> Tcho-ko-yem, Gibbs in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, III, 421, 1853
(mentioned as a band and dialect).
> Moquelumne, Latham in Trans. Philolog. Soc. Lond., 81, 1856
(includes Hale’s Talatui, Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, Mumaltachi,
Mullateco, Apangasi, Lapappu, Siyante or Typoxi, Hawhaw’s band of
Aplaches, San Rafael vocabulary, Tshokoyem vocabulary, Cocouyem and
Yonkiousme Paternosters, Olamentke of Kostromitonov, Paternosters
for Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los Tulares of Mofras,
Paternoster of the Langue Guiloco de la Mission de San Francisco).
Latham, Opuscula, 347, 1860. Latham, El. Comp. Phil., 414, 1862 (same
as above).
= Meewoc, Powers in Overland Monthly, 322, April, 1873 (general
account of family with allusions to language). Gatschet in Mag. Am.
Hist., 159, 1877 (gives habitat and bands of family). Gatschet in
Beach, Ind. Misc., 433, 1877.
= Mí-wok, Powers in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 346, 1877 (nearly as above).
< Mutsun, Powell in Cont. N.A. Eth., III, 535, 1877 (vocabs. of
Mi´-wok, Tuolumne, Costano, Tcho-ko-yem, Mūtsūn, Santa Clara, Santa
Cruz, Chum-te´-ya, Kawéya, San Raphael Mission, Talatui, Olamentke).
Gatschet in Mag. Am. Hist., 157, 1877 (gives habitat and members of
family). Gatschet, in Beach, Ind. Misc., 430, 1877.
X Runsiens, Keane, App. Stanford’s Comp. (Cent, and So. Am.), 476,
1878 (includes Olhones, Eslenes, Santa Cruz, San Miguel,
Lopillamillos, Mipacmacs, Kulanapos, Yolos, Suisunes, Talluches,
Chowclas, Waches, Talches, Poowells).
Derivation: From the river and hill of same name in Calaveras County,
California; according to Powers the Meewoc name for the river is
Wakalumitoh.
The Talatui mentioned by Hale[68] as on the Kassima (Cosumnes) River
belong to the above family. Though this author clearly distinguished the
language from any others with which he was acquainted, he nowhere
expressed the opinion that it is entitled to family rank or gave it a
family name. Talatui is mentioned as a tribe from which he obtained an
incomplete vocabulary.
[Footnote 68: U.S. Expl. Exp., 1846, vol. 6, pp. 630, 633.]
It was not until 1856 that the distinctness of the linguistic family was
fully set forth by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author
gathers several vocabularies representing different languages and
dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the Tuolumne
from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented by the Tshokoyem
vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme paternosters, and the Olamentke
of Kostromitonov in Bäer’s Beiträge. He also places here provisionally
the paternosters from the Mission de Santa Clara and the Vallee de los
Tulares of Mofras; also the language Guiloco de la Mission de San
Francisco. The Costano containing the five tribes of the Mission of
Dolores, viz., the Ahwastes, Olhones or Costanos of the coast, Romonans,
Tulomos and the Altahmos seemed to Latham to differ from the Moquelumnan
language. Concerning them he states “upon the whole, however, the
affinities seem to run in the direction of the languages of the next
group, especially in that of the Ruslen.” He adds: “Nevertheless, for
the present I place the Costano by itself, as a transitional form of
speech to the languages spoken north, east, and south of the Bay of San
Francisco.” Recent investigation by Messrs. Curtin and Henshaw have
confirmed the soundness of Latham’s views and, as stated under head of
the Costanoan family, the two groups of languages are considered to be
distinct.