USA > Ohio > Hamilton County > Madisonville > Indian Village Site and Cemetery Near Madisonville, Ohio > Part 36
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59
The whole difficulty lies in the fact that it is impossible to build up a grammar of a primitive language by following a Latin or Spanish model.1 This rigid adherence to such a model leads to two defects. Forms are given the investigator, often after repeated questioning, which only vaguely express corresponding forms in Spanish or Latin. These are often unnatural and are compounded so as to express in a most artificial way the idea desired. The second defect is the greater as scores of native expressions are entirely overlooked and are never recorded in the early grammars as there are no forms corresponding to them in Latin.
The Spanish missionary did not realize that the different cate- gories of a grammar of a primitive language are entirely different
1 Palma y Palma (1901, p. 159) in criticizing Beltran's grammar expresses the same idea. "Fray Pedro de Beltran, el mejor autor de gramática maya, hay que admitir que la carencia de un signo propio en el idioma para la expresión de los verbos sustantivos es efectiva. Tan hábil en la lengua como diestro en el latin, se esforzó en calcar su Arte del idioma maya á la gramática de la de Virgilio, sin tener en cuenta el genio y diversidad de indole de cada una. De aquí sus errores en esto y en otras cosas de que no me es posible hablar, lo que no desdice en nada su talento que me es tanto más grato reconocer, cuanto que el P. Beltrán fué yucateco nato y todo el vigor de su entendimiento claro se desarrolló en las aulas de su suelo nativo al cual prestó un gran servicio con su obra que da a conocer mejor que ninguna otra, una de las más ricas lenguas americanas que se acaba y desapare- cerá quizá pronto."
Berendt (1878, p. 5) writes in this connection, "A striking instance of this method is presented by the Spanish grammarians, who, in treating the aborigi- nal languages, are particularly bent upon finding similarities or concordances with the Spanish or Latin grammar, and, if they do not find them, frequently invent them.
9
INTRODUCTION
from those of an Indo-European language. The only possible method of approach to the study of a primitive language is an analytical one, working out the different thought units and the methods of expressing these entirely divorced from any model based on Latin or Spanish lines.1
This difference in categories will be seen at many places in the following pages. Here it is only necessary to point out a few of these differences. The distinction between the noun and the verb is vague in many of the Maya stems - many verbs are really nouns and used with the possessive pronoun as the subject. Time particles attached to the nominal pronoun are entirely overlooked in the early grammars. There is no true case in Maya except in the pronoun where we find only the nominal pronoun used as the subject and as a possessive and the verbal pronoun used as an ob- ject. No gender is expressed except that particles are found denot- ing the sex of the actor in the "nomen actoris." The inclusive and exclusive forms for the plural are found in the pronoun.
Maya is a polysynthetic or incorporating language where a pro- nominal subject of the verb is always expressed. Maya follows, in general, the same methods of expression as those found in the greater number of American languages. From the point of view of lexicography it is distinct from any of the other languages spoken in Mexico or Central America. It is therefore in its structure alone that it corresponds to other American languages.
In the analytical treatment of the grammar I desire, as Boas ? expresses it, to present the data "as though an intelligent Indian was going to develop the forms of his own thought by an analysis of his own form of speech."
Grammars of Coronel, San Buenaventura, and Beltran. In spite of many omissions and forms which are more or less artificial, the old Spanish grammars are of distinct service in understanding the language. I have made frequent reference to these grammars in the footnotes when my forms differ from those given by them.
There are three early grammars of the language which are worthy of special mention, that of Coronel, published in 1620, that of San
1 For a masterly treatment of this point of view, see Boas, Handbook of American Indian Languages, Bulletin 40, Bureau of Ethnology, Washington, 1911. Introduction, p. 5-83.
' Op. cit., p. 81.
10
GRAMMAR
Buenaventura in 1684, and that of Beltran de Santa Rosa in 1746.1
The first grammar to be written on the Maya language was by Villalpando, one of the first Catholic priests to arrive in Yucatan. He died in 1551 or 1552. His work was never published and the manuscript has disappeared .? This grammar, with additions by Landa, was probably the basis of Coronel's work.' The latter starts with the pronouns giving nothing on the phonetics which are · treated by both San Buenaventura and Beltran.
It is quite evident that San Buenaventura based his work almost entirely on that of Coronel. The examples in Maya given to illus- trate the different parts of the grammar are often identical with those given by Coronel. There are, in fact, only a very few cases where San Buenaventura has material not to be found in Coronel. The list of particles (fols. 20-37) given by San Buenaventura con- tain many not listed by Coronel. Coronel, on the other hand, has many not given by San Buenaventura. Coronel also discusses the optative which is not mentioned by San Buenaventura and he gives a much fuller treatment of the subjunctive than that given by San Buenaventura. The latter's work, written about 1675, was published in 1684, 64 years after that of Coronel. There is no internal evidence that the language had changed during that time.
Beltran called San Buenaventura, "el Protomaestro del Idioma Yucateco." He was not aware of the grammars of Villalpando, Landa, and of Coronel when he wrote his work.' Beltran follows San Buenaventura in using the same verbs for his paradigms but he has a large amount of new material in his grammar and often refers to what he considers mistakes in San Buenaventura's work. In every way Beltran's grammar should be considered by far the best of the three printed early treatises on Maya. His qualifica . tions for writing a grammar are many as he himself states." He
1 For full discussion of the different editions of these grammars, see p. 163- 165.
' For a list of the large number of authorities whose works have been lost see p. 151-153.
' Beltran, 1859 ed., p. 242. Hereafter references to Beltran will be to this edition.
4 See Beltran, p. 242.
§ § 148. "Para exponer al público mi dictamen (habiendo de asentar mis con- jugaciones diversas de las del R. P. Fr. Gabriel [San Buenaventura]) necesario
11
INTRODUCTION
was a native of Yucatan, grew up among the Indians and lived among them practically all his life. San Buenaventura, on the other hand, was a Frenchman and probably lived almost exclu- sively with Spanish speaking people in Merida.
It has already been pointed out that there are practically no differences between the Coronel and San Buenaventura grammars. Beltran, on the other hand, finds much to differ with in the lan- guage as he records it and as given by San Buenaventura.1 The differences between the present author's version of the grammar and that of Beltran and of the other grammarians will be noted throughout the paper.
There are four possible explanations for these differences:
1. Time.
2. Mistakes of each of the authors in question.
3. Omissions due to following the Latin model.
4. Difference in locality where the data were collected.
Beltran's work, written in 1742, was published in 1746, 62 years after that of San Buenaventura (1684) and 126 years after that of Coronel (1620). It has been pointed out that the grammars of Coronel and San Buenaventura do not differ in substance and yet presumably each recorded the language as spoken at or near the time they were published, 64 years apart. The question may then be asked, did 62 more years cause the differences in the idiom as . noted by Beltran from that of the time of San Buenaventura? Again, are the differences noted in the language as spoken today
es dar las razones, que me asisten para esta, que parece cosa nueva. Es, pues, la primera que siendo yo hijo de esta provincia, criado entre estos naturales y habiendo habitado con ellos una montaña yerma, predicándoles, confesándoles, instruyên- doles y con ellos de continuo en su idioma confabulando, de modo que se me llegó a olvidar mucho de los vocablos castellanos; y estando juntamente instruído del Arte gramático latino, me es preciso confesar que entiendo con claridad sus periodos y que conozco con evidencia en que claúsulas no concuerda su modo de hablar con el comun modo; y tambien donde pueden no regir bien las reglas que se pueden dar para instruccion de los que quisieren sin error aprender su idioma."
1 Beltran, 1859 ed. in his " Prologo al Lector" writes, " Para este fin, queriendo facilitar mas este negocio; lei el Arte del R. P. F. Gabriel de San Buenaventura, de Nacion Frances, Proto-Maestro de este Idioma, y hasta hoy el único, que dió su Arte a la prensa: en donde habiendo yo hallado muchos yerros de imprenta, falta de muchas reglas, y reglas, que ya prescribieron por el contrario uso; me determiné a formar un nuevo Arte, con el designio de proseguir haciendo un vocabulario y otras cosas curiosas, y necesarias."
12
GRAMMAR
and that of Beltran's epoch due to the factor of time? Languages, we are told, never stand still and when we take into consideration the steady advance of the Spanish language we do well to pause before stating that time is not a great factor in causing these dif- ferences. I consider, however, that time has played a relatively small part. Those differences pointed out by Beltran in his criti- cism of San Buenaventura's grammar are undoubtedly, due for the most part, to mistakes in the observation of the earlier gram- marian.1 This point will be made clearer in the comments made later on the specific statements of Beltran, San Buenaventura, and Coronel .?
The differences I found in the Maya as now spoken in Yucatan from the forms given by Beltran are, with some few exceptions, due, it seems to me, to the rigid adherence to the Latin model observed by Beltran. My points of difference with Beltran are compara- tively few when everything is taken into consideration. The addi- tional data presented here are due to the breaking away from the Latin model and carrying on observations from a different angle of approach.' It should be clearly understood that I refer here to
1 Beltran states that some of his criticisms of San Buenaventura are due to the changes of time. He writes as follows (§ 49) "Para conocer a que con- jugacion pertenece cada verbo, se advierta que estas son cuatro, número á que las redujo el R. P. Fr. Gabriel de S. Buenaventura, Religioso nuestro y Frances de nacion, Protomaestro de este Arte, formando el suyo (que á la Imprenta dió) verdaderamente con gran trabajo y elegancia: regraciable por la conocida utilidad que nos dejó su magisterio; pero como no todo lo pudo andar, nos dejó que ad- vertir algo, y porque los tiempos mudan las cosas, será preciso que haga yo algunas notas cuando sean necesarias." This statement is flattering to San Buenaven- tura and was evidently meant to be so. In the specific objections given through- out Beltran's text it is clear that he considers San Buenaventura to have made actual mistakes in recording the language. The fact that he states that he was brought up among the natives (§ 148) and that San Buenaventura was a Frenchman brings out clearly his own idea that he was the better fitted to write a Maya grammar.
" The reader will note that I have endeavored to point out in footnotes the main points where I differ from the old grammarians on the one hand and modern writers such as Seler, Palma y Palma, and Lopez, on the other.
' Brinton (1882, p. 35, 36) writes on this point, "I must, however, not omit to contradict formally an assertion made by the traveller Waldeck, and often repeated, that the language has undergone such extensive changes that what was written a century ago is unintelligible to a native of today. So far is this from the truth that, except for a few obsolete words, the narrative of the Con- quest, written more than three hundred years ago, by the chief Pech, which
13
INTRODUCTION
grammatical structure and not to vocabulary. In the latter respect the change has been far greater.1
There remain to be examined the differences due to the locality where the material was collected. There are no data to identify the place where Coronel did his work on Maya. San Buenaventura was connected with the Convent of San Francisco in Merida.' The name of the Indian who gave him most of the facts regarding the language is known but we are not aware, as Beltran points out, whether or not this Indian was a native of Merida.ª
Beltran was at the Convent of San Pedro y San Pablo at Tiab in the former province of San Jose. This town, now called Teabo, is in the present District of Tekax, about half way between Tekax and Peto. It is very probable that the material for his grammar was collected in this vicinity." A contrast should be made between a practically pure Maya population in towns such as Teabo and a mixed population such as is found at Merida.
I print in this volume, could be read without much difficulty by any educated native."
" See in this connection the discussion of the translation of old Maya texts, p. 114.
? According to the Aprobacion del Br. Juan Gomez Brizeno in San Buena- ventura's grammar, the latter was " Religioso del Orden del Señor S. Francisco, Difinidor habitual Guardian del Convento del Señor S. Francisco de la Ciudad de Merida y Lector en el Idioma Yucatheco."
' Beltran (§ 50) writes, "El R. P. fué Autor primero . . . y lo enseñó todo a los Indios de esta Provincia, fue un Indio llamado Kinchahau, y por otro nombre Tzamná. Noticia que debemos á dicho R. F. Gabriel, y trae en su Calepino lit. K. Verb. Kinchahau, jol. 390, vuelt .; mas no dice como adquirió este Indio tal Idi- oma: y de aqui se infiere que el Idioma de esta Provincia era otro y muy distinto." 4 Brasseur de Bourbourg (1871, p. 23) writes, "Le père Beltran de Santa- Rosa Maria était natif de Mérida de Yucatan, où il prit, dès sa jeunesse, l'habit de Saint François, Profitant des travaux faits avant lui, et en particulier de ceux du père Gabriel de Saint Bonaventure, il composa sa Grammaire, dans le temps qu'il enseignait la langue maya au monastère principal de San-Benito de sa ville natale, dont les grandes ruines recouvrent aujourd'hui celles de l'antique demeure des pontifes d'Ahchum-Caan." There seems little doubt that Brasseur de Bourbourg is mistaken in thinking that Beltran's Grammar was written in Merida. There is published in the grammar the Censura of Miguel Leal de Las Alas, Predicador of the Province of San Jose and of Pedro Martin, Pre- dicador at Tiab together with the Licencia of Juan Esteban Pinelo of the Pro- vince of San Jose. These add weight to the supposition that Beltran wrote his work when he was at the Convent of San Pedro y San Pablo at Tiab, the present Teabo.
14
GRAMMAR
Palma y Palma, who collected his material in Merida, writes of the language as spoken in the east, where Beltran lived, as espe- cially given to contractions.1 The use of contractions marks the main change in the language as recorded here and that used by the Lacandones. It is probable that simple phonetic variations and a difference in the use of the contracted forms alone distinguish the Maya of these two widely separated localities." The changes in the language in the peninsula itself seem to be correspondingly few and consist for the most part, of a favorite use of one or more possible variations in expression. These variations are commonly known by everyone. Slightly different pronunciations of the sounds are to be noted. The language structurally does not seem to differ much in the whole peninsula.
It is possible to sum this question up by saying that, whereas the vocabulary has changed greatly owing to the more extended use of Spanish and the corresponding loss of Maya words, there seem to be comparatively few differences in the fundamental characteristics of the language, the structure remaining practically unchanged as far as can be made out from a comparison of the language as spoken in the early days of the Spanish Conquest and that spoken today in the smaller towns and away from the large centers of population.
Maya of present time. As noted in a previous study of the ethnol- ogy of the Mayas' one very interesting fact comes out in connection with the Maya language of Yucatan, a fact noted by all histo- rians and writers on the inhabitants of the peninsula. The Maya language has withstood with amazing stability the entrance of the Spanish tongue into the country. The language is still an impor- tant factor to be taken into consideration when dealing with this people. Maya is the language spoken by the natives in the large cities quite as much as in the thinly populated regions. Even the natives who have a good knowledge of Spanish almost invariably use Maya when conversing with one another and some absolutely
1 Palma y Palma (p. 179), "Uin y tló, son contracciones más usadas en el Oriente constituyendo uno de los distintivos del lenguaje y estilo en aquella parte del pais donde vivió largos años de misionero y predicador el P. Beltran 'hasta casi olvidar el castellano,' como él mismo pone en el prólogo de su gramática."
? For further details in this point, see p. 27.
* Tozzer, 1907, p. 36.
15
INTRODUCTION
refuse to speak anything else, clinging to their own tongue with the greatest devotion.1
So general is the use of the native tongue in the peninsula that in some places in the small interior towns it is sometimes difficult to find one who can carry on a continued conversation in Spanish although most of the younger generation understand it when spoken. It is curious to note the varying differences in the tenacity of the mother tongue in various parts of Mexico and Central America. In many isolated places throughout the whole region the native languages still continue to be used. But in most cases with close contact the native tongue has given way to Spanish. Contact, however, since the very earliest days of the Conquest has not had this influence on the Maya of Yucatan and this still re- mains the language of the country.
On many of the large plantations, Maya is spoken exclusively and the mayordomos use it invariably in speaking to the natives. The Spanish priests when making their visits through the small towns preach their sermons in Maya.
Modern Maya Grammars. I have attempted to give in the Appraisement (Part III) a full discussion of what I consider to be the relative merits of the many writers on the Maya dialect. It is, therefore, only necessary here to say a few words concerning the modern works to which reference is made in the main body of this paper. The grammar of Ruz (1844) is of very slight value. The work of Seler (1887), although based entirely on the early gram- mars, is the first attempt ever made to explain the structure of the language. The book of Palma y Palma (1901), although following the lines of the older grammarians, contains a great deal of new and valuable material. The grammars of Zavala (1896) and of Pacheco Cruz (1912) should be mentioned here. The best modern grammar is that of Lopez Otero (1914).
1 Compare Brinton (1882, p. 27-28) who writes, "It has been observed that foreigners, coming to Yucatan, ignorant of both Spanish and Maya, ac- quire a conversational knowledge of the latter more readily than of the former." He quotes Garcia y Garcia (1865, p. lxxv) who writes on this point, " La lengua castellana es mas difficultosa que la Maya para la gente adulta, que no ha mamado con la leche, como lo ha enseñado la experiencia en los estranjeros de distintas naciones, y en los negros bozales que se han radicado en esta provincia, que mas facilmente han aprendido la Maya que la castellana."
16
GRAMMAR
The late Señor Don Audomaro Molina of Merida, Yucatan, was probably one of the best Maya scholars of the present time. He partially completed the difficult task of revising for publication the Motul dictionary. Unfortunately he published nothing on the language.
One of his pupils, however, Daniel Lopez Otero, notes in his Gramatica Maya 1 that he is under obligations to Señor Molina who taught him the greater part of the rules he uses in his work.
Mention should be made of another Maya scholar, Señor Don Juan Martinez Hernandez of Merida, who has worked for many years on the Maya language and, more especially, on the Books of Chilam Balam and on Maya chronology. His valuable writings are listed in the Bibliography. I am under deep obligations to him for encouragement in this work and more especially for his willing- ness to read the proof and to suggest changes in the text of this paper.
All Maya scholars are very greatly indebted to Mr. William Gates of Point Loma, California, through whose energy and acu- men large stores of material in the Maya language have been made available to students. Further mention of this work is made in Part III (p. 148-149).
Provenance of material discussed. The greater part of the linguis- tic material used in this study was obtained from Benito Can, a native of Valladolid, a town in northeastern Yucatan. The Span- iards under Montejo founded this city in 1543 upon the site of the native town of Saki. During the early days of the Spanish occupa- tion the city arose to some prominence. It was and is, even to this
1 Lopez (1914, p. 5) writes in this connection, "Tampoco he pretendido con- quistar honores que no merezco, sino rendir este humilde recuerdo de gratitud y admiración a mi ilustrado y muy querido maestro, don Audomaro Molina Solís (q. d. D. g.) de quien he aprendido la mayor parte de las reglas que, en esta desa- liñada obrita, hallará el indulgente lector que se dignare leerla. Si el Maestro viviera, no me ocuparía en escribir nada acerca de este idioma; pero habiendo falle- cido sin haber realizado la noble idea, por él acariciada, de dar a luz una gramática y un diccionario de la lengua maya, y observando que ninguno de sus discípulos ha publicado nada hasta la fecha acerca de este idioma, a fin de que tan sabias como útiles enseñanzas no sean relegadas al olvido, he resuelto publicar en forma gramatical las lecciones que de él he recibido, aumentadas con, algunas reglas tomadas del arte . . . de Beltrán de Santa Rosa María, y otras observaciones que personalmente he tenido ocasión de hacer," etc.
PHONETICS
day, the farthest point eastward of the country brought under complete Spanish control. The vast territory immediately east- ward to the coast is occupied by the "indios sublerudes." These wandering bands of Indians have never been wholly conquered by the Mexicans. Valladolid has suffered several attacks and destruc- tions at the hands of these wild tribes and the city is now hardly more than an Indian town.
The language spoken at Valladolid is perhaps more free from out- side influence than that used in any other portion of the settled part of the peninsula.
At the time of my four successive seasons in Yucatan. Benito Can was an indented servant upon the Hacienda of Chichen Itza be- longing to Mr. E. H. Thompson then American Consul at Progreso. Yucatan. It was while accepting the kind hospitality of Mr. and Mrs. Thompson that I did the greater part of my linguistic work.
The investigations into the language were undertaken at several different times covering the whole period of four years. Thus I was able to check up the material often after periods separated by an absence of a year or more.
Benito Can had a strain of Spanish blood in his veins. He had lived all his life. however, in the town of his birth and had had com- paratively little contact with the Spanish speaking population. His knowledge of Spanish, however. was adequate for my purpose. He was one of three brothers the other two of whom could not speak a word of Spanish. This man was of rather a higher grade of intelligence than the average Maya. I used several other inter- preters to check up the material obtained from Can.
PHONETICS
GENERAL CHARACTER. The phonetic system of the Maya is gen- erally simple. The occurrence of the velar k (q) and the glotta- lized or fortis forms of the t, p, and the two dental surds (5 and ts) give the language a certain harshness when compared with the Nahuatl of the north with its smooth liquid sounds.1
1 Beltran in his " Prologo al Lector" writes, " Es el Yucateco Idioma garboso en sus dicciones, elegante en sus periodos, y en ambas cosas conciso: pues con pocas palabras y breves sílabas explica a veces profundas sentencias. Y como se acer- tarán a pronunciar ciertas consonantes, que lo hacen acre, sería muy fácil de
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.