Volume 3 — CHAPTER V. SHOSHONE LANGUAGES.

Aztec-Sonora Connections with the Shoshone Family—The Utah, Comanche, Moqui, Kizh, Netela, Kechi, Cahuillo, and Chemehuevi—Eastern and Western Shoshone, or Wihinasht—The Bannack and Digger, or Shoshokee—The Utah and its Dialects—The Goshute, Washoe, Paiulee, Piute, Sampitche, and Mono—Popular Belief as to the Aztec Element in the North—Grimm's Law—Shoshone, Comanche, and Moqui Comparative Table—Netela Stanza—Kizh Grammar—The Lord's Prayer in two Dialects of the Kizh—Chemehuevi and Cahuillo Grammar—Comparative Vocabulary.

In this chapter I include all the languages of the Shoshone family, the Wihinasht or western Shoshone of Idaho and Oregon, the Utah with its many dialects, the Comanche or Yetan of Texas and New Mexico, the Moqui of Arizona, the Kizh, Netela, and Kechi of the San Fernando Mission, and their dialects, and the Cahuillo and Chemehuevi of south-eastern California. The six last mentioned do not properly belong to the Shoshone family, but on account of certain faint traces of Aztec, found alike in them and in all Shoshone idioms, I cannot do better than to speak of them in this connection. As regards this Aztec element, I do not mean to say that these languages are related to the Aztec language, in the same sense that other languages are spoken of as being related to each other, for this might lead those who are searching for the former habitation or fatherland of the Aztecs, to suppose that it has been found. This element consists simply in a number of words, identical or reasonably approximate to the like Aztec words, and in the similarity, perhaps, of a few grammatical rules. How this Aztec word-material crept into the languages of the Shoshones, whether by intercommunication, or Aztec colonization, we do not know. Nor do I wish to be understood as attempting to sustain the popular theory of an Aztec migration from the north; on the contrary, the evidence of language is all on the other side. Whether or not the Great Basin, or any part of the Northwest, was once occupied by the ancient Mexicans, it is certain that the Aztec language, as a base, is found nowhere north of central Mexico, so that these incidental or accidental word-analogies if they prove anything, indicate only a scattering from some primeval centre, other than the place where they are found, and tend to show that the language whose words are thus thinly sprinkled over so broad an area, could not have been the aboriginal stock language of the country.

SHOSHONE AND UTAH DIALECTS.

The Shoshone and the Utah are the principal languages of the great interior basin; and these may be regarded as sisters of a common mother language, the Shoshone preponderating. Each has many dialects. The Shoshone language may be divided into eastern, or Shoshone proper, and western Shoshone, or Wihinasht. Of the former the Bannack, and the Digger, or Shoshokee, are the chief variations. The Utah dialects, more numerous, are the Goshute, Washoe, Paiulee, Piute, Sampitche, Mono, and a few others, which latter vary so little from some one of the others, that it is unnecessary to trace them as separate dialects. The Comanche dialects I shall not attempt to classify.[V'-1] No grammar has ever been written of any of these languages. In all of them words are generally accented on the first syllable, except when a possessive pronoun is prefixed. Words of more than four syllables, generally have a secondary accent on the fifth, as in té-ith-tis-chi-hó-no, valley.[V'-2] A few words in these languages are found almost identical with like words of the Tinneh family, which have probably found their way into them by intercommunication. Of these the following are the principal ones, so far as designated by existing vocabularies:

SHOSHONE AND TINNEH SIMILARITIES.

Fire: Comanche, ku-ona; Shoshone, kuna; Chepewyan, counn, kon, kone; Utah, coon. Bow: Comanche, eth; Shoshone, atschö; Wihinasht, ati; Chepewyan, atheike. Cold: Comanche, etscho; Shoshone, ötschoin; Wihinasht, izíts; Chepewyan, edzah. Eye: Comanche, nachich; Chepewyan, nackhay.[V'-3]

In the Wihinasht, words occur sometimes in which an unusual number of vowels are combined—paöaíu, great; long words are also not infrequent, like pimatiyimwaiákin, salt.[V'-4] A short comparative vocabulary to show the connection between these languages, is given further on.

AZTEC TRACES NORTH OF MEXICO.

Let us now consider the often discussed but ill understood question of the Aztec language in the north. Torquemada and Vetancvrt narrate the expedition of Juan de Oñate, who invaded New Mexico during the last years of the sixteenth century. Father Roque de Figueredo, who accompanied the expedition, says that while searching for a lost mule, at the Rio del Tizon, the Mexican muleteers met certain natives who addressed them in their own language, and who, on being asked whence they came, answered that they came from the north, where that language was spoken. Clavigero, who repeats the above, also asserts, that during the expedition made by the Spaniards, in 1606, to New Mexico, when north of the Rio del Tizon, they saw some large houses, and near them certain natives who spoke the Mexican language. Then we have the statement of Father Gerónimo de Zárate, that while searching for the Laguna de Copala, he was informed, among other things, that the country in its vicinity was densely peopled by men who spoke a language similar to that of his Aztec servants. Zárate was at this time at the Rio del Tizon, and the natives, who are close observers in such matters, assured the Spaniards that they detected in the speech of the servant certain words common to both his own and the language of the people of the Laguna de Copala. And again, in the region toward the east, Acosta says that "of late they have discovered a new land, which they call New Mexico, where they say is much people that speake the Mexican tongue."

Vater, in his Mithridates, intimates that the Mexican language spread far northward, through the roamings of wild tribes, particularly the Chichimecs; but when we remember that the term Chichimec was applied by the early Spaniards to all the immense unknown nomadic hordes north and west, this mention carries with it but little weight. Mr Anderson, who accompanied Captain Cook to the north-west coast, in 1778, fancied he detected a resemblance between the Aztec and the language of the Nootkas. "From the few Mexican words," he says, "I have been able to procure, there is the most obvious agreement, in the very frequent terminations of the vowels in l, tl, or z, throughout the language." And remarks the editor, "may we not, in confirmation of Mr. Anderson's remark, observe, that Opulszthl, the Nootka name of the Sun; and Vitziputzli, the name of the Mexican Divinity, have no very distant affinity in sound." Now the absurdity of all idle speculations is apparent when we encounter such far-fetched comparisons as this. In the first place, there is no affinity in the sounds of the two words, and in the next place there is no such Aztec god—Huitzilopochtli probably being the god meant. Neither has this last word any resemblance to the sun; it is composed of the two words, huitzilin, an abbreviation of the Mexican huitzitzilin, which signifies 'humming-bird,' and opochtli, that is to say 'left.' Vater also draws analogies between the Aztec and the Nootka, and Ugalenze, which on close comparison do not hold good.

Regarding the affinity of the Aztec language with those of the Pueblos, Moquis, Apaches, Yumas, and others of New Mexico and Arizona, Ruxton ventures the assertion, "all these speak dialects of the same language.... They likewise all understand each other's tongue. What relation this language bears to the Mexican is unknown; but my impression is, that it will be found to assimilate greatly, if not to be identical,"—in all of which assertions Mr Ruxton is greatly in error.

All this, as evidence, does not amount to much; it only indicates the origin of a popular belief which placed a Mexican language in various parts of the north, while at the same time it shows upon how slender a thread hangs this belief, and how the vaguest traditionary rumors come, by repetition, to be accredited as fixed facts.

Buschmann asks himself the question whether the Aztec words, in any considerable number, are not found in any other languages of the great Mexican empire—in the Zapotec, Miztec, Tarasco, Otomí, or Huastec—and the answer is no; he has discovered a few accidental word-similarities, such as may be found between the Aztec and other American languages, or between any two languages of the world, but nothing which, by any possibility, could denote relationship.

From another class of evidence we approach a little nearer the truth. Andres Perez de Ribas, missionary to Sinaloa writing about 1640, says, that while studying the language of his people, he noticed many Mexican words particularly radicals, and also words which appeared to have been originally Mexican, but which had been so altered that only one or two syllables in them could be recognized as Aztec.

Father Ortega, in 1732, wrote a vocabulary of the Cora language, in which he says, the people had incorporated in their language many words of the Mexican and some few of the Spanish languages, and this at a period so early that at the time of his writing they were regarded as belonging to the original language.

Hervas, whose work appeared in 1787, says that the Tarahumara language is full of Mexican words. Vater, writing early in the nineteenth century, affirms that the Cora is remarkable for its relation to the Mexican, and that the Tarahumara, which is a more polished language than its neighbors, contains some words similar to the Aztec. In his Mithridates, Vater notices a relationship between the Cora and the Aztec, furthermore asserting that the conjugations of the two are so alike as plainly to prove the connection.

Wilhelm von Humboldt left us a short manuscript grammar of the Cora and Tarahumara, in which he remarks that for languages which are related, the Cora and the Mexican have great differences in their sound-systems, and although these two languages certainly appear to be related, yet he is unwilling to assert that either is derived from the other. "There are more ways than one," says the great philologist Wilhelm von Humboldt, "by which languages are connected. The impression left upon me by the Cora, is that it is a mixture of two different languages: one the Mexican, and the other some older and richer language, but rougher. In the grammar of the Cora there are found very many forms which strikingly call to mind the Mexican, yet at the same time there are many forms wholly different, made by rules directly opposite, among which are the pronouns." He further remarks two other important differences between the Cora and the Mexican which are the absence of the reduplication of syllables and of the reverential forms.

Such was the attitude of the subject when Mr Buschmann took it up. From the prevailing impression of an Aztec origin in the north, but more particularly from certain remarks of Alexander von Humboldt concerning the probable passing of the ancient Mexicans through the regions of the north, he set himself to work to find this line of migration, and the exact relations of their language in various parts. Commencing at the Valley of Mexico he made a careful analysis of every western language north of that place of which he could obtain any material. The result of Mr Buschmann's researches was the discovery of Aztec traces in certain parts, but nowhere did he find the Aztec language as a base.

AZTEC TRACES IN NORTHERN MEXICO.

More particularly were these Aztec words and word-analogies perceptible in four certain languages of north-western Mexico; in the Cora, spoken in the Nayarit district of Jalisco, commencing about fifteen leagues from the coast at the mouth of the Rio Tololotlan, and extending between the parallels 21°30' and 20° back irregularly into the interior about twenty leagues; in the Tepehuana of northern Sinaloa, northern Durango, and southern Chihuahua, or as laid down on the map of Orozco y Berra, commencing near the twenty-third parallel about twenty leagues from the eastern shore of the Gulf of California, and extending over a horse-shoe shaped territory to about the twenty-seventh parallel; in the Tarahumara spoken immediately north of the Tepehuana in the states of Chihuahua and Sonora, in the centre of the Sierra Madre; and lastly in the Cahita spoken by the people inhabiting the eastern shore of the Gulf of California, between latitude 26° and 28° north, and extending back from the coast irregularly about forty leagues, being almost directly west of the Tarahumara, though not exactly contiguous. The name Cahita is applied by the missionaries only to the language, and not to the people speaking it. In the license prefixed to the Manual para administrar à los Indios del idioma Cahita los santos sacramentos compuesto por un Sacerdote de la Compañia de Jesus, printed in Mexico in 1740, it is called the common language of the missions of the province of Sinaloa, spoken by the Yaquis and the Mayos, the latter extending far into southern Sonora. In a vocabulary of the Cahita given by Ternaux-Compans, in the Nouvelles Annales, there are likewise found many Aztec words. Neither of these languages are related to the others, yet in all of them is a sprinkling of Aztec word-material. The Aztec substantive ending tl and tli, in the Cora are found changed in ti, te, and t; in the Tepehuana into de, re, and sci; in the Tarahumara into ki, ke, ca, and la; and in the Cahita, into ri. In all four of the languages substantive endings are dropped, first, in composition when the substantive is united with the possessive pronoun; secondly, before an affix; thirdly, in the Cora alone, before the ending of the plural; and before affixes in the formation of words. They are not dropped in verbs derived from substantives; and when two substantives are combined to form a word the Aztec terminal is dropped in the first, and also in the combination of a substantive and verb.

In the Cora, the ending tyahta has the same meaning as the Aztec local ending tla, or tlan, which signifies the locality of a thing; as, acotn, a fir-tree; (Aztec, ocotl) ocotyahta, a fir-forest; (Aztec, ocotlan). Another striking similarity between these four languages and the Aztec consists in the use of a postfix in the formation of substantives of locality and names of places. Then come the numerals, in which are found similarities in all their formations. The Aztec verb ca, to be, and even its irregular branch, catqui, is found disseminated throughout all these languages. In the Tarahumara dictionary of Steffel, and in the Cora dictionary of Ortega, Buschmann found the Aztec element even stronger than he had supposed, and he wondered how Gallatin, who had Tellechea's grammar, could have allowed these similarities to escape his observations.

AZTEC MATERIAL IN THE AZTEC-SONORA FAMILY.

Of these four languages Buschmann makes what he calls his Sonora family; which term is somewhat a misnomer as applied to languages not related, and spoken more without than within the province of Sonora. Their only bond of union is this Aztec element, which may have found its way into them at different times and under different circumstances. The most peculiar feature of it all, is the departure which is made by these Aztec-Sonora languages, as from an original centre, and their several appearance, each stamped alike with Aztec marks while at the same time sustaining its own individuality, in different parts of the great northern regions. It is as though a handful of Aztec words had been thrown, at intervals, into the languages of each of these four peoples, and, after partial amalgamations of these foreign words with those of the aboriginal tongues, by some means the words so modified had found their way in greater or less quantities into the languages of other and remote tribes. It is at such times, when we obtain a glance from a distance at their shadowy history, that there arise in the mind visions of their illimitable unwritten past, and of the mighty turmoils and revolutions which must forever remain as they are, shrouded in the deepest mystery.

In these four Aztec-Sonora languages there are nearly two hundred Aztec words, and the words derived from them by the respective native idioms into which they were projected, swell the list to four times that number; and these, with other pure Aztec words in every stage of mutilation and transformation are found re-scattered throughout the before-mentioned Pueblo, Shoshone, and other languages of the north. But again, let me say, nowhere does the Aztec, or any of its affiliations appear as a base north of central Mexico.[V'-5]

Taking into consideration that some Aztec and Shoshone words are almost identical, and that the endings of others are almost exactly alike, it is not surprising if the acute ear of the natives detected phonetic resemblances. The connection between these languages may not be in one respect as positive as that between the languages which compose the great Aryan family on the Asiatic and European continents, but, on the other hand, it presents a somewhat analogous system, by means of which it becomes possible to establish a connection. I allude to Mr Grimm's discovery of what has been termed 'Lautverschiebung,' or 'Lautveränderung,' anglicé 'Sound-shunting.'[V'-6]

This phenomenon consists of the changing, or shunting, of certain vowels or consonants in the words of one language, into certain other vowels and consonants in the same words of another language; and this not accidentally, but in accordance with fixed rules. Sound-shunting, originally discovered by Mr Grimm in the Aryan tongues, has also been found by Mr Buschmann in the languages of his Sonora family, where it is more particularly prominent in the word-endings. In a subsequent place I shall have occasion to refer again to this point, and particularly when speaking of the North Mexican languages, the Tarahumara, Tepehuana, Cora, and Cahita, where it can be clearly shown by comparison with the Aztec, that such shunting, or changing, has taken place. In the languages at present under consideration, the Shoshone, Utah, and Comanche, we have this shunting system illustrated in the substantives and adjective endings p, pa, pe, pi, be, wa, ph, pee, rp, and rpe; and more particularly in the Utah and Shoshone ts, tse, tsi, all of which may be referred to the Aztec endings tl, tli, and others. In the last-mentioned case the endings have been preserved in a purer form, while in the former the shunting or changing law is observed. As illustrating the connection between the languages under consideration and those before mentioned of Sonora and through them with the Aztec, I append on the next page a short vocabulary in which the similarities can be easily observed.[V'-7]

THE MOQUI LANGUAGE.

The Moqui, as before observed, does not properly belong to the Shoshone family, but shows a connection with the Aztec. It is strange that two permanently located peoples, the Moquis and the Pueblos, both living in well-built towns not far apart, and both showing signs of a budding civilization, should speak languages totally different from each other; that one of these languages should show a connection with the Aztec and the other not; that neither is related to the tongue of the Shoshones, who nearly surround them; and, furthermore, that in six of the seven Moqui towns only, the Moqui language is spoken, while in the seventh, Harno, the Tegua, a language of one of the New Mexican Pueblos is spoken. The people of Harno can converse with the Moquis of the six other towns, but among themselves they never make use of the Moqui, always speaking the Tegua.[V'-8]

SHOSHONE. WIHINASHT. UTAH. COMANCHE. MOQUI.

Foot namps kuki namp nahap herkuck

Eye pui, umboi pui puttyshoe puile pose

Water pa pa pah pa

Arm puiró putá pooir pur(e) mahat

Dog schari sahreets zari poku

Tongue aku ego ahoh ehk linga

Wife wepee

Winter tumu tomó tohane

Egg nupáhw or nanki anohó uno io

Ear nongkawa or masoaki inaka nink nahkarke nookawuck

Hand mashitu imai masseer mashpa mocktay

Teeth tangwa tama tong tahnee tahmah

One chermti or shímutsi singwáiu semmus

Ten paimanusch síngwaloyu matoëcut

Lip timpa tupa timp tupe

Sun taba tava tap tabih tahwah

House uinkán noöí kanuke

Stone timpi tipí terp

Moon mungá muschhá mahtots mushe mooyah

Head pampi pompi tuts páaph quatah

Nose mui moöi mahvetah moopee yakuck

God tockill

AZTEC. TARAHUMARA. TEPEHUANA. CAHITA. CORA.

Foot

Eye yxtelolotli pusiki buy pusi

Water atl bagui, pauguiki baa

Arm

Dog chichi

Tongue nenetl

Wife tenamic upi hubi

Winter gu tomojo

Egg nitla, tlemina nono

Ear nacaztli nachcala naxa naca naxaihti

Hand maitl mama moamati

Teeth tlantli tamela tatamo tami tameti

One ce, cen, cem senn semi ce

Ten matlactli

Lip tentli chumi tuní teni tenniti

Sun taa

House calli cari

Stone tetl

Moon metztli mecha massade mecha

Head quaitl

Nose yacatl jachcala daca ieca

God teotl

No grammar has been written of the Moqui language, and a few vocabularies are all we possess of it. Gov. Lane, speaking of the Pueblo languages collectively, writes: "All these languages are extremely guttural, and, to my ear, seemed so much alike, that I imagine they have sprung from the same parent stock."[V'-9]

MOQUI AFFILIATIONS.

Some claim a relationship between the Moquis and the Apaches and others, but no such connection has ever been established.[V'-10] The only positive statement in this regard is made by Buschmann, who, by actual comparison of vocabularies, has determined its status.[V'-11] Among other connecting links he particularly mentions the substantive endings pe, be, and others, by means of which, he says, the Moqui attaches itself to the Shoshone-Comanche branch of the Sonora idioms. The comparative vocabulary before given will further illustrate their affiliation.[V'-12]

KIZH AND NETELA SPECIMENS.

Returning to southern California, let us examine the three languages, Kizh, Netela, and Kechi, spoken near the missions of San Gabriel, San Juan Capistrano, and San Luis Rey, respectively, which are not only distantly related to each other, but show traces of the Sonora-Aztec idioms. Father Boscana, who has left us an accurate description of the natives at San Juan Capistrano, unfortunately devoted little attention to their language, and only gives us a few scattered words and stanzas. One of the latter reads as follows:

Which may be rendered thus:

But very little is known of the grammatical structure of these languages. In the Kizh, the plural is formed in various ways, as may be seen in the following examples:

SINGULAR. PLURAL.

Man woroit wororoit

House kitsh kikitsh

Mountain haikh hahaikh

Wolf ishot ishishot

Good tihorwait tiriwait

Small tshinui tshitshínui

Black yupikha yupinot

Woman tokor totokor

Bow paítkhuar papaítkhuar

Bad mohai momohoi

White arawatai rawanot

Red kwauokha kwaukhonot

DECLENSION WITH PRONOUN.

My father ninak Our father ayoinak

Thy father monak Your father asoinak

His father anak

My house nikin Our house eyoknga

Thy house mukin Your house asoknga

His house akinga Their house pomoknga

Of the Netela there are also the following few specimens of plural formation and pronouns;—suol, star; sulum, stars; nopulum, my eyes; nanakom, my ears; nikíwalom, my cheeks; natakalom, my hand; netémelum, my knees.

DECLENSION WITH PRONOUN.

My house niki Our house tshomki

Thy house om aki Your house omomomki

His house poki Their house omp omki

My boat nokh Our boat tshomikh

Thy boat om omikh Your boat omom omikh

His boat ompomikh Their boat ompomikh[V'-14]

The Kizh appears also to have been spoken, in a slightly divergent dialect, at the Mission of San Fernando, as may be easily seen by comparing the following two versions of the Lord's Prayer; the first in the language of San Fernando, and the latter in that spoken at San Gabriel.

Y yorac yona taray tucúpuma sagoucó motoanian majarmi moin main monó muismi miojor yiactucupar. Pan yyogin gimiamerin majarmi mifema coyó ogorná yio mamainay mii, yiarmá ogonug y yoná, y yo ocaynen coijarmea main ytomo mojay coiyamá huermi. Parima.

Yyonac y yogin tucupugnaisá sujucoy motuanían masarmí magin tucupra maimanó muísme mílléosar y ya tucupar jiman bxí y yoní masaxmí mítema coy aboxmi y yo mamaínatar momojaích milli y yaxma abonac y yo no y yo ocaihuc coy jaxmea main itan momosaích coy jama juexme huememesaích.

In like manner do the Netela and Kechi show a close affinity. The Netela Lord's Prayer reads:

Chana ech tupana ave onench, otune a cuachin, chame om reino, libi yb chosonec esna tupána cham nechetepe, micate tom cha chaom, pepsum yg cai caychame, y i julugcalme cai ech. Depupnn opco chame chum oyote. Amen Jésus.

The Kechi is as follows:

Cham na cham mig tu panga auc onan moquiz cham to gai ha cua che nag omreina li vi hiche ca noc ybá heg gá y vi au qui gá topanga. Cham na cholane mim cha pan pituo mag ma jan pohi cala cai gui cha me holloto gai tom chame o gui chag cay ne che cal me tus so lli olo calme alla linoc chame cham cho sivo.[V'-15]

Although Mr Turner classed these languages with the Shoshone family, in reality they only form such a tie through their Sonora and Aztec connection.[V'-16] This is illustrated by Mr Buschmann in an extensive comparative vocabulary of the three languages, of which I shall give a brief extract on a subsequent page.[V'-17]

CHEMEHUEVI AND CAHUILLO PRONOUNS.

The Chemehuevi and Cahuillo, the last two of this division, have also been classed as belonging to the Shoshone family, and some have even called them bands of Pah-Utes, but what has been said concerning the affiliation of the three last mentioned will apply to these with equal force. That they are distinct languages has already been stated by Padre Garcés, who describes them under the name of Chemegue cajuala, Chemegue sebita, Chemeguaba, and Chemegue, ascribing the same language to all of them in distinction from their neighbors. He includes with the Chemehuevi the Yavipai muca oraive or Moqui, who, although not speaking the same language, are still somewhat connected with them, through their Sonora and Aztec relations, which conjectures are singularly significant.[V'-18] Grammatical remarks on these languages there are but few to offer. The accentuation is in neither very regular; in the Chemehuevi, it is generally on the second syllable, while in the Cahuillo it is mostly on the first.[V'-19] I give here the personal pronouns of the two languages.

CHEMEHUEVI. CAHUILLO.

I nuu neh

Thou háiïco eh

He einpá peh

We chémim

You éhmim

They íwim

To illustrate the Sonora and Aztec connection, I offer the following short comparative vocabulary.

SHOSHONE LANGUAGES.

CHEMEHUEVI. CAHUILLO. KECHI. NETELA. KIZH.

Water pa pal pala pala bar

Sun tabaputz tamit temet temét tamet

Day tuwaruwit tamyit temé oronga

Eye puoui napush pusun-opush nopulum atshotshon

Three paii mepa pai pahe pahe

I nuu neh no no noma

House cani kish kicha niki kitsh

Arrow nu hul nohu hul nihun

Father muo nena pehnah nana anak

Girl naiitsit inismal nawitmal

Forehead cobanim nepush

Five manu momequadnun mahar

Ear nancaba nanocka nonak nanakum anana, najas

To die muqush

Stone timp cow-wish tot tota

Black shawagaré tuliksh yaöatkhnot yupikha

Beard mutza nultaman numus aong, pehen

Hill caib ow-so-ni, or tu-qnush

To kill pacai meca kakshitkhl

Woman mukeadi

AZTEC. CAHITA. TEPEHUANA. TARAHUMARA. CORA.

Water atl baa atih

Sun taa

Day

Eye pusi buy pusiki

Three yei bahi

I ne, ni

House calli cari qui caliki

Arrow mitl vu, or u

Father tatli nono

Girl

Forehead ixquaitl coba covara

Five macuilli mammi

Ear nacaztli naca naxa nachcala naxaihti

To die miqui mucu

Stone tetl teta jodde teéke teteti,

Black tlilli chuculi tucu tschocameke muaizitl

Beard

Hill cagui

To kill nomac miqui ameya mea mea

Woman muki [V'-20]

AZTEC TRACES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.

As regards the Sonora and Aztec relationship, we have here again the substantive endings p, b, t, in various forms, which, as before stated, may be compared with Aztec endings, changed according to certain linguistic laws. In the Cahuillo, as in the Kechi, prefixed possessive pronouns, before substantives representing parts of the human body, particularly that in the first person singular, n, are proof of the Sonora affiliation. In the same words, the Chemehuevi has the two pronouns ni and wi, which always carry with them the ending, m.[V'-21]