<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.100" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Listeros:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regarding the controversy surrounding the presence
of various linguistic groups in central Mexico during the Classic period, and in
support of Alec's recent message, there are some elementary linguistic facts
which should not be ignored. The Mesoamerican Otopames (speakers of Otomi,
Mazahua, Matlatzinca and Ocuilteco) have a geographic distribution which
parallels their linguistic affinities; that is to say, those groups which speak
languages more closely related occupy adjacent or nearby territories. The
obvious explanation for this is that their ancestors lived in approximately the
same areas since before the related tongues branched off from an ancestral
language. It's hard to imagine immigrants settling a landscape in accordance
with a linguistic classification of which they were largely unaware.
Glottochronology is admittedly an imprecise yardstick, but it gives us a very
rough idea of when these languages diverged, and the Otopamean presence in the
area goes back to the Formative and probably beyond, even allowing a margin of
error of over five centuries for the glottochronological dates. Applying the
same line of reasoning to the Nahuas, the lack of temporal depth in the central
valleys of Mexico (compared with the Otopamean group) is evident and would seem
to go back just to the Epiclassic and Postclassic periods. If Nahuas lived at
Teotihuacan they were probably just an enclave like the Veracruzanos or the
Oaxaqueños; a Nahua majority at Teotihuacan would probably have resulted in
greater dialectological and glotochronological depth in the region. The fact
that the closest linguistic relatives of the nahua-pochuteco group are all
located in northwestern Mexico is revealing as to where their heartland lies. I
also think these linguistic considerations fit well with the archaeological and
ethnohistorical evidence available to date.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Saludos,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>David Wright</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>P.S. I haven't gotten my hands on the article which
started this yet, but couldn't resist throwing in my two cents. I'll read it as
I have the opportunity.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>