USA > Ohio > Hamilton County > Madisonville > Indian Village Site and Cemetery Near Madisonville, Ohio > Part 49
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
Much of the material published on the Maya grammar in the last century was taken from Beltran. The list of his followers is a long one. It contains: Norman (1843, p. 240-249), Gallatin (1845, p. 45-47, 252-268) and Heller (1853, p. 381-385). They evidently had access to the first edition. Brasseur de Bourbourg (1864, p. 459 478) writes that he obtained his grammatical material from the works of Beltran and Ruz. It is quite evident that he de- pended very slightly, if at all, on Beltran's treatise. According to Brinton (1900, p. 209), Brasseur de Bourbourg explained to Berendt that when he wrote this book he had never seen the original works either of Beltran or of Ruz but only Gallatin's reference to the former and Kingdon's translation of the latter. De Rosny (1875, p. 61-82) and Bancroft (1874-76, v. 3, p. 773-776) give some por- tions of Beltran almost without change. Charencey (1883-84; ed. 1885) uses it in comparing the conjugation of the Maya with that of Quiche. Larrainzar (1875-78, v. 2, p. 407-408) mentions Beltran. Palma y Palma (1901) follows him quite fully and Mitre (1909- 11, v. 3, p. 71-83) gives an outline of the work. De Rosny (1904, p. 87-115) has grammatical notes after San Buenaventura, Bel- tran, and Ruz.
XIX CENTURY, ETC. The next independent work on the Maya grammar was that of Ruz (1844: 1845).1 He was a Franciscan, born in Merida in 1785. He was a prolific writer on Maya sub-
1 Squier (1861, p. 38) gives a Maya grammar by Narciso (1838). This is clearly a mistake. The Narciso work is a Spanish grammar by Diego Narciso Herranz y Quiros, translated into Maya by Ruz.
166
APPRAISEMENT OF WORKS
jects as already pointed out. His main grammatical work (1844) is written in the form of questions and answers in the Maya language and is really a translation into Maya of the Spanish grammar of Herranz y Quiros (1834). Neither this, his Cartilla (Ruz, 1845; 2d. ed. Berendt, 1871) nor any of his other works are of great im- portance from a linguistic point of view. An English translation of his grammar was published by Kingdon (1847).1 Brasseur de Bourbourg (1864, p. 459-478) follows Ruz, as previously stated, although he claims to have used Beltran as well. Finally, de Rosny (1875, p. 91-93) gives some modern Maya from Ruz. Vela (1) has left a few grammatical notes some of which refer to the grammar of Ruz.
Juan Pio Perez (1) contemplated writing a grammar and col- lected notes for this work (B. L. C. No. 11). There seems also to have been some manuscript notes on the language given by Perez (1842a) to Stephens.2 Gallatin (1845) used these in alddition to the grammar of Beltran in preparing his own work. Perez (1844), in a letter written from Peto, makes some very interesting gram- matical observations regarding the changes in Maya from the point of view of time. Henderson (1852) published a May a primer of no value.
Berendt (1864 and 5, § 1, 3-5) has left several incomplete por- tions of a Maya grammar in manuscript. Anon (26, p. 88-98) pre- sents a few grammatical notes. Shea (1873-76, v. 1, p. 411) gives a specimen of Maya grammar. Sayce (1875, p. 187, note) has an example of the Maya noun and adjective taken from the text of Charencey (1873). Gabelentz (1881, p. 368) gives an example of the possessive. Charencey (1883: 1896) should be mentioned among the writers on Maya grammar although his writings del with special features of the language.
1 In a preliminary note to Berendt's copy of the Kingdon translatio (Berendt, 1865), Berendt points out that Kingdon mistranslates Ruz's title Gramatica Yucateca which does not mean a "Yucatan Grammar," but a gram mar of the Yucatecan language. He adds: "It seems that Father Kingdor had only an imperfect knowledge of either Maya or Spanish. We arrive at this conclusion in view of the many blunders made in his translation, for which see my notes." (This note given by Brinton, 1900, p. 208).
? See Stephens, 1843, v. 2, p. 278. There is another set of manuscript notes on the grammar by Perez (10). It is impossible to judge how much of this material is contained in Perez (1) and (1842a).
167
GRAMMARS
Brinton (1882, p. 27-37) gives some brief grammatical notes. He had access to the early works of San Buenaventura and of Bel- tran. Seler (1887), while basing his study entirely on early printed material, presents the grammatical forms in a new light. Zavala (1896) has a small grammar, rather badly arranged, and not covering the ground so fully as the early grammarians have done. Palma y Palma (1901, p. 83-474), although following Beltran in the main, presents much new and original material of some value. Romero Fuentes (1910) and Pacheco Cruz (1912) have phrase books which are useful in acquiring a superficial speaking knowl- ledge of the Maya but they are quite inadequate for a proper understanding of the grammatical forms.
Lopez Otero (1914) has a very good grammar founded in part upon the grammar of Beltran and upon the linguistic teachings of the late Señor Don Audomaro Molina. This work ranks next to that of the three early grammarians. It also gives a very good idea of the language as spoken at the present time.
SPECIAL FEATURES. Studies of special phases of the Maya gram- mar are not numerous. Adam (1877) has a study of polysynthesis in Maya and Quiche. Charencey (1884) has some pertinent ideas regarding the formation of words in Maya and another paper (1896) on the classification of the verb. Tozzer (1912) attempts to classify the verb. The Maya pronoun is treated by Brinton 1885, p. 35-36), Charencey (1883, p. 123-129), and by Tozzer (1906). Rejón García (1905, p. 19-27) has some remarks of no value on certain particles. Gates (1) has an excellent article in manuscript regarding the modern approach to a Maya grammar. He also (Gates, 1914) discusses the grammar from a philosophical basis.
COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR. Maya Stock. This subject is best treated by Seler (1887), Charencey (1866: 1883-84; digest in Mitre, 1909-11, v. 3, p. 87-95), and Charencey (1883, p. 123-139). The interpretation of the material, gathered from the older au- thorities, is a distinct contribution to the study of the Maya language as a whole.
.
-
h
S
3
Slight comparative grammatical material on the Maya and Quiche is to be found in Adam (1877). Gallatin (1845) treats of Maya, Quiche, Pokonchi, and Huastec. F. Müller (1876-88, v. 2,
.
168
APPRAISEMENT OF WORKS
p. 305-313, after Vater) compares Maya, Quiche, Mam, Pokonchi, and Huastec.
Maya stock and Mexican languages. Berendt (5 in B. L. C. No. 179) compares Maya with Nahuatl, Otomi, Natchez, Cak- chiquel, etc. Palma y Palma (1901, p. 421-449) has some reflec- tions on Nahuatl and Maya. See also Adam (1878a) below.
Maya stock and North American Languages. Adam (1878) com- pares Dakota, Cree and some other North American stocks with Maya and Quiche and Adam (1878a) treats briefly of Dakota, Nahuatl, Maya, Quiche, as well as two South American stocks.
Maya stock and South American Languages. See Adam (1878a) above.
PHONETICS
The phonetics of the Maya language are discussed at some length in the grammar of Beltran (1746) and in several of the other grammars. His list of the sounds is used by Norman (1843, p. 242) and the latter is copied in turn by Spence (1913, p. 342). Juan Molina (1896, p. 335) also quotes from Beltran. Brasseur de Bourbourg (1864, p. 322, note), followed by Bollaert (1866, p. 50- 51) quote Beltran on the alphabet. The Analytical Alphabet of Berendt (1869) and Berendt (5 in B. L. C. No. 179, § 1) together with Stoll (1884, p. 39-44) give good discussions of the phonetics of the whole group of Maya languages. Carrillo y Ancona (1880a, p. 91-95: 1893) 1 has some words on the pronunciation. Anon. (2, ff. 9-11) treats of the sounds in Maya. Perez (1842a) has left some remarks on the various sounds and letters adopted for these sounds as a preliminary notice to his manuscript " Codex Perez " in the library of the New York Historical Society. These notes were used by Gallatin (1845, p. 252). Justo Sierra (1842-45) dis- cusses the sounds in Maya. Gates (3) has a paper in manuscript regarding the pronunciation with an alphabet which he prefers in writing Maya and he describes (Gates, 1920, p. 611-613) very carefully the phonetic system of the language. Tozzer (1907, p. xxiii: 1910, p. 277) gives a key to the pronunciation of the Maya Sounds.
1 This work introduces the series of manuscript vocabularies from the dif- ferent towns in Yucatan described on p. 293.
169
VOCABULARIES
VOCABULARIES
Carrillo y Ancona (1881; ed. 1883, p. 123), quoted by Brinton (1882, p. 72), states that seventeen dictionaries of the language have been written. This number should be increased if we include all the missing Maya vocabularies.
XVI CENTURY. Villalpando (1571) holds the place of priority regarding the authorship of a Maya dictionary as he does that of a grammar. His dictionary was published in Mexico in 1571.1 This work is probably based upon the vocabulary contained in his Arte (§ 1) which is missing.
Solana (1580), a Franciscan and companion of Landa, is another author of a dictionary in this century. This is in manuscript and is probably in the library of The Hispanic Society of America in New York .? Mention should also be made here of a short collection of · Maya words given by Oviedo (1535; ed. 1851-55, v. 4, p. 593- 607), also in Berendt, (1868d, v. 1, in B. L. C. No. 42-11) and Berendt (6 in B. L. C. No. 180). The Maya words in Landa (1864) have been collected and translated by Bowditch (1).
Another dictionary of this century is that by Gaspar Antonio Xiu (§ 1).3 He was a Maya Indian and related to the so-called royal family of the Tutul Xius, one of the two reigning families of Mayapan. The manuscript is missing but it is dated toward the close of the century as he is known to have been receiving a pension from the Spanish Government in 1593 and 1599.'
1 Brinton (1882, p. 74) states that one copy at least is in existence.
? I have been unable to verify this point. For bibliographical purposes several works of Solana are listed in the bibliography although they do not appear to touch upon the Maya language, Solana (§ 3), (§ 4), (§ 5), (§ 6). Nájera (1) should be noted here. The work of Cardenas (1639), although belonging to the next century, may be mentioned as being in the same class.
' In the list of missing authorities I have also placed another work by Xiu (1582) although it probably has little to do with Maya linguistics. See Carrillo y Ancona, 1870; ed. 1872, p. 137-138.
" A description of his work is given in the Relación de Quinacama (Coleccion de Documentos Ineditos, v. 11, p. 264). Juan Martinez writes personally as follows, "Antonio Xiu helped everybody in his work. He never wrote a vo- cabulary: he was not a scholar but an interpreter of the government and had access to the library of the Franciscan Convent in Merida."
170
APPRAISEMENT OF WORKS
Another companion of Landa was Ciudad Real. He came to America in 1573 and died in 1617. He is the author of several works on the Maya language. His Gran Diccionario 6 Calepino (Ciudad Real, § 1) was prepared in two copies neither of which has been found.1 He is said to have taken forty years to write this. Juan Martinez Hernández identifies the Motul dictionary as this missing work. There is probably another dictionary (Ciudad Real, § 2) distinct from the Calepino .? Cogolludo (1688, p. 513) writes of Ciudad Real, " Aprendiò el idioma de estos Indios con tanta per- feccion que fue el mayor Maestro de èl que ha tenido esta tierra. Como tal predicò, enseñò y escribiò Sermones de Santos . . . no solo hizo Vocabularios, que el uno empieça con la lengua Castellana, y el otro con la de los Indios; pero compuso una obra tan insigne, que por su grandeza se llamò Calepino de la lengua Mayo ò Yucatheca."
The Motul Dictionary, the most famous of all the Maya extant dictionaries, probably goes back to the last quarter of the XVI century.3 A copy of this manuscript is now in the John Carter Brown Library at Providence, Rhode Island. It is called the Motul Dictionary as there is reason to believe that the first part was written at the Convent of Motul. It is probably a copy of an earlier manuscript. It is impossible to determine the exact date of the original but the author speaks of a comet which he saw in 1577 and "gives other evidence that he was writing in the first genera- tion after the Conquest."" The present copy seems to have been made about the close of the xVI century. It consists of two parts :-
1 According to Nicolas Antonio (1672) who copied from Lizana (1633, ed. 1893, p. 100), one copy remained in Yucatan and the other was in the library of the Duque del Infantado in Spain. Brinton (1897, p. 185) tried to trace this library in 1888 and again in 1893. Some volumes were said to have gone to the Real Academia de Historia and the bulk of the collection passed to the Duke de Osuna and was sold by him to the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid. Inquiries by Brinton in both these institutions met with failure.
? Berendt (1868b) gives an otro diccionario in his list of missing authorities. Mention is made of another work of Ciudad Real (§ 3) although it evidently contained nothing on the language.
3 Ciudad Real was in Yucatan from 1573 to 1617 which would be about the time this manuscript was written.
For bibliographical note, see Bartlett (1865-71, v. 1, p. 226, 2d. ed. 1875- 82, v. 1, p. 446).
4 Brinton (1882, p. 77: 1885a, p. 32) and Berendt (7, in B. L. C. No. 181) also have notes on the Motul. Bollaert (1866, p. 54, note) gives information on the Motul taken from Trübner (1865, p. 2).
171
VOCABULARIES
Maya-Spanish and Spanish-Maya, the latter section containing approximately 11,180 words. This is probably later in date than the Maya-Spanish part.
Juan Martinez Hernández thinks that the Motul dictionary is the same work as the Calepino of Ciudad Real and refers to Lizana (1633, ed. 1893, p. 99) who writes, "Antonio de Ciudad Real . . . hizo Calepino tan grande, que son seis bolumenes de a dozientos pliegos cada uno, los dos de su letra sacados en limpios, y los borradores llenaua dos costales, ocupó 40 años en esta obra, mas es tan buena, y de tanto peso, y utilidad, que no tiene otro defeto que ser para esta tierra solamente que a correr esta lengua en todo el mundo solas estas obras bastauan para dar luz, y claridad a todos los que la aprendiessen, y alli hallassen quantas frasis, y propiedad se pueden imaginar, sin que aya falta de una palabra, etc."
Berendt made a careful copy of the manuscript in 1864 (B. L. C. No. 1) with extensive corrections and additions from the other Maya dictionaries, the Ticul, San Francisco and Pio Perez, copies of which he possessed. In the preface to his copy he writes, "The first part of the Providence MS. is written in an extremely small and badly arranged hand. It shows an author of wide instruction, with scientific mind, and profound knowledge of the Maya language and great care and attention. But the copyist was an ignorant fellow who did not understand what he was writing, not even in the Spanish part, and in places he shows terrible negligence."1 It is needless to add that this dictionary is indispensable for the student who is working on the translation of old Maya texts. The illustra- tive sentences after many of the words are most useful. An un- successful attempt was made by the Bureau of American Ethnology to publish this manuscript. A portion of it was set up in proof after having been copied by Miss Thomas. These proofs were being corrected by Señor Audomaro Molina at the time of his death .? Mr. William Gates is now at work on an edition of the dictionary.
Mention should be made here of the Vocabulario grande Yucatano (Anon. 28) mentioned by Cogolludo.3
1 This is a translation from the Spanish kindly furnished me by Miss Adela Breton.
? For the work of Miss Thomas and Audomaro Molina, see Powell (1900, p. 67-68), McGee (1901, p. 79: 1902, p. 53-54), and Holmes (1903, p. 41).
' Carrillo y Ancona (1870; ed. 1872, p. 135) writes: "La primera obra que escribieron los indios yucatecos en el siglo mismo de la conquista, usando por
172
APPRAISEMENT OF WORKS
XVII CENTURY. Coronel (§ 1) (circa 1620) and Vidales (§ 1) (circa 1644) are both authors of vocabularies which are missing. Coronel (1620, p. 107-110) gives the names of the different parts of the body. Valladolid (§ 3) also wrote a dictionary according to Ludewig (1858, p. 103). This may be questioned.
The San Francisco Dictionary is second in importance to the Motul and probably belongs about the middle of the XVII century. This work was found at the closing of the Convent of San Fran- cisco in Merida in 1820. It bears no date. The original is lost but Perez made a copy (Perez, 11) 1 and Berendt made a copy from that of Perez in 1870 (B. L. C. No. 3). Meneses (1) made a partial copy. Pio Perez considers that this dictionary is older than the Ticul vocabulary, probably by half a century. Berendt would place it as older than the Motul, basing his decision on some antiquated forms in the San Francisco which appear in the Motul as modern- ized .? Mitre (1909-11, v. 3, p. 71) suggests that this dictionary may have been the work of San Buenaventura (§ 1).3 In this case the
primera vez de los caracteres alfabéticos, fué un gran Vocabulario historico que, no habiéndose nunca llegado a imprimir, parece que se ha perdido por completo. Con- servábase todavía á mediados del siglo diez y siete, época en que Fr. Diego Lopez de Cogolludo se hallaba en esta Peninsula, pues le vió y aun le servió para componer su Historia, como se ve por estas palabras que se leen en el cap. V del lib. IV, con motivo de hablar aquel autor del nombre que los antiguos Mayas daban á un Dios único é incorpóreo."
1 From Berendt (1871a, p. 60) who writes, " D. Pio ha copiado tambien este Diccionario, coordinando la parte maya-española por el mismo método que habia empleado en su trabajo anterior," it might be inferred that this dictionary was originally arranged in a Spanish-Maya order only and that Perez made the Maya-Spanish part when he copied it in the same way as he had done with the Ticul Dictionary. But in his Preface he states that he received a copy of a part of the Maya-Spanish portion made by Meneses. This seems to show that the original manuscript was in Maya-Spanish and Spanish-Maya.
The Perez copy was found by Martinez Hernández among papers presented by Mrs. Ernesto de Regil to her brother-in-law, José Rafael de Regil of Merida, who is the present owner.
2 Berendt in the Preface to his copy of v. 2 of the Motul Dictionary (B. L. C. No. 1).
' Mitre quotes as follows from Ancona (1877, p. iv), in his introduction to Perez (1866-77): "En 1848, el mismo Pérez encontró en casa del cura José Maria Meneses, un diccionario de la lengua Maya, más voluminoso, el cual había sido de la biblioteca del convento grande de San Francisco, y cuya fecha y autor se ignoraba por faltar á la obra sus primeras páginas. Parece que después de una enfermedad del Señor Meneses el volumen fué extraído de su casa, y Pérez pudo al
173
VOCABULARIES
date would presumably be about 1684, the date of his grammar.1 Mitre is probably incorrect in this supposition. The manuscript is in two parts, Maya-Spanish and Spanish-Maya, the latter por- tion containing approximately 9160 words. The two parts do not correspond, each portion having terms and acceptations not to be found in the other.
The Ticul Dictionary comes at the end of the XVII century. It bears the date of 1690 and was found in 1836 in the Convent of Ticul. The original manuscript is lost. It is in Spanish-Maya, and contains approximately 6190 words. Pio Perez copied it in 1836 and made a second copy in 1847,2 together with a list of the words arranged as Maya-Spanish (Perez, 1847a). From the 1847 copy and the Maya-Spanish arrangement Berendt made his copy in 1870 (B. L. C. No. 2). The manuscript, not including the Maya- Spanish part, was published under the name of Perez (1898, p. 124- 196) by Ignacio Peon who joined it to the vocabulary of Beltran's grammar. The two works do not correspond.
Berendt in the Preface to v. 2 of his copy of the Motul in speak- ing of the Ticul and the San Francisco vocabularies writes, " The concordance of many Spanish terms and also the identical co- ordination of their different Maya equivalents and other par- ticulars repeated in the last two works (the Ticul and the San Francisco) give reason to believe that both have the same origin. But as each contains clauses not found in the other, presumably they were copies corrected and amplified by different authors and at different periods."
fin conseguirlo en 1855." and Mitre adds " Este manuscrito era evidentemente el del diccionario Maya de San Buenaventura que según Beristain y Souza se con- servaba en el convento de San Francisco de Mérida, el cual servió principalmente de base para el trabajo de Pérez y no se explica sino como ocultación de mala fe,el que se haya omitido mencionar siquiera el nombre del precursor y primer codifica- dor del idioma Maya."
1 Berendt (1868 b) places the date of the San Buenaventura dictionary as 1695.
? Pio Perez (1844) mentions this Ticul dictionary as having been found with a copy of Coronel's grammar.
Perez (7, in B. L. C. No. 11, p. 165-84) writes an introduction to this vo- cabulary. See Perez, 1898.
Juan Martinez writes personally regarding the Ticul as follows, "Said vo- cabulary is a copy from an older work with innovations of small importance, all copied from a pattern or old vocabulary, a standard authority which is no other than the work of Fray Antonio Ciudad Real."
174
APPRAISEMENT OF WORKS
San Buenaventura (§ 1) (circa 1684) is given as the author of a large dictionary toward the end of this century.1 Carrillo y Ancona (1) mentions this vocabulary and the vain search be made for it.
XVIII CENTURY. In this epoch are found the numerous vocab- ularies of Avendaño all of which are missing: - a dictionary (§ 2), a short dictionary of adverbs (§ 3), a botanical and medical dic- tionary (§ 4), and a list of proper names (§ 5) .? A single leaf of a vocabulary, probably of this century is in the possession of Mr. Gates (Anon. 5).
Mention should be made here of the various vocabularies in the grammar of Beltran (1746; ed. 1859, p. 209-241). These vocab- ularies are given in the present copy of the San Francisco diction- ary. The Maya words with their meanings as given by Beltran are all collected and published by Perez (1898, p. 1-101).
XIX CENTURY. The next vocabulary in point of time is that of Baezo (1832), of words in the dialect of Peten, Guatemala.' Along with this should go the dialect collected at Sacluk, Peten, by Berendt (1866-67) and republished with English translation by Means, 1917, p. 188-191. Norman (1843, p. 255-263) gives an English-Maya vocabulary which he may have collected during his sojourn in Yucatan.
Henderson (1859-66) has left a manuscript of six volumes, averaging 250 pages each, of a dictionary of the dialect spoken in the District of Bacalar. This is in the collection of manuscripts of the Bureau of Ethnology, Washington." A dictionary by King- don (§ 2) is reported in the library of the American Bible Society of New York. No trace of this can be found.
Perez was the author of several manuscript vocabularies. He started with the Maya words in Beltran's Arte (1746). He ampli- fied this with the words in Beltran's Doctrina (1740) and Sermons
1 See note 3 on p. 172-173.
? Carrillo y Ancona (1882, p. 125) places these works among those written in the xVII Century.
3 Ludewig (1858, p. 102) mentions a work by Maite-Brun (1824) as con- taining a Maya vocabulary. I have been unable to find this book. It has been entered in the Bibliography under C. Malte-Brun.
See Berendt (1867, p. 420) and Anon (1900) for references to this work.
175
VOCABULARIES
(1740a) and Dominguez (1758). In 1836 he obtained possession of the Ticul dictionary which he copied and with this he produced a two volume work (Perez, 1838). He treated these manuscripts as rough drafts for future revision. In the same year there is an account of another manuscript vocabulary (Perez, 1838a). It is impossible to know whether one of these various works is that (Perez, 1842b) noted in Stephens (1843, v. 2, p. 278) who writes that Perez gave him a vocabulary in manuscript containing more than four thousand words in Maya. The manuscript of this is in the library of the New York Historical Society.
Perez (1845) left another manuscript containing material for a dictionary. This was presented by his niece to Dr. Berendt and is referred to by Berendt (1871a, p. 5). It is now in the Berendt Linguistic Collection (No. 5). It contains several hundred words not in Perez (1866-77). A partial copy was made by Berendt when the manuscript was still in the possession of Perez. The latter copied the Ticul again (Perez, 1847). In this same year he made a Maya-Spanish arrangement of the Ticul (Perez, 1847a).
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.