READ THIS FIRST:

  1. This article was originaly published in South American Indian Languages: Retrospect and Prospect; Edited by Harriet E. Manelis and Louisa R. Stark. University of Texas Press, Austin, 1985. We have the respective permission from the University of Texas Press (UTPRESS) for electronic re-print of this document. Requests for permission to reproduce this article should be sent to Permissions, University of Texas Press, Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819.
  2. This document is re-published in the hope that it will be useful, but not necessarily the maintainer of this site agree with the ideas contained in the document.
  3. Notice that the alphabet used for Aymara, in this article, is the the Yapita's alphabet. See the alphabet equivalence tables

Aymara and Quechua : Languages in Contact

By

M. J. Hardman

When the Spaniards conquered Peru -- the Great Peru which was the Inca Empire extending from Pasto in Colombia to Argentina and from the Pacific Ocean to the borders of the Amazon jungle, they where met with innumerable languages -- the chronicles comment again and again that "every town has its language". It was, however, usually possible to get along with the "general language" of the incas, if not with the people themselves, them at least with the governors and priests. This language came to be called Quechua, which means "of the temperate valleys". This term, in time, applied to all members of the Quechua family, including those very distinct from each other and from the Cuzco variety, such as those of Huancayo and Ecuador, although these varieties where not originally included in the meaning of "lengua general".

As commonly happens in human history, political forces resulted in conferring prestige on one particular form of language fortuitously linked with military and/or political power. Thus the Quechua of Cuzco came to be held to be the "most pure", "most ancient", "most correct", "most expressive" form of Quechua, and indeed, "mother of all languages" (of the Andes) simply by having been, at the moment of the arrival of the Spaniards, the language the Incas where using for conquest purposes. To complete the irony, the Spaniards continue using this language for the same purpose, but it was now the European conquest that spread the Imperial language of the incas. The Quechua language under the aegis of the Spaniards spread further than had ever been the case under the Incas, and in the process caused the disappearance of numerous languages spoken by small groups. the particular form of Quechua that was spread (after some initial play with the Chinchay variety) was Cuzco Quechua.

The beliefs about the relative purity, age, elegance, etc., of Cuzco Quechua where, of course, political fictions with no base's in linguistic reality. [1] Rather, by becoming a language of conquest, it was more exposed to outside influences, and, upon being adopted by people s with another mother tongue, it would inevitably suffer even further innovations through interference. Cuzco Quechua shows strong evidence of precisely these processes: within the Quechua linguistic family it is the most innovative and shows the largest number of adaptations traceable to influences of other languages (Torero 1975).

The political position of Cuzco Quechua has led to endless speculation concerning its relationship to the other languages of the Andes. Of particular interest for political reasons, is the relationship of Quechua to the Aymara Language. [2] The same political interplay which led to the spread of Cuzco Quechua left the Aymara language in the shadows, leading the majority of he people who have written about Aymara, and the populace in general, to consider it some sort of derivative of Quechua. Although Cuzco Quechua is indeed, the member of this family most influenced by Aymara, and Aymara in its turn, is the member of its family most influenced by Quechua, they are not, as we will show here, related in the linguistic sense. Contrary to many proposals of common origin, Aymara and Quechua could not have derived from a single mother tongue, certainly not within the last 50.000 years and not in the Andes.

Since the issue of contact vs. common origin is not an issue to be taken lightly, we will first argue against the proposals of common origin and then argue for the significance of language contact.

The authors most known in the linguistic world for the proposal of common origin are Orr and Longacre (1968). I contend here, as i have done elsewhere (Hardman 1966b, 1978a, 1979) that inadequate data, poorly collected and insufficiently analyzed has led these authors to a faulty conclusion for example, the data chosen for comparison by Orr and Longacre came precisely from Cuzco Quechua and Aymara, with little regard for other Quechua language and no data at all from the sister languages of Aymara. This should not have occurred because Torero (1964) had already published materials relevant to Quechua, and Hardman (1966a) had already published a grammar of Jaqaru. Unpublished materials where also offered, but rejected by the authors as not useful. [3]

The article of Orr and Longacre and its hypothesis of the proto-language *Quechuamaran is based on a list of 531 words of which 253 are presumed Quechua/Aymara cognates, that is 47 percent. This figure presumes the separation of the languages in the Andes where they are still spoken even today and where, during the entire period, they have lived in continuos interaction. This 47 percent comes from a list chosen purposely to include as many cognates as possible for these two languages living side by side or even, in some places, together. It is very difficult to believe so small a percentage for two languages descended from the same mother tongue differentiating in the very area where they are still spoken. Language change does not work that way in any normal circumstances.

Even more critically, of the 253 that are claimed to be cognates, 25 percent (63 items) must be eliminated from consideration because they are either non-existent forms, incorrectly stated forms, or complex forms poorly analyzed. Thus there remain 190 forms where there would appear to be some genuine similarity between Aymara and Quechua -- 35 percent of the original list.

Of these 190 words, 46 percent have a phonological structure that points to borrowing from Jaqi into Quechua rather than historical correspondence. This high percentage should have been an alert signal for consideration of borrowing. Twenty-six percent are pan Andean words, some of which also occur even in jungle languages, and thus do not really serve to prove anything one way or the other at this point, but could be used as evidence of widespread trade. Twenty percent are terms shared only by Cuzco Quechua and Aymara, that is, they are characteristic of the Southern Andes, rather than of the respective language families, and, again, would seen to point to cultural interaction accompanied by the linguistic borrowing rather than language divergence. Five percent are clearly borrowings from Quechua to Aymara, mostly fairly recent ones. Thus we have a remainder of two percent, that is, four items, which could indeed be put forth as "proof" of the common genetic origin of Quechua and Aymara. For that percentage one could as easily invoke chance correspondence.

For languages that have a very long history of mutual contact as cultural interaction, it is to be expected that there would exist some sets of adapted borrowings which would mimic sound correspondence sets, probably going both ways, e.g., -ceive in English and -bol in Spanish from romance and English respectively. Simple sound correspondences in especially selected sets, even if well done, cannot be used in these cases to prove common origin -- only mutual influence. Overall structure and patterning, phonologically and grammatical, must also be brought to bear, as Ask (1932-5) pointed out long ago.

The major point of debate is, and always has been, the question of aspiration and globalization of the occlusive consonants. Aymara and Cuzco Quechua do indeed have the same phonemic inventory, that is, five occlusive consonants in three series, simple, aspirate and glottal. [4]
p t ti k q
p" t" ti" k" q"
p' t' ti' k' q'
This system does not occur in the other Quechua languages (Torero 1972, 1975; Carpenter 1982) with the exception of the Ayacucho-Cuzco and Cuzco-Collao varieties. The Quechua of Ayacucho-Chanca, for example, is almost like that of Cuzco, but without aspiration and glottalization. Even within Cuzco Quechua the functional load of aspiration and glottalization is very light. the result is that, in spite of being the distinguishing feature of Cuzco Quechua, there are very few, if any, sentences which are distinguishing only by aspiration and glottalization. There are, furthermore, extreme phonological limitations in terms of permitted environments:

1) they may only occur in roots, never in suffixes;
2) they always occur on the first occlusive consonant of the word;
3) they never occur more than one to a word (with some exceptions of reduplicative onomatopoeia) as if one of these very strange sounds where enough to mark the word itself.

In the other Quechua language ch functions rather as part of the sibilant and/or fricative systems, not as part of the occlusive system (Torero1975), and the occlusive system is limited to p t k (q)

The Aymara system although with the same inventory, is nevertheless very different. None of the noted restrictions apply. Aspiration and glottalization occur in suffixes and roots alike and may occur on any occlusive in the word -- there in no theo-retical limit on the number, selection or order in any given word. Note the following Aymara forms from Suqa, Peru:
taq"aña 'to look for'
taq"t'aña 'to look for once'
taq"t't"a 'i just look for (x)'
This aspect of Jaqi structure is even more evident in the consonantally conservative sister languages of Jaqaru and Kawki. The occlusive inventory for these languages is: [5]
t tx tz ch cx k q
p" t" tx" tz" ch" cx" k" q"
p' t' tx' tz' ch' cx' k' q'
Examples of multiple occurrences of glottalization and aspiration in both roots and words are frequent, e.g.
q"acx"a ' grumpy '
tx"ap"a ' blind '
q'aq'a ' throw in a blanket '
sijcx'k"q"kt"rk"a ' I tear paper again '
ach'ta"asp"a 'it would be nice to add a bit of earth (to a mound) '
jayt'awq"t"sk"a 'I left it again '
In spite of the identical inventory, it should now be clear that the phonological systems of Cuzco Quechua and Aymara are not the same. It is my thesis that the glottalization and aspiration that today mark Cuzco Quechua came first through massive borrowings from (proto-) jaqi and more recently from Aymara itself (Hardman 1964 a,b). The distributional information already presented is direct evidence of this. Additional confirming data may be seen in Stark (1975) where she shows that, dealing with words with aspiration and glottalization there is a 67 percent similarity rate between Aymara and Cuzco Quechua; the rate for words without these features is only 20 percent. Furthermore, of the apparently non similar words left, 22 percent of those with aspiration and glottalization were judged by native speakers to be onomatopoetic, but only two percent of those without were so judged. Thus, in forms with glottalization and aspiration, only 11 percent appear not to be similar, while in all other forms the non similar rate is 78 percent. [6]

Thus, the data would lead to the conclusion that Jaqi is primarily responsible for glottalization and aspiration in Cuzco Quechua. Once such a feature is borrowed into a language, of course, these new phonological elements may extend beyond borrowed words -- in this case primarily into the realm of onomatopoeia.

An additional criticism which needs to be remarked on relative to all the various lists used to prove the common origin hypotheses, is that the items selected are not what are usually considered used the concept. Basic terms split quite clearly on family grounds. For example, the numbers 1 and 2 are not cognate, although higher numbers sometimes appear to be; also 'black' and 'white' show no similarity, although some of the other colors sometimes do -- both circumstances reflect quite clearly market interchange. The numbers especially tend to be pan-Andean and colors are much influenced by dyes, among other exchange patterns.

The specific form that a borrowing takes may permit us to establish the period in which it was borrowed: for example, the Aymara word iwisa 'sheep' was borrowed from Spanish while the Spanish language still had sh where today it has j. At times one hears uwija, which shows a reborrowing from a more modern period. Another example of the same type is from jaqaru, shupuna 'jacket' from when the Spanish still used jubones, cognate with modern French jupe 'skirt", and also before the consonant shift, that is, during approximately the first century after the conquest. the last example makes us appreciate another possibility -- that a borrowing can remain alive in the language that does the borrowing and die out in the language that does the lending. Another example of that is parlar which is no longer a Spanish word but which was borrowed into Aymara and continues in regular use in that language today as parlaña 'to talk'.

In the above argumentation, I have shown that the evidence produced to sup port the hypothesis of common origin for Quechua and Aymara is faulty and that adequate proof for the hypothesis is not available. I have also indicated that a far more likely explanation for the strong similarities, which in some respects do exist between the two languages, is the long and persistent linguistic and cultural contact.

I would like to propose a possible linguistic history of the Andes, as a speculation that would incorporate the linguistic evidence as it currently stands without in any way contradicting the archaeological, indeed incorporating it many respects. The following outline owes a great deal to the work of Alfredo Torero (1964, 1968, 1972, 1975).

The original language of the Tiwanaku builders was most likely Puquina, but this was not the language used for commercial expansion. The lingua franca of the Tiwanaku-Wari expansion period was that of proto-jaqi. Toponymics, among other evidence, support this hypothesis. When the founders of Tiwanaku crossed Lake Titicaca and settled in Cuzco. it may be presumed that they brought their home language with them -- certainly Cuzco itself was trilingual at the time of the conquest. When these people, by then known as the Incas, began their own expansion, they reserved the Puquina language for the royal family (i. e. the original conquering group) and used the readily available lingua franca, Jaqi, for expansionist purposes, until they met up with the powerful Pachacamac expansion. One might recall the great honors paid the Lord of Pachacamac even at Cajamarca. The people of Pachamac were Quechua speaking, of the Chinchay variety, and dominated the coastal area through domination of the sea. They had apparently already expanded as far as Ecuador as much as a half millennium earlier (Carpenter 1982). Thus, apparently, it seemed to be to the advanta-ge of the Incas to switch the lingua franca. (Also, Wayna Capac was in love with a woman from Pachacamac, be it noted.) Politically, such a switch was possible to legislate -- the court had no great personal loyalty to any conquest language per se. It might be remembered that the Spanish repeated, or carried on, the same pattern in expanding the use of Quechua themselves, to which they certainly felt no loyalty. Thus, only some 100 years before the European conquest, the Cuzco administrator adopted a new language. This reconstruction of events would clearly explain the enormous similarities between Aymara and Cuzco Quechua -- the entire Inca court would for a while be trilingual and all administrators drawn from conquered peoples minimally bilingual -- a situation designed for ready language interference, as well as for the convergence that is common when languages even of different families like long in interactive situations, as has also happened, e.g. in India (Emeneau 1964).

The double expansion of the Inca and the Chinchay Quechua left the Jaqi languages isolated and fragmented, particularity those closest to the Chinchay, in what is today the Departmento of Lima. But the remnants of the intensive and extensive contacts are still evident in the multiple borrowings.

From Jaqi to Quechua I propose two waves of massive borrowing: 1) during the commercial and cultural dominance of Wari, from proto-Jaqi specifically, during a period approximately 1500 to 1000 years ago; 2) during the first years of Inca expansion, while Jaqi was the official language; these borrowings would then have been from the language that is today Aymara, already separated from the sister languages closer to the coast. These borrowings would have been considerably later, for example, 400 to 700 years ago.

The major wave of borrowing from Quechua into Jaqi would have come from the last years of the empire, from the extensive use of Quechua during the virreinato, and even continuing through to today, sometimes via Spanish.

Reconstruction of the proto-Jaqi languages has led us postulate as occlusive system no less complex than that of Jaqaru today, although doubtless differing in phonetic details. [7] The largest difference between the system of Jaqaru/Kawki and that of Aymara is that the latter lacks the occlusive series tx tz cx. The modern reflexes of these are t ch t respectively. The result is that the modern t of Aymara comes from three sources, *tx, *cx, or *t. For example,
Jaqaru: shutxi qucxa katu
Aymara: suti quta katu-
'name' 'lake' 'grab'
The modern Aymara ch comes from two sources, *tz or *ch.
Jaqaru: tz'iqa ichu
Aymara: ch'iqa ich'-
'left (hand)' 'carry something rather heavy without a handle'

Therefore words with t or ch only in the modern languages do not directly give us evidence of whether they originated in the Jaqi or the Quechua family. However, when glottalization or aspiration is present, it is clearly strong evidence that these terms originated in the Jaqi languages, and that they arrived into Quechua from Jaqi. The actual shape of the words in Quechua today can indicate the approximate period of the borrowing. So, for example, the commercial expansion of Wari is reflected in the borrowings of numerals. [8]
Jaqaru: cxunhka pacxaka
Aymara: tunka pataka
Quechua: chunka pachak
'10' '100'

Quechua has ch where proto-Jaqi had *cx, which is just what would be expected of those which is just what would be expected of those which had no cx as part of their occlusive system and thus did not hear the distinction. Even today, cx in modern Jaqaru words is perceived by Quechua speakers as ch. Other words of this early period show the same adaptation, for example:
Jaqaru: qucxa
Aymara: quta
Quechua: qucha
'lake'[9]

In the later period -- and to a lesser extend than the first wave, during the direct impingement of Aymara on the early Incas -- there are direct borrowings from Aymara, when Aymara had already experienced the change from *cx to t. Thus, upon borrowing a form, Quechua borrowed if with t, and Quechua has t in those items today, for example:
Jaqaru: jamp'acxa k"icx"i
Aymara: jamp'atu k"it"u [10]
Quechua: jamp k"itu
'frog' 'scrape, e.g., wood'

To compete the picture during the modern period we have the third wave, with Southern Quechua returning to aymara words from the early period, with the *ch (re)borrowing resulting in ch, without , of course, any consequence being felt by the northern languages, for example:
Jaqaru: ancxacxi micx'a qincxa
Aymara: ancha mich'a qincha
Quechua: ancha mich'a qincha
'much' 'miser' 'fence'

Thus from the history of one sound we can glimpse the history of a region. The process can be seen also with *tx, where Quechua took ch in the first wave, but Aymara continued its own way in the development of t ; later borrowings from Aymara went into Quechua with t. An example of the first is:
Jaqaru: yatxi
Aymara: yati
Quechua yacha
'to know'
and of the second:
Jaqaru: shutxi tx'impu
Aymara: suti t'impu
Quechua: suti t'impu
'name' 'boil'

Some words, of course, have their own individually unique history. let us look at:
Kawki: intxi
Jaqaru: inti
Aymara: inti
Quechua: inti
'sun (astral body only)'

Given the evidence of Kawki, we would be led to postulate a Jaqi origin for this word which is so identified with the inca empire. The t in Jaqaru does not got regu-lar sound change; let us look at the socio-cultural situations. Kawki is the most consonantly conservative of the Jaqi languages. In contrast, of two, Jaqaru is the most innovative. Furthermore, Tupe, where Jaqaru is spoken, was for a long period, lasting up to about 25 years ago, the cultural center of the area. Early in this century Tupe had a most distinguished educational center and peoples from all around, including Quechua and Spanish speakers as well as Jaqi speakers, went to a school in Tupe on a boarding basis. Inti is a common word in Peruvian school-books. It is, actually, used more in the school-room than in common conversation, which is more concerned with sunlight and warmth (nup'i in Jaqaru) than the star itself. Thus, inti in Jaqaru appears to be a reborrowing from Quechua through Spanish back into a Jaqi language. the same did not occur in Kawki because there was no schooling while the language was still the dominant language for the children.

These examples show the impact of socio-economic and historical factors on languages as well as the dangers of proposing genetic relationships between somewhat similar languages without giving importance to either the grammatical structure or the cultural situation. As is now clear, after two millennia of intimate contact, massive borrowing was inevitable. Making lists of correspondences in these cases is not a viable method of establishing common language origin without a concomitant recourse to the grammar.

Both language families are suffixing languages however, since suffixation is the most common morphological process in language, the above constitutes a typological statement, not a comparative one. There is a major difference in the way suffixation is handled in the two languages. Quechua suffixes are loosely tacked on, easily peeled off, in the manner that has been called 'agglutinating'. Morphophonemic rules are almost non-existent -- for most of the Quechua languages one rule only suffices. In the other words, morphological structure is transparent.

The jaqi languages, on the other hand, are of the type that has been called 'inflective'; the suffixes are complex, there is a great deal of complex morphophonemic modi-fication and suffixes are certainly not easily separable from each other. As one example the form mamshqa 'with your mother' from Jaqaru mama 'mother' plus -sa 'fourth person possessive' plus -wshqa 'subject coordinate' requires a number of complex morphophonemic rules involving both morphological and phonological conditioning to account for the surface form. Quechua has nothing like this type of morphophonemic anywhere.

The Jaqi languages are based on a system of four person, without number mark, where the distinctive features are presence or absence of first/second person. The proto-forms as currently reconstructed are:
*naya first person 'I, we, but not you'
*juma second person 'you'
*jup'a third person 'she, they, he;
neither you nor I, but human'
*jiwasa fourth person, 'we, you and I'

This system is reflected throughout the grammar, noun and verb systems alike (Hardman 1975a, b, c).
Jaqaru Aymara
utnha utaxa 'our/my house, but not yours'
utma utma 'your house'
utp"a utapa 'her, their, his house'
utsa utasa 'our house, yours and mine'

Quechua, on the other hand, works with a system of three persons with (usually) number mark. Cuzco Quechua (but not all Quechua languages) has two plural suffixes which allow the language to mark the distinction between inclusive and exclusive.
ñuqa 'I' ñuqayku 'we, not you'
qan 'you (sg.)' ñuqanchis 'we, with you'
pay 'she, he'

In Ecuador and some other places this contrast is nonexistent. this is evidence of convergence -- when a distinction so important to one's a neighbors that is cannot be ignored is finally incorporated into one's own system (Hardman 1942;1978a,b; 1983a,b). Thus Quechua speakers came to be able to translate what they understand to be the distinction between Jaqi first and fourth persons, and, in Cuzco Quechua at least, it now forms part of that system.

The verbal person systems in each language family are congruent with the nominal person systems. In the case of Jaqi the basic four person system is develops into a verbal person system such that each suffix which marks person in interactive -- that is, subject and object are merged into the single inflective suffix, giving a paradigm of ten inflected persons in Jaqaru and Kawki and nine in Aymara. In the case of Quechua, in contrast -- in Cuzco at least -- the system in one of three persons and two numbers, allowing for the two-way contrast in first person plural for a total of seven persons, no objects included. Other varieties of Quechua have fewer persons, in some cases with little or no number (Carpenter 1982). In Quechua there are a few suffixes which may refer to objects and which may be included within the verb, but they are primarily extensions of directional suffixes as occupy a rather different position within the overall structure.

At the syntactic level, an important point of distinction in that within the Jaqi languages the sentences is defined through the use of a particular set of suffixes which we call sentence suffixes. There are some signs of this type of system within Cuzco Quechua, but without the obligatoriness and pervasiveness characteristic of the Jaqi system, nor does this use constitute the definition of the sentence within Quechua.

In summary, taking careful consideration of a body of data, including grammatical and phonological structure as well as correspondence lists together with socio-cultural history and circumstances, the only viable conclusion is that there are, indeed, at least two great language families extant in the Andes: Jaqi and Quechua. the apparent similarities between the languages of these two families are best explained by mutual borrowings and influences, which are easily accounted for by the type and extent of contract that has occurred through the centuries. It is therefor impossible to maintain any vestige of the notion of a common origin with differentiation in the Andes, and even more absurd to hold that Cuzco Quechua be considered a relatively conservative language. Rather, Aymara and Quechua can be for us an example of the innovations and adaptations that can and do occur when languages and cultures meet.

NOTES

[1].- Also see Mannheim's "contact and Quechua-External Genetic Relationships" in this volume.

[2].- The Aymara language is a member of the Jaqi family of languages: Aymara, spoken today by upwards of three million people including one third of the population of boli-via, a large portion of the population of southern Peru, and in northern Chile and Argen-tina; Jaqaru, spoken by approximately five thousand in Tupe, Yauyos, and in immigrant communities in the cities of Huancayo, Chincha, Cañete, Lima, Peru; and Kawki, a dying language with a few speakers left in Cachuy, Peru.

[3].- Curiously enough, a recent dissertation (Davidson 1977) manages to disprove the Longacre/Orr hypothesis using, by claim of the author, only Cuzco Quechua and Aymara. Davisdon's conclusion corroborates mine, but is not genuinely independent, although the author believes it to be so, and his work was unknown to me the time he was doing it. The grammars on which he based his work were: 1) the Aymara grammar done at the University of Florida (Hardman, Yapita, & Vasquez 1975); 2) my Jaqaru grammar (Hardman 1966a [1983a]); 3) the Cuzco Quechua grammar on which I was working when I first came to the conclusion that Jaqaru and Cuzco Quechua were not related (Sole and Cusihuaman 1967).

[4].- All examples from the Andean languages are presented in the practical (phonemic) alphabets. The Aymara alphabet was developed by a linguist native speaker of Aymara (Yapita 1981). For further details on this alphabet see the two articles by Briggs in this volume.
p t ch k q
p" t" ch" k" q"
p' t' ch' k' q'
m n ñ
l ll
s j x
w r y
a i
ä ï ü

ch, alveopalatal fricative, functions structurally as a stop. The k series is velar; the q series is post-velar. Aspiration is represented by "; glottalization by '. j represents a pharyngeal fricative; x a post-velar fricative.
The rest of the letters have the conventional values of English and/or Spanish.

[5].- For Jaqaru and Kawki the Aymara alphabet is compatible, except that x does not function as a separate letter and there are no long vowels (Hardman 1983b). The following characters are added for consonants not present in Aymara:
tx tx cx
tx" tz" cx"
tx' tz' cx'
nh
sh
à ì ù
tx represents an alveopalatal stop; tz a prepalatal affricate; cx a palatal retroflex stop/affricate. All function within the same stop/affricate series as the five set in Aymara. nh represents a velar nasal. sh represents a palatal sibilant. ` represents short vowels. Because Cuzco Quechua phonology is so similar to that of Aymara, it is possible to present examples with the compatible Aymara alphabet.

[6].- If we take into account also the Jaqaru/Kawki data, the number of items with glottalization/aspiration with no similar form in Jaqi is reduced - apparently Aymara some of the forms after "loaning" them to Quechua.

[7].- Part of the reconstruction work has been reported in Hardman (1975b). Work continues on the reconstruction of proto-Jaqi; with primacy given to the reconstruction of grammatical paradigms. Lists of general vocabulary correspondence have not yet been published.

[8].- The most common morphophonemic variation in the Jaqi languages is vowel dropping; in any syntactic position and any complex number, '100' would occur without the final vowel. Quechua permits final consonants, and therefore would be expected to borrow the word without the final vowel given that they would most certainly rarely if ever have heard the word uttered with the final vowel.

[9].- This borrowing may reflect the fact that the Jaqi languages were mountain languages, where the lakes are, while Quechua was clearly a coastal one.

[10].- There is a process of aspiration loss in aymara, so that the form k"itu 'scrape' is also attested in some areas.

REFERENCES

  1. Carpenter, Lawrence K. 1982; Ecuadorian Quichua: Descriptive Sketch and Variation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Gainesville.
  2. Davidson, Joseph Orville, Jr. 1977; A Contrastive study of the Grammatical Structures of Aymara and Cuzco Kechua. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley
  3. Emeneau, Murray B. 1964; "India as a linguistic area". In Language in Culture and Society, Dell Hymes, ed., pp. 642-653. New York: Harper and How.
  4. Escobar, Alberto (ed.). 1972; Reto del Multilingüismo en el Peru. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
  5. Hardman, M.J. 1964a; "Sistema fonémico del Jaqaru". Revista del Museo Nacional. Tomo XXXII. Lima, Peru.
  6. --------. 1964b; "Discussion of paper by Lanham" p. 690. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton.
  7. --------. 1966a; Jaqaru: Outline of Phonological and Morphological Structure. The Hague: Mouton.
  8. --------.1966b; El Jaqaru, el Kawki, y el Aymara. Primer Congreso Interamericano de Lingüistica. Montevideo, Uruguay, January 1966.
  9. --------. 1972; "Postulado lingüistico del idioma Aymara". In Reto del Multilinguismo en el Peru, Alberto Escobar, ed. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
  10. --------. 1975a; El Jaqaru, el Kawki, y el Aymara. Simposio de Montevideo. Mexico: PILEI.
  11. --------. 1975b; "Reconstruction del sistema personal verbal de Proto-Jaqi". In Revista del Museo Nacional. tomo XLI.
  12. --------. 1975c; "La familia lingüistica Jaqi". Revista Yauyos. Vol. 4, Nos. 15-16, 17 (Aug-Sept-Oct 1975 and Jan-Feb 1976).
  13. --------. 1978a; "Jaqi: the linguistic family". International Journal of American Linguistics 44.2 (April), 146-153.
  14. --------.1978b; "Linguistic postulates and applied anthropological linguistcs". In Papers on Linguistcs and Child Language, v. Honsa and M.J. Hardman-de-Bautista, eds. The Hague: Mouton.
  15. --------. 1979; "Quechua y Aymara: lenguas en contacto".In Antropologia 1.1, 69-84. La Paz: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia.
  16. --------. 1983a; Jaqaru Compendio de Estructura Fonologica y Morfologica. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos / Instituto Indigenista Interamericano.
  17. --------. 1983b; Jaqaru short vowel. IJAL 49:203.
  18. Hardman, M.J., Juan de Dios Yapita Moya, and Juana Vásquez. 1975; Aymar ar Yatiqañataki. (Three volumes); Gainesville: University of Florida.
  19. Orr, Caroline and William A. Longacre. 1968; "Proto-Quechuamaran". In Language 44:528-555.
  20. Rask, Rasmus. 1932-5; Udvalgte Afhandlinger, Louis Hjelmslev, ed. Three volumes. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.;
  21. Sola, Donald F. and Antonio Cusihuaman G. 1967; The Structure of Cuzco Kechua. Ithaca: Cornell University Quechua Language Materials Project.
  22. Stark, Louisa R. 1975; "A Reconsideration of Proto-Quechua phonology". In Linguistica e Indigenismo en America. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos
  23. Torero, Afredo. 1964; "Los dialectos quechuas". Anales Cientificos de La Universidad Nacional Agraria. Vol II, No. 4. Lima.
  24. --------. 1968; "Procedencia geográfica de los dialectos quechuas de Ferreñafe y Cajamarca". in Anales Cientificos de la Universidad Nacional Agraria. vol VI, No. 3-4. Lima.
  25. --------. 1972; "Lingüística e historia de la sociedad andina", in Reto del Multilinguismo en el Peru Alberto Escobar, ed. Lima: Institucto de Estudios Peruanos.
  26. --------. 1975; Quechua y la historia Social de la Region Andina. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma.
  27. Valcarcel, Luis E. 1964; Historia del Peru Antiguo (3 tomos). Lima: Editorial Juan Mejia Baca.
  28. Yapita Moya, Juan de Dios. 1981; "The Aymara alphabet: linguistics for indigenous communities". In Aymara Language in its Social and Cultural Context, M.J. Hardman, ed. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Bibliografía