Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-g5jfv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-10T15:26:01.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palaihnihan and Shasta I: Labial Stops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

D. L. Olmsted
D. L. Olmsted*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A. L. Kroeber has contributed to Hokan studies to an extent not usually recognized by nonspecialists. Together with Dixon, he first discovered the genetic relationships of the group, then consisting of Karok, Chimariko, Shastan (including Palaihnihan), Pomo, Yana, Esselen, and Yuman. He later added Seri, Tequistlatec (cf. Kroeber), and (with Dixon 1919) Washo. Kroeber has also contributed important fieldwork: Sapir's early comparative work leans exclusively on Kroeber's data for Chontal, Chumash, Salinan, and Esselen, and heavily on Kroeber's data for Yuman, Pomo, Karok, Shasta, Achumawi, and Atsugewi. Kroeber and other Hokanists have long noted the paucity of data from Achumawi and Atsugewi; the present paper is a result of field work undertaken at his suggestion.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 32 , Issue 1: January-March , March 1956 , pp. 73 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © 1956 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 For help and support during field trips to the Achumawi and Atsugewi in 1953, 1954, and 1955 and to the Shasta in 1955, I owe thanks to the Institute of Human Relations, Yale University; the Survey of California Indian Languages; the University of California; Mr. and Mrs. E. R. Neasham, and Mr. and Mrs. John Ley.

Sources are referred to by the author's name alone, followed where necessary by the date of publication, according to the following bibliography:

William Bright, Some northern Hokan relationships: A preliminary report, Papers from the Symposium on American Indian linguistics 63–7 (UCPL 10, 1954).—Id., Bibliography of the Hokan-Coahuiltecan languages, IJAL 21.276–85 (1955).—Jaime de Angulo and L. S. Freeland, The Achumawi language, IJAL 6.77–120 (1930).—R. B. Dixon and A. L. Kroeber, New linguistic families in California, AA, 15.645–55 (1913).—Id., Linguistic families of California, UCPAAE 16.47–118 (1919).—Edward Winslow Gifford, Californian kinship terminologies (UCPAAE 18, 1922).—Joseph H. Greenberg and Morris Swadesh, Jicaque as a Hokan language, UAL 19.216.22 (1953).—Mary R. Haas, The Proto-Hokan-Coahuiltecan word for water, UCPL 1057–62 (1954).—Fred B. Kniffen, Achomawi geography (UCPAAE 23,1928).—A. L. Kroeber, Serian, Tequistlatecan, and Hokan, UCPAAE 11.279–90 (1915).—Norman A. McQuown, review of Papers from the Symposium on American Indian linguistics, IJAL 21.73–7 (1955).—D. L. Olmsted, Achumawi-Atsugewi non-reciprocal intelligibility, UAL 20.181–4 (1954).—Edward Sapir, The position of Yana in the Hokan stock (UCPAAE 13, 1917).—H. J. Uldall, Sketch of Achumawi phonetics, IJAL 8.73–7 (1932).—C. F. Voegelin, Notes on Klamath-Modoc and Achumawi dialects, IJAL 12.96–101 (1946).

2 Dixon and Kroeber 1913.

3 For a history of the term ‘Palaihnihan’ see Bright 1955, 278 fn. 4.

4 Sapir 2. Sapir's later comparative papers, The Hokan and Coahuiltecan languages, IJAL 1.280–90 (1922), and The Hokan affinity of Subtiaba in Nicaragua, AA 27.402–35, 491–527 (1925), are not available to me as I write.

5 Bright 1954; McQuown; Sapir; Greenberg and Swadesh; Voegelin.

6 For the distinction between ‘up-river’ and ‘down-river’ bands, see Olmsted and Kniffen.

7 It seems desirable to have separate terms for the Fall River band and for the Pit River tribe generally. I therefore use Ajumawi (Aj.) in the former (narrow) sense, and ‘Achumawi’ (Ac.) in the latter (more inclusive) sense. The label ‘Aj.’ always refers to my own Fall River materials, while ‘Ac.’ refers to results of comparisons with de Ángulo and Free-land's work or with Voegelin's. Formerly ‘Achumawi’ (or ‘Achomawi‘) was used for both the Fall River band and the Pit River tribe in general.

8 For Ajumawi, at any rate, I see no justification for Uldall's statement that /p/ varies freely between unaspirated voiceless, voiced, and glottalized allophones. Voiceless allophones occur terminally, slightly voiced ones medially (except next to voiceless phones) ; /?/ is a phoneme.

9 This Shasta reflex finds additional support in S. äpci ‘liver’, At. ōpsi ~ upsi (Sapir 9). No Ajumawi form is known.

10 This correspondence may be supported by S. ?αpxά‘·night’, At. apē-nӘ. The Ajumawi form is not cognate.