| OCR Text |
Show it was MM not used in hunting, some Chumash, some Cahuilla, many Yuman speaking peoples, the Papago, the Yaqui, and some groups in the Great Basin* In these areas, where it was not used in hunting, it seems probably that the dog was also scarce, and it would also be pampem«, it would be natural for them to be marked in a linguistically special way* However, such a cultural explanation is not sufficient, in itself since there is only a partial correlation in the areas in which the dog was scarce, and in which the "pet" phenomenon was found. While dogs were the most common kept animal, they were not the only ones* Eagles were kept in the Great Basin {note h that this is were "eagle" is sometimes used as the "pet" A word), and in the Pueblo area. If would be worthk knowing if the Takic speaking peoples also kept tutic eagles, because of the similarity between the words for "pet" and "eagle". Some of the Sonoran languages show a relationship between animal "pets" and human "slaves" or "adopted children". In Cah£tan and Tarahumaran, the extension was from the old "pet" word to humans, but in Tepiman, it was from human "slave" to animal "pet", and it a is perhaps the reason why Tepiman lost the old Uto-Aztecan "pet" word* Accultura&fcve pressures are also evident* The outer Numic languages, those closest to the horse cultures of the Plains, extended "pet" to the horse? and those in Northwest Mexico to cattle. The central "pet" area seems to be in Southern California among the Yuman and Takic languages. Pam Munro tells me Proto-Yuman *^-xat taosasmswi is to be glossed as "pet, dog". I don^t know how secure both glosses are, but in any case it would be nice to know which is the original, which the extended meaning, and if it was used in Proto-Yuman as a possessive classifier. The presence of cognate material in Seri would suggest that it was so used in Proto-Yuman, and if so it would give the "pet" trait considerable antiquity* The Takic word for "pet" is distinct f»om "dog", but both |
