Oto-Manguean languages

Oto-Manguean
Geographic distribution	Currently Mexico; previously Mesoamerica and Central America
Linguistic classification	One of the world's primary language families
Subdivisions	Oto-Pamean Chinantecan Tlapanecan Manguean † Popolocan Zapotecan Amuzgo Mixtecan
ISO 639-5	omq
Glottolog	otom1299
Pre-contact distribution of the Oto-Manguean languages in Mexico and Central America
The Oto-Manguean languages within Mexico.

The Oto-Manguean or Otomanguean /ˌoʊtoʊˈmæŋɡiːən/ languages are a large family comprising several subfamilies of indigenous languages of the Americas. All of the Oto-Manguean languages that are now spoken are indigenous to Mexico, but the Manguean branch of the family, which is now extinct, was spoken as far south as Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Oto-Manguean is widely viewed as a proven language family. However, this status has been recently challenged.^[1]

The highest number of speakers of Oto-Manguean languages today are found in the state of

have over 500,000 speakers combined. In the linguistic world of Mesoamerica, the Otomanguean family stands out as the most diverse and extensively distributed.

Some Oto-Manguean languages are moribund or highly endangered; for example, Ixcatec and Matlatzinca each have fewer than 250 speakers, most of whom are elderly. Other languages particularly of the Manguean branch which was spoken outside of Mexico have become extinct; these include the Chiapanec language, which was declared extinct after 1990. Others such as Subtiaba, which was most closely related to Me'phaa (Tlapanec), have been extinct longer and are only known from early 20th century descriptions.

The Oto-Manguean language family is the most diverse and most geographically widespread language family represented in Mesoamerica. The internal diversity is comparable with that of

.

However Oto-Manguean also stands out from the other language families of Mesoamerica in several features. It is the only language family in

) in basic order of clausal constituents.

Overview

History of classification

Internal classification and reconstruction

A genetic relationship between Zapotecan and Mixtecan was first proposed by

.

From the 1950s on reconstructive work began to be done on individual Oto-Manguean language groups. Proto-Oto-Pamean was reconstructed by Doris Bartholomew, Proto-Zapotecan by Morris Swadesh, Proto-Chiapanec–Mangue by Fernández de Miranda and Weitlaner. The classification by Campbell 1997 was the first to present a unified view of the Oto-Manguean languages. In 1981, William Merrifield published a reconstruction of the kinship terminologies of each of the Oto-Manguean branches and of Proto-Oto-Manguean. Unpublished reconstructions of Proto-Oto-Manguean grammar have also been made by Terrence Kaufman.^[4]

In spite of the lack of a full published reconstruction of proto-Oto-Manguean, the language family has now been widely accepted by specialists, including Lyle Campbell, Terrence Kaufman, and William Poser. Campbell and Poser writing in 2008 concluded that ""Tlapanec-Subtiaba proved not to belong to 'Hokan' as postulated by Sapir (1925a), but to be a branch of Otomanguean ..."" Nonetheless, a few studies have retained the inclusion in Hokan, particularly Joseph Greenberg's widely rejected 1987 classification,^[5] as well as its derivative works by Merritt Ruhlen.^[6] Writing in 1988, Leonardo Manrique still listed Tlapanec-Mangue as an isolated family.^[7]

The status of the Amuzgo language as either a part of the Mixtecan group or as forming its own branch from the proto-Oto-Manguean node has been discussed by Longacre, who argued for the latter,^[8] but the currently most accepted classification by Campbell (1997) follows Terrence Kaufman in considering Amuzgo to be a branch of Mixtecan. Swadesh (1960) and Rensch included the Huave language as a separate branch within Oto-Manguean, but this inclusion has proved untenable as most of the cognates were loan-words from Zapotec. Huave is now considered an isolate.^[9]

Longacre (1968) considered Oto-Manguean to be among the most extensively studied language families of the world, with a level of reconstruction rivaling the

in completeness, but Kaufman and Justeson (2009) reject this, lamenting the rudimentary reconstruction of Proto-Oto-Manguean lexicon (only c. 350 items have been reconstructed) and grammar. They call for a redoubling of the effort to document and reconstruct several important branches that have received little attention: principally Mixtecan, Popolocan and Oto-Pamean.

Brown (2015) evaluates evidence assembled in support of Oto-Manguean. He points out that vocabulary reconstructed for Proto-Oto-Manguean is not supported by regular sound correspondences. While scholars, including Swadesh, Rensch, and Kaufman, have all reconstructed POM words, none have done so with the benefit of detailed sound correspondences and, consequently Brown argues that their reconstructions as well as Oto-Manguean itself are called into question. Nevertheless, Brown (2015) suggests that Oto-Manguean as Sprachbund (language diffusion area) is a reasonable alternative hypothesis to the proposal of Oto-Manguean as a language family.^[10]

Inclusion in macro-family hypotheses

Some early classifications such as that by Brinton, considered that Oto-Manguean languages might be related to

No hypotheses including Oto-Manguean in any higher-level unit have been able to withstand scrutiny.

Prehistory

The Oto-Manguean family has existed in southern Mexico at least since 2000 BCE and probably several thousand years before,[13] some estimates using the controversial method of glottochronology suggest an approximate splitting date of Proto-Otomanguean at c. 4400 BCE.^[14] This makes the Oto-Manguean family the language family of the Americas with the deepest time depth, as well as the oldest language family with evidence of tonal contrast in the proto-language.^[15]

The Oto-Manguean

The long history of the Oto-Manguean family has resulted in considerable linguistic diversity between the branches of the family.

Mesoamerican linguistic area

.

Oto-Mangue speakers have been among the earliest to form highly complex cultures of Mesoamerica: the archeological site of Monte Albán with remains dated as early as 1000 BCE is believed to have been in continuous use by Zapotecs. The undeciphered Zapotec script is one of the earliest forms of Mesoamerican writing.

Other Mesoamerican cultural centers which may have been wholly or partly Oto-Manguean include the late classical sites of

saw themselves relocated from their ancient homes in the Valley of Mexico to the less fertile highlands on the rim of the valleys.

Geography and demographics

Western branch

Oto-Pamean

The languages of the

(c. 200 speakers).

Otomi is traditionally described as a single language, although its many dialects are not all mutually intelligible. The language classification of the SIL International's

Chinantecan

The Chinantecan languages are spoken by c. 93,000 people in Northern Oaxaca and Southern Veracruz in the districts of Cuicatlán, Ixtlán de Juárez, Tuxtepec and Choapan. The Ethnologue recognizes 14 separate varieties with separate ISO codes.

Tlapanec–Mangue

The Tlapanec language is spoken by c. 75,000 people in Guerrero. There are four principal varieties named after the communities where they are spoken: Acatepec, Azoyú, Malinaltepec and Tlacoapa. Recent labor migrations have introduced Tlapanec speaking communities to the state of Morelos. It was closely related to the Subtiaba language which was spoken in Nicaragua but which is now extinct.

The

by a handful of speakers in the 1990s, but is now extinct.

Eastern branch

Popolocan

The Popolocan language group includes the seven different varieties of

whistled speech

.

Zapotecan

The Zapotecan subgroup is formed by the Zapotec languages (c. 785,000 speakers of all varieties) and the related Chatino languages (c. 23,000 speakers). They are all traditionally spoken in central and southern Oaxaca, but have been spread throughout Mexico and even into the United States through recent labor related migrations.

Zapotec languages and dialects fall into four broad geographic divisions: Zapoteco de la Sierra Norte (Northern Zapotec), Valley Zapotec, Zapoteco de la Sierra Sur (Southern Zapotec), and Isthmus Zapotec. Northern Zapotec languages are spoken in the mountainous region of Oaxaca, in the Northern Sierra Madre mountain ranges; Southern Zapotec languages and are spoken in the mountainous region of Oaxaca, in the Southern Sierra Madre mountain ranges; Valley Zapotec languages are spoken in the Valley of Oaxaca, and Isthmus Zapotec languages are spoken in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The Ethnologue recognizes 57 varieties of Zapotec and 6 varieties of Chatino by distinct ISO codes.

Mixtecan–Amuzgoan

The Mixtecan branch includes the many different, mutually unintelligible varieties of Mixtec spoken by about 511,000 people as well as the

Four

Phonology

Common phonological traits

All Oto-Manguean languages have tone: some have only two level tones while others have up to five level tones. Many languages in addition have a number of contour tones. Many Oto-Manguean languages have phonemic vowel nasalization. Many Oto-Manguean languages lack labial consonants, particularly stops and those that do have labial stops normally have these as a reflex of Proto-Oto-Manguean */kʷ/.^[23]

Tone systems

The Oto-Manguean languages have a wide range of tonal systems, some with as many as 10 tone contrasts and others with only two. Some languages have a register system only distinguishing tones by the relative pitch. Others have a contour system that also distinguishes tones with gliding pitch. Most, however, are combinations of the register and contour systems. Tone as a distinguishing feature is entrenched in the structure of the Oto-Manguean languages and in no way a peripheral phenomenon as it is in some languages that are known to have acquired tone recently or which are in a process of losing it. In most Oto-Manguean languages tone serves to distinguish both between the meanings of roots and to indicate different grammatical categories. In Chiquihuitlan Mazatec which has four tones the following minimal pairs occur: cha¹ /tʃa˥/ "I talk", cha² /tʃa˦/ "difficult", cha³ /tʃa˧/ "his hand" cha⁴ /tʃa˩/ "he talks".^[24]

The language with the most level tones is Usila

In Copala

, which has a mixed system, only three level tones but five tonal registers are distinguished within the contour tones.

Many other systems have only three tone levels, such as

.

Particularly common in the

only have the level tones and no contour.

In some languages, stress influences tone. For example, in Pame, only stressed syllables have a tonal contrast. In Mazahua, the opposite occurs, and all syllables except the final stressed one distinguish tone. In Tlapanec, stress is determined by the tonal contour of the words. Most languages have systems of tone sandhi where the tones of a word or syllable are influenced by other tones in other syllables or words. Chinantec has no Sandhi rules, but Mixtec and Zapotec have elaborate systems. For Mazatec, some dialects have elaborate Sandhi systems (e.g. Soyaltepec) and others do not (e.g. Huautla Mazatec). Some languages (particularly Mixtecan) also have tone terracing where some tones "upstep" or "downstep", causing a rise or drop in pitch level for the entire tonal register in subsequent syllables.

Whistled speech

Several Oto-Manguean languages have systems of whistled speech, where by whistling the tonal combinations of words and phrases, information can be transmitted over distances without using words. Whistled speech is particularly common in Chinantec, Mazatec and Zapotecan languages.

Proto-language

Proto-Oto-Manguean
Reconstruction of	Oto-Manguean languages

Syllable structure

Proto-Oto-Manguean allowed only open syllables of the structure CV (or CVʔ). Syllable initial consonant clusters are very limited, usually only sibilant-CV, CyV, CwV, nasal-CV, ChV, or CʔV are allowed. Many modern Oto-Manguean languages keep these restrictions in syllable structure but others, most notably the Oto-Pamean languages, now allow both final clusters and long syllable initial clusters. This example with three initial and three final consonants is from

Phonemes

The following phonemes are reconstructed for Proto-Oto-Manguean.[26]

Rensch also reconstructs four tones for Proto-Oto-Manguean.^[27] A later revised reconstruction by Terrence Kaufman^[28] adds the proto-phonemes */ts/, */θ/, */x/, */xʷ/, */l/, */r/, */m/ and */o/, and the vowel combinations */ia/, */ai/, */ea/, and */au/.

The Oto-Manguean languages have changed quite a lot from the very spartan phoneme inventory of Proto-Oto-Manguean. Many languages have rich inventories of both vowels and consonants. Many have a full series of fricatives, and some branches (particularly Zapotecan and Chinantecan) distinguish voicing in both stops and fricatives. The voiced series of the Oto-Pamean languages have both fricative and stop allophones. Otomian also have full series of front, central and back vowels. Some analyses of Mixtecan include a series of voiced prenasalised stops and affricates; these can also be analysed as consonant sequences but it would be the only consonant clusters known in the languages.

These are some of the most simple sound changes that have served to divide the Oto-Manguean family into subbranches:

*/t/ to /tʃ/ in Chatino

*/kʷ/ to /p/ in Manguean, Oto-Pame, and Isthmus Zapotec

*/s/ to /θ/ in Mixtecan

*/s/ to /t/ in Chatino

*/w/ to /o/ before vowels in Oto-Pame

*/j/ to /i/ before vowels in

Amuzgo

Lexicon

The following lexical reconstructions of Proto-Oto-Manguean are from Kaufman (1983).^[29] The reconstructions are tentative, and are hence marked using two asterisks (**).

gloss	Proto-Oto-Manguean
to sit	**hku
to dawn	**(n)xə(n)
fire; fever	**xi
three	**hɔ(n)
to choose	**xʷə
to blow; to whistle	**xʷi
ripe	**hwe
to die	**(h)wə
flattened; squashed	**(ʔ)ma(h)
root	**mA
cloud; dew; rain	**nwa
to weave	**(n)wa
to hit	**(n)pah
bark	**kʷa
deer	**kʷa
rabbit	**kVwa
cocoa beans; edible pod	**kVwa
cure; medicine; herb	**lya
road	**lyɔ
flower	**lih
salt	**re(n)
sugar cane	**ro
eight	**(h)Nye
two	**(n)yU
hand	**(n)ya
teeth	**ʔ(Y)nu
and	**ʔ(Y)ne
bad	**cɔ
grindstone	**ci
Indian	**sa(n)
up	**sɔ
word	**ʔɔn
turkey hen	**ʔO
opening	**ʔA
to bury	**ʔA
to shake	**(n)pi
little	**ci
slowly	**(h,n)wi
two	**wi
hard; stone; metal	**kɨ
to defecate	**tɨ
butterfly	**seh
short	**ʔte
elbow	**me
early evening; dark	**nə
eye	**(n)tə
I	**na
nopal	**nʔta
to work	**ʔta
leaf	**kɔ
this	**lɔ
dog	**lyɔ
net	**nɔ
fingernail	**-ku
cornfield	**nu
water jug	**su
to close	**ko
milk	**co
just, only	**to
Indian	**Hwi(n)
to die	**tɨ(n)
seed	**kyen
corndough	**l/c-ɔxen
corncob	**re(n)
deep	**xən
ear of corn	**yən
blood	**yən(h)
hail	**can
nine	**Xa(n)
night, dusk; dream, sleep	**yan
honeybee	**yɔn
thorn	**yɔn
black	**tun
oven	**tun
mother	**co(n)
yellow	**næ
sing; pray; music	**sæ
to do	**cæ
to dance	**tæ
cactus	**lawæ
market	**ʔwæ
to bathe	**sæ
corn	**sæ(n)ʔ
skin, bark	**tuwa
animal	**kiyɔ
foot	**c/l-a(h)ku
sharp	**cɪʔyə
ear	**l/y-ɔkɔ(n)
blood; meat	**ryi(+)ne
ixtle	**siya
guts; heart	**(n)seʔə(n)
white	**tyuwa
mouth	**c/l-oʔwɔ
mountain; cliff	**xeyA
coyote	**(n)aʔyu
squash	**lɔken
cotton	**syi lyɔ
cotton cloth	**lyɔ tyE
wide; far; long	**si (n)tU
infant; small	**weʔ ne
nose	**syi (n)yɨn
house; fence; church	**(n)ku ʔwa

Notes

References

• S2CID 144874022
  .
• Brinton, Daniel G. (1886). "Notes on the Mangue; An Extinct Dialect Formerly Spoken in Nicaragua". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 23 (122): 238–257.
• Brown, Cecil H. (2015). "Paleobiolinguistics of New World Crops and the Otomanguean Language Family". Ethnobiology Letters. 6 (1): 189–191.
  doi:10.14237/ebl.6.1.2015.436
  .
• ISBN 978-0-19-509427-5
  .
• Fernández de Miranda, Mariá Teresa; Roberto J. Weitlaner (1961). "Sobre Algunas Relaciones de la Familia Mangue". Anthropological Linguistics. 3 (7): 1–99.
• Josserand, J. Kathryn; Winter, Marcus; Hopkins, Nicholas (1984). Essays in Otomanguean Culture History. Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology.
• S2CID 163094506
  .
• Kaufman, Terrence (2015). Early Oto-Mangean homelands and cultures: some premature hypotheses (PDF). Project for the Documentation of the Languages of Mesoamerica (PDLMA).
• OCLC 277126
  .
• S2CID 143879066
  .
• Merrifield, William R (1981). Proto Otomanguean kinship. International Museum of Cultures Publication, 11. Dallas:
  Summer Institute of Linguistics
  .
• Newman, Stanley; Weitlaner, Roberto (1950a). "Central Otomian I:Proto-Otomian reconstructions". International Journal of American Linguistics. 16 (1): 1–19.
  S2CID 144486505
  .
• Newman, Stanley; Weitlaner, Roberto (1950b). "Central Otomian II:Primitive central otomian reconstructions". International Journal of American Linguistics. 16 (2): 73–81.
  S2CID 143618683
  .
• Rensch, Calvin (1977). "Classification of the Oto-Manguean Languages and the position of Tlapanec" (PDF). In David Oltrogge; Calvin Rensch (eds.). Two Studies in Middle American Comparative Linguistics. Publications in Linguistics, Publication Number 55.
  Summer Institute of Linguistics
  . pp. 53–108.
• doi:10.1525/aa.1925.27.3.02a00040
  .
• Sicoli, Mark A. (2005). "Oto-Manguean languages". In Philipp Strazny (ed.). Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Fitzroy Dearborn. pp. 797–800.
• ISBN 978-968-16-4116-0
  .
• Suárez, Jorge A. (1977). El tlapaneco como lengua Otomangue (in Spanish). México, D.F.:
  Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México
  .
• Suárez, Jorge A. (1983). The Mesoamerican Indian Languages. Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge:
  ISBN 978-0-521-22834-3
  .

External links

Wiktionary has a list of reconstructed forms at Appendix:Proto-Oto-Manguean reconstructions

• Comparative Swadesh vocabulary lists for Oto-Manguean languages (from Wiktionary)
• Feist, Timothy & Enrique L. Palancar. (2015). Oto-Manguean Inflectional Case Database. https://oto-manguean.surrey.ac.uk/University of Surrey. doi:10.15126/SMG.28/1
• SIL on the Oto-Manguean Stock
• "Why you should study an endangered Oto-Manguean language" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 December 2006. Retrieved 30 December 2006. (82.9 
  KiB
  ), by Rosemary Beam de Azcona
• Feist, Timothy, Matthew Baerman, Greville G. Corbett & Erich Round. 2019. Surrey Lexical Splits Visualisations (Chichimec). University of Surrey. Chichimec verb paradigm visualisations . https://lexicalsplits.surrey.ac.uk/chichimec.html