Spanish is the official language of Mexico but even after more than 500 years of occupation it has still not replaced all the Indian languages once spoken throughout the Republic. Even the Castilian form of the language brought by the Conquistadores from Spain has been greatly influenced by the inclusion of many loan words from Nahuatl and other indigenous languages. The name Mexico comes from Mexica, the original name of the wandering band of nomads who founded the city of Mexico-Tenochtitlan (ca. A.D. 1325) and later became known as the Aztecs. In that sense the true Mexican language is Nahuatl as spoken by the Aztecs at the time of the Spanish Conquest in 1521.
When the Europeans arrived in the New World some 2000 Indian languages and dialects were spoken throughout North and South America, of which 150 were located in Mexico. Linguistic specialists are still trying to account for the number and amazing variety of languages spoken in this part of the world. Today many of these languages are extinct, while others are endangered. A few, such as Maya and Nahuatl, continue to hold their own. Some 50 Indian languages are still spoken in Mexico with about five million speakers, 15 percent of whom do not speak Spanish.
Major language families in Mexico include Uto-Aztecan, Otomanguean, Macro-Mayan and others. By classifying Indian languages in this way it is possible to reconstruct the prehistory of an area. Nahuatl, for example, belongs to Uto-Aztecan, with branches in the southern United States.
The Spanish Conquistadores and missionaries who first penetrated into Western Mexico were interested primarily in eliminating the natives or at least converting them to Christianity. As a result the historical records for this area are woefully inadequate. However, in 1524 the Franciscan chronicler, Fray Antonio Tello, mentions the Cocas and Cazcanes, who lived along the north shore of Lake Chapala and spoke a dialect of Nahuatl. Another extinct local Indian language was called Sayula.
Through linguistic analysis, archaeological evidence, and the testimony of early Spanish chroniclers we can reconstruct to some extent the prehistory of the Nahuatl-speaking peoples who first inhabited the Lake Chapala area. By comparing key words in related Indian languages for which we do have evidence it is possible to determine, with a certain margin of acceptable error, the time at which different dialects broke off from the parent language. We can also reconstruct the proto-language from which the dialects developed, determine the relationship between different languages, and ascertain to what general family each language belongs. Using linguistic and other evidence, we then can then begin to reconstruct a plausible picture of the early inhabitants of West Mexico.
According to one theory, Otomí was the original language from which the Nahuatl dialects spoken in the Lake Chapala area developed. But Nahuatl belongs to the Uto-Aztecan language family and has little or nothing to do with Otomí, which belongs to the Otomanguean family, although linguistic borrowing may have occurred. Another misunderstanding involves the structure of these languages. Otomí is described as monosyllabic, i.e. a language in which all or most of the words consist of a single syllable (as in Chinese). Nahuatl, however, is a polysynthetic language in which various words are combined into sometimes lengthy composite word-sentences. Mixing them up is something like adding apples and oranges to get pears.
Popular myths about language add to the confusion. Contrary to popular belief there is no such thing as a primitive language. When the Nahuatl-speaking peoples moved into the Lake Chapala area, possibly some 1000 years ago, they spoke fully developed languages. Some scholars have indeed tried to reconstruct the early evolution of human language beginning with animal-like grunts and gestures. However, the origin of language, if it could be determined, took place so long ago that it has no bearing on any language with which we are familiar. Moreover, there is no correlation between cultural level and linguistic complexity. Peoples with the simplest life-styles may speak the most complex languages. Because of their structure some Indian languages, such as Hopi or Tarascan, may even have an advantage over English in describing scientific terms.
A strong movement is afoot today to preserve and revitalize Indian languages that are either holding their own or are on the verge of extinction. The death of a language involves much more than the simple loss of native speakers. Each minority language represents an entire culture, another way of looking at the world. We are fortunate to speak English, which is, in many ways, the most important world language. So why bother with minority languages? Wouldn't it be better if we all spoke the same language, or at least confined ourselves to a few languages? Perhaps not.
The death of a language means the loss of the cultural values associated with that language. The result can be catastrophic when people are thus cut off from the support of their own cultural and linguistic roots and yet are not really part of the dominant society. Drunkenness, despair, poverty, and criminal behavior are only a few of the possible consequences. Faced by much outside pressure, the Huichol Indians of Jalisco and Nayarit have so far managed to preserve much of their traditional way of life and thought. According to a 1990 census some 20,000 Huichols continue to speak their own language with a very low bilingual Huichol-Spanish level of about 10 to 15 percent, a good role model for other indigenous peoples of the Americas.
