1000090429

"The spirent-and-weak-fricative

~h}

and the etronger fricativa

~j}

are

mutuelly exclusive, The former

~h}

comes at the beginning of words.

The latter

~j}

comes in the middle or at the end of worde.

I have no

evidence of a strong velar fricativa ini tial in Cuzco or Bolivia (but

it is frequent

Ecuador) nor of the

li~t

velar or glottal spirent

medial in Cuzco or most of Bolivia (but in

Chanka,

the medial ie weaker

than in Cuzco, and in Toratora, Bolivia, all the sounde are quite weak), •

(4) There does not appear to be any significant evidence from any miniml

pairs that the initial sounds are not to a Quechua essentially con–

ditioned variants of

th~

same phoneme as appears in the medial-final

position.

(5) Even if i t were shown that the initial sound was a eeparate phonemo

from the medial, the wisdom of using "h" would be very doubtfUl for

the reason stated in (1).

Some other symbol would be better. But it

seems clear thBt the initial 1s sufficiently akin to the medial in the

general charecter of the sound to make the medial symbol not unsatis–

factory.

(6) Dr. Pike notes:

"The

Indian in pronouncing his own weak fricativa

givee something intelligible if

uees it in speaking Spanish worda

for Spanish

"J".

This is better t han giving sound to all the silent

"h" symbola of Spanish, which would occur otherwise. The tia-in is

further preven by the Quechua repronunoiation of Spanish loans with

"j-",

'llhich rerrein completely intelligible."

The considerable evidence presentad by the Minority Report of the use of

"h" by previoue 11nguists

impressive but it seems te us contrary to the

best interests of the total constituency of the area, especially having the

problem of the non-literata in view.

lle feel that much of the significance

of this uoage is vitiated by the rapid reoent improvements in linguietic

knowledge which are more recent than moet of the authorities citad.

lle are

al so not disturbad by the currency of "h" among Quechua readers now.

There

will undoubtedly be a

sli~t

confusion at firot, but that group will easily

read the

"j",

and are a decided minority as comparad with the eventual total

body of Quechua readers.

lle are not impressed by the reference in the Minority

Report to the presentation of the mattar in the Conference: our thinking has

been based on the reasone stated above and not on the vote of the Conference

&lene. Had the Conference voted differently the concluoiona

have drawn from

the se dllta would be the saiJS.

It is of interest

note the conrnent of four of the Society'e lingnistic

advisers whose attention was oalled particularly to this problem.

Dr. Edwin

11.

Sonith, formar Secretary for Tranelatione of the Br1tish and

Foreign Bible Soc1ety, and spec1alist in .lfr1can languageo writes: "In regerd

to the

"J",

I should certeinly adopt thie instead of the

11 •

th1nk your

comm1 ttee has done a good piece of work and I hopa 1t may settle thie long

debated queation."

Dr. Eugene N1dll, Director of the Summer Institute of Linguistica and

.lesistant in Versione of the American B1ble Soc1ety: "the use of

j-j-j

both essential and acientific."