Morris Swadesh
Yale University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Morris Swadesh.
International Journal of American Linguistics | 1955
Morris Swadesh
1 Articles bearing on lexicostatistic theory and method: WALTER W. ARNDT, Germanic Dialect Evolution in Lexico-Statistic Time Perspective, University of North Carolina Doctoral Dissertation, 1955. WILLIAM W. ELMENDORF, Word Taboo and Lexical Change in Coast Salish, IJAL 17.205-8 (1951). R. Fox, W. SIBLEY AND F. EGGAN, A Preliminary Glottochronology for Northern Luzon, Proceedings of the Eighth Pacific Science Congress, Manila. C. F. HOCKETT, Linguistic Time Perspective and its Anthropological Uses, IJAL 19.146-52 (1953). DAVID I. HIRSCH, Glottochronology and Eskimo and Eskimo-Aleut Prehistory, AA 56.825-38 (1954). G. EVELYN HUTCHINSON, The Half Life of a Word (Marginalia), American Scientist 41.633-34 (1953). ROBERT B. LEES, The Basis of Glottochronology, Language 29.113-27 (1953). Cognate Word Counts, unpublished. (Scored test lists used in the preceding.) MORRIS SWADESH, Salish Internal Relationships, IJAL 16.157-67 (1950). Diffusional Cumulation and Archaic Residue as Historical Explanations, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7.1-21 (1951). Mosan I: A Problem in Remote Common Origin, IJAL 19.26-44 (1953). Lexico-Statistic Dating of Prehistoric Ethnic Contacts, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96.452-63 (1952). Archeological and Linguistic Chronology of Indo-European, AA 55.349-52 (1953). The Language of the Archeologic Huastecs, Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology 4.223-27 (1953). Perspectives and Problems of Amerindian Comparative Linguistics, Word 10.306-32 (1954). Fechas Glotocronol6gicas importantes para la Prehistoria Nahua, Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropoldgicos, in press. NI. SWADESH, GEORGE I. QUIMBY, HENRY B. 3. Accuracy 4. The test vocabulary 4.1. Universality 4.2. Cultural implications 4.3. Simplicity 4.4. Interlingual ambiguity and semantic shading 4.5. Potential duplication 4.6. Identical roots 4 7. Sound imitation 4.8. Form words 5. Item persistence 6. Control procedure 6.1. Overlapping histories 6.2. Hidden divergence 6.3. Time depth weighting 6.4. Dating of samples 6.5. Scoring 6.6. Modifying factors 7. Provisional evaluation
International Journal of American Linguistics | 1950
Morris Swadesh
1. For the purposes of comparative linguistics and for the reconstruction of the prehistory of peoples, it is not sufficient merely to know that a given group of languages are or are not related to each other. French is related to Spanish and it is related to Russian, but there is a tremendous difference of degree. Spanish and French are both modern forms of Latin, the end products of 2000 years of divergent drift. But the common period of the Romance languages and Russian dates back perhaps 5000
International Journal of American Linguistics | 1947
Morris Swadesh
0. Though modern varieties of Zapotec differ considerably in their consonant systems, they all agree in showing some sort of weak-strong contrast among obstruents. In the sibilants there are typically strong voiceless fricatives contrasting with weak ones, which are commonly but not necessarily voiced; we find in different dialects s:z, ?: i, 0:d. Other pairs involve a strong voiceless stop or affricate against either a weak stop or a weak spirant, as p:b, t:d, k:g, 6, J. Sets of three have been developed in the dialect of Ixtlan, partly as the result of Spanish borrowings, including p:F:b, k:x:g, t:0:d, 6:?: , and the incomplete set c:s (phonemes found only in Spanish borrowings are in small capitals). Note that Ixtlan b d g are fricatives. Cuixtla b d g are sometimes affricate in initial position but always fricative in non-initial, and the same is evidently true of z s 0.1
WORD | 1954
Morris Swadesh
Were vocabularies formed of all the languages spoken in North and South America, preserving their appelation of the most common objects in nature, of those which must be present to every nation, barbarians or civilized, with the inflections of their names and verbs, their principles of regimen and concord, and these deposited in all the public libraries, it would furnish opportunities to those skilled in the languages of the old world to compare them with the new, now or at any future time, and hence to construct the best evidence of the derivation of this part of the human race.—Thomas Jefferson (in Notes on the State of Virginia)
International Journal of American Linguistics | 1953
Morris Swadesh
0. Salish, Chimakuan and Wakashan are three distinct linguistic stocks on the western coast of North America roughly between 45 and 55 degrees north latitude. The Mosan theory, that all three have a common origin, has been advanced by several scholars, particularly by Edward Sapir, and scattered bits of evidence have already been published. The aim of the present paper is to present a sufficient body of systematic lexical material to substantially strengthen the case for genetic unity. Since as yet only a few grammars and dictionaries are available and since it will be some time before a really exhaustive study is possible, it seems justifiable to publish the still fragmentary materials assembled here. ` To get an idea of a comparative problem like that of Mosan, one might picture the linguistic situation in Indo-European if there were no recorded materials in any of the languages from earlier than 200 years ago. This would eliminate Sanskrit, ancient Greek, Latin, Gothic, and a great deal more. To unravel the details of proto Indo-European without the benefit of the great wealth of historic material would be a task some-
International Journal of American Linguistics | 1960
Morris Swadesh
0. Introduction 1. Order of relationship 2. Nomenclature 3. Manguean and Chinantec 4. Trique and Mixtecan 5. Structure 6. Morpho-phonemic alternation 7. Phonology 7.1. Types of occlusives 7.2. Two k-positions 7.3. Labial and labiovelar 7.4. The labial nasal in Zapotecan 7.6. Sibilants 7.6. Development of *r 7.7. Semiconsonants 7.8. Other consonants 7.9. Vowels 8. Isoglosses and lexico-statistics 9. Lexicostatistic documentation 9.1. Amuzgo, Mixtec and Trique 9.2. The divisions of Macro Mixtecan 9.3. Macro Manguean 9.4. Popolocan, Chinantecan and Manguean
International Journal of American Linguistics | 1951
Gordon Marsh; Morris Swadesh
1.1. The problem 1.2. Time depth 1.3. Phonemes of Proto Eskimo-Aleut 1.4. Aleut dialects 1.5. Main developments 1.6. Special developments 2. Basic vocabulary comparison 3. Cognate list 4. Further comparisons 1.1. While structural and inflectional similarities between Eskimo and Aleut are so numerous and so striking as to leave little doubt of the common origin of the two,1 specific vocabulary correspondences are not too easy to find. This indicates that Eskimo and Aleut have been diverging for a long time. In other words, the original community speaking the common prototype language must have broken up long ago into two separate branches which gradually developed greater and greater differences until they present the divergent aspect we now find. It is not surprising that the inflections show a great deal of similarity, because it is natural for deeply rooted structural features to resist change. By comparison vocabulary changes more easily -through the borrowing of foreign words, through the creation of new native derivatives, through the dropping of old elements and through shifts in usage. As a result original common elements may drop out of one or more of the branches of a stock, or may be so changed in meaning that it is no longer easy to prove common origin. In the meantime, phonetic changes, accumulating over a long period of time, may make cognate words less and less similar. Phonetic
International Journal of American Linguistics | 1953
Edward Sapir; Morris Swadesh
1. The Coos-Takelma-Penutian comparisons presented here were made by Edward Sapir. Morris Swadesh has prepared them for publication and has provided the introductory information and discussion. 1.1. Sapirs manuscript, which now forms part of the Franz Boas Collection of the American Philosophical Society, evidently dates back to about 1914, the publication year of Leo J. Frachtenbergs Coos, An Illustrative Sketch, Extract from Handbook of American Indian Languages (BAE-B 40.2.297-429). It surely represents an important part, though far from all, of the lexical evidence Sapir refers to in A Characteristic Penutian Form of Stem (IJAL 2.58-67), published in 1921. In this article he concurs with Frachtenbergs suggestion of Penutian affinities of certain Oregon languages, stating:
International Journal of American Linguistics | 1954
Morris Swadesh
4. Report on audition of the tapes [by Florence M. Robinett, Indiana University] 0. The aim in recording linguistic material for phonographic archives must be to capture a maximum of valuable data in maximally usable form on a reasonable timelength of record. The features about vocabulary that can be phonographically documented are primarily phonetic form and meanings. To obtain true phonetics it is only necessary to find typical speakers and to arrange the recording situation so that the naturalness of speech is not lost. With regard to meanings, fairly good material can be obtained within workable time limits by having bilingual interpreters respond with the native translation equivalents of expressions in the contact language, set in sufficient context to avoid misunder-
International Journal of American Linguistics | 1949
Frances Leon; Morris Swadesh
1. The difference between their analysis and ours can be shown by citing a few examples as represented and analyzed in the two systems. For purposes of easier comparison we use their spelling in both versions, except for the prosody. Accent marks in their writing are grave, acute and wedge (inverted circumflex) respectively for low, high and rising tonemes. We use only the acute sign to mark the accented syllables; properly it should be omitted on words of three or more syllables, since they regularly have initial accent, but it is kept in this paper for the purpose of clarity in the discussion. A. fkni, fani, xi, z,, rA b4ci pi, rA fani, rA pr6sid6nt6, rA pr6sid6ntb ?m6nda.