OCR Text |
Show are clearly reconstructable in Proto-Takic, and likely the "pet" phenomenon was present then too. Again, arguing for some antiquity, since Takic is the most divers Uto-Aztecan branch, with almost as much time llepth as the £uman language, Note that Takic, in the heartland of the "pet" area, has a word that is unrelated to the common Uto-Aztecan "pet" word, an interesting fact that I don't know what to make of* Can the phenomenon be postulated for PUA times? Possibly, but the evidence becomes weaker. The proto word *puku, found in all Uto-Aztecan branches except Takic and Aztec, probably meant "pet", and only secondarily "dog". Also£ most recent work seems to narrow the Uto-Aztecan homeland to a x-elatively narrow belt x in Southern California, Southwestern Arizona, and adjacent Sonora, not far from the Proto-Yuman homeland* It is tempting to see the "pet" phenomenon in Washo and Keres as influence from Numic and Hopi, $M& respectively* Possibly so, but it Is troublesome that the phenomenon is stronger in Washo and Keres, where use of the classifier is obligatory,fck than in Numic and Hopi, where its use is usually optional or restricted. Washo, being a Hokan language, ultimately has its zim£®& roots in California, but there are many indications that it has been in the Great Basin some time, and probably has been in contact with Numic speakers for some time* Keres and Hopi share a few areal linguistic traits, most notably the high central unrounded vowel [i], and they share a few loan words, but I'm not aware of evidence for greater contact between Keres and Hopi than between Keres and any other Puebloan linguistic group. |