ThelanguagesofsouthernCenderawasihBayandtheirhistory 1...

David Kamholz Languages of southern Cenderawasih Bay

David Kamholz <[email protected]> University of California, Berkeley

The languages of southern Cenderawasih Bay and their history

1 Moor, Yeresiam, Yaur, and Umar

• Four South Halmahera–West New Guinea (SHWNG) languages spoken in southern Cenderawasih Bay (seemap on the following page)

• Moor (mhz, also known as Mor)

– spoken on four islands in southeast Cenderawasih Bay, plus two nearby villages on the mainland

– homeland is Pulau Moor

– three dialects: Hirom (all villages outside Pulau Moor), Kama, Ayombai (in villages of the same nameon Pulau Moor)

– tonal

• Yeresiam (ire, also known as Iresim)

– spoken in three villages: Sima, in Cenderawasih Bay; Erega, in the Yamor lakes; Rurumo, in Etna Bay

– homeland is probably Erega

– bilingualism: in Sima, with Yaur; in Erega, with Kamoro; in Rurumo, with Mairasi languages

– tonal

• Yaur (yau)

– spoken in southwest Cenerderawasih Bay, villages E–W: Sima, Kwatisore, Yaur, Napanyaur, Bawei

– two dialects: Sima–Kwatisore and Yaur–Napanyaur–Bawei

– tonal (insufficient data for proper analysis)

• Umar (gop, also known as Yeretuar)

– spoken in Umar Bay, villages E–W: Bawei, Goni, Yeretuar

– Goni is under heavy Wandamen influence, Bawei under Yaur influence

– not tonal

• Previous publications: Anceaux (1961a,b); Laycock (1978); Smits and Voorhoeve (1992a,b)

• Data for this paper from ongoing fieldwork, 2008–11

• Outline of the talk:

– Review of SHWNG sound changes and subgroups (§2)

– Historical phonology of southern CB languages, including tonogenesis (§3)

– Sound change as a SHWNG subgrouping diagnostic (§4)

– Subject marking in southern CB languages (§5)

– Subject marking as a SHWNG subgrouping diagnostic (§6)

– Conclusion (§7)

• Orthographic conventions: gw = [gw], v = [B], ’ = [P], ng = [N]

– 1 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012

Figure 1: West New Guinea languages. Adapted from SIL Papua map.


Figure 2: The higher nodes of the Austronesian family tree, after Blust (2009:724–30; 736–9). Nodes in italicsare not proto-languages, but rather are cover terms for multiple primary branches.

Proto-Austronesian

Formosan Proto-Malayo-Polynesian

Western Malayo-Polynesian Proto-Central-EasternMalayo-Polynesian

Central Malayo-Polynesian Proto-EasternMalayo-Polynesian

Proto-South Halmahera–WestNew Guinea

Proto-Oceanic

2 SHWNG: defining innovations and subgroups

• Defining sound changes (Blust 1978):

– 2. PMP penultimate syllable *@ became o

– 4b. PMP *c, *s, and *-j- merged as s

– 5a. PMP *q and *h were lost

– 5b. PMP *-k- was lost

– 6. PMP *d, *D, *z, *l, and *r merged as l or r

– 9. PMP final syllable *@ merged with *a as a or e

– 12. lexically-specific syncope

• Wave style diffusion (Blust 1978:209):

– 5c. PMP *k- and *-k were lost (spread east to west)

– 13. original final vowels and final vowels from diphthongs were lost (spread west to east)

• Irregular phonological development (Blust 1978:208):

– PMP *p@ñu ‘sea turtle’ with e for expected o

• Subgroups accepted for the purpose of exposition:

– Biakic: Biak, Roon, Dusner, Meoswar (Anceaux 1961a)

– West Yapen: all Yapen languages other than Wabo and Kurudu, plus Wandamen (Silzer 1983)

– East Yapen: Wabo and Kurudu (Anceaux 1961a)

– South Halmahera (Blust 1978)

– Raja Ampat (Remijsen 2001)

– Irarutu: unclassified, may not be SHWNG (Blust 1993)

– 3 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012


3 Historical phonology of southern Cenderawasih Bay languages

3.1 Consonants

Table 1: Southern Cenderawasih Bay reflexes of PMP consonants.

PMP Moor Yeresiam Yaur Umar

*q ∅, (P) ∅ ∅ ∅*h ∅, (h), (P) ∅, h ∅ ∅*p ∅, h, (P) ∅, p ∅ ∅*b v, (m) ∅, b v ∅, (v)*w gw gw gw w, (v)

*m m m m m*n n, (r) n, (r) n, P n*ñ n n ? n*ŋ n ∅ P (∅)*t- P, k k ∅ t*-t- P, (k) k ? t*-t P k ∅ t*t /_i s h h h*d r r r, (d) r*nt, *nd t t d d

*s t h h h*j t h h h*z- r j ? j*-z- r ? ? ∅*k- k, P ∅ ∅ k, ∅*-k- P ∅ ∅ ∅*-k ∅ ∅ ∅ ∅*g ? ? ? ?

*R r r r r*l r r r r*r ? ? ? ?

• Some reflexes are inconsistent with Blust’s SHWNG-defining sound changes

• Retention of *q and *h in Moor and Yeresiam:

– PMP *babaq > Moor ku-vava’-î ‘short’

– PMP *duha > Yeresiam rúuh-i ‘two’

– PMP *kahiw > Moor ka’ú-ata ‘wood’

– PMP *lawaq ‘spider’ > Moor ragwa’-î ‘spiderweb’

– PMP *ma-huab > Moor máh-a ‘yawn’

– PMP *t@buh > Moor kóh-a ‘sugarcane’

• Retention of *-k- in Moor:

– PMP *buku > Moor vú’-a ‘node, knot’

– PMP *sakaRu > Moor ta-ta’úar ‘reef’

– PCEMP *waŋka > Moor gwá’-a ‘canoe’

• PMP *zalan > Yeresiam jáàra, Umar jar ‘path’ (expected *z- > r)

• PMP *duha > Yaur re-du ‘two’ (expected *d > r)

– 4 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012


• Moor reflexes of *t and *k are irregular (Table 2)

– Ayombai dialect has *k > P in ‘head louse’, ‘afraid’, and ‘sugarcane’; other dialects have k

Table 2: Variable outcomes of *t and *k in Moor.

PMP Moor gloss

*batu vá’-a ‘stone’*buku vú’-a ‘node, knot’*@pat á’-ó ‘four’*kuRita arí’-a ‘octopus’*kutu kú’-a, ú’-a ‘head louse’*manuk mànu ‘bird’*ma-takut muká’-a, mu’á’-a ‘afraid’*t-ama kamá ‘grandparent’*taŋis ’ànit-a ‘to cry’*tawan kagwa-héta ‘fruit tree sp.: Pometia pinnata’*t@buh kóh-a, óh-a ‘sugarcane’

3.2 Vowels

Table 3: Southern Cenderawasih Bay reflexes of PMP and PCEMP vowels.

PMP/PCEMP Moor Yeresiam Yaur Umar

*@ (penult) o, a o o o*@ (final) a a ? a*a a, (i), (o) a a a*i i i i i, e*u u, o u, i u, i u, i, o*e e e ? ?*o o o ? o*ai e ai a a, ae

• No serious counterexamples to Blust’s proposed vowel changes, but some idiosyncratic developments

• Penultimate *@ > a in Moor:

– PMP *b@Rŋi > vàr-a’a ‘night’

– PMP *m@ñak > mana-ná ‘fat’

• *a > o, i in Moor:

– PMP *bulan > vùrin-a ‘moon’

– PMP *kalati > koro-vá’a ‘earthworm’

– PMP *qabara > ovar-î ‘carry on shoulder’

– PMP *zalan > ràrin-a ‘path’

• *u > o in Moor and Umar:

– PMP *p@ñu > Umar ono ‘turtle’

– PMP *qaninu > Moor anìno ‘shadow’

– PMP *qul@j > Moor ór-a ‘snake’

– PMP *Rumaq > Umar ron ‘house’

– PMP *t@lu > Umar e-tro ‘three’

– PCEMP *tusi > Moor ’ot-î ‘sharpen’

• PMP *p@ñu > Umar ono ‘turtle’ (expected irregular *@ > e)

• No syncope in Moor and Yeresiam, e.g. PMP *t‹in›aqi > Moor siné, Yeresiam hìná ‘belly’

– 5 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012


3.3 Tone

• Outcomes are clearest with proto-disyllables (other cases not discussed here)

• Yeresiam (Table 4):

– One tone per vowel mora (H or L)

– Default outcome: penult is lengthened, level H throughout

– If proto-form ends in *q, no penult lengthening

– If Yeresiam word ends in a, outcome is HL-L (if long penult) or H-L (if short)

• Moor (Table 5 on the next page):

– One tone pattern per word (usually)

– Default outcome: L on penult

– If word is reduced to monosyllable (not counting epenthetic -a), outcome is H

– Verbs with -a or -i suffix have whole-word HLH pattern (indicated with circumflex on final vowel)

– Proto-(C)VCV words which remain disyllabic sometimes have final H or L, instead of penultimate L(conditioning unclear)

• Tonogenesis is still poorly understood

Table 4: Tonal developments in Yeresiam disyllables.

Proto-form Yeresiam gloss notes

PMP *batu áaku ‘stone’PMP *bulan úùra ‘moon’PMP *daRaq rárà ‘blood’PMP *kahiw áì ‘wood’ unexplained falling tonePMP *kutu úuku ‘head louse’PMP *lima ríìma ‘five’PMP *ma-tuqah,PEMP *matu

màkúi ‘dry (coconut)’ unexplained lack of lengthening

PMP *ŋajan áahan-à ‘name’PMP *nusa núùha ‘island’PMP *p@ñu éenu ‘turtle’PMP *punti píiti ‘banana’PMP *qapuR áau ‘betel lime’PCEMP *qen@p éene ‘to lie (down)’PMP *Rumaq rúmà ‘ceremonial house’PMP *tan@m káaman-e ‘to plant’PMP *t@buh kóou ‘sugarcane’PMP *t@l@n kóor-i ‘to swallow’PMP *t@lu kóori-he ‘three’PCEMP *waŋka gwáà ‘canoe’PCEMP *waR@j gwáari ‘rope’PMP *zalan jáàra ‘path’

– 6 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012


Table 5: Tonal developments in Moor disyllables.

Proto-form Moor gloss

PMP *banua manù ‘forest’PMP *baRa veréa ‘arm’PMP *batu vá’-a ‘stone’PMP *b@laq vorà ‘to split’PMP *b@Rsay vór-a ‘paddle’PMP *buku vú’-a ‘node, knot’PMP *bulan vùrin-a ‘moon’PMP *bulu vùru ‘body hair’PMP *bunuq mun-â ‘to kill’PMP *buRbuR vùvur-a ‘sago porridge’PMP *danaw rán-a ‘lake’PMP *danum ràrum-a ‘fresh water’PMP *daRaq ràra ‘blood’PMP *d@ŋ@R oran-î ‘to hear’PMP *duyuŋ rún-a ‘dugong’PMP *ina iná ‘mother’PMP *inum anum-î ‘to drink’PMP *kami ám-a ‘we (excl.)’PMP *kamu àmu ‘you (pl.)’PMP *kita í’-a ‘we (incl.)’PMP *kutu kú’-a ‘head louse’PMP *lahud rú ‘sea’PMP *lakaw rá ‘to go’PCEMP *malip marí’-a ‘to laugh’PMP *manuk mànu ‘bird’PMP *ma-tuqah,PEMP *matu

ma’ù ‘dry (coconut)’

PEMP *natu na’ú ‘person’PMP *ŋajan nàtan-a ‘name’PMP *nusa nút-a ‘island’PMP *punti hút-a ‘banana’PMP *qapuR ár-a ‘betel lime’PCEMP *qen@p en-â ‘to lie (down)’PMP *qutin ùsi ‘penis’PMP *Rumaq rùma ‘house’PMP *susu tút-a ‘breast’PMP *tan@m ’anam-î ‘to plant’PMP *taŋis ’ànit-a ‘to cry’PMP *tasik àti ‘saltwater’PMP *t@buh kóh-a ‘sugarcane’PMP *t@l@n ’oran-î ‘to swallow’PMP *tunu ’un-î ‘to burn’PMP *wahiR gwàjar-a ‘river’PCEMP *waŋka gwá’-a ‘canoe’PMP *zalan ràrin-a ‘path’

– 7 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012


4 Comparative SHWNG: Sound change

Table 6: SHWNG reflexes of selected PMP consonants.

*t *t /_i *s *k- *-k *d *l *z-

Bk. Biak k s s ∅ ∅ r r rRoon k s s ∅ ∅ r r rDusner t s s ∅ ∅ r r rMeoswar k s s ∅ ∅ r r r

WY Wandamen t s s ∅ ∅ r r rAmbai t ∅ ∅ ∅ ∅ r r rAnsus t ∅ ∅ ∅ ∅ r r r

EY Wabo t s s ∅ ∅ r r rKurudu t s s ∅ ∅ r r r

Umar t h h k, ∅ ∅ r r jYaur ∅ h h ∅ ∅ r, (d) r ?Yeresiam k h h ∅ ∅ r r jMoor P, k s t k, P ∅ r r rWaropen k ? s ∅ ∅ r r ?Warembori t t t k, ∅ ∅ d/r d/r ?

Irarutu t t s ∅ ∅ r r r

RA Ma"ya t ? s ∅ ∅ l l l

SH Taba t ? s k k l l lBuli t s s ∅ ∅ l l lSawai t s s k ∅ l l ?

• Candidates for shared innovations:

– *s > t : Moor, Warembori

– *t > k : Biak, Roon, Meoswar, Yeresiam, Moor, Waropen

– *z- > j : Umar, Yeresiam

• None of these candidates are very convincing: the languages they pick out do not share much else

• Furthermore, *t > k evidence conflicts with Biakic, which is well supported on morphological grounds (atleast for Biak, Roon, and Dusner)

– 8 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012


5 Subject marking in southern Cenderawasih Bay languages

5.1 Moor

• Subject pronouns:

sg du pc pl

1in aarú a’ó í’=, í’a1ex í= maarú ma’ó áma2 á= murú mú=, mu’ó, àmu3 – tirú tí=, ti’ó

• Vocalic agreement prefixes:

sg du pc/pl

1in ∅ ∅1ex gw- n- n-2 ∅, gw- n-3 j- n- n- (hum); j-

• No consonantal agreement prefixes

• Initial consonant mutation: in 1sg and 3sg, t- becomes s- and rá ‘go’, ráma ‘come’ become já, jáma

5.2 Yeresiam

• Subject clitics:

sg du tr pl

1in no= ko= ne=1ex ne= no= ko= ne=2 a= u= ku= a=3 i= u= ku= i=

• Agreement prefixes:

sg nsgV C V C1 C2

1in k- k- ka-1ex j- ∅ m- m- ma-2 gu- ‹u› mu- m-‹u› mua-3 di- ‹i› hi- h- ha-

• Vowels are dropped in V prefixes when the root begins with i or u

• Infixes are dropped if the first root vowel is i or u

• C2 prefixes are used with monosyllabic and cluster-initial roots

• k -initial verbs mutate initial consonant to t in 3sg

• Some eligible roots do not undergo k -mutation or infixation (lexically specific)

• Illustration of possible Yeresiam consonantal verb paradigms:

root 1sg 2sg 3sg gloss notes

kàdí nè=kadí à=kadí ì=kadí ‘wait’ −k -mutation, −infixeskàkó nè=kakó à=k‹u›akó ì=t‹i›akó ‘measure’ +k -mutation, +infixeskúuna né=kuuna á=kuuna í=tuuna ‘burn’ +k -mutation, −infixeskróomi né=kroomi á=kr‹u›oomi í=kr‹i›oomi ‘answer’ −k -mutation, +infixes

– 9 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012


5.3 Yaur

• Realis agreement prefixes:

sg du plV C

1in do’- o’-1ex igw- i- dom- om-2 agw-‹u› a-‹u› dam-‹u› am-‹u›3 ‹i› ‹i› doh-‹i› h-‹i› (nhum); oh-‹i› (hum)

• Infixes were historically present but have now developed into a system of vowel ablaut and harmony

• The resulting system is reminiscent of Ambai, but more opaque

Table 7: Vowel alternations in the Yaur verb. Underlined vowels indicate alternations in multiple root vowels.

pattern 1sg 2sg 3sg gloss

invariant i-vi’ije a-vi’ije vi’ije ‘sit’invariant i-hehre a-hehre hehre ‘cough’invariant igw-uhre agw-uhre uhre ‘paddle’

a-a-e i-vahahe’re a-vahahe’re vehahe’re ‘feel’

a-e-e i-nubarne a-nuberne nuberne ‘remember’a-e-e i-ju’a’ane a-ju’e’ene ju’e’ene ‘blow ’

a-u-e i-rare a-rure rere ‘come’a-u-e i-ma’re a-mu’re me’re ‘die’a-u-e i-daberne a-duberne deberne ‘find’a-u-e i-’abahne a-’ubehne ’ebehne ‘split’

a-u-u i-jagwne a-jugwne jugwne ‘hit’

e-i-i igw-ehre agw-ihre ihre ‘stand’e-i-i igw-etemoje agw-itemoje itemoje ‘run’e-i-i i-’evotne a-’ivutne ’ivutne ‘hold’e-i-i i-memeje a-mimije mimije ‘laugh’

o-u-u i-jo’re a-ju’re ju’re ‘swim’o-u-u i-roneve a-runeve runeve ‘hear’o-u-u igw-uvrohre agw-uvruhre uvruhre ‘hit’o-u-u i-hodare a-hudere hudere ‘go up’

5.4 Umar

• Agreement prefixes:

sg du tr plV C

1in dit- tot- t-1ex e- e- dim- tom- em-2 a-, aw- a-‹u› dim-‹u› tom-‹u› am-‹u›3 j- i-‹i› dih-‹i› toh-‹i› ih-‹i›

• Most vowel-initial verbs take 2sg a-, but a few take aw-: ai ‘kill’, anna ‘eat’, etet ‘want’

• Only a few verbs take infixes: bav ‘carry on shoulders’, hae ‘carry hanging from shoulders’, har ‘pour’, kam‘break in half’, kar ‘grate’, mat ‘die’, ra ‘go’, tar ‘pound (sago)’, tarto ‘cut’, tarvuh ‘spit’, tat ‘cry’

– 10 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012


6 Comparative SHWNG: Subject marking

• Subject markers in CEMP languages generally derive from PMP nominative or genitive pronouns (Table 8)

• It is difficult to distinguish shared from independent innovations in the development of subject markers,but if this can be done it may prove to be a better subgrouping diagnostic than sound change

• Data in Tables 9 and 10

Table 8: PMP personal pronouns, as reconstructed by Ross (2006).

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl.in 1pl.ex 2pl 3pl

Neutral i-aku ikahu siya i-kita, ita i-kami i-kamu, i-ka-ihu,kamu-ihu

—

Nom. 1 aku (i)kahu iya kita, i-ta kami kamu, ka-ihu sida

Nom. 2 =(h)aku =ka(hu) =∅, =ya =ta =kami =kamu, =ka-ihu,=kamu-ihu

=da

Gen. 1 =ku =mu =ya =ta =mi =ihu, -mu-ihu =da

Gen. 2 =n(a)ku =nihu =niya — =mami, =nami =nihu =nida

Table 9: SHWNG singular subject markers, divided into vocalic and consonantal conjugations.

1sg 2sg 3sgV C V C V C

Bk. Biak y- ya- w- wa-, ‹w› d- i-, ‹y›Dusner y- ya-, ∅ w- wa-, ‹w› nd-, ndi- i-, ‹i›

WY Wandamen y- i- bu- ‹u› di- ‹i›Ambai i- i- bu- ‹u› di- ‹i›Wooi y- i- bu- ‹u› ty- ‹y›Ansus y- e- bu- ‹u› d- s-Pom y- i- w- ‹u› dy- ‹i›Munggui y- e- w- ‹u› ty- ‹y›Papuma y- e- w- ‹u› t- s-Busami y- ? w- ? s- ?

EY Wabo ai- a- b- o- d- ‹i›Kurudu ai- ai- b- ‹u› d- ‹i›

Umar e- e- a-, aw- a-‹u› j- i-‹i›Yaur igw- i- agw-‹u› a-‹u› ‹i› ‹i›Yeresiam ne=j- ne= a=gu- a=‹u› i=di- i=‹i›Moor í=gw- í= á=(gw-) á= j- ∅Waropen ra-, ya- ra-, ya- a- a- ∅, i- ∅, i-Warembori ∅ i-, e-, ya- w- (w)a- y- i-, ya-, ∅Irarutu ∅ ∅ m- m- n- n-

RA Ma"ya y- ‹y› my- m-‹y› ny- n-Ma"ya (Kawe) y- ‹y› my- m-‹y› ny- n-‹y›Biga y- ? m- ? n- ?Fiawat y- ye-‹y› m- ? n- ?Ambel y- ‹y› ny- n-‹y› n- n-As ? i-‹y›, ∅ m- m-‹y› n- n-Gebe y- ‹y› m(y)- m-‹y› n(y)- n-Matbat k- k- m- m- n- n-

SH Taba k= k= m= m= n= n=Buli ik- i- m- m- n- n-Sawai k- k- m- m- ∅ ∅

– 11 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012


Table 10: SHWNG plural subject markers. Most are the same for vocalic and consonantal conjugations.Differing markers are listed as vocalic | consonantal.

1pl.in 1pl.ex 2pl 3pl 3pl.hum

Bk. Biak kw- | ko- nkw- | nko- mkw- | mko- n- | n(a)- s- | s(i)-Dusner nd- | ndo- t- | to- mt- | mto- n- | na- s(i)- | s(i)-, so-

WY Wandamen tat- amat- met- si- set-Ambai tat- amet- met- et-

Umar t- em- am-‹u› ih-‹i›Yaur oP- om- am-‹u› h-‹i› oh-‹i›Yeresiam ne=k- ne=m- a=mu- | a=m-‹u› hi- i=hi-Moor ∅ n- n- tí=j- tí=n-Waropen ∅, i- a- mi- ki-Warembori k- | kV- am- | amV- m- | mV- t- | tV-

Irarutu ∅ ∅ m- n-

RA Ma"ya t- m- m- w- | ∅Ma"ya (Kawe) t- w- m- w- | ∅Biga t- m- m- l-Fiawat t- l- m- l-Ambel t- | ∅ am- m- | mem- l- | la-As t- am- m- l- | si-Gebe t- k- f- d(y)-Matbat t- n- m- n-

SH Taba t= a= h= l=Buli t- k- f- d-Sawai t- k- f- r-

• Candidates for shared innovations:

– Second person ‹u› and third person ‹i› in Cenderawasih Bay (except Moor, Waropen, Warembori)

– Different (?) infix ‹y› with different characteristics in Raja Ampat (except Matbat)

– 2sg b- in Yapen

– 2pl f- in South Halmahera and Gebe

– 1sg y- in Cenderawasih Bay and Raja Ampat (except Matbat), ai- in Kurudu and Wabo

• Likelihood of independent innovation can be roughly assessed by comparison with Proto-Oceanic and CMPlanguages (Table 11 on the next page)

– Infixing pattern in Arguni is unusual and requires further investigation

– Otherwise, the above innovations are rare or unattested in the sample

• New subgrouping proposals:

– Proto-West New Guinea, on the basis of second person ‹u› and third person ‹i›

– Proto-Yapen, on the basis of 2sg b-

• Support for existing proposals:

– Proto-South Halmahera, on the basis of 2pl f-

– Proto-Raja Ampat, on the basis of ‹y›

• The classification of Gebe, Matbat, and Arguni should be reconsidered

– 12 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012


Table 11: Subject markers in Proto-Oceanic and selected CMP languages.

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl.in 1pl.ex 2pl 3pl

POc ku=, au= mu=, ko= (y)a=, ña=, i= ∅, ta= ∅ ∅ ∅, ra=Arguni ga- w- | u-‹u› y- | i-‹i› a- mi-‹i› mu-‹u› si-‹i›Sekar e- o-, (o)mi- ia- ita- yama- ima- sina-Kowiai laP(u)- am(o)- in(a)- itat- amP- om- sin-Dobel (Aru) Pu- m- Pa- ta- ma- mi- da-Buru ya=, a= ku= da= ma= kam= kim= du=Tetun k- m- n- — — — r-, n-Roti a- mana- ta- ma- ma- la-Lamaholot k- m- n- t- m- m- r-Sika P- m- n- t- m- m- r-, l-Tukang Besi ku- Pu-, nu- no-, o- to- — i- no-, o-Kambera ku= (m)u= na= ta= ma= (m)i= da=

7 Conclusion

• The languages of southern Cenderawasih Bay exhibit considerable diversity amongst themselves and withrespect to other SHWNG languages

• The phonological history of Proto-SHWNG is more complex than claimed in Blust (1978)

• Sound change is not a useful diagnostic for the internal subgrouping of SHWNG languages

• Morphological change is more promising: comparative study of subject markers has yielded new subgroupingproposals, which should be further tested and refined

• Future work should also consider inalienable possessive markers for subgrouping (van den Berg 2009)

Figure 3: New proposed subgrouping of SHWNG.

Proto-SHWNG

Proto-SH Proto-RA Proto-WNG

Proto-Biakic Proto-Yapen

Proto-WY Proto-EY

Umar Yaur Yeresiam

Moor Waropen Warembori

– 13 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012


8 Appendix: Austronesian reflexes in Moor, Yeresiam, Yaur, and Umar

Proto-forms are PMP unless otherwise indicated. Semantic shifts are not shown, due to lack of space. Represen-tative examples are PMP *manuk ‘chicken’ > ‘bird’ in all four languages, and PMP *Rumaq ‘house’ > Yeresiamrúmà ‘ceremonial house’. Visit lexifier.lautgesetz.com for extensive wordlists in Moor, Yeresiam, Yaur, andUmar. Proto-forms are drawn from Blust (2012) when possible, otherwise from Blust (1978, 1993).

Proto-form Moor Yer. Yaur Umar

*babaq ‘short, low’ ku-vava’-î*ba-b‹in›ahi ‘woman’ vavín-aPCEMP *bai ‘to do, make’ ve-nî*banua ‘inhabited land, territory’ manù*baRa ‘hand, arm’ veréa bà-kí vra-’ugwaje*baR@q ‘abscess, swelling’ va-varà ne-vior-e*batu ‘stone’ vá’-a áaku atu*b@laq ‘to split’ vorà*b@Rŋi ‘night’ vàr-a’a*b@Rsay ‘canoe paddle’ vór-a*buaq ‘fruit’ vó ú*buku ‘node, knot’ vú’-a bú-gùa ga-vu-je vu*bulan ‘moon’ vùrin-a úùra*bulu ‘body hair’ vùru uru*bunuq ‘to kill’ mun-â*buRbuR ‘rice porridge’ vùvur-a*buRuk ‘rotten meat’ va-varù*dahun ‘leaf’ rànu ráàn-ia*danaw ‘lake’ rán-a*danum ‘fresh water’ ràrum-a ráaram-à i-ran*daRaq ‘blood’ ràra ráràPCEMP *daun ni qulu ‘head hair’ urànu*d@ŋ@R ‘to hear’ oran-î*duha ‘two’ rú-ró rúuh-i re-du edih*duyuŋ ‘dugong’ rún-a ri’-re*@pat ‘four’ á’-ó áak-à r-ia eat*@sa ‘one’ ta-tá*(i)kahu ‘you (sg.)’ ágw-a*i-na ‘that, there’ ná-na*ina ‘mother’ iná*i-ni ‘this, here’ né-na*i-nu ‘where?’ nu-evua*inum ‘to drink’ anum-î íiman-e umenPCEMP *isi ‘to peel, strip off’ ir-it-î*ka@n ‘to eat’ an-î áan-i an-na*kahiw ‘wood’ ka’ú-ata áì a-je ae*kalati ‘earthworm’ koro-vá’a*kami ‘we (excl.)’ ám-a*kamu ‘you (pl.)’ àmu amuPCEMP *kandoRa ‘cuscus, phalanger’ átoòraPCEMP *kanzupay ‘rat’ arùha*kaRaw ‘to scratch (an itch)’ áraa-ri kra-rPCEMP *keRa(n,ŋ) ‘hawksbill turtle’ èran-a*kita ‘we (incl.)’ í’-a*kudug ‘thunder’ kuru-rú’a*kuRita ‘octopus’ arí’-a kte*kutu ‘head louse’ kú’-a úuku utu*lahud ‘downstream, seawards’ rú*lakaw ‘to walk, go’ rá rá ra*laŋit ‘sky’ a-rá’-á ráak-atè*lawaq ‘spider’ ragwa’-i rá-raà-ruma ra-je b-rav-un*lima ‘five’ rím-ó ríìma*ma-beReqat ‘heavy’ máak-i mat

– 14 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012



PCEMP *madar ‘ripe, overripe’ marar-ù*ma-hiaq ‘shy, ashamed’ mái*ma-huab ‘to yawn’, PCEMP *mawap máh-a*ma-kunij ‘yellow’ vera-nggun-âPCEMP *malip ‘to laugh’ marí’-a mariPEMP *maluRu ‘shade’ marù-vana*ma-nipis ‘thin (materials)’ mániijah-e mniehPCEMP *mans(a,@)r ‘bandicoot’ mae*manuk ‘chicken’ mànu máan-aà ma’-re mn-a*ma-qetaq ‘raw, unripe’ ma’-î máaka*ma-qeti ‘low (tide)’ mót-a ne-moh-e*ma-qiRaq ‘red’ mara-rî miar*mata ‘eye’ mas-ina’ú mta*ma-takut ‘afraid’ muká’-a ngkák-e mtat*m-atay ‘to die’ má’-a máàke matPEMP *matu ‘dry (coconut)’ ma’ù màkúi*m@ñak ‘fat, grease’ mana-náPCEMP *mutaq ‘to vomit’ ma-muá’-a má-muugwak-e mutPEMP *natu ‘child’ na’ú*ŋajan ‘name’ nàtan-a áahan-à ahg-re han*niuR ‘coconut’ nér-a núìPEMP *(n)iwi ‘nest’ nìgwi*nusa ‘island’ nút-a núùha nuh-re nuh-man*paj@y ‘rice plant’ (pás-a) (páh-reevè) (pah-re) (pah)*panaq ‘to throw, shoot’ hinà*panas ‘warm, hot’ na-nat-î*p@ñu ‘the green turtle, Chelonia mydas’ éenu ono*piliq ‘to choose’ ir-à*punti ‘banana’ hút-a píiti idi-e idi*qabaRa ‘to carry on shoulder’ ovar-î áar-i*qabu ‘ash’ au*qatay ‘liver’ à’a ákeè-na*qal@jaw ‘day’ oro-’á óòra*qaninu ‘shadow, reflection’ anìno ánuunu-gùa*qapuR ‘lime, calcium’ ár-a áau au*qasiq ‘pity, compassion’ are’-ase(?)*qasu ‘smoke’ ógw-aahu-gùa*qat@p ‘roof, thatch’ r-à’a áka-raanià*q@nay ‘sand’ áen-aPCEMP *qen@p ‘to lie down’ enâ éene*qit@luR ‘egg’ á-koor-e tor*qul@j ‘maggot, caterpillar’ ór-a*qutin ‘penis’ ùsi*Rambia ‘sago palm’ pí abi*Ram@s ‘to squeeze’ amat-à*Rumaq ‘house’ rùma rúmà rug-re ron*ma-Ruqanay ‘male’ vu-rán-a máàna jo-mag-re*sakaRu ‘reef’ ta-ta’úar*sa-puluq ‘ten’ tàur-aPCEMP *s-ia ‘he/she’ îPEMP *suda ‘comb’ i-súr-a*susu ‘breast’ tút-a húuhu-gùa huhi-e huhu*taliŋa ‘ear’ ìna*t-ama ‘father’ kamá*tan@m ‘to plant’ ’anam-î káaman-e tnam*taŋis ‘to cry’ ’ànit-a káh-e*tasik ‘sea, saltwater’ àti káh-ìa ah-re tah*tawan ‘fruit tree sp.: Pometia pinnata’ kagwa-héta*taz@m ‘sharp’ m-tan

– 15 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012



*t@buh ‘sugarcane’ kóh-a kóou o-je to*t@l@n ‘to swallow’ ’oran-î kóor-i dor*t@lu ‘three’ ó-ró kóori-he e-tro*t‹in›aqi ‘intestines’ siné hìná hna-re hnaPCEMP *todan ‘to sit’ ’ò kó tot*tubuq ‘to grow, sprout’ ùvu*tunu ‘to roast food over a fire’ ’un-î kúun-a tnu*tuq@la(n,ŋ) ‘bone’ òr-o kóo-varà ’o-re torPCEMP *tusi ‘to draw, make marks’ ’ot-î*um-aRi ‘to come’, PCEMP *mai rá-m-a r-ma*utaña ‘to ask’ u’aná*wahiR ‘fresh water; stream, river’ gwàjar-aPCEMP *waŋka ‘canoe’ gwá’-a gwáàPCEMP *waR@j ‘rope’ gwàri-’a gwáari gwari-e wari*wiRi ‘left’ sa-gwìri vra-gwiri-e*zalan ‘road’ ràrin-a jáàra jar

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by an Individual Graduate Scholarship from the Endangered Languages DocumentationProgramme (‘Documentation of Moor, an Austronesian language of Cenderawasih Bay, Indonesia’, 2010–13).

Andrew Garrett, Mark Donohue, Robert Blust, Malcolm Ross, and Antoinette Schapper have provided helpfulfeedback at various stages of this project.

Special thanks to all of my language consultants: Zakeus Manuaron, Asariat Manuaron, Dorkas Musendi, SelsiusAritahanu, Welem Singgamui (Moor); Herman Marariampi, Hengki Akubar, Frengki Numberi, Yulianus Awujani(Yeresiam); Petrus Wojeri, Lukas Yamban, Dirk Rumawi, Salonika Aduari, Frengki Numberi (Yaur); Yance Sadi,Marta Sadi, Robertus Kenenei, Yudas Kenenei, Nataniel Banggo (Umar).

References

Anceaux, J. C. 1961a. The linguistic situation in the islands of Yapen, Kurudu, Nau and Miosnum, New Guinea. No. 35in Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde, ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.

Anceaux, J. C. 1961b. Verslag van een onderzoek naar de taalsituatie in het zuiden en zuidwesten van de Geelvink-baai.Typescript, Hollandia.

van den Berg, René. 2009. Possession in South Halmahera–West New Guinea: typology and reconstruction. In Austronesianhistorical linguistics and culture history: a festschrift for Robert Blust, K. Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley, eds.,217–247. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Blust, Robert A. 1978. Eastern Malayo-Polynesian: A subgrouping argument. In Wurm and Carrington (1978), 1: 181–234.Blust, Robert A. 1993. Central and Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian. Oceanic Linguistics 32(2): 241–293.Blust, Robert A. 2009. The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Blust, Robert A. 2012. Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. Accessed June 2, 2012.

<http://www.trussel2.com/ACD/>Laycock, Donald C. 1978. A little Mor. In Wurm and Carrington (1978), 1: 285–316.Remijsen, Bert. 2001. Word-prosodic systems of Raja Ampat languages. No. 49 in LOT Dissertation Series, Leiden

University.Ross, Malcolm. 2006. Reconstructing the case-marking and personal pronoun systems of Proto Austronesian. In Streams

converging into an ocean: Festschrift in honor of Professor Paul Jen-kuei Li on his 70th birthday, Henry Y. Chang,Lilliam M. Huang, and Dah-an Ho, eds., 521–563. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academica Sinica.

Silzer, Peter James. 1983. Ambai: an Austronesian language of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Australian National University.

Smits, L. and C. L. Voorhoeve (eds.). 1992a. The J. C. Anceaux collection of wordlists of Irian Jaya: Austronesianlanguages (part I). No. 4 in Irian Jaya source materials, Leiden and Jakarta: DSALCUL/IRIS.

Smits, L. and C. L. Voorhoeve (eds.). 1992b. The J. C. Anceaux collection of wordlists of Irian Jaya: Austronesianlanguages (part II). No. 5 in Irian Jaya source materials, Leiden and Jakarta: DSALCUL/IRIS.

Wurm, S. A. and Lois Carrington (eds.). 1978. Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: Proceedings.Pacific Linguistics Series C, Canberra: Australian National University.

– 16 – 12-ICAL, Bali, July 2–7, 2012

ThelanguagesofsouthernCenderawasihBayandtheirhistory 1...

Documents

Transcript of ThelanguagesofsouthernCenderawasihBayandtheirhistory 1...