draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley
draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley
draft manuscript - Linguistics - University of California, Berkeley
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
La copia del original me fue entregado para su corrección, la que he ejecutado uniendo o<br />
separando lo que era necesario, pero conservando intactos los signos o letras,<br />
excepto en aquellos casos en que el uso indebido de aquéllas incluía un error de concepto<br />
o alteraba el verdadero sentido de la frase. Además, lo he traducido al español, palabra<br />
por palabra, en un orden riguroso correspondiente al texto. En esa forma lo pongo en<br />
este Apéndice como documento interesantísimo y como base de comparación con el texto<br />
Kokama que va más adelante. 176<br />
Interestingly, despite Espinosa Pérez’s efforts ‘correct’ the original <strong>manuscript</strong>, his decisions on<br />
the representation <strong>of</strong> the Omagua in the text appear to have been ignored by Bayle in his later<br />
publication (see below), since Espinosa’s representations and Bayle’s vary greatly, particularly with<br />
regard to word breaks. It should be noted that the word boundaries in Espinosa’s version correspond<br />
closely to the ones we ultimately chose, based on our analysis <strong>of</strong> the <strong>manuscript</strong> as reproduced in<br />
Uriarte ([1776]1952a), but that the word word boundaries in the latter published version coincide in<br />
a haphazard fashion with those <strong>of</strong> the Old Omagua words, as we analyze them. We have assumed<br />
Bayle ultimately opted for a representation that was more faithful to the original <strong>manuscript</strong>, despite<br />
Espinosa’s cogent and linguistically-informed analysis <strong>of</strong> the <strong>manuscript</strong>.<br />
6.1.2 Uriarte ([1776]1952a), Uriarte ([1776]1986)<br />
As alluded to above, the complete catechism was also published in 1952 by Constantino Bayle,<br />
this time as an appendix to the two-volume diaries <strong>of</strong> Manuel Uriarte (see above), who worked<br />
in the Maynas missions from 1750-1768, and was missionary in San Joaquín de Omaguas from<br />
1756 until 1764 (Uriarte [1776]1986). The 1952 edition was republished in a single volume in 1986,<br />
and because <strong>of</strong> greater circulation and availability to the reader, page references here reflect the<br />
latter edition, although we also consulted the 1952 version. In addition to the complete catechism<br />
in Omagua, the appendices contain several ecclesiastical texts in Quechua, Tikuna (isolate) and<br />
Yameo (Peba-Yaguan, extinct) (see Uriarte ([1776]1986:597-624)).<br />
Our own analysis is based on Bayle version <strong>of</strong> the catechism, because it is not always clear<br />
in which cases Espinosa Pérez chose to modify the original orthographic representation in the<br />
<strong>manuscript</strong> (both in terms <strong>of</strong> individual graphemes and word breaks), and we wished to base our<br />
analysis on the version that, as we believe, most closely represents the original <strong>manuscript</strong>. We have,<br />
however consulted Espinosa Pérez’s version in those cases in which we were unable to interpret the<br />
Omagua in Bayle’s text ourselves, cases in which Espinosa Pérez occasionally provided an alternate,<br />
and we think credible, interpretation <strong>of</strong> the orthography. Given his personal knowledge <strong>of</strong> Omagua,<br />
we suspect that Espinoza was able to make more informed decisions about ambiguous written letters<br />
in the handwritten <strong>manuscript</strong> (e.g., versus ), whereas Bayle had to rely solely on his visual<br />
inspection <strong>of</strong> the <strong>manuscript</strong>.<br />
The complete Omagua catechism apparently did not include a Spanish translation, since neither<br />
Espinosa nor Bayle provide one. There does, however, exist a translation for a Quechua catechism<br />
176 Translation (ours):<br />
The copy <strong>of</strong> the original was given to me for correction, which I have undertaken by joining or separating<br />
what was necessary, but preserving intact symbols and letters, except in those cases in which the<br />
improper use <strong>of</strong> those [letters] resulted in a conceptual error or altered the true sense <strong>of</strong> the phrase.<br />
Furthermore, I have translated it into Spanish, word for word, in a rigorous order that corresponds to<br />
the text [i.e., the Omagua word order]. In that form I place it in this Appendix as one <strong>of</strong> the most<br />
interesting <strong>of</strong> documents and as a base <strong>of</strong> comparison with the Kokama text that appears subsequently.<br />
78