61

is to explain a Spanish grammatical category and then to
give its translation equivalent in Aymara. This makes
for a repetitious presentation as the same Aymara form
may translate several different Spanish forms, and the
method skews Aymara structure into a Spanish mold as in
the case of Bertonio's grammars. While some of the Aymara
examples are acceptable to native speakers, much of the
Aymara sounds translated and the book suffers from a
generally patronizing tone. The phonology is better than
most but confuses velars and postvelars. In spite of
its faults, however, this grammar shows an understanding
of certain aspects of Aymara usually overlooked such as
the fact that certain suffixes are essential to the Aymara
sentence, and although given to stating general rules to
which exceptions must then be made, Ebbing at least in-
cludes the exceptions, making up in accuracy of data for
loss of economy in presentation. As a handbook for study-
ing Aymara, his grammar is useful as a source of Aymara
glosses of individual Spanish forms. Translations of
Spanish sentences should be checked with Aymara native
speakers, however, as they are written in a style asso-
ciated with Catholic priests (for examples see Chapter 9).
The nadir in prelinguistic grammars of Aymara
was reached in Suma _lajjra_ aymara parlafia (1969) by
Erasmo Tarifa Ascarrunz. Another example of Patr6n Aymara,

this book contains a wealth of material, but so badly