Untitled - Smithsonian Institution

—
THOMAS] INDIAN LANGUAGES OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 15
Tehueco, Sivirijoa, and Charay, below the same; and the Zuaque, who
were estabhshed still lower down in the pueblos of JMochicahiiy and
San Miguel de Zuaque. lie therefore makes Tehueco, Sinaloa,
and Zuaque one and the same dialect, though different tribes or sub-
tribes. Orozco y Berra makes Sinaloa and Cahita equivalent, or
one and the same idiom, but distinct from Tehueco and Zuaque,
which he considers identical. "The language which Ribas and some
other missionaries and writers call Cinaloa, and which Ilervas names
Yaqui, is the idiom which properly is known as Cahita." Quoting
from Balbi (table xxxii) the following
Cinaloa is spoken in the provinces of Cinaloa, of Ilostimuri, and in the southern
part of Sonora, in the intendency of that name. This language embraces three princi-
pal dialects, quite different: the Zuaque, spoken in the southern part of the province
of Sinaloa and in other places; the Mayo spoken along the Mayo river in Hostimuri
and in Sonera- the Yaqui or liiaqui, spoken along the Yaqui river in the province of
Sonora
he adds (356)
:
We cannot agree with the greater part of these assertions. According to the grammar
of this language, "no se llama Sinaloa sino Cahita," and contains three dialects
[Mayo, Yaqui] and the Tehueco and also Zuaque which is used in Sinaloa by the
Indians of the banks of the Rio del Fuerte.
Doctor Brinton (3: 125) gives Tehueco, Zuaque, Mayo, and Yaqui
as subtribes of the Cahita, but omits the Zuaque from his list (3: 134).
In the midst of this confusion it is the author's conclusion that perha]:>s
Orozco y Berra is nearest right in identifying Zuaque and
Tehueco as one ami the same dialect, though distinct tribes.
Orozco y Berra (1:35) says that about the mouth of the Rio del
Fuerte were the Ahome, and along the coast south of it were the
Vacoregue, the Batucari, the Comopori, and the Guazave: of the
same family and idiom as the Cahita, the chief dialect being that
named Guazave or Vacoregue. (Care must be taken to distingush
between Comuripa (or Comoripa) of the Pima group and Comopori
of the Yaqui group.) He says Balbi conjectures that Ahome
and Comopori were quite diverse, or tongues related to Gua-
zave. This he declares is not exact, as all these pueblos spoke the
same idiom, and there was no particular Ahome or Comopori.
In his classification (1:58) he gives Vacoregue and Guazave as
synonymous and as spoken by the Vacoregue, Guazave, Ahome,
Batucari, Comopori, and Zuaque. The introduction of the last
name here must be a mistake, as in his classification (1: 58)
he places it under Tehueco; possibly it refers here to a few Zuaque
who lived among the Vacoregue and adopted their language. This
author appears to have worked this out by taking up the scat-
tered statements of the original authorities in regard to the lan-
guages spoken in the different pueblos and missions, which it is not
—