This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
| Plateau Penutian | |
|---|---|
| Shahapwailutan, Lepitan | |
| Geographic distribution | Pacific Northwest |
| Linguistic classification | Penutian?
|
| Subdivisions | |
| Language codes | |
| Glottolog | None |
Pre-contact distribution of Plateau Penutian languages | |
Plateau Penutian (alsoShahapwailutan,Lepitan,Plateau) is a family of languages spoken in northernCalifornia, reaching through central-westernOregon to northernWashington and central-northernIdaho. The family is accepted by Campbell (2024).[1]
Plateau Penutian is hypothesized to consist of four languages:
Plateau Penutian, as originally proposed, was one branch of the hypotheticalPenutian phylum as proposed byEdward Sapir. The original proposal also includedCayuse (which was grouped with Molala into aWaiilatpuan branch); however, this language has little documentation and that which is documented is inadequately recorded. Thus, the status of Cayuse within Penutian (or any other genealogical relation for that matter) may very well forever remainunclassified.
The Sahaptian grouping of Sahaptin and Nez Percé has long been uncontroversial. There is evidence in support of a connection between Klamath (a.k.a. Klamath-Modoc) and Sahaptian. Howard Berman[2] also provides evidence that would include Molala within Plateau Penutian.
Appraisals of the Penutian hypothesis in the 1990s find Plateau Penutian to be "well supported" (DeLancey & Golla (1997: 181); Campbell 1997), with DeLancey & Golla (1997: 180) cautiously stating "while all subgroupings at this stage of Penutian research must be considered provisional, several linkages show considerable promise" (Campbell 1997 likewise mentions similar caveats). Other researchers have pointed out similarities between Plateau Penutian and theMaiduan family, although this proposal is still not completely demonstrated. A connection withUto-Aztecan has also been suggested (Rude 2000). TheGlottolog classification, favored by manylinguistic typologists but considered too conservative by some, disregards Plateau Penutian entirely.
A study published in 2013 using an automated computational analysis (ASJP 4) of 40 basic vocabulary items resulted in languages from Plateau Penutian showing similarities that could be interpreted as genealogical cohesion.[3] However, when describing the method, the authors of the study also concede that similarities may be due toborrowings andareal diffusion.[4] Moreover, the use of automated methods for establishing genealogical connections is controversial, with manyhistorical linguistics still favouring analyses using thecomparative method, which places high importance onmorphological similarities, especially when found in irregularities (e.g.Englishgood-better-best,Germangut-besser-best,Icelandicgóður-betri-bestur).
Below is a comparison of selected basic vocabulary items inProto-Sahaptian,Klamath, andMolala†.
| gloss | Proto-Sahaptian[5] | Klamath[6] | Molala[7] |
|---|---|---|---|
| head | S łamtɨ́x̣ | nʼo | laʔwi |
| hair | lag̣ | tałimt | |
| eye | lolb | tuːns | |
| ear | momʼoˑwč | taːps | |
| nose | *núšnu | psi | piłs |
| tooth | dot | taʔnf | |
| tongue | baˑwč | aʔpaːws | |
| mouth | S ɨ́m | som | similq |
| hand | nʼep | teːs | |
| foot | peč | taylaks | |
| meat | S nɨkʷɨ́t | čʼoleˑk | neːwit |
| blood | N kikeʔt | ǰeg̣le | ałp |
| bone | *pípš | qaqʼo | pupt |
| person | *tenén | maqlag̣ | |
| name | N weʔnikt | seˑss | hastu(ː)qs |
| dog | N cq̓ám-qal | wač̓aˑkʼ | saka(ʔ) |
| fish | kyem | ||
| louse | N hasas 'nit, louse egg' | kʼoY | |
| tree | N tewlikt | g̣oˑ | |
| leaf | tʼapq | ||
| flower | leˑw | ||
| water | *kéweš; N kúus | ʔambo | uq-n-s |
| fire | lolog̣ | teːc | |
| stone | qday | tqaʔnt | |
| earth | g̣eˑla | laŋs | |
| road | *ʔɨškɨ́t | sdo | |
| eat | N ké- | p’aʔst 's/he is eating' | |
| die | *ƛaʔyáwi/*ƛʔayáwi | g̣leg (sg.); čʼoˑqʼ (pl.) | |
| I | ni | ina | |
| you | ʔi | kiː |