56 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [BULL. 44 
But the differences between these dialects appear to have been 
comparatively slight and not coincident with marked subtribal dis- 
tinctions, hence no attempt has been made to place them on the map. 
Tur Mixtec AND ZAPOTEC LANGUAGES COMPARED 
Attention is called to the following question: Does the evidence 
justify the association of the Mixtec and Zapotec languages and 
their dialects in one stock, as they are now usually classified by phi- 
lologists? We notice first that Friedrich Miller (Ab. 1) objects to 
this association, contending that the two languages are distinct. 
Although Pimentel (1, 319) speaks of Zapotecs and Mixtecs as 
“tribus o naciones hermanas,”’ he does not attempt the presentation 
of any linguistic evidence (it may be he does so in the second edition, 
1875, 3 vols., 4to, of his Cuadro, which the author has not exam- 
ined); nor does Brinton or any other author at hand except Nicolas 
Leon and Seler. In his introduction to the reprint of Cordova’s 
“Arte del Idioma Zapoteco”’ (p. Ix et seq.), Leén, copying his data 
chiefly from Pimentel, presents some arguments in favor of relation- 
ship. What value is to be attached to his argument from the gram- - 
matical standpoint the author can not say, but that of his brief 
word comparison is very small. First, it is brief, yet apparently as 
full as the data afforded; second, the words are culled to suit (observe 
Brinton’s standard word comparison, 3:339); and after all this 
care the similarity in several instances is not apparent, and the com- 
parison forced. For example (p. lxvi): Tres and ocho, the former 
ch-ona, the latter zo-ono in Zapotec, to compare with wm and una 
in Mixtec. 
Now “three” in Zapotec (same work, 176) is chona or cayo, accord- 
ing to relation, custom, etc.; and “eight,” xoono or xono (see p. 177); 
ch and xo are never prefixes, so far as the author can find. In 
Charencey’s comparison of Zapotec and Mixtec numerals (JJelanges, 
p. 44.), which takes in the numbers from 1 to 20 and includes, by tens, 
30 to 100, there is scarcely the slightest resemblance, except in the plan 
or system of the formation of numbers, which is the same in half a 
dozen stocks in that part of North America. (See also list below.) 
It is probable that ‘‘one”’ in Mixtec should be ce instead of ec, as 
“eleven” is usice (10 and 1). 
Seler (550 et seq.) gives a short grammatical comparison. 
Attention is called to what appears to be some wide differences. 
According to Pimentel (1, 41) the Mixtec letters (Spanish pro- 
nunciation, of course) are: é 
G@ hod 6) ho WF i a 60 ie 
ks gs y 2 de nd tn kh 
