The Genetic Unity of Southern Uto-Aztecan
	William L. Merrill
	Smithsonian Institution
Abstract

The internal structure of the Uto-Aztecan language family has been debated since the late 19th century, when the historical relationships among all of its major subdivisions were first recognized. Alexis Manaster Ramer’s identification in 1992 of a phonological innovation shared by languages belonging to the four northernmost subfamilies led to the acceptance of these languages as a genetic linguistic unit called Northern Uto-Aztecan, but no consensus has emerged regarding the organization of the remaining five subfamilies into higher-level subgroups. In this essay, I argue in support of a perspective, originally developed by Terrence Kaufman, that these languages also constituted a genetic unit, Southern Uto-Aztecan, based on two shared, sequential innovations: *-n- > * -r- and *-ŋ- > *-n-. Key to my argument is the reconstruction of a Proto-Uto-Aztecan liquid phoneme with **[-r-] and **[-l-] as its allophones, which clarifies the diachronic relationships among reflexes of ** -n-, **-ŋ-, and **-r- in the daughter languages. The model that I propose offers a parsimonious solution to several perennial issues in Uto-Aztecan historical phonology and a possible explanation for the typologically atypical absence of a liquid phoneme in the Numic languages.

Uto-Aztecan, Numic, subgrouping, shared innovation, typology

The Genetic Unity of Southern Uto-Aztecan
1. Introduction. The Uto-Aztecan language family comprises thirty languages that, at the time of initial European contacts, were spoken from Central America to just north of the Great Basin of western North America (Fig. 1). A number of other languages, now extinct, may also have been Uto-Aztecan, but insufficient documentation exists to determine their affiliation (Sauer 1934; Lastra de Suárez 1973:355-360; Miller 1983a, 1983b; Campbell 1997:133-135; Caballero 2011).
[Insert Fig. 1 about here]
	A conservative classification of the Uto-Aztecan (UA) languages organizes them into nine subfamilies (Table 1). The four northernmost subfamilies—Numic, Hopi, Tubatulabal, and Takic—can be grouped into a single, higher-level branch known as Northern Uto-Aztecan (NUA) on the basis of a shared phonological innovation: the shift, in intervocalic position, of the affricate *-c- to the glide *-y- (Manaster Ramer 1992). The languages in the other five subfamilies—Tepiman, Taracahitan, Tubar, Corachol, and Aztecan—are frequently classified together as Southern Uto-Aztecan (SUA) because of phonological and lexical similarities among them (Miller 1984; Cortina-Borja et al. 2002). To date, however, no shared phonological, morphological, or syntactic innovations have been identified that Uto-Aztecanists agree definitely establish SUA as a genetic unit (Miller 1983a:117-118; Campbell 1997:136-137; Hill 2001:917-919; Stubbs 2003:1-7). In the absence of such evidence, the default conclusion is that the ancestral language of each of the SUA subfamilies descended, along with Proto-Northern Uto-Aztecan (PNUA), directly from Proto-Uto-Aztecan (PUA).
[Insert Table 1 about here]
	In this essay, I offer evidence in support of a perspective advocated by Kaufman (1981:156-172) and accepted by Miller (1994:315-316) that the SUA languages derived from a common ancestral language, Proto-Southern Uto-Aztecan (PSUA), the existence of which is indicated by two phonological innovations shared across the SUA subfamilies: 1) the shift in non-initial position of *-n- to *-r- (which could also be represented as *-l-) and 2) the shift in both initial and non-initial position of the velar nasal *ŋ to *n. The possibility of these shifts is suggested by well-established correspondences between the NUA and SUA languages: 1) -n- in the NUA languages regularly corresponds to a liquid phoneme, either -r- or -l-, in the SUA languages and 2) /ŋ/ in the NUA languages regularly corresponds to /n/ in the SUA languages. 
	The significance of these correspondences for an understanding of the history of the Uto-Aztecan languages varies depending upon which of these liquid and nasal phonemes are reconstructed for the phonemic inventory of Proto-Uto-Aztecan and the reflexes of these phonemes that are postulated for the NUA and SUA languages. The three principal alternatives that have been proposed previously are summarized in Table 2, along with a fourth alternative that I will explore in this essay.
[Insert Table 2 about here]
	In the first alternative, **ŋ and **-r/l- are reconstructed for PUA.1 PUA **ŋ is retained in the NUA languages, shifting to n in the SUA languages, while PUA **-r/l-  is retained in the SUA languages, shifting to -n- in the NUA languages (Sapir 1915:315-318; Voegelin, et al. 1962: 122-124). In the second alternative, **n and **-r/l- are reconstructed for PUA and both are retained in the SUA languages, shifting to ŋ and -n- respectively in the NUA languages (Hill 2011). In the third alternative, **ŋ and **-n- are reconstructed for PUA and both are retained in the NUA languages while in the SUA languages **ŋ shifts to n and **-n- shifts to -r/l- (Kaufman 1981:156-172; Miller 1994:315-316).2
	Sorting out the historical relationships among ŋ, n, r, and l has been a perennial challenge in UA comparative linguistics and no consensus has emerged regarding which alternative is preferable (Campbell 1997:136-137; Dakin 2001; Dakin 2007; Hill 2001:919; Hill 2011; Stubbs 2011:20-30). Here I offer a way of moving beyond this impasse by arguing that a liquid phoneme can be reconstructed for Proto-Uto-Aztecan, based on the regular correspondence of medial -r- and -l- in all Uto-Aztecan languages except those of the Numic subfamily. As suggested by Whorf (1935), Voegelin, et al. (1962:128), Kaufman (1981), and Stubbs (2011:26-28), this liquid phoneme is distinct diachronically from the liquid phoneme in the SUA languages that regularly corresponds with -n- in the NUA languages. I label it PUA **r to avoid confusion with the PUA **l proposed in previous studies, but it could equally be labelled **l because the available evidence indicates that both *[-r-] and *[-l-] were its allophones. 
	By my analysis, PUA **r was the primary source of medial liquids in the NUA languages, while medial liquids in the SUA languages derived from both PUA **r and **n.3 My model  requires the reconstruction of  PUA**r, **ŋ, **n as distinct phonemes, with **ŋ and **n reflected in the NUA and SUA languages as proposed in the third alternative presented above. These reflexes can be identified as two phonological innovations shared by the SUA languages that establish their genetic unity and Proto-Southern Uto-Aztecan as the daughter language of Proto-Uto-Aztecan coordinate with Proto-Northern Uto-Aztecan. 
	In the next section, I summarize the evidence supporting the reconstruction of PUA **-r-. I then present, in sections 3 and 4, cognate sets that document the correspondences of NUA -n- :: SUA -r/l- and NUA ŋ :: SUA n. In section 5, I review the principal counter-evidence to my perspective: six cases in which -n- in some NUA languages appears to correspond with -n- in some SUA languages. I conclude the essay with a consideration of the implications of my analysis for an understanding of the early diversification of the Uto-Aztecan language family.
[Insert Table 3 about here]
2. Proto-Uto-Aztecan **r
All Uto-Aztecan languages except those of the Numic subfamily have a liquid phoneme, either a rhotic /r/, a lateral /l/, or both.4 As seen in Table 3, the distribution of /r/ and /l/ crosscuts subfamily boundaries, and the Takic and Taracahitan languages vary among themselves in which of these phonemes are represented in their phonemic inventories. Three categories emerge:
  •	Languages with both /r/ and /l/. NUA: Hopi, Luiseño. SUA: Tepiman, Mayo, Yaqui
  •	Languages with /r/ only. NUA: Kitanemuk. SUA: Eudeve, Cora, Huichol
  •	Languages with /l/ only. NUA: Tubatulabal, Cahuilla, Cupeño. SUA: Warihó, Rarámuri (18th century), Aztecan
	A single liquid phoneme with rhotic and lateral allophones is reported for Warihó and Tubar5 (Miller 1996:36-38 ; Lionnet 1978:18-19) and can be reconstructed for eighteenth-century Rarámuri based on data collected between 1761 and 1767 by the Jesuit missionary Matthäus Steffel (Steffel 1809).6 A comparable relationship likely existed in Proto-Tepiman. Bascom (1965:7) reconstructs PTep */r/, with the allophone *[l] occurring before */i/ and the allophone *[r] in other contexts. These allophones were phonemicized in the Tepiman languages as /l/ and /r/, with /r/ replaced in Upper Piman by the voiced retroflexed alveolar stop //. 

	The phonemecization of *[r] and *[l] may also have taken place in Hopi, Luiseño, Mayo, and Yaqui, the only other UA languages with both /r/ and /l/ phonemes. In Hopi, /r/ and /l/ display near-complementary distribution in some contexts; in initial position, for example, /r/ occurs before /i/ and /ï/ while /l/ does not. In Luiseño, /l/ has a broader distribution than /r/. Luiseño /l/  is attested before and after all five Luiseño vowels and occurs in initial, medial, and final positions. In contrast, /r/ does not appear in final position at all nor in word-initial position before /u/, and intervocalically in root morphemes, it is attested almost exclusively following /a, o, u/. In Mayo and Yaqui, the two phonemes precede and follow all vowels, but they also alternate with one another in a number of words (e.g., My čoóli ~ čoóri ‘wrinkled’, Yq túʔule ~ túʔure ‘to like’).7 In addition, /l/ occurs in geminates and in syllable- and word-final position while /r/ does not. 
2.1. PUA **r in medial position
The reconstruction of a PUA liquid phoneme in medial position is supported by ten cognate sets that document the regular correspondence of -r-/-l- in both NUA and SUA languages. Six verbal etyma are represented in the sets, along with four nominal etyma that are all associated with birds. The possibility that the nominal etyma are not cognates but rather independent innovations that simply imitate the birds’ characteristic sounds is considered in section 2.3 and in Appendix 2: BIRD.
	Five of the ten sets are presented in this section. The other five sets, included in Appendix 2 under BIRD, LOOK FOR, RING, SHAKE, and SWALLOW, include fewer cognates but they display the expected NUA-SUA correspondences in -r/l- and other sound segments. The cognates in each set are organized by subfamily. The abbreviations used for the Northern Uto-Aztecan subfamilies are Num (Numic), Tub (Tubatulabal), Hop (Hopi), and Tak (Takic), and for the Southern Uto-Aztecan subfamilies, Tep (Tepiman), TrC (Taracahitan), Tbr (Tubar), CrC (Corachol), and Azt (Aztecan). The abbreviations for specific languages and the source or sources of the data for each are found in Appendix 1.8 The reconstructions of PUA etyma should be regarded as approximations. Many regular phonological correspondences among the UA languages remain unidentified, especially in the second syllables of disyllabic morphemes. In addition, the reconstruction of several basic features of PUA phonology, like stress and vowel length, remain problematical. 
	The first three sets have cognates in at least two NUA subfamilies and two SUA subfamilies. 
(1)	‘to bend, curve, turn, return’. PUA **ŋora
Tub: noʔlat ~ ʔono:l ‘to go home’
Hop: ŋölöla ‘to bend, to crook’. Hp ŋöla ‘hoop, ring (n)’
Tak: Ls ŋé:la ‘to be turned, be curved’
Tep: To no ‘to turn, bend, return’. PYp nor ~ norgia ‘to turn’. PYp norag ‘to return’. NT norági- ‘to go back’. ST nórgi- ‘to go back’
TrC: Ed norón ‘to go back, come back’. Wr noʔláni ~ noʔáni ‘to go someplace and return’. Rr norína ‘to come back’
Azt: Na-Cl(M) noloa ‘to bend (vt)’. Na-Cl(M) noliwi ‘to become bent’
(2)	‘to open’. PUA **pïrV-9
Tub: pele:winat ~ ʔepele:win
Hop: prïkna ‘to unfold, open up, unwrap’
Tak: Ca péla:n ‘to spread open’. Cp péle ‘to spread apart’
TrC: Ed périna ‘to open the hand or a book’
Azt: Pp pe:lua.
(3)	‘owl’. PUA **tukori
Tub: tukluluh ‘screech owl’
Hop: tokori ‘flammulated owl’
Tep: To(M) cuku ‘screech owl, western horned owl’. Nv tukuu. PYp tukor. NT tukúrai. ST tukú:r
TrC: Rr tutúguri ‘great horned owl’
CrC: Cr(P) tukurú
Azt: Na-Cl tekolo:tl. Pp tekulu:t. Po tekolot
	Terms for ‘owl’ that are clearly related to PUA **tukori are found in non-UA languages spoken in California and across Mesoamerica, the latter including Purépecha, Chinantec, Tlapanec, and various Mayan languages (Gursky 1967; Hunn 1975; Campbell 1988:343, #38;  Terrence Kaufman, personal communication, 20 July 2010). The ultimate origin of this etymon is unknown, but its presence in the PUA lexicon is assumed because cognates in both NUA and SUA languages show the expected sound changes that occurred after the breakup of the ancestral PUA speech community, for example **u > Hp /o/ and **t > To /č/. One exception is the Cora term tukurú, possibly a loan from Southern Tepehuan. The expected Cora reflex of *tukori is tïkuri.
	Set (4) includes cognates from three SUA subfamilies but only one definite NUA cognate, from Kitanemuk.
(4)	‘turkey vulture’. PUA **wiruku
		Tak: Kt wirukuht
		TrC: Yq wiíru. My wiíru. Rr wirú
		Tbr: wilú
		CrC: Wc wirïkï
The Kitanemuk and Huichol cognates provide one of the more compelling examples of the correspondence of medial /r/ in NUA and SUA languages. These terms show the expected sound correspondences for six segments, given that /ï/ is the Huichol reflex of **u. Possible cognates from the other three NUA subfamilies and Aztecan are presented in Appendix 2: TURKEY VULTURE.
	Set (5), also associated with a kind of bird, includes clear cognates in Hopi and the Taracahitan subfamily, with possible cognates in some Numic languages:
(5)	‘a kind of hawk’. PUA **kïri
Num: NP kiniʔi ‘marsh hawk’. TSh kinniʔ ‘falcon’. WSh-D kinii ‘hawk, falcon’. WSh-G kinniih ‘chicken hawk’.
Hop: kye:le ‘sparrow hawk’
TrC: My keréʔere ‘a raptor (possibly a species of Caracara)’. Op keere ‘kind of hawk’. Wr kerecí ‘small hawk’. Rr kiričí ‘small hawk’
The vowels attested in these terms are not regular correspondences: Numic /i/ reflects PUA **i, Mayo and Opata /e/ reflects PUA **ï, Rarámuri /i/ reflects both **i and **ï, and Hopi /e/ reflects all PUA vowels. The Hopi and Taracahitan cognates indicate a reconstruction of PUA **kïrï while the Numic terms support **kiri. I reconstruct the PUA etymon as **kïri, on the assumption that vowel harmonization in opposite directions resulted in these alternate antecedent forms.
	The discrepancy in vowels challenges the validity of this set, but the correspondence of Numic -n- and -r-/-l- in other UA languages is documented in three additional sets, where the vowels correspond as expected. Together these sets include cognates from all three Numic subdivisions and the other three NUA subfamilies. Set (6) also includes a cognate from the SUA language Warihó.
(6)	‘concavity’. PUA **koro
Num: WSh-D konoʔih ‘to be hollow’. WSh-G konoiH ‘to be hollow’. 
Hop: qölö ‘hole (in ground)’
TrC: Wr koláci ‘bowl-like hollow in a rock wall’
(7)	‘to enter’. PNUA *curu
Num: NP cunua. Kw cununuki-
Tak: Cp čúlupe-yaxe ‘to go in’. Ls čulúpa ‘to go inside’. Kt curupïk
(8)	‘to bend’. PNUA *pora
Num: SP poni ~ ponaa- ‘to bend over’. Kw noponi ‘to be bent over’
Tub: poloʔmat ~ poloom ‘to bend (vi)’
2.2. PUA **r in Initial Position
Only Whorf and Trager (1937) and Voegelin, et al. (1962) have proposed that a liquid phoneme occurred in PUA in word-initial position and also presented evidence to support their view, in each case a single cognate set. Whorf and Trager (1937:621, #28) reconstructed PUA **lăwa ~ **lĕw ‘speak, say’, but the only term showing initial l- in the accompanying cognate set is the Hopi noun lavayi ‘speech, talk’. Voegelin et al. (1962:141, #94) proposed **lïŋi as the PUA term for ‘tongue’ but, as indicated in (23) below, this etymon should be reconstructed as **nïŋi.
	Although a few words with initial r- or l- are found in the lexica of all of the Uto-Aztecan languages that have these phonemes, they tend to be encountered in single languages or languages within the same subfamily and thus can be interpreted as innovations. When cognates exist in separate subfamilies, they indicate that the r- or l- likely derived from other consonants, usually t- but sometimes y- or n-, or has shifted from medial to initial position through metathesis or the loss of a preceding syllable. In fact, the only evidence that word-initial r- or l- should be reconstructed for PUA is three sets with cognates from the Cupan languages of the Takic subfamily and Yaqui and Mayo of the Taracahitan subfamily. Set (9) has cognates in all three Cupan languages and Yaqui but not Mayo. Set (10) has cognates from Luiseño and Mayo and possibly Cahuilla but not Yaqui or Cupeño. Set (11) has only Luiseño and Mayo cognates.
(9)	‘bumpy’
 		Ca lúmu ‘to have small pox, chicken pox, measles’
Cp lúmiʔily ‘measles’
Ls lamúlama ‘to have bumps, have sprouts’
Yq rumui ‘bumpy’. Yq-Az rumui ‘uneven’
(10)	‘collapse’
Ca lúmaš [expected: lémaš] ‘to knock down, crumple (as a house)’ 
Ls lóma [< *lïm-] ‘to collapse (vi)’
My rémtek [< *rïm-] ‘to collapse (vi)’
(11)‘to be soft, tender (adj)’
Ls lé:pa [< *ló:p-] ‘to be soft’
My loóbo ‘tender (adj)’
	The Luiseño and Mayo cognates in (10) and (11) are particularly intriguing because the correspondences conform precisely to the expected, including even vowel length in (11). Moreover, the cognates involved cannot be interpreted as recent loans because the first vowels reflect the shifts that occurred from PUA **o to Ls /e/ and from PUA **ï to Ls /o/ and My /e/. The timing of these innovations is unknown, but in the case of Luiseño, they would have taken place after its separation from Cahuilla and Cupeño. Although shifts in PUA **o and **ï also occurred Cahuilla and Cupeño, the outcomes were different from those in Luiseño: **o shifted to /i/ in both Cahuilla and Cupeño while **ï shifted to /e/ in Cahuilla and /ə/ in Cupeño (represented as <e> in Hill and Nolasques [1973]). The shift of **ï to Mayo /e/ also is likely to have occurred relatively early in the history of the SUA languages because it is an innovation shared by all SUA languages except those of the Tepiman subfamily (Hill 2011).
	The PUA forms **ramu, **rïm-, **roop- could be reconstructed on the basis of these three sets, which in turn would support the reconstruction of PUA initial **r-. While this possibility cannot be discounted entirely, it seems unlikely given the absence of cognates for any of these sets in other UA subfamilies, as well as additional sets with cognates from both NUA and SUA subfamilies that show an initial liquid. An alternative explanation is that these cognates derive from interaction between pre-Cupan and pre-Yaqui-Mayo speakers that took place before the shifts in the vowels occurred. 
2.3. Discussion
If the four cognate sets associated with birds are excluded, the postulation of **r as a PUA phoneme is nonetheless possible based on the regular correspondence of medial -r/l- in the NUA and SUA cognates in the other six sets. In contrast, the limited distribution of cognates in the few sets that document the correspondence of initial r- or l- indicate that this phoneme can be reconstructed with confidence only in non-initial position, suggesting that it was defective.
	The onomatopoetic origin of the avian terms in (3), (4), and (5) is possibility, but except as noted for (5), they display the sound correspondences that are expected for reflexes of PUA etyma and should be regarded as cognates.10 The regular correspondences and broad distribution of several of these cognates within the UA language family may indicate that members of the PUA speech community relied on onomatopoeia to create names for birds and that portions of the ancestral PUA ornithological lexicon descended into the lexica of the daughter languages. Alternative explanations are less feasible, for example, that names for birds diffused more widely than nouns in other semantic classes or that the labels were independent innovatations in different UA subfamilies created in each case prior to sound changes that distinguish the subfamilies from one another.
	The conclusion that PUA **/r/ had **[r] and **[l] as its allophones is warranted, based on three considerations: /r/ and /l/ regularly correspond in both the NUA and SUA languages; [r] and [l] are allophones of /r/ or /l/ in the Taracahitan and Tubar subfamilies and probably in proto-Tepiman as well, and allophonic-like relationships between /r/ and /l/ are attested in Hopi, Luiseño, Mayo, and Yaqui. Additional support for this interpretation is found in the absence of a fixed correspondence between -r- and -l- in Hopi and Luiseño cognates. Four pairs of cognates illustrate this point:
(12)	Hp -l- = Ls -l-
Hp ŋöla [< *ŋola] ‘hoop, ring (n)’
Ls ŋé:la [< *ŋo:la] ‘to be turned, be curved’
(13)	Hp -r- = Ls -r-
Hp mïrï(k) ‘to curl around, twist around (vi)’ 
Ls móra [< *mïra] ‘to be curled, be rolled’
(14)	Hp -l- = Ls -r-
Hp qalalata ‘to be clanking, clinking, ringing’
Ls(B) kára ‘to croak, belch, ring’
(15)	Hp -r- = Ls -l-
Hp ŋïri ‘to gnaw (re rodents)’
Ls ŋó:la [< *ŋï:la]‘to gnaw’
	Medial -n- can be proposed as the Numic reflex of PUA **-r- because -n- in words from all three Numic subdivisions corresponds with -r-/-l- in other UA languages. Although limited, this evidence suggests that PNUA *-r- shifted in Proto-Numic (PNum) to *-n-, merging with a pre-existing PNum *-n- derived from PNUA *-n-. Postulating this sound change accounts for the anomalous absence of a liquid phoneme in the Numic languages and, if it in fact occurred, represents a phonological innovation shared by the Numic languages that has not been previously identified (Hill 2011).
3. The Correspondence of NUA -n- and SUA -r-/-l-
Recognition of the regular correspondence of -n- in the NUA languages with -r-/-l- in the SUA languages dates to Sapir’s pioneering studies in Uto-Aztecan comparative linguistics of the early twentieth century, and this correspondence is generally accepted among Uto-Aztecanists today (Sapir1915:316-317; Shaul 1985; Dakin 2001; Dakin 2007; Stubbs 2011:26). Twelve cognate sets that clearly document correspondence. Five sets are presented here, all of which have cognates from at least two NUA subfamilies and two SUA subfamilies. The other seven appear in Appendix 2 under CHILD, FOOT, GENTLE, NECKLACE, PITCH, POUR, and SMALL.11
3.1. Cognate Sets
Between (16) and (17), the regular correspondence of NUA -n- and SUA -r-/-l- is demonstrated for all nine UA subfamilies.
(16)	‘to stand’. PUA **wïnï
Num: NP wïnï. WMn wïnï. TSh wïnï. WSh-D wïnï. WSh-G wïnï. Cm wïnï. Kw wïnï. SP wïnï. SUt wïnïwi
Tub: wïnït ~ ʔïwïn ‘to be located, to exist’. ï:wïnït ~ ï:ʔï:wïn and ʔï:wïn ‘to stand up’
Hop: wïnït
Tak: Ca wéwen. Ls wón ‘to be at a place’
TrC: Yq weyek. My wéiyek. Ed vehren. Wr werí. Rr wirí 
Tbr: weré ‘to be, to be standing’
(17)	‘to know, recognize, remember, think’12. PUA **ïʔna
Hop: ïʔna
Tak: Ca eʔnan. Ls óʔna. Kt ïn
Tep: To ïlið. NT ïlídïi. ST ïlyíidy
TrC: Yq ea. My eiya. Ed erám. Wr eʔláni
CrC: Hc érie
Azt: Na-Cl ilna:miki. Pp elna:miki
	These two sets illustrate the loss of intervocalic -r-/-l- in bothYaqui and Mayo, which occurs more frequently in Yaqui than in Mayo (Dedrick and Casad 1999:30; Dakin 2001:328-331; Stubbs 2011:29). In some cases, -y- is inserted to eliminate the resulting vowel cluster, as seen in the Yaqui and Mayo cognates in (16) and the Mayo cognate in (17). The loss of the intervocalic liquid without y-insertion is documented in the Yaqui cognate in (17) and in the Yaqui and Mayo reflexes of PUA **konaka ‘necklace’ (Appendix 2: NECKLACE).
	The retention of -r-/-l- in Yaqui and Mayo is seen in (18) to (20). Combined they include cognates from all nine UA subfamilies. Set (18) shows the expected shift of **s to /h/ in Kitanemuk and the Tepiman languages, with the h- lost in the Northern Tepehuan cognate. Set (19) includes examples of the loss of initial **h- in cognates in Southern Paiute, Southern Ute, Tubatulabal, and Huichol and the shift of **/u/ to /ï/ in the Southern Paiute and Huichol cognates. Both phonological changes are regular developments in Huichol and also are encountered in some reflexes of PUA etyma attested in many other UA languages.
(18)	‘heart’. PUA **suna
Tub: su:nal
Hop: so:na ‘kernel, edible part of any seed’
Tak: Ca súnil. Cp şúun. Ls şúnla. Kt hunac, ‘heart, spirit, middle’
Tep: Nv huradi. NT ura. ST húr
TrC: My suúla. Ed surát ‘kernel, seed’. Wr sulá. Rr surá
Tbr: suranyi ‘with the heart’
(19)	‘badger’. PUA **huʔna
Num: NP hunana. TSh hunan ~ hunacci. Sh hunan. Cm huunaʔ ‘groundhog, woodchuck’. Kw hunaci. SP ïnámpïci. Ch huna. SUt unáppüci 
Tub: u:nal ‘black bear’
Hop: honani. Hp ho:naw ‘bear’
Tak: Ca húnal. Cp húnwet ‘bear’. Cp húnal. Ca húnwet ‘bear’ Ls hú:nal. Kt hunavït. Kt hunawït ‘grizzly bear’.
TrC: Yq huúri. My huúri. Ed húrve ‘wolf’. Wr uʔlá ‘skunk’ 
CrC: Cr ïïraʔabe. Hc ïrve ‘wolf’
Set (19) offers interesting examples of the semantic shifts that have occurred in many PUA etyma that label biological taxa. The cognates indicate that **huʔna originally designated ‘badger’ but came to label ‘black bear’ in Tubatulabal and ‘skunk’ in Warihó.13 A term for ‘bear’ in Hopi, Cahuilla, Cupeño, and Kitanemuk was derived from *huʔna by the addition of the PUA augmentative suffix **wï, reflexes of which constitute the final syllables of the Eudeve, Cora, and Huichol labels for ‘wolf’. 
(20)	‘house’. PUA **kahani
Num: TSh kahni. WSh-D kahni. WSh-G kahni. Cm kahni. Kw kahni. SP kanní. Ch kaní SUt káni
Tub: hani:l
Hop: qeni ‘place, room, space’
TrC: Yq kári. My káari. Wr karí. Rr karí
Tbr: kałín ‘village’
Azt: Na-Cl kalli. Pp kal
The reconstruction of **kahani is indicated by the stress on the first vowel of the identical vowel sequence in the Mayo cognate and the -hn- cluster in the Central Numic languages and Southern Numic Kawaiisu. Tubatulabal h- and Hopi q- are the regular reflexes of PUA **k- in this environment. Hopi /e/ is encountered as a reflex of all PUA vowels.
3.2. Initial **n-
In contrast to the postulated PUA **r, PUA **n- definitely can be reconstructed in word-initial position. Sets (21) to (23) support the reconstruction of **n- preceding **a and **ï and probably **o, but I have be unable to identify cognates from both the NUA and SUA languages that indicate that PUA **n- also occurred before **i and **u.
(21)	‘ear’. PUA **naka
Num: NP naka-. WMn náqa. WSh-G nainkih. Cm naki. TSh naŋki. Kw nagavivi. SP nanka-.
Tub: naŋhal
Hop: naqvï
Tak: Ca náqal. Cp -naqʔa. Ls -naq
Tep: To naak. Nv naka. PYp naaka. NT naáka. ST náak
TrC: Yq nákam. My nákkam. Wr nahká. Rr naká
Tbr: naká-r
CrC: Cr nasaíh. Hc naaká 
Azt: Na-Cl nakastli. Pp -nakas
(22)	‘liver’. PUA **nïma
Num: NP nïmï. WMn nïwï. WSh-G nïwïn. Cm nïïmï. TSh nïmï. Kw nïwïbi ~ nïwïmbi. SP niŋwïmpi
Tub: nïïmal
Hop: nïïma
Tak: Ca -némʔa. Cp -nema. Ls -nó:ma. Kt nïmac
Tep: To nïm. Nv numadi. PYp nïmar. NT -nma ~ nïmádï. ST -lumáad
TrC: Yq heéman. My heémam. Ed hemát. Wr emá. Rr emará ~ imará
Tbr: yamát
CrC: Cr neemwa. Hc néma
(23)	‘egg’. PUA **no-
Num: NP noho-. WMn nóyo. WSh-G noyo. Cm nooyo. TSh noyopin. Kw nopavi ~ nopovi. Ch nopávi. SUt napáavi
Hop: nóhï
Tep: To nonha. Nv nono. NT -nóno. ST nanóoo 
	The loss or replacement of initial n- in some of the SUA languages in (22) is unexplained. However, their retention of initial n- before **ï is seen their reflexes of **nïŋi ‘tongue’ (27), with the exception of Warihó, where y- appears instead of n-. The SUA languages are represented in (23) only by Tepiman cognates, but the regular correspondences indicates that it is a valid set.
3.3. Discussion
The evidence presented in this section and in section 2 above demonstrates that -r-/-l- is the regular SUA correspondence of both NUA -n- and -r-/-l-. This pattern suggests that PUA medial **-n- descended into PSUA as *-n- and then, before the breakup of the PSUA speech community, merged with a pre-existing PSUA *-r- that derived from PUA **-r- and retained its allophones of **[-r-] and **[-l-]. During the subsequent diversification of the SUA languages, three distinct secondary developments occurred: 
  •	[-r-] and [-l-] remained as allophones in Warihó, Rarámuri, and Tubar;
  •	[-r-] and [-l-] merged under /r/ in Eudeve and under /l/ in the Aztecan languages; and 
  •	[-r-] and [-l-] were phonemicized in Yaqui, Mayo, and the Tepiman languages. 
According to my analysis, the shift of PSUA *-n- to *-r- set the stage for a second SUA phonological innovation, the shift of PUA **-ŋ- to PSUA *-n-, as part of a pull-chain process of phonological change. The evidence for this innovation is considered in the next section.
4. The correspondence of NUA /ŋ/ and SUA /n/
The Northern Uto-Aztecan languages are among the very few Indigenous languages of North America that include the velar nasal /ŋ/ in their phonemic inventories (Anderson 2011; Whistler and Golla 1986). In Hopi and the Takic languages, /ŋ/ is encountered in both initial and medial positions while in Tubatulabal and the Numic languages, it is attested only medially. Phonemic /ŋ/ is entirely absent in the Southern Uto-Aztecan languages, but several cognate sets indicate a regular correspondence between SUA /n/ and NUA /ŋ/. 
4.1. The Velar Nasal in Medial Position
Eight sets document the regular correspondence of NUA -ŋ- and SUA -n-. Four sets are included in Appendix 2 under CONTAIN, HUSBAND, LUNG(S), and PULVERIZE. The other four, which have cognates from at least two NUA and two SUA subfamilies, are presented here. These sets indicate that medial *-ŋ- must be reconstructed for Proto-Northern Uto-Aztecan. They also document the diversity of Numic reflexes of PNUA *-ŋ-, discussed in more detail in section 4.2.
(24)	‘salt’. PUA **oŋa
Num: NP oŋabi. WMn omábi. TSh oŋwapi. WSh-D ohapin. WSh-G onapin. Cm onaabi. Kw owavi. SP oavi. SUt öávi
Tub: uŋa:l
Hop: ö:ŋa
Tak: Ca íŋily. Cp íŋeyu ‘to salt’. Ls éŋla
Tep: Nv ona. PYp ona. NT onai
TrC: Yq oóna. My oóna. Ed onát. Wr woná. Rr oná ~ koná ~ noná
Tbr: onát
CrC: Cr unáh. Hc úna
(25)	‘knee’. PUA **toŋa
Num: NP taŋapisa ~ taʔŋapisa ‘kneecap’. WMn tonobódo ~ tanobódo ~ tanabódo. TSh taŋappïh. WSh-G tankappïh ~ tannappïh. Cm tana. Kw tanavï. SP taŋavi. Ch taŋa. SUt táavi
Tub: toŋo:l
Tep: To toon. Nv tona. PYp toni. NT toona. ST toon
TrC: Yq tonom. My tónnom. Ed tonót. Wr tonó ‘foot’. Rr ŕonó ‘foot, leg’
Tbr: tonor
CrC: Cr tunú. Hc tunú
(26)	‘hot, hot season, sun’. PUA **toŋV-
Hop: tö:ŋi, ‘heat, hot weather, heat of the day’
Tak: Ca tíŋiš ‘warm’. Cp tíŋe ‘to be hot’. Kt toŋavaʔ ~ tuŋavaʔ ‘hot season’
Tep: Nv tonoŗo ‘for the sun to shine’. PYp tono ‘hot’. NT tonóli ‘sunshine’. NT tóñi ‘hot’
TrC: Ed tonó ‘to be hot, to boil’. Wr tono ~ toni ‘to boil’. Rr ŕonó ‘to boil, to ferment’
Tbr: tonó ‘to be hot’
Azt: Na-Cl to:na ‘to be warm, for the sun to shine’. Pp tu:nal ‘sun’. Po tunél ‘sun’.
(27)	‘tongue’. PUA **nïŋi
Hop: leŋi
Tak: Ca náŋily. Cp neŋʔa. Kt nïŋič
Tep: To nïïni. PYp neeni. NT nïïni. ST nïïn
TrC: Yq níni. My ninni. Ed nenét. Wr yení
Tbr: ninír
Azt: Na-Cl nenepilli. Pp nenepil
Despite showing initial l-, Hp leŋi is assumed to belong in (27) because the other three segments show the expected correspondences. The Warihó cognate also has an aberrant initial consonant, and /e/ rather than /a/ is the first vowel expected for the Cahuilla cognate.
4.2. Numic Reflexes of *-ŋ-
The Numic subfamily is divided into three subdivisions (see Table 1): 1) Western Numic, with Northern Paiute and Mono as its constituent languages, 2) Central Numic, which includes Timbisha Shoshone, Shoshone, and Comanche, and 3) Southern Numic, comprising Kawaiisu, Southern Paiute, Chemehuevi, and Ute, the last three representing dialects of a single language that Miller, et al. (2005:414) label Colorado River Numic. Medial -ŋ- is attested in at least one language in each of the three subdivisions, indicating that PNUA *-ŋ- descended into Proto-Numic (PNum) and subsequently into the ancestral languages of these subdivisions. However, following the emergence of these subdivisions, medial *-ŋ- underwent a series of secondary developments in which it shifted in most of the daughter languages to other consonants or was lost entirely.
	The attested reflexes of PNum intervocalic *-ŋ- in the modern Numic languages are presented in Table 4.14 Words that reflect only seven etyma are considered, and cognates are not attested in all the Numic languages for four of them. In addition, cognate sets cannot be compiled in which -ŋ- is attested in all intervocalic contexts. Five vowels are reconstructed for PNumic: */a, i, ï, o, u/ (Babel, et al., n.d.: 9-10). The cognate sets represented in Table 4 document the reflexes of PNum *-ŋ- following */a, ï, o, u/ and preceding */a, i, o/, but not following */i/ or preceding */ï/ or */u/. Despite these problems, these seven cognate sets represent the best data I have found for documenting and analyzing the Numic reflexes of *-ŋ-.
[Insert Table 4 about here]
	The diversity of these reflexes are too complex to be discussed in detail here, but the principal secondary developments involving *-ŋ- can be summarized as follows: 
  •	Western Numic: 1) -ŋ- is retained in Northern Paiute and probably Eastern Mono in all contexts; 2) in Western Mono -ŋ- shifted to -n- except in the enviroment of /o_a/, where it shifted to -m-.15
  •	Central Numic: 1) -ŋ- is retained in Timbisha Shoshone, being labialized as [ŋw] following round vowels; 2) PNum *-ŋ- is doubly reflected in Western Shoshone as -nk- and -nn-, which seem to be in free variation, except in the context /o_a/, where -nk-, -n-, and -h- are attested in different variants; 3) in Eastern Shoshone, -nk- and -n- are attested as alternate reflexes of *-ŋ-; 4) in Northern Shoshone, the alternate reflexes are -nn- and -n- except in the environment of /o_o/, where the reflex is -w-; 5) in Comanche, -m- is the reflex of *-ŋ- in the context /o_o/ and -n- in all other attested environments.16
  •	Southern Numic: 1) -ŋ- apparently is retained in Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi in the context of non-round vowels and lost following /o/, although its loss is attested in Southern Paiute both following /o/ and in the context of /ï_a/; 2) in Kawaiisu, -ŋ- also is lost following /o/, shifting to /-n-/ following /a/; 3) in Southern Ute, -ŋ- is lost in all environments.
	The Numic languages display a general trend toward the loss of the velar nasal as a phoneme. The first step in this process likely occurred in Proto-Numic with a shift of *ŋ- to *n- in morpheme-initial position, a sound change discussed in section 4.3. Subsequent secondary developments in languages from all three Numic subdivisions resulted in the retention of medial -ŋ- only in Northern Paiute, Eastern Mono, Timbisha Shoshone, and the Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi variants of Colorado River Numic. However, as seen in (28) and (29), there is some indication that a shift from -ŋ- to -n- was underway in Northern Paiute, Southern Paiute, and Chemehuevi as well. Set (28) shows a correspondence of -ŋ- in Timbisha Shoshone and Chemehuevi with -n- in Northern and Southern Paiute, while (29) shows a correspondence of -ŋ- in Timbisha Shoshone and Northern Paiute with -n- in Southern Paiute and Chemehuevi.17
(28)	‘younger sibling, youngest’. PNum *piŋa
NP pinagi ‘younger sibling’
TSh(M) piŋŋa ‘youngest sibling’
SP pinnappïci ‘youngest, last’
Ch piŋatïm ‘youngest’
(29)	‘to tell’. PNum *tïnV-
NP-Y tïïŋï ‘to tell to’
TSh tïŋa ‘to tell to’
SP(S) tïnnia
Ch tïnia ‘to tell’
	A comparable shift may also have been taking place in some variants of Western Shoshone, in the -nn- ~ -nk- reflex of *-ŋ-. 
(30)	‘high, up’. PNum *paŋa
NP paŋaadï ‘high’
TSh paŋe [< *paŋai] ‘up’
WSh-B pankai ~ panai ~ pan ~ paʔai ‘up, high, above’
WSh-D panai ‘up, upwards’
WSh-G panai ~ paʔa ‘up, high’
WSh-R panki ‘up, high’
The cognate in the Ruby Valley (WSh-R) variant of Western Shoshone shows -nk-, as does one of the alternate forms in the Big Smokey Valley variant (WSh-B). The other Big Smokey Valley forms show -n- or -ʔ-, also seen in the Duck Valley and Gosiute variants (WSh-D, WSh-G). The following sequence of sound changes in the Western Shoshone variants can be proposed: *paŋai > pankai ~ pannai > panai > pan ~ paʔai ~ paʔa.
4.3. The Velar Nasal in Initial Position
I have identified four sets in which Hopi or Takic terms with initial ŋ- have cognates in languages that belong to other UA subfamilies. Three of these sets include cognates from at least two SUA languages. An additional three sets have cognates from Hopi and the Takic languages alone. Taken as a whole, these sets indicate a regular correspondence between initial ŋ- in Hopi and Takic and initial n- in all the other UA subfamilies. 
	This correspondence is most clearly seen in (31), in which initial ŋ- in Hopi and Luiseño corresponds with initial n- in Tubatulabal and the Tepiman, Taracahitan, Corachol, and Aztecan subfamilies.18 This set lacks cognates from Tubar and the Numic languages. A Tubar cognate exists for (32), but I have found no Numic words that are unquestionably cognate with terms in Hopi or the Takic languages that show the initial velar nasal. However, (32) and (33) suggest that, as in Tubatulabal and the SUA subfamilies, initial n- in the Numic languages corresponds with initial ŋ- in Hopi and Takic.19 
(31)	‘to bend, curve, turn, return’. PUA **ŋora
Tub: noʔlat ~ ʔono:l ‘to go home’
Hop: ŋölöla ‘to bend, to crook’.
Tak: Ls ŋé:la ‘to be turned, be curved’
Tep: PYp norag ‘to return’. NT norági- ‘to go back’
TrC: Ed norón ‘to go back, come back’. Wr noʔláni ~ noʔáni ‘to go someplace and return’. Rr norína ‘to come back’
Azt: Na-Cl(M) noloa ‘to bend (vt)’. Na-Cl(M) noliwi ‘to become bent’
(32)	‘root’. PUA **ŋa-
Num: WSh-G nappïh ‘edible part of the cattail between the stem and the root’
Hop: ŋa-
Tak: Kt ŋakawi
TrC: Yq naáwa. My naágwam. Ed náva. Wr nawá. Rr nawá
Tbr: namusír
CrC: Cr(O) nanat ‘tree root’. Hc naná ‘tendril, kinds of climbing vines’
Azt: Na-Cl nelwatl. Pp nelwat
(33)	‘to cry’. PUA *ŋa-
Num: TSh namoʔi ‘to cry, make noise (of animals)’. WSh-G nawoih. Cm nawooʔi
Tub: ʔanaŋat ~ ʔanaŋ || Tb anaŋ- ~ naŋ- (Voegelin 1935:169)
Tak: Ca ŋáŋ. Cp ŋaŋa. Ls ŋáaŋi ‘to cry about someone or something’
TrC: Op narak. Wr naláni. Rr nará.
	The Numic terms in (33) come from languages that belong to the Central subdivision of the subfamily, and all are the non-singular suppletive forms of the verb ‘to cry’, which can be reconstructed for Proto-Numic as *yaka (Stubbs 2011: #610). The initial syllable na- may be cognate with the ŋa- in the Takic languages, while the following two syllables in the Numic forms may be a separate morpheme related to terms in these Numic languages for ‘bark’ or ‘howl’: TSh wohi, WSh-G woʔai, Cm woorï . The proposed cognates from other languages in (32) and (33) also show the expected correspondences only for the initial syllable *ŋa-, suggesting considerable reinterpretation of the etyma from which they presumably derived.
	An additional cognate set that is relevant to analyzing the velar nasal in PUA involves a locative morpheme that is encountered throughout the UA language family as a bound or unbound postposition. It shows the same correspondences of initial ŋ- and n- seen in word-initial position. 
(34)	[Locative postposition]. PUA **ŋa-
Num: NP(T) -na ‘from, out from’ (Thornes 2003: 229). NP -nakwa ‘side’. NP -nakwaana ‘from direction’. TSh -naŋkwa ‘in the direction of, beside’. Cm -nakwï ‘side, direction’. SP -naŋkwa ‘direction’
Hop: -ŋaqw ‘from, away from, inside of’
Tak: Ca má-ŋax ‘on or by the side of, near’. Cp -ŋa ‘in, in the way that’. Cp -ŋax ‘from, because of’. Cp -ŋaʔaw ‘on, on top of’. Ls -ŋa ‘in, inside, about, by, on, at, to’. Kt -ŋa20
TrC: Yq-Az -napo ‘near’. Wr -na ~ -ena ‘on this side, closer’. Rr -na ‘towards’ [aki-ná ‘towards here’, wami-ná ‘towards there’]. 
Tbr: -ná ‘towards’.
CrC: Cr =na [an enclitic that marks a particular point in space or time (Casad 1977:229-230)]. Wc -na [bound locative postposition: é-na ‘here’, má-na ‘there’]
Azt: Na-Cl -nal ‘across, through, to the other side’
A shift of *ŋ- to n- in Numic postpositions is suggested by the retention of /ŋ/ in the morpheme -ŋa- when it occurs in independent words, for example, NP paŋaadï ‘high’ and TSh paŋe [< *paŋai] ‘up’, both of which are cognate with the Tubatulabal locative paaŋa ‘up; above’.
	The final three sets presented in this section have cognates only in Hopi and some Takic languages.
(35)	‘to coil’. PNUA *ŋawi
Hop: ŋawi ‘coil, skein, strand (n)’. Hp ŋawita ‘to be coiling, be making into strands, skeins’ 
Tak: Cp ŋáwe ‘to coil, as rope’. Ls ŋáwi ‘to coil, tangle’
(36)	‘to sway’. PNUA *ŋaya
Hop: ŋayàmti ‘shift, sway, rock (one movement)’
Tak: Ca ŋáya ‘to shake head’. Cp ŋáye ‘to shake head’. Ls(B) ŋáya ‘to be winnowed with a rotary movement’
(37)	‘to gnaw’. PNUA *ŋïri
Hop: Hp ŋïrita ‘to be gnawing’
Tak: Ls ŋó:li [< *ŋï:li] ‘to gnaw’
[Insert Table 5 about here]
4.4. Discussion
The regular correspondence in medial position of NUA -ŋ- and SUA -n- is documented in eight cognate sets that, when combined, include cognates from all the UA subfamilies (see Table 5). These sets, together with those considered in sections 2 and 3, support the reconstruction of medial *-ŋ-, *-n-, and *-r- for Proto-Northern Uto-Aztecan but only medial *-n- and *-r- for Proto-Southern Uto-Aztecan (see Table 6).
[Insert Table 6 about here]
	The most likely source of PNUA medial *-ŋ- is PUA *-ŋ-, but Hill (2011) favors an alternative source.  She supports a perspective suggested to her by Manaster Ramer: that PNUA *-ŋ- derives from PUA **-n-, with PNUA *-n- deriving from PUA **-r-, which she represents as **-l/r-. However, PNUA *-n- could not reflect PUA *-r- because of the regular correspondence of -r/l- in both SUA languages and all NUA languages except Numic (see section 2). With PUA **-r/l- eliminated as the source for PNUA *-n-, PNUA *-n- would derive from PUA *-n-, given the regular correspondence of -n- :: -n- in all the NUA languages [see sets (16) to (20) in section 3.1].21 It is improbable that PUA **-n- is doubly reflected in PNUA because PNUA *-n- and *-ŋ- occur in overlapping intervocalic contexts. In Table 7, I present all the etyma that can definitely be reconstructed for PNUA in which PNUA intervocalic *-ŋ- and *-n- appear. The table shows that both *-ŋ- and *-n- can be reconstructed following *a, *ï, *o, and *u and preceding *a, *i. Neither can be reconstructed before *u. The only difference in their intervocalic distribution is that *-n- cannot be reconstructed following /i/ or preceding /o/ and *ŋ- cannot be reconstructed preceding /ï/. 
[Insert Table 7 about here]
	The evidence that the velar nasal occurred in initial position in PNUA is far less robust than that indicating its occurrence in medial position: initial ŋ- is attested only in Hopi and the Takic languages and only preceding reflexes of *a (32-36), *ï (37), *o (31). Nonetheless, the reconstruction of PNUA initial *ŋ- seems to be necessary because no other source for initial ŋ- in Hopi and Takic exists. A shift of PNUA initial *n- to Hopi and Takic initial -ŋ is precluded by the fact that they occur in the same contexts (Kaufman and Justeson 2009: 225; see section 3.2). In fact, both initial *n- and *ŋ- can be reconstucted before *a, ï, and *o and neither can be reconstructed before *i or *u [see sets (21) to (23) and sets (31) to (33)].
	The most likely scenario is that the velar nasal occurred in initial and medial position in both PUA, PNUA and early PSUA, being retained in both positions in Hopi and the Takic languages, in medial position only in Tubatulabal and the Numic languages, and in neither position in PSUA. The geographical proximity of Tubatulabal and Numic speakers raises the possibility that the shift of PNUA initial *ŋ- to n- was an areal phenomenon. The same shift in PSUA is best interpreted as a parallel but independent innovation that involved the merging of  PUA **ŋ with PSUA *n in all contexts.
5. Counterevidence
By my analysis, all attestations of medial -n- in SUA reflexes of PUA etyma languages should derive from PUA **-ŋ-. The principal challenge to this perspective is presented by a few cases in which cognates in both NUA and SUA languages show -n- (Dakin 2001:325; Dakin 2007:298; Stubbs 2011:20-24).
	Stubbs (2011:24, passim) has noted the possible correspondence of NUA -n- and SUA -n- in several cognate sets, which I have analyzed to determine if an explanation for them can be provided. Sets in which the NUA terms come exclusively from Numic languages in which -ŋ- shifted to -n- can be eliminated because they could represent the correspondence of NUA -ŋ- and SUA -n-, for example, Kawaiisu tïʔniya ‘to trap’ and Southern Tepehuan tïïʔñja ‘to set a trap’ (Stubbs 2011:#2407) (see section 4.2). Also excluded for the same reason are sets that involve postpositions in Tubatulabal and the Numic languages (see set 34 above). Six examples remain that cannot be as easily dismissed. 
	For two of these sets, a single explanation can be proposed for the apparent correspondence of NUA -n- and SUA -n-: the medial -n- actually represents an initial n- in a morpheme that is preceded by a monosyllabic root, in which case the regular correspondence of NUA n- and SUA n- is encountered (Kaufman 1981:162-163).
(38a)	‘son-in-law’22
Num: WSh-G monappï. Kw mono. SP monna-
Hop: möʔönaŋw ‘son-in-law, in-marrying male’
TrC: Yq moʔone. My móʔone. Ed mongwa. Wr moʔné. Rr moʔné
CrC: Cr muʔun ‘son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law’. Hc muune ‘daughter’s husband, wife’s father’
Azt: Na-Cl mo:ntli. Pp mu:nti
	The possibility that moʔo- or moʔ- represents a separate morpheme is suggested by terms for other affinal relatives in some of these same languages:
(38b)	[affinal relative]
Hop: möʔwi ‘daughter-in-law; sister-in-law’
TrC: Wr moʔóri ‘daughter-in-law’. Rr moʔorí ‘daughter-in-law’
CrC: Hc muʔee ‘husband’s parent, son’s wife’ (Grimes and Grimes 1962:110).
	Separate morphemes may also be involved in the next set, which includes cognates in Hopi and Yaqui-Mayo only:
(39a)	‘to make a circuit around’
Hop: qönìlti ‘to make a circuit, go all the way around’.
TrC: Yq-Az konte ‘to go around, surround (vi)’. Yq-Az konta ‘to surround (vt)’. Yq konila ‘around’. My koónte ‘to go around’
Both Hopi and Yaqui-Mayo include semantically related words that show qö- ~ ko- followed by elements that do not include -n-, and related words in the Numic languages and Nahuatl show the regular correspondence of NUA -n- and Nahuatl -l-:
(39b) 	
Hop: qövivita ‘to be whirling, swirling about’
TrC: Yq-Az kowila ‘around (circumference)’
(39c)
Num: WMn qooni ‘to return (vi)’. WSh-D kooni ‘to come and go’. WSh-G koonih ‘curved, bent’. Cm koonitï ‘to turn around’. SP koonni ‘to return, come back by the same road’
Azt: Na-Cl ko:liwi ‘to curve, to turn’. Na-Cl ko:loa: ‘to twist, change direction’
In the remaining four sets, the medial -n- appears to occur within disyllabic morphemes:
(40)	‘thin, flat’
Num: WSh-G kanah ‘thin (of an animal or person)’
Azt: Na-Cl kana:wak ‘something flat and thin’ 
(41)	‘hill’
Num: SP tonnokkiči ~ tunnukkiči ‘knoll, swell in the ground’
Tep: To(M) toonk ‘ridge, dike’. Nv tonika ‘hill’
	(42)	‘to be’
Num: NP mannai ‘to be, to do’
TrC: Yq manek ‘to be situated (containers, liquids, or massed objects). My manne ‘to be (of a liquid or gathered objects)’. Wr maní ‘to be, to exist’. Ed(L) mani ‘to be’. Ed(L) mane ‘to be in a container’. Rr maní ‘to be in a container’
CrC: Wc mana ‘put, hang, spread (plural objects)’
Azt: Na-Cl mana ‘to spread something out flat and smooth’
(43)	‘younger sister’23
Num: NP pïniʔi. WMn pïniʔ
TrC: Ed víngwa. Wr piní. Rr biní.
	 The distribution of the cognates among the UA subfamilies in (40) to (43) may provide a key to explaining the NUA -n- :: SUA -n- correspondence they appear to document. The NUA cognates come only from Numic languages, in the case of each set from a single subdivision, but with all three Numic subdivisions represented, while the SUA cognates are from languages in four separate subfamilies; only the Tubar subfamily is not represented. I cannot offer a definitive explanation for these sets, but a plausible possibility is that the -n- in the Numic cognates actually derives from -ŋ-, as discussed in section 4.2. This possibility is especially likely in the case of (43), given the phonological and semantic similarities of the Northern Paiute and Western Mono terms to Timbisha Shoshone piŋŋa ‘youngest sibling’ and Chemehuevi piŋatïm ‘youngest’ (see set 28). 
6. Conclusion
In his overview of the Uto-Aztecan language family, Campbell (1997:136-137) notes that Uto-Aztecan historical linguists generally agree on the reconstruction for the Proto-Uto-Aztecan phonemic inventory of five vowel phonemes **/i, a, ï, o, u/ and eleven consonant phonemes **/p, t, c, k, kw, ʔ, s, h, m, w, y/, disagreeing only on how best to reconstruct the PUA consonants that are reflected in the UA daughter languages as /ŋ, n, r, l/. The data and analyzes presented in this essay support the model shown in Table 8, which I propose as the most parsimonius resolution of the issue.
[Insert Table 8 about here]
	In this model, PUA **ŋ and **n are reconstructed in both initial and medial positions with no allophones, while **r is reconstructed only in medial position but with **[r] and **[l] as its allophones. All three PUA phonemes were retained in Proto-Northern Uto-Aztecan and early Proto-Southern Uto-Aztecan, but during the period when the PSUA speech community was still intact, PSUA medial *-n- merged with pre-existing *-r- and the velar nasal *ŋ shifted to *n in all positions. Because these sound changes are documented in all the SUA languages, they can be identified as shared phonological innovations that establish the genetic unity of these languages and the existence of Proto-Southern Uto-Aztecan as the common ancestral language out of which they emerged.
	During the course of the diversification of the SUA languages, the most significant changes that occurred in these phonemes were the phonemicization of the allophones of *-r- in Yaqui, Mayo, and the Tepiman languages and the loss of either [-l-] or [-r-] in Eudeve, Huichol, and the Aztecan languages. Similar changes took place in the NUA languages, with one major exception: PUA **-r- apparently merged with pre-existing *-n- in Proto-Numic. Although the evidence for this innovation is limited, its postulation accounts for the absence of a liquid phoneme in the Numic languages, just as the shift of PUA **ŋ to *n in PSUA accounts for the absence of the velar nasal in the SUA languages. In the NUA languages, initial *ŋ- merged with *n- in Tubatulabal and the Numic languages while medial *-ŋ- was retained in all subfamilies, although a shift from medial -ŋ- to -n- also occurred in some Numic languages. The overall trend toward the loss of the velar nasal throughout the UA language family suggests that it was an unstable consonant. In contrast, the loss of a liquid phoneme in the Numic languages is atypical, not only for Uto-Aztecan but for languages around the world (Maddieson 2011). 
	Apart from contributing to a clarification of the PUA phonemic inventory, this analysis establishes Proto-Southern Uto-Aztecan as a first-level daughter language of PUA coordinate with Proto-Northern Uto-Aztecan. The principal implication of demonstrating that PSUA and PNUA were coordinate intermediary languages is that a split of PUA into two branches can be identified as the first step in the diversification of the language family. Both phonological and lexical data suggest that, following this split, the NUA and SUA branches diversified independently although, as noted in section 2.2, some interaction may have occurred among speakers of the southernmost NUA languages and the northernmost SUA languages (Miller 1984; Cortina-Borja and Valiñas C. 1989; Fowler 1983; Valiñas Coalla 2000; Cortina-Borja, et al. 2002). In contrast, the internal diversification of the NUA and SUA branches likely involved considerable interaction among speakers of languages and dialects belonging to different genetically related subgroups (Shaul 1983; Babel, et al., n.d.).
	Babel, et. al. (n.d.) propose that the diffusion of linguistic innovations across language boundaries was a significant factor in the differentiation of the Numic subdivisions. The shift of initial **ŋ- to *n- in Tubatulabal and the Numic languages may indicate that such diffusion occurred across subfamily boundaries, another instance of which could be the shift of medial **-t- to *-l- that Tubatulabal shares with the Cupan subdivision of the Takic subfamily (Hill 2011). A comparable example from the SUA branch involves the Tepiman and Taracahitan languages. Tepiman is defined as a genetic unit based on a number of innovations in its consonant phonemes and by the retention of */ï/, which shifted to /e/ or /e ~ i/ in all the other SUA subfamilies. Yet, Tepiman shares some of the consonant innovations with neighboring Taracahitan languages, for example *w > /g/, *y > /d/, and *kw > /b/, all three of which also are found in Eudeve and Ópata (Shaul 1983:97-99; 2010:270-271).
	In general, the distribution of phonological innovations within and among genetically related subgroups of the UA language family indicates that some innovations diffused across linguistic boundaries while others did not. This pattern implies alternating periods of interaction and isolation. In addition, the status as lingua franca of Nahuatl and probably one or more of the Tepiman languages (Riley 1971) could have led to the diffusion of innovations in them to other UA languages without innovations in these languages diffusing at all. Multilingualism of speakers of adjacent languages also would have created the conditions in which selective diffusion of innovations between the languages could have taken place. Recognizing the range of possibilities is crucial in defining more precisely the internal structure of the UA language family and to reconstructing the processes that produced it.

Appendix 1
Language Abbreviations and Sources
Ca = Cahuilla: Seiler and Hioko 1979
Ch = Chemehuevi: Press 1979
Cm = Comanche: Robinson and Armagost 1990
Cp = Cupeño: Hill and Nolasquez 1973
Cr = Cora: McMahon and McMahon 1959
Cr(O) = Cora: Ortega 1860 [1732]
Cr(P) = Cora: Preuss 1934
Ed = Eudeve: Pennington (ed.) 1981
Ed(L) = Eudeve: Lionnet 1986
EMn = Eastern Mono: Steward 1933
ESh = Eastern Shoshone: Davis 1966
Hc = Huichol: McIntosh and Grimes 1954
Hp = Hopi: Hopi Dictionary Project 1998
Kt = Kitanemuk: Anderton 1988
Kw = Kawaiisu: Zigmond, et al. 1991
LP = Lower Pima: Bascom 1965
Ls = Luiseño: Elliott 1999
Ls(B) = Luiseño: Bright 1968
My = Mayo: Collard and Collard 1962
Na-Cl = Classical Nahuatl: Karttunen 1992
NP = Northern Paiute: Liljeblad, et al., in press
NP(T) = Northern Paiute: Thornes 2003
NP-Y = Northern Paiute, Yerington: Poldevaart (ed.) 1987
NSh = Northern Shoshone: Christopher Loether, personal communications, 2010-2012
NT = Northern Tepehuan: Bascom 1965
Nv = Névome: Pennington (ed.) 1979
Op = Opata: Lombardo 1702
Po = Pochutec: Boas 1917
Pp = Pipil: Campbell 1985
PYp = Pima,Yepachi, Chihuahua: Shaul 1994
Rr = Rarámuri: Brambila 1976
SP = Southern Paiute: Sapir 1931
ST = Southern Tepehuan: Bascom 1965
SUt = Southern Ute: Givón (ed.) 1979
Tb = Tubatulabal: Munro and Mace 1995
Tb(V) = Tubatulabal: Voegelin 1958
Tbr = Tubar: Lionnet 1978
To = Tohono Oʔodham: Saxton, et al. 1983
To(M) = Tohono Oʔodham: Mathiot 1973
TSh = Timbisha Shoshone: Dayley 1989
TSh(M) = Timbisha Shoshone: McLaughlin 1987
UP = Upper Pima: Bascom 1965

WMn = Western Mono: Bethel, et al. 1993
Wr = Warihó: Miller 1996
WSh-B = Western Shoshone, Big Smokey Valley: Crapo 1976
WSh-C = Western Shoshone, Cherry Creek: Crapo 1976
WSh-D = Western Shoshone, Duck Valley: Crum and Dayley 1993
WSh-G = Western Shoshone, Gosiute: Miller 1972
WSh-R = Western Shoshone, Ruby Valley: Miller 1972
Yq = Yaqui, Sonora: Estrada Fernández, et al. 2004
Yq-Az = Yaqui, Arizona: Molina, et al. 1999

Appendix 2
Cognate Sets
	The majority of the cognate sets presented here have been proposed in other studies of Uto-Aztecan historical linguistics. The principal published compilations of Uto-Aztecan cognate sets are Voegelin, et al. (1962), Miller (1967), and Stubbs (2011). Stubbs (2011) is the most detailed compilation, including numerous cognate sets not found in the other sources, as well as additional cognates or resemblants for sets previously identified. The author also provides analyses of the regular and irregular correspondences attested, cross-references to other relevant sets, and an extensive bibliography of previous studies. 
	The cognate sets presented here are intended only to document regular correspondences, in particular the three correspondences that are the focus of this essay:  1) NUA -r/l- :: SUA -r/l-; 2) NUA -n- ::  SUA -r/l-; and 3) NUA -ŋ- :: SUA /n/. I do not include reconstructions of the etyma that the cognates reflect nor, in the case of some sets, all of the cognates attested in the UA languages. In most instances, the cognates that I leave out can be found in Stubbs (2011). I provide, in parentheses following the header gloss of each set, the number of the corresponding set in Stubbs (2011).
	The words included in each cognate set show the regular correspondences expected of cognates in the initial syllable or, in the case of disyllabic morphemes, in the initial syllable plus the inital segment of the second syllable. Major deviations from the expected are noted in the “Comments.” 	Glosses are given for individual cognates only when they deviate from the header term or terms that I have assigned to the set. When a cognate has multiple referents and one corresponds to that of the header, the other referents usually are not indicated. The principal source of data for each language is the first source listed in appendix 1. Data from other sources are included when cognates are not attested in the principal sources or when the data differ between the principal and secondary sources.
	My orthography corresponds to that of the Americanist phonetic notation, in which <c> represents the voiceless alveolar affricate, <č> the voiceless post-alveolar and alveopalatal affricates, and <š> the voiceless alveopalatal fricative. I retain the modern technical orthographies developed for each of the languages considered with a few exceptions. I use <ş> to represent a voiceless retroflex sibilant and <ï> instead of <ɨ> as the grapheme for a high, central or back unrounded vowel. I have adopted <ŗ> as the grapheme for the Névome sound represented in the original source with the digraph <rh>. In his study of Tubar, Lionnet (1978) uses <o> as the symbol for an allophone of the phoneme /u/ and <> (o-comma overstrike) to represent the phoneme /o/. Here I represent the Tubar phoneme /o/ as <o>; there are no attestations of the Tubar allophone of /u/ in these sets. I retain Hill and Nolasquez’s use of <e> to represent Cupeño /ə/.
	For the most part, I use the citation forms of the original sources, which in the case of nouns often include non-possessed (“absolutive”) noun suffixes. Here these suffixes are not separated from the stems to which they are attached. Stress usually is indicated if it is marked in the original sources or is relevant to the analysis. The grave accent in Third Mesa Hopi words represents falling tone. Identical vowel sequences in Yaqui, Mayo, and the Tepiman languages are retained as such: -VV-. Vowel length in Tubatulabal, Hopi, Luiseño, Nahuatl, and Pipil is denoted by a colon following the lengthened vowel: <-V:->. I eliminate initial glottal stops preceding vowels except in the case of Tubatulabal verbs. 
	The cognates in each set are organized by subfamilies in the following order: 1) Numic (Num), 2) Tubatulabal (Tub), 3) Hopi (Hop), 4) Takic (Tak), 5) Tepiman (Tep), 6) Taracahitan (Trc), 7) Tubar (Tbr), 8) Corachol (Crc), and (9) Aztecan (Azt). Most sets lack cognates from several subfamilies, but the order and numbering are retained. The abbreviations for all of the languages and subfamilies are found in appendix 1.

ASPEN (S-559). 1) Num: NP kaibasïŋabi ~ kaibassïŋaabi ‘quaking aspen’ [kaiba ‘mountain’ + sïŋaabi ‘willow’]. NP-Y sïŋŋabi ‘cottonwood’. EMn suŋáava ‘cottonwood’. TSh sïŋapin. WSh-B snkappin ~ sínkappïh. WSh-D sïnnapin. WSh-G sïnkapin ~ sïnnapin. NSh sïnaaʔbi ~ sanaaʔbi. ESh sna (Shimkin 1949:208). SP šïávï. SUt savi
BIRD (S-210). 1) Num: WMn coocoonáʔ ‘western bluebird’. 2) Tub: culušt ‘woodpecker’. Tb čïlust ‘type of woodpecker’. 3) Hop: co:ro ‘bluebird, mountain bluebird’. 6) TrC: Wr cuʔrú ‘kind of blue bird with a long tail, perhaps a kind of jay’. Wr cuʔrukí ‘bird (generic)’. Rr čurugí ‘bird (generic)’. Comments: a) Based on the Hopi and Warihó words, PUA **cuʔru could be reconstructed as the label for some kind of ‘blue bird’. Hp /o/ :: Wr /u/ is a regular correspondence, and while Warihó usually retains -ʔ- as the reflex of an antecedent morpheme-internal, preconsonantal glottal stop, Hopi seldom does. b) This etymon is the best example I have found for concluding that at least some PUA labels for ‘birds’ could be onomatopoetic in origin. Western Mono /o/ reflects PNUA *o, so WMn coocoonáʔ cannot be identified as a cognate in this set. However, it is analyzed by Bethel, et al. (1993:261) as combining a sound-imitative stem, coocoo-, and the suffix -naʔ, which denotes ‘it says X’, “X” being the sound imitated in the stem. In Western Mono, this construction is not restricted to labels for birds. It is attested, for example, in mááʔ-naʔ ‘mosquito’ and in two different names for Bigfoot: qasiqasi-náʔ ‘white-coated Bigfoot’ and qauqau-náʔ ‘brown-coated Bigfoot’. According to Bethel, et al. (1993:164-166), “qasiqasi” is the sound made by Bigfoot’s feet walking on snow and “qauqau” when the creature walks on dry leaves. c) It is impossible to determine if the second syllable of the other words in this set could be reflexes of a PUA suffix **-ru with a morphological function comparable to WMn -naʔ. The final syllable in PUA **wiruku ‘turkey vulture’ [see (4)] definitely reconstructs as **-ru, but **-ri appears to be the required reconstruction for the final syllables of **tukori ‘owl’ [(3)] and **kïri ‘a kind of hawk’ [(5)]. Perhaps -ru- in reflexes of **cuʔru and **wiruku is the result of  vowel harmonization, and a PUA onomatopoetic suffix should be reconstructed as **-ri or **-ti. It is suggestive that /t/ is the initial consonant of words meaning ‘to say’, ‘to talk’, or ‘mouth’ in languages in all UA subfamilies. In addition, intervocalic *-t- (as the initial /t/ of a suffix would be) has shifted to lenited *-r/l- in the ancestral languages of Tubatulabal and the Cupan subdivision of the Takic subfamilies, and -t- continues to lenite in the Numic languages (Stubbs 2011: 15, passim,  #1876a - #1878, #1882; Bright and Hill 1968: 360; Voegelin, et al. 1962: 41, 63; McLaughlin 1992:172). 
CHEST (OF THE BODY) (S-427). 1) Num: NP niŋaabï. EMn núŋava. TSh nïŋappïh ‘rib cage area just below the breasts’. WSh-B nenkappïh. WSh-D nïnkappïh ~ nïnnappïh. WSh-G nïnkappïh ~ yïnkappïh. NSh nïnapï. ESh nïnápï. Cm nïnapï. Ch nïŋapï. SUt. navï.
CHILD (S-140). 3) Hop: ma:na. 5) Tep: To ma(ï). PYp mar. NT már(a). 6) TrC: Yq maára ‘daughter (male speaker)’. Yq maála ‘mother’. Yq-Az maala ‘daughter (male speaker), mother’. My maála ‘daughter (male speaker)’. Ed márwa ‘daughter (male speaker)’. Wr malá ‘daughter’. Rr mará  ‘daughter of a man’.
CONTAIN, CONTAINER (S-111). 1) Num: SP taŋi ‘to put into’. 3) Hop: taŋata ‘put into a rigid and/or enclosed container or structure’. 4) Tak: Kt taŋatat ‘bag, box, quiver, tobacco bag’. 9) Azt: Na-Cl ta:naʔtli ‘basket with a handle, woven of palm’. Pp ta:nah ‘traveling bag, bundle, pack’
FLY (S-43; S-915). 1) Num: NP aŋibi ‘gnats’. WMn anípi ‘big mosquito found in the mountains’. TSh aŋipi ~ aŋimmuih. WSh-B anamuih ~ ankamuih. ESh ániwuʔi (Shimkin 1949:203). Kw anivi ‘gnat, fruitfly’. SP aŋívi ‘mosquito’. Ch aŋivi ‘gnat’.
FOOT, HOOF (S-937). 2) Tub: tanaʔpit ~ tanaʔpil ‘little baby heel, knuckle’. 3) Hop: tana. 5) Tep: To ta. Nv taŗa. PYp tar. NT tára. 6) TrC: Ed tarát. Wr talá ‘sole of the foot’. Rr ŕará ‘foot, sole of the foot, footprint’.
GENTLE (S-2083). 1) Num: WSh-D yuun-. WSh-G yuun. WSh-G yuni ‘soft, spongy’. 8) CrC: Hc yïïríme ‘soft, tender, young’
HUSBAND (S-1240). 1) Num: NP kuma. EMn: gúmaʔa ‘son’s wife’s father, daughter’s husband’s father (female speaker)’. WMn kúwa. TSh kuhma. WSh-D kuhma ~ kuha ‘male, gelding’. WSh-D kuhmappï ~ kuhappï ‘husband’. WSh-G kuhma ~ kuha ‘husband, male animal’. WSh-G kuhmahpï ‘husband’. Cm kuhma ‘male, man’. Cm kumahpïʔ ~ kumahpïʔ. Kw kuhma. SP kummá. Ch kuma. SUt kumáavi ‘macho’. 2) Tub: ku:ŋan. 3) Hop: ko:ŋya. 4) Tak: Ca kúŋlu ‘to propose to marry (of a woman); to have intercourse’. Cp kuŋ. Ls kú:ŋ. 5) Tep: To kun. Nv kuna. PYp kun. NT kúna. ST kun. 6) TrC: Yq kuna. AYq kuuna. My kuúna. Eu kúngwa. Wr kuná. Rr kuná. 7) Tbr: kuna ‘to marry (of a woman)’. 8) CrC: Cr kïïn. Wc kïna. Comment: The Numic cognates reflect Proto-Numic *kuma, while all the other cognates reflect PUA **kuŋa. Kaufman (1981:118, 237) interprets the *-m- in PNumic etymon as the result of assimilation to the round vowel *u in the first syllable. Based on research in progress, I reconstruct Proto-Central Numic(PCNumic) *kuhma and attribute the *h to a shift from antecedent vowel length to preaspiration (*kú:mi > *kuhmi) that occurred in Proto-Eastern Numic, the ancestral language that gave rise to Proto-Central Numic and Proto-Southern Numic (Freeze and Iannucci 1979; Babel, et al., n.d.). Central Numic -hC- clusters regularly correspond with Southern Paiute lengthened (or “geminated”) consonants, including when these clusters derive from vowel loss. An example of the latter is seen in (20): PNUA * káhani > PENumic *kahni > PCNumic *kahni > SP kanní.
KNEE (S-941). 1) Num: EMn taŋadovo. WMn tanabódo ~ tanobódo ~ tonobódo. TSh taŋappïh. WSh-G tankappïh ~ tannappïh. NSh dannapï. ESh tankapï. Cm tana. Kw tanavï. SP taŋávi. Ch taŋa. SUt táavi. 2) Tub: toŋo:l. 5) Tep: To toon. Nv tona. PYp toni. NT toona. ST toon. 6) TrC: Yq tonom. My tónnom. Ed tonót. Wr tonó ‘foot’. Rr ŕonó ‘foot, leg’. 7) Tbr: tonór. 8) CrC: Cr tunú. Hc tunú.
LOOK FOR (S-1898). 4) Tak: Ca hál. Cp hále. Ls há:l. 6) TrC: Yq haríwa. AYq hariwa. AYq haliwaka ‘to look for tracks’. My haría. 
LUNG(S) (S-1409). 1) Num: NP soŋo. EMn jŭŋ ~ jóno. WMn sóno. TSh(M) soŋo. WSh-G sonko ~ sonno. NSh sooʔwoN. ESh soonko. Cm soomo. Kw soovï. SP soóvi. Ch soovi. SUt sövï. 4) Tak: Kt šoŋač. 6) Taracahitan: Rr sono.
NECKLACE (S-1505). 4) Tak: Ca qénxa(t). Cp qínxat. Ls qénxat. Kt konakat. 6) TrC: Yq koókam. My koókam. Ed kórka. Wr koloká. Rr gorogá. 9) Azt: Na-Cl ko:skatl. Pp ku:skat. Comments: a) The Yaqui and Mayo cognates show the loss of -r-. b) The occurrence of -s- instead of -l- in the Aztecan terms for ‘necklace’ is an expected secondary development. In Proto-Aztecan or an earlier post-PSUA ancestral language, the vowel following -r- was lost, resulting in the juxtapositioning of -r- and -k- and the subsequent replacement of -r- by -s-. The same vowel loss is encountered in the Eudeve cognate kórka but without the shift of -rk- to -sk-.
PITCH, GUM, GLUE, SAP (S-1634). 1) Num: NP sanapi. WMn sanápi. TSh sanappin. WSh-D sanappin. WSh-G sanappin. Cm sana ‘sticky’. Kw sanapï. SP sanáppi ~ sannáppi. Ch sanapi. SUt sanápi. 2) Tub: sa:nat. 3) Hop: sa:na. 4) Tak: Ca sáanat. Cp sáanat. Ls şá:nat. Kt hanat ‘tar’. 9) Azt: Na-Cl sa:loaa ‘to glue’. Pp sa:luaa ‘to glue’.
POUR (S-2319). 1) Num: Cm payunitï ‘pour water on’. Kw yuniʔi ~ yïniʔi. SUt yunáy ‘to scatter, put (plural objects). 4) Tak: Ls yuníʔi ‘to sprinkle’. 6) TrC: Ed dúridaan ‘to be emptied’. Wr yuʔripúna ‘to empty, throw out a liquid’. Comment: The initial syllable pa- in Comanche payunitï is the reflex of the PUA etymon for ‘water’.
PULVERIZE (S-1080). 3) Hop: pi:ŋya. 4) Tak: Ca píŋ ‘to get pulverized, to grind’. Kt piŋan ‘to crumble (vi)’. 9) Azt: Na-Cl pinolli ‘flour, something ground’. Pp pinu(u)l ‘powder or flour for eating or drinking’
RING, RATTLE. 2) Tub: halala:ʔït ~ ʔahalala: ‘to rattle’. 3) Hop: qalalata ‘to be ringing, clanking, clacking, clinking, tinkling’. 4) Tak: Ls ká:ri ‘to ring, croak, belch’ 9) Azt: Na-Cl kala:ni ‘to jingle, rattle’. Na-Cl kakalaka ‘to rattle’
SALT (S-1865). 1) Num: NP oŋabi. EMn oŋávi. WMn omábi. TSh oŋwapi. WSh-G onapin. NSh onaaʔbi. ESh ónaabi. Cm onaabi. Kw owavi. SP oávi. SUt öávi. 2) Tub: uŋa:l. 3) Hop: ö:ŋa. 4) Tak: Ca íŋily. Cp íŋeyu ‘to salt’. Ls éŋla. 5) Tep: To on. Nv ona. PYp ona. NT onai. ST on. 6) TrC: Yq oóna. My oóna. Ed onát. Wr woná. Rr oná ~ koná ~ noná. 7) Tbr: onát. 8) CrC: Cr unáh. Hc úna.
SCOOP. 1) Num: NP-Y yuŋaʔhu ‘to scoop fish’. TSh yuŋwah ‘to scoop or dip up’. WSh-D yunnah ‘to scoop or dip a liquid, to ladle’. WSh-G yunnah ‘to scoop or dip up a liquid’. Cm yunarï ‘to skim from the surface’.
SHAKE, SWING (S-1928). 2) Tub: wilikoʔyat ~ ʔiwilikooy ‘to swing’. 3) Hop: wi:wila ‘to shake, swing or wave around’. 6) TrC: Tbr wimwirá ‘to shake, tremble’.
SMALL (S-1356). 4) Tak: Ca ínišily ~ ínišmal ‘small one’. Ls alúʔmal. Kt anuciʔ ‘small; baby, little finger’. 5) Tep: To al ‘little’. To ali ‘baby, child’. PYp laʔali ~ lahali ‘boy, youth’. NT áli. ST ályii. 6) TrC: Yq ili. My iliči ~ iliʔiči. Comment: The -l- in the Luiseño term probably is a secondary development in which -n- was denasalized to -l-. A similar denasalization of -n- is attested in the Luiseño term čóri ‘to roll’, which is derived from PCupan *čïnï. The other Cupan cognates are Cahuilla čénen and Cupeño čéne.
SWALLOW (S-785). 2) Tub: welehat ~ ʔeweleh. 3) Hop: kwelok- ‘sample by tasting’. 6) TrC: Ed béruʔu. 
THINK (S-2284). 3) Hop: ïʔna ‘to recall, remember’. 4) Tak: Ca eʔnan ‘to know, recognize, learn, find out’. Ls óʔna ‘to know, recognize, be acquainted with’. Kt ïn ‘to know, know how, understand’. 5) Tep: To ïlið ‘to think (about), decide, conclude, wish’.  NT ïlíídïi ‘to think, believe, want’. ST ïlyiidy ‘to think’. 6) TrC: Yq ea ‘to think, reflect, want’. My eiya ‘to think’. Ed erám ‘to think, feel, want’. Wr eʔláni ~ elamá ‘to think about, think to be so, be concerned about, be considerate’. 8) CrC: Hc érie ‘to think, believe, feel’. 9) Azt: Na-Cl ilna:miki ‘to remember, reflect on something’. Pp elna:miki ‘to remember’. Comments: a) The Yaqui cognate shows the loss of -r-. b) In the Mayo cognate, the /i/ is unexpected while the /y/ is inserted to break up a three-vowel cluster.
TURKEY VULTURE (S-343). 1) Num: NP wiho. EMn wihópi. WMn wího. Mn wiho. TSh wihnumpicci. TSh(M) wihumpiccih. Kw wikumahaazi. SP wikkumpïci. SUt whkúcigetï. 2) Tub: Tb(V) wišokombišt ‘song of the turkey buzzard’. 3) Hop: wisoko. 4) Tak: Kt wirukuht. 6) TrC: Yq wiíru. My wiíru. Rr wirú. 7) Tbr: wilú. 8) CrC: Cr viskï. Hc wirïkï. 9) Azt: Na-Cl wi:lo:tl ‘dove’. Pp wi:lut ‘bird, dove’. Comments: a) PUA **wiruku can be reconstructed based on the Kitanemuk and Huichol cognates; Huichol /ï/ reflects PUA **u. b) Except for the medial -s-, the Hopi term corresponds precisely to the Kitanemuk and Huichol terms (Hopi /o/ is the reflex of PUA **u), but a shift of medial *-r- to Hopi -s- is unusual, suggesting that it is not cognate. c) The distinct referents of the Aztecan terms also raise doubts about their cognacy, despite their phonological similarities to **wiruku (Jane Hill, personal communication 2011). d) The Numic terms show a variety of secondary developments, including the shift of the intervocalic *-r- to other consonants and the loss of the final or medial syllables. A medial -n-, postulated as the regular Numic correspondence of -r- or -l- in the other UA languages, is attested only in Timbisha Shoshone.

Acknowledgments
[TO BE ADDED]

References
Anderson, Gregory D.S.2011. The velar nasal.  In Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 9. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/9.
Anderton, Alice J. 1988. The Language of the Kitanemuks of California. University of California, Los Angeles, Ph.D. diss.
Armagost, James L., and John E. McLaughlin. 1992. Taps and spirants in Numic languages. Anthropological Linguistics 34: 277–292.
Armagost, James L., and John E. McLaughlin. 1993. Numic [r] is not a spirant. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 131–142.
Babel, Molly, Andrew Garrett, Michael J. Houser, and Maziar Toosarvandani. n.d. Descent and diffusion in language diversification: A study in Western Numic dialectology. International Journal of American Linguistics forthcoming.
Bascom, Burton W. 1965. Proto-Tepiman. University of Washington, Ph.D. diss.
Bethel, Rosalie, Paul V. Kroskrity, Christopher Loether, and Gregory A. Reinhardt. 1993. A Dictionary of Western Mono. Pocatello: Idaho State University, Department of Anthropology and American Indian Studies.
Boas, Franz. 1917. El dialecto mexicano de Pochutla, Oaxaca. International Journal of American Linguistics 1: 9–44.
Brambila, David. 1976. Diccionario rarámuri–castellano (tarahumar). Mexico City: La Obra Nacional de la Buena Prensa.
Bright, William. 1968. A Luiseño Dictionary. University of California Publications in Linguistics 51. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bright, William, and Jane Hill.1967. The linguistic history of the Cupeño.  In Dell H. Hymes and William E. Bittle (eds.), Studies in Southwestern ethnolinguistics: Meaning and history in the languages of the American Southwest, 351-371. The Hague: Mouton.
Burgess, Don H. 1970. Tarahumara phonology (Rocoroibo dialect). University of Texas at El Paso, Studies in Language and Linguistics 1969-70: 45–66.
Burgess, Donald H.1984. Western Tarahumara.  In Ronald W. Langacker (ed.), Southern Uto-Aztecan Grammatical Sketches, vol. 4, 3-149. Arlington, Texas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.
Caballero, Gabriela. 2008. Choguita Raramuri (Tarahumara) Phonology and Morphology. University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D. diss.
Caballero, Gabriela. 2011. Behind the Mexican mountains: Recent developments and new directions in research on Uto-Aztecan languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 5: 485-504.
Campbell, Lyle. 1985. The Pipil Language of El Salvador. Berlin: Mouton.
Campbell, Lyle. 1988. The Linguistics of Southeast Chiapas. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 50.
Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Casad, Eugene H. 1977. Location and direction in Cora discourse. Anthropological Linguistics 19: 216–241.
Collard, Howard, and Elizabeth S. Collard. 1962. Castellano-Mayo, Mayo-Castellano. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Cortina-Borja, Mario, Jane Stuart-Smith, and Leopoldo Valiñas-Coalla. 2002. Multivariate classification methods for lexical and phonological dissimilarities and their application to the Uto-Aztecan Family. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 9: 97–124.
Cortina-Borja, Mario, and Leopoldo Valiñas C. 1989. Some remarks on Uto-Aztecan classification. International Journal of American Linguistics 55: 214–239.
Crapo, Richley H. 1976. Big Smokey Valley Shoshoni. Desert Research Institute Publications in the Social Sciences 10.
Crum, Beverly, and Jon P. Dayley. 1993. Western Shoshoni Grammar. Boise State University, Occasional Papers and Monographs in Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics 1.
Dakin, Karen.2001. Isoglosas e innovaciones yutoaztecas.  In JoséLuis Moctezuma Zamarrón and Jane H. Hill (eds.), Avances y balances de lenguas yutoaztecas: Homenaje a Wick R. Miller, 313-343. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Dakin, Karen.2007. Final features and Proto-Uto-Aztecan: A contribution using morphological reconstruction.  In Joe Salmons and Shannon Dubenion-Smith (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2005: Selected Papers from the 17th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 295–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davis, Irvine. 1966. Numic consonantal correspondences. International Journal of American Linguistics 32: 124-140.
Dayley, Jon P. 1989. Tümpisha (Panamint) Shoshone Dictionary. University of California Publications in Linguistics 116.
Dedrick, John M., and Eugene H. Casad. 1999. Sonora Yaqui Language Structures. Tucscon: University of Arizona Press.
Elliott, Eric B. 1999. Dictionary of Rincón Luiseño. University of California, San Diego, Ph.D. diss.
Estrada Fernández, Zarina, Crescencio Buitimea Valenzuela, Adriana Elizabeth Gurrola Camacho, María Elena Castillo Celaya, and Anabela Carlón Flores. 2004. Diccionario yaqui-español y textos: Obra de preservación lingüística. Mexico City: Plaza y Valdés and Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.
Fowler, Catherine S. 1983. Some lexical clues to Uto-Aztecan prehistory. International Journal of American Linguistics 49: 224–257.
Freeze, Ray, and David E. Iannucci. 1979. Internal classification of the Numic languages of Uto-Aztecan. Amerindia 4: 77-92.
Givón, Talmy (ed.)1979. Ute Dictionary (Preliminary Edition). Ignacio: Ute Press and the Southern Ute Tribe.
Grimes, Joseph E. 1955. Style in Huichol structure. Language 31: 31–35.
Grimes, Joseph E., and Barbara F. Grimes. 1962. Semantic distinctions in Huichol (Uto-Aztecan) kinship. American Anthropologist 64: 104–114.
Gursky, Karl-Heinz. 1967. A widespread word for "owl". International Journal of American Linguistics 33: 328-329.
Hill, Jane H. 2001. Proto-Uto-Aztecan: A community of cultivators in central Mexico? American Anthropologist 103: 913–934.
Hill, Jane H. 2011. Subgrouping in Uto-Aztecan. Language Dynamics and Change 1: 241-278.
Hill, Jane H., and Rosinda Nolasquez. 1973. Mulu'wetam: The First People. Cupeño Oral History and Language. Banning: Malki Museum Press.
Hopi Dictionary Project. 1998. Hopi Dictionary / Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni: A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Hunn, Eugene. 1975. Words for owls in North American Indian languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 41: 237-239.
Karttunen, Frances. 1992. An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Kaufman, Terrence. 1981. Comparative Uto-Aztecan Phonology. Unpublished manuscript.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. An Overview of Uto-Aztecan Grammar. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Liljeblad, Sven, Catherine S. Fowler, and Glenda Powell. 2012. Northern Paiute-Bannock Dictionary. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Lionnet, Andrés. 1972. Los elementos de la lengua tarahumara. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Lionnet, Andrés. 1978. El idioma tubar y los tubares según documentos inéditos de C.S. Lumholtz y C.V. Hartman. Mexico City: Universidad Iberoamericana.
Lionnet, Andrés. 1986. Un idioma extinto de Sonora: El eudeve. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Lombardo, Natal. 1702. Arte de la lengua teguima vulgarmente llamada ópata. Mexico City: Miguel de Ribera.
Maddieson, Ian.2011. Lateral consonants.  In Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 8. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/8.
Manaster Ramer, Alexis. 1992. A Northern Uto-Aztecan sound law: *-c- –> -y-. International Journal of American Linguistics 58: 251–268.
Mathiot, Madeleine. 1973. A Dictionary of Papago Usage, 2 vols. Bloomington: Indiana University.
McIntosh, John B., and Joseph E. Grimes. 1954. Niuqui 'Iquisicayari (vocabulario huichol-castellano, castellano-huichol). Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
McLaughlin, John. 1987. A Phonology and Morphology of Panamint. University of Kansas, Ph.D. diss.
McMahon, Ambrosio, and Maria A. McMahon. 1959. Vocabulario cora. Mexico City: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Miller, Wick R. 1967. Uto-Aztecan Cognate Sets. University of California Publications in Linguistics 48. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Miller, Wick R. 1972. Newe Natekwinappeh: Shoshoni Stories and Dictionary. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 94.
Miller, Wick R.1983a. Uto-Aztecan languages.  In Alfonso Ortiz (ed.), Southwest, vol. 10, Handbook of North American Indians, gen. ed. William C. Sturtevant, 113–124. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Miller, Wick R. 1983b. A note on extinct languages of northwest Mexico of supposed Uto-Aztecan affiliation. International Journal of American Linguistics 49: 328–334.
Miller, Wick R. 1984. The classification of the Uto-Aztecan languages based on lexical evidence. International Journal of American Linguistics 50: 1–24.
Miller, Wick R.1994. Clasificación de las lenguas del yutoazteca meridional.  In Zarina Estrada Fernández (ed.), II Encuentro de Lingüística en el Noroeste, Memorias, vol. 1, 311–323. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.
Miller, Wick R. 1996. Guarijío: Gramática, textos y vocabulario. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Molina, Felipe S., Herminia Valenzuela, and David L. Shaul. 1999. Yoeme-English, English-Yoeme Dictionary.
Munro, Pamela, and William E. Mace. 1995. A New Tübatulabal Dictionary (revised preliminary version). Unpublished manuscript.
Ortega, Joséde. 1860 [1732]. Vocabulario en lengua castellana y cora. Boletín de la Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía y Estadística, 1a. época, 8: 561-605.
Pennington, Campbell W. (ed.)1979. Vocabulario en la Lengua Névome. The Pima Bajo of Central Sonora, Mexico, vol. 2. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Pennington, Campbell W. (ed.)1981. Arte y vocabulario de la lengua dohema, heve o eudeva: Anónimo (siglo XVII). Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Poldervaart, Arie (ed.)1987. Paiute-English, English-Paiute Dictionary. Yerington: Yerington Paiute Tribe.
Press, Margaret L. 1979. Chemehuevi: A Grammar and Lexicon. University of California Publications in Linguistics 92.
Preuss, Konrad Theodor. 1934. Wörterbuch Deutsch-Cora. International Journal of American Linguistics 8: 81–102.
Riley, Carroll L. 1971. Early Spanish-Indian Communication in the Greater Southwest. New Mexico Historical Review 46: 285-314.
Robinson, Lila W., and James Armagost. 1990. Comanche Dictionary and Grammar. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Sapir, Edward. 1915. Southern Pauite and Nahuatl: A study in Uto-Aztekan, part II (concluded). American Anthropologist 17: 306–328.
Sapir, Edward. 1931. Southern Paiute Dictionary. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 65: 539–730.
Sauer, Carl. 1934. The Distribution of Aboriginal Tribes and Languages in Northwestern Mexico. Ibero-Americana 5. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Saxton, Dean, Lucille Saxton, and Susie Enos. 1983. Dictionary Tohono O'odham/Pima to English, English to Tohono O'odham/Pima. 2nd ed., edited by R. L. Cherry. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Seiler, Hansjakob, and Kojiro Hioki. 1979. Cahuilla Dictionary. Banning: Malki Museum Press.
Shaul, David L. 1983. The position of Opata and Eudeve in Uto-Aztecan. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 95–122.
Shaul, David L. 1985. Azteco-Tanoan ***-l/r-. International Journal of American Linguistics 51: 584–586.
Shaul, David L. 1994. A sketch of the structure of Oob No'ok (Mountain Pima). Anthropological Linguistics 36: 277–365.
Shaul, David L.2010. The languages of the Opatería.  In David A. Yetman (ed.), The Opatas: In Search of a Sonoran People, 259-271 [appendix]. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Shimkin, D.B. 1949. Shoshone II: Morpheme list. International Journal of American Linguistics 15: 203-212.
Steffel, Matthäus.1809. Tarahumarisches Wörterbuch, nebst einigen Nachrichten von den Sitten und Gebräuchen der Tarahumaren, in Neu-Biscaya, in der Audiencia Guadalaxara im Vice-Königreiche Alt-Mexico, oder Neu-Spanien von P. Matthäus Steffel.  In Christoph Gottlieb von Murr (ed.), Nachrichten von verschiedenen Ländern des Spanischen Amerika, aus eigenhändigen Aufsätzen einiger Missionare der Gesellschaft Jesu, vol. 1, 293–374. Halle: Joh. Christian Hendel.
Steward, Julian H. 1933. Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiute. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 33: 233–350.
Stubbs, Brian D.2003. New Sets Yield New Perspectives for Uto-Aztecan Reconstructions.  In Luis M. Barragan and Jason D. Haugen (eds.), Studies in Uto-Aztecan. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Endangered and Less Familiar Languages, vol. 5.
Stubbs, Brian D. 2011. Uto-Aztecan: A Comparative Vocabulary. Yorba Linda, Cal.: Shumway Family History Services and Blanding, Utah: Rocky Mountain Books and Publications.
Thornes, Timothy J. 2003. A Northern Paiute Grammar with Texts. University of Oregon, Ph.D. diss.
Valiñas Coalla, Leopoldo.2000. Lo que la lingüística yutoazteca podría aportar en la reconstrucción histórica del norte de México.  In Marie-Areti Hers, JoséLuis Mirafuentes, María de los Dolores Soto, and Miguel Vallebueno (eds.), Nómadas y sedentarios en el norte de México: Homenaje a Beatriz Braniff, 175–205. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Voegelin, Charles F. 1935. Tübatulabal Grammar. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 34: 55–190.
Voegelin, C. F. 1958. Working dictionary of Tübatulabal. International Journal of American Linguistics 24: 221–228.
Voegelin, C. F., F. M. Voegelin, and Kenneth Hale. 1962. Typological and Comparative Grammer of Uto-Aztecan: I (Phonology). International Journal of American Linguistics Memoir 17.
Whistler, Kenneth W., and Victor Golla. 1986. Proto-Yokuts reconsidered. International Journal of American Linguistics 52: 317–358.
Whorf, Benjamin L. 1935. The comparative linguistics of Uto-Aztecan. American Anthropologist 37: 600-608.
Whorf, Benjamin L., and George L. Trager. 1937. The relationship of Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan. American Anthropologist 39: 609–624.
Zigmond, Maurice L., Curtis G. Booth, and Pamela Munro. 1991. Kawaiisu: A Grammar and Dictionary with Texts. University of California Publications in Linguistics, vol. 119.