69

A much shorter, less complete grammar is Método
de aymara (1973) by Marcelo Grondin, using the same alpha-
bet as Herrero. Published in Oruro, the book mentions
certain forms as different from those occurring in La Paz
but fails to include the distinctive allomorph of the first
person possessive suffix (with velar nasal) found in the
province of Carangas, Oruro. The Aymara four-person system
is clearly grasped, vowel-dropping is understood, and the
role of sentence suffixes noted, but the Aymara is pre-
sented in short dialogues that sound nonnative. The trans-
lations of the dialogues are in Andean Spanish.

The question arises why grammars of Aymara con-
tinued for so long to reflect only missionary and patré6n
usages. The answer lies in the fact that for many years
all linguists who undertook to study Aymara in depth were
missionaries who, however well prepared in linguistic
field methods, were more concerned with translating
Scripture from Spanish or English into Aymara than in
eliciting native texts on which to base a description of
the language. Their informants, being members of the same
religious community, were ready to accept the missionaries’
authority in matters of style and content. Many missionary
linguists, notably Nida (1957:58-60), are aware of the
linguistic pitfalls inherent in their approach and try
to avoid them; but it is unrealistic to expect missionary
grammars to be completely free of the distorting influence

of translation.