Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T23:16:52.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Natchez and the Muskogean Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Mary R. Haas
Mary R. Haas*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relationship of Natchez to the Muskogean languages has been generally accepted for over thirty years. When Swanton first posited the relationship in 1924, he gave examples of lexical similarities between various individual Muskogean languages and Natchez; as a result of his postulation and his method of presenting the evidence, Natchez has often been referred to as a Muskogean language. Such nomenclature is, however, both misleading and inaccurate, because Natchez must be compared with Proto-Muskogean and not directly with the separate Muskogean languages. To indicate clearly the nature of the relationship that exists, it is more appropriate to speak of a Natchez-Muskogean stock composed of Natchez and the Muskogean family. Since no series of sound correspondences between reconstructed Proto-Muskogean (PM) and Natchez has ever been published, the purpose of the present paper is to make a preliminary statement concerning such correspondences. A brief description of the sounds of Natchez and of the Muskogean languages is provided first as background. This is followed by (1) a fist of possible cognates between Natchez and PM, (2) a list of the sound correspondences exhibited in these cognates, and (3) a discussion of certain other features which point to a relationship between the two languages.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 32 , Issue 1: January-March , March 1956, pp. 61 - 72
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 John R. Swanton, The Muskhogean connection of the Natchez language, UIJAL 3.46–75 (1924).

2 Grateful acknowledgment is made to the Research Committee of the University of California, Berkeley, for funds (1954–55) for clerical assistance in the processing of some of my Natchez and Muskogean field notes.

3 Haas, The position of Apalachee in the Muskogean family, IJAL 15.121–7 (1949).

4 Perhaps also in Choctaw.

5 Haas, Ablaut and its function in Muskogee, Lg. 16.141–50 (1940).

6 Haas, Geminate consonant clusters in Muskogee, Lg. 14.61–5 (1938).

7 The principles of reconstruction so far worked out for the Muskogean languages are described in a series of articles by the present writer : The classification of the Muskogean languages, Language, culture, and personality 41–56 (ed. L. Spier; Menasha, Wis., 1941); A Proto-Muskogean paradigm, Lg. 22.326–32 (1946) ; The development of Proto-Muskogean *kw, IJAL 13.135–7 (1947) ; The position of Apalachee in the Muskogean family, IJAL 15.121–7 (1949); On the historical development of certain long vowels in Creek, IJAL 16.122–5 (1950); The Proto-Gulf word for water, IJAL 17.71–9 (1951); The Proto-Gulf word for land, IJAL 18.238–40 (1952).

8 The suffix -?op is from -?Vp, allomorph with -kVp and -hup of a Nat. adjective-forming suffix; see §1.

9 Natchez active verb stems are quoted with their appropriate auxiliary verb in its infinitive form. The auxiliaries used with stems quoted in this article are -hakiis ~ -haki?is (differing forms used by different informants); -hoc?is; -hal?is; -helkuus ~ -helku?is; -hakuus ~ -haku?is; -haciis ~ -haci?is; -heskuus ~ -hesku?is; -hektiis ~ -hekti?is; -he-luu?is. There are many others in the language.

10 Creek verbs are usually quoted in the infinitive; the infinitive suffix is -ita.

11 Hitchiti verbs are usually quoted in the infinitive; the infinitive suffix is -i·ki.

12 The forms from Muskogean languages are cited with initial hyphen because they are accompanied by a possessive prefix.

13 See the note on Tunica lálahki ‘goose’ in the writer's Tunica dictionary 229 (UCPL 6.2, 1953).

14 IJAL 17.74 (1951).

15 The Gulf stock (cf. ibid.) consists of the Muskogean languages together with Natchez, Tunica, Chitimacha, and Atakapa.

16 See also The development of Proto-Muskogean *kw, cited in fn. 7.

17 Examples from Creek include itufáski ~ ‘tufáski ‘thorn tree', ifawú·hka ~ ‘fawú·hka ‘hound', icupáyhka ~ ‘cupáyhka ‘elk', iłulá·ni ~ ‘łulá·ni ‘fox squirrel', ispukú·ki ~ spukú·ki ‘Tukabahchee (old name)', isticá·ti ~ stica'ti ‘Indian', etc.; upánka ~ pánka ‘dance’.

18 Examples from Creek are canutákha ‘my jaw’, colíca ‘under me’ (ca- = ‘my, me‘).

19 For example ?ipisnis ‘my father’ < ?ipis ‘father’ + -nis ‘my’.

20 The long vowel here is the result of compensatory lengthening; see the third paragraph following.

21 PNM *N > n in Pre-Nat., *N in PM (which in turn > n in Western, ł in Eastern Musk.). Hence PNM *N is not to be equated with modern Nat. N.

22 But most Natchez words with prothetic vowels which have not lost the vowel of the second syllable have in that syllable a vowel which is identical with the initial vowel, viz. ?iwi gourd, ?olo turtle, ? apal river, ?ekwele- bone, ?elekeh acorn, and ?epet- in ?epet-kup wide. Some special rule involving vowel harmony is obviously at work here.

23 See A Proto-Muskogean paradigm, cited in fn. 7.

24 See also footnote 9.