proto-costanoan numerals author(s): catherine a. callaghan

Proto-Costanoan Numerals

Author(s): Catherine A. Callaghan

Source: International Journal of American Linguistics , Jan., 1990, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Jan., 1990), pp. 121-133

Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/1265445

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of American Linguistics

This content downloaded from ��128.32.10.230 on Sun, 21 Jun 2020 06:32:11 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

http://www.jstor.com/stable/1265445

PROTO-COSTANOAN NUMERALS

CATHERINE A. CALLAGHAN

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

1. Introduction. Costanoan is a family of California Indian languages formerly spoken along the coast of California from San Francisco and the Carquinez Strait south to Big Sur.' As far as is known, the family is extinct. The languages are approximately as far apart as members of the Romance family. They can be classified as follows, although the classi- fication should be considered more a Stammbusch than a Stammbaum

because of borrowing:

I. Southern Costanoan (Cos) A. Mutsun (Csjb) B. Rumsen (Cru)

II. Northern Costanoan (Con) A. Soledad (Csol) ? (Chalon). Soledad may be a transitional

language (Marc Okrand, personal communication). B. Santa Cruz (Cscr) (Awaswas) C. Santa Clara (Cscl) (Tamyen) D. East Bay (Ceb), or Chocheino. This was apparently a single

language with several dialects from Mission San Jose to Richmond.

E. San Francisco (Csf) (Ramaytush) III. Karkin (Ckar)

Karkin is a separate branch of the Costanoan family, and I have discussed the etymologies of its numerals in another article (Callaghan 1988a). I shall not refer to them except where they shed light on the Proto-Costanoan system.

The position of Soledad in the Costanoan family is problematic. Traditionally, it has been grouped with Mutsun and Rumsen on the basis of shared lexical items (Kroeber 1910:241). Catherine Schambach (unpublished material) has discovered pronominal particles and other

I This is an expansion of a paper I read before the American Anthropological Associa- tion, November 21, 1987, Chicago. "Costanoan" is the name of the family of languages spoken by the Ohlonean Indians.

[IJAL, vol. 56, no. 1, January 1990, pp. 121-33] 0 1990 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0020-7071/90/5601-0005$01.00

121



INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS

isoglosses linking it with Northern Costanoan. Some key sound cor- respondences indicate an independent development (Marc Okrand, personal communication), and Okrand may be right in thinking that it is a transitional language.

Modern transcriptions exist for three Costanoan languages-Mutsun (San Juan Bautista Costanoan), Rumsen (Monterey Costanoan), and Chochefio (East Bay Costanoan)-in the form of J. P. Harrington's field notes.2 Reconstruction is primarily based on forms from those three languages.

Costanoan is more distantly related to the Miwok family of languages, also in Central California. Together they comprise the Utian family, which is not to be confused with Ute, which is unrelated. At present, wider genetic affiliations are a matter of controversy.

2. Costanoan numerals. Dixon and Kroeber (1907:663) commented on the numerous discrepancies between lower numerals, even in closely

2 Mutsun words followed by A (Arroyo de la Cuesta) are from Mason (1916). Chochefio words followed by A and all Karkin items are from Beeler (1961b). Unmarked Mutsun items are from Okrand (1977) or J. P. Harrington's field notes. Unmarked Chocheiio, Rumsen, and Soledad words are also from Harrington's field notes. Words cited directly from microfilms of the John P. Harrington Papers are followed by reel and frame numbers. Thus "2:69-0442" means "part 2 (of the John P. Harrington Papers), reel 69, frame 442."

Costanoan words followed by P (Alphonse Pinart) are from Heizer (1952). Those followed by HWH (H. W. Henshaw) are from Heizer (1955). Soledad words followed by HH (Horatio Hale) are from Hale (1846). Rumsen words followed by AT (Alexander Taylor) are from Taylor (1860), and those followed by (M) are from the Monterey dialect in the same source. Santa Cruz words followed by JCo (Juan Comelius) are also from Taylor (1860). Santa Clara forms followed by GM (Gregory Mengarini) are from Powell (1877). Chochefio words followed by K and VSM are from Kroeber (1910) and Galvin (1971) respectively. San Francisco Costanoan is from Schoolcraft (1860). Karkin words were recorded by Arroyo. Miwok material is from Callaghan (1965; 1970; 1972; 1984; 1987) and Freeland and Broadbent (1960).

The following orthographic conventions have been used for the Miwok material and for normalizing Harrington's Costanoan material: j = [y], y = [i], and raised dot (') represents length. In Costanoan, = [ts]. In Lake Miwok, c= [ts]. In other Miwok languages, c =[c]. Costanoan items from sources other than Harrington are cited in their original orthography.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank William Shipley for allowing me to copy his analyzed portion of J. P. Harrington's Rumsen field notes, and also to thank Marc Okrand for allowing me to copy his files on J. P. Harrington's Mutsun field notes.

Additional abbreviations are Miss "Southern Sierra Miwok," Mics "Central Sierra

Miwok," Mins "Northern Sierra Miwok," PMie "Proto-Eastern-Miwok," Mim "Marin Miwok," Mib "Bodega Miwok," Mil "Lake Miwok," PMiw "Proto-Western-Miwok," PMi "Proto-Miwok," PCos "Proto-Southern-Costanoan," PCon "Proto-Northern-Costanoan," PCo "Proto-Costanoan," and PU "Proto-Utian."

122




related languages. A glance at table 1 shows that in Costanoan, these discrepancies begin with the words for'one', which are quite different in Mutsun, Rumsen, and Chochenio, although they all seem to include a simplex stem of the form *(h)im- or *(h)em-. Ceb himhen, a less common word for 'one', is similar to other Northern Costanoan words for 'one'. (Note Cscr im-hem 'one' HWH, Cscl emhem 'one' GM, and Csf Im hen 'man'. Csol himic-2a 'one' appears to be a loan from Mutsun.) Unfortunately, we have no published numerals in San Fran- cisco Costanoan.

Historical processes become clearer when we examine Ceb him e-n, the more common word for 'one', along with related forms. There is a Csjb stem him e 'to unite, mix', as well as Ceb him e-wis 'aside, nearby' with an attributive suffix -wis. This allows us to reconstruct PCo *him e

'to unite'. Csjb {-n - -ni-} is a verbal suffix, often with inchoative or mediopassive force, which may follow nominal or verbal stems (see Okrand 1977:208ff.). Csjb -n is also a nominalizer following verbal stems (Okrand 1977:242), which Silverstein calls "mediopassive-adjectival" (1975:377). Hence Csjb him e-n 'union', Cru ?im'e-n-ta 'together' (literally, 'at the union'), and Ceb him e-n 'one' allow us to reconstruct PCo *him e-n. We do not know if the meaning was 'union' or 'one' or both.

Csjb hemec-?a 'one' has evidently undergone vowel harmony. The suffix - a is found in certain other particles, such as himah- a 'all' (Okrand 1977:331). Cru 2im-xala 'one' contains a reflex of the simplex stem *(h)im- 'one' plus the suffix -xala, found also in the word pic-xala 'a little bit (un poco)'. Cru 2im-xa-makaj 'some' (algunos) is apparently a plural form. It is possible that Miss ?em'at 'that one' is related to the Costanoan sets.

Similarly, we can reconstruct PCo *?othi-n 'two' from the Mutsun, Chochefo, and Karkin forms. We note the presence of -n 'nominalizer' and a Karkin stem in this set whose first vowel is o rather than the u in

all other Costanoan words for 'two'. Our assumption of the antiquity of Karkin o is confirmed by comparison with PMi *?oti 'two'. Silverstein (1975:377) perceived Karkin o to be an archaic feature. Levy (1976:17- 18) also commented on the conservative nature of Karkin and proposed that PCo *o > u in all languages except Karkin, if the vowel in the second syllable was i. Additional evidence for *?othi- as an underlying ste n form comes from Csjb ?uthi-si 'by twos, in twos'. We also note Csjb 2uthine 'two obj. case', further attesting to the nominal nature of Csjb ?uthi-n 'two'.

Cru u.t'i-s 'two' argues for an alternate protoform, PCo *Foti-s, where -s is a second nominalizer, which in Mutsun has an abstract or agentive meaning (Okrand 1977:244, Silverstein 1975:377, and Mason

123



INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS

TABLE 1

Northern Costanoan, Proto-Costanoan

English Southern Costanoan Karkin and Other

one Csib hemec'- ?a Csol himie?- a Miss ?em -at

Cru 2imxala

unite, mix, to Csjb him-e

union

two

Csjb him-e-n Cru 7im e-n-ta

'together'

Csjb ?uthi-n ?uthi-si

'by twos' Cru ?ut(i-s

three Csjb kapha-n kapha-si

'by threes' Cru kap-e-s

four Csjb 2u.tit ?U .tit-Si

'by fours' ?utti-n

'Thursday: it's four days' Cru 2u titim

frog: bullfrog Csjb wakra6-min Cru wakrac'-im

stinkbug Csjb ?uneu?-min Cru 2u c us-im

2u- ? ufS-`im

afternoon, evening Csjb ?ujak tevening'

get late, to Csjb ?ujka-n

ache, to Csjb ka-ji Cru ka j

sickness Cru kais P

five Csjb parwe-s Cru xala2is

< *?imxala ?is-

6one hand'?

(Ceb himhen)

Ceb him e-wis'

'aside'

Ceb him e-n

'one'

Ceb ?uthi-n

Csol utcei P

Ceb utsin K

Ckar othsjin A lothinl

Ceb kapha-n Csol kapxa HH

Ceb katwa-?

cathroas A

/katwas/ Cscl ka-tc6-as

HWH, kato6sh GM Ckar cathrahuas

A Ikatwa-sl

Ceb ?uneus'-min

Ceb ?ujak - ?ujka-n 'afternoon'

Ceb 2ujka -?ujka-n

Ceb ka-ji

Ceb ka ji?

Csol paruif P Ceb misfur

Cscr missurx P

mishur JCo

'that one'

PCo *(h)im.e

PCo *(h)im.e-n

PCo *?0ti-S

*2OtSsi-n ?

- *?othi-(n) PMi *?oti 'two'

PCo *kap(.)e-s *kapha *kapha-n

PCos *?u.tit

PCon *katwa-s

PCo *?un6'us-min

PCo *?ujak

PCo *?ujka-n

PCo *kaji

PCo *ka-ji-s - *kajis$

PCon *mis.ur

< *(h)im 'is-u(s) 'one hand'?

124




TABLE I-continued

Northern Costanoan, Proto-Costanoan

English Southern Costanoan Karkin and Other

Csjb nakei

Cru xali-sak-en P

Csjb takei Cru ucumai-

sakken P

/ ?ut.u-maj-sak e-n/

Csjb tu puj tu puj-tak 'at the tail'

Cru tup u-n 'to come to an end'

Csjb tajit-min Cru kapxamai-

sakken P

Csjb pak.i watsu A

Cru pak P

pakke (M)

Csjb tana? 'tens, -ty' tansa-hte 'ten'

Cru tan?a-xt

*ut is tan?axt

'twenty'

Csol hemenoksi

Ceb sak-e-n

PMi *nake(s) ~ *naki(s)

'end, edge' PCo *sak-e-n

Csol ?uthoksi ?

Ckar othro-

nakantumus

'eight' A /oto-nakan-tu-mu-s/ T? PCo *oto- 'two'

Cscr tuupui, tupui P PCo *tu puj tupuitak 'seven' P

Ceb tu puj 'tail'

Cscl tu-pfir HWH, kennetch GM

Ceb kene -tis

Ckar kenetis

Csol tajit-min Cscr usadtis P

Cscl u-sats' HWH

osatis GM

Ceb 7o0a--tis

Csol wa.-u ? uaattsu P

Cscr nukkun P

Cscl nu-kt-i HWH

tellektish GM

Ceb tulan A

tel-ek-tis

Csol ma.-u ?

matussu P

Cscr iue?

Cscl i-wes' HWH

Ceb ?iwe-S

?iwe 'to finish'

six

seven

tail

seven

eight

nine

ten

PMie *to pa-'nape PMiw *top-a 'after, last, following'

Mim ken.e 'one'

Mim ?6s-a 'two'

PCos *pak.i- *pak e

PMie *wo?e-

Mim tele-ka 'three'

PCos *tana-- *tan?a-hte

Mins taoan- a- 'last'

PCon *?iwe-s

125



126 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS

1916:406). Gemination in the Rumsen form is a late phonological development (see Shipley 1980).

Evidence for PCo *?otsi-n is weaker, since it depends on a single transcription, Ceb utsin 'two' K. This could represent a dialect variant within Chochefio, but it could also result from a "slip of the ear" on the part of Kroeber, since it is otherwise unattested in Chochefio vocabularies.

Harrington's Mutsun respondent, Ascensi6n Solorsano, recalled a few words of Soledad. She believed the word for 'two' was ?uthin (2:70- 0025), which accords with Henshaw's transcription, Csol u-t'n 'two', and it might represent a recent loanword from Mutsun. Of special interest are two early transcriptions, Csol utci 'two (dos)' P and Csol utce 'two' HH, which could represent a stem of the form /2ut(h)i/ or /?uc(h)i/, or even /lutsi/, although /u.thi/ is more probable in the light of Csol kapxa 'three' HH. (We infer initial ? from the fact that there are no stem-initial vowels in Harrington's Soledad material.) The early transcriptions might constitute evidence for positing additional Proto- Costanoan stems (such as *?othi), or they might simply represent a Soledad dialect in which final n had been lost (note also Csol taitemi 'eight' HH). t was often affricated in Costanoan languages (see Okrand 1977:21-22). We have additional evidence for a Proto-Costanoan stem of the form * 2othi from Csjb 2uthi-si 'by twos'.

We now examine the relationship between the three reconstructed stems. PCo *?otsi-n and *?othi(-n) probably derive from PCo *?oti-s through metathesis and suffixation of -n 'nominalizer'. Supportive evidence for such a pileup of nominal suffixes comes from Ckar carsan A /karsa-n/ and Csjb ka'ra-s, both of which mean 'molar teeth'. Further evidence for the antiquity of PCo * 2oti-s comes from its Miwok cognate, PMi *?oti 'two', which yields PU * oti 'two', the only Proto-Utian reconstruction with a certain numeral significance. This set is the source of the family name "Utian."

The various Costanoan words for 'three' argue for reconstructing a set of Proto-Costanoan stems similar to the set posited for the numeral 'two'. Cru kap e-s 'three' supplies evidence for PCo *kap(')e-s 'three', probably the most archaic variant. Unfortunately, there is no Miwok cognate to confirm this hypothesis, and Rumsen alone cannot supply evidence concerning the length of the medial consonant of the protoform. The earliest Soledad transcription, taken by Hale early in the nineteenth century, is kapxa 'three', which argues for reconstructing a metathesized variant, PCo *kapha. Supportive evidence comes from Csjb kapha-si 'by threes (de a tres)'. Csjb kapha-n 'three' and Ceb kapha-n 'three' underlie the final reconstructed variant, PCo *kapha-n.




It is not possible to reconstruct a Proto-Costanoan word for 'four', since the forms differ in Northern and Southern Costanoan languages. Csjb ?u'tit 'four' looks like a durative form of *?uti- 'two' plus an unexplained final t. Derivative forms, namely, Csjb ?u'tit-si 'by fours' and Csjb u'.tti-n 'Thursday' attest to the fact that Csjb ?u'tit is indeed an underlying stem.

The Rumsen cognate 2u'titim 'four' has an additional suffix -im, which seems to be a frozen suffix found also in certain plant and animal terms, such as Cru wakrac-im 'frog: bullfrog' and Cru vu'cus-im - u'cus`-im 'stinkbug'. Looking at table 1, we note that Mutsun and Chochefio cognates show -min. In Mutsun, -min means 'one who has...; one who is characterized by' (Okrand 1977:138), and it also occurs in the numeral tajit-min 'eight'. This suffix seems to have a similar meaning in Chocheno, sometimes with a plural force. (Note Ceb ?ektej 'bad [malo]', 2ektej-min 'they're bad [son malos]'.) Consequently, Cru u'.tit-im 'four' may mean 'having durative two'. The Mutsun and Rumsen forms allow us to reconstruct PCos *2u'tit 'four'.

Ascensi6n apparently did not recall the Soledad word for 'four'. We have three other transcriptions: utjit HH, uutcit P, and u-tit HWH. We can assume initial ? for reasons stated above. Pinart most frequently indicated length correctly, so we can assume u'. Alternation between tc [c] and t in transcriptions usually indicates t. Consequently, the most probable interpretation is Csol /?u.tit/ 'four', identical to the Mutsun form and a possible loanword.

The Proto-Costanoan words for the first three numerals and the

Proto-Southern-Costanoan word for 'four' form an interesting subset, along with their reflexes and related stems. PCo *-s/-s formed abstract nouns from verbs, as we see from the sets 'to ache' and 'sickness', much as -s in modern Mutsun. It is possible that the most archaic numeral stems (PCo *?uti-s 'two' and PCo *kap(')e-s 'three') were underlyingly verbal. This hypothesis is strengthened by the durative nature of PCos *?u.tit 'four'. (Note Csjb ?et'e-n 'to fall asleep' and Csjb we'te 'to be sleeping'.)

We have seen that PCo *-n can function as a nominalizer after a

verbal stem, forming PCo *him'e-n 'one? union?' from PCo *him'e 'to unite'. In Mutsun, -n is also a mediopassive or inchoative suffix, and the two suffixes apparently are sometimes merged in function, as in Csjb ?utti-n 'Thursday, it's four days'. A similar merger of functions is probable in Chochefio, judging from Ceb ?ujka-n 'afternoon, to get late'. Since we can also reconstruct PCo *?ujka-n 'to get late', PCo *-n was probably also an inchoative or mediopassive verbal suffix.

127




Harrington gives Ceb katwa-s 'four', but Arroyo's 1821 transcription is cathroas, which I interpret as /katwas/. The two Santa Clara transcriptions probably also represent /katwas/, considering the alternation between t and tc [c]. (Note Cru uutitim 'four [quatro]' P and Cru u-tchi-tim 'four' HWH.) Consequently, I reconstruct PCon *katwa-s 'four'. Supportive evidence comes from Ckar cathrahuas 'four' A, which I interpret as /katwa-s/. Many of these transcriptions indicate an epenthetic, nonphonemic vowel between the two members of the medial consonant cluster. I have no wider etymology for these words.

Csjb parwe-s 'five' is unlike any other Costanoan word for 'five' except for the Soledad form, which might be a loanword. (Note Csol paruac 'five' HH and Csol por-o-wes 'five' HWH.) I was unable to find either Miwok or Costanoan cognates.

Isabelle Meadows gave different versions of the Rumsen word for 'five': xala?is-, xale-is' (2:64-0676), and xalle 2is' (2:63-0443). (Note Pinart's transcription, xali-is.) The most probable etymology is * imxala 2is- 'one hand', as Harrington apparently suspected. The stress on is' would facilitate assimilation of the preceding vowel. Although Harring- ton usually transcribes the Rumsen word for 'hand' as 2is, he sometimes transcribes it as ?is' (2:41-0098). Finally, the word for 'five' in the Monterey dialect is hali-izu, which apparently includes the unreduced root for 'hand' (note Csjb 2is'u 'hand'). For a similar etymology, com- pare Mib kenek uh 'five' from *ken'e tuk'us 'one hand'.

The Pinart and Comelius transcriptions of the Santa Cruz word for 'five' indicate that it was probably /mis'ur/ like the Chochefio form. Pinart sometimes heard length, which he indicated by doubling the consonant or vowel. These facts allow us to reconstruct PCon *mis ur

'five'. A possible etymology is *(h)im-?is'u(s) 'one hand', but final r is unexplained.

Both Ascension and Isabelle had trouble remembering numerals between 'six' and 'ten'. In the case of Ascensi6n, Harrington was able to recover the Mutsun numerals through prompting from Arroyo's transcriptions. Isabelle apparently had more difficulty with the higher Rum- sen numerals. She guessed that Pinart's transcription, xali-sak en 'six', should be xale-sdk'en (2:63-0443), and she was fairly sure of the quality of s. This word plus Ceb sak'e-n 'six' allows us to reconstruct PCo *sak'e-n 'six', the highest numeral that can be reconstructed to Proto- Costanoan. Cru xali- or xale- may also represent the reduced forms of 2imxala 'one' which seem to occur in alternates for 'five'. If these

assumptions are correct, Cru xale-sak'en must be interpreted as 'one unit of six'.




Csjb nakci 'six' resembles Csol hemenoksi 'six', which seems also to incorporate a stem meaning 'one' (note Csjb hemec- a 'one'). These facts suggest that the Soledad word might be historically segmentable as *heme-noksi. Ckar othronacantumus 'eight' A (/oto-nakan-tu-mu-s/??) might possibly be composed of oto-, a variant stem for 'two', and nakan-, connected with Csjb nakci 'six', although such a connection is highly speculative. These stems might all be more remotely related to PMi *nake(s) 'end, edge' and PMis *na'ky-'to reach', since alternations between a and o are common in Miwok and Costanoan stems. (See Callaghan 1988b.) If these speculations are accurate, Csol hemenoksi 'six' must also be interpreted as 'one end (or unit)', not as 'one plus six'.

We have been able to reconstruct Proto-Costanoan words for 'one, union', 'two', 'three', and 'six'. This fact is fully in keeping with Beeler's discovery that the Costanoan languages to the north, as well as several other Central California Indian languages, give evidence of a counting system based on six (a senary system) (Beeler 1961a). If the Mutsun and Soledad stems for 'six' are ultimately related to a Miwok word for 'end' (i.e., 'end of a sequence'), we have evidence that a senary system was also present in the Costanoan languages to the south. We have still further evidence of a senary system in the composition of numerals above six.

Csjb takci 'seven' appears to have undergone analogical reformation under the influence of nakci 'six'. It is possible that Csol ?uthoksi 'seven' preserves a fuller form, perhaps from *?uthi noksi, though such an etymology is speculative, and it must be interpreted as 'two-six' (one after one-six), not as 'two plus six'. This speculation receives some support from a seemingly parallel development in Rumsen.

Henshaw transcribed the Rumsen word for 'seven' as u-tu-mai-sdk'-

en. Comparing this with Pinart's transcription, ucumai-sakken (utcumai- sakken?), we have an alternation between t and c which justifies the interpretation / ut'u-maj-sak'e-n/. We have partial support from Isa- belle's guess, ?utumaj-sak'en 'seven' (2:63-0444). If our interpretation is correct, we have /?ut u-/, a stem meaning 'two' in this word as well. This fact plus the presence of /oto-/ in Ckar /oto-nakantumus/ 'eight' allows us to reconstruct PCo * oto-, a combining stem meaning 'two'.

The meaning of the Rumsen element -maj- is uncertain. It may be a shortened form of the plural element -makaj in 2imxa-makaj 'some'. If this assumption is correct, Cru / ?utu-maj-sak'e-n/ would mean 'two- plural-six'. Similarly, Cru kapxamai-sakken 'eight' P (i.e., /kapxa-maj- sak'en/) could be analyzed as meaning 'three-plural-six'. A more precise etymology awaits a fuller analysis of Rumsen morphology.

129




Cscr tupuitak 'seven' P, which I interpret as Itu'puj-tak/, is more transparent. We can reconstruct PCo *tu'puj 'tail', and Pinart's transcriptions indicate that this was the Santa Cruz form as well.3 This is doubtless related to Cru tup u-n 'to come to an end'. Harrington cites Csjb tu'puj-tak as meaning 'at the tail' (en la cola), where -tak is an allative case suffix. This is apparently the etymology of the Santa Cruz form as well. 'At the tail (end)' is an understandable etymology for a word for 'seven' if the first six numerals are considered to be a unit. Cscl

tu-pir 'seven' HWH might also be a connected with this set.4 When we examine the Chochefio words for 'seven', 'eight' and one of

the words for 'nine', we note that the sequence starts over with stems meaning 'one', 'two', and 'three', but that these stems are Coast Miwok rather than Costanoan. We find similar patterns in other Northern Costanoan languages. Kroeber was the first to make this surprising observation for Santa Clara Costanoan (1910:249). Beeler (1961a) commented on the prevalence of this phenomenon in languages around the San Francisco Bay and attributed it to extensive aboriginal trade throughout the area.

The earliest Chochefio vocabulary with which I am familiar is in the recently published journal of Father Vicente Santa Maria, who accom- panied a Spanish exploratory expedition to the San Francisco Bay for the purpose of locating a mission and presidio site. He included the first fourteen numerals (Galvin 1971:67): imen 'one', utin 'two', capan 'three', catauas 'four', misur 'five', saquen 'six', quenetis 'seven', osatis 'eight', tulau 'nine', iguesizu 'ten', imeniluen 'eleven', capanuya 'twelve', imenaye 'thirteen', and catsuya 'fourteen'.

This vocabulary demonstrates that the incorporation of Coast Miwok numeral stems into the counting system was a precontact phenomenon, which cannot be ascribed to subsequent language mixture at the mis- sions. Moreover, Ceb capanuya 'twelve' seems to derive from *kaphan huja 'three fours', where huja is the Coast Miwok word for 'four', and this stem might also be present in Ceb catsuya 'fourteen' (from *katwas huja 'four fours'??). Unfortunately, Harrington's Chochefio material does not include numerals between 'ten' and 'twenty'.

Ceb kene'-tis 'seven', ?osga'-tis 'eight', and tel'ek-tis 'nine' contain the suffix -tis. This may be somehow related to the suffix -tis which is a weakened form of -tus, a suffix meaning '(people) from' (i.e., ram aj-tus

3 I assume this was a general Santa Cruz word for 'tail' from the Spanish translation 'cola'. Heizer (1952:21) evidently thought it meant 'tail of a bird'.

4 It is problematic whether or not this set is related to PMie *to'pa- 'nape' or PMiw *topa 'after, last, following', since the vowels do not correspond well.




'people from the west', jakmuj-tus - jakmuj-tis 'people from the east'). Ceb -tus is probably a frozen ablative case marker. (Note Csjb -tur 'ablative case'.) We note that {-tus - -tis} also has a locative connotation.

Ckar kenetis 'seven' A is probably a loanword from Chochefio. Cscl kennetch 'seven' GM is probably /ken'ec/. For what it is worth, *ken'e-c would be the expected objective case form of 'one' in some Marin Miwok dialects. In this regard, we note Mil ?ukiu'-koc-i 'ten', literally 'hand-dual-objective case'. Cscl u-sats 'eight' HWH might represent a similar pattern if it is an accurate transcription. But note Cscl osatis 'seven' GM, which follows the Chochenio pattern.

It is not appropriate to reconstruct any of these numerals to Proto- Northern-Costanoan, despite their widespread occurrence, because of the evidence of recent borrowing.

Csjb tajit-min 'eight' does not look like any other Miwok or Costanoan stem with which I am familiar except Csol tajit-min (2:70-0145) 'eight', which may be a recent loanword.

Arroyo gives two Mutsun words for 'nine', pakki and watsu, which probably represented different dialects. Ascension recognized pak i. 'nine' but not watsu. Alexander Taylor lists Cru pakke 'nine' (M), taken from the voyage of the Sutil and Mejicana in 1792 and published in Madrid in 1802. This word plus Pinart's transcription, Cru pak 'nine', accords with Isabelle's guess, pakk 'nine' and pak'e-tk 'nine (loc. case)' (2:63-0445). All this allows us to reconstruct PCos *pak'i - pak e 'nine'.

Ascensi6n apparently thought the Soledad words for 'nine' and 'ten' were wa-'u and ma'?u respectively, although she had never heard them. Pinart's transcription of 'nine' (uadttsu) and perhaps 'ten' (mdtussu) substantiates her interpretations, if we remember that the first u in 'ten' is probably a nonphonemic epenthetic vowel (see Okrand 1977:64-65 for a discussion of this phenomenon in Mutsun). Csjb watsu 'nine' A and Csol wa'?u 'nine' bear a slight resemblance to PMie *wo?e- 'nine', but only the first two phonemes correspond.

Cscr nukkun 'nine' P and Cscl nu-ku-i 'nine' HWH are apparently related to each other, but I am unable to propose any etymology. The difference between Ceb tulan 'nine' A and Father Vicente's transcription (tulau) is probably a copying error.

It is interesting that these words for 'nine' are unanalyzable, unlike many of the words for 'seven' and 'eight'. 'Nine' is both 'six plus three' and 'three times three', suggesting traces of a trinary counting system, which is also present in Ceb capanuya 'twelve: three fours'.

We can reconstruct PCos *tana -~ *tan?a-hte 'ten', which may be related to Mins .tayan- a- 'last', although the initial t: t correspondence is unexpected. Likewise, we can reconstruct PCon *2iwe-s 'ten' from the

131




Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and Chochefio forms, assuming Ceb -s reflects the correspondence Csjb s: Cru s : Ceb s. Here, the etymology is more straightforward. Ceb 2iwe means 'to finish (acabar)', which allows us to segment -s as a noun or adjective formative. To clinch the matter, we note Father Vicente's earlier Chochefio word, iguesizu 'ten', probably / iwes ?is'u/: 'finished hands'. (Note Miss na?'a- 'enough' and na?a'-ca- 'ten'.) Csol ma'?u 'ten', if it is an accurate transcription, is unlike other numerals. It may have undergone reformation by analogy with Csol wa' u 'nine'.

Above ten, the Costanoan numeral systems seem to be decimal based, except for the Vicente transcriptions of 'twelve' and 'fourteen' discussed above, and 'thirteen', which seems to include the stem for 'one'. (Note Ceb kaphan iwes 'thirty: three tens', Cru uit'is tdn?axt 'twenty: two tens' (2:63-0447), and Csol him-mit-et-tcus 'eleven' HWH. Note also Csjb 2uthin tana 'twenty: two tens'.)

3. Conclusions. The fact that we can reconstruct Proto-Costanoan

numerals for 'one, union', 'two', 'three', and 'six' provides evidence that Proto-Costanoan may have had a senary counting system. The fact that the word 'nine' is usually unanalyzable and can be reconstructed to Proto-Southern-Costanoan indicates traces of a trinary system. There is clear evidence of a senary system in Northern Costanoan numerals between 'six' and 'ten' and more ambiguous evidence of such a system in the Southern Costanoan languages plus Soledad. At 'ten' and above, the system is predominately decimal. There has been much borrowing and reformation at all levels within the Costanoan languages.

REFERENCES

BEELER, M. S. 1961a. Senary counting in California Penutian. Anthropological Linguistics 3:1-8.

1961b. Northern Costanoan. IJAL 27:191-97.

CALLAGHAN, CATHERINE A. 1965. Lake Miwok Dictionary. UCPL 39. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

1970. Bodega Miwok Dictionary. UCPL 60. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

1972. Proto Miwok phonology. General Linguistics 12:1-31. 1984. Plains Miwok Dictionary. UCPL 105. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University

of California Press.

.1987. Northern Sierra Miwok Dictionary. UCPL 110. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

.1988a. Karkin revisited. IJAL 54:436-52.




.1988b. Proto Utian stems. In Honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics, ed. William Shipley, pp. 53-75. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

DIXON, ROLAND B., AND A. L. KROEBER. 1907. Numeral systems of the languages of California. American Anthropologist n.s. 9:663-90.

FREELAND, L. S., AND SYLVIA M. BROADBENT. 1960. Central Sierra Miwok Dictionary with Texts. UCPL 23. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

GALVIN, JOHN. 1971. The First Spanish Entry into San Francisco Bay, 1775. San Fran- cisco: John Howell-Books.

HALE, HORATIO. 1846. United States Exploring Expedition. Vol. 6, p. 663. Philadelphia: C. Sherman.

HARRINGTON, JOHN P. 1985. John P. Harrington Papers 2: Northern and Central Cali- fornia. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

HEIZER, R. F. 1952. California Indian Linguistic Records: The Mission Indian Vocabularies of Alphonse Pinart. Anthropological Records 15, no. 1. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

.1955. California Indian Linguistic Records: The Mission Indian Vocabularies of H. W. Henshaw. Anthropological Records 15, no. 2. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Uni- versity of California Press.

KROEBER, A. L. 1910. The Chumash and Costanoan languages. UCPAAE 9:237-71. LEVY, RICHARD L. 1976. Costanoan internal relationships. Ms., Archaeological Research

Facility, University of California, Berkeley. MASON, J. ALDEN. 1916. The Mutsun dialect of Costanoan based on the vocabulary of de

la Cuesta. UCPAAE 11:399-472.

OKRAND, MARC. 1977. Mutsun grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

POWELL, J. W. 1877. U.S. geographical and geological survey of the Rocky Mountain region. Contributions to North American Ethnology, vol. 3, pp. 547-49. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R. 1860. Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge. Vol. 2, p. 494. Phila- delphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co.

SHIPLEY, WILLIAM. 1980. Rumsen derivation. American Indian and Indoeuropean Studies: Papers in Honor of Madison S. Beeler, Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, no. 16, pp. 237-44. The Hague: Mouton.

SILVERSTEIN, MICHAEL. 1975. On two California Penutian roots for two. IJAL 41:369-80. TAYLOR, ALEXANDER S. 1860. California notes: the Indianology of California. The Cali-

fornia Farmer (April 5, p. 58 and April 20, p. 66).

133



proto-costanoan numerals author(s): catherine a. callaghan

Documents