in the series of correspondences for the proto-sounds *n and
*m discussed earlier in this chapter. The [-nasal] feature would spread leftwards
to the nasal consonant onset of the syllable, explaining the occurrence of nb, mb
in Yagua and I in Peba and Yameo.
Most examples that could posit an exception to this restrictions are lexical
items that do not have a cognate with Yagua, or alternatively with Yameo or
Peba. Peba shows the syllable structure Vat the beginning of a word in only
155
three instances: <ain> ([e]?) 'water', <ainoy> ([moj]?) 'no', and <aupou>
([Jpu]?) 'forest'. Notice that some of these words may have cognates in Yagua
that have a consonantal onset: haa 'water', hilnaj 'negative'.71 Yameo was
perhaps the most innovative language with respect to syllable structure. It
allowed vowels to occur without a consonant onset; Le., it allowed the patterns
Vor VC like in awara 'man' or indelo 'red', respectively. In general, though, if we
have words in Yameo or Peba that do not have the consonant onset and we have
their Yagua cognates, then we have evidence to postulate that the consonant
actually was present in the Proto-language. Compare these examples: Yagua
hapa 'red macaw', Peba apa, Yameo apa; Yagua hij- 'you', Yameo i- ~ hi- 'you'.
Because of an allophonic rule that seemingly deleted vowels of weak
syllables, we can observe that Yameo allowed coda consonants in surface forms,
as for example I in kciLJe 'small pot' (compare to Yagua kU[6osij 'pot'), lao.1 'house'
(compare to Yagua [oo[ij, Peba lowarej).72 Because of the same process, Yameo
71 Although the Peba and Yagua fonns are similar and possible cognates, it is very difficult to
explain the vowel change in these words.
72 This happens ocasionally in Yagua also, for example nU[tU - nU[Utu 'alligator'.
156
also had syllabic consonants. Notice that this also happens with the consonant h
in modem Yagua; for example: [hmuta] ~ [muta] from /humuta/ '(to) hunt
animals'~ But in Yameo more syllabic consonants are found, for example (they
are underlined): nu~ 'hair' (the complete form nanse is also given by Espinoza),
!J11ala 'devil, spirit of the plants' (compare to Yagua [imjara 'shaman', Peba
dimasa 'shaman'), Imelu 'moon', and so on.
157
CHAPTER V
MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX
5.1 Introduction
If the sound system of Proto-Peba-Yagua is not easy to postulate, the parts
of morphology and syntax that can be reconstructed are more reduced.
Unfortunately, there is not much data about Peba for making a comparison. The
Yamean data is based on Espinoza's work on the grammar of Yameo (1955) and
on doctrinal texts that are basically very short but I have been able to do some
analysis via comparing with modem Yagua. His investigation of Yameo has a
fair number of problems in his interpretation of the data he gathered. Espinoza's
description of Yameo follows mainly a Latin mold that is also present in classic
Spanish grammars, which seem to be the 'inspiration' for Espinoza's own
description. Besides, his work is not without arbitrary explanations, and formal
158
distinctions are not always made. For example, he talks about "prepositions"
even though there are no prepositions at all in Yameo: what he means by
"prepositions" is how Yameo forms expressions that are translated into Spanish
with a preposition. In doing so he mixes totally unrelated categories and/or
constructions. For instance, in the section "Preposici6n A" (1955: 380), Espinoza
gives examples that would require a preposition 'a' but in Spanish, not -of
course- in Yame073 where both sentences involve two different constructions,
one without any type of adposition and the other with the locative postposition.
Here are the two examples (notice also how the two examples are very similar to
Spanish with regards to word order):
(1) rae waese
1.SG love
ra~
l.SG father
'I love my father' (Sp. 'Yo quiero ~ mi padre')
73 Even in Spanish, we would have to distinguish two a's here: the a that occurs in the first
sentence is a marker that appears with [ +human] objects; the a of the second sentence is a
locative marker.
159
(2) ri ja la6r-me74
l.SG go house-LOC
'I go home' (Sp. 'Voy ~ casa')
However, Espinoza's description is the most 'complete' work that we have
of Yameo, and, despite its problems, the only piece that addresses the Yameo
grammar.
In this chapter, I analyze three parts of the grammar that can be
postulated for Proto-Peba-Yagua. Other grammatical points will remain
unresolved for the moment -at least until new data is found-, especially because
of the lack of information about Peba. The three points that I discuss here are
these: the existence of a pronominal system and its likely nature, the existence of
a classifier system and the reconstruction of a locative proto-morpheme *mV. I
hypothesize that all three of these grammar pieces were already present in the
proto-language. The final sub-section compares three general post-positions (the
adlative, the commitative and the dative) that occur in Yameo(-Masamae) and
Yagua -no comparison with Peba is possible-, and discusses the possible nature
74 The l.SG pronominal form rae - raCi consistently appears as ri with the verb ja 'to go'. It seems
that there is a morpho-phonological process affecting the vowels in front of the approximant j.
160
of Proto-Peba-Yagua as a post-positional language. With regards to this section,
notice that we should add the locative *mV to the three other postpositions -but
the locative will be treated in a separate sub-section because, as I said, it can be
actually reconstructed for Proto-Peba-Yagua. I consider that a comparison of
Yagua and Yameo can still shed light on the history of the family which they
belong to and thus the discussion presented proceeds in that direction.
5.2 The Pronominal System
The pronominal system can be partially reconstructed for Proto-Peba-
Yagua. In Yagua,75 there is a concordial type of system which is expressed by
means of subject and object cross-reference clitics. This pronominal system is
comprised of two sets of clitics with largely the same forms, although they have
different functions and distribution, and some morpheme show the same form
but have different tone (see the tables below where I present the sets of clitics).
Set I clitics are used to refer to subjects, possessors and objects of postpositions.
75 The following description of the Yagua pronominal system is based on Payne and Payne
(1990) and Pefia (2007, manuscript).
161
They are prefixed to verbs, auxiliaries, nouns and postpositions. Table 11 shows
Yagua Set I dities.
Table 11. Yagua Set I CUties (adopted from
Payne and Payne 1990)
Animate COR1 INAN
1 1+2 2 3
SG {aj- hij- sa-
hij- {a-
, ,
vililj- s~~nda- naanda-DUAL naaj-
.!, .G ?
vilil} hi[jej {ij-PL nuuJ-
Different allomorphs have been reported (d. Payne and Payne 1990:
361). Here we give some known ones that may be important in considering the
variations for the other languages:
1.SG ri-, 1.DUAL naandja-, 1.PL nuundja
1.INCL.DUAL wu[ja-, l.INCL.PL wu[ja-
2.SG ji-, 2.DUAL s~~na-, 2.PL hi[ja-
3.SG si- ~ sU-, 3.PL {i[ja-/ru-
Coreferential yi-
'INAN {i-
162
Some examples of Set I clitics with the pronominal forms attached to
different head constituents follow here for animate referents, where the forms
sa-, nuuj- and wiiiij- refer to the possessor of the construction in (3) and agree
with the subject of the sentences in (4) and (5), respectively:76
(3) sa?
3.SG.ANIM-
'his house'
[oo[ij
house
(4) ndahij mliij-hija-handa
so 1.PL.ANIM-go-PT.DIS
miij
there
ta-i-kii
one-CL:ANIM.SG-one
paturii-saa-ntij
boss-COMM-also
'so we went there before with a boss also'
(5) wiiiij-a
1.ANIM.INCL-AUX:IRR
'let's eat there'
hlmlj niimii
eat there
76 For this section, the examples in Yagua come from Tom and Doris Payne's fieldwork database
and stories collected by Powlison that are also in T. and D. Payne database, with Powlison's
permission. Also, the relevant forms will be underlined. The examples presented in this chapter
are in an 'analyzed' form, rather than in surface phonemic form.
163
And now for inanimate entities:
(6) @-nuG.j-nfunaa @-ruundii-mu-sij roorij
INAN-bum.totally-now INAN-peak-LOC-ABLAT house
'It [the house] was engulfed in flames now from the house's peak'
The second set of pronominal forms are mostly similar in form to the Set I
forms. According to Payne and Payne (1990: 364), some of the Set II forms are
always phonologically bound, but others are realized as free forms. Set II clitics
are basically used to mark object reference. They may attach to the verb if there
is nothing else in the sentence; if the object is a full noun phrase, they are
attached to whatever element immediately precedes the object; and if there is
additional material but no full object Noun Phrase, the Set II clitics move to the
end of the clause. Yagua Set II clitics for animate, coreferential and inanimate
referents are shown in the following Table 12.
164
Table 12. Yagua SET II Clities (adopted from
Payne and Payne 1990)
Animate COR2 INAN
1 1+2 2 3
SG -raj -hij -nff
-yu -ra
DUAL naaj -vfifij saallda naallda
PL nfifij -vfifij hidej -rij
Example (7) shows the 3SG animate suffix -nit making reference to kiwu
'fish', the object of the verb hatJzj 'hunt'. A similar function is showed in (8) by -
[U but this time for an inanimate entity (whieh concords with 'blowgun'):
(7) hij-nfi tajItu-witJa
that-CL.ANIM.SG gull-much
'those gulls were hunting fish'
hatJij-nii kiwa
chase-3.ANIM.SG fish
(8) hasij-ho-lldee-ta rij-hiwaj-nfi-jallda-@
snail-CL?-DIM-INST 3.ANIM.PL-work-CONT-PT.DIST-INAN
rij-rulldasij
3.ANIM.PL-blowgun
'with small snails they made their blowguns'
The distribution of pronominal forms in Peba and Yameo show -at
least- that: 1) much like Yagua Set I cilities, a) they attach to nouns to form
_._...._-_.----
165
possessive nominal phrases, prefixing to the noun root; b) they attach to verbs to
establish agreement with the subject NP; 2) much like Yagua Set II clitics, they
attach to verbs to mark object agreement. I have not found instances in which
clitics occur as pronominal objects of postpositions (as can occur in Yagua). This
distribution is illustrated by the examples given in the discussion that follows
below.
There is evidence to reconstruct not only the forms of some pronouns but
also some of the functions and distribution patterns of the pronominal clitic-
system in Peba-Yaguan languages. The different forms found in the data are
presented in Table 14. Notice that while we do not have many forms from the
Peba languauge, the similarity between the Yagua and Yameo pronominal
systems is evident, at least as far as forms go. I discuss this similarty next, and
then analyze the functions of the pronominal clitics in Yagua, Peba and Yameo.
Thus consider the correspondences shown in Table 13.
166
Table 13. Comparison of pronominal forms found in Yagua, Peba and
Yameo
Yag Peb Yam Yam-Mas
lSG raj- raj- (rr?)?? rae-, ra;:)-, ri- ra-
2SG hij- i-, hi- hoe, he-, hi-, hoil
(here, ere, hera78)
3SG sa- ra-?, ranun-?, -sa-, sa- <za>
san-, sanun-
lINCL wiiiij- vi- wi- wue- <bue>
1PL mi.dj- -- -- nei-, ni-
2PL hiriej re- re, ret, rete (here, re, ere, era)?
3PL rij- - (U- ri- ru-, run, runun re-
3INAN ra- -- ra-?, ran-?, ranun? ra-?
As we can see from the table, we can hypothesize the existence of the
singular and plural distinctions, including the first inclusive person. A Proto-
Peba-Yagua dual category is more difficult to prove because Peba and Yameo do
not show it. In other parts of the grammar of Yameo, however, there may be
formal traces of a dual conceptual category (though not necessarily correlated
77 This is written < rai > by Castelnau.
78 Cf. the discussion below.
167
with the occurrence of a pronoun form). Basically, two lines of reasoning can
support the idea of a dual categorial distinction in the language: in Yameo,
numbers are counted only until number two, and the rest are borrowed from
Quechua. This is perhaps not such a convincing idea for arguing for a dual
grammatical category (conceptual categories not necesarily have gramamtical
expression), but one could argue that the 'one' vs. 'two' distinction was a primal
category in Yameo such that they retained those numbers (original numbers
from one to ten are present in Peba and Yagua). Secondly, a dual social
organization has been also suggested for Yagua in Powlison (1977) and
Chaumeil (1988). A third fact that may be invoked is that Espinoza, for Yameo,
gives the form watru as the plural for women (watra is the singular form); watru
does not carry the plural morpheme, which is -la in said language. There seems
to be a particle -ru that occurs only in 'women' and 'men' (in Yameo, awa-ru).
Whatever Espinoza understands as a plural form is unknown. However, the word
for women may be composed of wa-tu-ru, a form that would correspond to
Yagua wa-tu-[iij. The suffix -[iij is a dual morpheme in Yagua applied to 'women
168
who have borne children'. This possible cognate suffix may be involved in the
plural Yamean form for 'women'.
One important note is that there is a dual morpheme -hilj that occurs in
the numeral 'two' in Yagua; but it does not appear to be in the Yameo word for
'two'. Instead, it seems that in Yameo there is a plural morpheme in the number
'two' that may be cognate with the Yagua animate plural morpheme -mi].
However the dual does seem to occur in the Peba numeral 'two'. Comparing the
number 'two' in these three languages we have:
Yagua: n~-nii-hUj 'two' (animate), n~-(a-hG.j 'two' (inanimate)
two-CL.ANIM-DUAL two-CL.INAN-DUAL
Peba: na-no-hui 'two'
two-CL.ANIM?-DUAL
Yameo: na-ra-mue 'two'
two-CL.INAN-PL?
The evidence presented for the numeral 'two' may lead one to believe
that the conceptual category of duality was at least present in Yagua and Peba,
whereas Yameo does not show evidence of it, except for the word for 'women'
that we saw. Altogether, it must be admitted that this is not such a string
169
evidence for hypothesizing that Yameo had the dual grammatical category, as I
am not sure that the dual morpheme actually is present in the word watru
'women'. Although the dual pronominal clitics cannot be reconstructed, at least I
wanted to point out what can be known about the dual conceptual and
grammatical category in Yagua and Yameo.
Back to the discussion of the pronominal forms, for 3.SG, in Yameo,
Espinoza gives ra- but he says that sometimes sa- occurs instead. If we assume
that there was as animate/inanimate distinction in Yameo, this language may
have been losing the difference between ra- and sa- that is still present in Yagua
-remember that the data from Yameo come from around the time it was
becoming extinct. Besides, it seems that Espinoza was not aware of the animate
vs. inanimate difference; for example he never talks about classifiers -which, as
we will see, are present in his data- for which the animate vs. inanimate
distinction is basic. Notably, the Yameo-Masamae doctrine consistently uses sa-
(written <za>, probably pronounced [tsa]) where most subjects refer to
animate beings. Thus the existence of the distinction sa- (animate) versus ra-
170
(inanimate) can be considered a working hypothesis for Proto-Peba-Yagua.
The coreferential morpheme found in Yagua has not been found in Peba
or Yameo-Masamae and therefore no claim is made about it -except that it is not
reconstructable.
Evidence for distinguishing a first person plural from a first person
inclusive in the Proto-language is found by comparing Yagua with forms in one
of the Yameo-Masamae doctrine. First compare:
(9) wue-hutJa-Ia
we-sin-PL
'our sins'
However, in some parts a particle ni- occurs meaning 'we' or 'our':
(10) amu-ahen-calci ni-nenta Dios
great-Father-?? we-know Dios
'(as) our great Lord we acknowledge God'
The alternation between ni- and wue-, apparently both representing a first
plural person, can be better understood if we correlate Yameo ni- to Yagua naaj-
'l.PL' and wue- to Yagua wililj- 'l.PL.INCL'.
Also, in Yameo-Masamae we have the supposed 2.SG form here ~ ere ~
hera. It can be hypothesized that the first part he- is a cognate with the second
171
person pronoun found in Yagua (hij-) and in Yameo (hi-, i-), and it is being
followed by another morpheme -re (apparently the same as found in the 3.PL).
Thus, could this morpheme -re be adding a plural sense that would explain both
the origin of the Yagua form hirjej (hij + rej) '2.PL' and the from here from the
Yameo-Masamae text? Notice that in the context of the doctrine (a question -
answer text), what is translated as 'you (SG)' (cf. Espinoza 1955: 554-558) could
also be translated as 'you (PL)', although the answer to the question in the text
(which is in first person singular'!') definitely suggests a 'you (SG)' in the
questions. Consider the following passage:
(11) ere naita term6 ere hatsi-tsaI6[ ...J
you believe all you heart-with
'Do you believe with all your heart... ?'
ra-nata termo
I-believe all my-heart-with
'I believe with all my heart'
However, the same morpheme appears under the form eren79 with a likely
79 The nasal consonant at the end of the word may represent a nasal vowel or be just a typo (in
transcription < eren > ) without any real meaning. For example, hutfan <huchan> 'sin', is a word
borrowed from Quechua that does not have a nasal vowel or a final n in Quechua, nor in other
parts of the same doctrine text; nor, if we compare, in Yagua hutfa where it has the same
172
plural meaning:
(12) Ere jeibe termo eren hutJan-la-ta...
you sad all you sin-PL-INST
'[are] you sad with all of your sins... ?'
The form ere ~ here ~ eren would be more comparable, if understood as a
plural, with Yagua 2.PL hirjej, especially if we consider that Masamae form may
be composed of a 2.SG morpheme he- plus an old plural morpheme -re ~ rej that
was simply reanalyzed as part of the morpheme. Comparing it to Yagua, we
would have hij-rej (---+hidej) (Yag) and < he-re > (Yarn-Mas). The absence of the
initial h in Yameo-Masamae is explainable because, as we saw, *h changed to
zero in Yameo (the change *hV > 0 would explain the Yamean form -re for
2.PL) and Masamae. In any case, the forms <hoe> ~ <he> ~ <hi> '2.SG'
found in the Yameo-Masamae religious texts are better cognates with the 2.SG
forms in Yagua and Yameo (as described by Espinoza) hij-, hi- respectively, and
can be used to establish parallel 2nd person forms between Yagua and Yameo.
In what follows I present the only clear pronominal forms posited here for
meaning.
173
the Peba-Yaguan protosystem, Le., those for which there is data from all three
languages. As long as there is no Peba data for some items, reconstructing the
entire proto-system is not possible; however, I do believe that Proto-Peba-Yagua
had categories for singular, inclusive and plural in its pronominal systems, even
if we'll never know for sure the form of these categories. Thus, I propose the
following tentative proto-forms for the data where we have cognates for all three
languages. I also hypothesized that hij + *Rej formed hi[jej '2.PL' in Yagua; and
possibly here '2.PL'(?) in Yameo:
ISG *Raj
l.PL.INCL *wuj
3.PL *RV PL *Rej
In Yagua, Set I and Set II clitics have several functions in terms of
grammar and discourse. But we have seen that their basic functions are to
express possessive relationships in nominal phrases, objects of postpositions, and
to express subject (Set I) or object (Set II) coreference in the clause. Is this
verifiable for the Proto-Language? It is indeed. Possession is verifiable for all
174
languages. In Peba, many of the words listed surely contain the elitic in
possessive function. For example:
(13) Peba: vi-omote 'our arm'
rai-no
vi-mo
(14) Yameo: i-n~:ala
wi-IeJe
ri-nato
'my head'
'our forehead'
'your blood'
'our tongue'
'my head'
(15) Masamae: nei-ke80 ahen 'our father'
wue-renenla 'our souls'
The other function observed for the pronominal elitics is to mark subject
or object (co)reference. As in Yagua, in Yameo and Masamae the subject elitic
precedes the verb. In the Yameo-Masamae texts most forms are prefixed to the
verb, as in Yagua. In Yameo, Espinoza and Tessmann separate most of the forms
from the verb so it is difficult to say if they are prefixed or not, but they always
precede the verb and sometimes show allomorphy which would suggest
phonological influence from the verb stem. In Yameo (as described by Espinoza
80 The particle -ke is being used as a vocative.
175
and also in the Yameo-Masamae doctrine) the object is marked by suffixing the
pronominal morpheme to the verb, just as sometimes happens with Yagua Set II
clitics:
(16) Yameo: j-anae
2.SG-cry
'You cry'
rae waese-Ci)-ru
l.SG love-?-3.PL
'I love them'
The following passage from the Yameo and Masamae doctrine is trying to
teach how God becomes incarnate. God has been mentioned two prior sentences,
in a question. The sa- in line (c) refers to God and -rei in the same sentence refers
to the object 'man' of the verb 'dolbecome'. The function (discursive and
grammatical) of the pronominal forms shown in this passage exemplifies the
system of pronouns for Yameo-Masamae. This parallels the basic functions of the
Yaguan system. Therefore, it is very likely that this kind of system was present
already in the Proto-language. Consider the whole sequence to evaluate what 1
just said:
176
(17) From the doctrine in the Yameo and Masamae language:
a. na-wo-ma dios lea nona-Ie-ra atin?
what-womb-LaC God son do-??-3.0 man
'In whose womb God became man?'
b. virgen Sta. Maria wo-ma
Saint Mary womb-LaC
'In Saint Mary Virgen's womb'
c. espiritu santo niusi sa-na-Ie-ra atin
Holy Spirit FOR 3.SG-become-??-3.0 man
'by the Holy Spirit he became a man'
In conclusion, while not all the forms are given for all languages (for Peba
we only have the first person singular and first person plural inclusive), the
pronominal system of Proto-Peba-Yagua clearly distinguished singular from
plural. Dual categories have been discussed but no evidence has been found with
regards to their actual existence in the proto-system. The possessive function of
the pronominal forms are attested in all languages, and the subject and object
agreement functions are attested in Yagua and Yameo; thus it is possible to
postulate these functions also in the proto-language.
177
5.3 The Question of Classifiers
Yagua possesses a system of more than 40 classifiers (D. Payne 1986).
These classifiers are obligatorily suffixed to demonstrative roots and infixed to
the lower numeral roots. They serve to show agreement between a
demonstrative or numeral and its head. Classifiers can also be suffixed to
nominal, verbal and adjectival roots. They would be akin to what traditionally
are considered numeral classifiers. In general, as happens in other languages
around the world, classifiers in Yagua have developed historically from nominal
items and that is clearly demonstrable. Payne and Payne (1990: 445) noticed
that when the "etymology is transparent, it is clear that noun classifiers derive
from the last one or two syllables of nominal roots". For example, ndusuuj is 'bag'
and the classifier for bag-like items is -suuj. Some other classifiers correspond to
the entire nominal root. Such is the case of hiiii 'water' and -hiiii 'CLASS.liquid',
dasfy 'palm trunk' and _ndasq 'CLASS.thin.pole'.
The classifiers in Yagua seem to be a somewhat open set with varying
degrees of grammaticalization (Pefia 2007). There are also unique classifiers that
178
work with just one noun, while others appear with a narrow array of referents.
Several classifiers are clearly associated to a noun typically categorized by the
classifier. Finally, while some classifiers are monosyllabic, others are bisyllabic
or in some other way are root-like in their phonology. According to Payne
(2007), these characteristics suggest a fairly young age for the Yagua classifier
system. Payne, in the article just cited, also proposes that the Yagua classifiers
developed from noun compounding, a process that is very productive in said
language. D. Payne suggests that one possible explanation is that there might
have been phonological reduction of the classificatory, or "head", compounded
root: "In some instances the original source noun disappeared, leaving just a
classifier phonologically unrelated to any extant noun root" (2007: 463). She
points out, however, that a noun-noun or a verb-noun compounding source for
classifiers does not straightforwardly explicate
how the classifiers appeared in demonstratives and numerals,
where their use is grammaticalized. This may have happened via
compounding of noun roots with demonstrative and numeral roots
179
... or it may have been initiated or reinforced as a structural
pattern under the influence of contact with other languages that
employ classifiers in such expressions. (465-466)
Payne proposes that the languages from Bora-Witoto family (a historical
neighbor of the Peba-Yagua family) may have influenced the Yagua system and
shows appealing comparative evidence of the use of classifiers in Yagua and
Bora-Witotoan varieties. She suggests that, while Yagua may have relied on its
own resources to get classifiers (via compounding), this does not explain the use
of these classifiers in numerals and demonstratives. In view of the fairly long
contact between Yagua and Bora-Witotoan people and the supposed young age
of the classifier system in Yagua, Payne hypothesizes that it may have arisen
because of language contact with Bora-Witoto. Payne notes that a question that
needs to be answered is whether we can reconstruct classifiers for Proto-Peba-
Yagua or not.
To answer this question, the evidence is small but we can explore various
180
forms at hand from Yameo and Peba, and compare them to Yagua. First, we find
lexicalized particles in some words which can be analyzed as classifiers. Thus
consider a couple of examples:
(18) 'blowgun': nduundasij (Yag) : nolase (Peb): nolas (Yam),
CL _ndasijJ -lase, -las for long cilindrical objects like palm trunks,
blowguns, etc.
(19) 'fruit': nfnsij, ninusij (Yag) : nemasej (Peb)
CL -sij, -sej for small round objects.
A possible alternative analysis might be that the (so far) supposed
'classifiers' are not really classifiers, but rather are simply parts of words
showing noun compounding: lexical items are constantly made by putting
together lexical roots, and noun compounding is clearly productive in Yagua.
Noun compounds are usually a means to achieve qualification or description of a
noun and in the examples we could have a noun-noun compound. For example,
nduu is 'blow' in Yagua (compare to no 'blow' in Peba and Yameo) so we could
think of an old compound noun of the form [blow-trunk] in the formation of the
181
word 'blowgun' in Proto-Peba-Yagua. Despite the fact that the forms in the
examples above seem to be already grammaticalized (Le. reduced in their
semantics and their phonological forms), in this case a given form -by itself-
does not prove that it is a classifier; so more evidence is needed to postulate a
system of classifiers for the Proto-Language.
But nominal words are not the only place where possible classifiers may
be occurring in the data. As we saw previously, the numerals in Yameo and Peba
also show structural resemblance with the Yagua numeral construction. In
Yagua, lower numbers have the following structure:
[ROOT-CLASSIFIER-NUMERAL.SUFFIX]
There are only numbers 'one' and 'two' attested in Yameo (the rest of
numbers in this language is borrowed from Quechua). Number 'one' in Yameo
cannot really be compared to any form in Peba or Yagua. 81 But number 'two' in
81 Number 'one' in Yameo is <pwiter> (Tessman) or <pwiteara> (Espinoza), and a root
<poetin- > is observable in the Yameo-Masamae texts. One can speculate that there is an
unknown root pwi - poe (possibly representing a pronunciation [pwi] - [pWeD for 'one' and the
Yameo forms for 'someone, other, person' ate - ati (cf. Yagua ti 'other') plus the general
classifier -ra, attested in Yagua and Yameo. But this structure does not fit the general pattern
ROOT-CLASSIFIER-NUMERAL.SUFFIX that we find in Yagua, Peba and number 'two' in Yameo.
182
Yameo can be compared to Yagua and Peba. If the number suffix < -mue > in
Yameo is considered a plural morpheme (there is a plural morpheme _mij82 in
Yagua that is used in numbers as well), and if we admit the following analysis
for numbers like 'three' for Peba, then we can have:
(19) na-ra-huj (Yag)
two-CL.INAN-DUAL
na-nu-huj (Yag)
two-CL.ANIM-DUAL
mfifi-waj (Yag)
three-CL.ANIM.PL
na-ra-mue (Yam)
two-CL.INAN-PL
na-no-hui (Peb)
two-CL.ANIM-DUAL
<mun-goa> ([mu-wa, mu-woa]?) (Peb)
three-CL.ANIM.PL
As we can see, there is a structural resemblance in the numeral
formations, at least for numbers 'two' and 'three'.
There are also examples of possible classifiers in the Yameo-Masamae
doctrine texts. In what follows we have an example where I suggests that a
classifier may be involved:
erfn termotan rinsiaren?
(20)
(a) ne-hun
what-FOR
Dios nane-a-ra
God do-?-3.0.INAN these all things
82 The phonetic realization of Iml before vowels Iii and lei is [mW] in Yagua. Therefore the
phonetic realizations of the number suffix in Yagua and Yarneo ([mWji] and [mwe] or possibly
[mwe], respectively) are very similar.
183
'what did God do all this things for?
(b) wen-marin-ra hun
IPL-good-CL.INAN FOR
'for our good'
Classifiers can occur with lexical noun roots to derive noun stems, to
semantically specify or qualify said root. In the example above, the general
classifier -ra Gust like in Yagua) is heading a nominal root. Notice that marin is
'good' but in this case it is going to be the possessed object of a postposition in
the discourse. I think that the classifier is therefore deriving a new nominal stem
that receives the possessive marker. Such nominalizing functions are also found
in Yagua (D. Payne 2007). The form of the" hypothesized 'general' classifier
morpheme in the doctrine texts is exactly the same as is found in Espinoza's
Yameo description (though he did not mention classifiers at all, it clearly occurs
in several examples). Since we have the same form in Yagua, it is very likely that
this example represents an instance of said general classifier.
Unfortunately, the poor documentation for Peba and Yameo does not
show many more examples of classifiers in these languages. There are no
184
examples of numerals counting contrasting objects, for example. From the
discussion above, however, we have seen that the the structure of numerals,
with classifiers formally playing a role in their formation, is found in Yagua,
Peba and Yameo. More examples of classifiers in text and possibly in lexical
items make it plausible to postulate that there was a classifier system -even if
very basic- in Proto-Peba-Yagua. It may have been re-inforced and expanded in
its functions by language contact with Bora-Witotoan as suggested by D. Payne.
Notice as well that Payne argues for a structural influence r~ther than massive
borrowing of classifier forms from Bora-Witoto to Yagua. At least for numerals,
we can see that the structure used in modern Yagua can be found in Peba and
Yameo.
5.4 Postpositions
5.4.1 The Locative Morpheme *mV
Another morphological piece that can be attributed to Proto-Peba-Yagua
is the locative morpheme *mV. It is attested in Yagua as -mil, Yameo(-Masamae)
as -ma, and I claim that it occurs in Peba as -mo.
185
In Yameo and Yagua -mV is the locative morpheme:
(21) Nauta-rna
Nauta-LOC
'in the Nauta River' (Yam) (Espinoza 1955: 386)
(22) roorij-mG.-nu 'he is in the house' (Yag) (Powlison 1995: 339)
house-LOC-3.SG.ANIM
The particle *mV is also found as a formative in body-part words. One
example is the word for 'belly' or 'womb', wimii, in Yagua, which we can
separate into wi-LOC. Compare this with the forms found in Yameo and
Masamae:
(23) wi-mG. (Yag) : wo (Yam) wo (Mas)
Notice the use of locative -ma from the Yameo-Masamae doctrine, and its
occurrence with WD- in the second example to form the word for 'womb':
(24) besian-Io obase arreu-un-ma we-jan sanla-hun
live-NOMLZR?? heaven-(?)-LOC 1PL-go LIMIT(?)-INST
'so we can go to the heavens and live there'
(25) Sta. Maria virgen two-ma-se tsa-nanase-ra-ninle
womb-LOC-3? 3.SG-give.birth-3.0-ALSO
'from/in Saint Mary Virgin's womb he was born also'
The word wimu in Yagua has developed the meaning of 'inside' also. We
find the same development in Yameo with what seems to be vowel reduction at
186
the end (from Espinoza 1955: 363):
(26) P9PO wome 'inside the earth'
naI)gwa wome 'inside the water'
Finally, in Peba we have the wordfamo <chameau> 'belly'. I think that
it has the *mV particle as well, just like wimu in Yagua. In Yagua, tfa is the word
for 'breast', especially the 'breast of a bird'. Thus, I think that Peba took this
same lexical root (consider the historical change for this word *tfa > fa) and, as
in Yagua, attached the locative particle to it: it follows the same construction
[Noun.ROOT-LOCATIVE] .
As a result of the preceding discussion, I postulate the locative *mV for
Proto-Peba-Yagua.
5.4.2 Other Postpositional Forms in Yagua and Yameo
Peba has no attestation of any other morpho/grammatical unit besides
the possessive pronouns, the classifiers and the locative morpheme. But Yagua
187
and Yameo show several additional resemblances that may suggest more ideas
about the Proto-language. One major characteristic, from a typological point, is
that both Yagua and Yameo(-Masamae) are consistently postpositional
languages. There are no prepositions in either language. Apart from the
morpheme *mV that was discussed in the preceding section, other general
postpositions can be found in the Yameo-Masamae doctrine texts. The Adlative -
hii in Yagua expresses motion towards the point of reference and can be
translated as FOR, containing as well benefactive and purpose meanings. In
Yameo(-Masamae), the form ii83 , -hu, -hii ? hun> ) occurs with the same
characteristics except that the 'motion towards' the point of reference meaning is
not attested in the texts:
(27) raj-hu (Yagua) (Payne and Payne 1990: 379)
l.SG-ADL
'for me'
(28) himjij-handa-hu
eat-INF-ADL
'for eating'
(Yagua) (Payne and Payne 1990: 379)
83 Espinoza writes < i5 > but he says that it is pronounced [au] or [Ii].
(29) are laor
this house
ra;)-G. (Yameo)
1.SG-ADL
188
'this house is for me'
(30) aretsiu-ma enalanrea re-tsenlan-Iama re-besia tsanla-hG. (Yameo)
sky-LOC eternally 3PL-be.happy-NOMLZ 3PL-be LIMIT?-INST
'[he takes them] to Heaven so they be happy for ever'
The instrumental-ta is also common to both languages. Here are some
examples of its use from Yagua and the Yameo-Masamae doctrine:
(31) hij-raatJa murta.-ta-ra (Yagua) (Powlison 1995: 540)
2.SG-cut machete-INST-3.INAN.O
'you cut it with machete'
(32)
(a) nen-ta Dios nane ara.? (Yameo)
what--INST God do thing
'with what God did everything?
(b) za-Ieke-ala-ta za-basei-ala-ta
3SG-say-NOM(?)-INST 3SG-want-NOM(?)-INST
'with his words, with his love'
Finally, the Dative -wa is also present in Yameo-Masamae. In Yagua this
form varies between -wa and -iwa. Here is a couple of examples showing its
occurrence in Yagua and in one of the Yameo-Masamae doctrine texts:
(33) sa-ndllj sa-iwa (Yagua) (Payne and Payne 1990: 380)
3.SG-see 3.SG-DAT
'He sees him'
189
(34) re-Iakea ra-wa asle dios (Yameo)
2.PL-say l.SG-DAT exist God
'Tell me: does God exist?'
In this chapter, I have attempted to compare what residual evidence we
have to establish hypothesis about some parts of the grammar of Proto-Peba-
Yagua. This evidence covers the pronominal clitic system, the classifiers and the
locative morpheme *mV. Also, I have established a comparison between Yagua
and Yameo post-positions in order to shed light on the possible nature of the
Proto-Language as post-positional. A future more thorough analysis of Yameo
grammar or an in-depth discursive analysis of the Yameo-Masamae texts (though
they cover basically one genre: the ecclesiastic genre) may give a broader idea
about the Peba-Yaguan languages.
190
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Peba-Yaguan peoples used to live in the northeast area of the
Peruvian Amazonian lowland forest area. It is more probable that they migrated
following the direction East-West along the Amazon River, from the Peruvian-
Brazilian border or perhaps from more in-land Brazilian territory. The Peba-
Yagua were forest people whose main activities were warring, hunting and
practicing slash-and-bum agriculture.
2. The sources for the study of the Peba-Yaguan languages, except for
Yagua, are scarce and they present many problems of interpretation. A
philological analysis of the data for Peba and Yameo should be done first in
order for the investigator to be able to understand the links and changes among
the Peba-Yaguan languages. Unfortunately, the sources for Peba and Yameo do
not provide enough evidence for some questions asked in this thesis that have
191
remained unresolved.
3. The sound inventory of Proto-Peba-Yagua had at least the consonants
(*p) *t *k *m *n *s *tJ *R *w *J' *h and the vowels *a (*e) *i *u There is
""""" , ".
not enough good evidence for reconstructing more sounds, especially vowels like
*0 and *i. The likeliness of *0 is specially appealing since it would be
typologically expected to have a back mid vowel as an symmetric counterpart of
the front mid vowel *e.
4. Proto-Peba Yagua seems to have had a pronominal reference system
that distinguished singular, plural, and probably dual. Animate versus inanimate
distinction is attested for Yagua and Yameo; it is likely that this distinction was
also present in the proto-language.
5. There is evidence to postulate a system of classifiers for Proto-Peba-
Yagua. They occurred in numbers and very likely in forming other noun stems.
There is also evidence that show that classifiers may have had nominalizing
functions, as is observable in modem Yagua.
6. Rivet's grouping of the Peban-Yaguan languages in one single family
192
(1911), subsequently adopted by many other authors, is confirmed by the data
shown in this thesis.
7. Internal classification of the Peba-Yaguan linguistic family has never
been attempted. Rivet (1911), primarily based on mass-vocabulary comparisons,
suggested that Peba and Yagua were more closely related, thus giving the
impression that they would form one branch of the Peba-Yaguan family, while
Yameo would be in another branch. If we considered that the only formal
criterion for subgrouping sister languages is shared innovation (Campbell 2004:
190), then we have a different scenario than what Rivet implied. From Chapter
4 of this thesis, we can state that Peba and Yameo shared the innovations (a)
and (b) given below:
(a) *tJ > J
(b) *h > 0
It is because of these shared innovations that an older intermediate-level
Proto-Peba-Yaguan daughter can be postulated: Proto-Peba-Yameo. Peba and
193
Yarneo would have branched off from this intermediate language. Therefore,
internal classification of Peba-Yagua would result in Yagua on one hand and
Proto-Peba-Yarneo on the other. At the lower level, Proto-Peba-Yarneo divides in
Peba and Yarneo, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. The Peba-Yaguan Family Tree
Proto-Peba-Yagua
Proto-Peba-Yameo
Yagua Peba Yarneo
An interesting question with this internal classification is why, with
regards to the lexicon, Yagua and Peba seem to be more closely related that
Peba and Yarneo. For example, a quick survey shows that around 60 out of 100
Peban words provided by Castelnau and Erben are cognates with Yagua,
whereas only around 34 out of 100 Peban words are cognates with Yarneo. We
can find an answer to this question in the history of these groups. Peban and
194
Yaguan groups occupied a continuous territory, whereas Yameo groups were
separated from their Peban and Yaguan 'relatives' by alien groups, like the
Tucanoan and Zaparoan groups. Therefore, while Yameo and Peba may have
been daughters of an intermediate language, the contact of Peba with Yagua for
at least the last four hundred years (until the extinction of Peba) is a good
candidate to explain why these languages look more similar at least in terms of
vocabulary.
8. There is no evidence to postulate that Yameo and Masamae were truly
different languages. We will never know what was perhaps the most important
thing in order to determine this: how the people who spoke those languages felt
about it -whether the Masamae and Yameo considered themselves different
speaking-people (like for example Spanish-speaking and Gallego-speaking
people) or not will remained unanswered. The fact that the missionary texts
suggest a unity of language by writing one doctrine for Yameo and Masamae
may have been as well an external political decision taken by the church rather
than a fact about society/groups, so 'anthropological' information obtained from
195
the texts cannot be the only argument for claiming such a unity. Certainly, there
is evidence that the all Peba-Yaguan groups were able to communicate with
each other to some extent, but that does not necessarily define a 'language' as a
socio-political functional system. For the time being, it is necessary to state that,
linguistically speaking, the grammar written by Espinoza and that observed in
the doctrine texts are grosso modo alike despite the time difference between one
and the other (more than a hundred and fifty years). What is more, the Masamae
texts are understandable in their basics using Espinoza's Yamean grammar -and
though they are also structurally comparable to Yagua, as we have seen in
previous chapters, one can observe that the degree of separation from the latter
is greater. The sound changes of Yameo and Masamae (with regards to the other
two languages) are basically the same except maybe for sporadic retentions of *h
in Masamae. However, it is true that, for example, Peba also shares the changes
with Yameo -at least in what is reconstructable of the sound system. The
difference between the relationship amongst Yameo and Masamae as opposed to
Yameo and Peba, however, is that lexically-wise there is more or less the same
196
vocabulary for the first couple, much more than for the second couple. For
example, in a small glossary given by Espinoza (1955: 562-563) that compares
Yameo and Masamae, one could conservatively say that only four out of sixty
one items could not be considered cognates; the rest clearly are.
197
APPENDIX A
LIST OF ABBREVIAnONS
1 First Person
2 Second Person
3 Third Person
ADL Adlative
ANIM Animate
AP Applicative
AUX Auxiliar
CL Classifier
COR Coreferential
DUAL Dual
INAN Inanimate
INCL Inclusive
INST Instrumental
IRR Irrealis
LIMIT Limitative
LaC Locative
NOMLR Nominalizer
NP Noun Phrase
PL Plural
SG Singular
V Vowel
198
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE YAMEO-MASAMAE TEXT
Appendix B presents a sample of the analysis of the Yameo-Masamae
Doctrine found in Espinoza (1955). The text has been parsed and analyzed.
There are several parts that still need to be more studied. I have noted those
parts with the symbols (?) or (??). In what follows, the first line is the
transcription of the original source. This is indicated by the symbols < >. The
second line represents the text phonemically parsed morpheme by morpheme.
The third line contains the glossed morphemic analysis. The fourth line is the
English translation. The letters 'Q' and 'A' that appear in -some lines mean
'Question' and 'Answer'.
Doctrine in Yameo-Masamae Language
001.
Q. < re-Iaquea rahua: assele dios? >
re-Iakea ra-wa: asle dios
2SG-say lSG-DAT exist God
'Tell me: is there (exists) God?'
002.
A. < asele nino >
asele nin
exist 3SG.ANIM
'there is (He exists)'
003.
Q. < nentalan dios? >
nen-talan dios
what-thing God
'what is God?'
004a.
A. < arreciu, popa, termo tan rinziaren naneana, muezaitin, >
aresju popa termo-tan rinsiaren nane-ana (?)
sky earth everything do-NOMLR
'heavens, earth and everything, creator/keeper [He is],'
004b.
< amuencala ninenta dios. >
199
big-father-?? ??-do-INST/AP(?)
'(as) great lord we acknowledge God'
amu-ahen-cala ni-nen-ta dios [?]
God
005.
Q. < nenta dios nane ani termotan rinciaren? >
nen-ta Dios nane ani termotan rinsjaren
what--INST God do ?? everything
'what did God do everything with?'
006.
A. < zaleque alata, zabacetalata>
tsa-Ieke-ala-ta tsa-wasej-ala-ta
3SG-say-NOM(?)-INST 3SG-want/love-NOMLR(?)-INST
'with his word, with his love'
007.
Q. < raitani, armalen, nalanricialauau lara dios? >
rajtanl armalen nalan, risja-Ia uau lara dios
sun moon forest thing-PL ?? NEG god
'the sun, the moon, the forests (and the other) things, aren't they God?'
008a.
A. < laratan dios viala; >
lara-tan dios wi-ala
NEG-?? god 3(?)-PL
they (are) not God
008b.
< errin termotan rinuaren dios nequelata>
erin termotan rinuaren dios neke-Ia-ta
these all things god say-NOMLR-INST
'all of these things (were created) by God's word'
200
201
009.
Q. < nehun dios naneara errin termotan rinciaren? >
nen-hun dios nane-a-ra errfn termo-tan
what-FOR god do-??-O.INAM(?) these all
'what did god do all this things for?'
010.
A. < buenmarinra hun>
wuen(?)-marin-ra hun
1PL-good-CL.INAN(?) FOR
'for our good'
OIL
Q. < Nen hun dios naneara bueninle? >
nen-hun dios nane-a-ra wue-ninle
rinsja-ren
things
What-FOR god do-??-O
'God created us also?'
1PL-ALSO
012a.
A. < buenafta salahun dios, buemucha sanlahun nin, >
wue-nafta sala-hun dios wue-mutJa sanla-hun nin
1PL-know ??-FOR god 1PL-worship ??-FOR also
'to know God, to worship [Him] also'
012b.
< zalequeala zaiaciaren bueceneazanlahun iiio poponen, buevecianlamo, >
tsa-Ieke-ala tsa-jasjaren wue seneatsan-Ia-hun iJlo popo-nen
3-say-NOM 3-commandment 1PL ??-NOMLR-FOR here earth-LOC
wue-wesjan-Ia-mo
1PL-live-NOMLZ-LOC
'to follow his words [and] his commandments here on the earth [where] we live'
202
012c.
< becianlo obace arreuunmabueyan sanlahun>
wesjan-Io obace areuun-ma wue-jan
live-NOMLR(?) ?? heaven(-?)-LOC 1PL-go
'to go live in heaven'
013.
Q. < narrebe dios ase? >
narewe(?) dios ase
how many God exist
'how many Gods are there?'
014.
A. < Poetinten dios>
poetinten dios
one God
'one God'
015.
Q. < toma dios becia? >
to-rna dios wesja
where-LOC god be
'where is god?'
016.
A. < arreiuma, popoma, termo rna ninle dios becia>
arresju-ma popo-ma termo-ma ninle dios
sky-LOC earth-LOC alllthing-LOC also god
'in the sky, in the earth, in evrything God be'
sanla-hun
LIMIT?)-FOR
wesja
be
203
017.
Q. < nentalan dios? >
nen-talan dios
what-thing god
'what [is] God?'
018a.
A. < dios ahen, dios lea, dios espfritu santo, >
dios ahen dios lea dios espfritu santo
God father God son God spirit Holy
'God father, God son, God Holy Spirit'
018b.
poetarorineroa persona ala, poetinten dios
poetarorineroa(?) persona-ala poetinten(?) dios
three persons-PL one God
'three persons, one God'
019.
Q. < eve poeterorineroara dios viala? >
ewe(?) poeterorineroara(?) dios wi-ala
these three God 3(?)-PL
'[are] these three Gods?'
020a.
A. < lara poeta-rorineara dios vi-ala; >
lara poetarorineara(?) dios wi-ala
NEG three God 3(?)-PL
'there (are) not three Gods'
204
020b.
< eve poetaroriireroa personaala poetintan dios, >
ewe(?) poetar-riireroa(?) persona-ala poetinte(?) dios
these three-? person-PL one God
'these three persons [are] one God'
020c. < sma. trinidad reciosara>
sma. trinidad resjo-sara
holy trinity call-NOMLR
'[They are] called Holy Trinity'
021.
Q. < eve poetararinorea persona ni nu mafiuzannalara attn? >
ewe(?) poetara-rinorea(?) persona ni numaJ1u tsa-nna-Ie-ra atin
This three?? person Oblique? which 3-do-??-3.0 man
'of these three persons, who became man?'
022.
A. < dios leanen alera atin>
dios lea nena-Ie-ra atin
God son do-??-3.0 man
'God son became man'
023.
Q. < nabuoma dios lea nonalera atin? >
na-wo-ma dios lea nona-Ie-ra attn
what-womb-LOC god son do-??-3.0 man
in which [whose] womb God became man?
205
024a.
A. < virgen sta maria buoma, >
virgen sta. Maria wo-ma
virgen saint Mary womb-LOC
'in Saint Mary's womb'
024b.
< espiritu santo niusizenaleni atin, >
espiritu santo niutsi tse-na-Ie-ni atin
Spirit holy POR 3(?)-do-??-3.0 man
'by the [grace of the] Holy Spirit he became man'
024c.
< sta. maria virgen buomaze zananceraninle>
St. Mary virgen wo-ma-tse tsa-nanase-ra-ninle
womb-LOC-3(?) 3-give.birth-3.O-ALSO
'From Saint Mary's womb he was born'
025.
Q. < dios lea atin zennala sao baze nen zantala? >
dios lea atin tse-nna-Ia sao watse nen tsa-nta-Ia
God son man 3(?)-do-NOMLR ?? ?? how 3-name-NOMLR
'having become man what [was] God Son's name?'
026a.
A. <jesucristo zatanla, entanenla dios, >
Jesucristo tsa-tan-Ia entanen-Ia dios
3-name-NOMLR be.true-NOMLR God
'Jesuschrist [was] his name, a real God'
026b.
< entanenla atinnile, buen amuen, buen Ramaitin>
entanenla atin-nile wuen amuen wuen ramaitin
206
be.true.NOMLR man-ALSO l.PL lord, father l.PL save(?)
'a true man, also [He is] our Lord, our Savior'
027.
Q. < neinto jesucristo ramaitinrabuen? >
nein-to jesucristo ramaitin-ra-wuen
what-?? save-3.0-1PL
'How did Jesus save us?'
028a.
A. < bue huchanla maraci zarobezin numalama, >
wue-hutJa-nla marasi tsa-rowetsin numa-Ia-ma
IPL-sin-PL FOR(?) 3-body(?) give(?)-NOMLZ-LOC(?)
'giving his body for our sins'
028b.
< curuzanen huayayanzen, zaleia-Iama>
kuruza-nen wa-jajan-tsen za-Iei-ala-ma
cross-LOC ??-go-?? 3-die-NOMLZ-LOC??
'he went and die on the cross' (lit. 'he went dying... ')
029.
Q. < nena jesucristo, dios laobaze, zaleira? >
nena jecucristo dios lao-watse tsa-Iei-ra
como Jesus god ??-exist 3-die-??
'how [is that] Jesus, being God, died?'
o
207
APPENDIX C
COMPARATIVE WORD LIST
Appendix C presents a partial comparative list with words from Yagua,
Peba and Yameo. The forms come from different sources: for Yagua, they are
largely based on Powlison (1995); for Peba, on Castelnau (1851) and Erben
(1948); and for Yameo, on Tessmann (1930) and Espinoza (1955). The Yameo-
Masamae forms come from the doctrine texts. The list is based on the extended
Swadesh word list, and the numbering of the items correlates with the numbers
in Swadesh list. For items that are not present in Swadesh list, I have used
greater numbers (for example 250 or 510) depending on the position of the item
in my database lists. The forms given are phonemic and follow the same criteria
used for the thesis. For cases where I was not sure what was the phonemic
interpretation of a certain item, I provide its written representation, like in
<form> J or present possible phonetic interpretations, like in [form].
208
0 ENGUSH YAGUA PEBA (CAS) PEBA (ERB) YAMEO (T.) YAMEO (E.) YAM-MAs
(Pow)
1 raj rai ([raj]? rae, rR;), ra
[rc]?) ninle)lea
2 You hij i, hi ere, hera,
here
3 3.SG.ANIM sa- sa- san- <za> [lsa]
3.1 3.SG. -nIT nin
ANIM
4 We wftG.j [PL. vi wi <bue>
INCL] wue
5 2.PL hioej re, ret, ret
2.PL
7 This hij are
8 That ru runun, ru,
run
12 Interrog. niltju-ra. nitra 'what'
'how'
16 NEG ne aanoj teal
-ta
16.1 not -tja, -ta t~:~a teal (no),
tala
(prohibitive
),
16.2 not nee aanoj -dIe, -Ie, -Ie,
-la
22 one ta-ra-kii
tapuJe
ta-puu-see la tapuJe
one- 'short
cilinder(CL finger'
)-
short.stick(
CL)
209
22.1 one tTIkii <tomeu teki
? ta-I- lay>
kii?)
22.2 one puit~r pwitaai, poetinten
pwitaara
23 two "da-ra-hGj <nomoira manaxo na-nl-mue na-ra-ma,
0
(with > na-ra-m
general
classifier)
24.1 three mu-waj mu-mwa <mu- kiI)Jcl
ngoa> (Quechua)
24.2 three mu- mu- mu-
(root?)
24.3 PL.ANIM -waj <-ngoa> at~:'iI--wa
PL.ANIM 'people'
25.1 four naj-nii- namerayo lauxikoni
hiijii
(anim)
[naniijhGjG
25.2 four (root) naj- na-
25.3 four (root) lau
25.4 four hiijii koni
(suffix)
26.1 five ta"daa-hjo <taone- < lala-
lla> xio>
26.2 half / five ta"daaj <taone> <lalaj>
26.3 five ho <lla> (?) <xo>
32 small -"deera ni:n-l~:ra nin-Iel,
(dim)
210
36 woman wa-tu-ra wato(a) watre watra
'woman 'woman'
w/o watru
children' 'women'
wa-tu-rGj
'woman
wi
children'
wa-tuj
37 man wa-nD comoley aw<\ra awara,
awai 'male,
man';
awarii 'men'
38 person tl aetin atin ([atf]?)
'someone, 'people' 'man'
other'
39 boy Ddee-nD I laira lael
Ddee-ra
39.1 Ddeera laira lael lea
41 husband wanD, i-l~:y~ liya; i liya
rimitju 'your
husband'
42 mother hiinoDda yaIJu:eli;> ama
43 father jaj, tatja i:y~: ampa, ~e, e ahen (563)
(Quechua),
jeje
47 dog nI"'bjii nemej nebi niamY; J1iame
('tiger and niam~
dog') Uaguar)
51 tree " - &YUIJ ~oyGmnu
(nal6 (nanu
'plantation') 'liana')
51.1 CL.tree -Ddasij -lasse -las
52 forest too opu tq:Qla tao
211
52.1 forest kuruhUu, opu tq:9la tao
too,
ndapuuy
'montear'
53 stick -see tapa-sej
'CL.stick' tcipu-fe
('short')
53.1 CL.stick -ml -16 [???] -nu
'CL.stick'
54 fruit ninsij nemasej
< prob.
from
nImlsij
56 leaf n~wI serna} nil)yUl) niyU
nemej
57 root hUmltij nataj ra-sa:Uil) ra-sa:lcll)
'his root'
57.1 root hUnUtij nataj
59 flower sisa susaman siscl CQ) fifcl CQ)
CQuechua) CQ)
60 herb, grass watfuuj vafi
62 skin haj yaul) yaun
80 foot numGtu vi-nimotaj er~:famtfnj9 no0
63 flesh/meat sa-wij sa-lai
64 blood nGnda i-ny:ala n~:ala
67 egg hiwandci waalcil)
71 CL.hair -hasfy -saj -se
71.1 hair hasfj yana?al)se nans, nanse
-mG 'your hair'
CL.feather
212
71.2 hair -hUno- rai-no-saj j-ana?aI)se j-ananse
hasfj 'your hair' ([i-??-
(wuIiHn9h hase])
asfj)
72 head hun6 rai-no wi-natu nato (319)
73 ear -tuwaj mi-tiwa tfwe tuwad
74 eye nIsfj, vi-nimichi wi nIl}s~ wi nunse
hunGtja~ 'our eyes';
nunse-Ia
'eyes'
75 nose nuruu, vineRo i-nifJe?a nal?a
wUj-niirG 'your nose'
75 nose niirGii, vi-neRo nal?a
wUj-niirG
75.1 nostrils niirii-jii vi-neRo-ay
76 mouth hiit66 ri-to f:-p~ 'your po
(3PL+mo mouth'
uth)
76.1 hiit66 to
(rij-hiit66
3PL+mout
h)
77 tooth Manda vi-ala wi~: (E: wi a-nla
'our teeth') 'our teeth',
a 'tooth'
77.1 tooth haanda vi-ala
78 tongue ndaatJfj wi le?Ji wi lese
79.2 nail hasu- re- iniJma:~la
mundaj lansmayja 'your nails'
213
79.2 finger hanii <brelan> ya?lfu]; Iii (319,
(re-lan?) ya?lfu] 415); l~-nla
('dedo del 'fingers'; y-
pie' al~-n)la
'your
fingers'
82 knee handasij iriwus~ iriwus~
eyour kneei
82.1 heel harosij iriwus~
83 hand hornfim vinitajli win 11 'our win fiw6-
hands' nla 'our
hands'; fi
'arm' = win
fi 'our arm'
83.1 arm (nfirnfito vi-ornote i:y6 i-G
'shoulder')
hornfitu
'rnano'
[vfihjornfit
u]
86 belly/guts wurnfi, Ja-rno i we: i wo bwo
wirnG
86.1 belly wirnu, Ja-rno wo-rna wo-rna
wurnu
86.3 belly tJ~~ 'flesh Ja-rno
of breast
of a bird'
88.2 back wuj- iJ~n?a your back'
ndunu/
wuj-runu
89 breast hltjii~ it~:?IJla
90 heart haatJij kaiJi aJe Jasi (or
(guts) sasi?)
214
92 drink hatu 'drink' ra rato 'I
(V) drink'
93 eat himjIj me m~ mja
[often
hmi]
99 breath naj i-ny:i i-n~:i 'your
breath'
101 see ndij 'see, nit~
know' [ni-t~] 'he
vista'
512 emphasis -tee -t~, -t~
103 know ndaatja netCii naita, nata
140 speak nIkee l~ke leke
140.1 say hUiitaj, lakea
nIkee
140.2 tongue nIkee- wi-like:~-la wi l~kal!
handa ala
140.3 word nIkee- leke-yala leke-ala
handa
147 sun hinjI nat~ra natacl.J raitara
(314),
nateara
(562)
147.1 sun wanda wana
'bright'
148 moon wiihjeej remelane Jm~:lu lmaalu, armalen
(= wiij + lmaalu
haaj 'our
+ father')
hanlmjiitI,
harimjiinI
150 water ha~ <ain>
(also ([f:]?)
CL.1iquid')
naIJ?wa, n~IJgwa
na?a'rainy
season'
215
150.1 water
151 rain rMmura rajla
(N)
raela raeUi
ruumboDda;
rahiira ?
hu(ja 'it is
misty'
151.1 rainy nThjaa
season (nij +haa)
152.2 waterlbig nawa ('any
river kind of big
river')
naIJ?wa
('water')
na?alema
n~IJgwa
('water')
153 lake
153.1 lake
153.2 spring
humutjo/ me-tao
humitjo/
mitjo/
mutjo/-to
'CL.pots,
lakes, eye
socket'
humuj, me
humij
nawa ('any nowa
kind of big (Maragnon
river') River)
amw~; amu
'manantial'
amw~; amu
nawaluneaJ naIJw~
153.3 CL.lake
153.4
to
nawa
tao
nowa nawa
156 stone ha-witJG
ra-witJG
waDdanjG
'species of
stone'
noroto rilJt1?
(ruwisu)
216
157 sand tItJaa, tenJa t~1)
-tl'sand' (,sandbank,
beach')
159 earth padjej kapale
(,lowland')
159.1 earth mGkandii, p6:po:?
mGko, P9P<} 'clay'
mGki
-ko
CL.earth,
159 earth popo-ko p6:po:? P9P<} popo
(Chaumeil
1987: 91)
'white
clay'
162 sky ha{itJu rjese reJj6? reJj6 (562) aresju
163.2 strong mftjan~j, waten~ watene
wind, mGtjan~j ('wind') ('wind')
hurricane
167 fire hiindaj feula 9:1~ ol;}a aule
170 path nu nu nUl} nUl)
171 mountain musij musoj
173 green sunu 'blue, wasanu
green' 'blue'
wa-sunG,
wa-
sunun~j
175 white ha-pa{u, papasej paJel~ pa.llo
wa-pa{u
pa{Uuj
'become
gray,
white',
pupa
217
176 black w,Vdaku miJalaj kaJel~ k,izle
wa-niiku,
wa-niiku,
mItJa(ij
('black
people')
176.1 black mitJa-(ij miJa-laj
177 night nUpoo(a nkqQsi nekose
177.1 black/ Ddaku nkqQ- neko-
night
178 day hiiDda papa papa papa
(uDda
178.1 star hiiDda(itJfj larse klareJi klareJi
208 DUAL -(Uj -ru
209 bow kaanU kanu kanutI
(*prob.
from
Cocama)
211 plantation nuDdij/ na16
nunij
212 CL.round -sij -sej
small
216 house (oo(fj lowaRey lage~ laol (320)
218. forehead mo,moo vi-mo
'forehead' maa-mU ('in
mo-mii front')
forehead/
face-LOC
('in front
of)
218.1 LOC mo mo maa
221.1 type of watJa waJam
monkey
218
221.2 howler kadnal numni kan;:l nOIJel6
monkey kanna;
nunu
221.3 capuchin sij1ikjol sundiko sinek9
sinikj6
221.5 ape katJunu amu am6? amu ('mono
en general')
221.6 kind of waatJa waJam
small
monkey
221.7 kind of amu am6? amu
monkey
221.8 light wataj waJampaJel
capuchin (mono a (waJam
machin, paJela)
mono
blanco-
716)
221.10 saimiri muju mujiu muitq?
221.11 spider kaw66tal kowata intJ6?
monkey kuw66ta
221.12 night mutJ06 maJ6
monkey
228 pot kar60sifj ng~tJi kalJe(small
pot'); IkalJe
230 vulva tatJij it~:Ji
231 tapir hunutJa; na:Je? nasa
hnutJa;
nutJa
232 celebration hij1~ nja
233 CL.short.cil -puu -pa -pu
inder
219
234 afternoon hfJluwaaj uuwa-
'become uuwa)nso
late' 'early
afternoon'
uuwa)lanso
'towards
3pm'
uuwa)nte
'sunset/last
part of the
afternoon'
235 hug ma(fiy manri (336)
encircle
236 diminutive -ndee -Iel
nizlenlel
rad n~tda
epoquito yo
traerf (335)
237 DATIVE -hiwa/- -wa
iwa/-uwa
238 DUAL? -hGj -xo [ho]
239 chin mlindi vi-mela i-my:ala
240 morning taii(ijmjusl tame-me
, taa(ij- 'sunrise',
mliI-ma'in
the
morning'
241 arrow (uwee, < ruelou > ruwe
(uwee-(06 (arrow)
241.1 arrow (uwee- rue- ruwe ruwe
220
247 pan flute DduuDduu- nuna-mata neulU
muta;
DduDdu-
mata
(Chaumeil
1987)
247.1 to blow DduuDduu nuna neulU
('flute')
247.2 CL.tube or -muta; - -mata
keys of mata
musical
instr.
249 INAN
-ra -na -ra -ra
250 INSTR -ta -ta
252 go/future hija/ ja ja aja, ja, jan
253 NOMLR -sara -sara
254 canoe humuJ1u, monej munjo m~:n~ m\rn~a
mUJ1u;
255 caiman nurtu; nuerto no:Jt6, nUlt6
nurutu n08t6
256 six ti-kii- te-ki-neti
nThjcitee
257 seven n~-nu-hfi- lahoneti
nThjcitee
258 maize riiDdu/ raID r?liV rolU
DdfiDduu
258 manioc hasuuj-see coaleshe er1JJ~ sense (320)
259 food, mjitJara mes<lra
meal? /himitJara
260 CL.short -see -Je J~ Je
stick
261 throat pisij i-p~:iJi
221
263 NOMLR -hanil/- -ano
handa
269 above nawaj naIJgu
270 thing tara ara, tara talan
271 devil baayantu yuna lmala romala
271.2 spirit baayanu yuna
271.3 forest nuril nero
demon ('devil')
274 to -hil watra-i?, -hun
(direction) watra-il
277 LaC -mil -mu, -mll -rna
271.4 Shaman rimjara dimasa sumi
Cbrujo')
271.5 Shaman rimja-ra dima-sa lma-Ia
'devil' (also
the 'spirit
of plants'
283 row, oar saatja~ sadja kule
284 budgerigar kaasij- koasi kOc\Ii kwali
('parrot')
285 blowgun nduu- no-Iasse nu-Ias
ndasij,
rundasij
286 nest ruuj ra-ru
502 PL.ANIM -mij [mWij] mua, -mue -rna, -m
([mue]?)
503 macaw hapa (red appa apa
macaw)
507 son ndeenll ly (562) lea
509 bat ditiatu/ Ieat~
ritiatu
222
510 Penelope ritJuuj
Jacutinga
reiJi riJi (313)
223
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelung, Joseph and Johan Vater. Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde mit
dem Vater unser als Sprachprobe in beynahe fiinfhundert Sprachen un
Mundarten. Berlin, 1813.
Chamberlain, Alexandre. "Sur quelques familles linguistiques peu connues ou
presques inconnu de l'Amerique du Sud." Journal de la Societe des
Americanistes 7 (1910): 179-202.
Barletti Pascuale, Jose. Los pueblos amaz6nicos en tiempos de la llegada de
Orellana. Iquitos: Gobiemo Regional de Loreto, 1992.
Brinton, Daniel Garrison. The American Race: A Linguistic Classification and
Ethnographic Description of the Native Tribes of North and South America.
Philadelphia: David Mckay, 1981.
Campbell, Lyle. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics ofNative
America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
---. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2004.
Carvajal, Fray Gaspar de. Relaci6n del nuevo descubrimiento del famoso Rio Grande
que descubri6 por muy gran ventura el capitan Francisco De Orellana. ed.
Jose Toribio Mejia, Quito: Imprenta del Ministerio de Educacion, 1942.
Castelnau, Francis de. Expedition dans les parties centrales de l'Amerique du Sud.
Vol. 1 Paris: P. Bertrand, 1851.
224
Chantre y Herrera, Jose. Historia de las misiones de la Compafiia de JesUs en el
Marafion Espafiol (1637-1767). Madrid: A. Avrial, 1901.
Chapman, Shirley and Desmond C. Derbyshire. "Paumarf." Handbook of
Amazonian Languages, Vol 3. Ed. Desmond C. Desbyshire and Geoffry K.
Pullum. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991. 161-354.
Chaumeil, Jean-Paul. Historia y migraciones de los Yagua de finales del siglo XVII
hasta nuestros dias. Lima: Centro Amazonico de Antropologia y Aplicacion
Practica, 1981.
---. Between Zoo and Slavery: The Yagua ofEastern Pern in their Present
Situation. Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs,
1984.
---. Nihamwo. Los Yagua del Nor-Oriente Pernano. Lima: Centro Amazonico de
Antropologia y Aplicacion Practica, 1987.
Condamine, Charles Marie de lao Viaje a la America Meridional por el Rio de las
Amazonas. Quito: Abya-Yala, 1993.
Crevels, Milly. "South America." Encyclopedia of the World's Endangered
Languages. Ed. Christopher Moseley. London: Routledge, 2007. 103-94.
de Almesto, Pedrarias. "Relacion verdadera de todo 10 que sucedio en la Jornada
de Omagua y Dorado." La Aventura del Amazonas. Ed. Rafael Diaz.
Madrid: Historia 16, 1986. 99-223.
dos Santos Benes, Dorinethe. As primeiras images da Amazonia. Manaus: Centro
Cultural dos Povos da Amazonia, 2006.
225
Erben, J. L. Na V6dach Amazonky. Prague: Ceska Graficka Unie, 1948.
Espinoza Perez, Lucas. Contribuciones lingilfsticas y etnograficas sobre algunos
pueblos indigenas del Amazonas Peruano. Vol. 1 Madrid: Consejo Superior
de Investigaciones Cientfficas, Instituto Bernardino de Sahagun, 1955.
Fejos, Paul. Ethnography of the Yagua. New York: The Viking Fund, 1943.
Figueroa, Francisco de. "Informe de las Misiones de El Maraiion, Gran Para 0 Rio
de las Amazonas que hace el P. Francisco De Figueroa, Visitador y Rector
de elIas, al P. Hernando Cabero, Provincial de la Compaiiia de Jesus de la
Provincia del Nuevo Reino y Quito, a 8 del mes de agosto de 1661."
Informes de Jesuitas en el Amazonas 1660-1648. Monumenta Amazonica.
Iquitos: IIAP-CEPTA, 1986.
Gildea, Spike and Doris Payne. "Is Greenberg's "Macro-Carib" Viable?" Boletim do
Museo Paraense Emilio Goeldi 2.2 (2007): 19-72.
Gonzalez Suarez, Federico. Prehistoria Ecuatoriana: ligeras reflexiones sobre las
razas indigenas, que poblaban antiguamente el territorio actual de la RepUblica
del Ecuador. Quito, 1904.
Raymond G. Jr. Gordon, ed. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 15th ed. Dallas,
TX: SIL International, online version: www.ethnologue.com. 2005.
Greenberg, Joseph. "The General Classification of Central and South American
Languages." Selected Papers of the Fifth International Congress of
Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. Ed. A. Wallace. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1960. 791-94.
---. Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.
226
Hervas y Panduro, Lorenzo. Catcilogo de las lenguas de las naciones conocidas} y
nwneraci6~ y clases de estas segl1n la diversidad de sus idiomas y dialectos.
Vol. 1 Madrid: Imprenta de la Administraci6n del Real Arbitrio de la
Beneficiencia, 1800.
Jij6n y Caamafio, J. EI Ecuador Interandino y Occidental antes de la conquista
castellana. Vol. 3 Quito: Editorial Ecuatoriana, 1943.
Kaufman, Terrence. "Language History in South America: What We Know and
How to Know more." Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South
American Languages. Ed. Doris L. Payne. Austin: University of Texas Press,
1990. 13-73.
Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Madieson. The Sounds of the World's Languages. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1996.
Loukotka, Cestmir. "Documents et vocabulaires inedits de langues et de dialectes
Sud-Americains." Journal de la Societe des Americanistes 52.1 (1963): 7-60.
---. Classification of South American Indian Languages. Los Angeles: Latin
American Center, University of California, 1968.
Marcoy, Paul. Travels in South America: From the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic
Ocean. New York: Scribner, Amstrong, 1875.
Maroni, Pablo. Noticias autenticas del famoso Rio Marafi6n. Ed. Marcos Jimenez
de la Espada, Madrid: Tipografica Fortaner, 1889.
Maw, H. L. Journal of a Passage From the Pacific to the Atlantic: Crossing the Andes
in the Northern Provinces of Peru} and Descending the River Marafion Or
Amazon. London: J. Murray, 1829.
227
Meggers, Betty and Clifford Evans. "La reconstrucion de la pre-historia
amazonica." Amazonia Peruana 4.7 (1982): 15-29.
Mejia, Jose Toribio. "Introduccion." Descubrimiento del Rio Amazonas seglin La
relaci6n hasta ahora inedita de Fr. Gaspar de Carvajal con otros documentos
referentes a Francisco de Orellana y sus compaiieros. Ed. Jose Toribio Mejia.
Sevilla: Imprenta E. Rasco, 1894.
Mercier, Juan Carlos. "Las tradiciones lingiiisticas del Alto Napo." Amazonia
Peruana 6.12 (1985): 37-58.
Orton, James. The Andes and the Amazon. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1870.
Payne, Doris L. "-ta in Zaparoan and Peba-Yaguan." International Journal of
American Linguistics 51 (1985): 529-31.
---. "Aspects of the Grammar of Yagua." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
California, 1985.
---. "Noun Classification in Yagua." Noun Classes and Categorization. Ed.
Colette Craig. Typological Studies in Languages, 7. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, 1986. 113-31.
---. The Pragmatics of Word Order: Typological Dimensions of Verb Initial
Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990.
---. "Source ofYagua Nominal Classification System." International Journal of
American Linguistics 73.4 (2007): 447-74.
Payne, Doris L. and Thomas E. Payne. "Yagua." Ed. Desmond C. Derbyshire and
Jeoffrey K. Pullum. Handbook ofAmazonian Languages, 2. Berlin/
NewYork: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990.249-474.
228
Payne, Thomas E. "Pronouns in Yagua Discourse." International Journal of
American Linguistics 53.1 (1987): 1-21.
---. The Twin Stories: Participant Coding in Yagua Narrative. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Pena, Jaime. "Noun Categorization in Yagua." Manuscript, University of Oregon
(2007)
Powlison, Paul. Observaci6n sobre los datos de Tessmann acerca de los Yagua. Lima:
Microfilm INIDE, roll 8, fieldwork informatino 204d, 1956.
---. "Palatalization Portmanteaus in Yagua (Peba-Yaguan)." Word 18 (1962):
280-99.
---. Comments on the Classification of Peba-Yagua Languages and Dialects.
Lima: Microfil INIDE, roll 8, fieldwork information 211b, 2p, 1971.
---. "Bosquejo de la cultura Yagua." Folklore Americano 24 (1977): 33-65.
---. Niyami Niquejadamusi - May Niquejandamuju; May Niquejadamusy ?
Nijyami Niquejadamuju. Diccionario Yagua-Castellano. Serie Lingiifstica
Peruana, 35, Lima: Ministerio de Educaci6n/Instituto Lingiifstico de
Verano, 1995.
Powlison, Paul and Esther Gordon de Powlison. "Yagua." Materiales para Estudios
Fonol6gicosJ Vol. 2. Ed. Eugenio Loos B. Documento de Trabajo 9.
Pucallpa, Peru: Instituto Lingiifstico de Verano, 1971. 77-118.
Rivet, Paul. "La famille linguistique Peba." Journal de la Societe des Americanistes
8 (1911): 170-206.
229
Rivet, Paul and Cestmir Loukotka. "Langues De L'Amerique Du Sud Et Des
Antilles." Les Langues Du Monde. Ed. A. Meillet and Marcel Cohen. Paris:
Champion, 1009-160.
Rowe, John H. "Linguistic Classifications Problems in South America."
Symposium on American Indian Linguistics. 10. Berkeley: University of
California Publications, 1951. 13-26.
Schmidt, Wilhelm. Die Sprachen Familien und Sprachekreise der Erde. Heilderberg,
1926.
Steward, Julian H. and Alfred Metraux. "The Peban Tribes." Handbook of South
American Indians, 3. Ed. Julian H. Steward. Washington: US Government
Printing Office, 1948. 1946-59.
Taylor, Anne-Christine and Philippe Descola. "EI conjunto Jivaro en los
comienzos de la conquista espanola del Alto Amazonas." Bulletin de
l'Institute Fran~ais d'Etudes Andines 10.3-4 (1981): 7-54.
Tessmann, Gunter. Die Indianer Nordost-Perus. Hamburg: Friedrichsen, de
Gruyter & Co., 1930.
Tovar, Antonio. Catcilogos de las Lenguas de America del Sur. Buenos Aires:
Editorial Sudamericana, 1961.
Uriarte, Manuel J. Diario de un misionero en Maynas. Iquitos: Centro de Estudios
Teologic<:>s de la Amazonia, 1986.
Vega, Garcilaso de lao Comentarios Reales de los Incas. Lima: Fondo de Cultura
Economica, 1991.
230
Velie, Daniel. Orej6n: Bosquejo de la Fonologia y Gramcitica. Lima: Instituto
Lingiiistico de Verano, 1975.
Voeglin, C. F. and F. M. Voeglin. Classification and Index of the World's Languages.
New York: Elsevier, 1977.
West, Birdie and Betty Welch. "Phonemic System of Tucano." Phonemic System of
Colombian Languages. Ed. Viola Waterhouse. Summer Institute of
Linguistics Publications in Lingistics and Related Fields. Norman: Summer
Institute of Linguistics of the University of Oklahoma, 1967. 11-24.
Wilkens de Mattos, Joao. Diccionario topographico do departamento do Loreto na
Republica do Peru. Iquitos: Centro de Estudios Te6logicos de la Amazonia,
1984.
Wilson, Kelsey. "Color Terms in Yagua." B.A. Thesis, University of Oregon, 2008.
Woodroffe, Joseph. The Upper Reaches of the Amazon. London: Methuen, 1914.