On Zapotecan glottal stop, and where to reconstruct it1 Fifteenth Spring Workshop on Theory and Method in Linguistic Reconstruction University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 15 March, 2014 ☼ Eric Campbell University of Texas at Austin [email protected] 1. Introduction 1.1. The problem Zapotec and Chatino together form the Zapotecan language family of the Otomanguean linguistic stock of Mesoamerica Basic consonantal sound correspondences between Zapotec and Chatino are not problematic, but correspondences involving tone and other laryngeal features are (still) problematic In this paper, I discuss glottal stop in particular, and explore the question of why it is difficult to reconstruct in some cases 1.2. The languages, and the data used in this work Chatino is a cluster of speech varieties, making up at least three distinct languages: Zenzontepec (ISO 639-3 czn); Tataltepec (cta); and the Eastern Chatino group (ctz, ctp, cya, cly) (Boas 1913; Campbell 2013a) Zapotec is a larger, temporally deeper, group of at least five languages, each with considerable dialectal variation (Kaufman 1993) The data used in this study are from the following sources: pZp pCh proto-Zapotec reconstructions (Kaufman 1993) proto-Chatino reconstructions (Campbell 2011, 2013a, 2013b; Campbell & Cruz 2010); and some new ones ZEN Zenzontepec Chatino (Campbell & Carleton in press) 1 My sincerest thanks go to: Tranquilino Cavero Ramírez and Flor Cruz Ortiz for their collaboration in my fieldwork on their Zenzontepec Chatino language; Terry Kaufman, John Justeson, and Roberto Zavala for support on the PDLMA; Emiliana Cruz, Hilaria Cruz, and Tony Woodbury for involving me in their work on Chatino; Terry Kaufman, Ryan Sullivant, Stéphanie Villard, and Tony Woodbury for sharing their data; and Sally Thomason and Terry Kaufman for inviting me to the Workshop. Any errors in analysis or representation are mine and mine alone. This work was supported in part by ELDP grants IGS0080 and MDP0153 to the University of Texas at Austin. On Zapotecan glottal stop – E. Campbell TAT Tataltepec Chatino (Sullivant 2013) ZAC Zacatepec Chatino (Villard & Woodbury 2012; Woodbury 2013; Villard 2014) Figure 1. Location and subgrouping of Chatino languages 1.3. Methodological notes and assumptions pCh tone reconstructions are based on Campbell & Woodbury (2010). Where I can‟t reconstruct tone with any confidence, the pCh form is given in parentheses: e.g. (*n-yakwa) „chayote squash‟ I take Kaufman‟s reconstructions to be correct at the pZp level I don‟t offer pZn reconstructions anywhere, because no fruitful work has yet been done in comparative tone between Zapotec and Chatino If a pZp reconstruction has at least one Chatino cognate, it is reconstructible for pZn 1.4. Outline §2 §3 §4 §5 Basics of Zapotecan historical phonology Where pZn *Ɂ is easy to reconstruct Where glottal stop is not easy to reconstruct Discussion and conclusions 2 pZn pCh pZp 2. Basics of Zapotecan historical phonology Chatino began diversifying later than Zapotec did (as far as we know from attested langs.), and Chatino is generally more innovative than Zapotec 2.1. Basic consonantal sound correspondences between Zapotec and Chatino Swadesh (1947) and Kaufman (1993) reconstruct a contrast between single and geminate consonants, excluding glides, in pZp (and pZn) Basic consonant correspondences between Zapotec and Chatino are fairly unproblematic (Table 1) Table 1. Basic consonantal sound correspondences between pZp and Chatino Gloss pZp „skin‟ *kiti „squash‟ *kettu „blood‟ *tyene „paper‟ *kiʔttyi „salt‟ *seteʔ „black‟ *kassak „maguey fiber‟ *keetze „break, burst (itrn.) *attzok „mamey fruit‟ *kellaʔ „be possible‟ *akka „cayman‟ *kw=eʔnak „chayote squash‟ *yakkwak „gourd‟ *xikaʔ „cheek‟ *xxakaʔ „woman (adj./n.)‟ *ko=naʔ(a) „three‟ *ttzonna „cornfield‟ *kela „leaf‟ *llakaʔ „tree‟ *yaka „flea‟ *kw=eʔyu „mouth‟ *tyoʔwa „two days after‟ *witzak pCh *kijį *kyòjò *tènè *kitì *tejeʔ *n-kàtá *kitze *-àtzù *kelaʔ *-akà *kw-eʔna (*n-yakwa) *sìkàʔ *sàkàʔ *ku-naʔá *tzúna *kela *lakaʔ *yaka *kwiʔyù *tuʔwa *witza ZEN keję chojo tene kitī tejeʔ n-kātá kitze -atzu kelaʔ -akā kweʔna ntzákwā xikaʔ sakaʔ kunáʔa tzúna kela lakaʔ yaka kwiʔyū tuʔwa witza 3 TAT kjį tyojo tanyì ktyì tjeʔ ngatá kche -atzu kalyaʔ -akà kwaʔnya ˆnsakwa skàʔ sakáʔ kwnaʔá sná kalya lakaʔ yaka kwiʔyù tuʔwà wchá ZAC kijį kyōjō tīnē kityīˊ tejeʔ nkatǎ kiche -ātsō kilāʔˊ -akāˊ kwiʔna ntsakwa sīkāʔ sākāʔ kunāʔá tsuna kila lakaʔ yaka kwiʔyōˊ tuʔwa wicha pZn *t *tt *ty *tty *s *ss *tz *ttz *k *kk *kw *kkw *x *xx *n *nn *l *ll pCh *y > *y *w > *w > *j [h] > *t > *tz > *k > *kw > *s > *n > *l On Zapotecan glottal stop – E. Campbell 2.2. Changes particular to pZp Kaufman (2006: 122) identifies two changes that occurred in Zapotec due to contact with non-Otomanguean languages: o Prosodic prominence in roots shifted from final syllables to penults o Contrastive vowel nasality was lost 2.3. Changes particular to pCh In pCh, the pZn geminates merged with their corresponding single consonants (Kaufman 1993) (1) (1) pZn pCh *CC *C *C Kaufman (1993) identifies the changes involving pCh consonants in (2) through (5) pZn pCh (2) *(t)t > (3) *(s)s (4) *(t)ty (5) *(x)x > *j [h] *t *s o There is some determinable relative chronology among the changes in (2)-(5) (Campbell 2013a) (2) must have preceded both (3) and (4), or else they would have fed it (3) must have preceded (5) for the same reason Changes (2), (3), and (5) were a chain shift: *t >* j; *s > *t; *x > *s Other changes that occurred in pCh (Campbell 2011) are listed in (6)-(9) (6) (7) Ø > *w / u j __ i Ø > *y / i j __ a/u V1 > V2 / __ G V2 Glide insertion Translaryngeal vowel harmony (where G = glottal: Ɂ, j) (8) *ʔ > Ø / __ C[-son] Elision of *Ɂ before obstruents or *l 4 pZn pCh pZp C[+lat] (9) *l > *n / __ Nasalization of *l before 3. Where pZn *Ɂ is easy to reconstruct Some cognate sets have intervocalic *Ɂ in both pZp and pCh. These cases of glottal stop are reconstructible without problem (Table 2) Table 2. Intervocalic *Ɂ in both pZp and pCh Gloss pZp pCh ZEN TAT ZAC a. „heavy‟ *siɁi *ˆtiɁį teɁę ˆteɁę tiɁ ˋ b. „get toasted‟ *keʔi (*-u-kiʔi) -u-kiʔi — -u-kīʔí d. „festival‟ *ssaʔa *taʔa taʔa taʔà taʔa e. „fence‟ *loʔo *lòɁó lōɁó loɁó loɁ f. „water jug‟ *tyeʔe *t Ɂ teɁę teɁ tēɁē Word-final glottal stop occurs in pZp and pCh cognates. These cases of *Ɂ reconstruct without issue (Table 3) Table 3. Word-final *Ɂ in both pZp and pCh Gloss pZp pCh ZEN TAT ZAC a. „crab‟ *kw=eeɁ *kweeɁ kweeɁ kwe Ɂ kweeɁ b. „frog‟ *kw=etyiʔ *kwit Ɂ kwitīɁ kwty Ɂ kwityīɁˊ c. „nurse (v.)‟ *atyiʔ *-atiɁ -atiɁ — -atiɁ d. „pot‟ *kessoʔ *ketǫʔ ketǫʔ kwtyǫʔ kityǫʔ e. „thorn‟ *kettzeʔ *kitzeʔ kitzeʔ kcheʔ kichèʔ˝ *keʔtzuʔ *kètzúʔ kètzúʔ kchúʔ kits ʔ f. „pimple‟ In both pZp and pCh, glottal stop is found word-medially after a vowel and before *n, *y, or *w (Table 4) 5 On Zapotecan glottal stop – E. Campbell Table 4. Word-medial *Ɂ before *n, *y, and *w in both pZp and pCh Gloss pZp pCh ZEN TAT ZAC a. „cayman‟ *kw=eʔnak *kweʔna kweʔna kwaʔnya kwiʔna b. „plate‟ *keʔna *keʔnà keʔnā kaʔnyà kiʔnāˊ c. „bed‟ *kiʔna *kìʔnà kiʔna kiʔnyà kīʔnyā d. „slope‟ *keʔya *keʔyà kyaʔā kaʔyà kiʔyāˊ e. „guilt‟ *kiʔya *kiʔya kyaʔa kiʔya kiʔya f. „flea‟ *kw=eʔyu *kwiʔyù kwiʔyū kwiʔyù kwiʔyōˊ g. „tooth‟ *(l)leʔya *leʔya n]teʔya laʔya liʔya h. „man‟ (adj.) *kwe=kiʔyu (n.) *kiʔyú kíʔyū kiʔyú kīʔyó i. „lightning‟ *ko=seʔyu *kwi-tìʔyú kwitīʔyú tyiɁyú kutiʔy j. „black zapote‟ *(kwe=)laʔwe (*laʔwe) n]tāʔwé ˆlaʔwe laʔw k. „you‟ *luʔwi *nuʔwį nuɁu — nuʔwį l. „mouth‟ *tyoʔwa *tuʔwa tuʔwa tuʔwa tuʔwa In pZp *Ɂ occurred before the other (presumably) sonorant consonant *l, but in pCh it did not occur there (Table 5) o Therefore, the following change occurred: pCh *Ɂ > Ø / __ l Table 5. pZp *Ɂ before *(l)l corresponding to Ø in pCh Gloss pZp pCh ZEN TAT ZAC a. „night‟ *ty-eeʔla *ˆtelà telā ˆtalyà tilà˝ b. „dream‟ *xi=kaaʔlla *kàlá kyālá kalá kalǎ c. „deep‟ *keʔla *kelà kelā „river‟ klyà „depth‟ kilāˊ „pool‟ d. „sing‟ *ooʔlla *-ùlá -ūlá -ulá -ulǎ o The change just discussed (pCh *Ɂ > Ø / __ l) must have preceded another pCh sound change: *l > n / __ V[+nas] (Table 6) The proof of the relative chronology is in lines g-j of Table 6. If the order were reversed, then glottals would remain in the Chatino forms since pCh *Ɂ could precede *n (as shown in Table 4) 6 pZn pCh pZp Table 6. pCh *l > n / __ V[+nas] Gloss pZp pCh ZEN TAT ZAC a. „twist (rope)‟ *olla *-un -una --- --- b. „sandal‟ *kela *ken --- kanyà kina c. „name‟ *la *na naa (na ) na d. „you‟ *luʔwi *nuʔwį nuʔu nuʔu nuʔwį e. „flat‟ „level‟ *laʔttyiʔ (*natęʔ) nàt ʔ nat ʔ --- *kwe=lattyV (*kwi-natę) kwinat klyat jnyāt g. „snake‟ *kw=eeʔlla *kw-ená kwénà kwanyá kwīná h. „meat‟ *kweeʔlaʔ *kwenáʔ kwénàʔ kwanyáʔ kwīnáʔ f. „mosquito‟ i. „griddle‟ *tyiʔla *ntin jnya nya ntiny j. „copal incense‟ *yaaʔlaʔ *yaná yánà yaná yāná In pZp, *Ɂ preceded obstruents, while in pCh it did not o *Ɂ was deleted in pCh where it immediately preceded an obstruent (Table 7) Table 7. pCh *Ɂ > Ø / __ [-son] Gloss pZp pCh ZEN TAT ZAC a. „pass‟ *teʔti *-tij -tejē — -tijīˊ b. „sleep‟ *aʔttaʔ „lie down‟ *-àjáʔ — -ajaʔ -ajǎʔ c. „hole‟ *keeʔtyu *ketú kétū ktyú — d. „louse‟ *kw=eeʔttyeʔ (*i) *kwitįʔ kwitęʔ kwtyęʔ kwity ʔ˝ e. „tobacco‟ *keʔsa *keta keta katya kita f. „chew (trn.)‟ *aʔssaʔ *-àtáʔ -ātáʔ — -atǎʔ g. „wild feline‟ *kw=eeʔtzi(k) *kwìtzí kwīchí kwchí kwichǐ h. „quern‟ *kiiʔttzi *kitzi kichi kchi kichi i. „watering place‟ *keeʔku 'río' *kekú kékū tykú kīkó j. „metal‟ *kiiʔkwa *kìkwá kīkwá tykwà kikwǎ *l-aʔkkwa *ti-lakwa lyakwa — jlyakwa *kis ʔ kixēʔ kx ʔ kixīɁˊ k. „flat‟ l. „herbaceous plant‟ *kiʔxxiʔ 7 On Zapotecan glottal stop – E. Campbell 4. Where glottal stop is not easy to reconstruct In some cases, word-final glottal stop in pZp has no corresponding glottal stop in pCh (Table 8, cf. Table 3) o Most are monosyllabic, with some kind of high tone in pCh (LH, ØH, HØ) Table 8. pZp word-final *Ɂ corresponding to Ø in pCh Gloss pZp pCh a. „give‟ *saʔ b. „rope‟ c. ZEN TAT ZAC *-tàá (or *-taá) -tāá -taá -tāá *to(Ɂ) *juú (or *j ú) júū joó jōó „bean‟ *(kwe=)saaʔ (*n-taa) ntáā ntaa ntaa d. „nine‟ *k ʔ *kàá kāá kaá kaa e. „ten‟ *k-tyiiʔ *tíi tíi tií tii f. „broom‟ *k-okwaʔ *k-ùkwá ly]ūkwá kwà kukwǎ g. „copal incense‟ *yaaʔlaʔ *yaná yánā yaná yāná h. „get squeezed‟ *siiɁ ~ xiiɁ *s íɁ - — -u-sīíɁ (trn.) In some cases, a pZp word-medial glottal stop preceding *n has no corresponding glottal in pCh (Table 9, cf. Table 4) o It appears that if the preceding vowel was long, the glottal was lost in pCh (with vowel length being lost later) Table 9. pZp word-medial *Ɂ before *n corresponding to pCh Ø Gloss pZp pCh ZEN TAT ZAC a. „work‟ *tyiiʔna *tìná jnyá knyá tinyǎ b. „corn cob‟ *yaaʔna *yàná yāná yaná yanǎ c. „chili pepper‟ *kiiʔnaʔ *kìnáʔ jnyáʔ knyáʔ kinyǎʔ In even other cases, pZp words with two glottal stops have pCh cognates with none! (Table 10) o Again, the vowel preceding the first *Ɂ was long and the tones in pCh are all of the *LH pattern 8 pZn pCh pZp Table 10. pZp words with two cases of *Ɂ corresponding to none in pCh Gloss pZp pCh ZEN TAT ZAC a. „tumpline‟ *toʔ=kwaaʔnaʔ (*juų) kwàná júū kwāná — tǐ] kwanǎ b. „run‟ *o=xooʔnnaʔk *-sùná -jná -sná -sunǎ c. „cry‟ *ooʔnaʔ *-ùná -ūná — -unǎ Finally, another problem is the reverse. Some pCh forms had glottal stop, but their pZp cognates had none (Table 11) o Not much can be solidly determined here yet, but these cases all involve pCh low tones or tonelessness (phonetically low pitch) Table 11. pCh words with *Ɂ corresponding to none in pZp Gloss pZp pCh ZEN TAT ZAC a. „speak‟ *akwi *-akwiʔ -akwiʔ -kwiʔ -akwiʔ b. „get wet‟ *atza(k) *-àtzàʔ -atzaʔ -atzaʔ -ātsāʔ c. „pig‟ *kw=ewe *kùwèʔ kuweʔ kwèʔ kūwēʔ d. „fire‟ *kii *kiiʔ kiiʔ kiiʔ kiiʔ e. „armadillo‟ *kwe=kukkwe *k kw ʔ kukwęʔ kukw ʔ kūkwīʔ f. „spindle‟ *kwe=kussi *k t ʔ kūt ʔ kwt ʔ — g. „do‟ *uni *-ù-ʔnì -ʔne -oʔnì -ū-ʔnī h. „short‟ *xa(t)ta (*sataʔ) sataʔ satàʔ sataʔ Monosyllabic forms with short vowels in pZp often have pCh cognates of the shape CVɁV (Table 12 pZp CV(Ɂ) corresponding to pCh CVɁV Table 12 pZp CV(Ɂ) corresponding to pCh CVɁV Gloss pZp pCh ZEN TAT ZAC a. existential *ty-eɁ „sitting‟ *-tiɁį -teɁę -tiɁį -tiɁį „live‟ b. „have a smell *llaɁ (*-lyaɁà) -lyaɁā — — c. „loose‟, „get loose‟ *l Ɂ (*-nàɁá) — — 9 -nāɁá On Zapotecan glottal stop – E. Campbell d. „see‟ *naɁ e. „go around‟, „walk‟ *s *-nàɁà -naɁa -naɁà -nāɁā *-taɁ -taɁ -taɁ -taɁ f. „get full‟ *tz Ɂ *tzaɁ ke-]tzaɁ „full‟ — g. „scorpion‟ *ko=]neɁ xu-]neɁę j]neɁe chu-]niɁī xu]n Ɂ h. „sleeping mat‟ *taaɁa *jààɁ jaaɁ jaàɁ jāāɁ -tsaɁ i. „hand‟ *naɁ ~ yaɁ *yaàɁ yaāɁ yaàɁ yaāɁˊ j. „sky‟ *kw Ɂ *kwaà kwaā kwaà kwaāˊ *kwe *kw kweę — kwēē k. „noise‟ 5. Discussion and conclusions Zapotec languages are often analyzed as having vowel laryngealization of one or multiple types (caveat) o Some varieties are analyzed as having laryngealization but no glottal stop consonant (Smith Stark 2002; Beam de Azcona 2004; Sonnenshein 2004; Arellanes Arellanes 2009) o Other varieties of Zapotec are analyzed as having both vowel laryngealization and glottal stop (Avelino Becerra 2004; Pérez Báez & Kaufman 2012) Chatino languages are described as: o having only glottal stop (Pride 2004; Cruz 2011; McIntosh 2011; Sullivant 2011; Villard 2014), or o having glottal stop and glottalized sonorants (Rasch 2002), o but none are described as having vowel laryngealization Did pZp have both vowel laryngealization and glottal stop? o Originally it seemed so, as that might have explained all of the “not easy” correspondence sets involving glottals o However, these sets are largely explainable via various conditioned glottal stop elision changes: In pCh *Ɂ > Ø / __ [-son] / __ l 10 pZn pCh / VV __ pZp (Exception kweeɁ „crab‟, Table 3) What explanation is there for no glottals in pZp in Table 11? What is going on with the high tones in pCh cases where glottals are lost? o High tone or low tone in Athabaskan from loss of glottalic feature of final stops (Kingston 2011) o Ayutla Mixtec preserves word-final glottal stop (Pankratz & Pike 1967), whose loss in other Mixtec varieties led to floating H or L tones o The high tones existed previously in pCh, but words in which *Ɂ was lost following long vowels took on the high tone pattern A full historical account of *Ɂ in Zapotecan requires more work in tonal reconstruction References Arellanes Arellanes, Francisco. 2009. El sistema fonológico y las propiedades fonéticas del zapoteco de San Pablo Güilá. Descripción y análisis formal. Tesis de Ph.D, El Colegio de México. Avelino Becerra, Heriberto. 2004. Topics in Yalálag Zapotec, with particular reference to its phonetic structures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Beam de Azcona, Rosemary. 2004. A Coatlán-Loxicha Zapotec grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Boas, Franz. 1913. Notes on the Chatino language of Mexico. American Anthropologist, New Series 15: 78-86. Campbell, Eric. 2011. Del proto-zapotecano al proto-chatino. Paper presented at the Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America-V. Austin, Texas, October 6-8. Campbell, Eric. 2013a. The internal diversification and subgrouping of Chatino. International Journal of American Linguistics 79(3): 395-420. Campbell, Eric. 2013b. Sobre el desarrollo fonológico del proto-chatino. Paper presented at the IV Coloquio de Lingüística Mauricio Swadesh: Debates en torno a la lingüística histórica indomexicana. Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, UNAM. Mexico City, Oct 16-18. Campbell, Eric & Carleton, Troi. In press. Diccionario del idioma chatino de Santa Cruz Zenzontepec, Oaxaca; Chatino-Castellano (Dictionary of the Chatino Language of Santa Cruz Zenzontepec, Oaxaca; Chatino-Spanish). Mexico City: INALI. Campbell, Eric & Cruz, Emiliana. 2010 El sistema numérico del proto-chatino. In Proceedings of the Conference on Indigenous Languages of Latin America-IV, Austin, Texas, October 29-31. Campbell, Eric & Woodbury, Anthony C. 2010. The comparative tonology of Chatino: A prolegomenon. Paper presented at the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA), winter meeting. Baltimore, Maryland, January 7-10. Cruz, Emiliana. 2011. Phonology, tone and the functions of tone in San Juan Quiahije Chatino. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Kaufman, Terrence. 1987. Otomanguean tense/aspect/mood, voice, and nominalization markers. Unpublished monograph. 11 On Zapotecan glottal stop – E. Campbell Kaufman, Terrence. 1993. Proto-Zapotec(an) reconstructions. Ms., University of Pittsburgh. Kaufman, Terrence. 2006. Oto-Mangean languages. In: Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., vol. 9, 118–124. Oxford: Elsevier. Kingston, John. 2011. Tonogenesis. In van Oostendorp, M; Ewan, C. J.; Hume, E., & Rice, K. (eds.) Blackwell Companion to Phonology vol. 4, Ch..97. Oxford: Blackwell. McIntosh, Justin Daniel. 2011. Grammatical sketch of Teotepec Chatino. MA report, University of Texas atr Austin. Mechling, William H. 1912. The Indian linguistic stocks of Oaxaca, Mexico. American Anthropologist, New Series 14:643-82. Pankratz, Leo, y Eunice V. Pike. 1967. Phonology and morphotonemics of Ayutla Mixtec. International Journal of American Linguistics 33: 287–99. Pérez Báez, Gabriela & Kaufman, Terrence. 2012. Clases verbales en diidxa za (zapoteco de Juchitán/del Istmo). In Memorias del Congreso de Idiomas Indígenas de Latinoamérica-V. CILLA. http://www.ailla.utexas.org/site/cilla5_toc_sp.html. Pride, Kitty. 2004. Gramática chatina de la zona alta. In Pride, Kitty & Pride, Leslie, Diccionario chatino de la zona alta, 341-426. México, D.F.: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Rasch, Jeffrey Walter. 2002. The basic morpho-syntax of Yaitepec Chatino. Ph.D. dissertation, Rice University. Smith Stark, Thomas C. 2007. Algunas isoglosas zapotecas. In: Buenrostro, C. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the III Coloquio Internacional de Lingüística Mauricio Swadesh, 69-133. Mexico City: UNAM and INALI. Sonnenshein, Aaron Huey. 2004. A descriptive grammar of San Bartolomé Zoogoho Zapotec. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California. Sullivant, John Ryan. 2011. Tataltepec Chatino verb classification and aspect morphology. MA report, University of Texas at Austin. Sullivant, Ryan. 2013. Tataltepec Chatino electronic lexical database. University of Texas at Austin. Swadesh, Morris. 1947. The phonemic structure of proto-Zapotec. International Journal of American Linguistics 13(4): 220-230. Villard, Stéphanie. 2014. Zacatepec Chatino electronic lexical database. University of Texas at Austin. Villard, Stéphanie & Woodbury, Anthony C. 2012. Verbs of San Marcos Zacatepec Chatino, electronic spreadsheet. University of Texas at Austin. Woodbury, Anthony C. 2013. Lexical Questionnaire: ZAC 2013, electronic spreadsheet. University of Texas at Austin. 12
© Copyright 2024 ExpyDoc
