Amerind languages


Amerind is a hypothetical higher-level language family proposed by Joseph Greenberg in 1960 and elaborated by his student Merritt Ruhlen. Greenberg proposed that all of the indigenous languages of the Americas belong to one of three language families, the previously established Eskimo–Aleut and Na–Dene, and with everything else—otherwise classified by specialists as belonging to dozens of independent families—as Amerind. Due to a large number of methodological flaws in the 1987 book Language in the Americas, the relationships he proposed between these languages have been rejected by the majority of historical linguists as spurious.
The term Amerind is also occasionally used to refer broadly to the various indigenous languages of the Americas without necessarily implying that they are a genealogical group. To avoid ambiguity, the term Amerindian is often used for the latter meaning.

Background

The idea that all the languages of the Americas are related goes back to the 19th century when early linguists such as Peter Stephen DuPonceau and Wilhelm von Humboldt noticed that the languages of the Americas seemed to be very different from the better known European languages, yet seemingly also quite similar to each other. When studies of American Indian languages began in earnest in the early 20th century linguists quickly realized that the indigenous languages were in fact not all that similar, but had a diversity much greater than among the languages of Europe. After a period of uncertainty about whether indigenous languages could be described and investigated by the methods applied to European languages, the first linguists began the daunting task of trying to classify the languages of the Americas by using the comparative method.
Among the most prolific and gifted linguists of his times was Edward Sapir, who was among the first to apply the comparative method to Native American languages. However, contrary to current practice in historical linguistics, Sapir also often relied on "hunches" and "gut feeling" when proposing new language families. Some of these suggestions have been proven correct while others have not. Sapir entertained the idea that ultimately all languages of the Americas might turn out to be provably related and such a phenomenon as the apparent Pan-American tendency to have first person forms with a prefixed n- was suggestive for this line of thought.
Since Sapir's death in 1939, linguists have spent their time researching his proposals; typically, there have been two opposing camps in this endeavor: the so-called "lumpers" who usually look towards notions of genetic relationships, and the "splitters" who are widely critical of such proposals and expect successful family relations to be proven by the most rigorous standards of scholarship. Joseph Greenberg worked in the tradition of "lumpers" and following Sapir, was mindful of evidence not generally acceptable to those who hold that only actual linguistic reconstruction—through the comparative method—can yield reliable proof of genetic relationships between languages. In elaborating his classification of the Amerind languages, Greenberg relied heavily on Sapir's early work on the North American languages and the highly impressionist classification of South American languages by Paul Rivet.

Pronouns

The main argument for the genetic unity of most Native American languages is an observed pronominal pattern in many Native American languages that have first person forms with n- and second person forms with m-. This pattern was first noted by Alfredo Trombetti in 1905. This pattern was also noted by Sapir which caused him to suggest that ultimately all Native American languages would turn out to be related. In a personal letter to A. L. Kroeber he wrote :
The supposed "n/m – I/you" pattern among Native American languages has attracted attention even from those linguists who are normally critical of such proposals. Johanna Nichols has investigated the distribution of the languages that have the n/m contrast and found that they are mostly confined to the western coast of the Americas, and that similarly they exist in East Asia and Oceania. This caused her to suggest that they had spread through diffusion. This notion was rejected by Lyle Campbell, who argued that in fact the n/m pattern was not statistically significant in either area compared to the rest of the world. Campbell also showed that several of the languages that have the contrast today did not have it historically and that largely the pattern was consistent with chance resemblances, especially when taking into consideration the statistic prevalence of nasal consonants in all the pronominal systems of the world.
At right is a selection of singular Amerind pronouns from various languages, each of which are from separate well-attested families.

Gender

Ruhlen reconstructed a morphological gender system for proto-Amerind, with masculine kinship terms containing the vowel *i and feminine the vowel *u, that he claims proves Greenberg's reconstruction. This is based on Greenberg's *t'a'na 'child', to which Ruhlen adds a masculine derivation *t'i'na 'son, boy' and a feminine *t'u'na 'daughter, girl'.
Unlike the n-/m- pattern in the pronouns, an intact i/u gender system is not attested across language families, and the consensus is that the pattern is a spurious one.

Reception

The consensus among historical linguists specializing in Native American languages is that the Amerind hypothesis is unsupported by valid evidence, particularly because the basis for the proposal is mass comparison, but also because of many other methodological flaws made by Greenberg in the elaboration of the hypothesis. Critics regard this technique as fundamentally flawed, unable to distinguish chance resemblances from those due to a historical relationship among the languages and providing no means of distinguishing resemblances due to common descent from those due to language contact. In addition, critics have pointed out errors in the citation of data, including erroneous forms, erroneous glosses, unjustified morphological segmentation, attribution to the wrong language, and citation of entirely spurious forms.
A further criticism is that, contrary to normal scholarly practice, no source references are given for the data, which in most cases come from languages for which there is no standard, authoritative source. In addition, Greenberg does not normalize the spelling of the data, so it is impossible without knowing the source of each form to know what the notation represents.
While sympathetic to the idea of an Amerind language family, Morris Swadesh was critical of many of Greenberg's subdivisions and believed it was due to an insufficient number of comparisons by Greenberg.

Classification

The 1960 proposal, in its outlines, was as follows:
  1. Almosan–Keresiouan
  2. Hokan
  3. Penutian
  4. Aztec–Tanoan
  5. Oto-Mangean
  6. Purépecha
  7. Macro-Chibchan
  8. #Chibchan
  9. #Paezan
  10. Andean–Equatorial
  11. #Andean
  12. #Jivaroan
  13. #Macro-Tucanoan
  14. #Equatorial
  15. Ge–Pano–Carib
  16. #Macro-Ge
  17. #Macro-Panoan
  18. #Macro-Carib
  19. #Nambikwara
  20. #Huarpe
  21. #Taruma
Below is the current state of Amerindian classification, as given in An Amerind Etymological Dictionary, by Joseph Greenberg and Merritt Ruhlen, Stanford University, 2007.
  1. North–Central Amerind
  2. # Northern Amerind
  3. ## Almosan–Keresiouan
  4. ### Almosan
  5. #### Algic
  6. #### Kutenai
  7. #### Mosan
  8. ##### Chimakuan
  9. ##### Salishan
  10. ##### Wakashan
  11. ### Keresiouan
  12. #### Caddoan
  13. #### Iroquoian
  14. #### Keresan
  15. #### Siouan–Yuchi
  16. ##### Siouan
  17. ##### Yuchi
  18. ## Penutian–Hokan
  19. ### Penutian
  20. #### Tsimshian
  21. #### Chinook
  22. #### Oregon
  23. #### Plateau
  24. #### California
  25. ##### Maiduan
  26. ##### Miwok–Costanoan
  27. ##### Wintun
  28. ##### Yokutsan
  29. #### Zuni
  30. #### Gulf
  31. ##### Atakapa
  32. ##### Chitimacha
  33. ##### Muskogean
  34. ##### Natchez
  35. ##### Tunica
  36. ##### Yukian
  37. ###### Yuki
  38. ###### Wappo
  39. #### Mexican Penutian
  40. ##### Huave
  41. ##### Mayan
  42. ##### Mixe–Zoque
  43. ##### Totonac
  44. ### Hokan
  45. #### Northern Hokan
  46. ##### Karok–Shasta
  47. ###### Karok
  48. ###### Chimariko
  49. ###### Shasta–Achomawi
  50. ####### Shasta
  51. ####### Achomawi
  52. ##### Yana
  53. ##### Pomoan
  54. #### Washo
  55. #### Salinan–Chumash
  56. ##### Salinan
  57. ##### Chumash
  58. ##### Esselen
  59. #### Seri–Yuman
  60. ##### Seri
  61. ##### Yuman
  62. #### Waicuri–Quinigua
  63. ##### Waicuri
  64. ##### Maratino
  65. ##### Quinigua
  66. #### Coahuiltecan
  67. #### Tequistlatec
  68. #### Subtiaba
  69. #### Jicaque
  70. #### Yurumangui
  71. # Central Amerind
  72. ## Tanoan
  73. ## Uto-Aztekan
  74. ## Oto-Manguean
  75. Southern Amerind
  76. # Andean–Chibchan–Paezan
  77. ## Chibchan–Paezan
  78. ### Macro-Chibchan
  79. #### Cuitlatec
  80. #### Lenca
  81. #### Chibchan
  82. #### Paya
  83. #### Purépecha
  84. #### Yanomam
  85. #### Yunca–Puruhan
  86. ### Macro-Paezan
  87. #### Allentiac
  88. #### Atacama
  89. #### Betoi
  90. #### Chimu–Mochita
  91. #### Itonama
  92. #### Jirajara
  93. #### Mura
  94. #### Paezan
  95. #### Timucua
  96. #### Warrao
  97. ## Andean
  98. ### Aymara
  99. ### Itucale–Sabela
  100. #### Itucale
  101. #### Mayna
  102. #### Sabela
  103. ### Cahuapana–Zaparo
  104. #### Cahuapana
  105. #### Zaparo
  106. ### Northern Andean
  107. #### Catacao
  108. #### Cholona
  109. #### Culli
  110. #### Leco
  111. #### Sechura
  112. ### Quechua
  113. ### Southern Andean
  114. #### Qawasqar
  115. #### Mapudungu
  116. #### Gennaken
  117. #### Chon
  118. #### Yamana
  119. # Equatorial–Tucanoan
  120. ## Equatorial
  121. ### Macro-Arawakan
  122. ### Cayuvava
  123. ### Coche
  124. ### Jivaro–Kandoshi
  125. #### Cofán
  126. #### Esmeralda
  127. #### Jivaro
  128. #### Kandoshi
  129. #### Yaruro
  130. ### Kariri–Tupi
  131. ### Piaroa
  132. ### Taruma
  133. ### Timote
  134. ### Trumai
  135. ### Tusha
  136. ### Yuracaré
  137. ### Zamuco
  138. ## Macro-Tucanoan
  139. ### Auixiri
  140. ### Canichana
  141. ### Capixana
  142. ### Catuquina
  143. ### Gamella
  144. ### Huari
  145. ### Iranshe
  146. ### Kaliana–Maku
  147. ### Koaia
  148. ### Movima
  149. ### Muniche
  150. ### Nambikwara
  151. ### Natu
  152. ### Pankaruru
  153. ### Puinave
  154. ### Shukuru
  155. ### Ticuna–Yuri
  156. ### Tucanoan
  157. ### Uman
  158. # Ge–Pano–Carib
  159. ## Macro-Carib
  160. ### Andoke
  161. ### Bora–Uitoto
  162. ### Carib
  163. ### Kukura
  164. ### Yagua
  165. ## Macro-Panoan
  166. ### Charruan
  167. ### Lengua
  168. ### Lule–Vilela
  169. ### Mataco–Guaicuru
  170. ### Moseten
  171. ### Pano–Tacanan
  172. ## Macro-Gê
  173. ### Bororo
  174. ### Botocudo
  175. ### Caraja
  176. ### Chiquito
  177. ### Erikbatsa
  178. ### Fulnio
  179. ### Ge–Kaingang
  180. ### Guató
  181. ### Kamakan
  182. ### Mashakali
  183. ### Opaie
  184. ### Oti
  185. ### Puri
  186. ### Yabuti