Nahuatlan?

[Frances Karttunen]

>> >(n=E4=B4wt=B4=B4ln) (KEY), group of languages of the Uto-Aztecan branch of
>> >the Aztec-Tanoan linguistic stock of North and Central America. A
>> >Nahuatlan language of great historical importance is Nahuatl, or
>> >Aztec. A descendant of the now extinct Aztec, the language of the
>> >ancient Aztec empire, Nahuatl is spoken today by approximately 1.5
>> >million people, mainly in Mexico. Aztec is thought to have reached 5
>> >million people in an area extending from Mexico to Panama. The
>> >Nahuatlan group also includes a number of other living languages,
>> >such as Pipil and Pochutla, and extinct tongues, among them Toltec,
>> >Chichimec, and Nahuatlato. See Native American languages.


I find this peculiar.  I don't think anyone can say for sure what language
family Toltec belonged to.  As for Chichimec, when applied to a language, it
refers to a member of the Oto-Pamean subgroup of the Otomanguean family. The
word "Nahuatlato," generally refers to an interpreter, specifically one who
speaks Nahuatl and some other language, but it was sometimes used by Nahuatl
speakers to refer to interpreters between ANY two languages.  I think what
was intended was "Nahuatlatolli" which is the Nahuatl term for 'clear,
intelligible speech.'  That's a description rather than a name, but then
again, so are many words used as language names.

The most up-to-date and authoritative reference book available is Lyle
Campbell's American Indian Languages:  The Historical Linguistics of Native
America.  Oxford University Press, 1997.  According to Campbell's language
classification, the Nahuatlan (also called Nahuan or Aztecan) subgroup of
the Uto-Aztecan language family contains the following languages:  Pochutec
(extinct since early in the 20th century), Pipil, and the various regional
dialects of Nahuatl.

Campbell writes:

"The Aztec-Tanoan hypothesis, which attempts to link Uto-Aztecan and
Kiowa-Tanoan in a remote genetic relationship, has been widely accepted and
is frequently repeated in the literature as though it were unproblematical,
although a number of specialists have persistently expressed their doubts."
(p. 269)

After reviewing the evidence, he concludes,

"My general conclusion concerning the Aztec-Tanoan hypothesis is that the
evidence presented in its favor so far falls far short of what would be
necessary to warrant a positive feeling toward the hypothesis." (p. 273)

Fran