COSTANOAN INTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS

Richard L. Levy

Department of Anthropology

University of Kentucky

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH FACILITY

Department of Anthropology
University of California
Berkeley CA 94720

1976

TABLE OF CONTENTS

0. 0      Introduction  000000 ........ ....... 000000 0000000000000000, 0000  1
1.0       Locations of the Costanoan Languages .   ......................................... 1
2.0       Previous Linguistic Classification of Costanoan . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a & 0 0 ....... ,   2
3. 0      Phonological Systems ......................................... . 4
4. 0      Methods of Classification 00000o000o0 00oo 00 00000o0.00.0.00000000  5
5. 0      Shared Innovations 00000.000000000000 0000000000 00 000000000000   6
5. 1      SharedLexical Replacement 00 000000 000000000 00 000 0 00 00 000000  6
5.2       Shared Phonological Innovations *oo*ooo*o**o*ooo***ooooo*o*o**,  16
5. 3      Shared Semantic Innovations 0................000000000000000000  18
6. 0      Lexicostatistics  . 0 0 .0....   00e 0 ..... .00..... 0.000000   20
6. 1      Standard Lexicostatisties . 000 0 0000000 0000000000 000000 ........  36
6. 2      Counterindications .****o     0 , 0000000000000000000000000000000000  36
6.3       Characteristic VocabularyIndices .............................   37
7.0       Conclusions .*.......**********.****.*******************.. .*    38

Table 1   Sets Demonstrating Lexical Replacement ***********************   40

Table 2   Conflated Table of Lexical Replacements .*.......................................... 41
Table 3   Lexical Inovations Shared by Pairs of Costanoan Languages ***    42
Table 4   Percentage of Lexical novations Shared *********************43
Table 5   Phonological Innovations in Costanoan Languages **************** 44
Table 6   Percentage of Phonological Innovations Shared ******************  45
Table 7   Differences in Semantic Boundaries in Costanoan Languages        46
Table 8   Percentage of Shared Semantic nnovations ......................47
Table 9   Matrix of Percentages of Shared Cognates .....................a.48
Table 10 Counterindications .000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000 49
Table 11 Counterindications Scores 000*0*00000**000*0*0***      000**000*0 50
Table 12 Characteristic Vocabulary Indices ******.********************     51
Table 13 Closest Relative on Six Tests .*0 0 0 0 *  0................* *...* 0 0 0 .....................  52

Appendix

Sources of Costanoan Vocabularies . .. ... .. .... ...       ...  53

Bibliography  *..............................*.. ******** 00000000000      54
Map

Costanoan Language Groups     r      o       u      ps*000000000*00000***0000000000  57

COSTANOAN INTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS*

Richard S. Levy

Department of Anthropology

University of Kentucky

0.0. Introduction.

Languages of the Costanoan family were spoken in central

California between San Francisco and the Carquinez Straits in the
north, and the Big Sur and Salinas Rivers in the south. The

available vocabularies of Costanoan suggest that there were at
least eight distinct languages spoken in this area at the time

the Spanish missions were founded in the late eighteenth century.
The linguistic neighbors of the Costanoan at that time were the

Marin Miwok, Suisun and Patwin on the north; the Saklan Miwok and
Northern Valley Yokuts on the east and the Esselen and Salinan in
the south. Lexicostatistical calculations of Costanoan internal
time depth yield a figure of approximately 1400 years.

1.0. Locations of the Costanoan Languages.

Four of the languages were spoken by peoples occupying the
shores of San Francisco Bay and the adjacent coastal and valley

areas. The Karkin language was spoken by the people of a single
tribelet on the southern edge of Carquinez Strait and had approx-
imately 200 speakers in 1770. The eastern shore of San Francisco
Bay from Richmond to Mission San Jose and the adjacent Livermore

Valley was occupied by speakers of Chochenyo or East Bay Costanoan,
numbering about 2,000. The southern end of San Francisco Bay and
the lower Santa Clara Valley comprised the home of the Tamyen or

Santa Clara Costanoan who numbered about 1200 persons. San Francisco
and San Mateo counties were occupied by the Ramaytush or San
Francisco Costanoan who numbered about 1400.

The remaining four languages centered upon Monterey Bay.
Awaswas or Santa Cruz Costanoan was spoken by about 600 persons

living along the coast between Davenport and Aptos. Mutsun was the

*This is a substantially revised version of a paper presented
to the IXth Conference on American Indian Languages, held in conjunc-
tion with the 69th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological
Association. I am very thankful to William F. Shipley for his
valuable criticism of an earlier draft.

2

language of approximately 2700 persons living in the drainage area
of the Pajaro River. Speakers of Rumsen occupied the lower Salinas
River and the Coast between Monterey and Big Sur. The Rumsen

numbered about 800 persons. Chalon or Soledad Costanoan was spoken
by about 900 persons on the east side of the Salinas River in the
vicinity of Chalone Creek.

Estimates of population and location of linguistic groups

presented above refer to the latter part of the eighteenth century

and are based upon extensive study of mission baptismal records and
reports of Spanish exploring expeditions (Levy 1969, Levy 1972).
The locations of Costanoan tribelets and approximate language
boundaries are shown in Figure 1.

2.0. Previous Linguistic Classification of Costanoan.

Spanish missionaries first recognized the affinity of the

Costanoan languages. As early as 1774 Palou recognized the similarity
between Rumsen and Ramaytush. In his account of the exploration of
San Francisco Bay by the Rivera expedition Palou (1930a:413) makes
the following comment concerning the inhabitants of a village near
Palo Alto:

I spoke to them in the language of Monte Rey
[i.e. Rumsen] a few words about God and

Heaven, but, although they were very attentive,
I was not satisfied that they understood me,
although when I talked to them about other

things it seems that they did understand me, and

when they spoke I understood many words, although
I already knew that there were many differences.

Arroyo de la Cuesta, writing in 1821, recognized the relationship
of Karkin to Mutsun (Beeler 1961:192).

In a very superficial attemp.t at clas'sification of California
Indian languages, R.G. Latham (1856:82-75) proposed a number of

linguistic relationships which he left undocumented and unexplained.
He united Ramaytush (Costano) with Marin Miwok (Tshokoyem); Mutsum
and Santa Clara, was represented by Duflot de Mofras' (1844) Lord's
Prayers, with Sierra Miwok; and Rumsen (Ruslen) and Chalon (Soledad)
with Esselen and Salinan.

The next attempt at classification of the Costanoan languages
was made by Albert S. Gatschet. Gatschet (1877:157-159) proposed a

Mutsun language group which included all of the then known Costanoan
languages and some of the Miwok languages.    Gatschet's classification
was revised slightly by Powell (1877) who included all Miwok and
Costanoan languages in his Mutsun group.

A few years later the classification of American Indian

languages took a new leap forward with the publication of Indian

3

Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico. The classification
of Costanoan and Miwokan languages presented in that work was the

joint effort of several Bureau of American Ethnology staff members.
Jeremiah Curtin collected a Costanoan vocabulary at Niles in
November of 1884 (Beeler 1961:192). Comparing this with the

previously published sources Curtin concluded that Costanoan and
Moquelumnan (Miwok) were two distinct families (Powell 1966:146).

Further study of Costanoan languages was undertaken by H.W. Henshaw

who made two trips (1884 and 1888) to California to collect linguistic
materials in the field. Henshaw secured vocabularies of Chalon,
Awaswas, Rumsen, and a Miwok vocabulary from Tomales Bay (Heizer

1955). Subsequent study of this data by Henshaw confirmed Curtin's
earlier stand that Miwok and Costanoan were separate entities.

The first attempt at any internal subgrouping of the

Costanoan languages was made by Kroeber (1910:239-241). Kroeber
recognized seven dialects which he arranged in two groups as
follows:

Northern Costanoan                Southern Costanoan

San Francisco (Ramaytush)         San Juan Bautista (Mutsun)
Santa Clara (Tamyen)              Soledad (Chalon)

San Jose (Chochenyo)              Monterey (Rumsen)
Santa Cruz (Awaswas)

Kroeber's classification, like all of those previously mentioned was
based upon inspectional similarity of brief lexical lists. Kroeber
felt that the vocabularies from San Jose and Santa Clara missions
represented a single dialect. In his discussion of Costanoan

divisions in the Handbook of the Indians of California, Kroeber (1925:
463) treated his San Jose and Santa Clara groups as constituting a
single speech community and added Saklan to the list of Northern
Costanoan groups.

The publication of four Costanoan vocabularies collected by
Alphonse Pinart (Heizer 1952) and the above mentioned vocabularies
of H.W. Henshaw (Heizer 1955) considerably increased the amount of
linguistic data available on Costanoan languages. To this body of
published data Beeler (1961) added Curtin's Niles vocabulary and

two vocabularies collected by Arroyo de la Cuesta in 1821. Beeler

undertook a reexamination of Kroeber's Northern Costanoan, modifying
Kroeber's schema in several ways. Beeler proposed a subdivision

of Northern Costanoan termed East Bay Costanoan and included in it
the vocabularies of Arroyo de la Cuesta (Juichun), Mason (San

Lorenzo), Curtin (Niles) and Kroeber (Mission San Jose). Beeler

repudiated Kroeber's hypothesis of an especially close relationship
between Mengarini's Santa Clara vocabulary (Powell 1877) and the
East Bay group of dialects. Beeler added a third division to

Kroeber's Northern and Southern ones which consisted of Karkin

alone. Kroeber (1925) had previously treated Karkin as a Wintun

language. In a separate article Beeler (1955) had earlier removed
Saklan from Kroeber's list of Costanoan groups by demonstrating

that Saklan was a Miwok language. Beeler' s revised classification,

4

then, may be summarized as follows:

Karkin Costanoan
Karkin

Northern Costanoan

East Bay Costanoan (Chochenyo)
Santa Clara Costanoan (Tamyen)
Santa Cruz Costanoan (Awaswas)

San Francisco Costanoan (Ramaytush)

Southern Costanoan

Soledad (Chalon)
Mutsun
Rumsen

It should be noted, however, that Beeler addressed himself only to
the Northern and Karkin divisions and not to Southern Costanoan.

Since most, if not all, of the Costanoan languages have

been extinct since the 1930's all assessments of their interrelation-
ships must be based upon careful examination of written recordings
of the languages made by explorers, missionaries, ethnographers,

and linguists in the 19th and 20th centuries. The excellent mater-

ials collected by J.P. Harrington of the Bureau of American Ethnology
from the last speakers of Rumsen, Mutsun and Chochenyo have enabled
a fairly adequate appraisal of earlier work by Arroyo de la CUesta
(1861, 1862), Henshaw (Heizer 1955), and Pinart (Heizer 1952). A
complete list of published Costanoan vocabularies is given in the
appendix below.

3.0. Phonological Systems.

It is fortunate that the Costanoan languages had a relatively
simple phonological system. All eight languages had a simple five
vowel system and phonemic vowel length. Most of the recorders of
Costanoan vocabularies did a fair job of recording vowels, though

Henshaw confuses /i/ with /e/, /u/ with /o/, and /o/ with /a/. Only
Pinart and Harrington recorded vowel length and geminate consonants.

Major problems arise with respect to the distinctions between several
consonant phonemes. /t/ is confused with /c/ and /t/ and /l/ with

/s/ and Is!. The glottal stop, which is rare in non-initial position,
is left unrecorded by most recorders but its presence may be inferred
whenever there is an initial vowel. /h/ is restricted to initial
position in those languages in which it occurs but is not always

distinguished from /x/. Harrington's field notes have left us with
reliably transcribed material on Chochenyo, Mutsun and Rumsen. My

analysis of his Chochenyo material yields the following configuration
of phonemes:

5

p t t c k ?                     i   u

s   s x                       e   o
m n                               a

w 1 r j                      vowel length

Vowel length is indicated by double vowels (/aa/ for [a], etc.).

Analysis of Harrinton's Rumsen (W.F. Shipley, personal
communication) and Mutsun (Marc Okrand, personal communication)

materials reveals that the two languages possessed the same set of
segmental phonemes. The phonemic systems of Mutsun and Rumsen
configurated as follows:

p t c c c k ?                   i

u

s s s x                     e

0

m n                              a

w 1   r y                    vowel length

The phonemic systems of the remaining Costanoan languages are

somewhat doubtful at present. Tamyen (Santa Clara Costanoan) probably
had the same system as Chochenyo. Ramaytush may have had a labio-
dental affricate since orthographic p is encountered where PC has

*t. Further evidence for this phoneme is contained in the Book of

Baptisms of San Francisco Mission where one village name is consis-
tently transcribed with an initial pr (Pruristac, Pruristag,

Prururustac, Prusstac) in a language which, like all Costanoan

languages, has no consonant clusters in word-initial position. The
Karkin language, known only from Arroyo de la Cuesta's brief
vocabulary (Beeler 1961), probably possessed the same set of

phonemes as Chochenyo. Awaswas and Chalon are problematical. They
almost certainly lacked /c/, which is extremely rare in both

languages in which it occurs (i.e. Mutsun and Rumsen). It seems
probable that both these languages had Is! and Is!. Except for

consistent recording of Is! as (s), Pinart and Henshaw display no
regularity in their transcription of these sibilants. In their

defence, however, it should be remarked that even Harrington had
considerable difficulty in distinguishing Chochenyo Is! and Is!
in the early stages of his work with that language.

Historical analysis of Costanoan phonology is presented
below.

4.0. Methods of Classification.

In order to determine the patterns of interrelationship of

6

the Costanoan languages both the techniques of the comparative method
and lexicostatistics have been employed. The results of these two
modes of inquiry are presented in sections 5 and 6 respectively.
A general assessment of the results is given in section 7.

The position of Costanoan in Penutian seems fairly clear.

It constitutes a subgroup within a Miwok-Costanoan or Otian stock.

This stock, in turn, is a definable subgroup of the larger Penutian
phylum (Callaghan 1967). In searching for cognates of approximately
500 Proto-Costanoan, Proto-Northern-Costanoan and Proto-Southern-

Costanoan reconstructed forms, I have been able to locate approximately
150 cognate items in Miwok and approximately 25 items shared with

each of Maiduan, Klamath, and Yokuts. Relationships with Penutian
languages of the Oregon Coast are more remote.

5.0. Shared Innovations.

Innovations shared by two or more related languages are
useful indicators of the subgroups existing within a particular

group of languages. Three types of innovation have been examined in
dealing with Costanoan internal relationships: (1) Lexical replace-

ment, (2) structural changes in phonological systems, and (3) changes
in the semantic boundaries of lexical items.

5.1. Shared Lexical Replacement.

A number of cases in which lexical replacement has occurred
in one or more of the Costanoan languages have been identified. In
each case we must rely upon an external witness (Miwok or another

Penutian group) to provide the identification of the innovative forms.
Given the fact that the Costanoan languages form a genetic subgroup
within Otian we may recognize as a retention from Proto-Costanoan

any lexical item which has a cognate in any Miwok language. In the

absence of a cognate item in Miwok we may recognize as retained from
Proto-Costanoan those lexical items which have cognates in another

Penutian language (Maiduan, Yokuts, Wintu, Patwin, Klamath).* Where

*Sources of Panutian materials and abbreviations are as
follows:

Mil     Lake Miwok (Callaghan 1965)

Mib     Bodega Miwok (Callaghan 1970)

PMiw    Proto Western Miwok (Callaghan 1970, Callaghan ms.)
Misc    Central Sierra Miwok (Freeland and Broadbent 1960)
Miss    Southern Sierra Miwok (Broadbent 1964)

PMis    Proto Sierra Miwok (Broadbent & Callaghan 1960,

Callaghan ins.)

PMie    Proto Eastern Miwok (Broadbent & Callaghan 1960,

7

alternative forms have replaced those which were present in Proto-
Costanoan we may infer a lexical innovation. When two or more

idiolects exhibit regularly corresponding innovative forms these
idiolects are said to possess a shared lexical innovation.

In each of the cases presented below at least one idiolect
retains the original Costanoan form and at least one idiolect

contains an innovated form. In each of the sets presented below all
known recordings of each lexical item are given. Each citation

provides an identification of the language in question, specification
of the source from which the item is drawn, and designation of the
page number in the original published source. The orthography of
the original sources is cited in parentheses. An estimation of

approximate phonetic content is given in square brackets and the

probable phonemic shape is placed between slashes.* All retentions
from Proto-Costanoan are marked with a following "R", while innova-
tions are indicated by an "I" followed by a number-letter sequence.
Any pair of forms with the same number-letter sequence constitute
a shared lexical innovation.

callaghan ms.)

PMi   Proto Miwok (Broadbent & Callaghan 1960, Callaghan

1960)

Yy    Yawelmani Yokuts (Newman ms.)
PY    Proto Yokuts (Golla 1964)
PMa   Proto Maidun (Ultan 1964)
Ww    Wintu (Swadesh ms.)

Wn    Nomelaki (Swadesh ms.)
K     Klamath (Barker 1963)

*For a discussion of the methods of reconstitution see
Broadbent 1957.

8

Sets demonstrating lexical innovation:*

1. ANTLER/HORN

CoCh-D                             /jaawi/   Ila
CoCr-D166    (tciri)   [ci]        /ciri/    R
CoSo-C166    (tciri)   [c'iri]"C /i ri/      R
CoMu-A433    (tciri)   ["ciril     /'ciri/   R
CoRu-B166   (tclrh)    [cirx]      /Cirx/    R
CoRu-C20    (curxz)    [cirx]      /cirx/    R

(u in the above form is probably a misinterpretation of
Pinart's handwriting.   Perhaps ii was intended.)

CoRu-D                             /ciir/    R
Pmi*kiloi-

2. BACK

CoCh-D                             /rumes/   R
CoCr-D161    (ku-mes)  [rumes]     /rumes/   R

(In utterance initial position r is preceded by glottalic
or velar affrication which Henshaw heard as k but cf.

Henshaw's (rumes) spine - which is the same morpheme.)

CoSo-C161   (hA-pa)    [h;po]      /xopo/    12a
CoSo-C161    (mu-mu)   [mumu]      /mumu/    12b
CoMu-A432    (xopo)    [xopo]      /xopo/    12a
CoRu-B161    (rumse)   [rumse]     /rumse/   R
PMiw*lu'ma
3. BARK

CoCl-A543   (rottoi)   [rotoi]     /rotoj/   13a
CoFr-A542   (she-mee) [s'imi]      /simi/    R

CoCr-C17     (pata)    [pata]      /pata/    13b
CoCr-D167    (pa-ta)   [pata]      /pata/    13b
CoSo-C167    (ci-mitc) [simic]     /'simi'c/  R

*Abbreviations of Costanoan languages are as follows:

Ka Karkin, Ch Chochenyo (East Bay Costanoan), Cl Tamyen (Santa Clara
Costanoan), Cr Awaswas (Santa Cruz Costanoan), Mu Mutsun, Ru Rumsen,
and So Chalon (Soledad Costanoan). Occasionally I have prefixed

Co- to these for clarity. PC is Proto Costanoan, PNC Proto Northern
Costanoan, and PSC Proto Southern Costanoan.

9

CoRu-B168       (a-b'a-ran)       [?ap aran]        /?apxaaran/   13c

(Clusters consisting of voiceless stops followed by x regularly
become geminated aspirated stops. Harrington writes [kapshan]
for /kapxan/ three in Chochenyo.)

CoRu-C17        (xaaran)           [xa'ran]        /xaaran/       13c
CoRu-E          (arro)            [ha *ran]        /xaaran/       13c
(Since Taylor recorded a disyllabic stem we can be fairly certain

that some unrecorded consonant followed the final o of Taylor's

arro. Rumsen has a truncation rule which deletes final vowels.)
PMiw *sime

PMis *semoi-la-
4. BLACK

CoCh-C246       (cirkewis)        [sirkewis*]      /sirkewis/     14a
CoCh-D                                             /sirkewis/     14a
CoFr-A545       (shol-ko-te)      [solkote]        /solkote/      14b
CoCl-A545       (moortooshmini)    [murtusmif ]    /murtusmin/    R
CoCr-A          (murtusmin)       [murtusmin]      /murtusmin/    R
CoCr-B32        (mur'cun)          [murtun]        /murtun/       R
CoCr-C32        (murcu)           [murtul          /mur$u/        R
CoCr-D164       (mul-tas-min)     [murjusmin]      /murtusmin/    R

(For a better transcription of the same morpheme cf. murtrusmln
Negro)

CoSo-C164       (mu-ru-tu)         [murutu]        /murutu/       R
CoMu-A462       (murtu)            [murtul         /murtu/        R

CoRu-B164       (kasis)           [karsist]        /karsist/      14c
CoRu-Cll        (karsits)         [karsi,st]       /karsis.t/     14c
CoRu-D                                             /karsist/      14c
CoRu-G397       (karsist)         [karsist]        /karsis t/     14c
Mil muluumulu; Yy modok'wiyi
5. COLD

CoCh-D                                  h          /kawi/         R
CoCh-E471       (kauwi')           [kauwi ]        /kawi/         R
CoCl-A547       (cowi)            [kawi]           /kawi/         R
(A better transcription occurs in (cawilmaki) winter.)

CoFr-A546       (cab-wee)         [kawi]           /kawi/         R

10

CoCr-D185     (ta-cln)         [tarsin]        /tarsin/      15a
CoSo-B32      (kaue)           [kaw"i]         /kawi/        R

CoMu-A437     (tursi)          [tursi]         /tursi/       15b
CoRu-C9       (teerx)          [terx]         /terx/         15c

PMi *ky(")w(e)...
6.  DREAM

Coch-D                                         /?istu/       R

CoCr-B24      (suppen)         [suppen]       /supen/        16a
CoCr-C24      (supen)          [supen]         /supen/       16a
CoSo-C171     (isw-t-a-newn)  [Pistunenl       /Pistunen/    R
CoMu-A443     (istu)          [Pistu]          I7istu/       R
CoRu-B17J1    (is-tu-n'ln)     [sistunen]      /7istunen/    R
GoRu-C27      (istunen)        [7istunen]     /7istunen/     R
CoRu-C27      (istunen)       [Pistunen]       /7istunen/    R

PMi *?ekcu-.
7.  EAR

CoKa-A192     (tugtun)         [tuktun]        /tuktun/      R
CoCh-A193     (tuksus)         [tukwsu's]     /tuksuws/      R
CoCh-C243     (tuksus)         [tukwsus]      /tuksu's/      R
CoCh-D                                         /tuksus/      R
CoCh-E        (TuKsus)         [tuksus]        /tuksus/      R
CoCl-A539     (tookshoosh)     [tuksu%s]       /tukwsus/     R
CoFr-A538     (tu-o-rus)       [tuk%us]       /tukWuI/       R

CoCr-A        (ocho)           [?oco]          /?ooco/       17a
CoCr-B9       (ooco)           [?oWco]           ooCo        17a
CoCr-C9       (oco)            [?oco]        /Poo'co/        17a
CoCr-D160     (o-tco)          [?oco]         /?ooco/        17a
CoCr-E46      (ochi)           [?oci]         / ooCi/        17b
CoSo-A        (otco)           [?oCo]          /?oo"Co/      17a
CoSo-C160     ('a-tco)         [? :oo        P oo"Co/       17a
CoMu-A431     (otco)           [0 co]         /?ooco/        17c
CoMu-A431     (ote)            [?o-te]        /?oote/        17d
CoMu-A432     (tuksus)         Etuksus]        /tuksus/      R
CoRu-B160     (tuk's)          [tuks]          /tuks/        R
CoRu-C9       (tuss)           [tuks]         /tuks/         R
CoRu-E        (tuucs)          [tuks]         /tuks/         R

PMis *toe/lkos-; PY *thuk'.
8.  FIRE

11

CoCh-B193     (giis)         [xijis]        /xijis/        18a
CoCh-B193     (jiis)         [ hi jis-]     / xij i s/     18a
CoCh-C245     (hiyis)        [hijis]        /xijis/        18a
CoCh-D                                      /xijis/        18a
CoCh-E471     (hiyis)        [hiyis*]       /xijisO/       18a
CoFr-A245     (roretaon)     [sokton]       /sokton/       R
CoCl-A        (shotto)       'Soot oI       /S'oto/        R

CoCr-A        (yuelek)       [julek]         /julek/       18b
CoCr-B        (so:tto:o:)    [sotow]        /sotow/        R
CoCr-C        (sotou:)       [sotow]        /sotow/        R
CoCr-D        (catau)        [s tw]          /sotow/       R
CoSo-B16      (sokto)        [sokto]        /sokto/        R
CoSo-C162     (satan)        [s'ton]       I/soton/        R
CoMu-A435     (soton)        [soton]         /soton/       R
CoRu-B162     (sa-to)        [%sto]         /soto/         R
CoRu-C16      (sokto)        [sokto]        /swokto/       R
CoRu-G398     (sho-to)       [soto]         /soto/         R

PMa *C'oh-.   The Costanoan forms derive from PC *sokto.
Proto California Penutian was probably *c'ok-.

9.  FLY (v.)

CoCh-D                                      /wina/         R
CoCr-D167     (wln-na)       [win*a]        /wina/         R

CoSo-C167     (hu-min)       [humin]        /xumin/        19a
CoMu-A455     (umsun)        [?umsun]       /?umsun/       l9b
CoRu-B167     (u-mun)        [?umun]        /1un            9b
CoRu-D                                      /?umun/        19b

Wn winna.
10. KICK

CoCh-D                                      /kalta/        R
CoCr-D185     (ka-la)        [kala]         /kala/         R

CoSo-C183     ('at-ka)      [Patka]         /?atka/        IlOa
CoMu-A458     (tien)         [tijen]        /tijen/        IlOb
CoMu-A443     (ixiras)       ['ixiras]      /'ixiras/      IlOc
CoRu-B176     (tai-i)        [tajj]          /taj/         IlOd
CoRu-G        (tach)         [acc]          /tac'/
Mics ka 1, Miss ka l-.
11. LEAF

CoCh-D                                      /maarax/       Illa
CoCl-A543     (maragi)       [maaraxi]      /maaraxi/      Illa

12

CoCr-A         (tapash)         [tapas]        /tapas/       R

CoCr-C17       (maruc)          [maruc]        /maruc/       Illb
CoCr-D167      (ha-pon)         [hapan]        /xapan/       Illc
CoSo-C167      (ma-lutc)        [maruc]        /maruc/       Illb
CoMu-A430      (ketex)          [ketex]        /ketex/       Illd
CoRu-B167      (as)             [?o7`]         /Toos/        Ille
CoRu-C17       (oos)            [?os]          /Toos/        Ille
PMis *tata-; PY *t'ap-; K t'apq.
12. MOON

CoCh-A193      (kurme)          [korme]        /korme/       R
CoCh-C244      (korme)          [korme]        /korme/       R
CoCh-D                                         /kormej/      R
CoCh-E471      (kormei)         [kormej]       /kormej/      R
CoCl-A244      (corme)          [korme]        /korme/       R
CoFr-A244      (col-ma)         [korme]        /korme/       R

CoCr-A         (char)           [tar]          /taar/        R12a
CoCr-B14       (caar)           [tar]          /taar/        I12a
CoCr-C14       (caar)           [tar]          /taar/        I12a
CoCr-Di68      (tra)            [taorJ         /taar/        I12a
CoSo-C168      (Is-mlv)         Oism]          /lisme/       I12b
CoRu-B168      (rs-mln)         [?ismsn]       /?ismen/      I12b
CoRu-C14       (ismen)          [?ismen]      /?i;men/       I12b
CoRu-G394      (ish-men)        [?ismen]       /?i;men/      I12b

PMi *kome-.
13. RIVER

CoCh-C245      (rumei)          [rumei]       /rumej/        I13a
CoCh-D                                         /rumej/       I13a
CoCl-A543      (hoome)          [rumeil        /rumej/       I13a
CoFr-A543      (o-rush)         [?oruls]       /?oruy/       113b
CoCr-A         (rumaj)          [rumei]        /rumej/       113a
CoCr-B16       (rumme)          [rumei]       /rumej/        I13a
CoMu-A435      (w,akis)         [wakis]        /wakis/       R

CoRu-A79       (watcos)         [waYos;]       /wato;/       I13c
CoRu-B16       (ua`orx)         [wa6or]        /wator/       I13c
CoRu-G401      (wa-chos)        [wacos]        /watos/       I13c
PMie *wak.a-.
14.  STNG

CoCh-D                                        /laawe/        R
CoCh-E472      (sawi)           [<aawe]       /laawe/        R

13

CoFr-A        (har-wee)        [harwi]        /xarwi/         R
CoCr-A       (shane)           [saawe]        /saawe/         R

(misinterpretation of handwriting, n for u.)

CoCr-B25     (saaue)           [saawe]         /saawe/        R
CoCr-C25      (saue)           [saawe]         /saawe/        R
CoMu-A451    (sawe)            [saawe]         /saawe/        R

CoRu-B178     (tcu-nu-i)       [cunui]         IcunujI        I14b
CoRu-C25     (cunnui)          [cunnui]        /cunuj/        I14b
CoRu-E        (chunnoy)        [cunnuj]        /cunuj/        I14b
CoRu-G399     (chu-nuy)        [cunu;]         /cunujI/       I14b

Ww c'aawa; Wn c'aawa.
15. TAIL

CoCh-D                                         /tuupuj/       Il5a
CoCr-B21      (tuupui)         [tu'pui]        /tuupuj/       I15a
CoCr-C21      (tupui)          [tupui]         /tuupuj/       I15a
CoCr-D167     (tu-pu-i)        [tupui]         /tuupuj/       I15a
CoSo-C166    (kok')            [ko'k]          /kook/         R
CoSo-C167    (kok)             [ko *k]         /kook/         R

CoMu-A432     (tup'ui)         [tupvui]        /tuupuj/        lSa
CoMu-A432     (tapui)          [tupui]         /tuupuj/       IlSa
CoRu-Bl66     (kak)            [kt * k]        /kook/         R
CoRu-B167    (kak)             [kDk]           /kook/         R
CoRu-D                                         /kook/         R
CoRu-G400     (kok)            [ko*k]          /kook/         R
Mil kok.

16. WILDCAT

CoCh                                           /tootomi/      R
CoCr-A        (toroma)         [toroma]        /tooroma/      R

CoCr-BA9      (xubis)          [xuwis]         /xuwis/        R16a
CoCr-C19      (torom)          [torom]         /toorom/       R
CoCr-D165     (ta-ro-ma)       [toroma]        /tooroma/      R

CoSo-B19      (mihis)          [mihis]         /mixis/        R16b
CoSo-C165     (ta-ro-ma)       [tmroma]        /tooroma/      R
CoMu-A428     (toroma)         [toroma]        /tooroma/      R

CoRu-B165     (ham)            [hom]           /xoom/         I16c
CoRu-B19      (xom)            [xom]           /xoom/         I16c
CoRu-G398     (hom)            [hoem]          /xoom/         I16c
PMis *to1omva-.

14

17. WOLF

CoCh-D                                   /xuun/         R
CoCh-E        (hun)         [huen]        /xuun/        R

CoCl-A545     (oomoog)     [rumux]        /?umux/       I17a
CoCr-A        (umu)         L7umu]        /7umu/        117a
CoCr-B19      (humniu)      [7ummu]      /Pumu/         I17a
(misinterpretation of handwriting)

CoCr-C19      (huni)        [huni]        /xuuni/       R

CoCr-D186     (u-mu)        [7umu]        /7umu/        I17a
CoSo-B18      (hummux)      [7ummux]      /?umux/       I17a
CoMu-A427     (uminx)       [?ummux]      /7umux/       I17a

(misinterpretation of handwriting)

CoRu-C19      (hummux)     [Pummux]       /?umux/       I17a
CoRu-E        (uumuk)      [Pumux]        /7umux/       I17a

PMi *hu'n.

18. WORLD, EARTH

CoCh-A193     (wirep)       [wArfp]       /warep/       R
CoCh-C245     (warep)       [warep]       /warep/       R
CoCh-D            -            - h        /warep/       R
CoCh-E        (warep )      [ware   J     /warep/       R
CoCl-A543     (warep)       [warep]       /warep/       R
CoFr-A542     (wah-rep)     [warep]       /warep/       R

CoCr-A        (pire)       [pire]         /pire/        I18a
CoCr-B15      (pirren)     [pir*en]       /piren/       I18a
CoCr-C15      (pire)       [pire]         /pire/        I18a
CoSo-B15      (hunpire)     [hu'n pire]   /pire/        I18a
CoMu-A436     (pire)       [pire]         /pire/        I18a
CoRu-B169     (piri)       [pire]         /pire/        I18a
CoRu-G401     (pire)       [pire]         /pire/        I18a
PMi *wali-.

15

In choosing items for inclusion in the above sets the following
criteria were employed: Only those sets were used for which data was
available from at least five of the eight Costanoan languages. Only
those sets were used which have good quality cognates in another

Penutian language. Only those sets were used that had innovative
forms in at least one Costanoan language or dialect.

In assigning number-letter sequences to innovative forms
above, identical designations were given only when the items in
question were historical cognates identified by means of regular

correspondence of the constituent phonemes. Mere phonetic resemb-
lance of a pair of lexical items was not accepted as sufficient
evidence of cognation.

The foregoing sets offer us the opportunity to explore the

relative internal dialect diversity of a number of Costanoan languages.
Table 1 summarizes the above sets, facilitating comparison. The

Chochenyo sources are in complete agreement on all items. In all
cases but one, paired comparison of the Rumsen sources also shows

full agreement. In the single exception list B agrees with list G
in six out of seven cases. It is readily apparent that there is

little dialect variation within both Chochenyo and Rumsen. Paired
comparison of lists representing Santa Cruz, on the other hand,
reveals considerable dialect variation between sources. No two

lists present us with full agreement, but all lists agree on between
75% and 80% of the items compared.

To simplify interlanguage comparison multiple lists from

single languages were conflated. Conflation of the Chochenyo lists
posed no problem since all are identical. In the case of Rumsen

disagreement is evident only in set number 10. 10e was chosen over
10d by flipping a coin since each item occurs in a single list.

The same procedure was followed in selecting R over 16b to represent
Soledad in set 16. The Santa Cruz lists display disagreement in 5
of the 18 sets. On the basis of greater frequency 7a was selected
over 7b, R over 8b, R over 16a, and 17a over R. R was selected to
represent set 11 by flipping a coin.

Multiple responses in single lists were also eliminated.     2b

was selected over 2a to represent Soledad by flipping a coin. Mutsun
10b was selected over 10c by the same procedure. R was chosen over
7c and 7d to represent Mutsun since I believe that Arroyo's Mutsun
material apparently contains some non-Mutsun (probably Soledad)

lexical material of which 7c and 7d are a part. (7c, moreover, fails
to show the regular Mutsun reflex of PC *c and has therefore been
given a separate designation from 7a.) The resulting conflation
of lexical innovations appears in Table 2.

Lexical innovations shared by pairs of languages are

enumerated in Table 3. Since the number of comparisons varies

from case to case due to the incompleteness of the data, the percen-
tage figures of Table 4 provide a more meaningful quantitative

assessment of the similarities existing between the various pairs of
languages.

16

Careful examination of Tables 3 and 4 produces a number of
observations of classificatory value. It is apparent that San
Francisco shares no innovations with any other language and may

thus be regarded as an isolate. The remaining percentages suggest
a chain ordered as follows: Ch - Cl - Cr - Mu - So - Ru. It is
significant that the terminal languages of this chain, Ch on the

one end and So and Ru on the other, share no innovations. In all
cases percentages decrease as distance along the chain increases.
Moreover, the ordering of languages along the chain accords well
with their relative geographical placement.

Inspection of Table 2 also reveals that there are substan-
tial differences in the number of times the various languages

exhibit innovative forms. A rate of innovation has been computed
for each language by dividing the number of innovations by the
total number of cases. These figures are as follows: FR .333,

CH .353, CL .400, CR .500, MU .500, S0 .500, and RU .667. Rumsen

innovates twice as often as San Francisco, and a regular progression
between these two extremes is evident. The rate of innovation

increases as one moves geographically southward. I believe this

phenomenon can be attributed to differences in the amount of contact
the various languages have had with non-Penutian, Hokan languages

such as Esselen and Salinan. While all of the Costanoan languages
contain loanwords borrowed from Hokan languages the number of such
loanwords is greatest in the more southerly languages.

5.2. Shared Phonological Innovations.

Phonological changes have been infrequent in the linguistic
history of the Costanoan family of languages. The only kind of

change which is relevant in determining subgrouping of the languages
of a family is that which involves merger or split of phonemes

(Hoenigswald 1960). This type of change involves the alteration

of the structure of the phonemic systems of the languages in question.
Phonological changes which have brought about realignment will be
discussed below.

Proto-Costanoan *c has merged with *j when it occurred

between vowels in six of the eight Costanoan languages: Ka, Fr, Ch,
Cl, Cr, and So.  Both Mu and Ru have retained c in this position.
Some exemplary sets are:

*xuca brush, forest, the hills     Ka xujunat tree; Ch, Fr, Cl,

Cr, So xuja; Ru xuc.

*muce to eat pinole    Ch, Cr muje; Mu, Ru muce.

*pacan blood     Ch, Fr, Cl, Cr, So pajan; Mu, Ru pacan.

These may be compared with the following set which exhibits
reflexes of PC *j between vowels:

*ceejes jackrabbit Ch ceejis; Cr, Mu, So ceejes; Ru cejs.

17

Proto-Costanoan *kW has merged with *w in Ka, Fr, Ch, Cl,
Cr, and So. *kW has merged with *k in Mu and Ru. Examples are:

*mukWe human being Ka, Ch, So muwe; Mu muke-; Ru mukjamk

man.

*?urkWan mortar   Cr, So ?urwan; Mu, Ru ?urkan.

*rukWa house   Ch ruwaj; Fr, Cl, Cr, So ruwa; Mu ruka; Ru

ruk.

There are no sets representing an initial *kW raising the possibility
that it merged with *w or *k in this position in all eight languages.

*h poses some real interpretative problems. It was limited
to initial position in Proto-Costanoan. The same distributional
restrictions applied to the glottal stop. These two phonemes

have apparently merged completely as glottal stop in both Rumsen
and Santa Clara Costanoan. In the idiolect of Chochenyo recorded
by Harrington *h has merged with *x. Other languages and dialects
pose problems, however: Karkin has both (j) and (0), representing
phonemic x and 7 Arroyo de la Cuesta's Juichun vocabulary always
has (0) representing phonemic v Mason's Chochenyo agrees with
Harrington's in complete merger of *h with *x. Vocabularies

collected by Curtin and Kroeber, on the other hand have (h) in some
cases and (0) in others. The San Francisco vocabulary collected by
Johnston has both (h) and (0). All of the Santa Cruz vocabularies
exhibit variation but (h) predominates in vocabulary D while (0)

is more frequent in vocabularies A, B, C, E, and F. Arroyo de la
Cuesta's Mutsun usually has (0) but a few forms are recorded with
both (0) and (h). Harrington's Mutsun, vocabulary B, always

exhibits (h). Soledad vocabularies A and B always have (0) while

vocabulary C is mixed but usually exhibits (h). Since none of the
reliably recorded dialects have words beginning with a vowel, we
may infer a glottal stop whenever (0) is encountered. Initial

x is phonetically (h) in all Costanoan languages. In ten idiolects

we have *h merged with *x in some forms and with *7 in others. This
kind of situation is probably attributable to mixture of dialects
at the missions since single idiolects apparently contain both x-

forms and ?-forms. While it is obvious that historical development

of *h has historical significance, the complexities of the situation
do not permit delineation of isoglosses thus prohibiting the
employment of *h in this study.

The consonant cluster *kx has become x in Ch and Cr and k
in Ru. Mu exhibits both kx and x. Only a single case has been
found:

*kakxa bitter     Ch kaxa, Cr kaxa, Mu kaxa - kakxa, Ru kak.
The presence of two forms in Mu probably reflects dialect mixture.

Two ocalic changes are interesting, in that they demonstrate
the unique position of Karkin among the Costanoan languages. The
sequence Coc(C)i became CuC(C)i in seven of the eight Costanoan
languages, Karkin alone retains the original *o. Examples are:

18

*?otxin two    Ka 7otxin; Ch, Cl, Cr, Mu ?utxin; So ?utxi;
Ru ?utis. Compare Proto Miwok *?oti-.

*?ori head, hair     Ka ?olit forehead;. Ch, Cl, Mu 7uri hair;
Fr, Cr ?uri; Ru 7uri forehead.

The second vowel change, also assimilatory in nature, involves the
shift of CiCa to CiCe in the same set of languages.

*?irak rock    Ka ?iracat; Fr, Ch, Cl, Cr, So, Mu, Ru 7irek.

In two languages, Rumsen and Soledad, the sequence *CiCo
becomes CeCo. Examples are:

*sik ot gopher     Cr siwot; So sewot; Mu sikot; Ru sekt.
Compare Proto Miwok *syw.yt.

PSC *piroj net    Mu piroj; Ru per.

Compare Bodega Miwok pulle net, puule to dip for fish suggesting
Proto-Miwok-Cos tanoan *pyr...

*riitok intestines     Ch, Cr, Mu riitok; Ru retk.

*sipos feather     Cr, Mu sipos; So sepos; Ru seps.

*  0           0           0    0      0      0  0

One further problem should be mentioned here. Mutsun and

Rumsen make a distinction between Is! and /I/ which have merged to

become /s/ in Chochenyo and Santa Clara.   There is some evidence to
indicate that the Is, vs. /s/ distinction was maintained in both

Santa Cruz and Soledad. Henshaw seems to write (c) fairly consistently
for /s/ and (s) for /l/. Pinart however hopelessly confuses them.

In citing forms I have taken an educated guess at the phonemic shape
when these two phonemes are involved.

The foregoing innovations are summarized in Table 5. It is
readily apparent that phonological innovations present us with

isoglosses which cross-cut each other. To facilitate comparison I
have computed percentages of shared phonological innovations which
are provided in Table 6.

Here again languages are most closely related to their
geographic neighbors. Figures for Ka, Fr and Cl are distorted

because of the small sample (4, 4, and 5 items respectively out of
seven possible).

5.3.   Shared Semantic Innovations.

Comparative study of changes in the semantic boundaries of
lexical items also provides us with insights into the subgrouping
of the Costanoan languages. By changes in semantic boundaries, I

mean simply that one language represents by a single morpheme what

is represented by two distinct morphemes in a second language. For

19

example, Rumsen has one morpheme /toot/ representing both deer and

meat while Chochenyo has /toot/ deer and /riis/ meat.   There are two
plausible historical explanations which may be envoked to account
for this disparity: (1) Proto-Costanoan had a single morpheme

meaning meat and deer and Chochenyo has innovated by adding a distinct
form for meat; (2) Proto-Costanoan had two distinct terms, meaning
meat and deer and Rumsen has subsequently lost one of the terms

subsuming both meat and deer under the remaining term. Both internal
(i.e. internal to Costanoan) and external (Miwok or other Penutian)

evidence must be employed to decide whether there has been splitting
of a single Proto-Costanoan semantic unit or merger of two distinct
Proto-Costanoan semantic units.

Six cases have been found in which either merger or split
has taken place in some languages while the original semantic

boundaries of Proto-Costanoan have been maintained in the remaining
languages. These six sets are presented in Table 7.

To employ this material in subgrouping the Costanoan languages,
we must first discover which of the alternative (merger or split)

occured allowing us to recognize the innovating languages. Moon=sun
represents a case of merger since there were two distinct terms in

Proto-Costanoan. All languages of the family exhibit terms for sun
which are regularly derived from PC *hismen. The three northern-
most languages (Ch, Cl, Fr) have terms for moon derived from PNC

*korme. Both of these terms have cognates in Proto-Miwok, PMi *hi*

sun and PMi *kome- moon respectively. Santa Cruz has replaced *korme
with taar moon. Rumsen and Soledad are the innovating languages in
this case.

Cold=wind probably presents us with another case in which

merger has occured. The inclusion of these two semantic units in a

single term is apparently without parallel in either Miwok or Yokuts.
Ch, Fr, Cl, and So have morphemes derived from PNC *kawi cold which
is probably cognate with PMi *ky(')w(e)...    None of the Costanoan

words for wind have cognates in other Penutian languages. (The Miwok
term for wind, PMi *hena-, is cognate with Chochenyo xina to breathe.)
Cr, So and Ru seem to be the innovating languages in this instance.

Deer=meat poses problems. Neither PC *toote deer or PNC

*riis meat has any cognates outside of Costanoan. -Examination of

Miwok terms for deer and meat offers no help since the Western Miwok
languages (Mib, Mim, Mil) equate deer and meat while the eastern

languages (Mip, Mins, Mics, Miss) have two distinct forms. There is
at present no possible way to determine which languages have
innovated.

Head=hair also poses problems in that, here again, the Miwok
languages differ among themselves. Hib, Him, Hins and Hip have a
single term while Hil, Mics and Hiss have two terms. None of the
Costanoan terms for either head or hair have cognates outside the
family. The innovating languages, thus, remain unrecognized.

20

Heart=liver poses yet another case of merger. Fr, Ch, Cl

and Cr like all of the Miwok languages maintain a lexical distinction
between heart and liver. The PC term for liver *sire has apparently
been extended to include heart in So, Mu and Ru since its Miwok
cognate, PMi *kylla-, is restricted to liver. (Cf. also PMa
*kylla liver.)

The equation of hand with arm in Ch, Cr, So and Ru is also
a case of merger since all of the Miwok languages make a lexical
distinction between hand and arm and the Miwok term for hand is

cognate with the term for hand in all of the Costanoan languages.

In all cases in which the type of innovative semantic change
can be identified, a single Proto-Costanoan term has been extended

in some languages to include another term. Innovation has been most
frequent in Soledad and Rumsen which have innovated in all four

cases, paralleling the high rate of innovative lexical replacement

already noted for these languages. As in the above cases isoglosses
cross-cut one another making a statistical statement more meaningful.
Percentages of shared semantic innovations were calculated on the

basis of the admittedly small sample of four cases discussed above.
These percentages are given in Table 8.

6.0. Lexicostatistics.

Three lexicostatistic techniques have been employed here
to discover internal relationships among the Costanoan languages.

Computations of percentages of shared cognates were made using a 113
item lexicostatistic list designed especially for this study.

Computations of characteristic vocabulary indices and counterindi-

cations scores were made upon smaller samples selected from the 113

item list. The 113 item list was designed to make maximum use of the
available lexical materials, fragmentary as they are. Items were
chosen for the list when forms were available in at least six of
the seven languages.

In completing the lists presented below, several principles
devised by researchers in lexicostatistic method have been adhered
to. These are as follows:

(1) When several synonomous forms presented themselves in

a given language, the one with the greatest frequency
was chosen.

(2) In the event that synonomous forms were of equal

frequency or lacking any means of determining frequency
a coin was flipped to select a form.

(3) All of the data employed in this study have been

presented below. (All of the cited formps however are

reconstituted; they are "best guesses" at the probably
phonemic shape of the items in question.)*

*For a discussion of the methods of reconstitution see
Broadbent 1957.

21

(4) All judgments of cognation of items are provided below.

(Each item has been replaced by a letter on the page
following. Items replaced by the same letter are

cognates because, and only because they follow regular
sound correspondences derived by application of the

comparative method. Similar or identical forms have
been judged non-cognate when they failed to follow
established sound correspondences.)

22

CD   m               0I  0                        v ii  Ij  g

p.P)l      0   CI)CO ri'  r-t7'0

0  CDm

r-  H'1  H'  r-  0  P.)  H'  P.)  P.)  P.)   P.) P.   P.)   P.) P.  P.)  H'-  P

;pl E  . '  oi  0   P.   tI"; .)7    '0  f(  Ft  fl(  :j  L-A.  0.

Cfl(P.)  ~~~~  H''Ft  H'  lb l.) b.  0  lb) P)0  _  C.)  H'  Ft  Hi
Cfl(     Hi  La~~~~~                           ~~~. El.   p"  j.

19                         Fl-~~~~~~~C)( H  H'

Cfl( .)  H.  H'  X  H.    P.)  P.  0D  P.  W.  H'  CD  H'  Ii    C

ri  X  -'3  -'3~~~~~~~;"  -'. 3  CO(1  X3  0  '3  -'3  H-'  (D~  CI (i- '

H' ~~  P.)  H'  0   P.)  P.)  P.)  P.)  P.)  P.)  0   P.)  H'~~~~~~~~gr  P.  H'
~~  H'  H'  ~  H'  fl(P.)  P.)  0  P.)  P.)  0  H  P.)  H'  H'0

'3  Ft  X  "~~~~3  "3  ~~~"  '3H  0i  ri  03  "3  lb  "3  "3  H- 3  H. r
O  ' H'  H      0 .   H' j P   .) P) P   .   P.)  0  P.) P.  P.)  CD P.

O              .0)  P.)  P.)  ~    P.)  CD  CIlb(UP  Cf (CDCD

U.                     cn    0   19  :j~~

O E'Hl ~   0  P HH'  P)-.  P) P.  . P .)1  :j  H' P. AH  (  P.)
o'(P)     H  CD    H      P.       P. P)  CD H'_   CD. H'   Pi
O            Hm Cl           p)                 p.)    I

Ft  "3 X "  3c 3     t  Ft  X  '  '   '  -3U -3C)    H   rt
0  -1  H'1  0        lb.) H   P.  .  .  .  .  ' P)  H' . )  0)
oCl  H'  H.  *F'F      s Cl   P.)  P.  ' P) P.  J LiL   i  i
O (  Fl-      H'     l.)                       H.

O   ' 1-  '0  P.)  0  P.)  w       '0   )(   0) (  ti (      C

r)       '    P.  .     P.)  P.) OD)H  H'  H'  H'mCD
o         X0       ' j0)  w     V0        0      (0H      :

o      OM                           W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'I.  WI .)

23

0 ~ I 0  0   m  0  0   a  o  0  0  p- 0.   o
pI  H?D  r IP  I  IP_ | n  lit  I  | r | r  lr CD  c t  rt  -  a.

CD       t:$  m  rt r tD   C

>~~~~~P :0>                     b >>>>rW

w       t   :  > >  > : >  t    m  >   :

r  :> n  t >   >

0   h   'lCDd         tv     m

0

24

1 10  0 10   H0 J(D0lb lC       0      m jlj CD CD

0   En[k4  0  M  H~ 0t rQ H'a C)

X rt  -i~      rt      r*t  rt  3 'i     X U

0)        0  0)  H0    r- r  H- H- 90 MD H. lb MD r

H'   lb 0)  0)  H L..  0  9  H1  r.  C:  lb  U1  Ft  CD  CD  U)  .1

rt  rt          -r ~ ot ~  ' rt  Ft  F3ii '  U      4

0)  0) ~~~~  0) ~ 0) 0  H'4 0  0  F 0  H  M) C  H-  0)  MD  r

H',   lb  lb 0) b0  H-  H'-  O)  0  Hi  0  lb  L-'  Ft  M  CD  U) H

X         CD    L~~.  CD  X  "1

~~ '1 ~~~1 'o t     1O Ft      )l    3U a'
0)0) ~~~~~ 0)00)  H0            Fl-0)~H'0       C

H'-  C:  lb  0) 0)  H'  H'  0  I       0) H'  Ft  CD  CD  U)n

F-t  H  j       r't          r '  t '3 3  1 X U H

H'  H'  0  0)  0)  0)  H'  0  0  r-  H'  H'  0)  MD H  0)  MD  r
0  Ft  0) b0  0)  H'  H'  0  0  Iir~0     A   t  CD  CD  U)

Hrt           *rt  U)  '    t  '3 X0'    '  U)  HF-   '
(D          ~~0)0  H' 0   C: H'    ib 0)C  H-0 0)

.010  0)         H'  CD  0    lj    L.  0 Li.  rt  CD  L-.  U)

MD 0      0  )  0  H-  0  0)  IZ  H-  H'  lb  MD  H'-  0)  lb  r
'IO                         r-00) C  (  Ci   art  U)i  Ft  X)  Co  U)

Ft  H  i   3'   'Ft          r ' t  '3co~ U) U  H  X   '

0     0)  0)  lb  0  0  0  r_  H'  H'  0)  CD  H'  lb) l 0)
U)  ~~~~~~~~~~~      H'~~~~~~0  Xn*ltc

25

OO   o   O    O M           m O O O

10 a.     0  0 0 o  -     n P  o P)  e u
0         0(D@ 1o  m  m  rt  fi l   fi  oS   c  m

m   la.   ~~~rt

~~ 0
>                                          0E > > > > >
tv   :P.  :   >  :P.   :O   w   w   :P   .1 r  >  w

U n E  E >  0  w :P.            It- W W > > > b

M n :> a> > > :>^ :> > : ? :> :>> > > e

26

(a Dr  CD   l.0 n        r

r H  H   m 0 H' - '       0  0   0 H' ~  OH.
CL          la. i           Li.

~~  0)  I)(~~~d  ~~  -')ri~       0 n ~ ei ')~   ~)~) ~ r

FJ-H  0       :  C)  9:   0  0  H'     0 0 -
P-H  i C)  ~~~   )~ H     0)(j  (J( 9r-i  II 0

H- 0 0 0      b l  0 Hr-r-0)(C  CD  0

H' H.  0t  U)(  co ~           H' 4  o2  OH '
CD   0  P2 P   P2   9b H'  PmXH' i  CD   CD   CD C

H' - H' :   Jr- P2  H  P       H'  P2  P2  '
Ii H  ri t- r     i  i' Fii H   .0        m *ri

CD  0      P2 P   Fpri           CD C    CD

H.   ct  ~)   'C  H'CD           Pi l

H'-  H'  D 0 H    D 0  0H.  2  H' H' lb P2  H  x

0        P)  ib  r- CD  P2  CD   CD m

H'  H'    0 F-r- CDCD  0    3H-   H-  go  P2  F-H'

Pi  H'  r   i CDH P i  CD  H  *C  0"()       U

CD  O X   ~~~   H'*C  Xr        CD  CD)  CD

H-  FJ  M  CDlb'         0)C  CD.0)  lj  r. H

H.   t  M V              ,a) *c  ic *r cr  P

m  0  x  0   w  m      0  0  m   m  r. m~~~~~~~~P

27

o   H.   OD P :          o  rt-t  o  r- o  o  P

r1 H                              0        0 Ps PP

M0                                     r.t M)~

~~~  Ii             j~~~~~~l,rt          C)    C

C-i~~~~C

Y                        o)

Pi
>   :>   >   > >  >   > V>   >   >   > >   >

>~

&*1
>  :>  r  b  a  :>  :>  :>  r  >  :>  r  :>  >   r  r  :>  t~~C

a :> a  n  > :>> cr >  E  > >N  >  >  p  >  p0

28

~~  H.  0  H'  H.   ~~~~~~~~~  H'  P~~~   la  0 0.  P  0  H' 0

m  -  :r m m H 0)(  CD  0  0  M'~ CD m 'I  0- CD rt

Ca  D C - ID0 o  k4  CD H  . M '  -  lb  MI  0  0  Li.

I  I         H'rt G   rt 0)   H'  X -h m g  -

0 OH'   H'     pH'0 )    0 00))H. F

0).r   (  0)(_  0)  H'  o  P 0  CD  '0P  CD  0) C H
I m 0                H.X        U)(   1      Li

I   I3

co   or-t  KX  0)           m  H' 0 m

()(  0(      m i U( 'I'                  '0AX '0

w   P       m0 0   CDo~r't          0)  H'-  0)  '

0  0   0)   '1  ~~~~~~~~~~~  'I   H'   CD   C  H  H   c

I  I    0)                 M            o0

0)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j

r H   'I n .0  0  0 'C   t  'O t  t  '0.)

0)(   )    H          0  0F CD  0) 0 C .   D '
0)t     .0     oi~4  H        D0    0)(0 ~    i

I  I   'I      0)            o 0  (       .0

L- .rt  .0       0  3 '     t '0    't 0 Ft *

Ft  '-1  H  ~~0 ~         ( 0  '1  Ft0 Ii I

I  ~~         H'~~  0)(                 '14

orj)  e(n  OU) )      H

m'  '1 X     m               0  ' 0  Li  '1 -~

0.0)  H.t 0)  Po          - Xn 0  0F  CD  .0 0  CD  H'n

H'  H'  0)  ~ ~~   '1  ~   X  .0) t  f  .0)  m  H*0

29

IY           IMa <.C      L   H  rt OY  ?  *  C) t  C  f-A

m  H    CD  -D  I    010  C  H O  Oj  rt  H.' rt
IP2P3H. P3 CD o~ rt       mH.1 HQDPC0  H

rt  rt                        C DQ rt  t  N  -h  M   I_J I M

plir  m  *1  0)  ~A

:E   tv   m   w   Cl   tv  t:  t:   t:l> >  >   t:f

cr  n  n  >  cr atv   >.  :> > E   >

tC
m~~                                 C) > b :  U > > t
t  r  r   M  >  b r  n  :>:>  M  M >   >  H

30

0   t      mm r th

MD  H -C  0-  MD  F   H-  P  ::r  14  H'  CD  P 0 C   0  ~ C

o    OQ( 4  m  Cfl ri Hd *r  m  CD     Ii   0i go

CDC  CD   m CDC        m X    C  "H        0X O.(    CDQ
~~  O)(~~~  rt  CD      M i                 :j'~   D C   CD  D  H

m  Hm CD 0   CD m     ~ H'D      H'CD%)              ~C

rt  H'-  rt

CD4       D;jp              CD rt P           Pr  0 M  ~ EH  D

CD  M'33M       (   :  4  M   >        H-  P3  H'  CDl  H'  HM

CD  '     H-     '  ~   ~      ' C  P~C

(D                                 %) -.0- )-         H
"3  ~~  ~~O  ri  en  ~~~  '~~  "3  ~~  "3  "3  X  n~~  er-i  M  n

H'  ~~~  ~~)     ~~  CD  CD  ~~~~  P)  1"'  H'  CD~~~C

~  r-t  ~Li.  ~~   l'~.r-i t   Ott T,   X0  lj  H  Oft (l(C
HEU)  -H'       P;H  H  H'*E X X- o CD CD M fl L4 H  CD

H'D  ('( ( D t_      '  (     H

0  r  P,' "  HA H'CI  0t0   t     MH1-         Or
H' P) ~~~~~~~~~) )              CDF-  CDJ     I DH  H'

CDCI  l        CD CDPH   H'  H'  X    X  rt  flH'i     )

er-I'     Cl)(~~F-  FA  rt 0 "3tHM H   .0 P;,) )(

0(CJ)M    H'                        ri
03    . 0)

ri  rt  ri Li.  i  ~  -len H.  er-  FJ  * P H < H.)  Mr

u)  _ r_ riO    H'0H         X   H' >  H'               H 'H  i C

) 0 ) *c ) qC  H'J  De  ti  H'  r-t  M  H'-  O(  ri  fI0)nI  t  en

31

rt~ ~~ ~ ~ M  (a  C: ct        c: o

M   H.  H. M>   H.  H. >  :c  0  M  0  b  rt  0  El   c

O  -4  4   0 H  0   ~ -j   0  o   2

>   :      b bb>  >  >      c: :            X

'-

0    0l   n            00          tT 0 l
n b U b w n w r > > >         > n     m w r c) >

32

m   m .1-,  0  M M     H      .S   b r   CD    0

o     ~~CL  Cl)  MD  M A-  IMM         J- c

M      re

04

m P  CD  W) (  L  r*rt *"   1   m (  rt  0  i

FJ- 0 0H-      H.C m           D       H-mC

m) CDF))(    P)H         H'  H-'r

0

P'  CD  CD  M CD H   CD  H'-  0  0  ~  )~
N  CD  r't  Cf()(J  er    rt    W  rt  (~

w  CD                    ;JC)(~H            rt

O( l)(                H'    CDA              0

o) D              - 0(rl  H'  H' t        Ft

OC) P  CD  Om~~) C  H'  CD  H'  CD  mH   Pm  H'  m)

m     C  )                                     r t   tt

0(l)  0.0)   X    bH C DM   0l  03  CD  CD-  0-  CD C

pv H'     .H        mL-H

m  9b       0~~ '3  I. .)   O  0(l  fl(   '.   .3 '3

exC,P    (1L'Li.F         0)  0t(Li

.0)          X b 0   M  Hb   CD H H ' l  F CD  CD  Li.  H' C  P

CD                          I . C  CD  CD H-   - (

o p)         "  Li.L  t  rt      r t   r t  FtC ' CD H  D H' H  ' C

K,  0  T CD             I     M-   M      )(16 0

1%.  A%  A..      ,          -eq~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i

33

0    O     O  C D  lDH )  H X  Hjrt O O

o      In  0  m  m  X -  0   0 P9  P . c

g  rt  MC  H  Q   C)  CD  :

lCD    CD~~~~~~~~P-   C
Ii  Iii

0 >>bE>a            aE>W>:

>  >  E  a   W   :> :>  W  :>  a   >  :>  e~~~~~~~C
> E W n > n > > n > n a n n > > Y~~~~C
:> :> n >  > >  > nn U b> >

:> > n U > U > > m n n n M n > > !~~~~~~~~~~~~I

>  >  U  M  >   >   e  C: n  n  kj tl >  >  ce~~~~U

34

r)t r tH
O  CD  CD  P
0  P. PM

B m

*rt
o

rt 10 u  t
(D  tD  *0 A

m PO L   B

Dt CD H

P CD  B)~

Brt 'u La cn

O CD  (-

,0  C  H  B

35

M 1.5W

>: >   >' :>   9
:> :r.    P>   0
:>     :- :>   ed

~~~~~

H

0   >  w   :r-  cn

0

36

6.1. Standard Lexicostatistics.

Percentages of shared cognates were calculated for all possible
pairs of languages. A matrix of percentages of shared cognates is

given in Table 9. The number of items available for comparison varied
from 82 to 112, with the briefer lists occuring in those cases in
which San Francisco was involved. In all comparisons among the

remaining languages (Ch, Cl, Cr, So, Mu and Ru) at least 98 items
were compared.

Here again the languages form a chain and there are no stat-

istically significant subgroups. Figures for Fr are probably slightly
distorted because of the brevity of this list.

6.2.  Counterindications.

Two additional kinds of lexicostatistic coefficients have
been employed here. Both of these coefficients were developed by

H.A. Gleason (1959). They were designed to facilitate subgrouping

of languages. Both coefficients have the advantage of laying greatest
stress upon those cognate items in a lexicostatistic list which have
the most potential for identification of the subgroups within a
family.

Taking (for example) the four sets below, it is apparent

that all sets in a lexicostatistic study are not of equal value in
sub-grouping the languages of a family.

Ch        Cr        Ru         So
Set 1 water      sii        sii       sii       sii

Set 2 four       katwas     katwas    7utitim   ?utit
Set 3 leg        tuumis     koro      takuc     koro

Set 4 red        purke-     patka     jurcist   testesmi

Set 1, like all other sets in which all items are cognate, suggests
only that the languages are related.   It tells us nothing about

sub-groups existing within the language family. Set 4, in which all
items are non-cognate, is also of no value. Only those sets (like
2 and 3 above) in which some items are cognate and some items are
non-cognate can make a contribution toward the subgrouping of the
languages.

Sets, like set 2 above, which contain two cognate pairs are
especially useful in determining subgrouping since at least one of
the cognate pairs must represent a shared lexical innovation. In

the absence of an external witness, however, we cannot decide which
pair of cognates represents the innovation. The fact that Chochenyo
and Rumsen share in different sets argues against an immediate

relationship between these two languages. Each such bit of evidence
against immediate relationship is termed a counterindication and the

37

total number of counterindications for a pair of languages is their
counterindication score. The higher the counterindication score
the more remote the relationship between the pair of languages.

Fifteen items from the 113 item list above satisfy the
following criteria, demanded for inclusion in calculation of
counterindication scores:

(1) Data must be available from all seven languages.
(2) At least two lexical items must have cognates in

two or more languages.

These fifteen items and the counterindications recognized are

provided in Table 10. A matrix of counterindications scores is
provided in Table 11.

The matrix of counterindications scores suggests a subgroup
consisting of Fr, Ch, and Cl. A second subgroup, consisting of So,
Mu and Ru emerges in the southern portion of Costanoan territory.
Cr links the northern and southern groups. With the exception of

Cr, this division into Northern and Southern units parallels Kroeber's
classification of Costanoan.

6.3. Characteristic Vocabulary Indices.

The second lexicostatistic coefficient developed by Gleason
is termed the Characteristic Vocabulary Index. It provides a means
of weighting items in a lexicostatistic study so that those cognate

items which are relatively wide-spread in the language family receive
lesser emphasis than those with relatively restricted distributions.

Instead of assigning a value of 1 to each item shared by two
languages, a value equal to the inverse of the number of pairs of

languages sharing the form is used. The word for father (which is

cognate in all 7 languages) is shared by 21 pairs of languages. When
two languages share the word for father they receive a score on that
item equal to 1/21 (.048). The term xaaj mouth is shared by only

three languages (and thus three pairs) and cognation of this item is
worth 1/3 (.333).

The only requirement set for inclusion in calculation of the
Characteristic Vocabulary Index is that data must be available from
all seven languages. 67 items were present in all seven languages.
Of these 67 items, 21 were shared by all seven Costanoan languages.
Cognation on these items was consequently valued at .042 each. The

21 universally shared items are: father, mother, wife, older, brother,
man's son, eye, nose, tongue, tooth, nails, bone, blood, sun, day,

water, stone, fly, eat, drink, and thou. The remaining 46 items and
values assigned for cognation are as follows: man (A=.167 C=l.OOO),
woman (B=l.000), boy (A=.l0O), gir (A=.167), baby (F=l.O0O0), friend

38

(A=l.000), husband (A=.067), older sister (A=.067), head (C=1.000),
hair (A=.100), ear (A=.167 B=.333), mouth (A=.167 B=.333), beard

(A=.100), neck (A=.167 B=.333), arm (A=.067), foot (A=.067), heart
(A=.167 B=l.000), bow (A=.333 C=.333), arrow (B=l.000 C=l.000),

tobacco (A=.100) night (A=.067), wind (A=l.000), thunder (A=.067),
rain (A=.067), fire (B=.067), world (A=.333 B=.167), stream (A=

.167 C--l.000), tree (A=.333), dog (A=.333 C=l.000), feather (D=.167),
white (A=l.000), black (B=.167), red (D=l.000), large (A=.167),

small (no cognates), good (A=.167 B=.333), warm (B=l.000 C=.333),

cold (A=.167), all (A=.100), dance (A=1.000 C=.167), dead (A=l.000),
I (A=.067), he (A=.100), we (A=.067), they (A=.333 B=.333), who
(A=.333 D=l.000).

A matrix of Characteristic Vocabulary Indices is given in

Table 12. Two subgroups emerge in which languages are more closely

related to other members of the subgroup than to any language outside.
Fr, Ch and Cl form a northern group with Fr and Cl standing closer
to one another than to Cl. A southern subgroup consists of Mu, So,

and Ru, with So and Ru resembling each other more than Mu. Cr links
the two groups.

7.0. Conclusions.

Six different assessments of Costanoan internal relationships
have been offered in the pages above. In all cases I have provided
a quantitative statement in the form of a matrix of coefficients.

Generalizing from these matrices I would suggest that the Costanoan
languages arose from a dialect chain. While there appear to be

definable language boundaries there is little to suggest the presence
of closed subgroups within the family. Languages are invariably
most closely related to their geographic neighbors.

A tabular arrangement showing the "closest relative" of each
language on each of the six tests is provided in Table 13. Fr has
been excluded from consideration on the phonological innovations

test and the lexical innovations test since paucity of data has dis-

torted the figures. Ka has been excluded from most of the discussions
above for the same reason. An independent inquiry into the position
of Karkin shows that while it is archaic in preserving some phonolog-
ical distinctions lost in all the remaining languages it is closest
in vocabulary to Chochenyo its nearest geographic neighbor.

San Francisco or Ramaytush is most closely related to Chochenyo
in 2 tests and is tied with Ch and Cl in the remaining two. Chochenyo
is usually closest to Cl but sometimes to Fr.  Santa Clara or

Tamyen is most closely related to Chochenyo but also ties in with Fr.
These relationships suggest the presence of an open (i.e. non-closed)
grouping of the languages on San Francisco Bay. Santa Cruz ties in
most strongly with Ch and Cl but also shows significant ties with
So and Mu.

Mu has most of its close ties with So and Ru but occasionally
ties in with Cr, Ch, or Cl. So is also most closely related to Ru.

39

Rumsen is most closely related to either Mu or So or both in all
cases. These three form another open group. These language

groupings can be represented in outline form if it is remembered

that they form a continuum without sharp breaks and that no Costanoan
sub-groups (in the sense of clusters of languages more closely

related to one another than to any outside language) exist. The
outline classification is as follows:

Karkin

Northern Costanoan

San Francisco Bay Costanoan

Ramaytush (San Francisco)

Chochenyo (East Bay Costanoan)
Tamyen (Santa Clara)

Santa Cruz (Awaswas) - with several dialects
Southern Costanoan

Mutsun
Rumsen

Soledad (Chalon)

Santa Cruz and Mutsun link the northern and southern groups.

40

Table 1

Sets Demonstrating Lexical Replacement
List &
Lang-

uage                            Set Number

1  2  3 4 5    6  7  8 9   10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18

Ka-A                     R

Ch-A                     R  8a             R                       R
Ch-B                        8a

Ch-C            4a       R  8a             R  13a                  R
Ch-D   la R     4a R  R R   8a R   R lla R    13a R   15a R    R   R
Ch-E               R     R  8a             R       R           R   R
Cl-A         3a R R      R  R         lla  R  13a             17a R
Fr-A         R  4b R     R R               R  13b 14a              R
Cr-A            R  5a    7a 8b         R  12a 13a R        R 17a 18a
Cr-B            R  5a 6a 7a R             12a 13a R   15a 16a 17a 18a
Cr-C         3b R     6a 7a R         llb 12a      R  15a R    R  18a
Cr-D   R  R  3b R  5a    7a R  R   R  llc 12a         15a R   17a
Cr-E                     7b
So-A                     7a

So-B               R        R             12b             16b 17a 18a
So-C   R 2a R   R     R  7a R  9a lOa llb              R   R

2b

Mu-A   R 2a     R  5b R  7c R  9b lOb lld      R   R  15a R   17a 18a

7d       lOc
R

Ru-A                                          13c

Ru-B   R R 3c 4c      R R   R  9b lOd lle 12b 13c 14b  R  16c     18a
Ru-C.  R    3c 4c 5c R   R R          lle 12b     14b     16c 17a
Ru-D           4c              9b                      R

Ru-E        3c           R                        14b         17a

Ru-G           4c           R     lOe     12b 13c 14b  R  16c     18a

41

Table 2

Conflated Table of Lexical Replacements

Language                          Set Number

1 2   3 4 5 6     7 8 9 10     11 12  13  14  15  16  17  18

Ch        la R     4a R R R 8a R R      lla R   13a R   15a R   R   R
Fr              R 4b R      R R             R   13b 14a             R
Cl              3a R R      R R         lla R   13a             17a R

Cr        R R 3b R 5a 6a 7a R R R       R   12a 13a R   15a R   17a 18a
So        R  2b R R R R     7a R 9a lOa llb 12b         R   R   17a 18a
Mu        R 2a     R  5b R R R    9b lOb lld    R   R   15a R   17a 18a
Ru        R R   3c 4c 3c R R R 9b lOd lle 12b 13c 14b R     16c 17a 18a

42

Table 3

Lexical Innovations Shared by Pairs of Costanoan Languages

Ch      Fr       Cl         Cr        So         Mu        Ru
Ch

Fr        *      --

(8)

lla

Cl       13a     *

(9)    (8)

13a              13a
Cr       15a     *       17a

(17)   (9)       (10)

7a
So        *      *       17a       17a

(15)   (7)       (9)      (16)

15a         17a
Mu       15a     *        17a      17a         18a

(16)   (7)       (8)      18a         (14)

(16)

Ru        *      *       17a       17a         12b       9b         --

(17)   (9)       (10)     18a         17a      17a

(18)       18a       18a

(16)      (16)

* indicates no lexical innovations shared.

Numbers in parentheses are the number of sets with data in both languages.

43

Table 4

Percentage of Lexical Innovations Shared

Fr      Ch      Cl         Cr        Mu        So        Ru
Fr      --

Ch    .000      --

Cl    .000      .222     --

Cr    .000      .118    .200       --

Mu    .000      .063    .125      .188       --

So    .000      .000    .111      .125      .143       --

Ru    .000     .000     .100      .111      .188      .188        --

44

Table 5

Phonological Innovations in Costanoan Languages

Ka      Fr     Ch      Cl     Cr     So      Mu     Ru
#1l*c> j           1       1      1       1      1       1       -       -
#2a *kW>w

#2b *kw>k          2a      2a     2a      2a     2a      2a     2b      2b
#3a *kx>x

#3b *kx>k                         3a             3a             (-)     3b
#4 *CoCi>CuCi      -       4      4       4      4       4      4       4
#5 *CiCa>CiCe      -       5      5       5      5       5      5       5
#6 *CiCo>CeCo                     -              -       6      -       6
#7 *s>s                           7       7     (-)     (-)     -
Parentheses indicate doubt.

- indicates retention of original phoneme(s).

45

Table 6

Percentage of Phonological Innovations Shared

Ka     Fr      Ch     Cl      Cr     So     Mu      Ru
Ka               --

Fr              .500    --

Ch              .500  1.000     --

Cl              .500  1.000   1.000    --

Cr              .500  1.000    .857   .800    --

So              .500  1.000    .667   .800   .833     --

Mu              .000    .500   .429   .400    .571   .500    --

Ru              .000   .500    .286   .400   .429    .667   .714     --

46

Table 7

Differences in Semantic Boundaries in Costanoan Languages

Fr     Ch      Cl     Cr     So      Mu     Ru

moon=sun          -      -      -              +              +
wind=cold         -      -       -      +      +       -      +
meat=deer         -      -       -      -      +      +       +
heart=liver       -      -      -       -      +      +       +
hand=arm                 +      -       +      +      -       +

+ indicates that the two semantic units are represented by a single

term.

- indicates two distinct terms.

47

Table 8

Percentage of Shared Semantic Innovations

Fr     Ch      Cl     Cr      Mu     So     Ru
Fr        --

Ch       1.000    --

C1       1.000   .750    --

Cr        .667   .750    .500    --

Mu        .500   .667    .667   .000    --

So        .000   .250    .000   .500   .333    --

Ru        .000   .250   .000    .500   .333  1.000     --

48

Table 9

Matrix of Percentages of Shared Cognates

Ch       Cl      Fr       Cr      Mu       Ru      So
Ch             --

Cl            .705     --

Fr            .655     .563     --

-Cr            .685    .611     .478     --

Mu            .560     .500    .439     .631     --

Ru            .459     .394    .374     .482    .615      --

So            .485     .456    .412     .557    .673     .589     --

49

Table 10

Counterindications

CH CH CH CH CH CH CL CL CL CL CL FR FR FR FR CR CR CR MU MU RU
CL FR CR MU RU SO FR CR MU RU SO CR MU RU SO MU RU SO RU SO SO

man                     1   1             1   1                    1   1  1   1

ear              11         1      11        1ii            1      1      1      1
mouth               1   1   1         1   1   1      1  1   1   1  1   1
neck                1   1   1         1   1  1       1  1   1  1   1   1
heart               1   1             1   1          1  1      1   1
bow                 1   1   1         1   1   1      1  1   1
arrow                              1         11             1
world            1111              11111111

stream              1   1             1   1                    1   1          1  1
dog                 1       1                        1      1

good                1   1   1         1   1  1       1  1   1  1     1   1
warm                               1  1       1  1   1      1
dance            1  1   1   1                    1   1  1   1
they             1  1      1       1  1      1   1   1      1
who                     1   1             1   1         1   1

50

Table 11

Counterindications Scores

Ch       Cl        Fr       Cr       Mu        Ru       So
Ch       --

Cl        0        -_

Fr        0         0       --

Cr        4         5        6       --

Mu       11        10       11        5        --

Ru       10         9        8        7         2       --

So       11        11       12        4         2        2       --

51

Table 12

Characteristic Vocabulary Indices

Fr       Cl      Ch       Cr       Mu       So      Ru
Fr       --

Cl     5.777     --

Ch     8.344   4.978      --

Cr     3.645   3.213    4.780      --

Mu     1.677    2.477   2.811    5.112      --

So     1.811    3.245   2.412    4.879    5.910     --

Ru     1.610    1.643   2.144    2.445    5.810   6.510      --

52

Table 13

Closest Relative on Six Tests

Fr     Ch     Cl     Cr     Mu      So     Ru

Lexical

Innovations             Cl     Ch      Cl   Cr/Ru    Ru   So/Mu

Phonological

Innovations             Cl     Ch     Ch      Ru     Cr     Mu

Semantic

Innovations    Ch/Cl    Fr     Fr     Ch    Ch/Cl    Ru     So

Percent

Cognate         Ch      Cl     Ch      Ch     So     Mu     Mu

Counter-

indications    Ch/Cl  Cl/Fr  Ch/Fr   Ch/So  So/Ru Mu/Ru   So/Mu
Characteristic
Vocabulary

Index           Ch      Fr     Fr     Mu      So     Ru     So

53

APPENDIX

Sources of Costanoan Vocabularies

Collector                Published Source

CoKa-A        Arroyo de la Cuesta            (Beeler 1961)
CoCh-A        Curtin                         (Beeler 1961)
CoCh-B        Arroyo de la Cuesta            (Beeler 1961)

CoCh-C        Kroeber                        (Kroeber 1910)

CoCh-D        Harrington                     (Harrington 1921)
CoCh-E        Mason                          (Mason 1916)

CoCl-A        Mengarini                      (Powell 1877)

CoCl-B        Duflot de Mofras               (Kroeber 1910)

CoCl-C        Harrington                     (Harrington 1921)
CoFr-A        Johnston                       (Powell 1877)
CoFr-B        Santa Maria                    (Beeler 1972)
CoFr-C        Palou                          (Palou 1930)

CoFr-D        Harrington                     (Harrington 1921)
CoCr-A        Comelias                       (Taylor 1860a)
CoCr-B        Pinart                         (Heizer 1952)
CoCr-C        Pinart                         (Heizer 1952)
CoCr-D        Henshaw                        (Heizer 1955)

CoCr-E          ?                            (Williams 1890)
CoCr-F        Henshaw                        (Heizer 1955)
CoSo-A        Hale                           (Hale 1846)

CoSo-B        Pinart                         (Heizer 1952)
CoSo-C        Henshaw                        (Heizer 1955)

CoMu-A        Arroyo de la Cuesta            (Arroyo de la Cuesta

1861, 1962, Mason 1916)
CoMu-B        Harrington                     (Heizer 1967)
CoMu-C        Merriam                        (Heizer 1967)
CoMu-D        Merriam                        (Merriam ms.)

CoMu-E        Harrington                     (Harrington 1929-1930)
CoRu-A        Kroeber                        (Kroeber 1904, 1910)
CoRu-B        Henshaw                        (Heizer 1955)
CoRu-C        Pinart                         (Heizer 19520

CoRu-D        Harrington                     (Harrington ms.)
CoRu-E        Taylor                         (Taylor 1860b)

54

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arroyo de la Cuesta, F.

1861         Grammar of the Mutsun Language. Shea's Library

of American Linguistics, 4, New York.

1862         A Vocabulary or phrase book of the Mutsun language.

Shea's Library of American Linguistics, 8, New York.

Barker, M.A.R.

1963         Klamath Dictionary.  UCPL 31.

Beeler, Madison S.

1955         Saclan.  IJAL 21:201-209.

1961         Northern Costanoan.   IJAL 27:191-197.

1972         An Extension of San Francisco Bay Costanoan?   IJAL

38:49-54.

Broadbent, Sylvia M.

1957         Rumsen I:  Methods of Reconstitution.   IJAL 23:275-

280.

1964         The Southern Sierra Miwok Language. UCPL 38.

Broadbent, Sylvia M. and Catherine A. Callaghan

1960         Comparative Miwok: A Preliminary Survey.    IJAL

26:301-316.
Callaghan, Catherine A.

1965         Lake Miwok Dictionary.  UCPL 39.

1970         Bodega Miwok Dictionary. UCPL 60.
ms.          Proto-Miwok Phonology.

Duflot de Mofras, Eugene

1844         Exploration du territoire de l'Oregon... Paris,

vol. 2.

Freeland, L.S. and Sylvia M. Broadbent

1960         Central Sierra Miwok Dictionary with Texts. UCPL

23.

Gatschet, Albert S.

1877         Indian Languages of the Pacific States and

Territories. Magazine of American History 1:145-171.

Golla, Victor K.

1964         Comparative Yokuts Phonology.   In Studies in

California Linguistics, UCPL 34:54-66.

55

Hale, Horatio

1846         Ethnography and Philology.   Vol. 6 of Charles Wilkes,

United States Exploring Expedition during the years
1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842. Philadelphia 1844-
1874.

Hiarrington, John P.

[1921]        Chochenyo Field Notes.   (Manuscript, Survey of

California Indian Languages, University of
California, Berkeley.)

[1929-30]     Hoomontwash Field Notes.   (Manuscript, National

Anthropological Archives, Washington, D.C.)
ms.          Rumsen Field Notes.

Heizer, Robert F.

1952         California Indian linguistic records:   The Mission

Indian vocabularies of Alphonse Pinart. UCAR 15:
1-84.

1955         California Indian linguistic records:   The Mission

Indian vocabularies of H.W. Henshaw. UCAR 15:85-
202.

1967         C. Hart Merriam's Ethnographic Notes on California

Indian Tribes III. Ethnological Notes on Central
California Indian Tribes.  Repts of the Unive

of California Archaeological Survey 68.3:371-403.

Hoenigswald, Henry M.

1960         Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction.

Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Kroeber, A.L.

1904         The languages of the coast of California south of

San Francisco. UCPAAE 2:29-80.

1910         The Chumash and Costanoan languages. UCPAAE 9:237-

271.

1925         Handbook of the Indians of California.   Bureau of

American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Latham, Robert Gordon

1856         On the languages of northern, western and central

America. Transactions of the Philological Society
1856, 57-115.
Levy, Richard S.

[1969]        Ethnic Status of Converts at Missions San Carlos,

Soledad, and Santa Cruz. (Manuscript).

[1972]        Ethnic Status of Converts at Missions San Francisco,

Santa Clara, and San Jose. (Manuscript).

56

Mason, J. Alden

1916         The Mutsun dialect of Costanoan.   UCPAAE 11:399-472.

Merriam, C. Hart

ms.           [Ethnozoological Word List.]

Newman, S.

ms.           [Yawelmani Lexical List.]

Palou, Francisco

1930         Palou's Diary of the Expedition to San Francisco

Bay, 1774.  Pp. 396-456 of Vol. II of Anza's

California Expeditions, Herbert E. Bolton, translator
and editor. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Powell, J.W.

1877         Appendix.   Linguistics.  In Powers 1877.

1966         Indian Linguistic Families of America North of

Mexico. Nebraska University Press.

Powers, Stephen

1877         Tribes of California.   Contributions to North

American Ethnology 3:535-557.

Swadesh, Morris

ms.          200 Word Diagnostic Lists:   Wintu, Nomelaki, Patwin.

Taylor, A.S.

1860a        Indianology of California, no. 4, Santa Cruz

County Indians. The California Farmer 13.58,
April 5, 1860.

1860b        Indianology of California, no. 5, San Carlos de

Carmelo and Soledad Indians. The California Farmer
13.66, April 20, 1860.

Ultan, Russell

1964         Proto-Maidun Phonology.   IJAL 30:355-370.

Williams, E.L. (translator)

1890         Narrative of a Mission Indian.   In E.S. Harrison

A History of Santa Cruz County.

57
MIWOK         ..*Krki! MIWOK

PA          Tamyen
A~~~~~~

S +~~Chochenyo ^

A~~~~
A~~~~~

\  j-   A         Tamyen

A                                   NOR THERN

A~~~

{ .* **-.. .. w vVALLEY

\ .**- --@ . . e@ sYOKUTS

Awaswas         :.%

~~:             ~~A Mutsun

Dotted lines are language boundaries.      A       A *    "
Dashed lines are language family  A

boundaries. .

Triangles are tribelet capitals.     Rumsen

A~~~

t     "-~ ESSELEN .         Chalon   I

SALINAN

0          15         30         45
Approximate distributions of Costanoan
languages at time of white contact.

Costanoan Language Groups