Advertisement

Mesoamerican Languages and the Voynich Codex

  • Fernando A. MoreiraEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Fascinating Life Sciences book series (FLS)

Abstract

The languages spoken in pre-conquest Mexico were extraordinarily diverse, with more than 200 distinct languages recognized in Mesoamerica. Language families in Mexico included Uto-Aztecan, Otomanguean, Mixe-Zoquean, and Purépechan. Loan-resistant words were compared in four central Mexican languages to determine the base language for the Voynich Codex. Some affinity was found with Nahuatl, but it was difficult to find evidence of a constructed language.

Keywords

Language diversity Mixe-Zoquean Nahuatl Otomanguean Purépechan Uto-Aztecan Totonacan Voynich 

Literature Cited

  1. Campbell, L. 1997. American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of native America. Oxford studies in anthropological linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Carrasco, P. 1963. Los caciques chichimecas de Tulancingo. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 4: 85–91.Google Scholar
  3. Childs, G.T. 2015. Sound symbolism. In The Oxford handbook of the word, ed. J.R. Taylor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cortés, H. 1986. Letters from Mexico. Trans. and ed. A. Pagden. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Davies, N. 1980. The Toltec heritage. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  6. De Alva Ixtlilxóchitl, F. 2012. Historia de la Nación Chichimeca. www.linkgua-digital.com. Barcelona.
  7. De Angulo, Jaime. 1933. The Chichimeco language. International Journal of American Linguistics 7: 152–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. García Icazbalceta, J., and J. B. Pomar. 1891. Pomar y Zurita: Pomar, Relación de Tezcoco; Zurita, Breve relación de los señores de la Nueva España. Varias relaciones antiguas. (Siglo XVI).Google Scholar
  9. Gerste, R.P. 1891. La langue des Chichimèques. Comte Rendu du Congrès Scientifique International es Catholiques. Philologie 6: 42–57.Google Scholar
  10. Gibson, C. 1964. The Aztecs under Spanish rule: A history of the Indians of the valley of Mexico, 1519–1810. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gradie, C.M. 1994. Discovering the Chichimecas. The Americas 51: 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hill, J. 2006. The languages of the Aztec empire. In The Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs, ed. D.L. Nichols and E. Rodríguez-Alegría, 129–131. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kaufman, T., and J. Justeson. 2006. The history of the word for “cacao” and related terms in ancient Meso-America. In Chocolate in Mesoamerica: A cultural history of cacao, ed. C.L. McNeil, 118–139. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kirchhoff, P., L.O. Gümes, and L.R. Garcia. 1976. Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.Google Scholar
  15. Knight, K. 2009. The Voynich Manuscript. MIT. http://www.isi.edu/natural-language/people/voynich.pdf.
  16. Krumholz, J. A., M. K. Dolson, and M. H. Ayuso. 1995. Diccionario Popoloca de San Juan Atzingo Puebla. No. 33. Ed. 1. Tucson: The Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, J. 2008. The allure of Nezahualcoyotl: Pre-Hispanic history, religion, and Nahua poetics. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  18. Longacre, R.E. 1977. Comparative reconstruction of indigenous languages. In Native languages of the Americas, ed. T.A. Sebeok, 99–139. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McAfee, B., and R.H. Barlow. 1946. The Titles of Tetzcotzinco (Santa Maria Nativitas). Tlalocan 2: 110–127.Google Scholar
  20. Montemurro, M.A., and D.H. Zanette. 2013. Keywords and Co-Occurrence Patterns in the Voynich Manuscript: An Information-Theoretic Analysis. PLoS ONE 8 (6): e66344. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066344.
  21. Morritt, R.D. 2011. Olde New Mexico. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Okrent, A. 2010. In the land of invented languages. New York: Spiegel & Grau Trade Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  23. Orozco y Berra, M. 1864. Geografía de las lenguas y carta etnográfica de México. México: Imprenta de J.M. Andrade y F. Escalante.Google Scholar
  24. Palancar, E.L. 2017. Oto-Pamean. In The languages and linguistics of middle and central America: A comprehensive guide, ed. S. Wichmann. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Ramírez, V.P. 2005. El Nawat de la costa del golfo. México: Algunas semejanzas y diferencias Estructurales con el Náhuatl Central. Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia-FFyL/IIA-UNAM.Google Scholar
  26. Richard Andrews, J. 2003. Introduction to classical Nahuatl, volume 1. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rossell, C. 2006. Estilo y escritura en la Historia Tolteca Chichimeca. Desacatos 22: 65–92.Google Scholar
  28. Simons, G.F., and C.D. Fennig. 2017. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 20th ed. Dallas: SIL International. Online version http://www.ethnologue.com.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, M.E. 1984. The Aztlan migrations of the Nahuatl chronicles: Myth or history? Ethnohistory 31: 152–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stampa, M.C. 1971. Historiadores indígenas y mestizos novohispanos. Siglo XVI-XVII. Revista Española de Antropología Americana 6: 206–243.Google Scholar
  31. Stark, S. L. 2011. Ngigua (Popoloca) Pronouns. SIL-Mexico Branch Electronic Working Papers #012. http://www.sil.org/mexico/workpapers/WP012i-PopolocaPronouns-pls.pdf.
  32. Swadesh, M. 1971. In The origin and diversification of language, ed. Joel Sherzer. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  33. Swanton, M.W. 2001. El texto Popoloca de la Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca. Relaciones. Estudios de Historia y Sociedad 22: 116–140.Google Scholar
  34. Thomas, C., and J.R. Swanton. 1909. Indian languages of Mexico and central America. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  35. Tucker, A.O., and R.H. Talbert. 2013. A preliminary analysis of the botany, zoology, and mineralogy of the Voynich Manuscript. Herbalgram 70 (100). American Botanical Council. www.herbalgram.org.Google Scholar
  36. Veerman-Leichsenring, A. 2001. Changes in Popolocan word order and clause structure. In Grammatical relations in change, ed. J.T. Faarlund, 303–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Whittaker, G. 1988. Aztec dialectology and the Nahuatl of the friars. In The work of Bernardino de Sahagun, pioneer ethnographer of sixteenth-century Aztec Mexico, ed. J.J. Klor de Alva, H.B. Nicholson, and E.Q. Keber, 321–330. Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, University at Albany, State University of New York.Google Scholar
  38. Wichmann, S. 1995. The Relationship Among the Mixe–Zoquean Languages of Mexico. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
  39. Zerbe, A. 2013. P’urépecha fortis v. lenis consonants. University of Washington, working papers. In Linguistics (UWWPL), ed. S. Song and J. Crowgey, vol. 31 https://depts.washington.edu/uwwpl/vol31/zerbe_2013.pdf.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent ResearcherCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations