S] CRC vil et AR SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY . BULLETIN 127 _ LINGUISTIC MATERIAL FROM i THE TRIBES OF SOUTHERN TEXAS AND NORTHEASTERN MEXICO By JOHN R. SWANTON FD Hy rie + ue Va asain tas, lian : fe yy, . aed (e DEC A fap SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY BULLETIN 127 LINGUISTIC MATERIAL FROM THE TRIBES OF SOUTHERN TEXAS AND NORTHEASTERN MEXICO By JOHN R. SWANTON UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1940 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. - - - - + + + Price 20 cents ith a, = a bs | eee Shen ‘ethene eae ae “oe ay, Lf ce Pay ria) SARE f ieee 9 AVL AALIE | ' . i“ MOs «HAS TAM Pele | PAL ev sear We JOG "KE be ALT Hi Pe “ee Viet ANE, A Yet oe * ‘ Bab ' AS wy; z SURAT a Ga ces ee aa oa") i ratg ey Oy iT) rg ae if Paid vet * Riu non aya team oe bo ae atte a fi Peay ‘geidlug ¢ pail a doy ne ik LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY, Washington, D. C., July 1, 1939. Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a manuscript entitled “Linguistic Material from the Tribes of Southern Texas and North- eastern Mexico,” by John R. Swanton, and to recommend that it be published as a bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Very respectfully yours, M. W. STIRLING, Chief. Dr. C. G. ABBOT, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. lit On eA 2 Te Loh eh ee ee rr ] 7 Ph re Mi 1 ant) 7 Ry I. Z, ¥ > _ ij (, } ory tf Oa La : es Veh 4 | R Kit = re te : Rey | x rae ; ici A i Vil ih me J hats ‘ a y « r id ; ih. , Wy) } He Bas \ Ra at i) he? * oes Shae pag i JAETIM2VAAT IO AATTAL ed tere ne . MOATUTILEAL KATAGEHEIMG OOLOANTA yaoIaaMA Fo vase ERs whe 3. svotgerstan VT boltiins lqtwasaco s diwetod diene of trond iy -j10 bire anzeT. rredivo® to asdivP edt so! icine fi Jadt baersmdest of bar .cotdewS A ofol od “05 ronlontsa mEorionid to onowdl erff te iridetiud Be aiuoy wills Asi ovnaarne 2 i‘ rat Osh. _ ore hidteheeel pussianomdsian 2. lh Aen i fit CONTENTS PAGE op 5 LEGS TO Si A ga Oe A Le e SP, 1 esirelteye rec pesees ry Caley Fe sly ee Pere verm eos. 18 OY 4, eepurairetnaeese SRA tines IA De es id aye ce EA 8 te 8 PCCP neish VOCADMALY 2.2.2 5 on et a 10 Braestish=C.oaiuilcecOinGex: 222 cok eet ee ee ee ek 50 Words from a dialect spoken near the Mission of San Francisco Solano, meemacie Pass on the Rio Grande 20.22. oS. 6 ee ee 54 nclish-sanvbrancisco, Solano index. = Sus rata w se Ie Le ee 55 Additional Coahuilteco words from the Mission records.____________-_-- 55 Soamecrioo-nelish-vocabulary es... ..0......2 Gee ee 55 ER MRCP Sie a Be Sn ee 105 WANCING SONG ee. oe ek ee Ppsnic as c9.n¢ hg A hl ey Opler hao 105 Pees omeerigg imGex. | ob fh ee a 107 Geeeeneeneish wocabilary_<. 2. 2) 5. 2 es Sk Pek 118 Prehisgh=-Cotonamenngex.< 0). 3 86 2 nee Pe enliien sya the 120 Suet Ish! VOCANMIATY 8 kee ee 122 Haclish- ViaravinoOnnOexs 22-215 aio bo eee Be ee ee ale 123 0 Sic lel Gi SVR a RD Sa Dea ll I 00 hh hati So lg a, SPD SAS 124 Pemenwe-rnelish dictionary... 255 0) eh MP a ei adi 124 Pinelisn-MarankawaIngdexrso si. h. 4 ese ee eee te ee 130 SHApIPINen Larva Materialic. 2 2 ge: Ue nals ee Des le teh bh a Ee a 134 External and internal relations of the South Texas tongues_________---- 137 Vi See ea Tuardo oo er eget ay 4 laine aha nd 7a ow mie Sy Me : : pene Bia oldest dally 8 PROBA Han £ bev abit sobal eostiinds cortnr ok traatapine’ wee te cutee bt odds 1480 itsulege, toa dG By inte ot sty ck bm s Weeson ad mv glo LL Re A ae te ahawe dees xebm ogeiot vpaineet 5 Ads okioslep ate alilapent cabvotet ooterilt edi ent ebtow ocedt og ThE NP CE EMA RO OBS POSEN TEST ROE, dis OU et A wiaindssord nit ae <_) ) _ Se shel biog ta Fanaa ae ee ay. es ade Be cits eRe eae ; abil aetea ann eee say ig ee fll a ee cr ei pais va ; cobat ane we yea eee Wane 4: ld ‘eters eR a _usrrolti d 4 hae i sell ee eal OO EL as bet batiiehe inerniceg waholle ee ran UENO Ni 24008 sixaT dino oilt to; Sant iant ae | f LINGUISTIC MATERIAL FROM THE TRIBES OF SOUTHERN TEXAS AND NORTHEASTERN MEXICO! By JOHN R. SWANTON HISTORICAL SKETCH Around the northwestern angle of the Gulf of Mexico, and encircled by tribes belonging to the large and better known linguistic families called Muskhogean, Siouan, Caddoan, Athapascan, Uto-Aztecan, Otomian, and Mayan (the last-named represented by the Huastec), there was early in the sixteenth century a great number of tribes or bands which differed markedly from their neighbors in language and showed great diversity among themselves. These tribes extended from the Mississippi River to the neighborhood of Panuco, Mexico, on the south and Monclova, Coahuila, on the west. The original linguistic classifications of Powell and Orozco y Berra ranged these tribes under 10 stocks, Natchesan, Tonikan, Chitimachan, Attacapan, Tonkawan, Karankawan, Coahuiltecan, Tamaulipecan, Janambrian, and Olivean. Later researches, however, have shown that Natchesan is remotely connected with the Muskhogean family and that Tonikan, Chitimachan, and Attacapan are mutually related, while Olivean was the language of a single tribe converted in 1544 by a Fran- ciscan missionary, Father Olmos, and drawn to southern Tamaulipas from their old home, apparently somewhere in Texas. It seems cer- tain from this that the Olive belonged to one of the other stocks men- tioned though, for want of any specimen of their speech, we shall probably never know which. The language of the Tonkawan Indians has been carefully studied by Prof. Harry Hoijer of the University of Chicago, whose recently printed sketch is now available to students, and will be followed in time by adictionary. Tunica and Chitimacha are being made the sub- jects of intensive investigations by Dr. Morris Swadesh and Dr. Mary R. Haas, and all of the available material in Atakapa, now wholly ex- tinct, was recently published as Bulletin 108 of the Bureau of American Ethnology. So far as we are now aware, the remaining languages, those 1 Linguistic material from the Indian languages formerly spoken in southern Texas and adjacent sec- tions of Mexico, including Coahuilteco, from the Manual of Bartholome Garcia, a vocabulary from the mission records of San Francisco Solano, vocabularies of Comecrudo and Cotoname collected by Dr, Albert S. Gatschet, material in Maratino, from Father Santa Maria, and Karankawa from the vocabu- laries of Dr. A. S. Gatschet, and those of Bérenger and the brothers Talon, as published by MM. le Baron Mare de Villiers du Terrage and Paul Rivet. Assembled and edited by John R. Swanton. 1 2 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 127 belonging to the so-called Coahuiltecan, Karankawan, Tamaulipecan, and Janambrian stocks, are also extinct, and in the present bulletin all of the linguistic material drawn from them and known to be in existence is incorporated. For the sake of completeness there is included, not only hitherto unpublished vocabularies, but published material as well which it is believed should be brought together in one volume. At an early period Spanish navigators were made aware of the nature of the Texas and Tamaulipas coasts and their inhabitants and of the fact that some of the latter were addicted to cannibalism, so that we find upon maps the legend ‘‘wandering and cannibal Indians” spread along the margin of the Gulf in this section. Our first information of consequence regarding the tribes in occupancy comes from the narrative of Cabeza de Vaca, a companion of the ill- fated Narvaez. Cabeza de Vaca was cast upon the shore of Gal- veston Island in November 1528, and made his way from tribe to tribe in a general northwest direction until he crossed not only the Rio Grande but the entire continent as well and came to the Gulf of California, where he turned south and ultimately reached Mexico City and returned to Spain. We know that he passed among tribes belonging to the Karankawan, Tonkawan, and Coahuiltecan stocks, but, though he furnishes us with many interesting notes on the habits and customs of the people, it is not always possible to tell to which branch this information applies. Although several Spanish expeditions entered Tamaulipas during the sixteenth century, the site of Monclova was visited as early as 1590, and the Rio Grande crossed frequently and in 1653 traced to the Gulf, it was not until missionary work was begun in the year 1670 that we hear much more concerning the tribes occupying the region in question. In 1675 Fernando del Bosque marched northward from Monclova, crossed the Rio Grande somewhere near Eagle Pass, and encountered a number of Coahuilteco tribes beyond. One result of the report brought back by this expedition was the establishment of four missions in the Coahuila district. These, as well as others which soon followed, were conducted by the Franciscans. Not all ministered to Indians of the stocks in which we are interested but we recognize Coahuilteco at the mission of Santa Rosa de Nadadores, established in 1677, 40 leagues northeast of Coahuila, but removed in 1693 to a point 7 leagues to the northeast for the Cotzales and Manos Prietas, and at San Bernardo de la Candela, where were the Catujanes, Tilijais, and Milijaes. Other missions were established in the closing years of the seventeenth century and the opening years of the eighteenth. Meantime, in 1685-87, La Salle made his accidental, and unsuc- - cessful, attempt to plant a colony on the Texas coast. This was near Swanton] LINGUISTIC MATERIAL FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS 3 the present Matagorda Bay, then occupied by Karankawan tribes, and the chroniclers of his expedition, particularly Henri Joutel, give us some information regarding these people and the neighboring Tonkawa and Caddo. La Salle’s undertaking served to arouse Spain to the importance of forestalling further attempts on the part of national rivals by occupying the country themselves. An expedition was sent in 1689 to destroy the French settlement but found that the Indians had accomplished this task for them. The next year Alonso de Leon, commander of the previous expedition, passed through the entire breadth of Texas, and the intervening territory was soon sowed with presidios and missions, while a frontier post was estab- lished east of the Sabine. In 1718 the mission of San Francisco Solano, which had been located in 1700 on the Rio Grande below Eagle Pass, was removed to the site of the present city of San Antonio, Tex., and reestablished under the name San Antonio de Valero. Many years later the stone build- ing which housed this mission attained fame as the Alamo. Other missions were soon added and all flourished for a time, but the changes introduced by civilization, coupled with attacks of hostile Indians, soon produced a marked decline in the population. Toward the end of the eighteenth century many of the missions were secularized, and although missionary labors were continued until well into the nine- teenth century they were progressively curtailed with the decline of the native population. With the exception of some scattered mixed bloods, the latter is now wholly extinct. Relatively little attention was paid to the Karankawa Indians after 1689. In 1720 another French expedition under command of Bernard de la Harpe was sent to their country and to La Harpe’s pilot, Jean Béranger, we are indebted for a number of interesting notes regarding the people and an important vocabulary of their language. Perhaps as a consequence of this new threat, a fort, generally known as La Bahia, was established in Karankawa territory in 1722 by the Spaniards, and under its protection arose the mission of Espiritu Santo de Zufiiga. Both were removed before 1726 to a site among the Aranama Indians on the lower San Antonio and in 1749 to a position opposite Goliad, where, nevertheless, the mission continued to minister to some of the Karankawa. In 1791 a new mission, Nuestra Sefiora del Refugio, was established near the mouth of Mission River, flowing into Aransas Bay, mainly for the benefit of these Indians. It was continued until 1828 though the mission buildings had been abandoned 4 years earlier. After Stephen Austin began his settlement on the Brazos in 1823, frequent conflicts arose between the Americans and Karankawa in which the latter lost heavily. In the war for Texan independence they sided with the Texans but again suffered severely. In 1844, having murdered an 4 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 127 American on Guadalupe River, part of the tribe fled to Padre Island and part across the Rio Grande into Mexico. The remnant is reported to have been surrounded and exterminated in 1858 at their hiding place in Texas by some rancheros. Strange as it may seem, in view of their situation south of the Rio Grande, the Tamaulipecan and Janambrian Indians enter history later than any of the rest. Mention has, indeed, been made of the introduction into Tamaulipas of a foreign tribe, the Olive, through missionary influence, but the great body of Indians living in this Mexican State remained relatively unaffected until 1748 when Don José Escandon undertook the conquest of the country and between that date and 1755 founded 24 towns which he settled with whites. The natives were missionized at the same time, but they seem to have endured the altered conditions even less than the Coahuilteco and have now practically vanished. It was from a few Indians near the northern border of the State that Gatschet collected his vocabu- laries of Comecrudo and Cotoname which are included in the present work. Gatschet speaks of these languages as dialects of the Coahuil- tecan stock but it is to be observed that Orozco y Berra gives the former as a Tamaulipeco form of speech both in his text and on his map and it is only in the case of Cotoname that he lends some color to the theory of a Coahuiltecan connection. But while his map appears to favor this his text, which should be the more reliable witness, classes it also as Tamaulipecan. THE MATERIAL The first Coahuiltecan material known to students was a small missionary work by Bartholome Garcia, the Franciscan missionary at San Francisco de la Espada, printed in Mexico in 1760. It is entitled ‘‘Manual para administrar los Santos Sacramentos de Peni- tencia, Eucharistia, Extrema-uncion, y Matrimonio,” and on the title page Garcia states that it was prepared for the benefit of the “Paja- lates, Orejones, Pacaos, Pacdéas, Tilijayas, Alasapas, Pausanes, and many others, which are in the missions of the Rio San Antonio, and Rio Grande, belonging to the College of the Most Holy Cross of the City of Queretaro, such as the Pacudches, Mescadles, Pampépas, Tacames, Chayopines, Venados, Pamdques, and all the young peopie belonging to the Pihuiques, Borrados, Sanipaos, and Manos de Perro.” The proper languages of the four last mentioned tribes evidently differed somewhat from that used in the Manual, but it is probable that the differences were merely dialectic. On the basis of informa- tion obtained from some Tonkawa informants, Mr. Mooney believed that the Chayopines were Tonkawan rather than Coahuiltecan, but I am inclined to regard any such connection, if real, as the product of later conditions, and there can be no reasonable doubt regarding the affiliations of the remaining tribes mentioned. Indeed, there is Swanton] LINGUISTIC MATERIAL FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS 5 every reason to believe that the stock included a much larger number of bands, a conjectural list of which is given elsewhere. (See pp. 134-1386.) Garcia notes slight differences between the dialect spoken about San Antonio and that on the Rio Grande, and very much greater diversities are indicated by one or two lists of words collected from the mission records by Prof. H. E. Bolton and sent to the Bureau of American Ethnology. The most important of these was taken down at San Francisco Solano between 1703 and 1708, i. e., before this mission was removed to the San Antonio and renamed. From the location of this mission one would expect to find a vocab- ulary closely resembling the material contained in the Manual, but in fact it differs widely and appears to be as near the Tamaulipeco dialects as to Coahuilteco. The same divergence appears in some words—only two it is true—attributed to the language or languages of the Parchaque, Mescaleros, Yoricas, Chomes, Alachomes, and Pamais, but this is less surprising since the people in question lived a considerable distance toward the northwest. We also have a single word from the tongue of the Payaya who lived on or near the Rio San Antonio. In 1861 a German traveler named Adolph Uhde published at Heidelberg a work entitled ““Die Lander am untern Rio Bravo del Norte,’”’ and on pages 185 and 186 he gives a short list of words from the Carrizo, or properly the Comecrudo, language of the lower Rio Grande. Uhde’s material is interesting because it furnishes a slight check on the very much longer Comecrudo vocabulary collected by Dr. Albert S. Gatschet of the Bureau of American Ethnology from the same people in 1886. Gatschet found the remnant of the tribe at Las Prietas near Camargo, Tamaulipas, and but few remembered the ancient tongue, none of his informants seeming to have had a fluent command of it. Much of the native structure appears to have broken down already as the result of contact with Spanish. Dr. Gatschet made use of three informants, Emiterio, Joaquin, and Andrade, and part of that taken from Emiterio he reviewed with the help of Joaquin. This Emiterio was also one of his authorities for a second dialect, Cotoname, though Gatschet obtained considerably more material on that language from a man named Santos Cavazos. The Cotoname material is much more fragmentary in every way than Comecrudo. In the latter, as here printed, I have indicated the authorities, where determinable, by the letters (E), (J), and (A). Dr. Gatschet was compelled to get practically everything through Spanish and I have given the Spanish equivalents whenever they appear in his notebooks. There are many questionable points con- nected with this material, but I have endeavored to include every- thing that might cast any light whatever on meaning or structure. 6 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 127 The only remaining linguistic material from Tamaulipas as yet available was copied from the Relacion Histérica of Father Santa Maria,’? by Alejandro Prieto in his Historia de Tamaulipas. It is a fragment of the Maratino dialect, and I have analyzed it to the best of my ability. The separateness of the Janambrian stock, which includes but two tribes, the Janambre and Pisone, rests wholly on Orozco y Berra’s conclusions as drawn from some general statements of early writers and is as yet unsupported by concrete material. Personally, I doubt the existence of any such distinct stock, and suggest that the two tribes may have been connected with the Pame and Otomi. Aside from place names, all that was known of the Karankawa language previous to 1919, was confined to three vocabularies pub- lished in a paper entitled “The Karankawa Indians, the Coast People of Texas,” which constitutes vol. I, No. 2, of the Archaeological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Mass. This paper, which also includes ethnological and historical notes regarding the same people, was prepared by Dr. Albert S. Gatschet of the Bureau of American Ethnology, collector of the vocabularies. The two shortest vacabularies, of 17 and 6 terms respectively, were obtained by Dr. Gatschet in September 1884, from two aged Tonkawa Indians, Old Simon and Sallie Washington, who had gotten them in turn from their former Karankawa neighbors. The remaining vocab- ulary, which was much the longest, was secured in a very curious and roundabout manner, from a white woman, Mrs. Alice W. Oliver, living in Lynn, Mass., at the time, who had passed her girlhood on the ‘Texas coast in the immediate neighborhood of the last band of Indians belonging to this stock. She had taken an active interest in these people and had learned a considerable number of words of their language which she committed to paper. Unfortunately the original manuscript was lost, but she restored from time to time from her memory as much of it as she could recollect. In 1888 Prof. F. W. Putnam of the Peabody Museum learned of her and her vocabulary and enabled Dr. Gatschet to visit her in November of that year, when he went over the material with her and even elicited certain additions. He was to have repeated his visit the year following, but. Mrs. Oliver died in February 1889, before the time appointed, and thus it happened that nearly one half of all our Karankawa material was preserved by a margin of about 3 months. All of these vocabularies have the disadvantage of a dependence on the integrity of the memories of persons not belonging to the tribe, and are also under some suspicion from the fact that the last settlement of Karankawa is thought to have been a mixed body con- taining remnants of other tribes, particularly of the Coahuilteco. For 2 Since printed in full in Publicaciones del Archivo General dela Nacion, vol. 15, pp. 356-483. Mexico, 1930. Swanton] LINGUISTIC MATERIAL FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS 7 this reason, it was with great satisfaction that students of American Indian languages and aboriginal Texan ethnology hailed the appear- ance, in 1919, of a genuine Karankawa vocabulary collected as far back as 1720. This is the one mentioned already as having been recorded by Jean Bérenger, La Harpe’s pilot, whose invaluable 106 words remained unknown in a memoir on Louisiana written by him until they were discovered in the French archives by MM. de Villiers du Terrage and P. Rivet and published in the Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris (vol. 9, pp. 403-442), along with a study of the same, and an Akokisa vocabulary, in an article entitled “Les Indiens du Texas et les Expéditions Francaises de 1720 et 1721 4 la ‘Baie Saint-Bernard.’”’ As it happened, the present writer had already come upon a copy of this same ‘‘Mémoire” which had gotten: into the library of a Swiss gentleman and was afterward acquired. for the Ayer collection of Americana in the Newberry Library,. Chicago. He had obtained photostat copies of the two vocabularies: and incorporated them into an article which was to have been pub- lished in the International Journal of American Linguistics when the appearance of the same material in the French periodical made it superfluous. The writer is, however, of the opinion that the Chicago copy is, on a few minor points, closer to the original than that made for the Paris journal. Still another vocabulary, though of 29 words only, was brought out 10 years later from the same sources and by the same savants. This has one advantage over all the others, however, in having been recorded earlier than any of them. It was obtained, indeed, along with some other material, from two survivors of La Salle’s colony, the brothers Pierre and Jean-Baptiste Talon, who had lived with the Indians awhile after the death of their leader, had been captured subsequently by the Spaniards and rescued later through the capture by a French frigate of the vessel in which they were being sent to Spain. According to their statement, the tribe which made use of this language was called Clamcoches, but they lived about Matagorda Bay and this name was evidently a synonym of Karankawa. On comparing these early vocabularies with the Gatschet material, it seems evident that the words in this last agree with it more closely than those obtained by Bérenger, and this would tend to confirm the opinion of Du Terrage and Rivet that the latter had been collected from the more westerly Karankawan tribes, near Aransas Bay. The marked differences these vocabularies exhibit only accentuate the testimony of the Coahuiltecan and Tamaulipecan material that, in the territory in question, linguistic diversity was the rule. Just what this signifies we have yet to learn, but the fact renders the frag-- mentary nature of our records all the more deplorable. 8 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 127 PHONETICS The phonetic symbols employed by Bartholome Garcia in his Coahuilteco Manual were drawn from the current Spanish and Church Latin of his time. The vowels had their continental values, and while we find, besides the pure vowels, two series with distinct diacritical signs, 4, 4, é, 6, i, i, 6, 6, G, i, we are informed that both merely indicated long vowels and we may assume that the fonts of type used did not have enough of either style by itself. The only concession to native peculiarities of pronunciation was in discriminat- ing certain consonants by placing an apostrophe after the symbol with the explanation that these phonetics were “pronounced with force.”’ They are, in the modified form adopted by myself, k’, 1’, p’, tz’, and t’. In the present text I have made the following changes in order to bring Garcia’s material into line with the other vocabularies: substitution of the long sign over vowels for the acute and circumflex accents, substitution of k for c and q, x for j, te for ch, e for sh, wa for gua, and the dropping of the u-sound between g and e ori. So far as has been necessary, the same changes have been made in the supplementary mission material obtained from San Francisco Solano and other missions, and in the Maratino fragment. The two Karankawa vocabularies recorded by the Frenchman Bérenger and the brothers Talon require another set of changes: c-hard to k, c-soft to s, ch to ¢, ou to u, que to ke, qui to ki, qu in other situations to kw, x to ks, ai to e, eu to 6, au to 6, y toi when not followed by a vowel, dropping of final mute e and preceding consonant when that is also unsounded, dropping of acute accent over final e, final e’s being always sounded in this vocabulary, Il sometimes changed to y. The remaining vocabularies were collected by Dr. A. 8S. Gatschet whose phonetic system might be characterized as of the rough-and- ready type usual among our pioneer ethnologists. In most particulars, however, it conformed to a system which had been worked out for the recording of American Indian languages by Major J. W. Powell, Director of the Bureau of American Ethnology and his collaborators. The greater part of these were comparatively simple. Students did not then employ the elaborate methods of determining and recording sounds now in vogue but had mastered a limited series of symbols which they applied by ear as the Indian’s voice passed rapidly over the native term. The great bulk of symbols thus fall within certain very general categories, and in addition we have a relatively small number of variants. The following table gives the sounds used in the five dialects, including the alterations made in the Spanish and French vocabularies as above explained and a few changes in Gatschet’s system. These latter comprise the use of tc instead of tch, x instead of x, x for ’h, a® for 4, e* for é. Swanton) LINGUISTIC MATERIAL FROM SOUTHERN TEXAS 9 TABLE 1.—Sound symbols used in five Indian dialects VOWELS . San Symbol Poshalls Comecrudo} Cotoname | Francisco |Karankawa| Maratino s Solano aut ep Xx x x x x Sl... eee eee x x el Xx ma Bee ee 2 bares As) Sen ok = a2 x x iF x = Sil. WO eee eee Se x ae ae ke ae Jad sete poten SE SS == == at pes x ai Goss. - 4+ seb aE SS x x x x ms x (Bt co ae Sa he | x = =< ae se x ee x x Xx x ~ s Re ee ne eee ds Sed Lele. x x at La x BE ne a -- => =e = x ae Oeics eee ef ptm a eae = x x zt < yy GL ee eee x x x x x x i hg ee EE ee See x x x x x pee Y 5. a. ee as me a a x A Ges vec cet ees eee eee = == — <2 x ae? Tho on ote a Se x xX xX ae pk x Tee aes ES Sere x =4 fe 45 sc AL JR ee -- -= == ve x as vip. to SR Le ee a as x a= Ls x J So) eee ee eee ae x =i a ab ne CONSONANTS |S. 29) eee x x x x x Ds iia SS Be eee ee Se x x x se 2d K A to ge eee ee eee ie x x = ee Be [a te Sted BE oa ae x x Xx x < x oS 8 3 Se ee eee xX x x x x SC Dooce sae to tee eeae a= == = 5° x £3 (eee OP Et Lee eee x x x =< x Meet et oo x x x a* x ia PE = eS oe x x x x x SG Wi eo ooo Se ee eee as = — aa x BE ate ee x x x x x x ite ea ee ee x x x x x x Th eS BE 2 Boe ee: Zi x by. te oes SG? eee ta ee ee ae x x oS < Sa 2 ee ee ee eee x x Xx x xX < Ceo, ots le eee x x = = DS x aN Seee EP Eeet fl 3 paki ae +33 a x se x at, ile SSS eee x ae = 5S m4 md Joc o. A x x x xX x< x Nie ee epee ee ee oe es ek x x x x we x [i] OS) 3 = x aes x x pees mS Des a eee Se x x ae % a Wien eee x x x ne