UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 237-271 November 19, 1910 THE -CHUMASH AND COSTANOAN LANGUAGES BY A. L. KROEBER BERKELEY THE UNIVERSITY PRESS uNIVERStIsTY OF oALFoRNA PuBLaATAoNs DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY The following publications dealing with archaeological and ethnological subjects issued under the direction of the Department of Anthropology are sent in xchgo for the publi- cations of anthropological departments and museums, and for joumals devoted to general anthropology or to archaeology and ethnology. They are for sale at the prices stated, which include postage or exptess charges. Exchanges should be directed to The Exchange Depart- ment, University Library, Berkeley, California, U. S. A. All orders and remittances should be addressed to the University Press. Fries Vol. 1. 1. Life and Culture of the Hupa, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-88; plates 1-30. September, 1903 ........................ . $1.25 2. Hupa Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 89-368. March, 1904 _. 3.00 Index, pp. 369-378. Vol. 2. 1. The Exploration of the Potter Creek Cave, by William J. Sinclair. Pp. 1-27,- plates 1-14. April, 1904 .................. - ...... .40 2. The Languages of the Coast of California South of San Francisco, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 29-80, with a map. June, 1904. .60 3. Types of Indian Culture in California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 81-103. June, 1904 ..2 4. Basket Designs of the Indians of Northwestern California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 105-164; plates 15-21. January, 1905 ...... . ......... .75 5. The Yokuts Language of South Central California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 165-377. January, 1907 ...................... 2.25 Index, pp. 379-393. Vol. 3. The -Morphology of the Hupa Language, by Pliny Earle Goddard. 344 pp. June, 1905. ..... ........... 3.50 Vol. 4. 1. The Earliest Historical Relations between Mexico and Japan, from original documents preserved in Spain and Japan, by Zelia Nuttall. Pp. 1-47. April, 1906. .50 2. Contribution to the Physical Anthropology of California, based on col- lections in the Department of Anthropology of the University of California, and in the U. S. National Museum, by Ales Hrdilcka. Pp. 49-64, with 5 tables; plates 1-10, and map. June, 1906 ..75 3. The Shoshonean Dialects of California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 65-166. February, 1907 ................................ 1.50 4. Indian Myths from South Central California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 167-250. May, 1907 ................................ .75 5. The Washo Language of East Central California and Nevada, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 251-318. September, 1907 . ............................................ .75 6. The Religion of the Indians of California, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 319- 356. September, 1907 ................................................. . .... .50 Index, pp. 357-374. Vol. 5. 1. The Phonology of the Hupa Language; Part I, The Individual Sounds, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 1-20, plates 1-8. March, 1907 .... ....... 5 .3 2. Navaho Mlyths, Prayers and Songs, with Texts and Translations, by Washington Matthews, edited by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 21-63. September, 1907 ........... _ .75 3. Kato Texts, by Pliny Earle Goddard. Pp. 65-238, plate 9. December, 1909 .2.50 4. The Material Culture of the Klamath Lake and Modoc Indians of Northeastern California and Southern Oregon, by S. A. Barrett. Pp. 239-292, plates 10-25. June, 1910 ................................... .75 5. The Chimariko Indians and Language, by Roland B. Dixon. Pp. 293- 380. August, 1910 ............................... .................... 1.00 Index, pp. 381-384. Vol. 6. 1. The Ethno-G0ography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indian, by Sam- uel Alfred Barrett. Pp. 1-332, maps 1-2. February, 1908 ................3.3.25 2. The Geography and Dialects of the Miwok Indians, by Samuel Alfred Barrett. Pp. 333-368, map S. 3. On the Evidence of the Occupation of Certaln Regions by the Miwok Indians, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 369-380. Nos. 2 and 3 in one cover. February, 1908 .......... . .50 Index, pp. 381400. Vol. 7. 1. The Emeryville Shellmound, by Msx Uhle. Pp. 1-106, plates 1-12, with 38 text figures. June, 1907 . .................... . ..... 1.25 2. Recent Investigations bearing upon the Question of the Occurrence of Neocene Man in the Auriferous Gravels of California, by William J. Sinclair. Pp. 107-130, plates 13-14. Febmary, 1908 ..35 3. Pomo Indian Basketry, by S. A. Barrett. Pp. 133-306, plates 15-30, 231 text figures. December, 1908 .1.75 4. Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region, by N. C. Nelson. Pp. 309-356, plates 32-34. December, 1909 .50 5. The Ellis Landing Shellmound, by N. C. Nelon. Pp. 357-426, plates 36-50. April, 1910 .75 Index, pp. 427-441. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 237-271 November 19, 1910 THE CHUMASH AND COSTANOAN LANGUAGES BY A. L. KROEBER. CONTENTS. PAGE INTRODUCTION ........... . . 237 COSTANOAN .......-.................................................................................... 239 Dialects and Territory 239 Comparative Vocabularies 242 Phonetics 249 Grammatical Notes 251 Texts 253 Relationship of Miwok and Costanoan 259 CHUMASH 264 Dialects and Territory 264 Comparative Vocabularies 265 Grammatical Notes 268 Texts 269 INTRODUCTION. Many years ago Father Felipe Arroyo de la Cuesta com- posed, and Shea in 1861 published, one of the most satisfactory treatises dealing with an Indian idiom of California, the Gram- mar of the Mutsun Language, subsequently classified as a Costanoan dialect. Several years ago the author added notes on another dialect, that of Monterey, and presented a gram- matical sketch of the Santa Ynez idiom of the Chumash family.' ' Languages of the Coast of California South of San Francisco, present series, II, 29-80,1904. 238 University of California Ptsblications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 Since that time he has recorded two vocabularies, one in the Costanoan speech at Mission San Jose, the other in the Chumash dialect of Mission San Buenaventura. A comparison of these two new sources with the material previously obtained, enables an insight into the dialectic organ- ization of the two families. Wherever these uniformly-made records of two dialects of the same stock corroborate each other, whether by agreement or by an explainable difference, they furnish a basis of comparison by which other previously pub- lished lists may be judged, and some allowance made for their orthographic variations. In this way some half dozen diverse vocabularies in each family are made available for comparative study. 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. COSTANOAN. DIALECTS AND TERRITORY. Seven Franciscan missions were founded in territory held by Indians of Costanoan speech: Soledad, San Carlos near Monterey, San Juan Bautista, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara near the present city of San Jose in Santa Clara county, San Jose near Irvington in Alameda county, and Dolores in San Fran- cisco. To these were brought, before the close of the Mission period, probably all the Costanoan Indians then living. Some record has been made of the prevailing language at each mission, which was normally the dialect of the immediate district. Seven forms of Costanoan speech are therefore known to have existed. Unfortunately it seems impossible to learn anything as to such other dialects as there may have been, as to transitional idioms connecting the "standard" languages of the missions, or of the territorial extent of each form of speech. It is almost certain that the seven published vocabularies do not comprise all varieties of the Costanoan language. Father de la Cuesta's works refer to differences of speech between the Mutsunes and the Ansaymes or Ausaimas connected with mission San Juan Bautista, but furnish only two or three illustrations.2 Nothing has been published regarding the dialects of northern Alameda or Contra Costa counties. Finally, while all ethnological maps have extended the Costanoan territory eastward to the San Joaquin river, the missions are all situated in the western half of this area, between the mountains and the sea. Not a Costa- noan dialect, tribe, or even name is positively known from the territory between the main watershed of the Coast range and the San Joaquin river. It appears, indeed, that contrary to former supposition at least all of the plain of the San Joaquin valley, and possibly the lower hills on its west, were not in 2 Compare his Vocabulary or Phrase Book of the Mutsun Language, ed. Shea, New Yorli, 1862, examples 9 and 12. 239 240 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 Costanoan but in Yokuts territory.3 This circumstance would account for the absolute dearth of references to Costanoan Indians in this area. Nevertheless there remain sufficiently extensive tracts which cannot well have been inhabited by any one but Costanoans, but in regard to which we are, and perhaps always will be, uninformed. Consequently the present classi- fication may not be regarded as exhaustive; and it differs further, to its disadvantage, from such comparative studies as have been made of Yuki, Pomo, Miwok, Yokuts, and Shoshonean, in that it deals not with areas of speech, but with the speech of accidentally selected points. In the absence of fuller data, it is however necessary to operate with those available. As is usual in California, none of the dialects seem to have had native names. Mutsun is properly only the name of the principal village near mission San Juan Bautista. Rumeen or Rumsien, used for the Costanoan Indians of Monterey, is probably also only a specific place name misused by the whites. The five "tribes" at San Francisco-Ahwastes, Olhones, Altah- mos, Romonans, and Tulomos-are, if Costanoan, only ranch- erias. Polya, Polye, or Polaya, was given to Dr. Barrett and the author as the name of the language of San Jose mission; yet this seems to be nothing but Northeastern Miwok polaiya, ocean, and is therefore probably the term applied to the resident natives by the Miwok of the interior after their transportation to the mission. The seven known Costanoan dialects are divisible into two groups, a northern and a southern. The northern division comprises San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz, the southern San Juan Bautista, Soledad, and Monterey. The difference between the two groups may be accentuated by the fact that the four northern missions are all situated on the ocean or San Francisco bay, or within a few miles of the water; while two of the three southern locations are some distance inland. It is impossible to predict a priori whether such a topographical distinction will be reflected linguistically, in any given case, in California. Where the speech of entire areas has been ascertained, the following facts have developed. The 3 Present series of publications, VI, 350, 375, 1908. 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. Yokuts and Miwok correspond absolutely, in their lines of dialectic cleavage, to the division into level plain and broken hill country.4 The Maidu, however, in a similar situation, do not ;5 and similarly among the Pomo several dialects each comprise parts of two or three distinct topographical areas.6 In the northern division, the dialects of San Jose and Santa Clara are very closely related-so much so that in view of their being recorded many years apart by observers using different orthography, it cannot be stated with certainty whether or not there is any real difference between them. San Francisco is at least as similar to these two as is Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz, geographically the nearest of the northern dialects to San Juan Bautista, also resembles it most; but the primary line of division in the family nevertheless passes between the two, for Santa Cruz is more similar to Santa Clara than to San Juan, and this in turn has closer affinities with Soledad and Monterey. In the southern division the abundance of material on San Juan as compared with the scant 22 words known from Soledad,7 make comparison more difficult. It must be observed that the numerals given by de Mofras5 as from Soledad belong evidently to a dialect of the San Juan type, if Hale's Soledad vocabulary represents the characteristic speech of that place. The Monterey dialect is peculiar. In its stems it agrees almost invariably with San Juan, as compared with the northern group; but many of its words are evidently reduced, especially in their latter parts. Dropping of vowels is responsible for a common accumulation of final consonants, a feature confined to this one dialect. Graphically the affinity of the Costanoan dialects can be represented thus: S Fr S Ci 3 Jo S Cr Northern ,. ............................................................. ..... ..... . ........................... ......... Southern S J B Sol Mo 4 Present series, II, 309, 1907; VI, 333, 1908. 5 R. B. Dixon, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., XVII, 125, 127, 1905. 6 Present series, VI, 123, 1908. 7 Gallatin, Hale's Indians, Tr. Am. Ethn. Soc., II, 125, 1848. 8 II, 401. 241 242 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 COMPARATIVE VOCABULARIES. The comparative Costanoan vocabulary which is appended is a collocation of previously published word lists with those secured by the author in the Monterey and San Jose dialects. The latter is corroborated by a brief vocabulary obtained by Dr. Barrett in Marinn county. So far as could be judged, the orthographical peculiarities of each observer have been oblit- erated and all words given in uniform spelling; but only words represented in two or more dialects have been included.9 C represents a sound akin to English sh; x is the surd fricative in k position; q is velar k; q', k', t', p' are surd stops produced with more than usual muscular energy and accompanied by a glottal stop; y is a voiced fricative in k or q position; X is velar x; t. is a palatal t; L, surd 1, affricative; 6 and u indicate sounds similar to German 6 and ii but with less rounding of the lips, and therefore less distinct quality. 9 The following are the sources: Monterey, the author, supplemented by A. Taylor in the California Farmer, XIII, 66, April 20, 1860. Soledad, H. Hale, in Trans. Am. Ethn. Soc., II, 126, 1848. San Juan Bautista, de la Cuesta, op. cit. Santa Cruz, F. J. Comelias, in Taylor, op. cit., XIII, 58, April 5, 1860, reprinted in Powers, Tribes of California, Contrib. N. A. Ethn., III, 538, 1877. Santa Clara, F. G. Mengarini, in Powers, ibid. San Jose, the author. San Francisco, in Schooleraft, II, 494, re- published in Powers, ibid. 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. a,~~~~~- cd c -Cd 0 P4 9: d cd d CaCCd ~ +J, 124a, m ce. Cd C) C C d C d C d~~~~ C d a , ~~~~~ a , ~ ~ c ce e ,q I-14 m C ia - C) a Cd Cd Cd $:Li d 4 C d Cd C) C) .4- Cdl Cd ce 1.4 .. C) w . Cd C), b ?- W cd Cd C) 0 *4 0 C~ 0 Ca0 Cd $4 ; Cd . ,a 4 a, * $4 Ed ., q * .,d P 4 0 P P- g.- . C13 co :4Cd ce ce . 0 cd Cd~ -{. 1 v4 C) C) l *- PCd ,, IE a, a) 14 - o C d C Cd - C) , cd .m a, O a, 4 Cd a , -4-' 0 fr p -4 Go x 0 0 0 C) C - -.' a, i C 0*= Cd 1C Cd 4 6 -IV I ;Z d4-Cd m' * C dc d 5 ce .,. 4- Cr. In f d41 ~~ C d C ) , - C~~~~~ D C d C) 4 0 Cd f,0 0 0 C) (1 a) F- Cd Cd 0 =C ppZ~--dZi r,A 243 0 Ci) t 0) QJ ll- 3: eC) 1q1C C) fr-~ C~ . C) ,C. -4 c d 2 0 c3 ." o .; cc -10 q ce a, 00 a m o e,. a)~ fr, 16 C)-- C .m C1) 0 2- P4- a -4 - 4 p,, . ;z Cd+,, -4aM C- - . 1 D f- 0C a a C-+.a4 :3 o: a o * q C c ' 0 OP4 C) 4-+ Cd ." OCl) Cd 244 University of California Publications in Am.,Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 c a) a) C)~~~~~~~~~~~a 4~~~~c c i e>o 4O.4 R -_4 C) a6-) 0 4 d A a)C 0 3 0 Is a) I? ) 4 0 a) 1 CD Ca l l * 0 C? 0: ;s k a) 0 Ca m 4-420 A f-a: . C -8 0T o~~~~~~~c u S-t 4D a)~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~C IM a-) 0W a P 0 0 P4 4.2 -.~2 +.... W 0 M N ) ea 0 '.4 .-4.-S 4*2 .m -42 0 m 0 -62 a) 0 a)~ - . 5 ' .- .4 -4. +- -. a) ce ~ It ,-% 9 ) N 0 N Ca a '.4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -. to -a) ) p O 1;3 0 a). Ca I CD 4) $-4 4aCaa) ~~ ~ rg cis 0 '0 a) 1A ..4 mx pg~~~~~ ID I, 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Langubages. 0 V C.) 42 C.) P h 9 c3 S ?a? d ;I m 1=4 0 ~P4 Ct iz 2 h-4 ?.W 0- c) ? PS e I N *4 4w .,4 ~ .~ . - U k 0 '" Ca kP -4 0 frhO V - . p4 c 0 P4 ID4 0 ce 4 . P-4 164 0 M 0 k, w m CL) 41) -4-'A O 03 g Q4 Ce $4 C) :3 P.% . k 9 d a o .. o a :3 P -4-D k k .4.1 P U, P4e . - t 1m s m -4L' ce 0: .P. d d 4 v a E C) 0 I_ I ,Q P1. o V A , _41 *H ce ",-b m to-~ go 4 ? f . a> , ] ,^zn6 a5 es < 2 04 J t: O JS59 2 * .a q, ? E, 0 Ps ~ s : . P 4 . 42 ~ ~ ~ ~ V p ;j O~~V bo ~ ~ U, 4) - D o2 0 %m4 g Xs 05, 0 GV 4 0 0 245 '.4 1*.. ZNI C.) t3 *11 r. t* crl N9 r3 q) N V t ._ t. r 4 N I-W ce O .,4 ,g 0 - Ca Cd -, 14 4) ?? k I A .'.4 246 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 s Y ; g 30 ? ) C)4 C) 4 2S t 16q S E ?,. Z a 4tnge E PW4E2 . Z. t3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t * a 4-D -4.2 -4.2 04 W ~~.-0 t A 0 ce ~a 0 Q ;_) .* 4 > 9 r .v t n Xp e e 0 Ca 0 > c Q o -~~~~~~~~.~~~~0) ~~~~~~~ca- ce 4-2 Ca~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ca C~~~aa * 0) ..~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ a Ca ~ a m a C' o .+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O o a.- k + a cd0c e c .4a 'D ;.- 0 k : to 3 C C -q T ~ a 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. s: tQ 0m m U4-, 0 0_ a Q 0 0: Ca E W a a k ia k 0 4z 4 44 0 '4 0 ce 4) e ce a c ae Cfi a 01 a) Q .= m _ 0 _ 44 .- 44 :e (D c -'4 c cE a ai B 9 W W a a)CdC --4 9 9 0S 04 cz 14 0 a-S d . _I0 a 2 0 Ca W a 44 004)0 ~ .r aa - Z-t~~~~~ C) m ta0 4-3-am 4 0 a . ._,0 a Cs _ .4 Cs .-4. a4 1a aa 0 00 a~~ a a a a $4 , 0 af- 0 ~ 0 -4 0. ~4 a ~: a a * m 0 0 0 a~~ ~ ~ 0 l?@^ m a a IV .Cd 6- 01 d 4 C " l: 4) ce~~4 U'4.44 'O Cd a C3 0 a 0 a o C a a a C4 a.1 a~ Me a4 I M oa 04 o -A a P- a ) a 4a o a o d Q. = C 42 0) 10 4A 0 A-~A m ~m 1: - E-4 it ~- - - 4 r - --- Ca : 0 .,. : , 1 A 19 41 0 1 aj P 4 0 0 0 0 -4 *_s v4- 0 0 rt2 0 0 0 d a ae .I 4) .- * 247 248 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 0 0 r4 -4.2 E N e i O co 9' 0) @0a 0C0 ) P44.- ) -&0 cE 0 * 40 PoC R42 -4. 14 s o 0 i Ca 1 J R S *H co jg CD S5Ri ~ | 4Q. ~~ C e C e . . . *~~~~~~~ 0 0 4 . Ce: ?) | S R X .0C*_ M e Ce . t Z 0, w W g~~C 0)0544a X ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 4a co Cs 2 itmX| 3 = E Ce re C 0 4z ~ ce~~~~~~~C Ca~ 0) ~ ~ ~ *~~'~~02 P4C 0.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w 0 . ~ ce 16* . e 0 4Ce . s Cwe P C Ce to ' ? b 53 k4 0 ez 0 E . - 0 m 'P Z E- Ce C . 00 -4 r 0) m..R CeY o -4 4a c oV 40 0.. V .00 C** 1- 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. NOTES TO VOCABULARIES. 1. Old. 2. Compare Monterey ap-s, an-s, my f., my m., apa-n, ana-n, your f., your m., San Juan Bautista ap-sa, my f., with the apna-n and ana-n of Santa Cruz. These are the only suffixed pronominal elements yet found in the Costanoan languages, except for the affixes of the imperative. 3. The prefix or proclitic nik-, my, is unparalleled. 4. The ending -m, which appears repeatedly in the vocabulary of this dialect, is probably not pronominal. 5. Compare San Juan Bautista tapis, crown of head. 6. With we-per compare San Juan Bautista tut-per, lips. 7. Throat, swallower. 8. Also with the meaning of soul, spirit, person, in de la Cuesta, but liver in other dialects. 9. The original has p for t. 10. "Up." 11. "IIHeat of the sun." 12. Said to mean also earthquake. The initial is dental, not palatal t at Monterey. 13. =tura of other dialects, or an error for tarax, sky? 14. " Roretaon. " 15. Compare stream. 16. The same as deer. 17. " Wild-dog, field-dog." 18. Either waguises = wawises, or waquises wakises. 19. Given as wolf. 20. " Wild-deer, wild-meat." 21. Santa Clara wirak, wings. 22. Raven. 23. Compare night. 24. Compare blood. 25. Compare the Santa Clara word for green: teitko-mini. 26. Compare boy. 27. " Above. " 28. Literally, good. / 29. " One-hand. " 30. Coast Miwok kene, osa, teleka, one, two, three. PHONETICS. The exceptional habit of the Monterey dialect of shortening its words is the cause of its frequent accumulations of final consonants. Such accumulations are not tolerated by the other dialects, as a glance at the vocabularies reveals. In regard to initial consonants, Monterey agrees with the other dialects in possessing only simple sounds and affricatives like tc. As a group, therefore, the Costanoan languages are to be reckoned 249 250 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. LVol. 9 with the majority of California linguistic families in that they allow only single consonants before, after, or between the vowels of stems. The vocalic system of Costanoan is reducible to the five sounds u, o, a, e, i, of which both o and e, and u and i, are open in quality, though the latter perhaps also occur with close value. The apparatus of consonants is also simple, consisting of the stops k, t., t, p and the sounds n, m, h or x, s, c, r, 1, w, y, and the affricative tc. T. is very palatal, as in Yokuts and Salinan, and its frequent orthography tr conveys a fair idea of the quality of its sound. De la Cuesta has written it thr, also ths, th, and tsh. These spellings give to his material a much more forbidding and diffi- cult look than the actual phonetic simplicity of the Costanoan dialects warrants. The four stops have been almost randomly recorded by the author, both in San Jose and Monterey, as surd or partially sonant. The perceptible difference is so slight that it seems probable that there is only one series of essentially surd sounds, which differ sufficiently from the English surd stops, in being pronounced with somewhat less breath or some degree of sonancy -possibly during the explosion-to cause them at times to assume to English ears a quality approaching that of sonant stops. Father de la Cuesta seems to have mastered the pho- netics of the San Juan dialect, but his nationality and orthog- raphy are unsatisfactory for elucidating this point, as the surd explosives of Spanish are voiced during part of their formation, while the corresponding Spanish sonants are largely fricative, so that if the Costanoan stops are actually intermediate rather than surd, he would nevertheless have naturally and correctly represented them by the Spanish surd stop characters. H and x shade into one another and are probably one sound, as in Yurok and Yana and Yuki. C, more nearly than English sh, resembles s, as in so many other American languages. R is trilled with the tip of the tongue, but without violence. Sound equivalences between such nearly related languages as the several Costanoan dialects can not be dwelt on with much emphasis in the present state of knowledge, as some dif- 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. ferences may be typographical rather than phonetic. A number are however apparent. r=1: woman, hair, foot, moon, black, large. San Francisco particu- larly substitutes 1 for r, but not always. r= n, y, t.: tobacco, wind, hair, meat. 1=n: coyote, white. y=tc, t., t: bone, blood, coyote, black. s= k, h: beard, today. k=x: head, ear. k =w: house, salt, small. Santa Clara -te =San Jose -x=other dialects --: forehead, heart. c= te =t: bow, thunder, small. In San Jose, all the consonants occur initially, and all but te finally. In consonant combinations in words, r, p, and tc have not been noted as second member. Further examples may eliminate these exceptions and reveal all the consonants as avail- able for any position. All the vowels are found in every part of words. GRAMMATICAL NOTES. SAN JOSE. The personal pronouns in the dialect of San Jose show full forms similar to those of San Juan Bautista and other dialects, as contrasted with the reduced ka, me, wa of Monterey. As in the other known dialects they occur in two forms; one for the absolute, subjective, and possessive, the other, produced by the addition of -c to the first syllable of the stem, for the ob- jective. The objective of the third person ic or c, which presents the appearance of a formation by analogy, has no known parallel in the southern dialects. Subjective and Possessive Objective 1 S kana, kanak kic 2 5 mene, meni mec, mic 3 S waka, wakai ic, c 1 P makin, makinmak 2 P makam 3 P wakamak The plural of animate nouns and pronouns is formed by the usual suffix -mak, -kma, -ma: tare-ma, men, aita-mak, women, muwe-kma, people, waka-mak, they, makin-mak, we. 251 252 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 An ending -c, as in tare-c, man, miti-c, old man, is evidently the same as the Monterey and San Juan suffix of nouns -s. Compare aita-kic, woman, atsya-kic, girl. The -c and -kic of the words for man and woman are lost before the plural suffix. The general Costanoan locative or inessive suffix -tka occurs: si-tka, in the water. Another locative ending is -mo, -mu, -m: no-mo, here; rini-mu ruwai, on the house, "above-on house"; mani-m watic, where are you going? Compare San Juan Bau- tista patre-me, at the house of the padre. An adjective ending -wis corresponds to Monterey -st and San Juan, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and San Francisco -mim or mini. cirke-wis, black locko-wis, white pulte-wis, red iene-wic, how is it? kuteu-wic, small The imperative ends in -i. Compare San Juan -ya, intrans- itive imperative, and -i, imperative with object of third person. The future is indicated by -na, while -k seems to denote the past, and -c is perhaps a present: kiti-na, will see, kiti-k, saw or sees, wati-c, goes. Compare the Monterey preterite in -ki. Another ending is -kne, as in nimi-kne, struck. SAN JUAN BAUTISTA. The following are the grammatical elements of the Mutsun dialect, as given by de la Cuesta in Spanish orthography. They appear to constitute the entire grammatical apparatus of the language. -mac, -ema, plural of nouns; -s-mae, plural noun agent -se, -ne, -e, objective case-ending -sum, -ium, -um, instrumental case-ending -tea, -tac, locative case-ending, in, on, at -me, case-ending, with, at the house of -tsu, case-ending, in company with -huas, case-ending, for, to -tun, case-ending, from -s, infixed near the end of verbs, plural of object or repetition of action -S, preterite -n, preterite, more remote 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. -scun, -cun, preterite, remote -gte, preterite -si, causative -su, to go to -na, to go to -iii, to come to -miste, to beg to -u, when -inicane, when -stap, -stapse, impersonal, passive, etc. -gnis, impersonal, passive, etc. -gne, the same, also participial -guit, prohibition -csi, excellently, well, thoroughly -mu, reciprocal -pu, reflexive -ya,intransitive imperative -i, imperative with object of third person -t, -tit, -mit, imperative with object of first person -yuts, plural of subject in the imperative -is, hortatory(?) imperative -se, -s, added to first word in sentence, interrogative -na, adverbial numerals -huas, ordinal numerals -si, distributive numerals TEXTS. LORD'S PRAYERS. Two Lord's Prayers in Costanoan have long been known.10 A partial translation can be made. It may be added that the text given by de Mofras from Santa Clara appears rather to resemble the San Juan Bautista dialect; and that his other, which is presented as from the Tulare Valley, in other words Yokuts, is possibly most similar to the dialects of San Jose and Santa Clara. VALLIE DR LOS TULARES. Appa macquen erinigmo tasunimac emracat, jinnin eccey macquen unisinmac macquen quitti 6n6 soteyma erinigmo: sumimac macquen hamjamfi jinnan guara ayei: sunnun macquen quit ti enesunumac ayacma: aquectsem unisimtac nininti equetmini: jurina macquen equetmini em men. 10 Duflot de Mofras, II, 392. 253 254 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 TRANSCRIPTION. apa maken erinix-mol tasuni-mak2 em3 Father our sky-in, (sacred) thy rakat4 xinin5 eksei maken unisin-mak5 name, (come) (rule) us will maken kitiene sotei-ma erinix-mo sumi-makT us as (earth)-in sky-in, give maken hamxamu8 xinan wara ayei sunu-nT us food debts forgive maken kitiene sunu-mak7 aya-kma9 ake-ktsem'0 us as forgive debtors, not unisimtakll nininti eket-miniI2 xurina maken (lead) bad, (deliver) us eket-mini emen bad, amen NOTES. 1. Compare San Jose rini-mu, up. For the locative ending compare San Jose -mo, -mu, -m, and San Juan Bautista -me, at the house of; also, below, sotei-ma, on earth. 2. The ending -mak occurs on several of the forms that are imperative or optative: tasuni-mak, hallowed be. unisin-mak, thy will be done. sumi-mak, give us. sunu-mak, as we forgive, or, forgive us. 3. Compare im rakat in the Santa Clara prayer. Compare also San Jose em ama, are you eating? where em replaces mene, you 4. Compare San Juan Bautista "gracat." 5. Compare Monterey xin, to walk. 6. Unisin- perhaps contains the same stem as Monterey iws, ius, to like, desire. 7. Sunu-n and sunu-mak, forgive, are not the same as sumi-mak, give, through a manuscript misreading of nu for mi; but sunu recalls Coast Miwok suli, pardon, pity, while sumi is paralleled by San Juan Bautista. xumi, give. 8. Compare San Jose and San Juan Bautista ama, to eat, Monterey amxai, food. 9. Contains the common Costanoan plural ending -kma, -mak, -ma, usually confined to animate nouns. 10. The negative is akwe in San Jose, kwe, kue, at Monterey, ekwe at San Juan Bautista, etc. 11. The ending agrees with the locative case-suffix -tka, -tak, which appears to be common to all Costanoan dialects, but is of course used only with nouns. The word may be corrupt. Except for a difference of two letters, it is identical with unisin-mak above. Possibly -tak should be read -mak. 12. In San Juan Bautista ekwe is no, not, ekwet., bad, evil. The ad- jective ending -mini, -min is known from San Juan Bautista, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and San Francisco. 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. MISSION SANTA CLARA. Appa macr6ne me saura saraahtiga eleepuhmen imragat, sacan maerene mensaraah assueiy nouman ourun macari pireca numa ban saraathtiga poluma macrene souhaii naltis anat macrene ne6na, ia annanit macrene nieena, ia annanit macrene macrec 6quetr maccari noumabaui macre annan, nou marot6 jassemper macrene in eekoue tamouniri innam tattahne, icatrarca oniet macrene equets nacearitkoun och a Jesus. TRANSCRIPTION. apa makrene me saural sarax-tka Father our thou art sky-in, elekpux-men2 im rakat sakan makrene men (sacred) thy name, come to us thy sarax asuei numan3 urun makari pire-ka4 rule (=sky), which earth-on numaban sarax-tka poluma5 makrene souhai as sky-in, bread our naltis ana-tV makrene7 nena ya ana-nit give-thou-us us, forgive-thou-us makrene makrek ekwet-. makari numaban us our evils (we) as makre ana-n nul marote'0 xasemper makrene forgive those who (injure) us, in ekwe tamuniri inam tataxne ikat-arka not onie-t makrene ekwet. nakaritkun otc a deliver-thou-us us evil, to Jesus Jesus NOTES. 1. San Juan Bautista tsahora =tsaura, to exist, be locally, used with animate nouns; Monterey tcawar. 2. -men seems to be the suffix -min, -mini. 3. San Juan Bautista numan, who, which, that, ille qui, relative, not interrogative. The same stem appears in numaban, as, below. 4. For San Juan Bautista regular pire-tka. 5. Monterey, pulum, acorn-bread. 6. As in the preceding prayer, the words give (bread) and forgive (sins) are similar. Give, in San Juan Bautista, is ara or xumi, here ana. The San Juan ending for the imperative of the second person with object of the first, is -t, -mit, -tit; compare ana-nit and onie-t below. 7. The repetition in the printed text of the four words beginning with macrene is a copyist's error. 8. See the preceding text for a note on the use of this stem with the meanings of not and bad in San Juan Bautista. 255 256 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 9. Monterey and San Juan Bautista nu-pe, that, those, San Jose nu-xu, there. 10. San Jose mat.o, who. San Juan has ate for who, and Monterey amp. Compare however the stem rote, to be somewhere, in these two dialects: Monterey anrot, where is it? MONTEREY. ORIGIN OF THE WORLD.11 tan murka'tuyi12 When finished u'mun tat.ikima'tcan hummingbir huya where coyote pi'ri ne'ku u'uwin ci'irx world, then flew eagle, (Pico Blanco) to Pico Blanco. ne'ku xo'p Then rose tci'pil ne'kul3 wa'atsii wasyi'lum huya mountain. Then ocean approached where wa ko'ro ne'ku their feet. Now wa'tiyi went. Ne'ku Now si'irx eagle, a'yewuc look was him ta'nai then ne'ku u/wi Then flew tso'rekoi pi'ri dry world. i wa'tin utmun ne'ku went hummingbird. Then (para la Sierra de Gavilan) to the Sierra de Gavilan. Ne'ku wate kaii kap Then him told ne'ku wac o'k ta't-ikima'tcan es-wa'ti now him he-sent coyote: "Go wi'num i'nta muc-rotti ne'ku ta'nai below. What is-theret" Now then co'o i'nta muc-ro'ti ne'ku wat asked: "What is-theret" Then went ma'tcan ne'ku wac ka'ii ok ci'irx e'xe coyote. Then him told sent eagle: "Many ama lakiuni e'xe ma'tcan a'iiwis ro'tei14 people are-dead, many." Coyote had-looked there. tconmestawaa'n wa's " May your mother die! " For-her ku kac mu'ic ti'us " Not me please flowers." xi's he-made ne'ku Then i'nix ti ius road of-flowers. utuwinl5 ne'ku fled. Then u'uwin lu'pup huya wi'is ne'ku wa'at ran dived where sand. Then came 11 By the author. For a free translation see present series IV, 199, 200, 1907. 12 Began? 13 Followed, as recorded, by ka u'uwin, I flew, fled, ran. 14 The passage given in present series II, 79, 1904, follows here. 15 Into the waves; the native word had been forgotten. -d, 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. tat-iki-ma'tcan ka' pri-ki wi'yuc ara wa'ti Coyote. "I seized sand. Now went ka xa'wan my wife." ku ka i'usen me xa'wesp a'ntus "Not I wish you to-marry other la'tciamk ku ka tu'man e'xe i'swin women." "Not I can many sons a'xelust mak tci'iya ka i'usen a'ntus alone we here. I wish other la'tciank isko mak e'xe pi'na ca la'tciamk women that we be-many." This the woman: o't. ne'ku a't-ap xa'wisp ne'ku tu'mai "Go!" Then again married. Then could. an ku ka ru'k xalei's ne'ku u'ti ka'i "Where will-be my house?" Five. Then they said: ne'ku mak e'xe ne'ku u'ti (s) xi'si ru'k 'Now we are-many." Then they made houises u'kc 'a' ne'ku (w) as atra la'wan te'ps everywhere. Then him gave bow, arrow, isku ni'miy we'ren isku u'ti a'mxai' to kill rabbit that they might-eat. ne'ku me xi's te'uwin isku me afmxai " Now you make acorn-mush that you food mu'tut xi's pu'lum isku me mu'tut to't- may-eat. Make acorn-bread that you may-eat meat. O't- wa'tin kau-tak tci'ikas isko me mutt Go, go to-beach, gather that you may-eat te'uwen-um ru't e'sxen isko me mu'tut with-acorn-mush, gather sea-weed that you may-eat. hi's pu'lum isku me a'mxai i'mat- tu'men Make acorn-bread that you may-eat. When low-tide, kue tu'man ni'mi we'ren ne'ku me wa'tin not can kill rabbits, then you go, imano tu'men ne'ku me tci'iks a' 'ulun'6 when low-tide, then you gather abalones, xa'kau isku me atmxai me pu'lum imate clams, that you eat-with your acorn-bread. When tco'tcon ru't tca'tc isku me mu'tut ku can-get-nothing, pick buckeyes that you may-eat." " Not 16 Spanish. 257 258 University of California Publication8 in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 ka i'usen ka'k te 'Winl17 ne'ku mama'kam I wish, bitter-is acorn-mush." " Now ye ne'neix isko mam a'mxai atru ka mas search that ye may-eat. Already I you e'nwen isku mam ru't isku mam a'mxai taught that ye may-gather, that ye may-eat. a'ra ka mas ni'pia-ki cina mi'cix isku Already I you have-taught what is-good, that mam ru't isku mam a'mxai ka mamas ye may-gather, - that ye may-eat. I you xu'ri a'ra makam u'rse-ki ru't-at- e'xe leave, already ye have-learned. Gather many, imatc i'nam isku mam ku la'kun when rain that ye not die i'itak-um ar ka e'ucaii ku ka tu'man with-hunger. Now i am-old, not I can xin wa'ra ka'nise ka wa'tin ar ka walk, alas me! I go, now I e'uwcon ku ka tu'man xi'n ru't xu'nosyin am-old, not I ean walk. Gather wild-oats isku me xi's ku'rk li'u me ci" win that you may-make meal, carry your carrying-basket ne'ku me ru't that you may-gather." MONTEREY SONGS.18 19(l).l9 A dance song: uxar-at kai pire, on-cliff dancing (of-the-)world 19(2) A dance Song: 20 panantonakoi, jealous urin puncipin tot-nin, ..-... .m deer 20(l). Song of a blind man:21 piina watena tot.i, there goes meat li The people complain that the acorns are bitter. Coyote replies to leach them, but the informant had forgotten the native word. 18 For a song from a coyote myth, see present series IV, 202, 1907. 19 Numbers refer to catalogued phonograph records in the Anthropo- logical Museum of the University. 20 A woman sees a successful hunter with the deer he has killed, and although he is already married, she wishes him for a husband. Deer is tot.. 21 Played by him on his flute. A girl was attracted, came to him, and became his wife. 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. 20(2). Dancing song: comak kaenep lupaki22 21(1). A woman 's love song: hayeno, come i ha-me ka rut.ano, you I mean, ha-purps teokolate, hat choeolate-colored.23 25(3). Song: 24 ara pateaxtiyee xawan, now hits wife was yeyexem, her pelican Hunting song:25 kuniixt wa-wuus wat isxeno, stopped its-nose . . . (with-) estafiate-plant 16(2). Dance song.26 ka istun xaluyaxe, I dream jump ka mas ictunine, I you dream-of werenakai, rabbit tceicakai, jackrabbit eksenakai, quail RELATIONSHIP OF MIWOK AND COSTANOAN. In 1856 Latham27 tentatively separated certain of the dialects subsequently classified as Costanoan and Miwok. In the earliest linguistic map of California, in Powers' Tribes of California in 1877, Powell still grouped together as Mutsun the languages then known. Fourteen years later, however, in his Indian Linguistic Families, Powell divided the same dialects into two families, which he designated Moquelumnan and Costanoan. This separation has been generally accepted, though only with reserve on the part of some students, inasmuch as there are several obvious lexical resemblances between the two groups of languages, as in the words for two, I, and you. 22 The words, which were given by the informant as mak enep lupak, which perhaps coincides with their usual spoken form, are said to refer to a woman's white face-paint. 23 The words are given as sung. When spoken, hame ka rut.ano would be mee ka rut.in or me ka rut.. Hayeno may mean to come-compare the vocabulary,-but sounds like a meaningless refrain. 24 A charm to bring a man home. Fog was away, and to cause him to return he was told that the pelican was beating his wife. 25 The hunter sings this in order that the deer 's nostrils may be unable to smell him. 26 Sung by the rat to the three animals mentioned, who danced. The ending -akai seems to be expletive. 27 Trans. Philol. Soc. London, 81, 1856. 259 260 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 Since the structure of the Miwok dialects has recently begun to be ascertained, and as Dr. Barrett's studies have systematized our lexical knowledge of them, more reliable comparisons than heretofore are now possible with Costanoan. Some fifty resemblances have been determined between Miwok and Costanoan, these being in part lexical and in part grammatical. As the number of stem-words available for com- parison is less than two hundred in each family, and as the structure of neither is very thoroughly known, this series of similarities is fairly significant. Miwok Costanoan I kanni kan, kana thou mi, mi-nii-i2s men, mene we masi, mako maken, makse ye miko, moko makam this ne-, ni- ne- that no- nu- who mana, manti mat.o where mini mani, am what hiti, hinti, tinii hint.o, inta, intsis objective -i, -tc, -t. -se, -e, -ne, -e instrumental -su -sum, -um, -eyum locative -m, -mo -me, -mo, -m locative -to -tka, -tak, -ta plural -ko, -k -kma, -mak, -kam plural verb29 -ti plural imperative -te -yuts reflexive -po -pu preterite -ce, -caka, etc. -s, -skun, etc. not ket, ken ekwe, akwe noun-ending -s -s water kik si teeth kiit sit liver kula sire nose huk us arm, hand eku, uku, tisso icu bow kono, soloku, tanuka conok, tanuka drink ucu ukis thunder talawa tura father apa, api apa mother unu, uta ana man tai, tayis, cawe tares 28 Possessive. 29 Recorded in Southern Sierra Miwok and San Juan Bautista Costanoan only. 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. Miwok oti-ko, oyo-ko, osa etc kolo, koyo, ko hate lola, heleki kal lile suli miwo-k molu, tolo masoka wea, woi, wali cuta sike, yuli tokosu, tolko letip, nepit ti, sala kome hi, hiema awanata sut, suntu, huntu walapho pas-as-, pakis mulu- kuci uti Costanoan utin, utsxin et.e-n koro hata ranai kar rini sunu muwe-kma mot.il micur warep huti yuki tuksus lase tur korme hiemen, iemen aunic-min hin, xin wilep, wilpe paxel-, palkas- mur-tue- kucue-, kuteu- uti The greatest obstacle to a final answer to the problem as to whether or not this material is sufficient to establish kinship between the two groups, is the difficulty of making a distinction between elements that one language has borrowed from the other, and those that they hold in common as the heirloom of original unity. As Dr. R. B. Dixon has said,80 when confronted by a similar problem between Chimariko and Shasta, the general status and extent of borrowing between the unrelated families in California must be better understood before even a considerable body of similar words can be either accepted or rejected as positive evidence of relationship. It is obvious that words have been transmitted in many directions, but it is not known how extensive the process has been.31 80 Present series, V, 337, 1910. 31 A somewhat similar case is provided by a series of similarities be- tween Yokuts and Maidu, in which the terms of cardinal direction, the numerals from one to three, and the words for head, mouth, breast, person, sun, dance, and probably others, are almost alike. These resem- blances may be due to borrowing, partieularly if any considerable pro- portion of them prove to extend to other families. two sleep leg, foot foot neck smoke sky, up pity, forgive people head five earth arrow ash ear tongue nail moon sun turtle eye lightning white black small many, they 261 262 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 In favor of relationship is the equivalence of k and s in a number of words, and 1 and r, or 1 and n, in others. On the other hand even such correspondences are of course not proof of kinship, as a language lacking r or a certain type of k might well alter these sounds to 1 and s in borrowing words from an- other stock of speech. Probably the strongest evidence in favor of kinship is fur- nished by the grammatical elements enumerated, and by the general structural resemblance between the two groups of lan- guages. They,agree in possessing a closely similar phonetic basis; a prohibition of combinations of consonants in stems, or initially in words; a paucity of reduplication; a similar number and kind of suffixes of case and number in nouns and pronouns; the complete absence, so far as known, of instrumental, spatial, and adverbial affixes from verbs; and a general lack of prefixes. The most important difference between the languages is in the grammatical usage of the pronominal elements. Costanoan is almost entirely analytic in this regard, while the majority of Miwok dialects are elaborately synthetic, both in noun and verb. What is more, the affixed pronominal forms of Miwok are for the most part entirely different from the independent pronouns that are common to Miwok and Costanoan. But the gap is bridged by the coast dialects of Miwok, which lack nearly all the synthetic pronominal series that are so conspicuous in the interior dialects, and affix the pronominal elements so loosely that they are more properly proclitics, as in Costanoan. If Miwok and Costanoan constitute but one family, the interior Miwok languages therefore probably represent a more primitive stage of synthetic structure, which has already largely broken down in the coast Miwok dialects, and has been replaced by an almost entirely analytic one in Costanoan. A definite answer as to the genetic relationship of the two groups can therefore perhaps not yet be given, though the evidence will probably make a favorable rather than a negative impression. The most appropriate designation for the new and larger family, if it be recognized as a true unit, appears to be Miwok, which alone, of the names already in usage, is a native term denoting human beings. Mutsun and Moquelumnan 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. 263 signify specific localities, and Costanoan labors under the double disadvantage of being Spanish-corrupted at that-and of geographic inappropriateness for a group extending to the Sierra Nevada. In any event, even if the fact of a larger family is accepted, the Miwok and Costanoan groups must continue to be regarded as the primary divisions of this family. The most diverse Miwok dialects appear to be more similar to one another lexically than to any Costanoan idiom, and vice versa. This circumstance should have historical bearing because the Costanoan territory is on the whole situated between the coast and interior Miwok divisions. 264 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 CHUMASH. DIALECTS AND TERRITORY. The Chumash languages are more difficult than the Costa- noan, and it is less feasible in this family to reconstruct forms given in an imperfect or inconsistent orthography. Five mis- sions were founded in Chuinash territory: San Buenaventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez, La Purisima, and San Luis Obispo, the first two being on the coast, the three western ones a short distance inland. Data are available on the dialects of all of these missions except La Purisima. In addition there were the dialects of the northern Santa Barbara islands (represented by a vocabulary from Santa Cruz), which not only were Chumash but have given this name to the family. The islanders received no missions of their own, but were brought to the mainland. The known Chumash dialects fall clearly into three divisions. One group comprises the district of San Luis Obispo. Another embraces the islands, so far as these were Chumash and not Shoshonean. All the remaining territory within the limits of the family was included in what may be called the principal or central group. Within this division San Buenaventura, Santa Barbara, and Santa Ynez show variation. Other dialects32 very likely existed also, but have not been recorded. The Santa Barbara idiom is more similar to Santa Ynez than to San Buena- ventura; where one of the three differs from the other, San Buenaventura is exceptional three times out of four. The island dialect, assuming it to have been comparatively uniform, so that the Santa Cruz material may be taken as representative of all the islands, shows no special affinity to any one of the dialects of the Central division. The same seems true of San Luis Obispo, but this idiom would seem to be more specialized than the island dialect. Graphically the relations may be represented thus: y S Ba S L O Id S Ba 32 See, for instance, present series, IV, 138, 1907. 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. COMPARATIVE VOCABULARIES. The table is derived from the following sources: San Luis Obispo, Hale ;33 Santa Ynez, the author and Taylor ;84 Santa Barbara, Hale,83 Loew,35 and Portola;38 San Buenaventura, the author; Santa Cruz Island, Timmeno.37 English Person Man Woman Child Old man Old woman Father Mother Head, hair Forehead Ear Eye Nose Mouth Tongue Tooth Beard Neck Arm, hand Nail Body Breast San Luis Obispo Santa Ynez Lmono tSiyUL sapi tuyu co ta pu Woman s breast Belly, back Leg, foot Bone Blood Penis Vagina Chief uyuiy eneq tcitci anaxo anaqatcan qoqo tuq oqwon, noke iksie tou, tu tuX, t6X noX ok eleu sa atsiis ni pu eqwai amun kutet akcu UL, tem se aXulis Xot tili wotca Santa Barbara S. Buenaventura Santa Cruz Id. ku oxoix eneq tupnekte pakowac eneXewac qoqo xoni oqwon, noke ixsi tu tugu noXc uk eleu sa atsus ni pu eXwae amun qoax kutet akeewe UL, tem se aXulis wot, nokc ku ataxat1 Xanwa2 gunup pakiiwas Xanwawan oqwom tun tok noXe ok eleu sa atsos aklii po iqwai q6u qop OL an x6t tilin alamiin hemute kutco seske osloe pulawa igtce tu tono aotc eloe sa atses kelik pu eqwai alapamai atekuac nimel ikukuie aXyulic wota 33 Trans. Am. Ethn. Soc., II, 126, 1848, from Coulter, in Journ. Roy. Geogr. Soc. London. 34 California Farmer, XIII, 82, May 4, 1860, republished in Powers, Tribes of California, op. cit. 561. 35 Collected by 0. Loew, published by A. S. Gatschet, in F. W. Putnam, Wheeler Survey, VII, 424, 1879. 36 Given in Powers, loc. cit. 37 Published by Taylor, loc. cit., republished in Powers, loc. cit. 265 266 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 English Friend House Bow Arrow Knife Boat Moccasin Tobacco Sky Sun Moon Star Night Wind Thunder Lightning Rain Snow Fire Smoke Water Sand Earth Ocean Stream Lake Valley Mountain Stone Salt Wood, tree Leaf ''Pine' Meat Dog Coyote Bear Fox Deer Jackrabbit Rabbit Ground squirrel Eagle Goose Duck Turtle Rattlesnake San Luis Obispo Santa Ynez axsi t-axa lewi antiuk ap, mam ax ya uwu tomolo coX tixis alapa smaps alaca, qsi tawa awai k-eihimu aqiwo te-xime asaXei saXtakut, saXwet soXqon ma-eti!X-a- soXqon tuhui oqtauqo - ni tox t-o o, oa IXas cup tc-nexan s-Xami te-limi teyeX uk tspu t-X6p tepu tiip, uclomon X6p tipi pon kapi tak kani, somut hutcu, qo XoXau xus knuix wu ma qun emet slo wawa olwackola caq xcap anteg ap ax ya owa tomol ekenemo co alapa alica awai aqewu sulkux saXkut soXqo s-kuntawa tuhui kalum nu 0 cuxp s-Xami texeX uikek s-tauayik oclomol, tuptup Xdp tipi pon kap tomoL' saman tsun Xus knuex qun wawax olxwockoloix caqa xcap Santa Barbara S. Buenaventura Santa Cruz Id. ap ax 6u, 6ia halacpai icau axwai aqiwo tuhuye pOi nu ito 0 qas cupcup ma simuwu tcou XZp tip pon c-t6niwa alaxuwiil oxken p-awayic twopau aihuc ewu tomolo itcenmu nawoni tanum owai aklike oxemai kacoklo ooxqon(sic) s-kunto ne mihi -sup nutewo ulam s-tauahik eiletupun wa topai pon kapa tomop comun wutcu wo ma timeu pistuk tslo yus knix teke xcap 1910] Eroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. San Luis Obispo Santa Ynez pcoc, yox4 alimu aXumpes ts-owis ts-exu tsxumu, teumu ecin mica paksi tiyewi ksuasya, ksukuya ksuamice ekomo cumoteimaxe, skumotei tuyimili tiwapa peusi owox coyi tasun noxoae teoho, cunia aXilmuik akean noi pll kiku kai, kia qolo yila wahate kune qopu kactapin ino pwo paka5 ickom masix ckumu yitipakas yitickom yitimas6x malawa tspa tciya telu acin aqmil aLpat eXpete we qoti siniwe ilikijn lukumil ike Santa Barbara S.Buenaventutra Santa Cruz Id. tsokoix alimu aXlpes tu owox axima tasen XaX euma, tcoo aXpan kean noo pll kiku kai, ite, he ho yula uhu ayi qupu- keapin ho, i sewilx, amo paka5 ickomo masex ckumu yitipaka yitickomo yitimasex malawa tspa kelckomo, keeko tulu, keilu peta alcun aqmil alpat eXpete we qoti siniwe lIken nowo xiks owo cocoi ukstai XaX wacit muctcum no pi ki- kaki yula museil paket5 ickom masoix ckumu yitipaket yitickom yitimas6x malawa tspa kackom umu aqmil oxnei ukwe takto hilikb nawo peoc layec ulupuk te pupu astepin mu yaya anaisnems kopok noo pii mitci(sic) tuyu (8iC) itwo (sic) tetwoke (sic) talaketc teo manti pua yutua anictu ismala icteum masex ckumu sitisma siticteum sitmasex malawa spa kackum telu asta akmil wiwawi xuwate nayul naptil kakan English Snake Fish Fly Name White Black Red Large Good Bad Dead I You We This That All Much Who To-day Yesterday Yes No One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven Sixteen Eat Drink Run Sing Sleep See Kill Sit Stand Give 267 268 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 NOTES TO VOCABULARIES. 1. Southern California Shoshonean. 2. "Young woman." 3. Compare boat. 4. Yokuts yax, water-snake. 5. Serrano Shoshonean haukup, Esselen pek. KEY TO THE DIALECT GROUPS. Northwestern Central Island One teumu paha ismala Four paksi ckumu ckumu Eight ekomo malawa malawa Eleven tiwapa telu telu Stone t-Xdp X6p wa Water t-o o mihi Bow t-axa ax twopau Sky tixis alapa nawoni Father sapi qoqo seske GRAMMATICAL NOTES. The brief San Luis Obispo vocabulary shows one consistent peculiarity. All its terms except four or five, besides the nu- merals and body-part words with possessive prefix, begin with t- or tc-. Thus t-awa, moon, in other dialects awai; t-o, water, as compared with o; ts-limi, stream, versus ulam. Even adjec- tives are not excluded: ts-owis, bad, ts-exu, much, elsewhere uhu. It would appear that this prefix is a procitic article, such as ma is in the Santa Ynez dialect.38 T-he Salinan language, to which the San Luis Obispo dialect was adjacent, though so far as known unrelated, presents the almost identical circumstance that the majority of nouns commence with t-, tc-, or s-.89 The pronominal forms, which are identical whether subjec- tive or possessive, but quite distinct and suffixed instead of prefixed when objective, appear as follows: 88 Present series of publications, II, 36, 1904. 39 Ibid., 46. 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. S Y S Ba S Bv Id S L O 1 S k- k- k- 2 S p- p- p- p-, pas-, pate- p- 3 S s- s- ts- ic-, tea-, te- 1 D kis- kis- 2D pis- 3D sis- IP ki- ki- 2P pi- 3P si- The San Buenaventura dual and plural forms occur in kis- iskom, we two, and ki-masox, we three. The objective suffixes determined in Santa Ynez are -it, -lit, me, -in, -lin, -win, you, -u, us, and -un, -wun, them. The only parallels are in the prayer below. A past suffix -wac or -woc is shared at least by Santa Barbara with Santa Ynez. The plural of nouns is regularly formed by reduplication in Santa Ynez, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz Island. The process may be assumed to be characteristic of all dialects of the family. A noun-forming prefix al- appears in Santa Barbara al-kcan, dead; in San Buenaventura aL-owo, white, aL-cOcOi, black, al- ukstai, red, and possibly in alaxiiwiil, coyote; in Santa Cruz Island ala-pupu, white, alo-kopok, dead; perhaps in la-stepin, black, and al-apamai, body; and in al-amuin, man-compare Santa Ynez amun, body. San Luis Obispo Lmono, man, has perhaps the same composition. A number of Island verbs are given with the prefix na-. It seems that the Chumash dialects are comparatively uni- form in grammar in spite of their considerable lexical divergences. TEXTS. Textual material is almost wanting except for a Lord's Prayer given by Duflot de Mofras40 as in the language of Santa Ynez. This reappears with but slight variations in Ca- 40 lI, 393- 269 270 University of California Publications in Am. Arch. and Ethn. [Vol. 9 balleria y Collell's History of the City of Santa Barbara,4' where it is given in connection with notes on the language of Siujtu, Yuctu, or Yuchtu village near that town. Both texts leave much to be desired, showing obvious misreadings and words arbitrarily connected and divided; but a partial translation is possible. DUFLOT DE MOFRAS. Dios caquicoco upalequen alapa quiaenicho opte: paquininigug quique eccuet upalacs huatahue itimisshup caneche alapa. Ulamahu ilahula- lisahue. Picsiyug equepe ginsucutaniyug uquiyagmagin canechequique quisagin sucutanagun utiyagmayiyug peuxhoyug quie utic lex ulechop santequiug ilautechop. Amen. CABALLERIA. Dios cascoco upalequen Alaipai quia-enicho opte: paquini juch quique etchuet upalag cataug itimi tiup caneche Alaipai. Ulamugo ila ulalisagua piquiyup queupe guinsncuaniyup uqui amsq canequi que quisagiu sucutanajun uti-agmyiup oyup quie uti leg uleyop stequiyup il auteyup. Amen. TRANSLATION. Dios ka-ki-qoqo up-aleken' alapa kia enitco God ouLr-father thou-in sky, this (sacred) op-te p-akinini-ug2 thy-name, thy- () -us kike us ekwe up-alaks I thy-(will) watauk itimi (be done) (on) ila-ulalisa-we3 day uki-agmag-in our-owing-(them?) uti-agmai-ug I (their?)-owing-us, cup earth p-iksi-ug thou-give-us kanetce as p6xoy-ug5 (not?)-us kanetce alap as sky, q6pe to-day, kike we kie6 a ulamuhu ginsukutani-ug forgive-us ki-sa-ginsukutana-gun4 we-forgive-them utik lex uletcop (temptation) santeki-ug il-autetcop3 (deliver) -us from-evil. 41 Santa Barbara, 1892. 1910] Kroeber: The Chumash and Costanoan Languages. NOTES. 1. lilukon, in. 2. -ug or -gug appears throughout this text for the first person plural objective. Spanish g is a voiced fricative, and Chumash possesses sueh a sound in k or q position. 3. Caballeria y Collell gives, for Santa Barbara, a "dative" prepo- sition il, a "genetive" or "ablative" ul. Compare il-autetcop. 4. -sa- is perhaps the future. Compare Gatschet in Wheeler Survey VII, 485, k-caa cuun, I shall eat, ke k-caa cian, I shall not buy. 5. Possibly pwo, not, though ini- is the negative element of verbs. 6. Either kie, for kike, kiku, us, or kia, this. Caballeria also gives the Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity. The late Mr. L. G. Yates included in his valuable paper on Charmstones42 the words and translation of a Chumash song in the dialect of San Buenaventura: kayuwawille lelenimustu mesipposh sumusil I shall tell; uneasy heart charmstone kateushwen laliolio lwennew I have not sad V Another Chumash song occurs in a Yokuts myth :43 kapix, you(?) came tata, mother's brother caxcaniwac, you will die (sic; probably: have died) salialama, perhaps refrain, compare laliolio in the last song. Transmitted March 29, 1910. 42 Ann. Rep. Smiths. Inst. for 1886, 296, 1889. 43 Present series, IV, 242, 1907. The dialect represented is most likely to be that of the mountains to the north of San Buenaventura. If so, it does not differ greatly from the idiom of San Buenaventura, Santa Barbara, and Santa Ynez. The tradition is localized in Chumash terri- tory, and may be of Chumash origin. 271 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS-(CONTINUED) Note.-The University of California Publications are offered in exchange for the publi- cations of leamed societies and institutions, niversities and libraries Complete lis of all the publicationsof the University will be sent upon request. For sample copies, lists of publication or other information, addrem the Manager of the University Press, Berkeley, aliora, IU. S. A. All matter sent in exchge should be addred to The Exchange Department, University Library, Berkeley, California, U. S. A. ASTRONOMY.-W. W. Campbell, Editor. (Lick Observatory, Mt. on, Cal.) Publications of the Lick Observatory.-Volumeo I-V, VIU, and X completed. Volumes VII and IX In progress. BOTANY.-W. A. Setchell, Editor. Price per volume $3.50. Volumes I (pp. 418), II (pp. 354), and I3m (pp. 400), completed. Volume IV (in progress). CLASSICAL PEILOLOGY.-Edward B. Clapp, William A. Merrill, Herbert C. Nutting, Editors. Price per volume $2.00. Volume I (pp. 270) completed. Volume 3I (in -progre). ECONOMICS.-A. C. Miller, Editor. EDUCATION.-Edited by the Department of Education. Price per volume $2.50. ENGI1NERING.-Edited under the direction of the Engineering Departments. This series will contain contributiobs from the Colleges of Mechanics, WMiing, and Civil Engi- neering. Volume I (in progress). GEOLOGY.-Bulletin of the Department of Geology. Andrew C. Lawson, Editor. Price per volume $3.50. Volumes I (pp. 428), II (pp. 450), ImI (475), and IV (462), com- pleted. Volume V (in progres). MODERN PHILOLOGY.-Volume I in progress. PATHOLOGY.-Alonzo Englebert Taylor, Editor. Price per volume, $2.50. Volume I (pp. 347) completed. PH[LOSOPHY.-G. E. Howison, Editor. Volume I (pp. 262), completed. Volume II (in progress). Price per volume $2.00. PHYSIOLOGY-S. S. Maxwell, Editor. Price per volume $2.00. Volume I (pp. 217) com- pleted. Volume II (pp. 215) completed. Volume m (in progress). PSYCHOLOGY.-George M. Stratton, Editor. Vol I (in progress). ZOOLOGIY.-W. E. Bitter and C. A. Kofoid, Editors. Price per volume $3.50. Volumes I (pp. 317), II (pp. 382), m (pp. 383), and IV (pp. 400)), completed. Volumes V and VI in progress. Commencing with Volume II, this series contains Contribu- tions from the Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association of San Diego. MEMOIRS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. (Quarto.) Vol. 1. 1. Triassic Ichthyosauria, with special reference to the American Forms, by John C. Merriam. Pp. 1-196, plates 1-18; 154 text igures. Sep- tember, 1908 ......... $3.00 2. The Silva of Califoria, by W. L. Jepson. (In press.) UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CH3RONICLE.-An official record of University life, issued quarterly, edited by a committee of the Faculty. Price, $1.00 per year. Cur- rent volume No. XII. ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETINS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CATLFORNIA.-Edited by the Recorder of the Faculties. Includes the Register, the President's Report, the Secretary's Report, and other offcial announcements. Address all orders or requests for information concerning the above publications to The 'University Press, Berkeley, California. European-agent for the series in American Archaeology and Ethnology, asMsical Phil- ology, Education, Modem Philology, Philosophy, and Semitic Philology, Otto Harrassowitz, Leipzig. For the series in Botany, Geology, Pathology, Physiology, Zoology -and also Amer- ican Archaeology and Ethnology, B. 1'riediaender & Sohn, Berlin. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS-(CONTINUED) Vol. 8. 1. A Mission lecord of the California Indians, from a Manuscript in the Bancroft Library, by A. L. Eroeber. Pp. 1-27. May, 1908 ............ .25 2. The Ethnography of the Cahuilla Indians, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 29- 68, plates 1-15. July, 1908 ............................. . _ .............. .75 3. The Religion of the Lusefilo and Diegueflo Indians of Southern Cali- fornia, by Constance Goddard Dubois. Pp. 69-186, plates 16-19. June, 1908 .1.25 4. The Culture of the Luiseflo Indians, by Philip Stedman Sparkman. Pp. 187-234, plate 20. August, 1908 ..................... ........ . ... . .50 5. Notes on Shoshoi%ean Dialects of Southern California, by A. L. Kroe- ber. Pp. 235-269. September, 1909 ...................................................... .35 6. The Religious Practices of the Diegueflo Indians, by T. T. Waterman. Pp. 271-358, plates 21-28. March, 1910 ................80 Vol. 9. 1. Yana Texts, by Edward Sapir, together with Yana Myths collected by Roland B. Dixon. Pp. 1-235. February, 1910 .................................... 2.50 2. The Chumash and Costanoan Languages, by A. L. Kroeber. Pp. 237- 271. November, 1910 .........................................................5................ 35 Volumes now completed: Volume 1. 1903-1904. 378 pages and 30 plates . ............................. .......................... $4.25 Volume 2. 1904-1907. 393 pages and 21 plates .............................................................. 3.50 Volume 3. 1905. The Morphology of the Hupa Language. 344 pages .................... 3.50 Volume 4. 1906-1907. 374 pages, with 5 tables, 10 plates, and map ............. ............ 3.50 Volume 5. 1907-1910. 384 pages, with 25 plates ...........-........................................... 3.50 Volume 6. 1908. 400 pages, with 3 maps ...... .......................... 3.50 Volume 7. 1907-1910. 441 pages and 50 plates ............................................................. 3.50 GRAECO-ROMAN ARCHAEOLOGlr. (Large Octavo.) (Published by the Oxford Univer- sity Press.) Vol. 1. The Tebtunis Papyri, Part 1. 1902. Edited by Bernard P. Grenfell, Arthur S. Hunt, and J. Gilbart Smyly. xix + 674 pages, with 9 plates. Price .. . . . . .......... -...-16.00 Vol. 2. The Tebtunis Papyri, Part 2. 1907. Edited by Bernard P. Grenfell, Arthur S.. Hunt, and Edgar J. Goodspeed. xv + 485 pages, with 2 col- lotype plates and a map ......................................... .............................. 16.00 Vol. 3. The Tebtunis Papyri. Part 3. (In preparation.) EGYPTIAN ARLCHAEOLOGY. (Quarto.) Vol. 1. The Hearst Medical Papyrus. Edited by G. A. Beisner. Hieratic text in 17 fac-simile plates in collotype, with introduction and vocabu- lary, pages 48, 1905. (J. C. Hlnrichs, Leipzig, 25 marks.) Vol. 2. Early Dynastic Cemeteries of Naga-ed-Der, Part I, by George A. Reisner. xii + 160 pages, with 80 plates and 211 text figures. 1908. (J. C. EHn- richs, Leipzig, 75 marks.) Vol. 3. The Early Dynastic Cemeteries at Naga-ed-Der, Part II, by A. C. Mace. xi + 88 pages, with 60 plates and 123 text figures. 1909. (J. C. Hin- richs, Leipzig, 50 marks.) Vol. 4. The Predynastic Cemetery at Naga-ed-Der. The Anatomical Material, by Eliott Smith. (In preparation.) Vol. 5. The Cemetery of the Second and Third Dynasties at Naga-ed-Der, by A. C. Mace. (In press.) Vol. 6. The Cemetery of the Third and Fourth Dynasties at Naga-ed-Der, by G. A. Beisner. (In preparation.) Vol. 7. The Coptic Cemeteries of Naga-ed-Der, by A. C. Mace. (In preparation.) SPECIAL VOLUMES. The Book of the Life of the Ancient Mexicans, containing an account of their rites and superstitions; an anonymous Hispano-American manuscript preserved In the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence, Italy. Reproduced in fac-simile, with introduction, translation, and commentary, by Zelia Nuttall Part I. Preface, Introduction, and 80 fac-simile plates in colors. 1903. Part I1. Translation and Commentary. (In press.) Price for the two parts $ ...$25.00 Fac-simTile of a Map of the City and Valley of Mexico, by Alonzo de Santa Cmrz, Cosmographer of Philip II of Spain. Explanatory text by Zelia Nuttall. Map in 7 sheets, 17 X 20 inches. (In preparation.) The Department of Anthropology, Its istory and Plan, 1905. Sent free on appli- cation to the Department, or to the University Press.