Language name and location: Coatlán Zapotec, Oaxaca, Mexico [Refer to Ethnologue]

语言名称和分布地区: 科亚特兰-萨波特克语 (圣巴尔塔扎洛希查萨波特克语 San Baltazar Loxicha Zapotec), 墨西哥西南部瓦哈卡地区圣巴尔塔扎地区   

1. /ðuβ ˥˨/

21. 

2. /t̪op ˩˥/

22.  /ɣaɭ ˥˨ t̪iβt^jop ˩˥/

3. /t͡ᶊon̪ ˩˥/

23. /ɣaɭ ˥˨ t̪iβt͡ᶊon̪ ˩˥/

4. /ðap ˥˨/

24.  

5. /ɣaɁj /

25.  

6. /ᶊop ˥˨/

26.  

7. /ɣað ˥˨/

27. 

8. /ᶊoɁn̪ /

28.  

9. /jæɁ /

29.  

10. /t̪iɁ /

30.  /ɣaɭ ˥˨ n̪t̪iɁ/

11. /t̪i(Ɂ)βðjuβ ˥˨/

40.  /t̪op ˩˥ ɣaɭ ˥˨/ ( 2 x 20)

12. /t̪i(Ɂ)βt^jop ˩˥/

50.  /t̪op ˩˥ ɣaɭ ˥˨ n̪t̪iɁ /

13. /t̪in̪ ˥˨/

60.  /t͡ᶊon̪ ˩˥ ɣaɭ ˥˨/ ( 3 x 20)

14. /t̪i(Ɂ)ða ˥˨/

70. 

15. /t̪iɁn̪ /

80.  /ðap ˥˨ ɣaɭ ˥˨/ (4 x 20)

16. /t̪i(Ɂ)n̪βðjuβ ˥˨/ (15+1)

90. 

17. /t̪i(Ɂ)n̪βt^jop ˩˥/  (15+2)

100. /ðuβ ˥˨ ajoɁ/

18. /t̪i(Ɂ)n̪βt͡ᶊon̪ ˩˥/  (15+3)

200. /t̪op ˩˥ ajoɁ/

19. /t̪i(Ɂ)n̪βðap ˥˨/  (15+4)

1000. /ðuβ ˥˨ mil ˥/ ( mil < Spanish )

20. /ɣaɭ ˥˨/

2000. /t̪op ˩˥ mil˥/

Other comments: Coatlán Zapotec or Coatec Zapotec as spoken by approximately 500 speakers in San Baltazar Loxicha, Oaxaca, Mexico. Coatlán Zapotec (Western Miahuatlán Zapotec) is a Zapotec language spoken in southern Oaxaca, Mexico. It uses linguolabial sounds as onomatopoeia. It is also known as San Miguel Zapotec and Zapoteco de Santa María Coatlán, to distinguish it from Zapoteco de San Vicente Coatlán. Coatlán Zapotec or Coatec Zapotec has a vigesimal. Please note that the following are the base morphemes. They cannot occur in isolation. They must occur with a complement, not two, but two something. If there is no noun and one is counting in a more abstract sense, one adds a sort of dummy inanimate pronoun. So if teaching a child or a foreigner to count on his fingers etc., the following would have added to them an enclitic, the third person inanimate pronoun, which in this variety would be /=e ˥/ following a consonant and /=j ˥/ following a vowel.

Note also that in this language the phonemic glottal stop functions as a tone. Phonetically it has a high rising pattern in most instances, though this varies while the glottalization is more consistent and makes the contrast with the other four tones of the language. This is why there are no tone letters transcribed below for glottallized morphemes.

There is some doubt about tone, including glottalization on unstressed syllables, and about the lexical integrity of some of the compositional forms. This requires more fieldwork or at least access to some recordings that I currently don’t have access to. In the compositional forms in 11-12, 14, and 16-19, I suspect that the glottalization in the first syllable is actually not there, or at least not there all the time, but I currently can’t say for certain. Likewise, I am not sure whether to consider forms like /t̪op ˩˥ ɣaɭ ˥˨ n̪t̪iɁ βɣaɁj/ ‘55’, as single words, or if multiple words then I’m not sure how many. This has repercussions because if there is only one stressed syllable per word and if tone only contrasts on stressed syllables, then certain of these tones/glottal stops might not be real.

In the past I have elicited all the numbers here and more, but unfortunately it’s been a long time and I don’t trust my memory with data so I am not filling in all the boxes. The problem is, most of my fieldnotes and recordings are in the United States and I am here in Mexico. When I was last in the US I sent notes and recordings to the AILLA archive, but they haven’t digitized them yet so the information is temporarily unavailable. The forms here for 22 and 23 are surprising to me and not what I would have guessed based on memory, but I was able to find them in a text and so I expect that they are correct. If you’re still working on this topic in a few months feel free to check back with me to see if the notes are digitized yet, or look for them on the AILLA website. Consider the form 55 which I cited above. It seems that a morpheme –n̪- unites powers of ten/twenty but when ones are added to these units –β- is used. The unique forms for ‘13’ and ‘55’ are not repeated in greater numbers, where instead the compounds revert to 10+3 and 10+5 strings. In 22 and 23, or at least the forms gleaned from this text I mentioned, it is surprising here that the ti string shows up, as if meaning ‘10’, but note that the -n̪- is absent. Compare ‘22’ to ‘30’. The form for ‘22’ is surprising and the ti makes it look like it would be 32 instead of 22, but you can see that ’30 has an –n- which is lacking in the form given in the text for ‘22’. The forms for ‘70’ and ‘90’, which I did not fill in below because I could not find them in the notes I have with me, I did find in the notes of a previous researcher (Dow Robinson, who published his notes in 1961 I believe), though I do not completely trust his notes, but since mine are unavailable, it’s worth mentioning that I interpret his transcription of ’70’ as /t͡ᶊon̪ ˩˥ ɣaɭ ˥˨ nʐo ˩ t̪iɁ/ and his transcription of ‘90’ as /ðap ˥˨ ɣaɭ ˥˨ nʐo ˩ t̪iɁ/. /n-ʐo˩/ is HABITUAL-there.are, so perhaps the latter string would be literally ‘four twenties there are ten’ and furthermore perhaps the –n- seen in ‘30’ and ‘50’ below comes from a shortening of /nʐo˩/. Obviously, mil is a Spanish loanword.