Amerind is a hypothetical macrofamily, higher-level language family proposed by Joseph Greenberg in 1960 and elaborated by his student Merritt Ruhlen. Greenberg proposed that all of the indigenous languages of the Americas belong to one of three language families, the previously established Eskimo–Aleut languages, Eskimo–Aleut and Na-Dene languages, Na–Dene, and with everything else—otherwise classified by specialists as belonging to dozens of independent families—as Amerind. Due to a large number of methodological flaws in the 1987 book ''Language in the Americas'', the relationships he proposed between these languages have been rejected by the majority of historical linguists as spurious.Campbell 1997Adelaar 1989Berman 1992Chafe 1987Matisoff 1990Kimball 1992Mithun 1999Poser 1992Rankin 1992 The term ''Amerind'' is also occasionally used to refer broadly to the various indigenous languages of the Americas without necessarily implying that they are a genetic (linguistics), genealogical group. To avoid ambiguity, the term Amerindian is often used for the latter meaning.

Background

The idea that all the languages of the Americas are related goes back to the 19th century when early linguists such as Peter Stephen DuPonceau and Wilhelm von Humboldt noticed that the languages of the Americas seemed to be very different from the better known European languages, yet seemingly also quite similar to each other. When studies of American Indian languages began in earnest in the early 20th century linguists quickly realized that the indigenous languages were in fact not all that similar, but had a diversity much greater than among the languages of Europe. After a period of uncertainty about whether indigenous languages could be described and investigated by the methods applied to European languages, the first linguists began the daunting task of trying to classify the languages of the Americas by using the Historical linguistics, comparative method. Among the most prolific and gifted linguists of his times was Edward Sapir, who was among the first to apply the comparative method to Native American languages. However, contrary to current practice in historical linguistics, Sapir also often relied on "hunches" and "gut feeling" when proposing new language families. Some of these suggestions have been proven correct while others have not. Sapir entertained the idea that ultimately all languages of the Americas might turn out to be provably related and such a phenomenon as the apparent Pan-American tendency to have first person forms with a prefixed n- was suggestive for this line of thought. Since Sapir's death in 1939, linguists have spent their time researching his proposals; typically, there have been two opposing camps in this endeavor: the so-called "lumpers and splitters, lumpers" who usually look towards notions of genetic relationships, and the "splitters" who are widely critical of such proposals and expect successful family relations to be proven by the most rigorous standards of scholarship. Joseph Greenberg worked in the tradition of "lumpers" and following Sapir, was mindful of evidence not generally acceptable to those who hold that only actual linguistic reconstruction—through the comparative method—can yield reliable proof of genetic relationships between languages. In elaborating his classification of the Amerind languages, Greenberg relied heavily on Sapir's early work on the North American languages and the highly impressionist classification of South American languages by Paul Rivet.

Pronouns

The main argument for the validity of Amerind is a pronominal pattern in many Native American languages that have first person forms with ''n'' and second person forms with ''m''. This pattern was first noted by Alfredo Trombetti in 1905. Sapir suggested that it indicated that ultimately all Native American languages would turn out to be related. However, it is not universal, being confined primarily to western North America and to a lesser extent Mesoamerica; the incidence elsewhere is not statistically significant, and in western North American it is more an argument for the Hokan and Penutian phyla than for Amerind.Raoul Zamponi (2017) 'First-person n and second-person m in Native America: a fresh look'. ''Italian Journal of Linguistics'', 29.2

Gender

Ruhlen reconstructed a morphological (ablaut) gender system for proto-Amerind, with masculine kinship terms containing the vowel *i and feminine the vowel *u, that he claims proves Greenberg's reconstruction. This is based on Greenberg's *t'a'na 'child', to which Ruhlen adds a masculine derivation *t'i'na 'son, boy' and a feminine *t'u'na 'daughter, girl'. Unlike the n-/m- pattern in the pronouns, an intact i/u gender system is not attested across language families, and the consensus is that the pattern is a spurious one.

Reception

The consensus among historical linguists specializing in Native American languages is that the Amerind hypothesis is unsupported by valid evidence,Mithun 1999 particularly because the basis for the proposal is mass comparison, but also because of many other methodological flaws made by Greenberg in the elaboration of the hypothesis.Matisoff 1990Rankin 1992Campbell 1988 Critics regard this technique as fundamentally flawed, unable to distinguish chance resemblances from those due to a historical relationship among the languages and providing no means of distinguishing resemblances due to common descent from those due to language contact. In addition, critics have pointed out errors in the citation of data, including erroneous forms, erroneous glosses, unjustified morphological segmentation, attribution to the wrong language, and citation of entirely spurious forms.Adelaar 1989Berman 1992Chafe 1987Kimball 1992Poser 1992 A further criticism is that, contrary to normal scholarly practice, no source references are given for the data, which in most cases come from languages for which there is no standard, authoritative source. In addition, Greenberg does not normalize the spelling of the data, so it is impossible without knowing the source of each form to know what the notation represents. While sympathetic to the idea of an Amerind language family, Morris Swadesh was critical of many of Greenberg's subdivisions and believed it was due to an insufficient number of comparisons by Greenberg.

Classification

The 1960 proposal, in its outlines, was as follows: #Almosan–Keresiouan #Hokan #Penutian (incl. Macro-Mayan) #Aztec–Tanoan #Oto-Mangean #''Purépecha language, Purépecha'' #Macro-Chibchan ##Chibchan ##Paezan #Andean–Equatorial ##Andean ##Jivaroan ##Macro-Tucanoan ##Equatorial (with Macro-Arawakan and Tupian) #Ge–Pano–Carib ##Macro-Ge ##Macro-Panoan ##Macro-Carib ##''Nambikwaran languages, Nambikwara'' ##''Huarpe language, Huarpe'' ##''Taruma language, Taruma'' Below is the current state of Amerindian classification, as given in ''An Amerind Etymological Dictionary'', by Joseph Greenberg and Merritt Ruhlen, Stanford University, 2007. # North–Central Amerind ## Northern Amerind ### Almosan–Keresiouan #### Almosan ##### Algic languages, Algic ##### Kutenai language, Kutenai ##### Mosan languages, Mosan ###### Chimakuan languages, Chimakuan ###### Salishan languages, Salishan ###### Wakashan languages, Wakashan #### Keresiouan ##### Caddoan languages, Caddoan ##### Iroquoian languages, Iroquoian ##### Keresan languages, Keresan ##### Siouan–Yuchi ###### Siouan–Catawban languages, Siouan ###### Yuchi language, Yuchi ### Penutian–Hokan #### Penutian languages, Penutian ##### Tsimshian languages, Tsimshian ##### Chinook languages, Chinook ##### Oregon Penutian languages, Oregon ##### Plateau Penutian languages, Plateau ##### California ###### Maiduan languages, Maiduan ###### Miwok–Costanoan languages, Miwok–Costanoan ###### Wintun languages, Wintun ###### Yokutsan languages, Yokutsan ##### Zuni language, Zuni ##### Gulf languages, Gulf ###### Atakapa language, Atakapa ###### Chitimacha language, Chitimacha ###### Muskogean languages, Muskogean ###### Natchez language, Natchez ###### Tunica language, Tunica ###### Yukian languages, Yukian ####### Yuki language, Yuki ####### Wappo language, Wappo ##### Mexican Penutian ###### Huave language, Huave ###### Mayan languages, Mayan ###### Mixe–Zoque languages, Mixe–Zoque ###### Totonac languages, Totonac #### Hokan languages, Hokan ##### Northern Hokan ###### Karok–Shasta ####### Karuk language, Karok ####### Chimariko language, Chimariko ####### Shasta–Achomawi ######## Shastan languages, Shasta ######## Achomawi language, Achomawi ###### Yana language, Yana ###### Pomoan languages, Pomoan ##### Washo language, Washo ##### Salinan–Chumash ###### Salinan language, Salinan ###### Chumash language, Chumash ###### Esselen language, Esselen ##### Seri–Yuman ###### Seri language, Seri ###### Yuman languages, Yuman ##### Waicuri–Quinigua ###### Waicuri language, Waicuri ###### Maratino language, Maratino ###### Quinigua language, Quinigua ##### Coahuiltecan languages, Coahuiltecan ##### Tequistlatec language, Tequistlatec ##### Subtiaba language, Subtiaba ##### Jicaque language, Jicaque ##### Yurumangui language, Yurumangui ## Central Amerind ### Tanoan languages, Tanoan ### Uto-Aztecan languages, Uto-Aztekan ### Oto-Manguean languages, Oto-Manguean # Southern Amerind ## Andean–Chibchan–Paezan ### Chibchan–Paezan #### Macro-Chibchan languages, Macro-Chibchan ##### Cuitlatec language, Cuitlatec ##### Lenca language, Lenca ##### Chibchan languages, Chibchan ##### Paya language, Paya ##### Purépecha language, Purépecha ##### Yanomaman languages, Yanomam ##### Yunca–Puruhan languages, Yunca–Puruhan #### Macro-Paezan languages, Macro-Paezan ##### Allentiac language, Allentiac ##### Atacama language, Atacama ##### Betoi language, Betoi ##### Chimu–Mochita languages, Chimu–Mochita ##### Itonama language, Itonama ##### Jirajaran languages, Jirajara ##### Muran languages, Mura ##### Paezan languages, Paezan ##### Timucua language, Timucua ##### Warrao language, Warrao ### Andean #### Aymara language, Aymara #### Itucale–Sabela ##### Itucale language, Itucale ##### Mayna language, Mayna ##### Waorani language, Sabela #### Cahuapana–Zaparo ##### Cahuapanan languages, Cahuapana ##### Zaparo language, Zaparo #### Northern Andean ##### Catacaoan languages, Catacao ##### Cholona languages, Cholona ##### Culli language, Culli ##### Leco language, Leco ##### Sechura–Catacao languages, Sechura #### Quechuan languages, Quechua #### Southern Andean ##### Qawasqar language, Qawasqar ##### Mapudungu ##### Gennaken language, Gennaken ##### Chon language, Chon ##### Yamana language, Yamana ## Equatorial–Tucanoan ### Equatorial #### Macro-Arawakan languages, Macro-Arawakan #### Cayuvava language, Cayuvava #### Coche language, Coche #### Jivaro–Kandoshi ##### Cofán language, Cofán ##### Esmeralda language, Esmeralda ##### Jivaroan languages, Jivaro ##### Kandoshi language, Kandoshi ##### Yaruro language, Yaruro #### Kariri languages, Kariri–Tupian languages, Tupi #### Piaroa language, Piaroa #### Taruma language, Taruma #### Timotean languages, Timote #### Trumai language, Trumai #### Tusha language, Tusha #### Yuracaré language, Yuracaré #### Zamucoan languages, Zamuco ### Macro-Tucanoan #### Auixiri language, Auixiri #### Canichana language, Canichana #### Capixana language, Capixana #### Catuquina languages, Catuquina #### Gamella language, Gamella #### Huari language, Huari #### Iranshe language, Iranshe #### Kaliana–Maku languages, Kaliana–Maku #### Koaia language, Koaia #### Movima language, Movima #### Muniche language, Muniche #### Nambikwara languages, Nambikwara #### Natu language, Natu #### Pankaruru language, Pankaruru #### Puinave language, Puinave #### Shukuru language, Shukuru #### Ticuna-Yuri languages, Ticuna–Yuri #### Tucanoan languages, Tucanoan #### Uman language, Uman ## Ge–Pano–Carib ### Macro-Carib #### Andoke language, Andoke #### Bora–Uitoto languages, Bora–Uitoto #### Carib languages, Carib #### Kukura language, Kukura [spurious] #### Peba–Yaguan languages, Yagua ### Macro-Panoan languages, Macro-Panoan #### Charruan languages, Charruan #### Lengua languages, Lengua #### Lule–Vilela languages, Lule–Vilela #### Mataco–Guaicuru languages, Mataco–Guaicuru #### Moseten language, Moseten #### Pano–Tacanan languages, Pano–Tacanan ### Macro-Gê languages, Macro-Gê #### Bororoan languages, Bororo #### Botocudo language, Botocudo #### Caraja language, Caraja #### Chiquito language, Chiquito #### Erikbatsa language, Erikbatsa #### Fulnio language, Fulnio #### Ge–Kaingang languages, Ge–Kaingang #### Guató language, Guató #### Kamakan languages, Kamakan #### Mashakali languages, Mashakali #### Opaie language, Opaie #### Oti language, Oti #### Purian languages, Puri #### Yabutian languages, Yabuti

Notes

References

* Adelaar, Willem F. H. (1989). [Review of Greenberg, ''Language in the Americas'']. ''Lingua (journal), Lingua'', ''78'', 249-255. * Berman, Howard. (1992). A comment on the Yurok and Kalapuya data in Greenberg's Language in the Americas. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'', ''58'' (2), 230-233. * Bonnichsen, Robson; & Steele, D. Gentry (Eds.). (1994). ''Method and theory for investigating the peopling of the Americas''. Peopling of the Americas publications. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Center for the Study of the First Americans. . * Campbell, Lyle. (1988). [Review of ''Language in the Americas'', Greenberg 1987]. ''Language'', ''64'', 591-615. * Campbell, Lyle. (1997). ''American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America''. New York: Oxford University Press. . *Campbell, Lyle; Poser, William J. (2008) Language Classification, History and Method, Cambridge University Press * Chafe, Wallace. (1987). [Review of Greenberg 1987]. ''Current Anthropology'', ''28'', 652-653. * * Goddard, Ives. (1987). [Review of Joseph Greenberg, ''Language in the Americas'']. ''Current Anthropology'', ''28'', 656-657. * Goddard, Ives. (1990). [Review of ''Language in the Americas'' by Joseph H. Greenberg]. ''Linguistics'', ''28'', 556-558. * Goddard, Ives. (1996). The classification of native languages of North America. In I. Goddard (Ed.), ''Languages'' (pp. 290–323). Handbook of North Americans Indians (Vol. 17). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution. * Goddard, Ives (Ed.). (1996). ''Languages''. Handbook of North American Indians (W. C. Sturtevant, General Ed.) (Vol. 17). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution. . * Goddard, Ives; & Campbell, Lyle. (1994). The history and classification of American Indian languages: What are the implications for the peopling of the Americas?. In R. Bonnichsen & D. Steele (Eds.), ''Method and theory for investigating the peopling of the Americas'' (pp. 189–207). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. * Golla, Victor. (1987). [Review of Joseph H. Greenberg: ''Language in the Americas'']. ''Current Anthropology'', ''28'', 657-659. * Golla, Victor. (1988). [Review of ''Language in the Americas'', by Joseph Greenberg]. ''American Anthropologist'', ''90'', 434-435. * Greenberg, Joseph H. (1960). General classification of Central and South American languages. In A. Wallace (Ed.), ''Men and cultures: Fifth international congress of anthropological and ethnological sciences (1956)'' (pp. 791–794). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. * Greenberg, Joseph H. (1987). ''Language in the Americas''. Stanford: Stanford University Press. * Greenberg, Joseph H. (1987). Language in the Americas: Author's précis. ''Current Anthropology'', ''28'', 647-652. * Greenberg, Joseph H. (1989). Classification of American Indian languages: A reply to Campbell. ''Language'', ''65'', 107-114. * Greenberg, Joseph H. (1996). In defense of Amerind. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'', ''62'', 131-164. * * Kimball, Geoffrey. (1992). A critique of Muskogean, 'Gulf,' and Yukian materials in Language in the Americas. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'', ''58'', 447-501. * Matisoff, James. (1990). On megalo-comparison: A discussion note. ''Language'', ''66'', 106-120. * Mithun, Marianne. (1999). ''The languages of Native North America''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (hbk); . * PDF
* Rankin, Robert. (1992). [Review of ''Language in the Americas'' by J. H. Greenberg]. ''International Journal of American Linguistics'', ''58'' (3), 324-351. * Ringe, Don (2000). Some relevant facts about historical linguistics. In: Renfrew, Colin (Ed.), ''America Past, America Present: Genes and Languages in the Americas and Beyond'' (pp. 139–62). Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. * * * * * * * * * * *

External links

Google.books: Greenberg, Joseph. 'Language in the Americas'. 1987.
* Th
home page of Merritt Ruhlen
one of the advocates of the Amerind hypothesis. {{DEFAULTSORT:Amerind Languages Amerind languages, Indigenous languages of the Americas, Proposed language families Indigenous languages of North America, Indigenous languages of South America,