Talk:Paezan languages

just some notes

Kaufman's (1990, 1994) Macro-Paesan = Cunza + Kapixaná + Betoi + Paezan + Barbacoan + Itonama + Warao

possibly Cunza+Kapixaná forms a lower node, as does Paezan+Barbacoan

Discussed

There is not such a thing like Paezan languages. Páez is an isolated language, and the other languages listed belong to the Barbacoan family. Let's go to the evidence:

1. According to [1, 2, 3 and others], Guambiano (a.k.a Guambia, Moguex, Namdrik) and [1] the nearly extinct Totoró belong to the Coconucan subfamily of the Barbacoan family
2. Andaquí, also extinct, makes a subfamily by itself [1] into the Barbacoan family
3. The classification used in the article seems to be taken from Key (1979) and Loukotka (1968). Both are (slightly or grossly) outdated.
4. Paez, according to [4, 5, 6] and many other works by Gerdel and Slocum, is an isolated language somewhat related to (but distinct from) the Barbacoan family.

• [1] Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.), 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/.
• [2] Heinze, Carol, editor. 1978. Estudios chibchas 2. Serie Sintáctica, 9. Bogota: Ministerio de Gobierno and Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. iv, 140 p.
• [3] Branks, Judith and Juan Bautista Sánchez. 1978. The drama of life: a study of life cycle customs among the Guambiano, Colombia, South America. Summer Institute of Linguistics Museum of Anthropology Publication, 4. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics Museum of Anthropology. xii, 107 p.
• [4] Gerdel, Florence L. 1979. "Paez." In Aspectos de la cultura material de grupos étnicos de Colombia 2 , 181-202. Bogota: Ministerio de Gobierno and Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
• [5] Slocum, Marianna C. 1986. Gramática páez. Lomalinda: Editorial Townsend. vii, 171 p.
• [6] Brend, Ruth M., editor. 1985. From phonology to discourse: Studies in six Colombian languages. Language Data, Amerindian Series, 9. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. vi, 133 p.

I've left a {{discussed}} mark, and will try to edit the article as soon as I can. I'm not a registered user in en.wikipedia, but you can contact me in Wikipedia en español: es:Usuario:Cinabrium - talk page. 216.244.240.249 20:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

hi. after looking at Curnow (1998), it does seem that Campbell (1997) may not be the best thing to go by. however, Curnow does not list the extinct languages so i dont know exactly what to do with Andaqui or Caranqui. we should probably take Guambiano & Totoró out & put them under Barbacoan.

at any rate, i have listed a bunch of classifications below. peace – ishwar  (speak) 03:50, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

i moved Guambiano & Totoró. (by the way, i have an electronic copy of Curnow 1998, if you are interested). thank you writing a note here. do you know how speculative the inclusion of Andaqui is Barbacoan? peace – ishwar  (speak) 04:06, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

Ishwar,

AFAIK, the taxonomy for Andaquí or Andaki is quite speculative. I've even found some texts (not coming from aboriginal languages' specialists) confusing Andaqui with Andoque (a still-alive-but-god-knows-for-how-long language). The Chibchan/Barbacoan boundaries are still somewhat imprecise; some languages from a family have better intelligibility with members of the other than with those of their own (btw, sorry: I have not my notes at hand and it's 1:37AM here -- I'll point that curiosities later, if I can). Moving Guambiano and Totoró seems to be on the "safe side"; as you know, the relationship between Páez and Panzaleo is also very speculative, since there is not enough extant material about Panzaleo to attemp a classification. Southern highlands of Colombia have been a conflict/stress zone between different cultural groups for many centuries, so you will find many superimposing areas between languages of "Andean" and "Amazonian" stock (sorry for the oversimplification).

A recent study from Landaburu, made jointly by CNRS (France), Universidad de los Andes and Centro Colombiano de Estudio de Lenguas Aborígenes, doesn't place Andaqui "safely" anywhere. However, he gives us some clues: "Outside of the Chibcha [macro and microphiles], and until new valid arguments are submitted, we should have the following as different lineages: (1) The Páez and its dialects, including Paniquitá; (2) The Coconucan group, with Guambiano and Totoró... (3) The Awa or Cuaiquer, whose closeness to Ecuadorean Cayapá and Colorado is still to be demonstrated in order to stabilize the traditional Barbacoan group of linguistic literature (4) The Kamsá...". Sorry for the lousy translation :).

On the other hand, the (very) recent Adelaar (2004), which I haven't got since 90 pounds are a hole in my budget :) seems to exclude Andaquí from the sphere of Páez, proposing something like: Páez (Nasa Yuwe) - Andaquí and the languages of the Upper Magdalena valley - Barbacoan languages - Kamsá - Esmeraldeño.

Ethnologue's 13th ed. (1996) had different groupings, proposing a Barbacoan-Paezan family as follows:

 Barbacoan-Paezan (7)
       ANDAQUI [ANA] (Colombia)
       Cayapa-Colorado (2)
           CHACHI [CBI] (Ecuador)
           COLORADO [COF] (Ecuador)
       Pasto (2)
           BARBACOAS [BPB] (Colombia)
           CUAIQUER [KWI] (Colombia)
   Paezan (2)
       Coconucan (1)
           GUAMBIANO [GUM] (Colombia)
       Paez (1)
           PÁEZ [PBB] (Colombia)

Finally (just because I'm very tired :)), Dietrich notes Andaquí as "isolated" and does not relate it to Páez.

As a preliminary conclusion (sorry for the oxymoron), I guess it would be reasonable to exclude Andaquí from the Paezan grouping too. Thanks for a stimulating discussion! And yes! I'm interested in the book. Please contact me through my talk page at Wikipedia en español. Same guy, different IP 216.244.240.249 06:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC) es:Usuario:Cinabrium - talk page

quick comparisons

Barbacoan comparison:

Barbacoan (Curnow et al.) Cayapa (Cha’palaachi) Coaiquer (Awa Pit) Colorado (Tsafiqui) Guambiano Totoró	Barbacoan (Gordon/Grimes) Andaqui Barbacoas (= Pasto ?) Cayapa (Chachi) Coaiquer (Awa-Cuaiquer) Colorado Guambiano Totoro	Barbacoan (Kaufman) Caranqui Cayapa Coaiquer Colorado Muellama Pasto	Barbacoan (Key) Caranqui Coaiquer Guambiano Muellama Pasto
Barbacoa (Greenberg) Caranqui (Cara) Cayapa Colorado Coaiquer (Cuaiquer)	Barbácoa (Loukotka) Caranqui (Cara) Cayápa Coaiquer (Cuaiquer) Colorado Muellama Pasto Quijo Sindagua Telembi Tumaco

Paezan comparison:

Paezan (Grimes) Paéz

Paezan (Kaufman) Andaqui Coconuco Guambiano Paez Panzaleo Totoró

Paezan (Key) Andaqui Cayapa Coconuco Colorado Paez Panzaleo Totoró

Paez (Greenberg) Coconuco Guanaca Guambiano (Guambiana, Moguex) Paez (Paez+Panikita) Totoro

Paez (Loukotka) Alausí Paez Panzaleo

Curnow et al

Hypothetical tree of Curnow & Liddicoat (1998) as displayed in Curnow (1998):

Barbacoan

1. North Barbacoan
   1. Awa Pit (Coaiquer)
   2. Guambiano-Totoró
      1. Guambiano
      2. Totoró
2. South Barbacoan
   1. Cha’palaachi (Cayapa)
   2. Tsafiqui (Colorado)

Gordon & Grimes (Ethnologue)

Gordon (2005) has the following for Barbacoan:

Barbacoan

1. Andaqui
   1. Andaqui
2. Cayapa-Colorado
   1. Chachi
   2. Colorado
3. Coconucan
   1. Guambiano
   2. Totoro
4. Pasto
   1. Barbacoas
   2. Awa-Cuaiquer

i will simpify this as (with corresponding name changes):

Barbacoan

1. Andaqui
2. Barbacoas (= Pasto ?)
3. Cayapa (Chachi)
4. Coaiquer (Awa-Cuaiquer)
5. Colorado
6. Guambiano
7. Totoro

Gordon (2005) lists Paez as isolate, but in the 14th ed. Grimes (2000) has Paez as the single member of Paezan family.

My questions:

• What is Barbacoas? A new language?
• Where is Muellama? Pasto? Caranqui? Panzaleo? Cononuco? Are they left out because they are extinct?
• They have the names, Coconucan and Pasto as lower branches, but where are these languages?
• Why is Paez an isolate in 2005, but a part of Paezan in 2000?
• What are they basing their classification on anyway? (!)

– ishwar  (speak) 02:29, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

Campbell & Kaufman

hi. the classification is based on Campbell (1997:173-176), who in turn bases his on Kaufman (1990, 1994). here is what Campbell says about Paezan:

"There is no consensus upon Paezan, and opinions vary greatly. Paez is customarily placed with Paniquitá [Columbia] and extinct Panzaleo; because there are scarcely any data on Panzaleo, the classification has no real linguistic basis (Loukatka 1968:245), Constenla Umaña 1991). No signfiicant comparative studies have been done on Paez and its possible relatives, though glottochronological studies exist. For claims of broader affinity, see the discussions of Chibchan and Barbacoan below."

on Barbacoan:

"Louisa Stark reports that Proto-Barbacoan split into the Cayapa-Colorado and Coaiquer branches in about 50 B.C. and that Cayapa and Colorado remained a single language until they separated in about A.D. 1000. Before the arrival of the Incas in Ecuador, the Barbacoa language extended the Guaytara River in Colombia to Tungurahua province in Ecuador and spread down the central cordillera almost to Quito (1985:158-9).

"The Barbacoan family is generally considered a probable relative of Paezan, though at best a very distant one (Constenla Umaña 1981:9). Mary Key (1979:38) presents the following reconstruction of “Proto-Colorado-Cayapa” sounds: /p, t, tʸ, k, ʔ, b, d, dʸ, c, č, s, š, h, m, n, ñ, l, lʸ, r, w, y; i, e, a, o, u/. Key also classifies Colorado and Cayapa with Paezan, but includes Guambiano as Barbacoan (considered Paezan by Kaufman)."

on Paezan-Barbacoan proposal:

"There is general agreement (among the classifications surveyed by Kaufman) that these two families form a larger grouping, and Kaufman also mentions what he takes to be clear lexical similarities, though he does not present them."

on Macro-Paesan:

"Kaufman groups together his families/genetic units 99 (Cunza), 100 (Kapixaná) (he also raises the possibility that 99 and 100 have a closer connection among themselves), 5 (Betoi), 6 (Paezan [sub]stock), 7 (Barbacoan family) (he favors a possible connection between 6 and 7), 98 (Itonama), and 112 (Warao), in what he calls the Macro-Paesan cluster. Kaufman explains that “ the macro-Paesan cluster is . . . supported from many quarters [is favored by others], though the work needed for developing the arguments in favour of this hypothesis remains to be done” (1994:53). Until that work is done, the decision on this broader grouping needs to be held in abeyance.

so from what Campbell says, Key (1979) has the something like the following for Paezan and Barbacoan (?), taking out the subgroupings (i havent seen Key yet):

Paezan (Key)

1. Andaqui
2. Cayapa
3. Coconuco
4. Colorado
5. Paez
6. Panzaleo
7. Totoró

Barbacoan (Key)

1. Caranqui
2. Coaiquer
3. Guambiano
4. Muellama
5. Pasto

to compare, here is Kaufman (1994) as listed in Campbell (this is the same as what is in the Wikipedia article now):

Paezan (Kaufman)

1. Andaqui
2. Coconuco
3. Guambiano
4. Paez
5. Panzaleo
6. Totoró

Barbacoan (Kaufman)

1. Caranqui
2. Cayapa
3. Coaiquer
4. Colorado
5. Muellama
6. Pasto

Kaufman (1990) rates the grouping of Paezan and Barbacoan into a Páes-Barbakóa stock as "GOOD". (Kaufman has a rating system that is GOOD, PROBABLE, PROMISING, or MAYBE.)

I havent looked at Kaufman (1994) yet. Kaufman (1990) appears to have surveyed the mainly the following (he lists others):

• Greenberg, Joseph H. (1987). Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Loukotka, Čestmír. (1968). Classification of South American Indian languages. Los Angeles: Latin American Studies Center, University of California.
• Migliazza, Ernesto. (1980). The languages of South America. Unpublished manuscript.
• Rodrigues, Aryon. (1986). Línguas Brasileiras. São Paulo: Loyola.
• Suárez, Jorge. (1974). South American Indian languages. Encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed., Vol. 17, pp. 105-112). Macropaedia.
• Swadesh, Morris. (1959). Mapas de clasificación lingüística de México y las Américas. México: UNAM.
• Tovar, Antonio; & de Tovar, Consuelo Larrucea. (1984). Catálogo de las lenguas de América del Sur (nueva edición). Madrid: Gredos.

– ishwar  (speak) 01:33, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

Loukotka

According Loukotka (1968:233-253), Paezan is part of the Chibcha stock. Here is his division of Chibcha:

Chibcha

1. Paleo-Chibchan
2. Rama
3. Guatuso
4. Talamanca
5. Dorasque
6. Guaymi
7. Cuna
8. Antioquia
9. Chibcha
10. Motilon
11. Betoi
12. Arhuaco
13. Malibú
14. Andaquí
15. Paez
16. Coconuco
17. Barbácoa
18. Sebondoy
19. Mosquito
20. Matagalpa
21. Paya

Here are his Paez and Barbácoa divisions:

Paez

1. Paez (a.k.a. Paisa)
   1. Nasayuwä
   2. Okoshkokyéwa
   3. Paniquita
2. Panzaleo (a.k.a. Latacunga, Quito)
3. Alausí

Nasayuwä, Okoshkoyéwa, & Paniquita are listed as dialects of Paez.

Barbácoa

1. Barbácoa (a.k.a. Colima) *
2. Pius *
3. Iscuandé *
4. Tumaco
5. Guapi *
6. Cuaiquer (a.k.a. Koaiker)
7. Telembi
8. Panga *
9. Nulpe *
10. Cayápa (a.k.a. Nigua)
11. Malaba *
12. Yumbo *
13. Colorado (a.k.a. Tsáchela, Chono, Campaz, Satxíla, Colime)
14. Colima *
15. Cara (a.k.a. Caranqui, Imbaya)
16. Sindagua (a.k.a. Malla)
17. Muellama
18. Pasto
19. Mastele *
20. Quijo
21. Mayasquer *

( * = no documentation)

– ishwar  (speak) 00:46, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

Greenberg

Greenberg (1987) lists Paezan as a large grouping under the Chibchan-Paazean subgroup:

Chibchan-Paezan A. Chichan B. Paezan

His Paezan then is the following:

Paezan

1. Allentiac
2. Atacama
3. Betoi
4. Chimu
5. Itonama
6. Jirajara
7. Mura
8. Nuclear Paezan
9. Timucua
10. Warrau

His Nuclear Paezan is the following:

Nuclear Paezan

1. Andaqui
   1. Andaqui
2. Barbacoa
   1. Cara
   2. Cayapa
   3. Colorado
   4. Cuaiquer
3. Choco
   1. Andagueda
   2. Baudo
   3. Catio
   4. Chami
   5. Choco
   6. Citara
   7. Darien
   8. Empera
   9. Napipi
   10. Nonama
   11. Saija
   12. Sambu
   13. Tado
   14. Tucura
   15. Uribe
   16. Waunana
4. Paez
   1. Coconuco
   2. Guambiana
   3. Guanaca
   4. Moguex
   5. Paez
   6. Panikita
   7. Totoro

"disputed" tag removed

I've just removed the "disputed" tag I've placed some days ago. After a long and enriching discussion, the article IMHO reflects the current academic views on Páez and Paezan languages. Thanks! Cinabrium 18:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Connections to Otomanguean

Hello all, I've deleted the section on Jolkesky's proposed Zapotecan-Paezan connection. First because it is not a noteworthy proposal since it has not been published, peer-reviewed or adopted by others, second because I have reviewed the proposal and found it very unconvincing, and third because this proposal was originally added to the Paez article by Jolkesky himself, if I'm reading the page history correctly. I've written about my issues with the proposal's linguistic argument here in case any editors would be interested: https://jryansullivant.wordpress.com/2020/07/02/zapotecan-and-paezan-are-not-related Nasua Narica (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nasua Narica: I support the deletion. This is WP:UNDUE for inclusion in WP for the first (=formal) reason given by you. I am not in the position to assess Jolkesky's proposal, nor your refutation of it (my reseach experience lies with languages literally on other side of the globe), but until this is published in a peer-reviewed source, and discussed/assessed by other scholars (likewise in peer-reviewed sources), even just the mention of it here is premature. –Austronesier (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)