Amerind languages

Amerind is a widely rejected higher-level language family proposed by Joseph Greenberg in 1960 and elaborated by his student Merritt Ruhlen. Greenberg proposed that all of the indigenous languages of the Americas belong to one of three language families, the previously established Eskimo–Aleut and Na–Dene, and with everything else—otherwise classified by specialists as belonging to dozens of independent families—as Amerind. Because of a large number of methodological issues with the 1987 book Language in the Americas, the relationships he proposed between these languages have been rejected by the majority of historical linguists as spurious.

!Language

!Family

!1sg

!2sg

!Karok

|(isolate)

|na

|'im

!Kiliwa

|Yuman

|ñap

|may

!Nahuatl

|Uto-Aztecan

|no-

|mo-

!Arhuaco

|Chibchan

|nən

|ma

!Aymara

|Aymaran

|na<u>ya</u>

|juma

!Mapudungun

|Araucanian

| -n

|eymi, -m

The main argument for the validity of Amerind is a pronominal pattern in many Native American languages that have first-person forms with n and second-person forms with m. This pattern was first noted by Alfredo Trombetti in 1905. Sapir suggested that it indicated that ultimately all Native American languages would turn out to be related. However, it is not universal, being confined primarily to western North America and to a lesser extent Mesoamerica; the incidence elsewhere is not statistically significant, and in western North American it is more an argument for the Hokan and Penutian phyla than for Amerind.

Gender

Ruhlen reconstructed a morphological (ablaut) gender system for proto-Amerind, with masculine kinship terms containing the vowel *i and feminine the vowel *u, that he claims proves Greenberg's reconstruction. This is based on Greenberg's *t'a'na "child", to which Ruhlen adds a masculine derivation *t'i'na "son, boy" and a feminine *t'u'na "daughter, girl".

Unlike the n-/m- pattern in the pronouns, an intact i/u gender system is not attested across language families, and the consensus is that the pattern is a spurious one.

Reception

The consensus among historical linguists specializing in Native American languages is that the Amerind hypothesis is unsupported by valid evidence, particularly because the basis for the proposal is mass comparison, but also because of many other methodological flaws made by Greenberg in the elaboration of the hypothesis. Critics regard this technique as fundamentally flawed, unable to distinguish chance resemblances from those due to a historical relationship among the languages and providing no means of distinguishing resemblances due to common descent from those due to language contact. In addition, critics have pointed out errors in the citation of data, including erroneous forms, erroneous glosses, unjustified morphological segmentation, attribution to the wrong language, and citation of entirely spurious forms. For example, a supposed Lencan language "Membreno" was actually the misspelled name of , an author for a book he cited, and all the listed words for Quapaw were from either Ofo or Biloxi.

Classification

The 1960 proposal, in its outlines, was as follows:

Amerind
Almosan-Keresiouan
Hokan
Penutian (incl. Macro-Mayan)
Aztec-Tanoan
Oto-Manguean
Purépecha
Macro-Chibchan
Chibchan
Paezan
Andean–Equatorial
Andean
Jivaroan
Macro-Tucanoan
Equatorial (with Macro-Arawakan and Tupian)
Ge–Pano–Carib
Macro-Ge
Macro-Panoan
Macro-Carib
Nambikwara
Huarpe
Taruma

Below is the current state of Amerindian classification, as given in An Amerind Etymological Dictionary, by Joseph Greenberg and Merritt Ruhlen, Stanford University, 2007.

Amerind
North–Central Amerind
Northern Amerind
Almosan–Keresiouan
Almosan
Algic
Kutenai
Mosan
Chimakuan
Salishan
Wakashan
Keresiouan
Caddoan
Iroquoian
Keresan
Siouan–Yuchi
Siouan
Yuchi
Penutian–Hokan
Penutian
Tsimshian
Chinook
Oregon
Plateau
California
Maiduan
Miwok–Costanoan
Wintun
Yokutsan
Zuni
Gulf
Atakapa
Chitimacha
Muskogean
Natchez
Tunica
Yukian
Yuki
Wappo
Mexican Penutian
Huave
Mayan
Mixe–Zoque
Totonac
Hokan
Northern Hokan
Karok–Shasta
Karok
Chimariko
Shasta–Achomawi
Shasta
Achomawi
Yana
Pomoan
Washo
Salinan–Chumash
Salinan
Chumash
Esselen
Seri–Yuman
Seri
Yuman
Waicuri–Quinigua
Waicuri
Maratino
Quinigua
Coahuiltecan
Tequistlatec
Subtiaba
Jicaque
Yurumangui
Central Amerind
Tanoan
Uto-Aztekan
Oto-Manguean
Southern Amerind
Andean–Chibchan–Paezan
Chibchan–Paezan
Macro-Chibchan
Cuitlatec
Lenca
Chibchan (including Misumalpan)
Paya
Purépecha
Yanomam
Yunca–Puruhan
Macro-Paezan
Allentiac
Atacama
Betoi
Chimu
Itonama
Jirajara
Mura
Paezan
Timucua
Warrao
Andean
Aymara
Itucale–Sabela
Itucale
Mayna
Sabela
Cahuapana–Zaparo
Cahuapana
Zaparo
Northern Andean
Catacao
Cholona
Culli
Leco
Sechura
Quechua
Southern Andean
Qawasqar
Mapudungu
Gennaken
Chon
Yamana
Equatorial–Tucanoan
Equatorial
Macro-Arawakan
Guahibo
Katembri
Otomaco
Tinigua
Arawakan
Arawa
Maipuran
Chapacura
Guamo
Uro (including Puquina)
Cayuvava
Coche
Jivaro–Kandoshi
Cofán
Esmeralda
Jivaro
Kandoshi
Yaruro
Kariri–Tupi
Piaroa
Taruma
Timote
Trumai
Tusha
Yuracaré
Zamuco
Macro-Tucanoan
Auixiri
Canichana
Capixana
Catuquina
Gamella
Huari
Iranshe
Kaliana–Maku
Koaia
Movima
Muniche
Nambikwara
Natu
Pankaruru
Puinave
Shukuru
Ticuna–Yuri
Tucanoan
Uman
Ge–Pano–Carib
Macro-Carib
Andoke
Bora–Uitoto
Carib
Kukura [spurious]
Yagua
Macro-Panoan
Charruan
Lengua
Lule–Vilela
Mataco–Guaicuru
Moseten
Pano–Tacanan
Macro-Gê
Bororo
Botocudo
Caraja
Chiquito
Erikbatsa
Fulnio
Ge–Kaingang
Guató
Kamakan
Mashakali
Opaie
Oti
Puri
Yabuti

Amerind languages

Gender

Reception

Classification

See also

Notes