Panoan languages
Jolkesky (2016) notes that there are lexical similarities with the Kechua, Mapudungun, Moseten-Tsimane, Tukano, Uru-Chipaya, Harakmbet, Arawak, Kandoshi, and Pukina language families due to contact.[7] Exceptional to Panoan languages' predominantly suffixal morphology are sets of approximately 30 morphemes primarily referring to parts or features of prototypical human and animal bodies (and, by analogical extension, of botanicals, manufactures, landscapes, and abstract space) which have been found to occur in almost all attested languages of the family (Fleck 2006: 59; Ferreira 2007, 2008; Amarante Ribeiro and Cândido 2008; Zariquiey and Fleck 2012: 385–386).That these monosyllabic forms are productively affixed to the front of verbal, nominal, or adjectival roots has led many Panoanists to describe them as prefixes (e.g. Prost 1967 and Zingg 1998 [for Chakobo]; Faust 1973, Loriot et al. 1993, and Valenzuela 2003 [for Shipibo-Konibo]; Hyde 1980 [for Amawaka]; Eakin 1991[for Yaminawa]), while the forms' resemblance and loose semantic correspondence to unbound, polysyllabic 'body-part terms' has led others to describe them as incorporated nouns (e.g. Loos 1999).In Matses, for example, the prefix an- corresponds to the nouns ana 'mouth, tongue, palm (of hand), sole (of foot), (arm)pit'; anmaëşh 'gill slits (of fish)'; and anşhantuk 'swampy depression in the ground'; but can itself be glossed also as 'cavity, concave surface, interior, underside'; and 'center (of path of stream)' (Fleck 2006: 64).Fleck has hypothesized that "Panoan (verb) prefixation evolved from past noun incorporation that co-existed with noun-noun and noun-adjective compounding that involved synchronic reduction of body-part roots" (2006: 92).