🚀 go-pugleaf

The state of the art in Hokan reconstruction is Terry Kaufman's paper:

``A Research Program for Reconstructing Proto-Hokan: First Gropings,''
in Scott DeLancey (ed.)
Papers from the 1988 Han-Penutian Languages Workshop.
Eugene: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.
Univrsity of Oregon Papers in Linguistics. Publications
of the Center for Amerindian Linguistics and Ethnography 1.
pp. 50-168. (1988) 

There is a wide range of opinon on what languages belong to Hokan.
I think it is fair to say that there is agreement that some of the
Californian languages are indeed related. The relationship of the
Coahuiltecan languages is highly questionable, as is that of the languages
of Baja California (such as Waicuri and Maratino). In both of these cases
a major problem is the extremely poor attestation of the languages.
Many of these languages will probably never be classified with any confidence
unless additional data comes to light. The Californian language Esselen and
the Colombian language Yurumangui are also badly documented.

The status of the Chumashan languages is rather different. They are
fairly well documented, and the documentation is improving as people
(currently Marianne Mithun and two of her students at the University
of California at Santa Barbara) work through John Peabody Harrington's
extensive Chumash materials. (He spoke Chumash and corresponded with
Chumash people in Chumash.) Terry Kaufman excludes Chumashan from
Hokan, and I know several other people, including myself, who agree
that it is unlikely that Chumashan belongs to Hokan. In fact, I think
that there is no real evidence that Chumashan is related to Salinan,
with which it has long been subgrouped.

								Bill Poser