-1-

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 STATEMENT OF INTENT 1.1.1 Aims s Breen (1990a:2) writes, ‘Pronoun systems and inventories seem to provide one of the most reliable indicators of closeness or distance of genetic relations between languages’. It has often been considered generally true that grammatical forms are much less subject to borrowing than are lexical items (pace Campbell (1997)); in short, if one is to reconstruct the history of a language family or subgroup, then morphology, and pronominal morphology in particular, should be one of the most stable aspects of the language and therefore the most suitable part of the languages from which to determine genetic relationships.

Jeffrey Heath (1978), in his study of linguistic diffusion between Pama-Nyungan and non-Pama-Nyungan languages in Arnhem Land, showed that pronominal and grammatical borrowing between unrelated languages was not only possible, but in that part of Australia, was relatively common. More recently, studies by Dench (1994, 1998a) and work by Dixon (1997) have led to the questioning of the practicality of attempting to determine close genetic relationships in Australia. While some, such as McConvell (McConvell and Evans (1997) and elsewhere), have continued to argue for the applicability of the family tree model in Australia, others have distrusted the validity of their application in areas of pervasive diffusion.

This thesis has two aspects. First and foremost, it presents the results of a practical exercise in morphological reconstruction. The bulk of the work is concerned with reconstructing the pronominal and case systems of Proto-Karnic. Secondly, the results of the reconstructions are used to draw inferences about the validity of using subgroups and the family tree model in areas of diffusion. The aims of this paper are:

• to reconstruct the inflectional nominal morphology of Proto-Karnic;

• to explain the morphological changes that have take place in the daughter languages;

• to attempt to isolate diffused suffixes from those which are the result of shared genetic inheritance;

• to examine the basis for subgrouping of languages. Chapter 1: Introduction -2-

1.1.2 Scope of Topic In order to limit the material under consideration, it has been necessary to exclude many areas of morphology that would have ideally been included. Studying even the complete inventory of nominal morphology would have required a great deal more time than has been available, and many more words to describe.

The study is largely restricted to the inflectional nominal morphology and pronominal systems of the languages concerned.1 Even the rarer cases, such as the benefactive, have had to be excluded, due to lack of space and data. Derivational morphology could not be examined in great detail. Thus suffixes such as ’s ‘excessive concern’, - kanytyi, were excluded because there were no data on such a suffix in other languages of the region.

While the personal pronouns were included, certain lexical classes with morphological idiosyncrasies had also to be excluded, which was unfortunate as they would have been an interesting area for research. These were kin terms, human proper names and place names, demonstratives and the indefinite/interrogatives. Unfortunately, these areas must be deemed beyond the scope of this thesis. Also impossible to describe due to lack of time, space and data was a comparison of the nominal and verbal morphology of the languages. As Blake (1993) has demonstrated, such a study can be very profitable. The rich verbal systems of Karnic languages with marking o direction in the verb, switch reference marking, and others, would have been a very interesting topic to investigate. Such a study, however, could not be carried out for Karnic here.

Only a brief survey of the sound changes in lexical items has been conducted. This is to be found in Chapter 3. Sound change reconstructions are mostly based on those to be found in Austin (1990a). Because of the time available it was not possible to research this area of reconstruction more fully. Nor, perhaps, was it necessary; morphological change can happen independently of the sound changes reconstructed for lexemes. Therefore Austin (1990a) was the main source for sound change and little further was added. There are a number of morphosyntactic issues that are related to reconstruction in morphology. These include constituent order, double case marking and the syntactic origins of certain case marking strategies. While these have been mentioned where relevant, unfortunately it was not possible to make a detailed study of these issues. Grammatical material from last century was available for a few languages, including Roth’s (1897) grammar or Pitta-Pitta and dialects, and Rev. Reuther’s (nd.a) Three Central Australian Grammars, of Yandruwandha, and Diyari. While these

1 The division between inflectional and derivational suffixes is somewhat unclear in Australian languages. It could be said that the suffixes reconstructed here are those which have grammatical, rather than relational, functions. This definition is adopted from Dench and Evans (1988:2). For further information see this article and the references found there. Chapter 1: Introduction -3- have been examined, and comments on the differences in forms made where possible, and where the ‘old’ and ‘new’ languages differ, no systematic comparison was possible.

Some forms have been related to the reconstructions of Proto-Pama-Nyungan; there was no time or space to make more detailed comments on all the reconstructions and their relationship to the presumed pre-proto-language. At other points in the text I have had to assume the reader’s familiarity with the main literature of Proto-Pama- Nyungan; references have been given at these points but it was not possible to provide detailed summaries of the material.

The most unfortunate omission, due again to lack of time, space and data, was a comparison with forms outside the area. This was done in places in an attempt to identify sources for odd forms, however no systematic study could be undertaken. 1.1.3 Implications for Theory This thesis is primarily an exercise in practical morphological reconstruction. Secondarily, however, there are a number of issues, in both historical and synchronic language study, which arise when completing such a task.

The first is that of shared genetic inheritance as opposed to diffused forms from related languages. In morphology these are often very difficult to identify (the problems are well set out in Heath (1978:1ff). Lexical borrowings are often identified because they exhibit different correspondence sets from words of shared genetic origin. Such a criterion cannot always be usefully applied in much of morphology, for sound changes may be sporadic, particularly in words such as pronouns, with a very high functional load and frequent use. This is a problem which will be addressed in this thesis.

The applicability of the family tree model to the languages of Australia has been an issue in recent times. If one of the results of this thesis is to identify a number of changes, in a part of Australia, which are unlikely to have been borrowed, then there is some hope that some family tree of at least parts of the Pama-Nyungan language family may be recovered, if only in isolated areas. Closely related to, and following from, the questions of the applicability of the family tree model is the question of the type of relatedness of the languages concerned. According to Professor Dixon (pc), the is a linguistic Sprachbund; apart from a few closely related languages, there are no obvious genetic similarities. This is a very interesting proposition and will be examined further in chapters 7 and 8.

Finally, the languages of the Lake Eyre basin seem to have undergone some quite rare changes; these include the shift from the dative case to the nominative of a pronoun, the creation of new cases from allomorphs of established cases2 and exaptation. Doing detailed reconstruction on low-level subgroups within Australia is a good way to find

2 this is not uncommon in stems (see Koch (1996a) for some examples). Chapter 1: Introduction -4- out what sorts of changes occur in Australian languages. There have been few studies of low-mid-level subgroups in Australia; Karnic, which is quite well-defined, is a good subgroup to add to the small but growing list of reconstructed subgroups.3 1.1.4 General Problems Perhaps the biggest problem in using the Lake Eyre languages for historical and comparative study is the paucity of data for a number of languages. Many Karnic languages were described “just in time”, when the few last speakers were very old. For some languages, such as and Pirlatapa, only a few words have been recorded. Not every last speaker of a language was fluent; there are gaps and inconsistencies in a number of pieces of data. This is not to deny the talents of many of the last speakers of Karnic languages, nor of the linguists who described them. Excellent grammars have been written for a number of languages. Nonetheless, data are missing and this creates problems in reconstruction. Almost no grammatical data at all were collected from the languages of the north-east part of the Lake Eyre basin.

Often only one dialect of a language is represented; where there are data for more dialects there can be shown to be dialect continua (see, for example, Chambers and Trudgill (1980)). Language borders are considerably less well defined than they appear on the map; the dialect Reuther described for Yandruwandha, for example, is much closer to Yawarrawarka in some respects than to Yandruwandha, both geographically and linguistically. Lack of data in this respect has also contributed to the incomplete picture presented here.

For a number of languages, the only data available were from field notes and preliminary analyses which were also completed in the field. Apart from problems of legibility, there is the much greater problem that in working from raw data; for example, the exact functions of a number of cases were not precisely determined in a number of languages (especially Mithaka), the conditions which determine allomorphy are unknown. Data of this sort are certainly much better than none at all; nonetheless, these problems are raised simply because when synchronic analyses of languages such as Mithaka and Ngamini are undertaken, it is possible that reconstructions may be affected. 1.1.5 Working Assumptions It was necessary to make a few working assumptions in order to be able to begin tackling the morphological reconstruction of Proto-Karnic. The most important of these is that a language which can be called “Proto-Karnic” existed at some point; that is, that a number of languages of the Lake Eyre basin are descended from a single language (see further chapter 2). Secondly, it is assumed that unusual changes in the morphology of languages are much less likely to diffuse than changes for which there is

3 For others, see, for example, Heath (1978), Black (1980) and Austin (1988a, 1997), amongst others. Chapter 1: Introduction -5- structural predisposition (see further 1.12 below). An alternative view is considered in chapter 8.

1.2 HISTORY OF CLASSIFICATION O’Grady, Voegelin and Voegelin (1966) were the first to recognise an entity referred to as ‘Karnic’, although their Karnic was considerably smaller than the family subgroup generally recognised now.4 Other publications recognise several independent groups, implicationally no more closely related to each than to any other subgroup, such as Arandic or Tangkic. Breen (1971a) recognised the wider relations of O’Grady, Voegelin and Voegelin’s ‘Karnic’ group and related it to ‘Mitakudic’ and others.

Previous subgroupings have been based primarily on lexico-statistical data, whether as part of a wider preliminary survey of languages (such as O’Grady, Voegelin and Voegelin (1966) and Wurm (1972)) or whether involving a more detailed comparison, as in Breen (1970). Austin (1990a) appears to be the only classification which involves methods other than cognate inspection, although Breen (1971a) can be assumed to have applied lexicostatistics intelligently since he has a very good knowledge of the languages concerned.

O’Grady, Voegelin and Voegelin (1966:42-44) give the following classification, which is very similar to that given by Wurm (1972):5 (1) Dieric Group Karna Subgroup 1. Dieri - Tirari - Jandruwanta - - Karangura - Yelyendi 2. Pilatapa 3. Jauaraworka (Jawaraworka) 4. Karendala - Kunkadutji (Gungadidji) - Kulumali - Bidia - Marulta -

Ngura Subgroup 1. - Ngadangara 2. Kalali (Garlali) - - Tereila - Wangkumara - Ngurawola 3. Badjiri (Badjari, Baddjeri)

Yalyi Subgroup Karenggapa - Nadikali -

Pittapittic Group 1. Ulaolinya 2. Wangkadjera - Pittapitta - Kungkalenya - Karanya - Rakkaia - Ringuringu - Mayuli

4 Their ‘Karnic’ comprised the languages immediately to the east and north of Lake Eyre - that is, Diyari, Ngamini, , Yandruwandha and Yawarrawarka. 5 Wurm’s spelling of language names is retained here. Note that ‘Karnic’ refers to the group as a whole; karna is one sub-group within the group. Perhaps confusingly, however, ‘Karnic’ is a sub-group of Pama-Nyungan. Karnic, in this thesis, always refers to the sub-group of Pama- Nyungan; others use ‘karna’ or ‘karnic’ to denote, additionally, further language relations within this language group. The term ‘karna’ is not used here. Chapter 1: Introduction -6-

Mitakudic Group Mitakudi

Arabanic Group Arabana - Wongkanguru - Wongkamala

The classification given in Wurm (1972:131 - 3) is almost identical. The differences are:

• Karengapa is removed from the Yalyi subgroup (the name does not seem to appear anywhere in the classification); • The Ngura subgroup is as follows: 1. Punthamara - Ngadangara - Kalali (Garlali) - Bidjara? - Tereila? - Wangkumara - Ngurawola? 2. Badjiri (Badjari, Baddjeri)

See chapter 2 for a discussion of the doubtful Karnic languages Malyangapa, Badjiri, Garlali and Birria/Pirriya.

Breen (1971a) is a major survey of the languages of Western Queensland and in this book Breen modifies the groupings of O’Grady et al (1966) and Wurm (1972) in a number of ways. While Breen does not include a number of obviously Karnic languages, such a Pirlatapa and Arabana (since the scope of his study is a geographic region (Western Queensland), not a group of languages), the study is detailed and includes a careful study of the lexico-statistical material and brief consideration of linguistic factors other than shared vocabulary. His subgrouping is given below:

(2) Karnic Group Narla Subgroup Arabana, Wangkangurru

Karna Subgroup 1. Diyari, Ngamini, Yarluyandi, 2. Mithaka 3. Yawarrawarka, Yandruwandha (and others outside the scope of the publication)

Palku Subgroup 1. Lanima, Wangka-jutjuru 2. Pitta-Pitta, Ringa-Ringa, , Ngulubulu, Kunkalanja

Ngura Subgroup Chapter 1: Introduction -7-

1. Punthamara, Thiraila, Mambangura, Wangkumara, Kungatutji, Karendala6 2. Galali, Wangkumara, Pitjara, Minkabari 3. Badjiri

The greatest difference between Breen’s 1971 classification and O’Grady, Voegelin and Voegelin (1966) is the recognition of a Karnic group, comprising subgroups not previously regarded as particularly close. Mithaka is placed in the Karna subgroup. Wangkama(d)la, the third language of O’Grady, Voegelin and Voegelin’s Arabanic group, is shown to be, in fact, the Wangkangurru name for Lhanima, and not a separate language. The Narla subgroup (the former Arabanic group) thus contains only two languages – Arabana and Wangkangurru. The details of the Ngura subgroup have also been altered. Kungatutji and Karendala are now part of this subgroup, and not the Karna subgroup as hypothesised by O’Grady, Voegelin and Voegelin. Badjiri remains distinct, but the other languages of the Ngura subgroup are split into two clusters. Note that Wangkumara appears twice, grouped both with Punthamara and with Garlali. The first is the “(lower) Wilson River language”, described by Breen (nd.c); the second is Wangkumara as described by McDonald and Wurm (1979).

The relevant lexico-statistical information is given below. The following table is a compilation of several tables of percentage counts in Breen (1971a)7; W-jut 60 - Wang 35 36 - Mith 44 (24) - Yarl 48 40 75 - Nga 41 46 74 - Di 73 - Yawa 53 67 51 - Yandr 27 47 67 49 56 75 - Wang (32)- Punth 20 19 28 31 44 - Garl 91 59 - Karu 27 74 50 31 36 36 25 PP Wj Wang MithYarl Nga Di YawaYandr Wang Punth Garl Table 1.1. Lexicostatistical percentages of Lake Eyre Languages.

As may be seen, with Karnic cognate levels range from about 20%8 to over 90%, whereas the typical percentage of shared vocabulary between Karnic languages and non-Karnic languages is between 5% and 25%, as the following table shows:9

6 Ngurawola is also included here, although tentatively. Breen (1975b) shows conclusively that Ngurawola is the Yawarrawarka name for an uninhabited place, not a language group. See further section 1.6.9. 7 the typographical errors in Breen (1971a) have been corrected from the table in Austin (1990a). Bracketed numbers were those inserted by me, using the wordlist in Breen (1971a). Gaps are unknown percentages. 8 where the languages are geographically furthest apart. Chapter 1: Introduction -8-

Marg Gun Wad Ini Kung Birr Goa Jand And Wag Warl Kal Jal PP 9 10 21 21 13 12 11 17 May 12 17 20 23 21 12 Mit 14 Kar 18 Yawa 18 Punth 20 23 1819 Badj 26 21 Wa 14 Lhan 11 Wjutj 12 5 7 11 Table 1.2. Lexicostatistics percentages outside the Lake Eyre basin.

Thus although the evidence is not conclusive, on lexicostatistical grounds it would appear plausible to separate Karnic as a linguistic Sprachbund and possibly also as a genetic subgroup. Breen (1971a:23) states that the lexicostatistical data do no conclusively establish the existence of a group “Karnic”, and he provides a number of structural criteria, such as morphological similarity in the nouns and verbs. More detailed discussion is provided below, in section 2.2.

Walsh and Wurm (1982), the most recent set of maps showing the distribution of languages in Australia, is based on Breen (1971a) and O’Grady, Hale and Wurm (1966). The relevant section is given in Appendix I. Hercus’ (1994) grammar of Arabana- Wangkangurru gives a brief introduction to the relations between the languages of the Lake Eyre basin, and is based on Breen (1971a), with additional information from her and Breen’s more recent fieldwork. Hercus (1994:10) gives the following family tree for the relevant groups of Pama-Nyungan:

9 Only cognate figures included in Breen (1971a:38-39) are given here, hence the number of gaps. Chapter 1: Introduction -9-

Figure 1.1. Hypothesised family tree and Karnic subgrouping (from Hercus (1994:10)) Chapter 1: Introduction -10-

The final classification of Karnic is that of Austin (1990a), His grouping is reproduced below in Figure 1.2. See page iii for a key to the abbreviations.

Proto-Kar nic

pCK Pitta Wa

pW K Y a n d r Y a w a M it h K a r a

D iy N g a Y a r l

Figure 1.2. Austin’s (1990a) Karnic

This is broadly in agreement with Breen (1971a). The most significant point of difference between Austin and the other subgroupings is the exclusion of Arabana- Wangkangurru from the Karnic subgroup. Austin does this largely on the evidence of the pronominal forms in the relevant languages (1990a:182ff). Discussion and criticisms of Austin’s classification is to be found in 3.1 and 7.4.4.

Dixon (1997 (esp. pp 87 - 93), 1998, pc) advocates a rather different view, that languages with similarities to one another comprise linguistic areas rather than genetic groups, and the family tree model is inappropriate. Therefore the reconstruction of intervening proto-languages is either impossible or misguided. As stated in section 1.1.5, however, this thesis was begun on the assumption that there was a single ancestor language, Proto-Karnic, once spoken in the Lake Eyre basin; that is, that Karnic is a genetic subgroup. Discussion of this has been provided in chapter 2 and arguments against the alternative view are given in chapter 8.

Because this thesis is, in part, an examination of previous subgroups, the names of intermediate stages, such as Ngura or Palku, will not be used. The use of intervening subgroups within Karnic, and terminology associated with this, has been completely avoided in the reconstructions.

1.3 OVERVIEW OF KARNIC LANGUAGE STRUCTURE The Karnic group is Pama-Nyungan. These languages are dependent-marking (cf Nichols (1992:46 - 64)), almost entirely suffixing and generally agglutinative. In this, they are typical Pama-Nyungan languages. The Karnic languages are, however, unusual in a number of ways. These characteristics allow Karnic to be distinguished from the neighbouring languages. Not every feature is shared between all languages, and some features are also shared by neighbouring languages; nonetheless Karnic languages are sufficiently different to allow the identification of the Lake Eyre basin either as a Chapter 1: Introduction -11-

Sprachbund (linguistic area) or as a genetic subgroup. The following shows the most important general characteristics:

• 3 contrasting rhotics; (r, rr, R). See further Breen (1997) for allophony; • a reconstructable gender difference in third person singular pronouns; • ngali, a 1st person dual pronouns which is very common in Pama-Nyungan languages, appears as the exclusive form, not the inclusive (as is the case in most Pama-Nyungan languages with this pronoun); • there is voicing distinction in many languages in the apical stops in homorganic lateral and/or nasal clusters (see 3.2.4, p 44). Three languages have a full voicing distinction in the stops; • nasals and laterals are prestopped.

There are also a number of features which set languages apart within the group:

• tense based case marking in Pitta-Pitta and Wangka-jutjuru • initial dropping in Arabana-Wangkangurru • a long vowel aa in Arabana; • the marking of definiteness and specificity by a suffixed ‘article’ in Wangkumara and Punthamara; • serial verbs in central Karnic.

Some of these features are quite clearly areal, such as initial dropping (shared with Arandic to the west) and prestopping (again, a feature of Arandic, but also found in the languages to the south, such as ). Others, however, are less clearly so.

1.4 MAP OF LANGUAGE AREA Every map consulted varied in some important detail from every other. The map used here is most closely based on O’Grady, Wurm and Hale (1966) and Walsh and Wurm (1982). The map was compared with the many available maps of the area in grammars and articles. The base map (O’Grady, Wurm and Hale) was traced by hand, the appropriate changes made and the final copy electronically scanned onto computer. The base map, including surrounding languages, is map 1.1 on page 13.

Some other maps of the area differ considerably; Appendix I includes Tindale (1940, 1974), the original O’Grady et al (1966) and Walsh and Wurm (1982) maps and a few others which were consulted, such as Howitt (1904/1996) and Schmidt (1919) for comparison.

Several changes have been made to the base maps. The first is the removal of the name ‘Ngurawola’, for the reasons outlined in section 1.6.9. The second, and more radical change, is the moving of the borders of Pitta-Pitta and its dialects so that they resemble more closely the map in Blake and Breen (1971a:ii). This latter map represents the approximate locations of language groups at the time of white settlement, whereas Chapter 1: Introduction -12-

O’Grady, Hale and Wurm place language groups in their current position. Walsh and Wurm’s borders were considerably more similar in this regard to Blake and Breen (1971).

Languages considered Karnic have been enclosed in a thick black line. Language names have also been changed to reflect current spelling. Neighbouring languages have been retained on the map. The shading of language groups (in Walsh and Wurm), all topographical features except Lake Eyre, towns/stations and state borders (in Tindale (1949, 1974) and O’Grady, Wurm and Hale (1966)) have been excluded in the interests of clarity. A topographic map with state borders has been included as Appendix II, with the approximate locations of languages superimposed (but without tribal boundaries to aid in clarity).

1.5 SOCIAL RELATIONS WITHIN THE LAKE EYRE BASIN. The Lakes peoples shared social, cultural and economic ties. There were a number of ceremonies and song cycles shared between the various groups of the Lake Eyre Basin, and also outside. The Mindari ceremony, for example, involved speakers of Thirrari, Diyari, Ngamini, Karangura, Yawarrawarka and Yandruwandha. The Urumpula ceremony involved Guyani and Arabana-Wangkangurru people (Guyani is a Thura- Yura language to the south of Arabana). (pc) was told, regarding the duck egg increase ceremony, that it was important for representatives of a tribe to be represented, otherwise that tribe’s portion of eggs would be small that year.

Marriages could be exogamous (see, for example, the quotation from Gason (1874) reproduced on the frontispiece). Perhaps the best documented example of this is a genealogical table in Howitt (1904/1996:834-5) illustrating Diyari marriages, where the language group of each person is given. The table, giving just the language groups, is reproduced below

Yawarawarka Diyari Diyari Diyari Tangara Diyari Diyari

Diyari Diyari Diyari Diyari Diyari Diyari Diyari Diyari Kuyani Kuyani Diyari Arabana Wangkangurru Wangkangurru Diyari Diyari

Wankangurru Diyari Diyari Wangkangurru Diyari Diyari Diyari Diyari Diyari Diyari Kuyani

Diyari Kuyani

Figure 1.3. Sample Diyari family tree.

There was also a high degree of multilingualism. The late Maudie Naylon, for example, was an informant for a number of languages, as was her husband, Bob. A number of Gavan Breen’s informants were very aware of the differences and similarities between their own and neighbouring languages. In a number of places in Breen’s field notes, for Chapter 1: Introduction -13-

Map 1.1. Languages of the Lake Eyre basin. Chapter 1: Introduction -14- several languages, there are notes on forms, that a certain suffix is “proper” but that another form from a neighbouring language is also used. Such statements by those who know, as near native speakers, a number of languages can be very helpful, although they should on occasions be treated with caution, since both forms could be the result of shared genetic inheritance, and not necessarily borrowing. Such statements, however, provide a good illustration of the complexities of doing reconstruction in areas such as the Lake Eyre basin, where there may be a number of sporadic changes to increase individuation, or borrowing of neighbouring suffixes (which over time are presumably no longer felt to be borrowings).

There were a number of exchange networks within the Lake Eyre Basin and outside. This was necessary since appropriate stone for grinding and other tools is not found around Lake Eyre, and had to be brought in from the to the south, or from Aranda country in the north-west. McBryde (1987, to appear) gives detailed accounts of the routes for gathering pityere and stone for tools. A map showing trade routes in the Lake Eyre basin, from McBryde (1987), can be found in Appendix III.

Thus there was a high degree of social interaction between peoples of the Lake Eyre Basin, and a few groups outside, such as the Lower Southern Aranda. This is in contrast to certain other groups, such as the Western Desert Antikirinya, who by all accounts arrived in the area fairly recently and were not regarded favourably, as the following extract from an account of the Mudlua ceremony in Wangkangurru shows:10

(3) … ari uru-wili; adu anja yambaa-na; they stranger-like; I.ERG father ask-PRES:

“indjali-ana waada, Andiirinja”? where-EL this, Andigirinja?

… but those others appeared to me like strangers. So I asked my father (ie, my father’s youngest brother): “Where are these people from? Are they Andikirinja?” (Hercus (1980:16, 22))

The Lake Eyre basin was profoundly affected by white settlement. The Koonchera and Mindari massacres last century (for which see Hercus (1977)) all but destroyed a number of tribes, including the Karangura. Smallpox, measles and influenza, as in many other parts of the country, killed many. There are only speakers of three languages still living: three Arabana speakers, two partial speakers of Diyari, both over the age of 80, and one man with a knowledge of Garlali. The last speakers of Yandruwandha, Yawarrawarka, Pitta-Pitta (and dialects) and Ngamini died in the 1970s.

10 in this orthography, all stopped are written as voiced. Chapter 1: Introduction -15-

1.6 LANGUAGE SOURCES Many languages labelled ‘Karnic’ on the basis of old wordlists could not be investigated in this study because of the paucity of material. Many of the north-eastern languages, for example, are attested only in short wordlists; they are thus placed in Karnic using only lexicostatistical methods and cannot be further discussed in this thesis. Even when more data are available, it is not always possible to place languages with any certainty. Languages such as Garlali and Badjiri are good examples of this, for while there is grammatical information available, paradigms are often ambiguous or incomplete (or both). For further discussion see chapter 2. 1.6.1 Arabana-Wangkangurru Most data are from Dr L Hercus’ grammar (1994); there are also a number of articles on the structure and history of Arabana-Wangkangurru. See, for example, Hercus (1972, 1976, 1979, 1987, 1991, nd.c).

The missionary, J.G. Reuther, wrote a sketch of the morphology and syntax of ‘Wongkanguru’ as part of his Three Central Australian Grammars (Reuther nd). This is based on material recorded last century. There are certain differences between his recording of the morphology and Hercus’; these have been noted where they occur and are deemed relevant.11

There are several dialects within Arabana-Wangkangurru. First is the differentiation between Arabana and Wangkangurru. Within Arabana there were three dialects (Hercus (1990:6ff)). Arabana proper was also called piltapalta, and was spoken in the north of Arabana country. Wangakupa, or ‘little language’, spoken around Anna Creek is the best preserved dialect. Midlaliri was the Arabana dialect of the Stuart Ranges; the last speaker died in the 1940s.

Wangkangurru also had three main dialects. The first is Wangkangurru (Mikiri-nganha or Mungathirri-nganha), spoken by those who left the Simpson Desert at the turn of the century. Wangkatyaka, the Wangkangurru term for ‘little language’, was recorded from the last two speakers. The third dialect, Eastern Wangkangurru, or Karla-nganha ‘from the creek’ (ie, the Diamantina), was spoken by the descendants of the Simpson Desert people who settled in , and came into contact with speakers of other Karnic languages, such as Yarluyandi, Mithaka and Ngulubulu (a dialect of Pitta-Pitta).

Arabana-Wangkangurru and the Pitta-Pitta/Wangka-jutjuru languages are together referred to as the ‘Karnic fringe’ languages, since they share a number of features which the other Karnic languages do not, and have preserved features which the other Karnic languages have replaced.

For the locations of the dialects, see the map in Appendix IV.

11 Where, for example, the differences are not simply the result of different transcriptions. Chapter 1: Introduction -16-

1.6.2 Diyari/Thirrari Data are from Austin (1978, 1981a); Occasionally the two sources differ; in this case clarification has been sought from a third source or from Professor Austin himself. Samual Gason published a sketch grammar and vocabulary of Diyari in 1874. The sketch is very brief, yet there are a number of intriguing differences between some morphological forms in Gason’s data and those recorded in Reuther or Austin. These have been noted where applicable.

The only other source of grammatical information consulted about Diyari is from the files of the Rev. Reuther, a missionary at Killalpaninna, who wrote a five volume description of the languages of the area. This includes a dictionary of ‘Dieri’ (Reuther (1901) with sample sentences and notes on the other languages, and sketch grammars of three languages: Dieri, Yandruwandha and Wongkanguru (Reuther (nd.a)). The version translated by Scherer and Hercus was used.

There are a few differences between Diyari and Thirrari, the language of the people who lived on the eastern shore of Lake Eyre; these have been noted where they occur. Austin (1978, 1981a) also notes a number of differences between Diyari and Thirrari. Where no comment is made, however, Thirrari and Diyari should be assumed to share identical forms. 1.6.3 Garlali (also spelt Kalili) Gavan Breen (1967-1979) elicited some material from the last, partially-fluent speakers. The only other source was Holmer’s (1988) chapter on Punthamara, which contains comparative notes on ‘Kalali’. Holmer and Breen used different informants (only one, Paddy Ardoch, provided data to both) and, while the data differ on some points, for the most part the data are very similar.

Breen (pc) believes that this language might not be Karnic. A justification for their inclusion here is given in section 2.1.3. In tables, the name Garlali has been used throughout; where forms differ, (B) or (H) is included in brackets, referring to Breen and Holmer respectively. 1.6.4 Karangura Karangura was probably always a small linguistic community, however the combination of smallpox, measles and the Mindiri massacre all contributed to the deaths of all Karangura people by the early years of this century. The only extant data have been thoroughly examined in Austin (1991) and Hercus (1991). Very little grammatical data were available and so this language has been largely excluded from the present study. Austin (1991) shows that the surviving word lists have many possible cognates with Ngamini and Diyari. 1.6.5 Karuwali, Kunkatutji and Karendala Very little is known about these languages. Kunkatutji is probably very close to Wangkumara (Luise Hercus, pc). The other languages (if languages they be, and not names of communities speaking a known language) are simply names on a map. Thus Chapter 1: Introduction -17- the ‘proto-Karnic’ reconstructions include no information about the north-eastern languages; this was only because, unfortunately, none was available. 1.6.6 Bidia/Birria/Pirriya This language is not obviously Karnic. Data are sparse and are to be found in Breen’s Salvage Studies of Western Queensland Aboriginal Languages (1990a). From the slight information available, it appears that it more closely resembles the Mari languages to the east. Very little information on the nominal morphology was available and the language has not been included in the present study. 1.6.7 Mithaka The slight amount of data come from Breen’s field notes (Breen (nd.a)). While there is a full list of nominal cases, allomorphy is not always given, and many pronominal forms are missing. This is, however, all the information available. There was not time to examine all elicited data available to attempt to work out the allomorphy conditions. 1.6.8 Ngamini Most data are from Breen’s field notes (Breen nd.b). There is also a wordlist in the comparative wordlists made by J.G. Reuther (nd.b). Unfortunately, I have not been able to see all the data collected in this language. 1.6.9 ‘Ngurawola’ While a language of this name is mentioned by Tindale and appears on the map produced by O’Grady, Hale and Wurm (1966), it appears that this is a Yandruwandha word meaning ‘no camp’; that is, the area is uninhabited. A conversation taped and transcribed by Gavan Breen (1975b) unambiguously shows that there was no tribe or language called ngurawola. The relevant portion of the conversation is reproduced below:12 (4) G. One thing I’ve been meaning to ask you about; the Ngurawala; … that’s the name of some people, was it? B. Yes, well, he’s this way, you see, that urawala. M Yes, that way, Yawarrawarka. B. Yes, where they used to live. … G. Were they part of the Yawarrawarka people, were they? B. All Yawarrawarka. G. And where did they live, the urawala, which part? M. That side, when the old people was alive. Then all die out, they call them urawala now and we13 call then urawalpa. … G. Well, ura means the camp. … What’s the walpa mean? …

12 ‘G’ refers to Gavan Breen, ‘M’ to Maudie Naylon and ‘B’ to Bob Naylon. 13 That is, the Wangkangurru. Chapter 1: Introduction -18-

M. Nobody, nobody living there. …

The country assigned to ngurawola has been placed within the borders of Yawarrawarka country, as implied by the conversation between Gavan Breen and the Naylons and confirmed by Luise Hercus (pc). 1.6.10 Pidjara There were no grammatical data on this language. There is also another language known as Bidjara further into Queensland, described in Breen’s Salvage Studies (1990a), which is not related closely. Neither has been considered in the current study. 1.6.11 Pirlatapa (Pilartapa) The small amount of data have been thoroughly examined in Austin (1990b). This is another language which could not be included due to lack of data, as the material collected by Austin (1990b) includes a very small amount of nominal morphology, and the four sentences recorded in Reuther’s grammar only give information about the nominative, ergative and accusative cases. 1.6.12 Pitta-Pitta, Wangka-jutjuru and dialects For the purposes of this research, Pitta-Pitta will be taken as representative of the eastern dialects of this language. Dialectal differences have been noted. From the closeness of the data, however, it seems that there was an eastern language and a western language. Wangka-jutjuru is the representative of this latter language.

The dialects are, as listed in Blake and Breen (1971), Pitta-Pitta, Ringa-Ringa, Mayawarli, Rakaya, Ngulubulu and Kunkalanya form the eastern dialects. Pitta-Pitta has been taken as the representative dialect for this group. The western dialects are Wangka-jutjuru and Lhanima. A possible ninth dialect is Talimana, a name given to Breen (1971a:7) but unknown to most modern informants and not mentioned in either Tindale (1949, 1974) or O’Grady, Voegelin and Voegelin (1966). Map 1.2. on page 19 shows the approximate locations of the dialects of Pitta-Pitta.

Blake (1979b) is a sketch grammar of the Pitta-Pitta dialect, and in it Blake gives a different interpretation of some of the data in Blake and Breen (1971), including different terminology for some forms (such as dative instead of future object). Differences have been noted where relevant. 1.6.13 Punthamara Punthamara is the Northern Wilson River dialect (whereas Wangkumara is the Southern Wilson River language). For river locations see Appendix II. Data are from Holmer (1988), and Breen’s (1967) field notes; there was also a page of notes which was included in Breen’s (1973/4) Yawarrawarka material. S.A. Wurm made some recordings of this language which I was unable to obtain. Chapter 1: Introduction -19-

Map 1.2. Approximate locations of Pitta-Pitta and dialects (from Blake and Breen (1971)

Chapter 1: Introduction -20-

1.6.14 Thereila No material was available so the language could not be included in the study. 1.6.15 Wangkumara There are three major sources for this language. Robertson (1984, 1985) is a grammar, dictionary and students’ guide to Wangkumara. Breen (nd.c) is a sketch grammar of Wangkumara prepared for Bourke High School. Since Robertson’s material was very closely based on that collected by Breen, it is not surprising that the two should agree on forms.

The third source for this language is McDonald and Wurm (1979), where the language is labelled Wangkumara (Garlali); the language recorded by them is somewhat different from that which formed the basis of studies by Breen and Robertson. As discussed in section 2.1.3, a group of Wangkumara speakers moved into Garlali country quite recently (between 100 and 200 years ago). It is therefore assumed that McDonald and Wurm (1979) recorded the language of the Wangkumara speakers who moved to Garlali country and began to call their own language Garlali; note incidentally that the language recorded as Garlali by Breen (1967/1978) and as Kalali by Holmer (1988) is very different from McDonald and Wurm’s (1979) Wangkumara (Garlali). In tables and elsewhere throughout this thesis, Wangkumara as recorded by Breen will be abbreviated Wa(B); Wangkumara as recorded by McDonald and Wurm will be abbreviated to Wa(G) and referred to as Wangkumara (Garlali). 1.6.16 Yandruwandha The data are from Breen’s typescript grammar of 1975. The last speaker died in 1976. This is the Innamincka dialect, although there is also a little information on the Strzelecki Creek dialect (see topographical map in Appendix II). Other dialects known are Matya and Nirrpi. Reuther (nd) also recorded a language he called ‘Yandruwandha’. There are some differences between this language and that recorded from Innamincka people by Breen (1975a), which have been recorded where relevant. It bears a number of resemblances to the Matya dialect. S.A. Wurm recorded some data in Nirrpi but I have not seen it. 1.6.17 Yarluyandi The data for this language are from Hercus (nd.d) and are sparse. There are a number of tapes of the language which are yet to be transcribed. 1.6.18 Yawarrawarka Yawarrawarka and Yandruwandha are considered dialects of the same language; they are very close both in vocabulary and morphology. Data are from Breen (1972, 1973/4), which are field notes. The data are at a preliminary stage of analysis and there are a number of gaps in the record of the pronominal and case systems. Chapter 1: Introduction -21-

1.7 NEIGHBOURING LANGUAGES Karnic is bordered to the West and North-West by Arandic languages, particularly Lower Southern Aranda and Antekerepenhe; to the west-south-west by Gugada and Antikirinya, dialects of Western Desert; to the north by the isolates and Janda; to the East by Maric languages; to the South by the Yadli languages Malyangapa and Wadlikali; and finally to the South-west by Thura-Yura languages, particularly Guyani. Points of similarity, where they have been discovered, have been discussed as they arise.

1.8 ORTHOGRAPHY Data came from a large number of sources and there were, of course, differences in the orthographies used. All sources except the oldest, where spelling is not consistent or the exact intended phoneme is not known, have been standardised to the following. The equivalent characters in the International Phonetic Alphabet, where different, are given in square brackets: Labial Dental Alveolar RetroflexPalatal Velar Stop : -v p th [t] t rt [] ty [c] k +v b dh [d] d rd [] dy [] g Nasal m nh [n] n rn [] ny [] ng [] Lateral lh [l] l rl [] ly [] Trill rr [r] Tap r [] Glide w R [] y [j] Trilled stop dr Table 1.3. Karnic phoneme inventory, practical orthography and IPA equivalents.

When discussing arguments of sound change, however, IPA symbols will be used to aid clarity. Also, where full sentences from texts are quoted as examples of grammatical points, the orthography of the source is usually retained; potential ambiguities are noted in footnotes. Following the conventions of many sources, in homorganic clusters the second element of a digraph is not repeated; thus a lamino-dental homorganic nasal-stop cluster, in IPA [nt], is written in practical orthography nth, not nhth. Because of the phonotactic constraints on clusters of the languages in the sample, ambiguity does not arise.14 A table of sources and the equivalents used in this thesis appears in Appendix V.

The spelling of language names, however, has not been altered. So Pitta-Pitta is written with double-t, and not Pitha-Pitha, although this is technically more correct. The most common spelling, or the spelling of the published work, is used throughout. Wangka-

14 The only area of potential ambiguity is in Yandruwandha, and non-homorganic clusters involving dentals and laminals are rare in this language and do not occur in the forms under discussion. Chapter 1: Introduction -22- jutjuru is thus spelt using j instead of y to represent the palatal glide, since this spelling is that used in Blake and Breen (1971) and Blake (1979b).

All the languages have just three phonemic vowels, /i/, /a/ and /u/. Only Arabana has a length distinction (Hercus (1990)) and this is limited and clearly defined. Certain suffixes with initial /k/ (such as the ‘transitory’ suffix -ka) may lose the consonant; in certain environments this results in vowels in hiatus and the long vowel /a:/. The languages to the south and east (see, for example, Breen (1990a)), do show length in vowels, however.

1.9 DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY Case labels in this thesis are functional rather than formal. That is, cases are grouped together by their function, rather than their form; one form may have several functions. There is an obvious reason to use this in reconstruction. A certain case in one language may cover several functions which are expressed by different cases in another language. Such cases are listed under all functions, since it would be misleading to say that a certain case did not exist in a language simply because the function of that case was expressed by another. This is not to be taken as a synchronic reanalysis of the languages concerned, but as a convenient method of showing relevant forms.

Case labels vary from grammar to grammar. The terms dative, genitive, possessive, oblique and others are all used in different sources for the same function; some standardisation has obviously been necessary. Brief definitions of the relevant cases are given at the beginning of chapter 4.

In this thesis it has been useful to divide cases into core and oblique cases, following Andrews (1985). Core cases are here defined as ergative, nominative, accusative and dative; these are the cases in which grammatical relations appear. Oblique cases, in Karnic, are essentially local cases, denoting direction; these are locative, allative and ablative. There is also the causal/aversive case, and the purposive, usually syncretised with the dative. Oblique cases in pronoun paradigms are often built on stems other than that analysable for the core cases, and so it is appropriate that these are discussed separately. Sometimes the stem is analysable as the dative case, but not always.

Perhaps the greatest departure from standard terminology is the avoidance of the term ‘absolutive’ as a case term, following the suggestion of Goddard (1982). Since most Karnic languages mark the subjects and objects of transitive clauses and the subjects of intransitive clauses with three distinct cases (ergative, accusative and nominative respectively) the term would only be applicable in a few circumstances, and it has been felt that the introduction of this term would lead to confusion. The term nominative/accusative has been used instead. The syncretism of the accusative and the nominative has been treated like the syncretism of the dative and purposive, or the locative and the allative in other languages. Chapter 1: Introduction -23-

In Chapter 7, ‘Common Karnic’ is differentiated from ‘Proto-Karnic’. The use of this terminology follows that used by Guthrie (1967) for Bantu and others for Slavic and Indo-European. Proto-Karnic is the language arrived at through reconstruction using the comparative method. Common Karnic, however, is the period following the reconstructed stage of the language. The use of the terms is illustrated in chapter 7.

Finally, there has not been a great deal of consistency between the use of the terms ‘subgroup’ and ‘group’. There are a few reasons for this. Karnic is a ‘group’ of languages; in genetic terms, however, it is also a ‘subgroup’ of the Pama-Nyungan family of languages. There are also possible ‘subgroups’ within Karnic. So, in order to avoid clumsy terminology such as ‘sub-sub-group’, Karnic will be referred to as a ‘group’ when the internal relations of Karnic are stressed (the parts of Karnic will then be referred to as ‘subgroups’ where relevant); in the context of Karnic as a genetic part of Pama-Nyungan, however, Karnic is a ‘subgroup’. The point is not important, These terms imply relative closeness of the relations between the languages in the lexicostatistical literature (see, for example, Blake (1991:219)). No such implication is meant here, however.

1.10 THE COMPARATIVE METHOD AND MORPHOLOGY15 1.10.1 Overview The comparative method, in its most basic form, involves the comparison of phonological material in a number of languages which are assumed to be related, in order to deduce what the original sound might have been and what changes have taken place in the daughter languages. Treating these correspondence sets as a type of logic problem leads to deduction about the phoneme inventory of the proto-language, the order of the changes which have taken place in various languages and common innovations, and so on.

One cannot, of course, reconstruct forms for which there is no evidence. There are many changes which are complete and leave no trace; if all the languages change a particular feature, for example, there is no way of reconstructing the earlier feature. To take an example from Karnic; Arabana-Wangkangurru is the only direct evidence that the dative suffix -ku existed on pronouns, but we have no way of knowing whether proto-Karnic used the suffix *-ku on pronouns or whether that is a change that happened after Arabana-Wangkangurru split off from the rest of the Karnic languages.

Similar changes may also occur independently; we must be aware of parallel innovation in attempting to do subgrouping on the basis of shared innovations. An innovation might be shared, but it could have developed independently in the two languages which

15 This thesis assumes some knowledge of historical and comparative linguistics; while references are given for much terminology and many points of methodology, the introduction of a thesis such as this is no place for detailed discussions of theory and method. Also, while some attempt has been made to explain and give references for historical aspects of Australian languages, some basic familiarity with the Australian linguistic scene has been presumed. Chapter 1: Introduction -24- share it. Relative chronology may help in determining whether changes could have happened at different times.

In morphological reconstruction there is generally a greater tolerance to irregular sound correspondences than there is in phonological reconstruction, since regular sound changes in morphemes are often clouded by analogical changes, even when there is no borrowing involved. Sporadic changes are much more likely to occur in the morphology and in often used elements such as pronouns.

Morphological reconstruction also involves a certain amount of semantic reconstruction. Cases and pronouns can change in meaning; one must be aware of this and seek connections between grammatical items which might have undergone semantic change.

This summary of the comparative method is necessarily very brief; both more information see, for example Meillet (1967), Hock (1986), Anttila (1989) or Fox (1995). 1.10.2 Morphological reconstruction and syntax Morphological reconstruction is partly phonological and partly syntactic. It is not enough to show, for example, that case suffixes in a particular language are phonologically derived from pronouns; one must also be able to show that the syntactic conditions in the language would have permitted such a change to take place. It is impossible to reconstruct such a change unless one can also show that pronouns followed their head nouns, and that the final constituent took the case marking of the clause (whether exclusively or optionally).

In a number of places in this thesis, some appeals to syntax will be made in order to provide further evidence for morphological reconstructions. A detailed reconstructed of syntax could not be provided, but some points could be made. 1.10.3 Types of Change in pronouns The following set of changes which are particularly common in pronominal systems are quoted from Koch (1997c), as a guide for the types of changes which might be found in the Karnic pronouns (chapters 5 and 6). a) reinforcement of free pronouns with contrastive markers, with the subsequent absorption of the marker into the stem; b) creation of clitic doublets (cliticisation), with subsequent affixisation of clitics onto verbs (as subject/object markers) or nouns as possessor markers, followed by possible doubling and/or reordering for iconic reasons, or possible absorption into the lexical stem; c) fusion, the creation of compound pronouns; d) case syncretisms different from other nominals; e) creation / undoing of suppletion according to case; f) creation of socially-relevant categories, marking relations of power, solidarity, or kinship. Chapter 1: Introduction -25-

1.10.4 Kuryℑowicz’s ‘laws’ of analogy The Polish scholar Jerzy Kuryℑowicz developed six ‘laws’ (that is, general tendencies) to describe the types of analogical changes which tend to occur in languages. These ‘laws’ are not meant to be absolute statements regarding changes which can and cannot happen in any given language; they are rather illustrations of tendencies and guides for use when seeking the origins of morphological changes when doing reconstruction. The laws are quoted below; however, no discussion will be given here (although examples illustrating the laws will be given where they occur in the following chapters). For further consideration of the laws and examples, see Hock (1986:210-229), from which the following is taken: (I) A bipartite marker tend to replace an isofunctional morpheme consisting of only one of these elements, ie, a complex marker replaces a simple marker. (II) Analogical developments follow the direction ‘basic form’ Æ ‘derived form’, where the relationship between basic and derived forms is a consequence of their spheres of usage. [That is, unanalysable forms tend to be replaced by analysable forms.] (III) A structure consisting of a basic member and a subordinate member form the foundation [ie, serves as a pivot] for a basic member which is isolated, but isofunctional. (IV) When as a consequence of a morphological (= analogical) change, a form undergoes differentiation, the new form takes over its primary (‘basic’) function, the old form remains only in secondary (‘derived’) function. (V) In order to reestablish a distinction of central significance, the language gives up a distinction of more marginal significance. (VI) The first and second term of a proportion [can] belong to originally different systems: one belongs to a prestige dialect, the other to a dialect imitating it. [That is, hypercorrection can occur in morphology.]

1.11 DIALECTOLOGY AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS Luise Hercus (1972, 1979) was the first to suggest in Australia that (in so many words) dialect geography is a useful concept to consider when discussion features. It has been increasingly recognised that many of the techniques of dialectology may be successfully applied to language families, and the greater differences between languages do not invalidate methods which were developed to describe dialects. Analysing patterns of isoglosses, for example, is very important in areas of linguistic diffusion (such as the Lake Eyre basin). This is why a large number of maps have been used in this thesis; the distribution of the forms in question is important in determining the likelihood of genetic inheritance.

Features tend to diffuse in a given area from the centre to the periphery. Thus relic areas of earlier forms tend to appear on the edge of the linguistic area, and may be Chapter 1: Introduction -26- discontinuous. The classical diffusion pattern is illustrated below, from the three general principles given in Anttila (1989:297)16

Relic Area Linguistic Area

Secondary Innovation R e li c A r e a Primary Innovation

Figure 1.4 Illustration of relic areas an central innovation

For further information, see Anttila (1989:289ff), Lehmann (1992:110ff) and Bloomfield (1930:321ff), amongst many others.

1.12 AREAL DIFFUSION, BORROWING AND LANGUAGE DRIFT As shown by Heath (1978), almost any aspect of language can be borrowed. Lexical items are the most common, but both grammatical forms and grammatical categories can be shown to be been borrowed. In the latter case, a category, such as an inclusive/exclusive distinction in first person pronouns, or a case, is borrowed, but the phonological form is derived from something already present in the language; the actual phonological material used to mark the function is not borrowed (compare also Ross’ (1998) metatypy). A form that is borrowed into a number of languages in a given area is said to have ‘diffused’.

Language drift is another phenomenon which seems very common in Australian languages. This is the notion of structural predisposition to change; languages with certain structural features may head down certain paths more easily than others. Some changes have certain structural prerequisites. This presents immediate problems for subgrouping, since it is often very difficult to tell whether a change which seems to affect languages in different subgroups is the result of diffusion or of parallel development.

Of course, heavy borrowing between languages can affect reconstructions, to the extent that recovering the original language splits is impossible. The following diagrams, reproduced from Johnson (1991:215) illustrate the problem very well.

16 1) The earlier form is preserved in the more isolated area; 2) lateral areas [ie, discontinuous areas] preserve the older forms; 3) the larger area shows the original form, except when the minor area is the more isloated one, or when the minor area represent the sum of lateral areas Chapter 1: Introduction -27-

Figure 1.5. Effects of diffusion on genetic relationships.

Figure 1.6. Results of diffusion.

Figure 1.5. shows borrowing between a number of languages from different subgroups and, in the case of languages E and J, between different stages of the same language (which may be illustrated in actually through, for example, the borrowing of Latin words into French). Figure 1.6. shows a possible reconstructed family tree of these languages, where the diffusion between languages has obscured the true genetic relationships.

We must recognise that historical reconstructions and subgrouping represent hypotheses as to the history of a group of particular languages. It is only possible to use the evidence available. Often, it must be stressed, it is possible to see that evidence is ambiguous, and that reconstructions can only be made with caution. It is important to recognise this as one of the inherent dangers in all comparative linguistics

1.13 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS Chapter 2 is a brief discussion of why certain languages should be included or excluded as Karnic. These include Malyangapa and the other Yadli languages, Birria and the other (north)-eastern languages, Badjiri and Garlali. Chapter 3 contains a summary of previous work on the historical phonology of proto-Karnic, and a brief discussion of Chapter 1: Introduction -28- some of the sound changes that appear to have diffused through Karnic. The evidence for subgrouping based on these changes is also discussed, although not in detail.

The morphological changes which have taken place in Karnic are reconstructed, justified and discussed in Chapters 4 – 6. Cases are discussed first, then first and second person pronouns (singular, then dual, then plural), then the third person pronouns, articles for those Karnic languages which have them, and finally the marking of deixis. Each are discussed according to number, case and (where relevant) gender. It can be shown that a number of case forms are in origin third person pronouns; this makes the order of discussion somewhat difficult since ideally the pronouns would be discussed first; equally, however, one requires detailed discussion of case forms to reconstruct the possible origin of many pronominal forms.

The reconstructions have been set out as follows: reconstructions are grouped by person and number in the pronouns; in cases reconstructions each case is considered separately. In each section, data from the languages are discussed, a reconstructed form is given and an attempt is made to explain how each language relates to the form in the proto-language. An indication is also given of how likely each change is to be the result of genetic inheritance or of diffusion. In many cases, of course, it is impossible to tell.

In chapter 7 there is a summary of the changes reconstructed in the previous chapters, and a discussion of arguments for subgrouping. Chapter 8 presents a ‘devil’s advocate’ position; it is assumed that the similarity of the Karnic languages is the result of diffusion, rather than the results of genetic inheritance, and some of the consequences of this argument are examined.