1

Porque para dar cuenta, muy poderoso señor, a vuestra real excelencia, de la grandeza,

extrañas y maravillosas cosas de esta gran ciudad de Temixtitan, del señorío y servicio

de este Mutezuma, señor de ella, y de los ritos y costumbres que esta gente tiene, y de la

orden que en la gobernación, así de esta ciudad como de las otras que eran de este

señor, hay, sería menester mucho tiempo y ser muchos relatores y muy expertos; no

podré yo decir de cien partes una, de las que de ellas se podrían decir, mas como pudiere

diré algunas cosas de las que vi, que aunque mal dichas, bien sé que serán de tanta

admiración que no se podrán creer, porque los que acá con nuestros propios ojos las

vemos, no las podemos con el entendimiento comprender. Pero puede vuestra majestad

ser cierto que si alguna falta en mi relación hubiere, que será antes por corto que por

largo, así en esto como en todo lo demás de que diere cuenta a vuestra alteza, porque me

parecía justo a mi príncipe y señor, decir muy claramente la verdad sin interponer cosas

que la disminuyan y acrecienten... Finalmente, que en los dichos mercados se venden

todas cuantas cosas se hallan en toda la tierra, que demás de las que he dicho, son tantas

y de tantas calidades, que por la prolijidad y por no me ocurrir tantas a la memoria, y

aun por no saber poner los nombres, no las expreso.

Hernán Cortés, October 30, 1520

Segura de la Frontera, Nueva España (today Tepeaca, Puebla, Mexico)

Excerpt from “Segunda Carta de Relación” addressed to Emperor Carlos V

2

(From “Topics in Spanish lexical dialectology: Wild Kingdom.” Proceedings of the 45th Annual

Conference of the American Translators Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 13-16,

2004. Marian S. Greenfield, comp. American Translators Association, 2004. 169-228.)

TOPICS IN SPANISH LEXICAL DIALECTOLOGY: WILD KINGDOM

Andre Moskowitz

Keywords: Spanish, regionalisms, terminology, dialectology, lexicography, sociolinguistics.

Abstract: This paper contains information on the words used for a few animals, birds and insects

whose names vary by region.1

0 INTRODUCTION

This article presents both the regional and General Spanish terms for certain animals, birds and

insects whose names vary by region. For example, armadillo is the General Spanish term for

‘armadillo’ and is a word used and understood throughout the Spanish-speaking world.

Cachicamo, cuzuco, gurre, quirquincho and tatú, in contrast, are all regionally marked and

regionally weighted terms. What I mean by this is that when you hear someone use the word

armadillo, it tells you little, if anything, about the person’s origin, whereas when the word

cuzuco is uttered there is specific information about the speaker embedded in this usage that you

can glean if you know how to decipher the code.

The purpose of this article is to give you, the reader, an overall picture, albeit an incomplete one,

of the considerable lexical variation that exists in Spanish concerning a small set of fauna that

includes a handful of birds, animals and insects. In so doing, I hope to expand and

internationalize your Spanish vocabulary by injecting it with a healthy dose of regionalisms that

you might encounter should you discuss the following topics with Spanish speakers of diverse

nationalities, social groups, ethnicities and identities.2

A) Animals: 1) alligators / caimans, 2) armadillos, 3) capybaras, 4) opossums, 5) skunks, 6)

tadpoles / polliwogs.

B) Birds: 1) hummingbirds, 2) buzzards / vultures.

3

C) Insects: 1) dragonflies, 2) fireflies / lightning bugs, 3) locusts / grasshoppers, 4) ladybugs /

ladybirds, 5) mosquitos: where is zancudo commonly used, and where not?

Each of these sections can be considered a primitive sketch of a lexical roadmap of the Spanish-

speaking world that charts the salient landmarks relating to a specific animal, bird or insect, an

outline of a picture most of whose details are yet to be drawn. The titles are deliberately phrased

in the plural__

e.g. “opossums” rather than “opossum”__

to emphasize the fact that the “functional

equivalents” that will be presented are often not really equivalents but refer to different species

of the animal, bird or insect in question. The terms or signifiers, as they are called in Saussurian

linguistics, generally do not refer to a single referent or signified, but to a series of related

species, in some cases related only in the loose sense of bearing a resemblance or sharing some

identifying characteristic. In other words, the terms refer to the different types of armadillos,

opossums, hummingbirds, dragonflies, fireflies, etc. that are common in each region.

Not surprisingly, several of these items also show regional variation in the English-speaking

world, such as the following from United States English: skunk, also called polecat in parts of the

South; dragonfly, called mosquito hawk, mosquito fly, skeeter hawk and/or snake doctor in

different parts of the South, snake feeder in the Midlands, darner, darning needle, devil’s

darning needle and/or needle in the West, Upper North, and New England, spindle in Coastal

New Jersey, and, in the San Francisco Bay Area, ear sewer (sewer here is pronounced like a

sewer of fine clothing, not a sewer for draining off sewage); firefly, more commonly called

lightning bug in much of the United States, and fire bug in Pennsylvania; grasshopper, also

called hoppergrass by inversion in the South; and ladybug, with variants ladybird and lady

beetle. (See Pederson, pp. 266-288, and the definitions of these terms and regional notes under

dragonfly and firefly in Pickett’s The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language in

References.)

This article is hybrid in nature. The subsections entitled “Terms by Country” present only those

lexical units I myself was given by native speakers of Spanish, whereas the “Details” subsections

present the findings of previously published sources as well as those of my own research.

Each section is divided into four subsections:

1) Summary

2) Terms by Country

3) Details

4) Real Academia Regional Review

0.1 Summary

These subsections present a synopsis of the regional variation of each item by juxtaposing more

pan-Hispanic forms with more regional ones, and by contrasting regions where more

international or more regional forms are used.

4

0.2 Terms by Country

These subsections consist of lexico-geographic tables in which I present the terms offered by this

study’s informants or respondents (the Spanish speakers I questioned about usage). The Spanish-

speaking countries are listed in a more or less geographical order and the terms offered by

respondents are presented in alphabetical order with the regionally marked usages generally in

boldface. However, none of the terms presented in subsections A3.2 and C1.2, the capybara and

the dragonfly, respectively, is in boldface, as all appear to be regional, and subsection C5.2

focuses on a single variable, the use (or lack of use) of the word zancudo in the sense of

mosquito, and its title reflects this difference.

I collected most of the data by means of face-to-face interviews, but some information was

obtained by written questionnaires, telephone conversations and e-mail correspondence. Most

respondents were monolingual native speakers of Spanish, but some were bilingual individuals

who spoke Spanish and another language that has come into close contact with Spanish such as

Guaraní, Quechua, Quiché3 or Catalán. Almost all respondents indicated they had spent their

formative years in a single Spanish-speaking country. In some cases, precise information was

obtained on the city or region where the respondent grew up, whereas in others only the country

of origin was ascertained. No other facts, such as the respondent’s age or number of years of

schooling, were recorded, although I was able to partially infer such information in the course of

the interviews.

The number of respondents who were questioned varied. Between ten and fifteen were initially

queried from each of the twenty Spanish-speaking countries, except Mexico (30 respondents)

and Panama and Paraguay (eight respondents each). However, up to twenty additional

respondents__

as many as I was able to locate__

were questioned from a number of countries on the

items that, based on the responses from the initial pool of respondents, showed greater intra-

national regional variation. In interviewing these additional respondents, I focused on a subset of

the items (the tadpole, the dragonfly, the firefly, the ladybug and the hummingbird), and made a

special effort to seek respondents from rural and/or peripheral areas of the respective country.

The interviews were conducted by showing the respondents pictures of the animals, birds and

insects in question, adding verbal comments or descriptions whenever I thought these would be

helpful, and asking respondents to give the term most commonly used in their region for them.

Thus I used a primarily onomastic approach which, as Günther Haensch and Reinhold Werner

have pointed out, is not without its pitfalls.

__

el método onomasiológico que caracteriza los atlas lingüísticos. Generalmente

los que hacen encuestas para elaborar un atlas lingüístico no preguntan qué

significa exactamente esta u otra unidad léxica, en qué circunstancias se usa, cuál

es su valor estilístico y cuál su comportamiento sintagmático; lo que ellos

preguntan es qué palabras se usan para referirse a un objeto determinado o para

expresar un concepto delimitado a priori. (Haensch and Werner, Nuevo

Diccionario de Colombianismos, XVIII.)

5

One of Haensch and Werner’s objections to this strategy does not apply to the semantic field at

hand since we are dealing with concrete nouns that do not exhibit any special grammatical

behavior when used in their primary senses. Also mitigating these objections is the fact that my

technique was a modified rather than strict onomastic approach in that, during the interviews, I

also asked questions such as “¿Cómo/qué es un(a) ___?” and “¿Hay alguna diferencia entre un(a)

___ y un(a) ___?”. However, in addition to the problems cited by Haensch and Werner, another

possible flaw in my methodology is that I showed all respondents the same set of images. For

example, I showed all informants a picture of the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus

novemcinctus), an armadillo that is found in much of the Americas, and an argument can be

made that I should have shown the Honduran respondents a picture of the naked-tailed armadillo

(Cabassous centralis), common in Central America, and the Argentine respondents a six-banded

hairy armadillo (Euphractus sexcinctus), etc. Future studies will need to be conducted to

determine whether, or to what extent, this may affect the results.

In this study, respondents with the richest repertoire of regionalisms tended to be rural males

with little schooling. Living in the San Francisco Bay Area of California, United States of

America, I had ample opportunity to interview such people from Mexico, Guatemala, El

Salvador and Nicaragua. I was also able to talk to some people who appeared to have limited

formal education from Ecuador, the Dominican Republic and Bolivia at their respective

consulates in New York City while on a trip there in February of 2004. However, most of the

respondents from the remaining Spanish-speaking countries were people from cities who

probably had at least a high-school education. I took notes on all comments offered, trying not to

give any single observation undue weight. However, the information presented here is

conditioned by both my own limitations as an interviewer, compiler and linguist, and by the

relatively small number and, in some cases, limited diversity of Spanish speakers I was able to

interview.

Although actual response statistics are not indicated, the terms presented in the “Terms by

Country” subsections appear with two types of special marks: 1) a superscript “†” appears after

those terms that were given by only a single respondent from a specific country, and 2) a

superscript “‡” appears after those terms that were given by only two respondents from a specific

country. Words that were offered by three or more respondents from a given country appear in

the “Terms by Country” subsections with no mark. It is important to emphasize that just because

a respondent offers a term for a given item does not necessarily mean that the phenomenon exists

in the wild in his or her country, such as when a Spaniard says an opossum is a zarigüeya or a

Chilean says an alligator is a cocodrilo. While all information contained in this article that has

not been corroborated by other studies should be viewed with healthy skepticism, this is

especially true of those usages that have been verified by only one or two respondents. For a

discussion of the merits and pitfalls of presenting lexicographical information that has been

confirmed by so few individuals, see the last part of this introduction. Despite (or perhaps

because of) the considerable lexical diversity encountered in the course of this study, I believe

the regional variation presented here is, in all likelihood, only the tip of the iceberg, especially in

cases such as the dragonfly and the tadpole.

6

0.3 Details

In these subsections more precise information is presented regarding the terms listed in the

preceding “Terms by Country” subsection and about other terms not encountered in the course of

this study. The paragraphs in the “Details” subsections typically begin with the name of a

country and specify in which regions of that country various terms have been found to be used

with the meaning in question.

If I believe the information in a published source supercedes that which I obtained through my

own research, I present only the material from the published source. However, in cases in which

I believe my data may add something to the findings of published sources, I also include the

information I encountered. The published sources I consulted are far from exhaustive, but quite a

bit of information on regional usage is cited from the following works that will be abbreviated as

follows (the complete bibliographical data appear in References).

DEArg Diccionario del Español de Argentina / Español de Argentina-Español de

España. Günther Haensch and Reinhold Werner. 2000.

DECH Diccionario Ejemplificado de Chilenismos. Félix Morales Pettorino et al. 1984.

DECu Diccionario del Español de Cuba / Español de Cuba-Español de España. Günther

Haensch and Reinhold Werner. 2000.

DEUMex Diccionario del Español Usual en México. Luis Fernando Lara. 1996.

DRAE Diccionario de la Lengua Española. Real Academia Española. 2001.

NDCol Nuevo Diccionario de Americanismos. Tomo I. Nuevo Diccionario de

Colombianismos. Günther Haensch and Reinhold Werner. 1993.

NDCR Nuevo Diccionario de Costarriqueñismos. Miguel A. Quesada Pacheco. 2001.

To fully understand the usage specifications in the “Details” subsections, familiarity with some

of the minutiae of Latin American and Iberian Peninsula geography will be helpful as references

will be made to the following geographic, linguistic and cultural regions:

First-order administrative divisions of Spanish-speaking countries: the names of the countries’

departments (departamentos), states (estados), provinces (provincias), regions (regiones),

or autonomous communities (comunidades autónomas).

The Sierra: the Highlands or Andean mountain region, in Ecuador and Peru.

The Costa: the coastal region, in Ecuador and Peru, and the Caribbean coast region in Colombia.

When Colombians speak of La Costa and costeños they are referring to the land and

people of their Caribbean coast, not their Pacific coast.

The Llanos: the plains that drain to the Orinoco River, in eastern Colombia and the southern two

thirds of Venezuela.

The Altiplano: the highland region of western Bolivia, which also extends into southeastern Peru.

The Lowlands or Eastern Lowlands: in northern and eastern Bolivia, the lowland regions that

drain to tributaries of the Amazon and Paraguay Rivers. The corresponding Amazonian

7

regions of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru are often called the Amazonia or Amazonía, the

Oriente, and the Selva, respectively.

The Cuyo: in Argentina, the provinces of Mendoza, San Juan and San Luis, which are in the

central-western part of the country at the foot of the Andes.

The Cono Sur or Southern Cone: Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina.

The countries of the Rio de la Plata or River Plate region: Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina.

The Hispanic Antilles, sometimes abbreviated in this article to “the Antilles”: Cuba, the

Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico.

Central America: In this article, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and

Panama (all Central American countries except Belize), even though, in terms of lexicon,

Panamanian Spanish typically has more in common with the Spanish of Colombia and

the Hispanic Antilles than with that of the rest of Spanish-speaking Central America.

0.4 Real Academia Regional Review

These subsections present an evaluation of the 2001 edition of the DRAE and are divided into

three parts:

1) DRAE grades

2) DRAE definitions

3) Questions/Comments.

In DRAE grades, the dictionary’s coverage of those usages that were offered by three or more

respondents in this study is evaluated using the following grading scale:

A Corresponding definition, correct regions. This grade is given when the DRAE defines

the term as used in a particular section of this article and correctly indicates the countries

and/or regions in which the term is used in this sense.

B Corresponding definition, incorrect regions. This grade is given when the DRAE defines

the term as used in the section and specifies a region or regions but does not specify them

correctly. Its definition either fails to include regions in which the usage occurs or

includes regions where the usage does not occur. However, the grade of B is raised to an

A if the DRAE’s definition is appropriate, “Amér.” (América, that is, Spanish-speaking

Latin America) is specified in the definition, and the term is used in ten or more (over

50%) of the nineteen Spanish-speaking Latin American countries.

C Corresponding definition, no regions specified. This grade is given when the DRAE

defines the term as used in the section but does not specify any countries or regions in

which the term is used in this sense. In essence, it fails to identify a regional usage as

regional. However, the grade of C is raised to an A if the term is used in at least ten (at

least 50%) of the twenty Spanish-speaking countries.

D No corresponding definition. This grade is given when the DRAE does not include in its

definition of the term a sense that corresponds to the section.

F Term not listed. This grade is given when the DRAE does not list the term at all.

8

In DRAE definitions, the DRAE’s definitions themselves are quoted so that the reader can follow

the analysis that went into their evaluations in DRAE grades and test the observations made in

Questions/Comments. Most of the criticism of the DRAE on issues of “who says what where”

will be implicit in the grades assigned in DRAE grades for the Real Academia’s coverage of

terms, without further comment; explicit observations in Questions/Comments will generally be

limited to broader lexicographical issues such as cross-referencing, glosses, etymologies and

definition strategies.

The purpose of these evaluations is to expose errors, gaps and inconsistencies in specific

definitions in the hope that they will be modified in future editions of the DRAE so that they

accurately describe usage in the Spanish-speaking world from a more international perspective.

Another goal of this article is to get the Real Academia to take a holistic approach to defining

synonyms. For example, when the DRAE cross-references five different words to a sixth word,

or defines the former as types or varieties of the latter, I would like its editors to have compared

all six entries jointly to ensure that the DRAE is internally consistent. In many cases, as will be

seen, this has not been done with due diligence.

One defect most of the DRAE’s definitions reviewed in this article suffer from is a failure to

provide precise taxonomic information on the fauna being defined. While it is true that popular

names for flora and fauna often refer to several species within a particular genus or family and

sometimes to completely unrelated species, the inclusion of scientific nomenclature in definitions

of flora and fauna should be considered a basic lexicographical requirement, for without

taxonomy it is impossible to know to what species or group of species a description refers.

Unlike the leading lexicographers of the French, English, German and Portuguese languages, the

Real Academia has continued to decline to do the necessary research to include scientific names,

even if this were limited to checking with and copying from some of the major dictionaries of

these other languages (or from Haensch and Werner’s contrastive dictionaries), a procedure

which I am not recommending but which would still be better than nothing. As an example, let

us compare the definition of ‘opossum’ from the 22nd edition of the DRAE (published in 2001)

with that of the 4th edition of Pickett’s The American Heritage Dictionary of the English

Language (published in 2000).

zarigüeya. ...Mamífero marsupial de tamaño mediano o pequeño y aspecto que recuerda a la

rata. Las extremidades tienen cinco dedos y las de atrás el pulgar oponible; la cola es

prensil, lisa y desnuda. Es mamífero noctorno y omnívoro, que hace nido en los árboles y

su preñez dura trece días...

opossum ...Any of various nocturnal, usually arboreal marsupials of the family Didelphidae,

especially Didelphis marsupialis of the Western Hemisphere, having a thick coat of hair,

a long snout, and a long prehensile tail.

The Real Academia’s reluctance to get down to brass tacks and provide taxonomical information

on flora and fauna is symptomatic of its general aversion to consulting with specialists in a wide

array of fields. While this institution has many fine language experts in its employ, it needs to

9

enlist the help of more doctors, scientists, mathematicians, architects, engineers and other

nonliterary and nonlinguist collaborators.

*

* *

I will now discuss several issues that lexicographers who research and describe synchronic

language variation must often address.

1) Can definitions describing regional usages be crafted based on oral sources alone, or must

they derive from a corpus of written sources? If oral sources are sufficient, how many people

must confirm a given usage for it to be considered reliable enough to base a definition on?

In the NDCol, published in 1993, Günther Haensch and Reinhold Werner state that oral sources

are sufficient:

__

criterio de frecuencia y actualidad mínima, según el cual se registran sólo

elementos léxicos encontrados en varios textos primarios o cuyo uso corriente ha

sido corroborado por distintos informantes. (Haensch and Werner, NDCol, XXV.)

In the DECu, published in 2000, however, Haensch and Werner indicate that they will only

include terms whose use is supported by both written and oral sources.

Según el criterio de frecuencia y actualidad mínima, sólo se registran en el DECu

elementos léxicos encontrados en varios textos primarios de procedencia cubana y

cuyo uso ha sido confirmado por distintos informantes. El mero hecho de que un

elemento se encuentre en un texto de procedencia cubana no se consideró como

suficiente para la decisión de registrarlo en el diccionario. Los elementos léxicos

observados en los textos primarios fueron consignados sólo tras previa

confirmación de su uso corriente o, por lo menos, del conocimiento pasivo por

parte de varios hablantes del español cubano. En los casos de elementos léxicos

cuyo uso está restringido a la comunicación dentro de los límites de determinadas

ramas del saber o de determinados sectores o grupos específicos de la sociedad se

acudió a informantes especialistas en los respectivos ámbitos. Al aplicar el criterio

de frecuencia y actualidad mínima, no se pudieron emplear métodos estadísticos,

por lo que las afirmaciones implicadas por los datos que ofrece el diccionario

tienen que interpretarse con las debidas reservas. Hay que tener en cuenta, sin

embargo, que la actitud de los que han elaborado el DECu ha sido muy restrictiva

con respecto a la comprobación del uso corriente de elementos léxicos en Cuba.

En casos de duda se ha preferido la supresión de un elemento documentado a la

presentación de datos no apoyados por los conocimientos de un suficiente número

de hablantes y, en el caso del vocabulario especializado, por el juicio de expertos

de reconocida competencia. (Haensch and Werner, DECu, XXV-XXVI.)

10

Haensch and Werner suggest that many usages they encountered in the course of their study of

Cuban Spanish were not included in their dictionary because they were not confirmed by a

sufficient number of sources. However, they do not state how many written sources are needed,

or how many native speakers must confirm a usage for it to be considered reliable enough to

include in their dictionary. And in the case of both written and oral sources, one may ask, “How

many are required, three, ten, thirty, or a hundred?” Another issue is how to document

terms/usages that are frequent in popular speech, but infrequent or virtually nonexistent in

written language. The set of popular regional Spanish-language names for ‘tadpole’ that is

presented in section A6 of this article includes many that may not exist in any published text but

are no less present in the language.

While I believe Haensch and Werner’s conservative approach is reasonable and justifiable, here I

have decided to be bolder and more liberal in my inclusion of terms as my purpose is to present

any and all vocabulary that I believe may be used by large numbers of people from specific

regions. Future studies will need to be conducted to determine or fine-tune the following with

regard to the terms and usages presented in this article:

a) which are used throughout the country they are presented for;

b) which are primarily used in specific regions of countries and what the

approximate geographical limits of those regions are;

c) which are used in regions of the Spanish-speaking world that are not indicated in this

study, and what those countries and regions are.

d) which are used among specific speech communities (such as bilingual

communities) and how those communities are to be defined;

e) which refer only to specific varieties of the fauna in question, and what the scientific

names of those varieties are;

f) which refer to animals or insects that are different from the ones this article claims;

g) in cases in which the respondents from a particular country offered no regional terms

for a given item, what regional terms, if any, are used;

h) what semantic distinctions, if any, do Spanish speakers from different regions make

between the so-called “General Spanish terms” and their regional terms.

Incorrect or inaccurate information contained in this article may be the result of statements I

misinterpreted during the interviews with respondents, images or questions that respondents

misidentified or misinterpreted, or information that respondents gave erroneously, for example,

by inaccurately answering questions on issues about which they were not sufficiently

knowledgeable. Although there may be debate on how many respondents or written sources need

to be consulted in order to properly define regional terms (or what types of respondents or

sources should be consulted), what is clear is that the larger the pool and the greater its diversity,

the greater one’s ability to include accurate information and the better one’s chance of being able

to weed out inaccurate information.

11

2) In cases where two or more spelling variants exist, which lexical form is to be considered the

primary variant, and which ones should be viewed as secondary variants?

Again citing the DECu, Haensch and Werner indicate that frequency of use should be the first

criterion for determining the primary variant, and that the prestige or etymological clarity of the

different spellings should be secondary criteria.

Cuando en el DECu se hallan consignadas una o más formas léxicas que se

consideran variantes unas de otras, se distingue entre una variante principal y una

o varias variantes secundarias. Como variante principal se ha elegido, siempre que

haya sido posible, aquella que estaba documentada como la más frecuente. En los

casos en los que no ha podido observarse una clara diferencia con respecto a la

frecuencia de uso, la decisión se basa en otros criterios, como, por ejemplo, la

mayor aceptación normativa o la mayor transparencia etimológica. (Haensch and

Werner, DECu, XLI-XLII.)

Determining the frequency of use of different variants, however, depends on having a large

enough and reliable enough corpus to consult, which in the case of terms that are used more in

spoken language than in written language, may be scant or nonexistent. Similarly, it is difficult to

draw conclusions about the levels of acceptance or prestige of a set of variants when all are of

relatively low prestige in comparison to the General Spanish term. Lastly, even when the

etymologies are known, choosing between spelling variants involving b or v, hu or gu/gü, s or

z/c, and y or ll do not always lead to greater etymological clarity, for example, in cases such as

tibiriche vs. tiviriche, cusuco vs. cuzuco, and güícharo vs. huícharo.

In some cases orthographical decisions seem arbitrary such as when the DRAE spells cusuco

with an s but guazalo with a z. Is this decision based on the frequency of use, level of prestige, or

etymological clarity of the forms they have selected? An Internet search of guasalo and guazalo

conducted in mid 2004 resulted in twice as many hits for guazalo, but there were so few for each

(less than 30), that the results are probably not statistically significant. Since the DRAE indicates

that both cusuco and guazalo are of Nahuatl origin, are its authors claiming that in Nahuatl

cusuco is pronounced with an [s], a voiceless sibilant, but that quauhzalan (from which,

according to the DRAE, guazalo derives) is pronounced with a [z], a [ts], a [dz], or some other

sound? If etymological clarity is the deciding factor and Nahuatl cusuco and quauhzalan are both

pronounced with the same second consonantal sound, then cusuco and guazalo should both be

spelled with either an s or a z. This issue arises with the names of a number of animals that have

competing spellings such as tepescuint(l)e vs. tepezcuint(l)e, pisote vs pizote, guatusa vs.

guatuza and cotusa vs cotuza, to name a few.

3) What is the relationship between regional and general terms, and how do different sectors of

society view them?

In many cases, General Spanish terms, such as armadillo, and regional terms, such as cuzuco or

cachicamo, have a similar relationship to each other that is marked by diglossia (the use of more

12

prestigious/formal language or more common/colloquial forms depending on the social function

the speaker or writer is performing through language). Although the basic meaning is the same,

the General Spanish terms generally pertain to a higher, more urban, more formal or semi-

technical register, and the regional ones to a lower, more rural, more informal or more everyday

register. People who have some formal education and have interacted with people in both rural

and urban settings tend to be familiar with both the General Spanish term and the regionally

marked terms of the regions they know. However, city dwellers who have had little direct or

indirect contact with rural people may only be familiar with the General Spanish term, and rural

people with little formal education may know only the regional term.

A somewhat similar diglossic relationship exists between minimal semantic pairs that occur in

other languages and varieties such as the following from United States English: alligator-gator,

armadillo-dillo, mosquito-skeeter, opossum-possum and raccoon-coon. The second form in these

pairs, which derives from the first by a process called aphesis (dropping an unstressed syllable at

the beginning of a word), tends to be more common in the everyday speech of the rural areas

where the fauna in question are commonly found, whereas the first member of the pair is the

higher-prestige form that would be used more frequently in educated Americans’ less informal

speech and in writing.

In English-speaking societies, and perhaps in others as well, nonstandard language, especially

slang, was traditionally viewed as a corrupting force, both a sign and a cause of moral decadence

and social decay. Many believed there to be a link between “linguistic purity” and “religious

piety” and between “purity of speech” and “rectitude of action” (Finegan, 375 and 384).

To critics of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, British or American,

approbation of slang from a quarter so august as the Times [Literary Supplement]

would have seemed incredible, a stinging insult to decent English speech. The

critical aim, unattainable and often unexpressed, was steadily to evolve a cogent

and civilizing diction suitable for all human purposes; slang, almost by definition,

was antithetical to such an aim. From the days of Swift and Defoe, an article of

faith for critics and grammarians alike was that unregulated, unstandardized

speech served only to corrupt language, to undermine the human capacity for

rational thought, and thus ultimately to hinder the wise exercise of free will. Slang

was seen as both emerging from and sustaining an undisguised baseness of mind

that must lead to the coarsening of both language and civilization. (Lighter, 227).

Don Ramón Menéndez Pidal (Spanish philologist and historian, 1869-1968) viewed the Spanish

language “as a two-tiered structure in which the standard is on top and popular varieties or

dialects underneath” (Del Valle and Gabriel-Stheeman, 90):

La separación que media entre el español culto común, representante de la unidad,

y el español popular de las varias regiones, representante de la diversidad, no

puede simbolizarse en la creciente divergencia, cuya diferencia llegue a ser tanta

que el español literario quede ininteligible para el pueblo, sino que debe figurarse

por dos líneas ondulantes que caminan a la par en la misma dirección y cuyos

13

altibajos tienden frecuentemente a la convergencia y se tocan muchas veces, sin

llegar nunca a confundirse. El habla literaria es siempre la meta a que aspira el

lenguaje popular, y, viceversa, la lengua popular es siempre fuente en que la

lengua literaria gusta refrescarse (Menéndez Pidal, 186-187).

Menéndez Pidal’s claim that literary language is the pedestal to which popular language aspires

may be true for upwardly mobile persons who, in given situations, have much to gain by using

high-prestige forms. However, it is unlikely to be a goal for a large percentage of the world’s

Spanish speakers whose lack of exposure to formal education, economic situation, social milieu

and job prospects offer them little opportunity or incentive to adopt standard language.

Linguists sometimes refer to “substratum influences” when trying to account for certain features

of a language or variety of a language. For example, some attribute phonological, syntactic,

lexical or semantic features of Irish English to a Gaelic or Irish substratum, or aspects of the

Spanish of Cuzco4 to a Quechua substratum. According to Jeffrey Kallen, an expert on Irish

English, the origins of dialectal features are often framed in substratumist or retentionist terms:

“Substratumist explanations rely largely on the notions of ‘transfer’ or ‘interference’ from Irish

to English..., while a retentionist position seeks support from the history or dialectal distribution

of English itself” (Kallen, 191). Applying these two concepts to the origin of Spanish words, we

could say that muá (‘firefly’ in Paraguay) is the result of an indigenous substratum, whereas

ranacuajo and lucerna (‘tadpole’ and ‘firefly,’ respectively) are variants of General Spanish

renacuajo and luciérnaga that have been retained in some dialects of Spanish. Another common

process is semantic change or semantic shift in which a word’s meaning is broadened, narrowed

or altered. The use in parts of Spanish America of tigre and tigrillo for jaguars and ocelots,

respectively, or, in Central America of gorrión for hummingbird, are examples of semantic shift

in which Spaniards arriving in the New World applied old words to new phenomena that bore

some resemblance to previously known items, in this case tigers and sparrows. As George Turner

put it, “Whether a language used in a new situation borrows new terms or extends the use of

existing ones, change is equally real and inevitable.” (Turner, 280.)

With regard to usage, however, a term derived from a substrate language may figure more

prominently than the corresponding word from the superstrate language. For many Jaliscienses,

Poblanos and Mexicans of other regions, ajolote is the word for tadpole that is on the tip of their

tongues, the lexical lava that is bubbling at the surface. Renacuajo, if they are aware of this term

at all, is in the far reaches of their consciousness and provides but a faint subterranean echo to

ajolote. The same can be said of guarisapo, jocollo, tepocate and a host of other regional

equivalents in their respective regions. In fact, in many cases in which Spanish regionalisms

coexist with General Spanish terms, it often appears as if the universal term itself plays the role

of a “substratum” in the sense of a usage acting as a foundation that underlies and is buried

beneath the popular regional terms. Thus, if one is willing to look at the linguistic variables, not

from the perspective of the dominant classes, but from that of the subaltern ones__

from the

vantage point of those who primarily use regional and popular variants in preference to standard

terms__

it is also possible to view these regionalisms as occupying a higher position than the

General Spanish terms.

14

If we look at words from the point of view of citizenship and nationality, we could say that the

pan-Hispanic armadillo is of General Spanish stock, a citizen of the entire Spanish-speaking

world. Cachicamo, quirquincho and tatú are each citizens of two or more countries, and gurre is

part of Colombia’s national linguistic heritage. There are regions of Colombia where gurre is not

used in the sense of armadillo, but it appears this usage owes allegiance to no other country, nor

can any other claim it as its own. Lastly, there are provincial usages such as billico (‘tadpole’ in

Imbabura, Ecuador) that are of local currency only. These terms are natives of a region on their

country’s periphery, but are stateless insofar as they are not favored by any group of Spanish

speakers enjoying national power or prestige.

4) Fine, but is it Spanish?

What is and what is not Spanish is an age-old question. While most Spanish language experts

would probably agree that tatú and quirquincho are Spanish-language terms, or at the very least

are words that belong to certain varieties of Spanish that have come into close contact with

Guaraní and Quechua, respectively, the general population’s views on the subject vary

considerably. Some Bolivians and Peruvians will say “Nosotros decimos quirquincho pero lo

correcto es armadillo” whereas others will say “No, en nuestro país (or aquí) decimos

quirquincho; armadillo se dice en México (or en Lima)” (or in whatever other city or country

they conjure up). Other words of indigenous origin used by smaller numbers of Spanish speakers

have established a much less secure beachhead within the Spanish language and their status as

members of its lexicon is even more likely to be called into question. For example, some

essentially monolingual Spanish-speaking Bolivians, who regularly use jocollo when referring to

a ‘tadpole,’ insist that this term is not Spanish but Quechua, and refer to renacuajo as the

“Spanish” word or, simply, the “correct” word. This phenomenon has been referred to as

“colonial cringe” or “the uneasy apprehension that one’s own preferences, being different from

those of the metropolis, [are] faults” (Bailey, 479).

A more objective litmus test that has been proposed to determine whether or not a word of

“foreign” origin is part of “Spanish” (or of a regional variety of the language) is to ask whether

the word is used by monolingual Spanish speakers, or only by bilingual Spanish speakers and

monolingual speakers of the foreign language. If there are monolingual Spanish speakers who

use it, then the word is to be considered part of Spanish, whereas if the only Spanish speakers

who use it are bilinguals (Guaraní-Spanish bilinguals, Quechua-Spanish bilinguals, Catalán-

Spanish bilinguals, etc.), then it is not. Again, citing Haensch and Werner’s NDCol, we have:

Ante la dificultad de distinguir, en la práctica, los préstamos, es decir, elementos

léxicos de otras lenguas integrados en el español, y los elementos léxicos de otras

lenguas usados por hispanohablantes en situaciones de plurilingüismo (p. ej.

español-guajiro), pero no integrados en el español, se consignan, en el NDCol,

sólo aquellos elementos léxicos que están atestiguados como usuales por

hispanohablantes monolingües. (Haensch and Werner, NDCol, XXIV.)

15

Such a test, however, is problematic without a clear understanding of what we mean by

“bilingual” since there are many different degrees of bilingualism. In the case of Paraguay, most

of the population is bilingual to some degree and, therefore, depending on how bilingualism is

defined and applied to this test, it is possible that relatively few Guaraní words would be

Paraguayan Spanish words since the few monolingual Spanish speakers in Paraguay probably

use only a small percentage of the Guaraní lexicon in their everyday speech. This would give a

rather absurd result because an equally valid argument can be made that almost any Guaraní

word is also a Paraguayan Spanish word since in Paraguay any Guaraní word can be interjected

into an otherwise Spanish utterance. If Guaraní words are to be accepted as Paraguayan Spanish

words, then the question arises as to how to represent them graphically in a Spanish-language

dictionary: Should they be fully Castillianized (domesticated), partially Castillianized, or left

largely intact?

Guaraní is unique among Spanish America’s indigenous languages in that, in Paraguay, it is at

the center of national popular culture and is used, albeit not in equal proportions, by both

dominant and marginalized groups alike. In fact, it is so closely linked to Paraguayan national

identity that the Paraguayanness of Paraguayans who do not speak Guaraní may be called into

question. In Bolivia, the Quechua and Aymara languages, though certainly an important part of

the national culture and used in large areas of the country’s territory, are nonetheless strongly

associated with the country’s lower socioeconomic strata from which most members of the

upwardly mobile classes seek to disassociate themselves. The fact that Bolivia has two major

indigenous languages, each with its own sphere of influence and neither of which is capable of

gaining the upper hand over the other, also diminishes any claim either would have to being a

national indigenous language. And then there are even more regionally marginalized languages,

such as Guajiro in Colombia and Mam in Guatemala, that are used by much smaller speech

communities in areas that are farther–both geographically and in terms of cultural ties–from their

respective countries’ seats of power and prestige.

Whether an indigenous word is considered Spanish or not may depend to some degree on the

prestige, or lack of prestige, the indigenous language enjoys among Spanish speakers within the

country or region in which it is used. In this article, I have listed all terms collected that I believe

may qualify as Spanish, regardless of whether they also belong to or derive from another

language. However, since the focus here is on regionalisms, many of the words naturally hail

from the geographic, sociocultural and ethnic periphery of the Spanish-speaking world, not the

metropolis, and I leave it to you, the reader, and to Hispanists of every stripe (including Spanish-

language mavens, pundits, shamans, teachers, interpreters, translators, linguists and literati) to

decide which terms lie within the boundaries of Spanish, which are on its linguistic fringe or

frontier, and which are literally beyond the pale.

16

A ANIMALS

A1 ALLIGATORS / CAIMANS

A1.1 Summary

Caimán, cocodrilo and/or lagarto are the terms most commonly used to refer to different types

of alligators and caimans, many of which are endangered in Spanish-speaking countries and do

not exist in the wild in Spain, Uruguay and Chile. In Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venezuela,

Colombia, Bolivia, Paraguay and Argentina, regional terms are used for smaller varieties of these

animals.

Note: In the “Terms by Country” subsections, regionally marked usages are generally in

boldface, a superscript “†” appears after those terms that were given by only a single respondent

from a specific country, and a superscript “‡” after those terms that were given by only two

respondents from a given country. Words that were offered by three or more respondents from a

country appear with no mark. (See subsection 0.2 above.)

A1.2 Terms by Country (6 terms plus variants)

SPAIN caimán, cocodrilo

MEXICO caimán, cocodrilo, lagarto

GUATEMALA cocodrilo, lagarto

EL SALVADOR cocodrilo†, lagarto

HONDURAS caimán†, cocodrilo, lagarto

NICARAGUA caimán†, cocodrilo, cuajipal

‡, guajipal

‡, lagarto

COSTA RICA caimán, cocodrilo, guajipal, lagarto

PANAMA caimán, cocodrilo, lagarto

CUBA caimán, cocodrilo

DOMIN. REP. caimán, cocodrilo

PUERTO RICO caimán‡, cocodrilo, lagarto

VENEZUELA baba, caimán, cocodrilo, lagarto‡

COLOMBIA babilla, caimán, cocodrilo, lagarto‡

ECUADOR caimán, cocodrilo, lagarto

PERU caimán, cocodrilo, lagarto

BOLIVIA caimán, cocodrilo, lagarto, yacaré

PARAGUAY caimán‡, cocodrilo, yacaré

URUGUAY caimán‡, cocodrilo, yacaré

‡

ARGENTINA caimán, cocodrilo, yacaré

CHILE caimán, cocodrilo

17

A1.3 Details

Spain: To what extent do Spaniards make a distinction between caimanes (New World

alligators/caimans) and cocodrilos (African crocodiles)?

Nicaragua & Costa Rica: Respondents indicated that cuajipal and/or guajipal refer to a small

variety of alligator.

Venezuela: Respondents stated that baba refers to a small variety.

Colombia: The NDCol states that the caimán negro is the Melanosuchus niger and describes it as

“el más grande de los cocodrilos de Colombia,” one that can attain a length of up to six

meters. This dictionary also indicates that babilla and babita refer to smaller two-meter-

long varieties (Caiman sclerops, Caiman apoporoensis, Caiman fuscus and Caiman

chiapasius), that tulisio is a synonym of babilla/babita in the Costa or Caribbean coast

region, and that yacaré is a synonym of babilla/babita in the Llanos and Amazonian

regions.

Lagarto: This term is used with some frequency in the generic sense of ‘alligator/caiman,’ or

some specific variety of the animal, throughout Spanish America with the possible

exception of the Antilles and the Southern Cone. In this study, lagarto was offered in this

sense by fifty percent or more of the respondents from Mexico, Central America, and

Ecuador, and it competed favorably with caimán and cocodrilo among respondents from

Peru and Bolivia as well.

Yacaré: The DEArg defines yacaré as, “Reptil similar a un cocodrilo, de tamaño relativamente

pequeño, que generalmente no sobrepasa los 2,50 m de largo. Se alimenta de peces y

otros vertebrados. Hoy en día no es muy común debido a la explotación incontrolada de

su piel... Fam.[ilia] Crocodylae, Caiman crocodylus y Caiman latirostris...” Yacaré

derives from Guaraní and, in this study, was not found to be used anywhere outside the

part of Spanish America that has Guaraní influence, that is, Argentina, Paraguay,

Uruguay and lowland Bolivia.

A1.4 Real Academia Regional Review

DRAE grades: baba (A), babilla (D), caimán (A?), cocodrilo (A?), guajipal (F), lagarto

(B), yacaré (B).

DRAE definitions: cocodrilo, “(Del lat. crocodīlus, y este del gr...). Reptil del orden de

los Emidosaurios, que alcanza de cuatro a cinco metros de largo, cubierto de escamas durísimas

en forma de escudo, de color verdoso oscuro con manchas amarillento-rojizas. Tiene el hocico

oblongo, la lengua corta y casi enteramente adherida a la mandíbula inferior, los dos pies de

atrás, palmeados, y la cola, comprimida y con dos crestas laterales en la parte superior. Vive en

los grandes ríos de las regiones intertropicales, nada y corre con mucha rapidez, y es temible por

su voracidad”; caimán, “(Del taíno kaimán). m. Reptil del orden de los Emidosaurios, propio de

los ríos de América, muy parecido al cocodrilo, pero algo más pequeño, con el hocico obtuso y

las membranas de los pies muy poco extensas”; lagarto, “5. C. Rica y Hond. Nombre genérico

que se da a varias especies de reptiles emidosaurios; p. ej., el cocodrilo o el caimán”; lagarto de

Indias, “caimán (|| reptil emidosaurio)”; baba2, “Ven. Reptil americano del orden de los

18

Emidosaurios, que se caracteriza por su hocico ancho. Vive en ríos, caños y lagunas de las zonas

calientes”; yacaré, “(De or. guar.). m. Am. Mer. caimán (|| reptil emidosaurio)”.

Questions/Comments: For a great many Spanish speakers, caimán and cocodrilo appear

to be synonyms and should, therefore, be cross-referenced to each other or defined in a way that

makes it clear to the reader that they can refer to one and the same animal. The definitions of

baba and yacaré lack what is arguably the most useful information for the reader, namely, that

they are small varieties of caimanes or cocodrilos. Since most Spanish-speaking readers are

familiar with the words caimán and cocodrilo, but not with baba or yacaré, the latter should be

defined in terms of the former (“variedad pequeña de caimán...”). The regional specifications of

sense five of lagarto need to be considerably expanded as it is clear that lagarto is used in the

sense of some kind of alligator or caiman (or in a generic sense) in many more countries than just

Costa Rica and Honduras. Lagarto de Indias is defined as “caimán” without any regional or

historical marker, but is this usage common today in the early twenty-first century in Spain, or

elsewhere in the Spanish-speaking world, as the DRAE’s definition implies, or is this usage now

archaic (and, if so, how long ago did it die out)? Who currently says lagarto de Indias?

A2 ARMADILLOS

A2.1 Summary

Armadillo is the General Spanish term, but regional names are common in most countries where

‘armadillos’ commonly exist in the wild.

Note: In subsection A2.2 below, armadillo is listed only in those countries where no other

regional term was offered (armadillo was offered by some respondents from every country).

A2.2 Terms by Country (c. 10 terms plus variants)

SPAIN armadillo

MEXICO huech‡

GUATEMALA abosh†, armado, bosh

†, cuzuco, iboy

‡

EL SALVADOR cuzuco

HONDURAS armado†, cuzuco

NICARAGUA cuzuco, cuzuco armado†

COSTA RICA cuzuco

PANAMA armadillo

CUBA armadillo

DOMIN. REP. armadillo

PUERTO RICO armadillo

VENEZUELA cachicamo

COLOMBIA cachicamo‡, gurre

ECUADOR cachicambo‡, quirquincho

†

PERU quirquincho

19

BOLIVIA quirquincho, tatú

PARAGUAY tatú

URUGUAY mulita‡, peludo

†, tatú, tatú peludo

†

ARGENTINA mulita, peludo, quirquincho, tatú, tatú carreta

CHILE quirquincho

A2.3 Details

General: Armadillo was the only term given by respondents from Spain, Panama, Cuba, the

Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, and was given by the majority of respondents from

Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.

Mexico: Huech was given by two respondents from the Yucatán, and this is confirmed by

“Voces mayas y mayismos en el español de Yucatán” (see section 1.3 of Víctor Suárez

Molina’s article), and by “El armadillo: pequeño, frágil acorazado En Yucatán se le

conoce como huech” (no author, see References).

Guatemala: Armadillo and armado were given by an approximately equal number of

monolingual Spanish-speaking respondents, but armadillo appears to be more common

among urban speakers and armado among rural speakers. Cuzuco was given by three

respondents from the southern part of the country, iboy or iboy’j by two Quiché speakers

(the apostrophe represents a glottal stop), and abosh and bosh by Mam speakers.

Honduras: The DRAE indicates that run and tatuejo are used in this sense, but does not specify

regions. In what parts of Honduras are these terms used?

Costa Rica: The NDCR defines armado as “Nombre de mamífero desdentado (Dasypus

fenestratus y D. Gimnurus)” but cuzuco as “Armadillo”. Are they the same or different?

Colombia: The NDCol indicates that gurre is used in Antioquia, Caldas, Cauca, Quindío,

Risaralda, Tolima and el Valle (that is in most of western interior Colombia, plus el

Tolima), and that cachicamo is used in the Llanos.

Ecuador: Armadillo was offered by the majority of respondents, but cachicambo was given by

two from Guaranda, and one from (an unspecified part of) the Sierra gave quirquincho. In

what regions of Ecuador are cachicambo and quirquincho commonly used?

Peru: Armadillo was given by the majority of respondents, although quite a few from the Sierra

offered quirquincho.

Bolivia: Quirquincho was given by the majority of Altiplano respondents (collas), and tatú by

most Eastern Lowlanders (cambas).

Paraguay: Tatú (or tatú with a nasalized u) was offered as both the Guaraní and the Spanish term.

Some of those who stated it was strictly a Guaraní term had difficulty coming up with a

“Spanish” term for this item.

Argentina: The DEArg lists the following terms with meaning and/or regional specifications:

mataco, quirquincho bola and tatú bola (small variety of armadillo, tatú bola used in the

Northeast); tatú carreta (large variety, Northwest); tatú mulita (medium-sized variety);

tatú peludo (Rioplatense and Northeast, no size specified); gualacate (Northwest = tatú

peludo). The DEArg indicates that “Rioplatense” refers to the provinces of Buenos Aires,

the southern halves of Santa Fe and Entre Ríos, and a bit of the southeastern part of

20

Córdoba and the northeastern part of La Pampa (according to the map provided on page

XXIX).

Chile: The DECH indicates that peludo is used in Chile to refer to several species

(Chaetophractus nationis, Euphractus sexcintus and Zoedyus pichiy).

Cuzuco or cusuco? When asked to spell the term they offered orally as [cu-SU-co], almost all of

the educated respondents in this study indicated cuzuco. However, both the DRAE and

the NDCR spell the word cusuco, and an Internet search conducted in mid 2004 revealed

that the spelling with an s was ten times more frequent than the spelling with a z. Do the

DRAE and the NDCR favor cusuco over cuzuco because writers favor this spelling, or do

some writers prefer cusuco because the Real Academia prefers it?

Expression: A quintessential Venezuelan expression is “Cachicamo diciéndole al morrocoy

conchudo/conchúo” (The pot calling the kettle black). A morrocoy is a type of tortoise,

and in Venezuelan Spanish a concha can be practically any type of ‘shell,’ including a

cáscara or a caparazón/carapacho; concha and conchudo also have the meaning of

‘descaro’ and ‘descarado,’ respectively.

A2.4 Real Academia Regional Review

DRAE grades: armadillo (A), armado (D), cachicamo (B), cusuco (A or B?), cuzuco (F),

gurre (F), mulita (B?), peludo (A?), quirquincho (B), tatú (A?), tatú carreta (F).

DRAE definitions: armadillo, “(De armado). m. Mamífero del orden de los Desdentados,

con algunos dientes laterales. El cuerpo, que mide de tres a cinco decímetros de longitud, está

protegido por un caparazón formado de placas óseas cubiertas por escamas córneas, las cuales

son movibles, de modo que el animal puede arrollarse sobre sí mismo. Todas las especies son

propias de América Meridional”; cachicamo, “(De or. tamanaco). m. Am. armadillo”; cusuco,

“(De or. nahua). m. Am. Cen. armadillo”; mulita, “2. f. Arg. Armadillo pequeño, tímido y

asustadizo, de hocico prolongado y orejas largas echadas hacia atrás. Su carne es comestible”;

peludo, “5. Arg. y Ur. Especie de armadillo, de orejas medianas y puntiagudas. Tiene el

caparazón con pelo hirsuto y abundante, aunque no muy largo”; quirquincho, “(Del quechua

qquirquinchu, armadillo). m. Am. Mer. Mamífero, especie de armadillo, de cuyo carapacho se

sirven los indios para hacer charangos”; run, “Hond. armadillo”; tatú, “(De or. guar.). m. Arg.,

Bol., Par. y Ur. U. para denominar diversas especies de armadillo”; tatuejo, “Hond. armadillo”.

Questions/Comments: With regard to spelling, the DRAE lists the term cusuco but should

also list cuzuco since this spelling does appear to be common in the Central American countries

in which this term is used. Concerning usage, the regional specification “Am.” in the definition of

cachicamo is a gross overgeneralization. In the definition of armadillo, the phrase “Todas las

especies son propias de América Meridional” is incorrect since South America is not the

exclusive domain of armadillos: few who know much about armadillos would assert that there is

a shortage of them in Central and North America. Also, why are Southern Hemisphere

armadillos mulita, peludo and quirquincho defined as types of armadillos with a description of

their distinguishing characteristics, while Northern Hemisphere armadillos cachicamo, cuzuco,

run and tatuejo are merely cross-referenced to armadillo? Is it because the Real Academia views

the Venezuelan and Central American varieties as being somehow closer to an idealized Platonic

armadillo (the Dasypus novemcinctus, perhaps), unlike the Southern Hemisphere varieties, or is

21

it because of differences in the type of cooperation the Real Academia has received from the

corresponding academies in Spanish America? Either all varieties should be given an

individualized description that pinpoints their distinguishing characteristics, or all should be

simply cross-referenced to armadillo.

A3 CAPYBARAS

A3.1 Summary

With the possible exception of capibara, the different names for the largest rodent in the world

are all regionally weighted.

A3.2 Terms by Country (4 terms plus variants)

PANAMA ?

VENEZUELA chigüire

COLOMBIA chigüiro

ECUADOR capibara‡

PERU ronsoco

BOLIVIA capibara, capiguara/capihuara

PARAGUAY capibara, capivá, capivara, carpincho

URUGUAY capincho†, carpincho

ARGENTINA carpincho

A3.3 Details

General: Dr. Eduardo González Jiménez states that this animal currently has two subspecies:

Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris, which is larger and inhabits wetland areas of South America

(in many parts of the lowlands east of the Andes), and Hydrochoerus isthmius, which is

smaller and inhabits Panama and some (non-Amazonian) parts of Ecuador, Colombia and

Venezuela (see González Jiménez, sections 1.1 and 1.4).

Panama: Poncho, presumably the Hydrochoerus isthmius, is listed in a written source (González

Jiménez, see section 1.2).

Venezuela: In addition to chigüire, the term piropiro refers to a variety of this rodent, probably

the Hydrochoerus isthmius, that lives in the Lake Maracaibo basin (see “El Chigüire” in

References).

Colombia: The NDCol indicates that the chigüiro is also known in Colombia by its variants

tigüiro and titigüí, and that ponche is used in the Costa (note the similarity with the

Panamanian usage poncho that is cited above). In addition, González Jiménez states that

capibara is used in Amazonas, Ariari Sur, Caquetá and Guayabero, dia-baj in Tucumo,

julo in Caquetá and Guayabero, jesús in Ariari Sur, bocaeburro, culopando, pataseca and

tanacoa in the Intendencia del Arauca-Casanare, cabiari and ponche in the Magdalena

River basin region, and sancho in the Cauca River basin (see González Jiménez, section

22

1.2). Another source (Santamaría) states that lancha, lancho and yulo are used in

Colombia, but does not specify departments.

Ecuador: What are the “autochthonous” Ecuadoran names for the capybara__

the names used in

the Shuar, Waorani/Huarani, Siona and Secoya languages__

and why were so few of the

Ecuadorans queried in this study able to recognize and identify this animal? In contrast,

this was an easy task for most of the other South Americans tested, few of whom came

from areas such as the Llanos, the Amazon region, or the Pantanal where this animal is

common. With the loss of a large part of their Amazonian territory (especially at the

hands of Peru in the early 1940s when much of the world’s attention was focused

elsewhere), have Ecuadorans lost some of their Amazonian linguistic repertoire as well?

Or is it the other way around, that is, given the fact that Ecuador is surrounded by more

powerful neighbors, was most of its Amazon territory lost primarily because Ecuadorans

never had sufficient interest in or strong enough ties to their Oriente in the first place to

stake a claim?

Peru: Ronsoco was given by all respondents in this study, but one written source (González

Jiménez, section 1.2) states that capibara and samanai are also used, and another

(Santamaría) indicates that urucumayo is used, but neither specifies departments.

Paraguay: Some respondents stated that carpincho is the Spanish term and capivara, capivá (or

kapiyguá, kapiyvá or other variants) are the Guaraní terms, while others indicated that

carpincho refers to a larger variety and capivá to a smaller variety.

Argentina: Carpincho was offered by all respondents in this study. The DEArg lists capincho

with regional specifications of Northeast and Rioplatense. Another written source

(González Jiménez, section 1.2) indicates that capibara, capivara and capiguara are also

used.

A3.4 Real Academia Regional Review

DRAE grades: capibara (B), carpincho (B), chigüire (A), chigüiro (F), ronsoco (F).

DRAE definitions: carpincho, “Am. Roedor americano de hábitos acuáticos, que alcanza

el metro y medio de longitud y llega a pesar más de 80 kg. Tiene la cabeza cuadrada, el hocico

romo y las orejas y los ojos pequeños. Su piel se utiliza en peletería”; capibara, “f. Arg. y Perú.

carpincho”; capincho, “rur. Ur. carpincho”; chigüire, “Ven. carpincho”.

Questions/Comments: The DRAE lists capibara as a strictly feminine noun, but “amb.”

(ambiguous) would be the more accurate gender designation since an Internet search done in mid

2004 of phrases with capibara(s) preceded by masculine articles (el, los, un, unos, este, estos,

ese and esos) and feminine articles (la, las, una, unas, esta, estas, esa and esas) revealed that the

word is somewhat more frequently masculine than feminine, although the difference was minor

(190 masculine hits vs. 150 feminine hits) and suggests stiff competition between the term’s two

genders. The DRAE’s definition of carpincho, with its full description and Pan Spanish

American mark “Am.,” places this term in a privileged position vis-à-vis capibara and chigüire,

whose definitions contain only cross-references and national marks, but where is the evidence to

support the view that carpincho is somehow more general than capibara or chigüire? In the

NDCol, Werner and Haensch indicate that in Colombia both carpincho and capibara are “semi-

scientific terms” in contrast to chigüiro, which is a national term, but the fact of the matter is that

23

most Spanish-speaking scientists who have done in-depth studies on this animal probably know

at least several different common names for it in addition to their own national or provincial

terms. Why not provide a shorter description for each of the national terms and reserve cross-

references for subnational or lower-prestige terms such as ponche and capincho, respectively?

Using this strategy, chigüire could be defined as, “Ven. Roedor grande y semiacuático

(Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) del trópico sudamericano, con patas y cola cortas que alcanza el

metro y medio de longitud. Llámase también capibara, carpincho, chigüiro, ronsoco, etc. en

otros países.” The other national terms could be defined similarly with the appropriate regional

specifications and synonyms. In other words, providing the scientific names for flora and fauna,

some of the more popular common names, and a succinct description is preferable to only

providing an encyclopedic description full of bells and whistles. Readers who really want to

know all of the capybara’s particulars will, in any case, have to consult sources other than

dictionaries, but those who are already familiar with the creature, albeit under a different name,

will at least have their initial question answered: what is it? To the extent possible, a definition of

a term should relate it to things many readers already know, and, other than a picture, nothing

ties it up better for the reader than providing an exact and familiar synonym. The inclusion of

synonyms in cases such as this one is especially important given the fact that the editors of the

DRAE would apparently consider it a violation of their fundamental principles and time-honored

traditions to include images in their dictionary.

A4 OPOSSUMS

A4.1 Summary

Zarigüeya is closer to a General Spanish term than any of the others, but many Spanish

American countries have a more regional name for this animal.

A4.2 Terms by Country (c. 20 terms plus variants)

SPAIN zarigüeya

MEXICO tacuache, tlacuache, zarigüeya‡

GUATEMALA ishjao†, shiján

†, tacuacín, tacuatcín, uch

†, zarigüeya

†

EL SALVADOR guasalo†, tacuacín

HONDURAS guasalo, tacuacín

NICARAGUA zorro colapelada, zorro de cola pelada

COSTA RICA zarigüeya†, zorrillo

‡, zorro, zorro pelón

†

PANAMA zarigüeya†, zorra

CUBA zarigüeya

DOMIN. REP. zarigüeya†

PUERTO RICO zarigüeya†

VENEZUELA marmosa†, rabipelado, rabipelao, zarigüeya

†

COLOMBIA chucha, chucho†, fara, runcho, zarigüeya

†, zorrochucho

†

ECUADOR raposa, zarigüeya‡, zorro

†

24

PERU zarigüeya‡

BOLIVIA carachupa‡, comadreja

‡, zarigüeya

PARAGUAY comadreja†, micuré, zarigüeya

‡

URUGUAY zarigüeya

ARGENTINA zarigüeya

CHILE zarigüeya†

A4.3 Details

General: The majority of respondents from Spain, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico,

Peru and Chile were unable to name or identify the opossum. Opossums do not exist in

Spain in the wild, and may not be common in the Hispanic Antilles either. To which

varieties do the different terms refer in the different regions?

Mexico: The vast majority of respondents indicated tlacuache and/or tacuache (tlacoache and

tacoache are spelling variants), and the DEUMex lists zorro as a synonym of tlacuache.

Guatemala: Most respondents pronounced the term tacuacín, but several rural speakers said

tacuatcín (where the tc represents a [ts] sound). One Mam speaker offered shiján and

another ishjao, and a Quiché speaker gave uch’, but the latter looks suspiciously similar

to huech = armadillo (see section A2 above).

El Salvador & Honduras: Tacuacín was given by the majority from both countries, but guasalo

was offered by respondents from northern and eastern Honduras (La Ceiba, Olancho),

and by one Salvadoran from La Unión, near the Honduran border. The DRAE, however,

defines guazalo as a different animal (see subsection A4.4 below).

Panama: Respondents stated that, in practice, zorro generally refers to a fox and zorra to an

opossum (even though, in theory, zorra could refer to a female fox or vixen).

Colombia: The NDCol indicates that rabipelada and zorra are General Colombian Spanish

terms, that chucha is used in a wide array of the country’s departments (Antioquia,

Caldas, Cauca, Cundinamarca, Guajira, Huila, Meta, Nariño, Risaralda, Tolima and

Valle), that runcho is used in Boyacá and Cundinamarca, raposa in Cauca, Nariño and

Putumayo, fara in Cundinamarca, the Llanos, Santander and Norte de Santander, and

chucho in el Tolima. Another source (“Zarigüeya Común / Didelphis marsupialis”) states

that zorrachucha and jujube are also used in Colombia, but does not specify departments.

Ecuador: The DRAE states that guanchaca is used in this sense, and another source (“Zarigüeya

Común / Didelphis marsupialis”) indicates that yalu is used, but neither specifies

provinces.

Peru & Bolivia: The DRAE states that muca is used in Peru, and carachupa in Bolivia and Peru,

and that both derive from Quechua (see subsection A4.4 below); another source

(“Zarigüeya Común / Didelphis marsupialis”) indicates that intuto and mucura are used

in Peru. However, neither specifies in which departments of these two countries the terms

are used.

Paraguay: Micuré (or mycuré, mĩcũré, mbicuré, all vowels are nasal vowels) was offered by the

majority of respondents, but the DRAE seems to indicate that this term refers to a

different marsupial (see A4.4 below). Comadreja was offered by one respondent and

zarigüeya by two as referring to opossums. How are these terms differentiated in

25

Paraguay, that is, which refer to opossums, which refer to weasels, and which refer to

something else?

Other terms: Colicorto, colocolo, comadreja, cuica, llaca, marmosa mbicuré, yapó and yupatí

are listed with specific modifiers for specific types of opossums in an Internet article

called “Lista de Marsupiales de Argentina” which indicates that many of these species

are also found in Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. (See article by Rafael Ojeda

and Stella Giannoni in References.) The DECH indicates that llaca refers to the Marmosa

elegans which it defines as, “cierto marsupial de la familia de los didélfidos de algo más

de 10 centímetros de largo y cola finamente velluda de la misma longitud, de coloración

grisácea o rubia algo morena, más oscuro en el lomo que en los costados, con orejas y

dedos amarillos y con un dibujo negruzco muy llamativo cerca de los ojos...” The article

“Las Zarigüeyas” by Mariano Jiménez indicates that marmosas refer to “mouse

opossums” and “fat-tailed opossums,” colicortos to “short-tailed opossums,” and

chichica is the only opossum that exhibits semi-aquatic behavior.

A4.4 Real Academia Regional Review

DRAE grades: chucha (D), chucho (A), guazalo (A, B or D?), micuré (A or D?),

rabipelado (A), raposa (D), runcho (A), tacuacín (B?), tacuache (A), tlacuache (A), zarigüeya

(A or C?), zorro (D), zorro colapelada (F), zorro de cola pelada (F).

DRAE definitions: zarigüeya, “(Del brasileño çarigueia). f. Mamífero marsupial de

tamaño mediano o pequeño y aspecto que recuerda a la rata. Las extremidades tienen cinco

dedos y las de atrás el pulgar oponible; la cola es prensil, lisa y desnuda. Es mamífero noctorno y

omnívoro, que hace nido en los árboles y su preñez dura trece días”; carachupa, “(Del quechua

qara, pelada, y chupa, cola). f. Bol. y Perú. zarigüeya”; chucho, “3. Col. zarigüeya”;

guanchaca, “Ecuad. zarigüeya”; llaca, “Especie de zarigüeya de Chile y Argentina, de pelaje

ceniciento con una mancha negra sobre cada ojo”; marmosa, “llaca”; muca, “(Del quechua

muka). f. Perú. zarigüeya”; rabipelado, “Ven. zarigüeya”; runcho, “Col. Especie de zarigüeya”;

tacuacín, “(Del nahua tlacuatzin). m. Am. Cen. y Méx. zarigüeya”; tacuache, “Méx. zarigüeya”;

tlacoache, “Méx. zarigüeya”; tlacuache, “(Del nahua tlacuatzin). m. Méx. zarigüeya”; zorra

mochilera, “zarigüeya”; guazalo, “(Del nahua quauhzalan, en medio de los árboles, de cuahuitl,

árbol, y tzalan, entre o en medio de). m. Hond. Nombre común de dos especies de marsupiales

americanos, de hocico con largas vibrisas en el labio superior, orejas grandes y redondeadas,

tronco alargado y flexible que termina en una cola muy larga y prensil, y extremidades fuertes,

pelaje largo, fino y lanoso, coloreado con tonalidades doradas en el dorso y amarillo anaranjado

en el vientre. Su carne es comestible”; micuré, “(Del guar. mbicuré). m. Marsupial americano, de

aproximadamente 40 cm de longitud, cola de igual tamaño, y cabeza voluminosa, de hocico

largo y puntiagudo. Entre su pelambre, lanosa y basta, de coloración variable según las especies,

sobresalen abundantes cerdas largas y fuertes”.

Questions/Comments: Zorra mochilera is listed with no regional specification. Where is

this term used? Since the word zarigüeya appears to be autochthonous in Argentina, Paraguay

and Uruguay, but is widely known outside this region, should its definition include regional

specifications (Arg., Par. y Ur.), or should it be considered the General Spanish term? The

DRAE lists the etymology of zarigüeya as “(Del brasileño çarigueia)” but the Novo Dicionário

26

da Língua Portuguesa by Aurelio Buarque de Holanda Ferreira spells this term sarigüéia, which

is the feminine/female version of sarigüê. Not only does the Aurelio not list çarigueia, but there

are currently no words in the Portuguese language that begin with a ç. What authority did the

Real Academia consult to come up with its spelling of Portuguese sarigüéia? If Spanish

zarigüeya is in fact a borrowing from sarigüéia, then the etymology should read “Del portugués

brasileño sarigüéia y éste del tupí sari’wé,” or better yet, “del portugués sarigüéia y éste del tupí

sari’wé” rather than “Del brasileño...” (a nonexistent language). If, on the other hand, the

Spanish term is not borrowed from Portuguese, but instead both zarigüeya and sarigüéia derive

directly and independently from sari’wé or sari’weya, then zarigüeya’s etymology should read

simply “Del tupí sari’wé” or “Del tupí sari’weya.” The Diccionario Crítico Etimológico de la

Lengua Castellana by Joan Corominas indicates that zarigüeya derives directly from Guaraní

sarigweya. Should the origin of zarigüeya be listed in the DRAE as “guaraní,” “tupí” or “tupí-

guaraní”?

A5 SKUNKS

A5.1 Summary

Zorrillo is closer to a General Spanish term than any of the others, but many countries have a

more regional term.

A5.2 Terms by Country (c. 12 terms plus variants)

SPAIN mofeta

MEXICO pay-och†, zorrillo

GUATEMALA par‡, shihuil

†, zorrillo, zorro

EL SALVADOR zorrillo

HONDURAS zorrillo, zorro†

NICARAGUA zorrillo, zorro, zorromión

COSTA RICA zorrillo, zorro†, zorro apestoso

†, zorro hediondo

PANAMA zorrillo

CUBA mofeta, zorrillo‡

DOMIN. REP. zorrillo†

PUERTO RICO zorrillo, zorrillo apestoso†

VENEZUELA mapurite, mofeta‡, zorrillo

COLOMBIA mapurito, mapuro, mofeta‡, zorrillo

ECUADOR ñasgo†, zorrillo, zorrillo apestoso

†, zorro

PERU añas, zorrillo, zorrino

BOLIVIA añatuiyá†, añatuya

†, zorrillo, zorrino

PARAGUAY yaguané, yaguané-í‡, zorrillo, zorrino

URUGUAY zorrillo, zorrino

ARGENTINA zorrino

CHILE chingue, zorrillo

27

A5.3 Details

General: Educated Spanish Americans tend to be familiar with the Peninsular Spanish term

mofeta. Respondents from the Hispanic Antilles indicated they believed skunks do not

exist in their respective countries, and a couple of Dominicans stated that although

Quisqueya has no ‘skunks’ per se, it does have a type of ardilla (‘squirrel’?) that emits a

foul odor.

Mexico: Zorrillo was given by the vast majority of respondents, but pay-och was offered as the

Mayan term by a respondent from the Yucatán, and this is confirmed in “Voces mayas y

mayismos en el español de Yucatán” by Víctor Suárez Molina (see section 1.3).

Guatemala: Zorrillo was given by the majority, zorro by a handful, par by two Quiché-speaking

respondents, and shihuil by a Mam speaker.

Nicaragua: Some respondents indicated that the zorromión is brownish in color, unlike the

zorrillo which is black and white. Is zorro generally a synonym of zorrillo or zorromión,

or is it a third type of skunk? Should zorromión be spelled zorro meón, and is this

question best resolved by determining whether the plural form is generally zorromiones

or zorros meones? The Nicaraguans queried on this point offered different plural forms:

zorromiones, zorros miones and zorros meones, but too few were queried to draw

conclusions in this regard.

Costa Rica: The NDCR indicates that zorro pití is used (in the sense of an unspecified kind of

skunk) in parts of the province of San José.

Ecuador: Ñasgo was offered by a respondent from Azuay. Añas (with no accent mark) and

añascu are listed as Quichua terms in Luis Cordero’s Diccionario Quichua with the

translation of zorro hediondo, but the DRAE indicates that añás (with an accent mark) is

used in Ecuador and Peru. Note that Ecuadorans generally refer to the variety of this

language spoken in their country as Quichua, and consider Quechua to refer to Peruvian

and Bolivian varieties.

Peru: Añas (stress on the first syllable) was offered by Quechua-speaking respondents from

Cuzco.

Bolivia: Añatuiyá was offered by a Quechua speaker from Cochabamba; another Cochabambino

offered añatuya.

Paraguay: Yaguané (or jaguanë, yagua’-né) was offered as the Guaraní term. Two respondents

also indicated that yaguané-í refers to a small variety of skunk. (In Guaraní, the suffix í,

as in yaguané-í, sounds like a nasalized schwa and functions as a diminutive.)

Argentina: The DEArg lists yaguané (with a rural Northeast specification), añango, añasco and

añatuya (with rural Northwest specifications), and chiñe (with a rural Cuyo

specification).

Zorrillo vs. zorrino in South America: While the Argentines queried in this study were

unanimous in offering only zorrino, competition was found to exist between zorrillo and

zorrino in Peru, Bolivia and Uruguay; less so in Paraguay where the competition seems

to be more between zorrino and yaguané. What is the northern most point on the South

American continent where zorrino is commonly used?

28

A5.4 Real Academia Regional Review

DRAE grades: chingue (A), mapurite (B or D?), mapuro (A), mofeta (C), yaguané (B),

zorrillo (B), zorrillo apestoso (F), zorrino (B), zorro (B?), zorromión (F).

DRAE definitions: mofeta, “2. Mamífero carnicero de unos cinco decímetros de largo,

comprendida la cola, que es de dos, y parecido exteriormente a la comadreja, de la cual se

diferencia por su tamaño y el pelaje, pardo en el lomo y en el vientre, y blanco en los costados y

la cola. Es proprio de América, y lanza un líquido fétido que segregan dos glándulas situadas

cerca del ano”; añás, “(De or. quechua). f. Ecuad. y Perú. mofeta (|| mamífero carnicero)”;

chingue, “Chile. mofeta (|| mamífero)”; mapurite, “(Del caribe maipurí). m. Especie de mofeta

de América Central, con el cuerpo amarillento, pecho y vientre pardos, punta de la cola blanca y

una faja oscura a lo largo del lomo”; mapuro, “Col. mofeta (|| mamífero carnicero)”; yaguané,

“2. Arg. mofeta (|| mamífero carnicero)”; yaguré, “Am. mofeta (|| mamífero carnicero)”; zorrillo,

“El Salv., Guat., Hond., Nic. y Ur. mofeta (|| mamífero carnicero)”; zorrino, “Arg. mofeta (||

mamífero carnicero)”; zorro, “6. Am. mofeta (|| mamífero carnicero)”; zorro hediondo, “Am.

mofeta (|| mamífero carnicero)”.

Questions/Comments: The definition of the lead term, mofeta, includes a detailed

description of the colors and patterns of the animal’s fur. All other terms are cross-referenced to

mofeta with the exception of mapurite, which is defined incorrectly as an “especie de mofeta de

América Central...”. However, it seems unlikely that all of the other animals have identical fur

color as those the DRAE describes for mofeta. Should the DRAE describe the color patterns of

each species, or should it make the description of the lead term sufficiently broad so that it

encompasses all varieties? In any case, the lead word should be zorrillo, the least regionally

marked term. Also, note that most of the synonyms have a gloss of “(|| mamífero carnicero)”

whereas the gloss for chingue is simply “(|| mamífero)”. Perhaps the shorter mamífero is

preferable to the more precise gloss, mamífero carnicero, since a) there is only one type of

mammal to which a mofeta refers, and b) the purpose of the gloss is simply to specify to which

sense of mofeta the terms are being cross-referenced.

A6 TADPOLES / POLLIWOGS

A6.1 Summary

Renacuajo is the General Spanish term, but regional popular terms abound: Mexico and Ecuador

seem to have a particularly impressive arsenal.

Note: In subsection A6.2 below, renacuajo is listed only in those countries where no regional

term was offered (renacuajo was offered by some respondents from every country).

A6.2 Terms by Country (c. 50 terms plus variants)

SPAIN cabezolo‡, cabezón

†, cágado

‡, cap-gros, cucharilla

†, cucharita

†,

cullereta, cullerot†, gusarapo

†, renoc

†, zapaburu

†

29

MEXICO ajolote, bilolo†, boloche

‡, cabezón

†, champuzón

†, guarasapo

‡,

guasarapo†, güisarapo

‡, gurusapo

†, gusarapo

‡, pilolo

‡, puneche

†,

samborojo†, siboli

‡, tepocate, teporocha

†, teporocho

†

GUATEMALA ishpeíc†, ishtor

†, ishtunc

†, ishtuz

†, pupo

‡, tepocate

EL SALVADOR cabezón, juturo†, ranacuajo, tepocate

‡, ticuro

‡, torugo

†

HONDURAS mojaculo†, turugo

†

NICARAGUA curasapo†, guarasapo, guarisapo

†, güirisapo

‡, gusarapo

†

COSTA RICA cabezón, pecesapo†, pejesapo

PANAMA gusarapo

CUBA gusarapo‡, ranacuajo

†

DOMIN. REP. cabezón, güícharo†, gusarapo, tapaculos

PUERTO RICO renacuajo

VENEZUELA renacuajo

COLOMBIA guapucha‡, guarasapo

‡, sarapico

‡

ECUADOR ambacho†, billico

‡, chugle

†, chugli

†, güilli

†, güilligüilli

‡, gusarapo

‡,

pilligüille†, pímbalo

†, reinacuaje

†, shushi

†, shucshi

†, shugshi

†, timbul

†,

ultio†

PERU cangulo†, jocollo

BOLIVIA focollo†, jocollo, oshcollo

†, posocollo

†, posogollo

†

PARAGUAY kurúrú-í, yuí-raí

URUGUAY renacuajo

ARGENTINA renacuajo

CHILE guarisapo, pirigüín, ranacuajo†

A6.3 Details

General: Renacuajo was the only term for ‘tadpole’ offered by respondents from Puerto Rico,

Venezuela, Uruguay and Argentina, and was the word given by the majority from Spain,

Panama, Cuba, Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. It should be noted, however, that relatively

few rural respondents from these ten countries were queried on this topic, and this may

explain the dearth of regional terms found. Ranacuajo is an archaic form that has

survived in some regions, and ranita and sapito are also used by many people who do not

have in their lexical repertoire a specific term for ‘tadpole’.

Spain: The DRAE lists cabezón with no regional specification, and cabezudo, cuchareta and

samarugo, all with an Aragón regional specification. In this study, cabezón was offered

by a respondent from Navarra, cucharita and cucharilla by one each from Galicia, and

gusarapo by one from La Vega Baja. Cap-gros (also spelled capgròs) was offered as a

Catalán term by respondents from Barcelona along with cullereta by ones from

Barcelona and Valencia, and cullerot and renoc by ones from Valencia. Cágado and

cabezolo were offered as Gallego terms by respondents from Vigo, and zapaburu as a

Basque term by one from Vizcaya. Cullereta and cullerot, I was told, mean ‘little spoon’

and ‘big spoon,’ respectively, and zapaburu ‘toad head’. The individual from Vizcaya

indicated that zapaburu is also used by persons from that region when speaking Spanish,

including (essentially) monolingual Spanish speakers.

30

Mexico: The following terms were offered by persons from the following states: ajolote (Distrito

Federal, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Jalisco, Puebla, Zacatecas), bilolo (Oaxaca), boloche

(Sinaloa), cabezón (Michoacán), champuzón (Guanajuato), guarasapo (Campeche,

Veracruz), guasarapo (Michoacán), güisarapo and gusarapo (Guanajuato, Jalisco),

gurusapo (Guanajuato), pilolo (Guerrero, Oaxaca), puneche (Michoacán), samborojo

(Michoacán), siboli (Sonora), tepocate (Chiapas, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Jalisco, León,

Michoacán, Nayarit, Yucatán), teporocha and teporocho (Jalisco).

Guatemala: Tepocate was offered by the majority of respondents, and pupo by one from

Esquintla and one from San Marcos. Ishtuz’, isht’or and ishpe’ic were offered by Quiché

speakers, and ishtunc by a Mam speaker. (All of the terms written with an sh could also

be written with an x; the apostrophes represent glottal stops.)

El Salvador: Cabezón was offered by respondents from San Salvador and San Vicente, juturo by

one from Chalatenango, tepocate by two from Santa Ana, ticuro by one from Cabañas

and one from La Paz, and torugo by one from Usulután.

Costa Rica: The NDCR states that guarasapo is used in this sense but does not specify provinces.

Dominican Republic: Cabezón was offered by respondents from el Cibao, güícharo by one from

Hato Mayor, and tapaculos by several from Santo Domingo.

Colombia: Guapucha was offered in this sense by two respondents from the department of

Cundinamarca, guarasapo by two from Santander, and sarapico by two from Atlántico

(Barranquilla). However, the NDCol, and also two respondents in this study, state that

guapucha refers to a small fresh-water fish.

Ecuador: The following terms were offered by persons from the following provinces: ambacho

(Riobamba), billico (Imbabura), chugle and chugli (Azuay, Cañar), güilli and güilligüilli

(Pichincha), gusarapo (Guayas), pilligüille (Cotopaxi), pímbalo (Tungurahua), shushi,

shucshi and shugshi (Cuenca), timbul (Chimborazo), ultio (Guayas). Luis Cordero’s

Diccionario Quichua lists chullchig and chullshig with the translation into Spanish of

renacuajo, but no provinces are specified.

Peru: Jocollo (or joc’ollo in Quechua) was offered by respondents from Cuzco and cangulo by

one from Ancash.

Bolivia: Jocollo and focollo were offered by respondents from La Paz, and oshcollo, posocollo

and posogollo by ones from Cochabamba.

Paraguay: Respondents indicated that Guaraní kurúrú-í means ‘sapo pequeño’ and yuí-raí (or ju’i

ra’y, yu-i ra-î) is ‘hijo de la rana.’ Kurúrú-í, however, seems to derive from cururú,

which the DRAE defines as “Batracio del orden de los Anuros...”.

Different terms for different stages? A few respondents indicated they used different words to

refer to the different developmental stages of the tadpole. For example, one Chilean said

she used pirigüín for the young tadpole and guarisapo for it once the legs had appeared,

and a Salvadoran indicated that cabezón was used for the first stage of development.

More research needs to be done to determine how common it is for different speech

communities to use different terms to make such distinctions (other than the formation of

simple diminutives such as a guarisapo → guarisapito).

31

A6.4 Real Academia Regional Review

DRAE grades: ajolote (A), cabezón (C), guarasapo (F), guarisapo (A or B?), gusarapo

(D), jocollo (F), pejesapo (D), pirigüín (F?), ranacuajo (A or C?), renacuajo (A), tepocate (F).

DRAE definitions: renacuajo, “(De ranacuajo). m. Larva de la rana, que se diferencia del

animal adulto principalmente por tener cola, carecer de patas y respirar por branquias”; ajolote,

“2. Méx. renacuajo”; cabezón, “5. renacuajo (|| larva de la rana)”; cabezudo, “6. Ar[agón].

renacuajo (|| larva de la rana)”; cuchareta, “4. Ar. renacuajo (|| larva de la rana)”; guarisapo,

“(Var. de gusarapo). Chile. renacuajo (|| larva de la rana)”; ranacuajo, “(Del dim. de rana). m.

renacuajo”; samarugo, “Ar. Renacuajo de la rana”. In addition, sacabuche is defined as, “(Del

fr. ant. saqueboute, de saquer, tironear, y bouter, arrojar). 3. coloq. renacuajo (|| niño pequeño y

travieso).”

Questions/Comments: The definitions for cabezón and guarisapo are cross-referenced to

renacuajo and include the gloss “larva de la rana,” but those of ajolote, ranacuajo and samarugo

do not. If the gloss is necessary (and the different gloss for sacabuche suggests that it is), it

should be included consistently in all of the cross-referenced definitions.

B BIRDS

B1 HUMMINGBIRDS

B1.1 Summary

Colibrí is the General Spanish term and every Spanish American country has one or several

regional terms, many of which are formed by the verbs chupar or picar and the nouns flor, miel,

mirto or rosa.

Note: In subsection B1.2 below, colibrí and pájaro mosca are listed only in Spain, the one

country from which respondents offered no other terms (colibrí was offered by some respondents

from every country and pájaro mosca by respondents from many countries).

B1.2 Terms by Country (c. 15 terms plus variants)

SPAIN colibrí, pájaro mosca

MEXICO chupaflor, chupamiel‡, chuparrosa, chupamirto

GUATEMALA chupaflor†, chupaflorita

†, chupamirtos

†, gorrión, pits

†, tsúnima

†,

tsunún†

EL SALVADOR chupaflor, chupamiel, gorrión, picaflor

HONDURAS chupaflor†, gorrión

NICARAGUA gorrión, picaflor

COSTA RICA gorrión, picaflor

PANAMA picaflor, visitaflor

CUBA sunsún, zunzún

32

DOMIN. REP. chupaflor†, picaflor, zumbador

PUERTO RICO picaflor, zumbador

VENEZUELA chupaflor, picaflor, tucusito

COLOMBIA chupaflor, picaflor, tominejo, zumbaflor†

ECUADOR chupaflor, picaflor, quinde

PERU picaflor, quente

BOLIVIA picaflor, quenti†, queri-queri

†

PARAGUAY mainumbí, picaflor

URUGUAY picaflor

ARGENTINA picaflor

CHILE picaflor

B1.3 Details

General: The DRAE indicates that colibrí refers to both insect-eating and nectar-sucking

hummingbirds, but that pájaro mosca refers only to the latter type (see definitions in

subsection B1.4 below). To what extent do laypersons and ornithologists from the

different countries make this distinction?

Mexico: Chupaflor was offered by respondents from Guanajuato and Veracruz, chuparrosa by

ones from the Distrito Federal, Guanajuato, Guerrero, Jalisco, Michoacán, Nayarit,

Oaxaca, San Luis Potosí, Sonora and Veracruz, and chupamirto by ones from the Distrito

Federal and Guerrero.

Guatemala: Gorrión was offered by respondents from diverse regions. Pits was given by one

from San Marcos, tsunún or tz’unun by a Quiché-speaking respondent, and tsúnima by a

Mam speaker.

Cuba: Zunzún and sunsún, which refer to the colibrí abeja or bee hummingbird, are spellings that

were offered by many Cubans in this study and both were widely attested in an Internet

search conducted in mid 2004. A handful of Internet sources also spell the word zumzum

and zum-zum. For other names for hummingbirds used in Cuba, including zumbador, see

“Los Tres Nombres del Zumbador Sagrado ‘Guani Guacariga Guaracacigaba’” in

References.

Venezuela: Is tucusito the diminutive form of tucuso? None of the Venezuelans queried in this

study gave the form tucuso and this term is not listed in the DRAE. Tucuso is, however,

listed in the Simon and Schuster’s International Dictionary English/Spanish

Spanish/English (see Steiner in References).

Colombia: The NDCol indicates that chupalina is used in this sense in Boyacá and

Cundinamarca, quincha in Boyacá and Santander, quinche in Boyacá, Cundinamarca,

Nariño and Santander, and tomineja and tominejo in Cundinamarca.

Ecuador: Several respondents from the Sierra offered quinde and/or quindi. Quinde is the

Castillianized form of the Quichua word quindi. However, since serranos often reduce

and close their unstressed vowels, some say quindi even if they write quinde.

Peru: Quente (or kente, k’ente) was offered by Quechua speakers from Cuzco.

Bolivia: Queri-queri (or k’eri-k’eri) and quenti (or kenty) were offered by Quechua speakers.

33

Paraguay: Mainumbí (or mainumby, mainumbĩ) was offered as the Guaraní term. Given the

nature of the Guaraní word’s third syllable, an argument could also be made that the

Castillianized form should be mainumbú.

Argentina: The DEArg lists dominico, quenti, runrun (should it be spelled runrún?) and

tumiñico, all with a Northwest regional specification.

Gorrión vs. gurrión: In Central America (with the exception of Panama), the majority of

respondents offered gorrión or gurrión, but because in rapid speech the two sound so

similar, it is often difficult to tell which phonetic variant is being used. Or perhaps it

would be more accurate to say that the same sequence of sounds, when spoken quickly,

can be represented graphically by either gorrión or gurrión. In other cases involving a

similar phonetic environment, we note that the spellings riguroso and rigoroso are both

accepted by the DRAE, but the former is preferred and derives from the latter. The

spelling of vigoroso, on the other hand, did not undergo this evolution and has only one

form.

B1.4 Real Academia Regional Review

DRAE grades: colibrí (A), chupaflor (B), chupamiel (F), chupamirto (A), chuparrosa

(A), gorrión (B), gurrión (B), mainumbí (F), pájaro mosca (A or D?), picaflor (C or D?), quente

(F), quinde (A), sunsún (F), tominejo (C or D?), tucusito (A), visitaflor (F), zumbador (B),

zunzún (A).

DRAE definitions: colibrí, “(De or. caribe). m. Pájaro americano, insectívoro, de tamaño

muy pequeño y pico largo y débil. || 2. pájaro mosca”; pájaro mosca, “Ave del orden de las

Paseriformes, propia de América intertropical, tan pequeña, que su longitud total es de tres

centímetros y de cinco de envergadura. Tiene el pico recto, negro y afilado, plumaje brillante de

color verde dorado con cambiantes bermejos en la cabeza, cuello y cuerpo, gris claro en el pecho

y vientre, y negro rojizo en las alas y cola. Se alimenta del néctar de las flores y cuelga el nido de

las ramas más flexibles de los árboles. Hay varias especies, de tamaños diversos, pero todas

pequeñas y de precioso plumaje”; chupaflor, “Col., Hond., Méx., P. Rico y Ven. colibrí”;

chupamirto, “Méx. colibrí”; chuparrosa, “Méx. colibrí”; gorrión, “2. C. Rica. colibrí”; gurrión,

“C. Rica. y Hond. colibrí”; picaflor, “(De picar y flor). pájaro mosca”; quinde, “(Del quechua

quindi). m. Ecuad. y Perú. colibrí (|| pájaro americano)”; tentenelaire, “(De tente en el aire). m.

Arg. colibrí”; tomineja and tominejo, “(Del dim. de tomín, por su pequeñez). m. pájaro mosca”;

tucusito, “Ven. Especie de colibrí”; zumbador, “2. Méx. m. colibrí (|| pájaro americano)”; zunzún,

“(De or. onomat., por el ruido de su zumbido al volar). m. Cuba. Pájaro pequeño, especie de

colibrí”.

Questions/Comments: To what extent is the distinction the DRAE makes between colibrí

(insect-eating or nectar-sucking hummingbirds) vs. pájaro mosca (nectar-sucking hummingbirds

only) valid? This question is important not only for the definitions of these terms themselves, but

also for those of the other synonyms cross-referenced to them. Since chupaflor, chupamirto,

chuparrosa, etc. are cross-referenced to colibrí whereas picaflor and tominejo are cross-

referenced to pájaro mosca, the issue arises as to whether or not the DRAE is correct, that is, do

chupaflor, chupamirto and chuparrosa refer to both insect-eating and nectar-sucking

hummingbirds, while picaflor and tominejo refer strictly to nectar-sucking ones? This seems

34

hard to believe, and my impression is that picaflor, as it is commonly used, is no less general a

term than chupaflor. If the DRAE’s distinction between colibrí and pájaro mosca, and/or the

cross-references it provides are not correct, modifications will need to be made to many of these

definitions. Which of the regional synonyms is best defined as “Especie de colibrí...,” and which

should simply be cross-referenced to colibrí? The gloss “(|| pájaro americano)” that is included in

the definition of quinde seems superfluous (it is not included in the definitions of any of the other

terms cross-referenced to colibrí), as does the phrase “Pájaro pequeño” in the definition of

zunzún. To what end? Anyone who is interested in knowing what a quinde or a zunzún is, who is

not yet familiar with a colibrí, is going to have to first get a handle on the latter term anyway.

The DRAE’s editors should also consider listing the term sunsún as an alternate spelling of

zunzún, as the former is commonly used by educated Cubans. In fact, in terms of language

planning, an argument can be made that sunsún should be promoted over zunzún. Why? Because

whether the word is spelled with s’s or z’s is not relevant to how Spanish Americans seeing the

word in print for the first time are going to pronounce it, but if assisting persons from northern

and central Spain to approximate a more “authentic” (Cuban) pronunciation of the word is a

goal, it would be helpful to them to see the word written sunsún.5

B2 VULTURES / BUZZARDS

B2.1 Summary

Buitre is a General Spanish term that is widely used to refer to both Old World and New World

varieties of vultures, but most Spanish American countries have regional names for the types that

exist in their region.

Note: In subsection B2.2 below, buitre is listed in only two countries, Spain and Puerto Rico,

where no other regional term was offered (buitre was offered by some respondents from every

country).

B2.2 Terms by Country (c. 25 terms plus variants)

SPAIN buitre

MEXICO aura†, zopilote

GUATEMALA cuts†, zope, zopilote

EL SALVADOR cute‡, tincute

†, zope, zopilote

HONDURAS cute, limpiamundo‡, zope, zonchiche

†, zopilote

NICARAGUA querque, zonchiche, zopilote

COSTA RICA zoncho, zopilote

PANAMA gallinazo, gallote

CUBA aura, aura tiñosa, tiñosa

DOMIN. REP. laura, maura

PUERTO RICO buitre

VENEZUELA zamuro

35

COLOMBIA chulo, gallinazo, golero

ECUADOR gallinazo

PERU chonto†, gallinazo, suhuicara

†

BOLIVIA gallinazo, sucha

PARAGUAY iribú, urubú

URUGUAY urubú†

ARGENTINA jote†

CHILE gallinazo, jote

B2.3 Details

General: The modifiers de cabeza roja or cabecirrojo and negro, de cabeza negra or

cabecinegro can be added to the above terms to distinguish between ‘turkey vultures’

(Cathartes aura) and ‘black vultures’ (Coragyps atratus). For example, in Mexico and

most of Central America, one could distinguish between the two by referring to them as

zopilote negro (Coragyps atratus) and zopilote cabecirrojo (Cathartes aura).

Mexico: Zopilote was offered by the overwhelming majority of respondents. Ch’om is used in

the Yucatán according to “Voces mayas y mayismos en el español de Yucatán” by Víctor

Suárez Molina (see section 1.3).

Guatemala: Zope and zopilote were offered by the majority of respondents, and a Mam speaker

offered cuts.

El Salvador: Zope and zopilote were offered by the majority of respondents, and cute by one

from La Unión and one from Cabañas, departments that border Honduras. The

respondent from La Unión also indicated that tincute refers to a type of vulture (see the

DRAE’s etymology of cute in subsection B2.4 below).

Honduras: An article by Atanasio Herranz indicates that zope is used in the entire country, cute

in the “Zona Occidental,” zamuro in the “Zona Suroriental” and zonchiche in the “Zona

Central,” “Zona Occidental” and “Zona Nororiental” or Olancho. However, it is not clear

whether Herranz’s lexical data are based on his own surveys or other written sources.

(See Herranz’s “Formación histórica y zonas dialectales del español en Honduras,” which

contains an extensive bibliography.)

Costa Rica: The NDCR indicates the zopilote is the Coragyps atratus, and defines zonchiche as

“variedad de zopilote de cabeza roja y sin plumas” (presumably the Cathartes aura). If it

is true that some Costa Ricans distinguish between zopilote (Coragyps atratus) and

zonchiche (Cathartes aura), to which bird does zoncho generally refer?

Dominican Republic: Some say laura and maura refer to two different types of vulture (maura =

turkey vulture and laura = black vulture?), whereas others indicated they thought the

terms were synonymous but regionally marked (maura more in the “Sur” and laura more

in the “Este”?). In what way are the two terms distinguished?

Puerto Rico: The DRAE indicates that aura is used in the sense of a type of vulture (see

subsection B2.4 below).

Colombia: The NDCol indicates that gallinazo is the General Colombian Spanish term, chicora

is used in Antioquia, Huila and Tolima, chulo in Boyacá, Caldas, Cesar, Cundinamarca,

Huila, the Llanos and the Santanderes, galembo in Boyacá, Cauca, Nariño, Norte de

36

Santander and el Valle, golero in Antioquia, Atlántico, Bolívar, Cesar, Córdoba, Guajira,

Magdalena, Norte de Santander and Sucre, gus in Antioquia, Caldas, Valle and the Costa,

laura in Córdoba and Magdalena, and zamuro in Cundinamarca, the Llanos and Norte de

Santander. Assuming all this to be the case, what if any subnational terms (i.e. other than

gallinazo) are used in el Chocó (and other points along the Pacific coast region such as

Buenaventura, Tumaco, etc.), and what terms are used in Colombia’s Amazonian

regions?

Ecuador: Ushcu, ulluhuanga (and also shararan?) are listed in Luis Cordero’s Diccionario

Quichua as Quichua words for gallinazo, or perhaps two different types of gallinazo, but

no provinces are specified.

Peru: The majority of respondents gave only gallinazo, but chonto was offered in this sense by a

respondent from Trujillo and suhuicara (or suwik’ara) by a Quechua-speaking

respondent from Cuzco; other Quechua speakers from Cuzco said suhuicara referred to a

young condor.

Bolivia: Sucha is generally masculine (un sucha).

Paraguay: Both iribú and urubú were offered, although some respondents said that urubú was the

Spanish term and yrybú or yryvú the Guaraní terms. For a discussion of how this term

should be spelled in Spanish, see subsection B2.4 below.

Argentina: The DEArg lists cuervo and gallinazo (with no regional specification), jote (with a

Cuyo and Northwest regional specification), and pala-pala (with a Northwest

specification). The one respondent in this study who offered jote was, not surprisingly,

from Mendoza; all others gave only buitre. (Note that the use of jote in western Argentina

coincides with Chilean usage.)

Other terms: There are many other carrion-eating birds, some of which can also be considered

types of vultures. Perhaps the most prominent among them is the South American cóndor

(whose scientific name, according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English

Language, is Vultur gryphus; see Pickett in References). Then there are birds, which

respondents have indicated also eat dead animals, such as the carancho, which the DRAE

claims is also called caracará or querque, and the alcamari or alcamar (see the DRAE’s

definitions of these terms in subsection B2.4 below).

Expressions with vultures: “Botar pólvora en gallinazo” and “Gastar pólvora en gallinazos” were

offered by respondents from Colombia, Ecuador and Panama. The latter expression is

defined by the NDCol as “Emplear medios inútiles e ineficaces en conseguir un fin”. An

Argentine indicated that “gastar pólvora en chimangos” is used in the same sense

(chimango is a type of falcon). Other expressions involving buzzards that were offered

are: “Después que zamuro come, chiriguare roe” (Venezuela). “Sólo falta que me pique

un zoncho” (Costa Rica). “Estar en el pico del aura” and “Por mucho que el aura vuele,

siempre la pica el pitirre” (Cuba). A chiriguare is a Venezuelan bird of prey, and a pitirre

is a Cuban bird that is more agile than an aura.

37

B2.4 Real Academia Regional Review

DRAE grades: aura (A or B?), aura tiñosa (F), buitre (A or D?), cute (A), chulo (A),

gallinazo (B), gallote (F), golero (D), iribú (F), jote (A?), laura (F), maura (F), querque (B),

sucha (F), tiñosa (D), urubú (A or B?), zamuro (A?), zonchiche (A or B?), zoncho (F), zope (B or

D?), zopilote (A or B?).

DRAE definitions: buitre, (Del lat. vultur, -ŭris). m. Ave rapaz de cerca de dos metros de

envergadura, con el cuello desnudo, rodeado de un collar de plumas largas, estrechas y flexibles,

cuerpo leonado, remeras oscuras y una faja blanca a través de cada ala. Se alimenta de carne

muerta y vive en bandadas”; zopilote, “(Del nahua tzopílotl). m. Am. Cen. y Méx. Ave rapaz

diurna que se alimenta de carroña, de 60 cm de longitud y 145 cm de envergadura, de plumaje

negro irisado, cabeza y cuello desprovistos de plumas, de color gris pizarra, cola corta y

redondeada y patas grises. Vive desde el este y sur de los Estados Unidos hasta el centro de Chile

y la Argentina”; zopilote cabecirrojo, “C. Rica y Méx. aura2”; aura

2, “(Voz americana). f. Cuba

y P. Rico. Ave rapaz diurna americana, que se alimenta de carroña, de 70 cm de longitud y hasta

180 cm de envergadura, con cabeza, desprovista de plumas, de color rojizo, y plumaje negro con

la parte ventral de las alas de color gris plateado”; cute, “(Del lenca tincute). m. El Salv. y Hond.

zopilote”; chulo, “9. Col. zopilote”; gallinazo, “(Del lat. gallinacĕus). m. Bol., Col., Ecuad. y

Perú. zopilote”; guala, “2. Col. Ave de la especie del aura2”; guara

2, “Col. Especie de aura o

gallinazo, sin plumas en la cabeza y parte del cuello”; jote, “Arg. y Chile. zopilote”; urubú,

“(Voz guar.). m. Par. zopilote”; zamuro, “2. m. Col., Hond. y Ven. zopilote”; zonchiche, “(Del

nahua tzontli, cabellera, y chichiltic, colorado). m. C. Rica, Hond. y Nic. aura2”; zope, “Am. Cen.

y Col. aura2”; carancho, “Arg., Bol., Perú y Ur. Ave de la familia de las Falconiformes, de

medio metro de longitud y color general pardusco con capucho más oscuro. Se alimenta de

animales muertos, insectos, reptiles, etc. Vive desde el sur de los Estados Unidos de América

hasta Tierra del Fuego. || 2. Bol. y Perú búho (|| ave rapaz nocturna)”; caracará, “Arg. y Hond.

carancho (|| ave falconiforme)”; querque, “El Salv. y Hond. carancho (|| ave falconiforme)”.

Questions/Comments: Should the description in the definition of buitre be made

sufficiently broad so that all of the other regional synonyms can simply be cross-referenced to it,

or should the definition of each regional synonym begin “Especie de buitre o zopilote...” and

then describe its distinguishing features and (preferably) include its scientific names? Other than

Coragyps atratus, Cathartes aura and perhaps carancho-caracará-querque (scientific names?),

what other New World species can be considered types of vultures? Several Nicaraguans in this

study stated that querques are a type of buitre that is common in their country. Should the

Paraguayan term be spelled iribú or urubú? The DRAE lists only urubú but perhaps a case can be

made for iribú since the first vowel sound is somewhere between a nasalized i and a nasalized u.

The other issue is etymology. The Novo Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa by Aurelio Buarque

de Holanda Ferreira says that Portuguese urubu comes from “Tupi uru’bu,” whereas the DRAE

indicates urubú is a “voz guaraní”. Should the DRAE indicate that Spanish urubú derives from

“guaraní,” from “tupí,” or from “tupí-guaraní”?

38

C INSECTS

C1 DRAGONFLIES (also called darning needles, mosquito flies, mosquito hawks, snake

doctors, snake feeders, etc.)

C1.1 Summary

Libélula is the General Spanish term and caballito del diablo is also widely used (the DRAE

claims the two are not synonyms), but most countries have other more regionally-marked terms.

Note: In subsection C1.2 below, libélula is not listed in any country (libélula was offered by

some respondents from every country).

C1.2 Terms by Country (c. 40 terms plus variants)

SPAIN caballito del diablo‡, espiadimonis

‡

MEXICO agujilla†, caball(it)o (del diablo), caraballo

‡, cola del diablo

†, diabl(it)o,

helicóptero†, tibiriche, tibirichi

†, títere

†, turish

GUATEMALA aguja del diablo, caballito del diablo, siacbac†

EL SALVADOR aguja del diablo, bailona‡, caballito del diablo

‡, helicóptero, lavandera

†,

lavandero†, limpiapoza, rin

†

HONDURAS caballito (del diablo), guarito†, San Vicente

†

NICARAGUA pipilacha

COSTA RICA avioncillo†, avioncito

†, helicóptero

†, compadre

†, diablillo

†, gallito

PANAMA caballito del diablo

CUBA caballito del diablo, San Vicente†

DOMIN. REP. bebeleche†, caballito del diablo, San Juan

PUERTO RICO caballito†, caballito de San Pedro

VENEZUELA caballito del diablo

COLOMBIA avioncito†, caballito (del diablo), chapul

†, chicapozo

†, helicóptero,

lavaculos†

ECUADOR achicapozo†, caballito del diablo, cortapelo(s), chapulete, helicóptero,

robapelo†

PERU brujo†, caballito del diablo, cachicachi, carta

†, cartacarta

†, cartero

‡,

chasquero†, chupajeringa

‡, helicóptero, pilpinto

‡

BOLIVIA aguacil†, cortapelo(s), quitapelos

†

PARAGUAY aguacil†, caballito del diablo

†, helicóptero, ñajatí

URUGUAY aguacil†, alguacil

ARGENTINA aguacil, alguacil, comepiojos‡, helicóptero

‡

CHILE matapiojos, helicóptero‡

39

C1.3 Details

General: Caballito del diablo (and its variants caballo del diablo and caballito) along with

helicóptero are used in many different regions to refer to some type of dragonfly. How

widespread are these usages? Are they universal? The term damisela, which is not

defined in the DRAE, refers to the ‘damselfly,’ ‘demoiselle’ or ‘devil’s darning needle,’ a

dragonfly-like insect that folds its wings together backwards when not flying. (See

anonymous “Adultos de Damiselas de Verano” and Pickett’s The American Heritage

Dictionary of the English Language in References.)

Spain: Espiadimonis was offered as a Catalán term by two respondents from Barcelona, but an

Internet source implies that it is specifically the ‘emperor dragonfly’ (see “Alguns

insectes comuns als països catalans” in References).

Mexico: The following terms were offered by persons from the following states: agujilla

(Colima), caraballo (Veracruz), cola del diablo (Guanajuato), diablito or diablo

(Guanajuato, Jalisco, Oaxaca), helicóptero (Cuernavaca), tibiriche (Jalisco, Nayarit),

tibirichi (Nayarit), títere (Colima), turish (Campeche, Mérida). The use of turish (also

spelled turix) is confirmed in “Voces mayas y mayismos en el español de Yucatán” by

Víctor Suárez Molina (see section 1.3).

Guatemala: Aguja del diablo was given by the majority of respondents, and siacbac by a Quiché

speaker.

El Salvador: Aguja del diablo was offered by respondents from San Salvador, San Miguel,

Sonsonate and Ahuachapán, bailona by one from Ahuachapán and one from Cabañas,

lavandera and lavandero by respondents from San Salvador, and rin by one from

Usulután.

Honduras: Guarito was given by a respondent from San Pedro Sula, and the DRAE indicates that

caballito de San Vicente is used in Honduras but does not specify departments.

Costa Rica: The NDCR indicates that compadre, gallego and gallito are used in this sense with

no provinces specified, that compadre del agua and chupagua are used in parts of the

province of Alajuela, and that gacilla is used in the southern part of the province of

Puntarenas.

Cuba: Caballito del diablo was offered by the majority of respondents, San Vicente by one from

Holguín (in the Oriente), and the DRAE indicates that caballito de San Vicente is used but

does not specify any provinces.

Dominican Republic: Caballito and/or caballito del diablo were offered by the majority of

respondents, and bebeleche by one from Hato Mayor.

Colombia: Chapul was offered by a respondent from el Valle, chicapozo by one from

Buenaventura, and lavaculos by one from Santander.

Ecuador: Cortapelo(s) was offered by almost all respondents from the Sierra, chapulete by all

from Guayaquil, and achicapozo by one from Esmeraldas. Note the geographic and

linguistic affinity found between Esmeraldas, Ecuador (achicapozo) and Buenaventura,

Colombia (chicapozo).

Peru: Cachicachi or kachi-kachi was offered by respondents from Abancay and Huancayo

(Quechua term), carta, cartacarta, cartero and pilpinto (Quechua term) by ones from

40

Cuzco, brujo, cartero and chasquero by ones from Trujillo, and chupajeringa by ones

from Lima. Cuchirruntuchi is reported to be used in some part of the Peruvian Amazon

(see “Vocabulario Costumbrista de la Selva Peruana” in References).

Bolivia: Cortapelo(s) was offered by almost all Altiplano respondents (except one who said

quitapelos), and aguacil was given by one from el Beni.

Paraguay: Ñajatí (or ñajatĩ, ñahatî) was offered as the Guaraní term.

Argentina: Alguacil/aguacil was offered by the majority of respondents, and tinticaballo is listed

in the DEArg with no regional specification.

Chile: The DECH defines comecabello(s) and doncellita del agua as synonyms of matapiojos.

C1.4 Real Academia Regional Review

DRAE grades: aguacil (B), aguja del diablo (F), alguacil (A), caballito del diablo (A or

D?), caballito de San Pedro (F), cachicachi (F), cortapelos (F), chapulete (F), diablo/diablito

(D), gallito (A), helicóptero (D), libélula (A), limpiapoza (F), matapiojos (B), ñajatí (F),

pipilacha (B), San Juan (F), tibiriche (F), turish (F).

DRAE definitions: libélula, “(Del lat. cient. libellŭla, dim. de libella, dim. a su vez de

libra, balanza; porque se mantiene en equilibrio en el aire). f. Insecto del orden de los Odonatos,

de cuerpo largo, esbelto y de colores llamativos, con ojos muy grandes, antenas cortas y dos

pares de alas reticulares, que mantiene horizontales cuando se posa. Pasa la primera parte de su

vida en forma de ninfa acuática, muy diferente del adulto”; caballito del diablo, “Insecto del

orden de los Odonatos, con cuatro alas estrechas e iguales y de abdomen muy largo y filiforme.

De menor tamaño que las libélulas, se distingue de estas por el menor número de venas de las

alas y porque pliega estas cuando se posa”; caballito de San Vicente, “Cuba y Hond. libélula”;

aguacil, “Arg. y Ur. libélula”; alguacil, “6. Arg. y Ur. libélula”; chapul, “Col. libélula”; gallito,

“C. Rica. libélula”; matapiojos, “Chile y Col. libélula”; pipilacha, “rur. Nic. libélula”.

Questions/Comments: The DRAE distinguishes between libélulas and caballitos del

diablo, but to what extent do Spanish speakers from different regions, whether laypersons or

entomologists, make such a distinction? No evidence of any was found in this study, but none of

the respondents claimed to be a specialist in the subject. Also, if it is true that, in technical

language, caballitos del diablo (unlike libélulas) fold back their wings while at rest, how, if at

all, are caballitos del diablo distinguished from damiselas which also fold back their wings? The

DRAE defines chapul as both a dragonfly and a species of grasshopper or locust, both senses

with a regional specification of Colombia, which begs the question: In what regions of Colombia

does chapul refer to each sense, and where can it mean both? The DRAE defines pipilacha as

rural Nicaraguan usage, but in this study I had no trouble coming up with many urban

Nicaraguans, including educated Nicaraguans from downtown Managua, who stated this was

their own usage. How should the following terms be spelled? San Juan, san juan or sanjuan?

San Vicente, san vicente or sanvicente? In other words, should terms having derived meanings be

spelled the same way as the saints they derive from, or should new words be created as in

santateresa = ‘praying mantis’? The issue also arises in other languages which may seek

different solutions. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

(see Pickett in References) spells the noun Granny Smith (type of tart apple with green skin) with

initial capital letters, but what if this word is used as an adjective? Should the term be spelled

41

Granny Smith apple, granny smith apple, granny-smith apple, grannysmith apple, or some other

variant?

C2 FIREFLIES / LIGHTNING BUGS

C2.1 Summary

Luciérnaga is the General Spanish term, but many countries have regional names for different

types of flying bugs that glow in the dark.

Note: In subsection C2.2 below, luciérnaga is listed only in Chile, the one country from which

respondents offered no other terms (luciérnaga was offered by some respondents from every

country).

C2.2 Terms by Country (c. 22 terms plus variants)

SPAIN cuca de llum, lluerna‡, llumeneta

‡

MEXICO copechi‡, lucerna

‡

GUATEMALA chupla-ac†, cucs

†

EL SALVADOR lucerna‡

HONDURAS candelilla‡, currunco

†, lucerna

†

NICARAGUA quiebraplata

COSTA RICA candileja†, carbunco

PANAMA cocuyo, cucuyo‡

CUBA cocuyo

DOMIN. REP. cocuyo, cucuyo, nimita

PUERTO RICO cucubano

VENEZUELA cocuyo‡

COLOMBIA candelilla†, cocuyo, cucuyo

ECUADOR cucoya†, cucuya, ninacuro

†

PERU pichincuro†, pinchincuro

‡

BOLIVIA curucusí, ninanina†

PARAGUAY bichito de luz†, muá

URUGUAY bich(it)o de luz

ARGENTINA bich(it)o de luz, tucu-tucu†

CHILE luciérnaga

C2.3 Details

General: Which species are most common in each region, and which terms are used to refer to

them? In each region where luciérnaga and another more regional term are used, do most

people consider them synonyms or different insects?

42

Spain: Cuca de llum, lluerna and llumeneta were given by Catalán speakers. Are there regional

preferences within Catalán-speaking regions, and are any of these terms used by people

when speaking Spanish?

Mexico: Copechi was offered by two respondents from Sonora, lucerna by one from Chiapas

and one from Jalisco, and kokay is used in the Yucatán according to “Voces mayas y

mayismos en el español de Yucatán” by Víctor Suárez Molina (see section 1.3).

Guatemala: Chupla-ac (chupla q’aq) was offered by a Quiché-speaking respondent, and cucs by

a Mam speaker.

Honduras: One respondent indicated that currunco refers to a larger type of firefly than

candelilla.

Nicaragua: Is there a difference between a luciérnaga and a quiebraplata? A few respondents

indicated there was but were unable to clearly articulate it.

Costa Rica: The DRAE and the NDCR define candelilla as “luciérnaga” and carbunco or

carbunclo as “cocuyo” and, in this study, one respondent indicated that a carbunco refers

to an insect that has the incandescent part on its head, whereas the luciérnaga lights up in

the rear part of its body.

Panama: One respondent indicated that luciérnaga refers to a smaller firefly that blinks on and

off about once every second, whereas the cocuyo or cucuyo is a larger one that stays lit

for about seven to ten seconds and then blinks off for about the same amount of time.

Cuba: The DECu defines cocuyo as, “3. Nombre de varias especies de coleópteros que emiten

luminiscencia (Fam.[ilia] Elaterideae, Pyrophorus spp. [varias especies indeterminadas].”

Dominican Republic: Respondents indicated that cocuyo and cucuyo refer to a larger variety (or

varieties?), and nimita to a smaller variety.

Colombia: The NDCol indicates that cocuyo and its variants, cocuy, cucuy and cucuyo, as well as

luciérnaga, are General Colombian Spanish terms, but that candelilla is used in Boyacá,

Cauca and Cundinamarca, minacuro and minancuro in Nariño, and tuco in Caquetá and

Huila. It defines cocuyo as, “Coleóptero que emite luminiscencia. Este nombre se aplica a

varias especies de escarabajos que tienen esta característica, pero sobre todo a los de las

familias de los elatéridos (Gen. [género] Pyrophorus) y de los lampíridos (Gen.

Cratomorphus). Los primeros tienen dos vesículas luminosas a cada lado del tórax, los

segundos tienen luminiscencia en los dos segmentos abdominales.”

Peru: Pichincuro (or pichinquro) and pinchincuro (or pinchinquro) were offered by Quechua-

speaking respondents from Cuzco. What terms are commonly used in the Peruvian

Amazon?

Bolivia: Curucusí (or curuqusí) was offered by respondents from the Eastern Lowlands, and

ninanina by a Quechua-speaking person from Cochabamba.

Paraguay: Muá (or muã) was offered by respondents as the Guaraní term.

Argentina: The DEArg defines bichito de la luz (with a Rioplatense regional specification), and

tuco, tucu-tuco and tucu-tucu (with a Northwest regional specification) as, “Nombre de

varias especies de insectos del orden de los coleópteros, de cuerpo alargado, que pueden

llegar a los 50 mm de largo. Pueden presentar dos órganos luminiscentes dispuestos a los

lados del tórax (Fam.[ilia] Elateridae, Pyrophorus spp. [varias especies indeterminadas] o

en dos segmentos del abdomen (Fam. Lampyridae).”

43

C2.4 Real Academia Regional Review

DRAE grades: bichito de luz (B), bicho de luz (B), candelilla (A or B?), carbunco (A),

cocuyo (A?), cucubano (A), cucuya (A), cucuyo (B), curucusí (A?), luciérnaga (A), muá (F),

nimita (F).

DRAE definitions: luciérnaga, “(Del lat. lucerna, candil, lámpara, y el suf. dialect. -aga).

f. Insecto coleóptero, de tegumento blando y algo más de un centímetro de largo. El macho es de

color amarillo pardusco, y la hembra carece de alas y élitros, tiene las patas cortas, y el abdomen,

cuyos últimos segmentos despiden una luz fosforescente, muy desarrollado”; cocuyo, “(Voz

caribe). Insecto coleóptero de América tropical, de unos tres centímetros de longitud, oblongo,

pardo y con dos manchas amarillentas a los lados del tórax, por las cuales despide de noche una

luz azulada bastante viva”; cocuyo ciego, “Cuba. Variedad menor del insecto cocuyo, de color

negro y sin fosforescencia”; bichito de luz, “Arg. luciérnaga”; bicho de luz, “Arg. y Ur.

luciérnaga”; candelilla, “5. Chile, C. Rica y Hond. Luciérnaga, gusano de luz”; carbunco, “2. C.

Rica. cocuyo (|| insecto coleóptero)”; cocuy, “Am. Mer. y Ant. cocuyo (|| insecto)”; cucubano,

“P. Rico. cocuyo (|| insecto coleóptero)”; cucuy, “Am. Mer. y Ant. cocuyo (|| insecto)”; cucuya,

“Ecuad. cocuyo (|| insecto)”; cucuyo, “Am. Mer. y Ant. cocuyo (|| insecto)”; curucusí, “Bol.

Especie de cocuyo menos luminoso”; lucerna, “4. p. us. [poco usado] luciérnaga”; luciérnago,

“desus. luciérnaga”; tuco2, “(Del quechua tucu, brillante). m. Arg. Nombre de diversos

coleópteros que al saltar se arquean en forma brusca y sonora. Algunos de estos, mayores en

tamaño, poseen luminosidad en el abdomen”.

Questions/Comments: The DRAE’s glosses in its definitions of carbunco, cocuy,

cucubano, cucuy, etc. should be made uniform and consistent, but which gloss is preferable, the

more succinct “(|| insecto)” or the more precise “(|| insecto coleóptero)”? While an argument can

be made that the gloss with the greater level of precision is preferable, especially since in this

case only one extra word “coleóptero” is added, the opposite position also has merit in that the

purpose of the gloss is not to define the term, but merely to point the reader in the appropriate

direction (i.e. cucubano = cocuyo-insect, not cocuyo-tree). Do the DRAE’s editors really believe

that bicho de luz is used in Argentina and Uruguay but bichito de luz is used only in Argentina,

as their definitions indicate, or would they confess that they really meant to indicate that both

terms are used in both countries? In either case, Paraguay may need to be added to these terms’

regional specifications.

C3 LOCUSTS / GRASSHOPPERS

C3.1 Summary

Langosta and saltamontes are used practically everywhere, but each probably refers to different

insects in different places. Many countries have regional terms that are used more frequently to

refer to specific types of grasshoppers or locusts that are common in the respective regions.

44

Note: In subsection C3.2 below, langosta and saltamontes are listed only in those countries

where no other regional term was offered (saltamontes was offered by some respondents from

every country, and langosta by respondents from many countries).

C3.2 Terms by Country (c. 13 terms)

SPAIN cigarrón†, llagosta

MEXICO chapulín, chocho

GUATEMALA chapulín, cuchí†, esperanza

EL SALVADOR chapulín, esperanza

HONDURAS chapulín†, esperanza

‡

NICARAGUA chapulín, esperanza, saltador†

COSTA RICA chapulín, esperanza

PANAMA langosta, saltamontes

CUBA esperanza

DOMIN. REP. esperanza

PUERTO RICO esperanza

VENEZUELA tara

COLOMBIA chapul†, paco-paco

ECUADOR chipo†

PERU pita-pita‡, tisco-tisco

‡

BOLIVIA tititi†

PARAGUAY tucú

URUGUAY langosta, saltamontes

ARGENTINA tucura†

CHILE langosta, saltamontes

C3.3 Details

General: Saltamontes was given by a majority of respondents from Spain, Nicaragua, Panama,

Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. Saltamontes is often pronounced and written

saltamonte, especially in regions where word-final s is aspirated or eliminated.

Spain: Llagosta (Catalán term) was given by respondents from Barcelona.

Mexico: Chapulín was offered by the vast majority of respondents and chocho by ones from

Colima, Guanajuato and Michoacán, but are they the same insect? The DEUMex defines

chapulín as “(Schistocerca americana) Insecto ortóptero, generalmente de color verde

amarillento...” and chocho as “(Mich[oacán]) Mosquito ortóptero saltador”.

Guatemala: Cuchí was offered by a Mam speaker.

Nicaragua: The DRAE states that tapachiche refers to a large, red-winged grasshopper.

Costa Rica: The NDCR defines esperanza as a “variedad de saltamontes de color verde claro, de

unos 8 cm de largo” and chapulín as “langosta, insecto ortóptero”. It also indicates that

tapachiche refers to a large, red-winged grasshopper in Guanacaste (a province that

borders Nicaragua), and that chichimeco refers to a “saltamontes” in the Upala region of

Alajuela province.

45

Venezuela: Several respondents indicated that a tara is a type of large, flying grasshopper/locust,

but others described it as a type of praying mantis, and still others characterized it as a

type of large ‘moth’. To what species (singular or plural) does this term refer?

Colombia: The NDCol indicates that saltamontes is the General Colombian Spanish term, chapul

is used in Nariño and Valle, chapulín in Huila and Tolima, and saltón in el Tolima. In my

interviews, chapul was offered by one respondent from Buenaventura and paco-paco by

several from Barranquilla.

Ecuador: Chipo was offered by a respondent from Cuenca, and Luis Cordero’s Diccionario

Quichua defines chipu as “Insecto de la clase de los Saltones” and ugshachipu as “Saltón

largo y delgado, que parece una paja”.

Peru: Tisco-tisco (or tisqo-tisqo) and pita-pita (Quechua terms) were offered by respondents

from Cuzco; pita-pita by ones from Llactapampa, Cuzco, Peru.

Paraguay: Tucú (or tukú) was offered as the Guaraní term and the Spanish equivalent generally

given was langosta.

Argentina: The DEArg states that tucura is a synonym of langosta and defines the former term

as, “Insecto ortóptero, que se caracteriza por tener poderosas mandíbulas y un tercer par

de patas muy desarrolladas, adaptadas para el salto (Ord.[en] Orthoptera, Fam.[ilia]

Acrididae).”

Langosta: Is the distinction made between saltamontes and langosta the same distinction

throughout the Spanish-speaking world? When shown a picture of a grasshopper from the

United States and asked to name the insect, the majority of respondents from Paraguay,

Uruguay and Argentina (and a substantial number from Bolivia as well) indicated that it

is a langosta. One Argentine indicated that a distinction is made between a langosta

voladora (orange or brown colored locust) and a langosta saltona (green or light brown

grasshopper).

Esperanza Esperanza was described by many respondents from Central America and the Antilles

as being green in color, in some cases in contrast to other grasshoppers (such as

chapulines) that were described as being darker in color.

Other terms: Chacuatete was given by several Salvadoran respondents, and two Internet sources

indicate that the chacuatete is greenish brown in color, grows up to five centimeters in

length, is a pest that attacks coffee, plantains and chayote squash plants, and is common

in Central America and southern Mexico (see Juan Barrera’s “Aspectos Bioecológicos

del Chacuatete...” and “El Chacuatete” in References). What regional variation occurs

with the use of grillo, cigarra and chicharra? Although these are generally considered

types of crickets rather than grasshoppers, some respondents indicated that they use these

terms in the sense of grasshoppers.

C3.4 Real Academia Regional Review

DRAE grades: chacuatete (F), chapulín (A?), chocho (D), esperanza (D), langosta (A),

pacopaco and paco-paco (F), tara (A), tucú (F).

46

DRAE definitions: saltamontes, “Insecto ortóptero de la familia de los Acrídidos, de

cabeza gruesa, ojos prominentes, antenas finas, alas membranosas, patas anteriores cortas y muy

robustas y largas las posteriores, con las cuales da grandes saltos. Se conocen numerosas

especies, todas herbívoras y muchas de ellas comunes en España”; langosta, “(De lagosta). f.

Insecto ortóptero de la familia de los Acrídidos, de color gris amarillento, de cuatro a seis

centímetros de largo, cabeza gruesa, ojos prominentes, antenas finas y alas membranosas; el

tercer par de patas es muy robusto y a propósito para saltar. Es fitófago, y en ciertas

circumstancias se multiplica extraordinariamente, formando espesas nubes que arrasan comarcas

enteras”; cigarrón, “saltamontes”; chapul, “2. Col. Especie de langosta o saltamontes”;

chapulín, “(Del nahua chapolin). m. Am. Cen., Col. y Méx. Langosta, cigarrón”; saltón, “4. m.

Saltamontes, especialmente cuando tiene las alas rudimentarias”; tapachiche, “Nic. Insecto,

especie de langosta grande de alas rojas”; tara, “2. Ven. Especie de langosta de tierra, mayor que

la común”; tucura, “(Del port. brasileño tucura). m. Arg. y Ur. langosta (|| insecto)”.

Questions/Comments: The DRAE distinguishes between saltamontes and langosta in its

definitions of these two terms. However, by defining chapul as “Especie de langosta o

saltamontes” and chapulín as “langosta, cigarrón,” the DRAE seems to be conflating the terms

saltamontes, langosta and cigarrón, which contradicts its own definitions of saltamontes and

langosta.

C4 LADYBUGS / LADYBIRDS

C4.1 Summary

Mariquita is the General Spanish term, but many countries have regional terms that are used

more frequently than mariquita. Many of these terms, such as cotorrita, conchita, chinita,

petilla, tortolita and vaquita, are also diminutive forms, and many of the base forms, such as

cotorra, gallina, loro, peta, tórtola and vaca, can refer to birds or animals.

Note: In subsection C4.2 below, mariquita is listed only in those countries where no other

regional term was offered (mariquita was offered by some respondents from every country).

C4.2 Terms by Country (c. 25 terms plus variants)

SPAIN marieta‡, mariquilla

‡

MEXICO catarina, cajita†, conchita

†, gallinita, vaquita

†

GUATEMALA tortolita

EL SALVADOR periquita, tortuguilla†, tortuguita

‡

HONDURAS mariquita

NICARAGUA conchita, tortuguita

COSTA RICA vaquita

PANAMA mariquita

CUBA cotorrita

DOMIN. REP. chincha de palo†, vaquita

47

PUERTO RICO vaquita†, vaquita de San Pedro

†

VENEZUELA coquito

COLOMBIA petaquita‡

ECUADOR periquita†, vaquita de San Antón

PERU cochinilla (de San Antón)‡, cucarach(it)a martina, lorito, uchu-uchu-

curu‡, vaquita (de San Antón)

BOLIVIA lorito†, petilla, petita

†, vaquita de San Antonio

†

PARAGUAY lembuí†, lembú pytã’í

†, vaquita de San Antonio

†

URUGUAY bichito de San Antonio†, San Antonio

‡

ARGENTINA bich(it)o de la suerte‡, vaquita de San Antonio

CHILE chinita, catita†

C4.3 Details

General: Mariquita was given by a majority of respondents from Spain, El Salvador, Honduras,

Costa Rica, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Colombia,

Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia.

Spain: Marieta (Catalán term) was given by two respondents from Barcelona. The DRAE defines

cochinilla de San Antón and vaca de San Antón as synonyms of mariquita, without

specifying provinces or comunidades autónomas, and indicates that gallinita is used in

Aragón, Burgos, Córdoba and La Rioja, and margarita in Álava, Cádiz, León and

Zaragoza.

Mexico: Catarina was offered by respondents from diverse regions, gallinita by ones from

Jalisco, Michoacán and Nayarit, cajita by one from León, and vaquita by one from

Chihuahua.

Nicaragua: There is some evidence to suggest that conchita is used in the central and southern

part of the country whereas tortuguita is used more in the North.

Colombia: The NDCol indicates that mariquita is the General Colombian Spanish term, and that

petaquita is used in Antioquia, Cundinamarca and el Tolima.

Ecuador: Vaquita de San Antón was given by respondents from Guayaquil, and periquita by one

from Cotopaxi.

Peru: Cucarachita martina was offered by respondents from different regions, cochinilla de San

Antón by ones from Lima, lorito by ones from Cuzco and Huancayo, and uchu-uchu-curu

(Quechua term) by ones from Cuzco.

Bolivia: Petilla and petita were offered by respondents from the Eastern Lowlands, and lorito by

one from La Paz; a peta, in the Lowlands, is a turtle.

Paraguay: Lembuí and lembú pytã’í were offered as Guaraní terms. Lembu means beetle and

lembú pytã’í means little red beetle.

48

C4.4 Real Academia Regional Review

DRAE grades: catarina (F), catarinita (A), conchita (F), coquito (D), cotorrita (A),

chinita (D), gallinita (B?), lorito (F), mariquita (A), petilla (F), San Antonio (F), tortolita (D),

tortuguita (F), vaca de San Antón (C), vaquita (F), vaquita de San Antón (F), vaquita de San

Antonio (F).

DRAE definitions: mariquita, “(Del dim. de marica). 1. f. Insecto coleóptero del suborden

de los Trímeros, de cuerpo semiesférico, de unos siete milímetros de largo, con antenas

engrosadas hacia la punta, cabeza pequeña, alas membranosas muy desarrolladas y patas muy

cortas. Es negruzco por debajo y encarnado brillante por encima, con varios puntos negros en los

élitros y en el dorso del metatórax. El insecto adulto y su larva se alimentan de pulgones, por lo

cual son útiles al agricultor. 2. f. Insecto hemíptero, sin alas membranosas, de cuerpo aplastado,

estrecho, oval, y como de un centímetro de largo, cabeza pequeña, triangular y pegada al coselete,

antenas de cuatro artejos, élitros que cubren el abdomen, y patas bastante largas y muy finas. Es

por debajo de color pardo oscuro y por encima encarnado con tres manchitas negras, cuyo

conjunto se asemeja al tao de San Antón o al escudo de la Orden del Carmen. Abunda en España

y se alimenta de plantas”; catarinita, “(Del dim. de Catalina, n. p. [nombre propio]; cf. catana2).

f. Méx. Coleóptero pequeño y de color rojo”; cochinilla de San Antón, “mariquita (|| insecto

coleóptero)”; cotorrita, “Cuba. Nombre genérico de varios insectos coleópteros de pequeño

tamaño, cuerpo abombado casi hemisférico, de colores muy vivos”; gallinita, “(Del dim. de

gallina). f. Ar.[agón], Burg.[os], Córd.[oba] y Rioja. mariquita (|| insecto coleóptero)”;

margarita, “7. Ál[ava]., Cád[iz]., León y Zar[agoza]. mariquita (|| insecto coleóptero)”; vaca de

San Antón, “mariquita (|| insecto coleóptero)”.

Questions/Comments: The DRAE provides two different insect-related senses for

mariquita: sense one, “Insecto coleóptero...” and sense two, “Insecto hemíptero...” and it cross-

references several terms to the former sense (cochinilla de San Antón, gallinita, margarita and

vaca de San Antón), and none to the latter. But is it true that the terms cross-referenced to

mariquita refer only to the “insecto coleóptero,” and not to the “insecto hemíptero”? This seems

hard to believe, especially in the case of vaca de San Antón, given that the description of the

hemipteran sense of mariquita includes the phrase “cuyo conjunto se asemeja al tao de San

Antón.” In other words, it seems likely that vaca de San Antón can also refer to the “insecto

hemíptero” since its patterns are similar to those worn by knights of the Order of San Antonio

Abad.

C5 MOSQUITOS: Where is zancudo commonly used, and where not?

C5.1 Summary

Zancudo is used in the sense of some type of ‘mosquito’ (sometimes a generic mosquito,

sometimes specifically a long-legged one) in most of the Spanish-speaking world, but in Spain,

parts of the Hispanic Antilles, and parts of the River Plate region, zancudo appears not to be used

or less commonly used in this sense.

49

C5.2 Zancudo: Commonly used in the sense of (some kind of) ‘mosquito,’ or not?

SPAIN no

MEXICO yes

GUATEMALA yes

EL SALVADOR yes

HONDURAS yes

NICARAGUA yes

COSTA RICA yes

PANAMA yes

CUBA no

DOMIN. REP. yes

PUERTO RICO no

VENEZUELA yes

COLOMBIA yes

ECUADOR yes

PERU yes

BOLIVIA yes, but more said they used only mosquito

PARAGUAY no

URUGUAY no

ARGENTINA no in some regions, yes in others

CHILE yes

C5.3 Details

General: To what species do the terms zancudo and mosquito refer in the different regions of the

Spanish-speaking world?

Cuba: Zancudo was not offered by any of this study’s Cuban respondents and is not listed in the

DECu.

Puerto Rico: Several respondents indicated that they believed zancudo is used in the sense of

‘mosquito’ by older and rural Puerto Ricans, but no independent confirmation of this was

obtained. (All Puerto Rican respondents in this study stated that mosquito was the only

term they used, generically, to refer to this insect, but none was rural and elderly.)

Argentina: Zancudo is listed in the DEArg in the sense of ‘long-legged mosquito’ with no

regional specification, and this was confirmed by a handful of respondents in this study.

However, the majority of respondents from the province of Buenos Aires were not

familiar with this term and indicated that mosquito was the only term they used to refer,

generically, to all mosquitos. An Argentine from Santa Fe indicated that zancudo refers to

the long-legged mosquito that does not bite.

Other terms: The following are a few other words for mosquitos and/or gnats that were offered by

respondents or found in written sources: chitra (Panama, small mosquito; is it more like a

jején, ‘gnat’?); chuspi (Peru, Bolivia, Quechua term); mariguí (Beni, Bolivia) and

50

mbariguí (Paraguay, Guaraní term, small mosquito = polvorín, see below); ñatiú (or ñatiũ,

ñati’ú, ñatîú, Paraguay, Guaraní term); ñutuchuspi (Ecuador, listed as the Quichua term in

Luis Cordero’s Diccionario Quichua); polvorín (Paraguay, small mosquito = mbariguí);

puguilla (Beni, Bolivia, long-legged mosquito); pumahuacachi (Peru, type of particularly

fierce mosquito near the Apurímac River; according to an article by Toby Fenton in the

magazine Américas, pumahuacachi in Quechua means “hace llorar al puma,” Fenton, 11);

yahuar choncaj (Cuzco, Peru, Quechua term). The term mosco is also used in many

countries in the sense of ‘mosquito’. Is this usage universal?

C5.4 Real Academia Regional Review

Zancudo is defined as “3. Am. mosquito.” Is the regional specification “Am.” adequate

here, or should the DRAE specify the regions of Spanish America in which zancudo is commonly

used in this sense?

APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL TOPICS

The following is a small selection of miscellaneous topics in the field of Spanish lexical

dialectology relating to animals, birds and insects.

badger. Tejón is the General Spanish term, and tlalcoyote is used in Mexico.

bite or sting (mosquito bite, bee sting, etc.). Who says picada, who says piquete, who says

picado, who says picadura, who says all of the above, who uses other nouns, and who

only uses forms of the verb picar?

coati. Coatí and coatimundi are generic terms but specific varieties include pisote/pizote (Central

America), cusumbe/cuzumbe and cusumbo/cuzumbo (parts of South America).

dog. In addition to standard perro and literary can, there are regional terms many of which tend to

be used to refer to dogs in a pejorative way, to mutts, or to stray dogs: chián (Guatemala,

Mam term; the n is velar); choco (Mendoza, Argentina); chucho (Spain, El Salvador,

Guatemala, Honduras); lebrel, gosque, chandoso and chanchoso (Colombia); quiltro and

quilto (Chile); sato (Puerto Rico?); zaguate/saguate (Costa Rica); yaguá (Paraguay,

Guaraní term).

frog (special type in the Antilles). The frog that in Puerto Rico is called coquí (símbolo nacional

borinqueño) goes by the name of maco in the Dominican Republic. What is this frog

called in Cuba?

horns. The DRAE defines cacho as “Am. cuerno (|| de animal)” but is cacho used in this sense

throughout Spanish America, or only in certain countries? Which ones?

jaguar. Jaguar is the General Spanish term, but tigre appears to be widely used in this sense in

Spanish America. A more offbeat equivalent is yaguareté (Argentina, Paraguay, Guaraní

term). The DRAE also lists yaguar with no regional specification, according to which

yaguar means ‘jaguar’ and the suffix eté means ‘true’.

51

ocelot / bobcat. In addition to tigrillo, which appears to be widely used in Spanish America to

refer to different types of ocelotes and gatos monteses, are the following regional names:

caucel (Honduras?, Nicaragua, Costa Rica); cunaguaro (Venezuela); león breñero (Costa

Rica); manigordo (Costa Rica, Panama); yaguareté-í, yaguá pytá, yagua tirica and tirica

(Paraguay, Guaraní terms); zonte (El Salvador).

jellyfish. Medusa is used in Spain, but most other Spanish-speaking countries have another word

for (some kind of) ‘jellyfish’ that is more common in everyday language: aguamala

(Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, often spelled agua

mala); aguaviva (Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Uruguay, Argentina, often spelled

agua viva); chichicaste (El Salvador; this term also refers to a type of plant that causes

irritation); fragata brasilera (Colombia, according to the NDCol); gelatina (Honduras?);

hilo de oro (Costa Rica); malagua (Peru); moca grumer (Mallorca, Spain, Catalán term,

and elsewhere in Catalán/Valenciano-speaking Spain?). The DRAE also lists aguamar (as

a synonym of medusa) and aguaverde (as a synonym of medusa verde), neither with any

regional specification.

mice / rats. Ratón and rata are the General Spanish terms for ‘mouse’ and ‘rat,’ respectively, but

there are many other regional terms for different types of mice and rats: anguchá or

anguyá (Paraguay, Guaraní term, mouse?); cururo (Chile, type of rat, according to the

DRAE); guarén (Chile, large rat; the DECH indicates it is a synonym of pericote);

guayabito (Cuba, small mouse); jucucha (Bolivia, Peru, mouse, Quechua term); jutía

(Cuba, large rat); laucha (Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, small mouse); pericote (Chile, Peru,

large rat); rajiero (Puerto Rico, mouse). The problem with trying to find, if not

equivalences, at least commonalities, is that the field quickly opens up to include not only

mice and rats but also guinea pigs, agouties and a host of other small to medium-sized

rodents with a dizzying array of regional names.

monkey. Mono is the General Spanish term for a generic monkey, but many Mexicans use

chango in this sense. In addition, mico, although part of General Spanish with the meaning

of ‘long-tailed monkey,’ is quite common in Colombia in the generic sense of mono

(‘monkey’). Indigenous terms include the following: caí (or ka’í, Paraguay, Guaraní

term); c’oy (or co’oy, Guatemala, Quiché term); cusillo (or qusillo, Peru, Quechua term;

cushillu is listed in Luis Cordero’s Diccionario Quichua with the translation of “desus.

Mono”); ishmash (Guatemala, Mam term).

owls (and owl-like birds). Búho and lechuza are used everywhere, but they most likely refer to

different birds in different places. According to the DRAE (and presumably in Spain), the

búho is a type of ‘horned owl’ whereas the lechuza is lighter in color and has a rounded

head and face, similar in appearance to what in the United States would be called a ‘snowy

owl’. But when different Spanish speakers speak of búhos and lechuzas to what species

are they referring? The following are some regional terms for different types of owls,

many of which, like búhos and lechuzas, are considered to be bad omens: cavureí

(Paraguay, Guaraní term, also spelled cavure-i); cuscungu (Ecuador, Quichua term,

according to Luis Cordero’s Diccionario Quichua); chuncho (Chile); currusposa,

curruspusa, estucurú, guía, oropopo, púa de león, hu de león, sorococa and corococa

(Costa Rica, according to the NDCR; oropopo is defined as “búho” and the remaining

52

terms as types of “lechuzas,” some with provincial specifications); jucu (Bolivia); múcaro

(Puerto Rico); mussol (Cataluña, Spain; Catalán term); ñacurutú (Paraguay, Uruguay,

Argentina, Guaraní term); quitilipi (the Northwest of Argentina, according to the DEArg);

shipu-chí (Guatemala, Mam term); sijú and sijú platanero (Cuba); tecolote (Mexico,

Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras); tuco or tucu (Peru, Bolivia); tucur (Guatemala);

tucúquere and tucúcaro (Chile, large owl), urukure’a (Paraguay, Guaraní term). There are

also mochuelos and autillos, which the DRAE describes as looking similar to lechuzas.

Which countries have mochuelos or autillos, and what are the species that the terms refer

to in each country?

praying mantis. Mantis religiosa appears to be the closest thing there is to a General Spanish

term, but it is also one of the scientific names for this insect. Santateresa and rezadora are

listed in the DRAE and predicador in the Pequeño Larousse Ilustrado (see García-Pelayo

y Gross in References), none with any regional specification. Most of the following terms

were offered in this sense by respondents: alma de caballo (Bucaramanga, Colombia);

azatador (Michoacán, Mexico); botella (Guerrero, Mexico?); caballo del monte

(Colombia); calentura (Guerrero, Mexico?); campamocha (Mexico); caspicuro (or k’aspi-

kuro, Cuzco, Peru, Quechua term?); cerbatana (Venezuela); juanpalo (Costa Rica,

according to the NDCR); madreculebra (Honduras, Nicaragua); mamboretá (Argentina,

Paraguay, Uruguay); mangosta (San Luis Potosí, Mexico?); maríapalito(s) (Dominican

Republic, Colombia); maríaseca (Costa Rica; should it be spelled maría seca, maríaseca

or mariaseca?); matacaballo(s) (Colombia, Ecuador?, Nayarit, Mexico?); mboi-sy

(Paraguay, Guaraní term); mula del diablo (Costa Rica); ponemesa (Comayagua,

Honduras?); quiebrapalillos and quiebrapalitos (El Salvador, Guatemala); tatadiós

(Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay); tucura (Santa Cruz, Bolivia?); visita (Beni, Bolivia?).

raccoon. Mapache is the General Spanish term, but the following are more regionally weighted:

mapachín (El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and elsewhere in Central America?); osito

lavador and mano pelada (Argentina?, Uruguay?); zorro lavamanos and zorro

manipelado (Colombia, according to the NDCol).

snake. Culebra and serpiente are the General Spanish terms for a generic ‘snake’ (though the

latter is perhaps more literary for many Spanish speakers), but many Mexicans use víbora

in this general sense (not specifically a ‘viper’) more often than culebra. In what other

countries is víbora used more frequently than culebra in a generic sense? Mboy (or mboi)

is the Guaraní term (Paraguay).

tarantula. Tarántula is the General Spanish term, and regional equivalents include the following:

araña mona (Venezuela); araña caballo (El Salvador and elsewhere?); araña picacaballo

and picacaballo (Central America); araña peluda or araña pelúa (Cuba, Dominican

Republic, Puerto Rico and elsewhere?); araña pollito (Argentina); cacata (Dominican

Republic); conga (Antioquia, Colombia?); pasallalli (Cochabamba, Bolivia, Quechua

term); pasanca and apasanca (Lowland Bolivia); ñandú guasú and ñandú cabayú

(Paraguay, Guaraní terms).

woodpecker. Pájaro carpintero is the General Spanish term, but the following are some regional

“equivalents” that refer to different types of woodpeckers: Copete, cosorró and ñequi

(Costa Rica, according to the NDCR; copete is listed with no regional specification, and

53

coscorró and ñequi as used in the province of San José); cheje (El Salvador); picachengue

(El Salvador); picapalo (Sonora, Mexico; Chile, Uruguay, Argentina? Note the similarity

to Portuguese pica-pau = ‘woodpecker’); sachatacaj (Cuzco, Peru, Quechua term);

yaquilo (Bolivia); ypekú (Paraguay, Guaraní term). Alas, due to the influence of Disney,

when asked to name the bird that pecks away at trees, many Spanish speakers reply “Ah,

sí, el Pájaro Loco” (Woody Woodpecker).

NOTES

1. I would like to express my appreciation to Lucrecia Hug and Sharlee Merner Bradley for

editing earlier drafts and making a number of valuable suggestions, to Clary Loisel for directly

and indirectly providing ideas, and to Kirk Anderson for going out of his way to put me in contact

with informants/respondents. Last but not least, I would like to thank all those who generously

gave of their time to answer questions on usage.

2. If you are interested in obtaining information on items in other domains or semantic fields

whose names in Spanish vary by region (and have not yet overdosed on Spanish regionalisms

after reading this article), see the following works by Andre Moskowitz:

“Topics in Spanish lexical dialectology: back to basics.” Proceedings of the 44th Annual

Conference of the American Translators Association, Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.,

November 5-8, 2003. Ed. Scott Brennan. American Translators Association, 2003. 287-

343.

“Topics in Spanish lexical dialectology: la ciudad y los fueros.” Proceedings of the 43rd Annual

Conference of the American Translators Association, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A., November

6-9, 2002. Ed. Scott Brennan. American Translators Association, 2002. 353-399.

“Topics in Spanish lexical dialectology: folks.” Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of

the American Translators Association, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A., October 31-

November 3, 2001. Ed. Thomas L. West III. American Translators Association, 2001.

268-301.

“Topics in Spanish lexical dialectology: kids’ stuff.” Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference

of the American Translators Association, Orlando, Florida, U.S.A., September 20-23,

2000. Ed. Thomas L. West III. American Translators Association, 2000. 328-366.

“Topics in Spanish lexical dialectology: food and drink.” Proceedings of the 40th Annual

Conference of the American Translators Association, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.,

November 3-6, 1999. Ed. Ann G. Macfarlane. American Translators Association, 1999.

275-308.

“Topics in Spanish lexical dialectology: the home.” Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference

of the American Translators Association, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, U.S.A.,

November 4-8, 1998. Ed. Ann G. Macfarlane. American Translators Association, 1998.

221-253.

“Fruit and vegetable terminology in the Spanish-speaking world: regional variation.” Proceedings

of the 38th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, San Francisco,

54

California, U.S.A., November 5-9, 1997. Ed. Muriel M. Jérôme-O’Keeffe. American

Translators Association, 1997. 233-261.

“Clothing terminology in the Spanish-speaking world: regional variation.” Proceedings of the

37th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, Colorado Springs,

Colorado, U.S.A., October 30-November 3, 1996. Ed. Muriel M. Jérôme-O’Keeffe.

American Translators Association, 1996. 287-308.

“Car terminology in the Spanish-speaking world.” Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of

the American Translators Association, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A., November 8-12,

1995. Ed. Peter W. Krawutschke. American Translators Association, 1995. 331-340.

“Contribución al estudio del español ecuatoriano.” Unpublished M.A. thesis. Department of

Romance Languages and Literatures, University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.

1995.

“A box of office supplies: dialectological fun” The Georgetown Journal of Languages &

Linguistics. Vol 1.3. Ed. Richard J. O’Brien, S.J. 1990. 315-344.

3. How to refer to the indigenous languages themselves is often as much a social, political and

identity issue as a linguistic one. For example, the Maya Quiché respondents from the Yucatan

Peninsula referred to their language as “Maya” whereas those from Guatemala called theirs

“Quiché” and I have followed their designations even though the two are varieties of a single

language. In the case of Quechua, Ecuadorans refer to their variety as “Quichua” (and consider

“Quechua” to be varieties spoken in Peru and Bolivia). Similarly, one may ask__

in the case of a

word’s etymology, for example__

when Spanish dictionaries should refer to “guaraní,” when to

“tupí” and when to “tupí-guaraní”. As the Brazilian modernist Oswald de Andrade put it in his

famous phrase, “Tupi or not tupi, that is the question.”

4. The spelling of words can also be a social, political and identity issue: When asked how to spell

the city of Cusco/Cuzco, some Peruvians accept both spellings, some prefer Cuzco, and some

reply that “Los españoles lo escriben con z, nosotros con s.” While the Peruvians who make this

last claim are ostensibly referring to today’s Spaniards, their comments also appear to invoke the

(mis)deeds of Francisco Pizarro, Diego de Almagro and others who participated in the sanguinary

conquest of the Tawantinsuyo or Incan Empire.

5. The pronunciation of sunsún by a Spanish American and a Spaniard from Castilla will

generally not be identical as the latter will tend to use an apical s, a consonant that sounds in

between a Spanish American s and an English sh. In addition, there is the question of whether

sunsún’s final n is realized as a velar or an alveolar. This is the difference between the final

consonantal sound in English thing or sing (velar n) vs. thin or sin (alveolar n). The two

allophones for word-final n are about equally distributed in the Spanish-speaking world (roughly

half the regions are velar and the other half alveolar), but a Cuban’s word-final n is generally

velar and a Castilian’s alveolar. The pronunciations of s, c/z, and word-final n have long been

issues that are central to Spanish phonetic and phonological dialectology; how s and c/z have been

pronounced (at different times and in different places) is also fundamental to Spanish historical

55

linguistics. When and if Spanish lexical dialectology becomes established as a field of inquiry, the

words used for hummingbirds will be one of its classic topics.

REFERENCES

“Adultos de Damiselas de Verano.” www.rios-y-senderos.com/baul/aguas-silen-ciosas-

200201.htm

“Alguns insectes comuns als països catalans.” www.gra-vi.com/ac-tivitats/se-cun-daria/su-

port/bio-web/Imatges/in-sects.htm.

“Asociación Cultural Antonio de Nebrija.” www.antonio-denebrija.org-/biografia

Bailey, Richard W. 2001. “American English abroad” (Chapter 14) in The Cambridge History of

the English Language. Volume VI. English in North America. John Algeo, ed. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press. pp. 456-496.

Barrera, Juan, et al. “Aspectos Bioecológicos del Chacuatete Idiarthron Subquadratum

(Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) en Cafetales de Chiapas, México.” www.ih-cafe.org/xx-sim-

posio/caca-huate-.htm.

“El Chacuatete.” 2001. El Café, Mitos y Realidades©. R. D. Comercial, S.A. de C.V. www.por-

taldel-cafe.com/por-taldelcafe/mo-dulos/ar-ticulos/ar-ti-culo-.asp-?art-num=31.

“El Chigüire.” www.mi-punto.com/vene-zuela-virtual/temas/2do_tri-mestre03/chi-guire.html

Cordero, Luis. 1989. Diccionario Quichua / Quichua Shimiyuc Panca. Quito, Ecuador: Casa de la

Cultura Ecuatoriana, Corporación Editora Nacional.

Corominas, Joan. 1954. Diccionario Crítico Etimológico de la Lengua Castellana. Bern,

Switzerland: Editorial Francke.

Cortés, Hernán. 1975. Cartas de Relación. Foreword by Manuel Alcalá. Mexico City, Mexico:

Editorial Porrúa, S.A. (Epigraph from pp. 61-63.)

Del Valle, José and Luis Gabriel-Stheeman, eds. 2002. The Battle over Spanish between 1800 and

2000 / Language ideologies and Hispanic intellectuals. Routledge Studies in the History

of Linguistics. London, England and New York, U.S.A.: Routledge.

“El armadillo: pequeño, frágil acorazado En Yucatán se le conoce como huech” in Diario Yucatán

El Periódico de la Vida Peninsular, Especies locales en peligro de extinción. www.yuca-

tan.com.mx/es-peciales/fauna-enextincion/ar-madillo.asp

56

Fenton, Toby. “El Otro Camino del Inca” in June 2004 issue of Américas. Washington, D.C.:

Organization of American States. pp. 8-15.

Finegan, Edward. 2001. “Usage” (Chapter 11) in The Cambridge History of the English

Language. Volume VI. English in North America. John Algeo, ed. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press. pp. 358-421.

García-Pelayo y Gross, Ramón, ed. 1988. Pequeño Larousse Ilustrado. 12th edition. Mexico City,

Mexico: Ediciones Larousse.

González Jiménez, Eduardo. 1995. “El capibara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) Estado actual de su

producción.” Estudio FAO producción y sanidad animal 122. Organización de las

Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación. www.fao.org-/docrep-/004-

/v4590s-/v4590-s00.htm.

Haensch, Günther and Reinhold Werner. 2000. Diccionario del Español de Argentina / Español

de Argentina-Español de España. (DEArg) Madrid, Spain: Editorial Gredos, S.A.

Haensch, Günther and Reinhold Werner. 2000. Diccionario del Español de Cuba / Español de

Cuba-Español de España. (DECu) Madrid, Spain: Editorial Gredos, S.A.

Haensch, Günther and Reinhold Werner. 1993. Nuevo Diccionario de Americanismos. Tomo I.

Nuevo Diccionario de Colombianismos. (NDCol) Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto Caro y

Cuervo.

Herranz, Atanasio. 2001. “Formación histórica y zonas dialectales del español en Honduras” in II

Congreso Internacional de la Lengua Española. Unidad y diversidad del español. El

español de América. Valladolid, Spain, October 16-19, 2001. Found at www.cvc.cer-van-

tes.es/ob-ref/con-gresos/valla-dolid/ponen-cias/uni-dad_diver-sidad_del_es-pa-

nol/2_el_es-pa-nol_de_ameri-ca/herranz_a.htm.

Jiménez, Mariano. 2002-2003. “Las Zarigüeyas.” www.dami-sela.com/zoo-/mam/mar-

supialia/didel-phi-dae/nom-bres.htm

Kallen, Jeffrey L. 1994. “English in Ireland” (Chapter 4) in The Cambridge History of the English

Language. Volume V. English in Britain and Overseas: Origins and Development. Robert

Burchfield, ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. pp. 148-196.

Lara, Luis Fernando. 1996. Diccionario del Español Usual en México. (DEUMex) Mexico City,

Mexico: El Colegio de México.

57

Lighter, Jonathan E. 2001. “Slang” (Chapter 6) in The Cambridge History of the English

Language. Volume VI. English in North America. John Algeo, ed. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press. pp. 219-252.

“Los Tres Nombres del Zumbador Sagrado ‘Guani Guacariga Guaracacigaba’.” www-.tai-no-

tribe-.org-/co-libri-s.htm

Menéndez Pidal, Ramón. 1945. “La unidad del idioma” in Castilla, la tradición, el idioma.

Buenos Aires, Argentina: Espasa-Calpe Argentina, S.A. pp. 171-218. (Discurso inaugural

de la Asamblea del Libro Español, celebrada en Madrid el 31 de mayo de 1944.)

Morales Pettorino, Félix, Óscar Quiroz Mejías and Juan José Peña Álvarez. 1984. Diccionario

Ejemplificado de Chilenismos y de otros usos diferenciales del español de Chile. (DECH)

4 volumes. Academia Superior de Ciencias Pedagógicas de Valparaíso. Santiago, Chile:

Editorial Universitaria.

Ojeda, Ricardo A. and Stella M. Giannoni. 2000. “Lista de Marsupiales de Argentina / The

Marsupials of Argentina: An Annotated Checklist of their Distribution and Conservation

2000.” www.cri-cyt-.edu-.ar/insti-tutos/iadiza/oje-da/mar-supiales.htm#ca-luromys

Pederson, Lee. 2001. “Dialects” (Chapter 7) in The Cambridge History of the English Language.

Volume VI. English in North America. John Algeo, ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press. pp. 253-290.

Pickett, Joseph P., ed. 2000. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th

edition. Boston, New York, USA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Quesada Pacheco, Miguel A. 2001. Nuevo Diccionario de Costarriqueñismos. (NDCR) 3rd

edition. Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica. Cartago, Costa Rica: Editorial Tecnológica

de Costa Rica.

Real Academia Española. 2001. Diccionario de la Lengua Española. (DRAE) 22nd edition.

Madrid, Spain: Editorial Espasa-Calpe, S.A.

Santamaría, Francisco J. 1942. Diccionario General de Americanismos. 1st edition. Mexico City,

Mexico: Editorial Pedro Robredo.

Steiner, Roger, ed. 1997. Simon & Schuster’s International Dictionary English/Spanish

Spanish/English. 2nd edition. New York, USA: Simon & Schusters, Inc.

Suárez Molina, Víctor. 2000. “Voces mayas y mayismos en el español de Yucatán” www.ua-

dy.mx/si-tios/ma-yas/in-vestigaciones/socio-lin/voces.html. (This work is based on El

español que se habla en Yucatán: Apuntamientos filológicos. 3rd edition corrected by

58

Miguel Güémez Pineda. Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida,

Yucatán, 1996.)

Turner, George W. 1994. “English in Australia” (Chapter 6) in The Cambridge History of the

English Language. Volume V. English in Britain and Overseas: Origins and Development.

Robert Burchfield, ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. pp. 277-327.

“Vocabulario Costumbrista de la Selva Peruana.” www.in-for-ma-tik.uni-stutt-gart.de/-ifi/-bs/-

schlebbe/-peru/mis-celaneos/vocabulario.html

“Zarigüeya Común / Didelphis marsupialis” www.am-biente-eco-logico.com/edi-cion-es-/072-07-

2000-/072-pub_fan-bolivia.html

59

ANTONIO DE NEBRIJA (1444-1522)

From the province of Sevilla, Spain, Antonio de Nebrija was a philologist, historian, teacher,

grammarian, astronomer and poet. At age fifteen he enrolled at the University of Salamanca and

four years later graduated with a degree in rhetoric and grammar. He then traveled to Italy and for

ten years studied Greek, Latin, Hebrew, theology, medicine, law, cosmography, mathematics,

geography, history, grammar and ethics at the University of Bologna. In 1470, Nebrija returned to

Spain as a spokesperson for the humanism he was exposed to in Italy and became an outspoken

critic of Spain’s intellectual backwardness, a position which landed him in trouble with

Inquisition authorities on more than one occasion. At the University of Salamanca, he

revolutionized the teaching of Latin and, in 1481, published Introductiones Latinae, which he

then translated into the “lengua vulgar” as Spanish was called at that time. In the 1490s, he

completed his Gramática de la lengua castellana, which was the first grammar ever written of a

Romance language in a Romance language. His Gramática gave rise to other similar works in

other European languages as people began to realize that their languages were just as worthy of

study and analysis as Latin and Greek. There were also political reasons why Nebrija wrote his

Gramática for, as he explained upon presenting it to Queen Isabel la Católica, it was necessary to

“fijar la lengua” which would be “la compañera del Imperio” to be spread throughout Spanish

America. At the time, no one knew what the consequences of Columbus’s “Discovery” or

“Encuentro de dos mundos” would be, but it was as if Nebrija foresaw that his obscure language,

born in the north of Spain, would one day become the second most spoken international language

on the planet that Spanish is today. In 1495, he published the Spanish language’s first dictionary,

the Vocabulario español-latín, latín-español. Nebrija was not only a philologist and linguist, but a

Renaissance man who published works in theology (Quinquagenas), law (Lexicon Juris Civilis),

archeology (Antigüedades de España), and pedagogy (De Liberis Educandis). Although he was

interested in spreading the teachings of the classics, he was also intent on organizing the

knowledge he had acquired and making it accessible to as many people as possible. (See

www.antoniodenebrija.org/biografia.)