Some Remarks on Uto-Aztecan Classification

Introduction. This paper employs a quantitative approach to address a series of qualitative problems posed in the classification of the UtoAztecan languages proposed by Miller (1984) based on lexical evidence, on the assumption that the addition of certain quantitative techniques to traditional linguistic analysis could help to refine or resolve certain existing questions and perhaps suggest additional ones. Our intention was not only to enhance Miller's classification with other data analysis methods but to state precisely, i.e., in mathematical form, some of his conclusions.'

[1]  Michael R. Anderberg,et al.  Cluster Analysis for Applications , 1973 .

[2]  R C Durfee,et al.  A METHOD OF CLUSTER ANALYSIS. , 1970, Multivariate behavioral research.

[3]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  Tests for departure from normality. Empirical results for the distributions of b2 and √b1 , 1973 .

[4]  J. Olmedo.  Etnografia de la sierra madre occidental , 1980 .

[5]  M. Swadesh.  Towards Greater Accuracy in Lexicostatistic Dating , 1955, International Journal of American Linguistics.

[6]  J. Mason.  TEPECANO, A PIMAN LANGUAGE OF WESTERN MEXICO , 1916 .

[7]  Wick R. Miller,et al.  The Classification of the Uto-Aztecan Languages Based on Lexical Evidence , 1984, International Journal of American Linguistics.

[8]  J. William Ahwood,et al.  CLASSIFICATION , 1931, Foundations of Familiar Language.

[9]  F. Boas.  El Dialecto Mexicano de Pochutla, Oaxaca , 1917, International Journal of American Linguistics.