Bijdragen Tot De Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde 113 (1957), No: 1, Leiden, 70-91

H. Cowan Prospects of a ,,Papuan comparative linguistics

In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 113 (1957), no: 1, Leiden, 70-91

This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS

n earlier occasions 1 I have expressed the opinion that better O knowledge and more intensive comparison of "Papuan" (non- Austronesian) languages might, as in the case of Amerindian, ultimately lead to a reduction of the complex pattern presented by their extreme diversity, notably in vocabulary. This opinion was based on the fact that there are certain grammatical and syntactical features which are found recurring time and again in languages that are geographically very far apart and are otherwise different both grammatically and lexically. I mean such features as the use of the incorporated prondun object, the use of postpositions instead of prepositions, the word-order in the sentence in general, etc. In the lexical field it was found that "sometimes one or two isolated words are found running nearly unchanged through many languages over wide areas, that by their nature can hardly be regarded as loanwords, e.g. the words for "water" and for "wood" in the Hollandia area (see my "De Austronesisch-Papoease taalgrens in de onderafdeling Hollandia" in Tijdschrift Nieuw-Guinea, Vol. 13, 1952, no. 4, p. 138). But this is exceptional and the great majority of words disagree".2 The last point raises the question of minimum evidence to prove genetic relationships, a question that has enjoyed some considerable attention lately in Amerindian comparative linguistics, notably by Morris Swadesh.3 It carinot be doubted that a "Papuan" comparative linguistics must include, if not for the time being largely rely upon, the comparison of vocabularies. Quite apart from the question whether comparison of grammatical structures alone will ever be sufficient to prove genetic

1 "Talenweelde en Taalproblemen in Nieuw-Guinea" (Schakels, uitgave Rijks- voorlichtingsdienst, no. 73, Febr. 19S4, pp. 3-4; "Ethnolinguistics and Papuan Etymology" (Oceania, Vol. XXV, 1954, p. 54); "Variability in New Guinea Languages" (.Oceania, Vol. XXV, 1955, pp. 214-5). 2 Oceania, XXV, p. 215, footnote. 3 M. Swadesh. "Perspectives and problems of Amerindian comparative linguistics" (Linguistics Today, being the equivalent of Word, Vol. X, no. 2-3, pp. 186 sqq.).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 71 relationship, there is the simple fact that for many languages only vocabularies and no grammars are as yet available. Also, apparent disagreement of grammatical structures does not disprove genetic relationship as is shown by (spoken) French with its largely prefixal conjugation and partly periphrastic tenses, when compared with its parent, Latin, that possessed a suffixal conjugation and exclusively suffixal tenses, or with its sister, Spanish, that has preserved the suffixal conjugation. In a case like (spoken) French — which may be significant for the situation in the Papuan field although this knowledge is not very helpful since diachronic data are lacking here unlike for French — the burden of evidence in synchronic comparative linguistics lies on the comparison of words. Morris Swadesh's methods of testing and proving linguistic relationships are almost entirely concerned with the comparison of words and would also supply a basis for the comparison of languages that have diverged widely. Being of a mathematical nature, based on the probability calculus, their potential reliability is theoretically as great as the probability calculus permits, provided that certain disturbing linguistic and human factors are satisfactorily eliminated. These factors: sound- imitation, borrowing and too great eagerness on the part of the com- parativist, Swadesh seeks to eliminate by such means as excluding words like "blow", "breathe", "suck", "laugh"; by only using non- cultural words; and by limiting the comparisons to exact semantic equivalences. In this mahner Swadesh has worked out a 97 word relationship test list that has for Amerindian "never been found to contain more than two historical borrowings, even in languages which have been under strong and constant Spanish influence for four centuries. In most cases there is not even one borrowing among the 97 items".4 For relationships thus established Swadesh has also developed a method of measuring the time period during which the cognate languages have been diverging. It is based on what appears to be to Swadesh the sufficiently well established fact "that the every-day non-cultural vocabulary tends to be replaced at an approximately constant rate".5 To

* M. Swadesh, o.c, pp. 193-4. 6 M. Swadesh, "Archeological and linguistic chronology of Indo-European groups" (Amerian Anthropologist, Vol. LV, no. 3, 19S3, p. 349). Cf. also by the same author "Lexico-statistic dating of prehistorie ethnic contacts" (Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 96, 1952, p. 452-463).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access 72 H. K. J. COWAN. this end a lexico-statistic list of 200 items was used and a divergente (time-depth) scale worked out.6 Although Swadesh's methods are undoubtedly helpful under favourable conditions, they have not been altogether well received by European linguists. They certainly call for caution when applied to situations substantially different from those for which they were first developed. Unfavourable situations occur when the languages to be compared have diverged very widely and are insufficiently known as to their phonological conditions. A very disturbing complication may arise when a language has a strong foreign admixture (substratum, superstratum or adstratum). The student of the Indo-Pacific regions will certainly be confronted with numerous difficulties of either kind. If languages have diverged very widely it may be so difficult to determine the word agreements between them that "proof" cannot be obtained even when, without our knowing it for want of knowledge of the rules governing the phonetic changes, the agreements really are there. Thus it would be impossible to recognize an agreement between e.g. Persian dil and English heart if IE linguistics had not previously worked out the rules of phonetic change in these languages. It is obvious that this point affects the reliability of the percentages of agreements found which form the basis both for proving relationship and measuring its degree.7 In the case of a strong foreign admixture in a language this may affect even the non-cultural vocabulary to such an extent that it may

6 See for the former Swadesh, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 96, p. 456, and M. Swadesh, "Amerindan non-cultural vocabularies", 19S4 — mimeograph publication); for the latter see Ling.Today, p. 206. 7 According to Swadesh's divergence scale the general characteristic of relationship on the dialect (language) leved is mutual intelligibility of local farms; the cognate percentage for his level is 81-100. It is clear, however, that agreements of the type of Persian dil: English heart will never mean mutual intelligibility even if they numbered more than 81 %. Thus it could be maintained that of Swadesh's 97 word test list only 17 English words do not have a straight agreement with Dutch, viz. bark, belly, big, black, cloud, die, meat, road, root, skin, smoke, snake, stab, tail, tree, walk and wing; at least if we compare Eng. leaf with the more or, less "stilish" but perfectly good Du. loof instead of everyday Du. blad, Eng. many with Du. menig instead of Du. •veel which are both normal, and Eng. heavy with Du. hevig instead of swaar (Eng. thou is almost obsolete in English and quite lost in Dutch). This would mean that there are more than 83 % agreements between English and Dutch, but everybody knows that there is no mutual intelligibility between the two. Between Dutch and German the percentage would be even greater without, however, producing any more mutual intelligibility.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 73 seem possible tó draw conclusions concerning genetic relationships that can only be shown to be wrong if comparison of the indigenous part of the vocabulary with true genetic relatives is possible. If for some reason or other this possibility does not exist, it is obvious that false conclusions are easily made without our knowing them to be false. Thus even in Malay, whose traceable foreign admixture is mostly due to cultural borrówing from Sanskrit, Arabic, Portuguese, Dutch and English, at least 7 words of the non-cultural 97 word list are Sanskrit loanwords or (the last one) comparable to Skr. words, viz. semua, "all"; mega, "cloud" (but also awan); kepala, "head";. nama, "name"; kata or bicara, "say"; biji, "seed" (Skr. wijd); and dua, "two". If by some chance no other Austronesian languages had survived or if we did not know them, and if we did not take into account other aspects, such as grammatical structure, Swadesh's theory would justify us to assume a genetic relationship between Malay and Sanskrit which would, according to his divergence scale, be on the "microphylum" level. *** A much more complicated case is presented by the Achehnese language of North Sumatra and its close relative the Cham language of Indo-China. An analysis of the vocabulary of Achehnese shows that a considerable number of words belonging to the test list agree with the Mon-Khmer languages. of Birma and Indo-China, while a much larger number of words agree with Austronesian, particularly Malay, Now no MK languages are spoken in Sumatra and Achehnese has for centuries undergone and is still undergoing strong Malay influences through general education and because Malay is, with Arabic, the medium of Islamic religious teaching. It seems clear, therefore, that the MK element in Achehnese points to an earlier period of close relations with MK, whatever the nature of these relations may have been. This conclusion finds support in the fact that the Cham language, which is in almost every respect closely akin to Achehnese, shows the same dualism in its vocabulary. Only here there have been and are strong influences from the neighbouring Khmer and Annamite languages while contacts with Austronesian were cut off long ago.8 The situation may be illustrated by the following examples:

(i) Usually words occur only in a MK form, e.g. Ach. po, "fly" (Ch.

3 See for this subject my "Aanteekeningen betreffende de verhouding van het * Atjèhsch tot de Mon-Khmer talen" {Bijdragen Kon. Inst., Vol. CIV, 1948).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access 74 H. K. J. COWAN. pör); jéb, "drink" (but Ch. mönutn, which is Aun.); gèt, got, "good" (Ch. got); kruëng, "river" (Ch. krong); etc.; or only in an Aun. form, e.g. mata, "eye" (Ch. mötd); ulèë, "head" (Ch. halau, hulau); apuy, "fire" (Ch. apwei); etc.

(ii) Sometimes there are a MK form and an Aun. form for different shades of the same meaning, the Aun. word being almost certainly a loanword, e.g. Ach. cot, "steep; hill" (Ch. cök, "hill"); Ach. glé, "wooded hill" (Ch. glai, "forest") which are MK; but Ach. gundng, "mountain", which is the Mal. gunung; Ach. pajoh, "eat", which is MK; but Ach. makeuën, "eat when applied to princes", which is the Mal. makan; etc.

(iii) Sometimes there are a MK form and an Aun. form with different shades of the same original meaning, where the Aun. word can. hardly be a loanword, e.g. Ach. cicém, "bird" (Ch. cim), which is MK; but Ach. mand*, "hen" (Ch. mönuk), which is the original Aun. *manuk, "bird"; Ach. gdb, "person, people" in the sense of the other person, people, "they" (Fr. "on"), which is MK (Ch. göp, "(each) other"); but Ach. ureuëng, "person, people" in general sense (Ch. urang), which is Aun.; etc.

The number of agreements between Ach. and MK languages for Swadesh's 97 word relationship test list is 22 or more than 22 %.9 I do not doubt, moreover, that certain words that cannot be placed yet but that are apparently non-Aun. could be classed as MK if the material available for MK, and particularly for Mon with which the Ach. agreements seem to be strongest, were better and richer than it is. The number of agreements between Ach. and original Aun. (as this was reconstructed by O. Dempwolff) or Malay (where this 'does not conform to orig. Aun.) is 67 or ca. 67 %.10

P They are the numbers 35 (57), 39, 47, 49, 50, 55, 59, 67, 69, 70, 78, 87, 95, 109, 122, 130, 133, 135 and 140 of the comparative vocabulary appended to my paper cited in the preceding noté, to which may now be added pajoh, "eat" (cf. Mon ca "food"; Khasi jia, "food", p'ójia, "nourish"), teungeut, "sleep" (cf. Khmer sngat, "quietude"; Mon sngit, "quiet") and pruët, "belly" (cf. Stieng proc; but Aun. Hyan which also occurs in Cham tean side by side with pruöc, and survives in Achehnese tien, "foetus"; the Malay përut, therefore must be a loanword). 10 The items "moutain" and "person" were counted both as a MK and as an Aun. agreement because of what has been said under (ii) and (iii) above. Even if we disregard for the MK side the percentage of this is ca. 20%.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 75

Now what conclusions can be made from the fact that of the Ach. non-cultural vocabulary something between a fifth and a quarter agrees with MK and more than two thirds agree with Aun./Malay, thus showing, according to Swadesh's divergence scale, a "stock" level relationship with MK and at the same time a "family" level relationship with Aun./Malay? The preponderance of the Aun. element need not be decisive: as we shall see Melanesian languages also often show little more than a stock level relationship with Aun. just like Ach. to MK, and there is the fact, already mentioned, that Malay has for centuries exercised radical influences and is all the time encroaching further on the MK element. Yet in theclosely cognate Cham language. though cut off from Aun. and surrounded by non-Aun. speaking peoples for centuries, the Aun. element in the 97 word list is but little smaller (ca. 60 %). This fact would seem to decide the issue in favour of an Aun. parentage. But then again the grammar of both Achehnese and Cham raises doubts: there is much here in common with MK that is un-Aun., such as the accent, monosyllabism, diphthongization of final vowels, the lack of suffixes, the general and exclusive use of the sub- stantival infix -an-, -ön-, etc, though some other grammatical features are commón to both MK and Aun. It may well be that we shall have to take into account the distinctioh between "parentage" and "affinity". Thus the answer to the problem cannot be satisfactorily given by applying Swadesh's methods alone. An approach along broader lines is needéd; iri fact much like was done in my "Aanteekeriingen betreffende de Verhouding van het Atjèhsch tot de Mon-Khmer talen" cited above.

***

Elsewhere I have pointed out that it is likely that the so-called Melanesian languages of New Guinea, which resulted from the contacts of Aun. with native "Papuan" tongues, were differently influenced by the different Papuan languages in the different places where the contacts took place.11 In other words the non-Aun. substratum (or adstratum) in the MN languages of New Guinea, if any, will reflect the influence of the different local Papuan languages which contributed to them. These local vernaculars or their cognates may in some cases still be in

11 "Genitief-constructie en Melanesische talen" (Indonesië, V, no. 4, p. 307). See also my "Indonesisch of Melanesisch op Noord Nieuw-Guinea (Indonesië, III, no. 4, p. 351 sqq.).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access 76 H. K. J. COWAN.

use in neighbouring regions, but more probably they have been totally absorbed and replaced by the superseding MN language. Therefore it is only the Aun. element in such MN languages that lends itself to comparisons. But this Aun. element is often small. For the MN languages of South Eastern Papua A. Capell12 reconstructed some 320 common Aun. words or roots, 56 of which occur in Swadesh's 97 word list. But not in any single language do all of these 56 words occur. Thus in Motu there are 35 or, if we include two doubtful cases, 37 or 36—37 %. In Mekeo there are only 34 agreements with Aun. or 35 %. In the Tobati (or Jotefa) language near Hollandia 13 we find not more than 22 or, including a few doubtful cases, some 25 Aun. correspondences in a list of 73 words occurring in the 97 word list, i.e. 30—34%. All this constitutes, according to Swadesh's divergence scale, little more than a stock level relationship with Aun. This means that the majority of the vocabulary of such MN languages contains an element that is not comparable to Aun. but not to any other language or group of languages either, although we may suspect that a large part of it is a Papuan substratum (or adstratum), as Capell has tried to demonstrate for the MN languages of South Eastern Papua by reconstructing three pre-Melanesian Papuan languages from it.14 This Papuan element in MN of S.E. Papua includes the following 36 non-cultural words from Swadesh's 97 word list: stone, ear, smoke, belly, sand, nose, blood, water, head, white, know, earth, tooth, black, burn, rain, cold, mountain, road, hear, die, fire, speak (say), man, short, skin, cloud, fish, tree, good, seed, ashes, swim, name, root and snake; that is no less than 37 %, although these do not all occur in every single language. On the other hand non-Aun. (Papuan) languages, notably those in the coastal areas of the larger islands, have often adopted a certain amount of Aun. material without losing their "Papuan" nature. This is the case e.g. in the non-Aun. languages of S.E. New Britain 15 and

12 A. Capell, "The linguistic position of South Eastern Papua", Sydney, 1943. 13 For Tobati (Jotefa) a ms. vocabulary in the possession of the Bureau of Native Affairs at Hollandia was used. A very incomplete comparative vocabulary was published by H. Kern in Bijdragen Kon. Inst., LI, 1900. For some grammatical data see my "De Austronesisch-Papoease taalgrens in de onderafdeling Hollandia" (Tijds. Nieuzv-Guinea, XIII, 1953 p. 166 sqq.). 14 A. Capell, o.c, pp. 168 and 191 sqq. 15 A. Capell, "Language study for New Guinea students" (Oceania, XI, 1940 p. 61.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 77 in the non-Aun. Mailu group of S.E. Papua.16 In the latter group the following non-cultural words from Swadesh's 97 word list occur in Aun. forms: ashes, blood, bone, ear, egg, eye, fat, five, hair, head, I, nose, path, red, sun, star, tongue and woman. Of these the words ashes, blood, fat, five, head, path, red and star occur in one language (Mailu) and even all except fat, head, rèd and woman in another (Lawuna). This means that on the strength of the vocabulary alone Lawuna would, according to Swadesh's scale, be related to Aun. on the stock level (14 % agreements), the more so because the non-Aun. vocabulary of this group would not allow any other better classification. It should be noted that Mailu and Lawuna have a loanword for the numeral "five", Lawuna even for the pronoun of the lst p. sg. Bor- rowing of numerals from Aun. is not uncommon in Papuan languages. This is easy to understand because in Papuan languages the higher numerals are usually unknown. An extreme instance is the non-Aun. Ekari language of the isolated Wissel-lakes area in the Central High- lands of Neth. New Guinea. These lakes were discovered from the air as late as 1938, but the language has unmistakable Aun. forms for the numerals 6—9.17 Since "higher" numerals sometimes even include the numeral "3" 18 it follows that the words "three" and "five" from Swadesh's test list may be loanwords. It is clear that any comparative method, and especially Swadesh's will under such conditions meet great difficulties in formulating conclusions, the more so when, as is often the case, even certain structural features of grammar and syntax are, in New Guinea MN, of a non- Aun. nature, and in Papuan of an Aun. nature, e.g. the use of the pronoun object and of postpositions in the former, the distinction of an exclusive and inclusive lst p. pi. pronoun in the latter, and general word-order in both. However, as has been said, Swadesh's methods can without doubt be of help and probably even be decisive under favourable conditions. As they present a workable basis for the lexical comparison of languages that have diverged widely, they deserve to be tried in the Papuan field. In the following pages this is done for two areas in Neth. New Guinea that are geographically-far apart, viz. for the Sentani area near Hol-

HP A. Capell, "Ling. pos. of S.E.P.", pp. 37 sqq. 17 P. Drabbe, m.s.c, "Spraakkunst van het Ekagi", 1952, pp. 29, 31. 18 Thus e.g. in Kate (see Capell, Ocemia, XI, p. 59) and in Neth. New Guinea in Angadi and Nagramadu (see G. van de Sande, Nova Guinea, III, 1907, p. 326).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access 78 H. K. J. COWAN. landia in the extreme east and for the N.W. Vogelkop area in the extreme west of that territory. ***

For the Sentani language — together with the closely cognate dialects of Nafri and Tanah Merah — a certain distant relationship with the neighbouring Demta language was already suspected by me at an early date, but proof was lacking.19 In applying Swadesh's test it is important to notice that the correspondences are structurally and phone- tically of such a nature as to practically exclude borrowing which fact neutralizes the unfavourable circumstance that the two languages are near neighbours. While Sentani grammar is fairly well kown 20 little is known of Demta grammar: it appears that Demta, like Sentani, has a suffixal conjugation.21 For the comparison a list of 75 words (in ms.) occurring in Swadesh's 97 word relationship test list was used. It yielded the following agreements:

English Sentani Demta bone 00 pu (in name pu, "elbouw") hand ma name heavy aha (W. dial. aóa) iri leaf fe PÜ» river wi wai road ni/Si nip tail <5ama dum thou waje, wa, we wé three nama namguai (cf. puguai, "2") tooth i<5aha (T. Mer. dial. etï) itini warm nauma namu water 0u po (in nép po, "milk", cf. nép, "woman's breast", and Sentani nima, "woman's breast", nima 0u, "milk")

19 See my paper in Tijds. Nieuw-Guinea, XIII, p. 162, and again in my "Voor- lopige resultaten van een ambtelijk taalonderzoek", ed. Kon. Inst. v. Taal-, Land- en Volkenlc., The Hague, 1953, p. 3. 20 See my "Notes on Sentani grammar" (Oceania, XXI, XXII, 1951). 21 See Tijds. Meuiv-Gubiea, XIII, p. 161.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 79

These 12 possible correspondences constitute 16 % of the 75 word list that was used. If we discard "river" — because this might be an Aun. loanword, cf. Aun. *wayay — and "heavy" — because this looks dubious —, there remain 10 agreements or 13 %. These include 4 CVC correspondences (road, tail, three and warm), one VCV (tooth) and 5 CV (bone, hand, leaf, thou and water). One of the CVC agreements (warm) may even be regarded as a CVCV correspondence. To these correspondences may be added a number of others which do not occur in Swadesh's 97 word test list, but are partly found in his lexicostatistic list. Those occurring in the lexicostatistic list are:

English Sentani Demta bird aje ei dry kabn-kalam (W. dial. kakere karan-karan) he na je, na, ne nani louse mi ami narrow kiki kuikoi we meje, me name you (pi.) ma je, ma, me mé

Not occurring in either of Swadesh's lists, but useful for confirmation of the tehtative indications about the phonological relations derived from the above agreements, are the following:

English Sentani Demta woman's breast nima nép cheek kaóu komtu navel : (Nafri) /Sun<5un, botom (T. Mer.) 0on«5u voice, noise a ana sago fi pini banana am aip sugar cane ju go sweet potato hakai ekei

We shall, of course, base our further discussion on the correspondences occurring in Swadesh's 97 item relationship test list only. Concerning the phonological conditions in the two languagës it should be noted that the phonemes of Sentani are known but that those of

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access 80 H; K. J. COWAN.

Demta cannot be made out from the ms. vocabulary with certainty, although the ms. appears to be very well written. With this restriction the following collections are given:

Sentani: Vowel phonemes are a, o, u, e, e, a, i. Consonant phonemes are fi, 6, k, h/s, f, 1, m, n, j, w. Total 7 vowels and 10 consonants.

Demta: The following vowels and consonants are written: a, o, u, e, é, i and p, t, k, b, d, g, g, c, s, f, r, n, m, n, n, j, w. Total 6 vowels and 17 consonants.

The tentative indications about phonological relations between the two languages, alluded to above, then yield the following synophons 22:

Vowels: a;e + e + i = é + i;3 = e + i + u;o;u. Total 5. On account of the uncertain phonemic function of some of the written vowels in Demta it will be safe to count the second and third synophons as one, and to assume only 4 vowel synophons. This prevents the situation from being flattered.

Consonants: these are much more difficult to determine because of the large number of written consonants in Demta whose phonemic function is uncertain. The agreements only point to: d = t + d;

/8 + f = p + b;k;l = r;m = m-)-p (final); n; j = j -f g; w; to which may probably be added h = s -\- zero (cf for h = s the loanword S. habakai = D. subekai, "tobacco", and for h = zero: S. hakai •= D. ekei, "sweet potato"). Total 9. If we disregard the other written consonants (g, c, n, fi), which have no place in the above comparisons, and if we further realize that Sentani, which is comparatively poor in consonant phonemes, possesses 10 of these, it may be said to be safe if we assume 9 consonant synophons.

The number of theoretically possible CVC complexes, in terms of synophons, is therefore 9X4X9 = 324. To eliminate the possible effect of differences in frequency of the synophons, however, we apply Swadesh's factor 2/3 so that we actually count only 6 X 22/3 X 6 = 96

22 A synophon is a set of phonemes consisting of one or more phonemes in language A and one or more phonemes in language B that can for comparative purposes be said to correspond to each other (see M. Swadesh, Linguistics Today, p: 199).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 81 possible CVC complexes, or approximately 100. Our phonetic ratio is, therefore, 1: 100. As this is also the ratio used by Swadesh for his Zoque — Totonac comparison — and as" a matter of fact/ under certaih restrictions, proposed as a convenient and satisfactory index for more general purposes =—, we will here refer the reader to Swadesh's exposé for the formula by which the fluctuation of charice is eliminated and the probability percentages following from it for different humbers.of CVC agreements.23 . In our case the 4 CVC agreements between Sentani and Demta alone would, according to that formula, present.a chance probability of only 1,4 % or 1:71 even if we took them to be the product of the entire 97 word test list in stead of a list of only. 75 words. According to Swadesh, "five percent is usually considered a.safe limit between the uncertain and the scientifically reliable. Therefore in any instance where the Vioo phonetic ratio is on the safe side, 4 CVC. agreements give a sound basis for recognizing historie connections between. two languages".24 As it is, the 4 CVC agreements are the product of a list of little more than 24 of the contents of Swadesh's. test list. Moreover, one of the CVC agreements, as has been said, can be regarded as a CVCV correspondence (ratio 1:256), and in addition to that we have one VCV (ratio 1:43) and 5 CV (ratio 1:16) agreements. All this combines -to further reduce the chance percentage to a fraction, and historie relationship between Sentani and Demta can be said to be a fairly safe conclusion. This relationship would, according to Swadesh's divergence scale, be somewheré between thé stock and the microphylum levels. In my opinion Swadesh's méthod thus has proved to be undeniably helpful in confirming early surmises as to a relationship between the two languages that were based on little more than impressions that could not be proved to be correct.

* •

In the North West Vogelkop area there is a group of languages that I had not previously25 been able to classify as Aun. or non-Aun. ("Papüan") because they showed a certain amount of Aun. words but not enough to be decisive. Such few grammatical data as could be

23 M. Swadesh, o.c, pp. 200-201. 2* O.c, p..201. 25 See my "Voorlopige resultatenv, ch. III. Dl. 113

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access 82 H. K. J. COWAN.

gathered for these languages were not decisive either because they did not disallow an Aun. interpretation (viz. conjugation by pron. prefixes that are at least partly short forms of the personal pronoun, separate particles to express our notions of tense etc). Since that paper was published more data have become available on the grammar of one of those languages, viz. Ajamaru.26 These.show that the language distin- guishes a masculine and a feminine gender. This fact and some others tend in themselves to indicate that this language is non-Aun. For the other languages of this group, however, grammatical data are still almost non-existent. Between some of these, though, lexical comparisons were possible and a certain relationship between them — in some cases close, in others more remote — has already been shown in the above mentioned paper. A curious point, however, that emerged was that some personal pronouns and/or their prefix forms showed likeness to those in the North Halmahera languages whose non-Aun. nature is a well-established fact.27 I added at the time that pointing out his likeness did not mean suggesting any connection between these N.W. Vogelkop and the North Halmahera languages since for that the data were too incomplete. It did mean, however, that the non-Aun. nature of the pronouns in question was as much an argument against an Aun. classification of the former as it had been for the latter group even if the likeness were purely accidental. Now this case offers favourable conditions for the application of Swadesh's methods inasmuch borrowing from NH is practically ex- cluded because of the geographical situation, while borrowing from Aun. is a common feature in these regions. The grammatical features, alluded to above, which did not disallow an Aun. interpretation for the N.W. Vogelkop group, are also found.in NH and therefore do not exclude the possibility of genetic relationship with the latter. The recent information on Ajamaru cited above tends to strengthen that possibility since the NH languages too have the distinction of gender. The N.W. Vogelkop languages to be examined here are Karön, Madïk, Kalabra, Moraid, Moi and Ajamaru. The last named language stands more or less apart but it offers some good agreements with

26 J. E. Elmberg, "Notes on the Mejbrat people of the Ajamaroe district", Stockholm 1954 (mimeographed). Mr. Elmberg uses the name Mejbrat for the Ajamaru language. 27 See H. van der Veen, "De Noord-Halmahera'se taalgroep tegenover de Austronesische talen", Leiden 1915.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 83

Karön and Madik and is therefore included. Not included are Amber- baken, Mansibaber and Mantion-Manikion that were compared in my above mentioned paper. Karön stands in closer relation to Madik and Kalabra to Moraid than either pair to each other. Moi is more or less between the two pairs but is much closer to Kal./Mor. than to Kar./ Mad. All this came to light already in my earlier paper and it is confirmed when applying Swadesh's test. The following will show this. In a list of 73 non-cultural words occurring in Swadesh's 97 word list we find the following agreements. The agreements are nearly all prima facie so that we need not be too much concerned about bad spelling, uncertainty about the phonemic value of the written sounds and therefore about the number and nature of the synophons. I may add that as an additional safeguard I keep the minimum of 4 CVC agreements as basis for recognizing historie connections as if the full test list had been used instead of only 73 words.

A. Between Kalabra and Moraid: 34 CVC/CCV or higher value (i.e. CVCVC, CCVC, CVCV etc.) complexes and 7 CV/VC or higher value (i.e. CVV) complexes, constituting a family level relationship (56 % agreements). Examples: KI. safas, Mr. sawag, "head"; KI. sadin, Mr. sadijé, "hair"; KI. tefit, Mr. tëfë, "ear"; KI. diak, Mr. idijè, "mouth"; KI. terit, Mr. ërê, "foot"; KI. kodus, Mr. kedog, "bone"; KI. falak, Mr. balg, "skin"; KI. nadele, Mr. nodli, "man"; KI. sal, Mr. salp, "fire"; KI. til, Mr. telu, "sun"; KI. kala, Mr. këla, "water"; KI. lok, Mr. tèlok, "two"; KI. teluk, Mr. tëluk, "three"; etc.

B. Between Karón and Madik: 32 CVC/CCV or higher value complexes and 22 CV/VC or higher value complexes, constituting a relationship on the family level (74 % agreements). Examples: Kr. knabe, Md. kanagé, "ear"; Kr. monggro, Md. mendlu, "eye"; Kr. brip, Md. blib, "tongue"; Kr. sidèm, Md. tjidim, "neck"; Kr. sim, Md. sjim, "hand"; Kr. dè, Md. di, "blood"; Kr. bot, Md. but, "fire"; Kr. kuwè, Md. kui, "tree"; Kr. sjur, Md. sjul, 'water"; Kr. djok, Md. juk, "stone"; Kr. we, Md. mui, "two"; Kr. gri, Md. dili, "three"; etc.

C. Between A and B: 1 CCVC, 1 CVCV, 3 CVC and 2 CV complexes, viz. Kr. brip, Md. blib, Mr. padëb, "tongue"; Md. dili, KI., Mr. tëluk, "three"; Md. kamteri (ei. Kr. kam), KI. til, Mr. telu, "sun"; Kr. tat, Md. dji, KI., Mr. Ut, "I"; Kr., Mad. nan, KI. mejanin, "thou"; Kr. bu, Mr. salbu, "smoke" (cf. Md. butbu, "smoke", and but, "fire", Mr. salp,

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access 84 H. K. J. COWAN.

KI. sal, "fire"); Kr. be, Md. bé, Mr. bi, "new". As KI., Mr. teluk and Md. dili are propably Aun. loanwords, this correspondence cannot count as proof. This means that only 1 CCVC, 3 CVC and 2 CV complexes can count as certain, enough, though, according to Swadesh's cal- culation, to prove genetic relationship which would be on the microphylum level.

D. Between Moi and A: 7 CVCVC, 8 CVCV or equal value, 7 CVC and 5 CV or higher value (VVC/VCV) complexes, constituting a relationship between the stock and family levels (nearly 37 fo agreements) or exactly on the stock level (35 %) if we discount the CVCV agreement tolu as Aun. loanword. Examples: Moi sagusu, KI. safas, Mr. sawag, "head"; Moi sadjin, KI. sadin, "hair"; Moi toutba, KI. tejit, "ear"; Moi elik, KI. terit, Mr. ëré, "foot"; Moi wenin, Mr. vening, "hand"; Moi korus, KI. kodus, Mr. këdog, "bone"; Moi wegem, KI. waken, Mr. pégé, "meat"; Moi kala, KI. kala, Mr. këla, "water"; Moi tiku, KL, Mr. tit, "I"; Moi nin, KI. mejanin, "thou"; Moi mele, KI. meré, Mr. mërèh, "one"; Moi tolu, KI., Mr. teluk, "three"; etc.

E. Between Moi and B: 1 CVCV, 2 CVC and 2 CV complexes, viz.: Moi tolu, Md. dili, "three"; Moi nin, Kr., Md. nan, "thou"; Moi tiku, Md. dji, "I"; Moi sagusu, Md. su, "head"; Moi nelibi, Kr. be, Md. bé, "new". If we disregard tolu as almost certainly an Aun. loanword, there remain only 2 CVC and 2 CV agreements. This is not enough by itself. But the connection can be reconstructed by "chain procedure" via the relationships Moi : Kr., Md. and Kr., Md. : KL, Mr., and/or by "intersection" by calculating the convergence of chance between Kr., Md. on one side and Moi and KL, Mr. on the other.28 As Kr., Md. has 4 CVC agreements with KL, Mr. (prob. pet. 1,4) and 2 with Moi (prob. pet. 17,8) the chance probability as between Kr., Md. and the two others is, according to the intersection method, the product of the two percentages doubled, or ca. J4 %. Both by chain connection and by intersection, therefore, genetic relationship between, Moi and Kr., Md. is a fairly safe conclusion.

F. Between Ajamaru and A: 1 CVC and 2 CV complexes, viz.: Aj. mat, KL mohot, Mr. mahat (Moi mafut), "five"; Aj. tio, djio, KL, Mr.

28 Fqr "chain procedures" see Swadesh, o.c, p. 202 and Benveniste's discussion mentioned in the footnote on that page; for "intersection" see Swadesh, o.c, I>. 203.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 85 tit (Moi tiku), "I"; Aj. nio, nio, KI. mejanin (Moi nin), "thou". This is again not enough by itself but because of the relationship between Ajamaru and B shown hereafter, a similar construction by chain relatonship and intersëction is possible 'here like for Moi above..

G. Between Ajamaru and B: 5 CVC and 2 CV agreements, viz.: Aj. na-soka (with. poss. pref. 2nd p.s.), Kr. sukwèt, Md. sowak, "mouth"; Aj. no-nait (with pron. pref 2nd p.s.), Kr. na-ngit-su (with pron. pref. 2nd p.s. and imperat. particle), Md. na-init, "eat"; Aj. no-nata, Kr. na-nda-su, Md. na-ida, "drink"; Aj. na-sem, Kr. na-sum-su, Md. na-sum, "stand (up)"; Aj. iio, djio, Kr. tat, Md. dji, "I"; Aj. nio, nio, pref. form n(a)-, Kr., Md. nan, "thou". Even if we disregard "eat" as somewhat doubtful there are 4 CVC agreements which are enough to give a sound basis.

As has been said all these languages show a more or less noticeable Aun. element. It is strongest in Moi, which may perhaps be explained by the fact that it is spoken on the coast of the westernmost point of West New Guinea and partly on the island of Salawati facing it. An analysis of the vocabulary of the 73 non-cultural words mentioned above shows the following possible agreements with Aun.: a. Between Moi and Aun.: certain or probable: nepek, "tooth"; jap, "fire"; tolu, "three"; and possible: wolu, "wing" (Aun. bulü/'ieaÜièr" ?); ui, "snake" (Aun. uhr ? but KI. luwa, Mr. luwijëb); toon, "star" (Aun. bituhsn ? but Mr. tolg, KI. ton); tiku, "I" (Aun. aku ? but cf. Md. dji, Kr. tat, KI., Md. tit). If we count all these possibilities as valid there are 7 agreements, among them 4 CVC or higher value complexes, which would, according to Swadesh's calculations, be sufficient to prove genetic relationship on the microphylum level.

b. Between A and B and Aun.: for these languages there are only the following possibilities: Kr. knabe, Md. kanagé, "ear" (for the first element, cf. Biak-Numfor kna < Aun. talina); Kr. kuwè, Md. kui, "tree (Aun. kayu ?•); Kr. we, Md. uwi, "two" (Aun. dua ?); Kr. gri, Md. dili, KL, Mr. teluk, "three" (Aun. talu); KI. ton, "star" (Aun. bituhèn ? but Mr. tolg). Counting all, this would mean 4 agreements (among them only 2 or 3 CVC or equal/higher value complexes) for Karön and Madik and only 2 for Kalabra (and Moraid ?). This is

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access 86 H. K. J. COWAN. hardly enough to suggest relationship, but with the help of the chain procedure and/or the intersection method it could perhaps be constructed via Moi. However, a word like Kr. knabe, Md. kanagé is very suggestive of a loanword as it shows a typical Biak-Numfor form, and Biak-Numfor immigrants have considerable settlements in the area, mixing with the coastal Karóns. c. Between Ajamaru and Aun.: I find only the following 4 possible agreements of which the last two are probably the same word: sau, for men sej, "one" (Aun. (s)sa ?); jina, "woman" (Aun. (ba)binay ?); aja, "water" (Aun. wayay, Mal. air, ajer, ajar ?); and ajer, "river" (cf. preceding word). If the last two words are really one and the same, the latter is very suggestive of a loanword from Malay. Counting all, there are hardly more than 2 CVC complexes. A connection could perhaps be constructed via Kr., Md. and Moi by chain procedure and/or intersection. * **

If we now turn to a comparison of the same list with the North Halmahera languages it appears that, while the total number of possible agreements is about the same as with Aun., the number of CVC and higher value agreements is decidedly larger, at least for Kalabra/Moraid and Moi. For the other N.W. Vogelkop languages the agreements are about the same in number and value as with Aun. The NH languages to be compared here are: Pagu (or Isam), Tobelo, Tabaru, Galela and Sahu, in some cases also Loda, Ternate and Tidore. It should be noted that, as H. van der Veen points out,29 the Pagu or Isam dialect represents the most archaic type of all; at least inasmuch it has preserved the original final consonants. As to the phonemes of the NH languages somewhat more can be said than about those of the N.W. Vogelkop group, the ms. vocabularies of the latter being more inaccurate than was the case for Demta. The very few grammars that we have of the NH languages do not give their phonology, but sometimes the phonemes can be roughly deduced from the description of phonetics and by comparing a good dictonary if available. This is the case e.g. for Tobelo.30 It is probable that of

29 Van der Veen, o.c, pp. 2 and 160-1. 30 A. Hueting, "Iets over de spraakkunst van de Tobeloreesche taal" (Bijdragen Kon. Inst., XCV, 1936). A. Hueting, "Tobeloreesch-Hollandsch Woordenboek", ed. Kon. Inst., 1907.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A PAPUAN COMFARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 87

the 14 vowels and 25 consonants mentioned for that language there are only 9 vocalic and 18 consonantal phonemes.31 This would mean that there are 2916 theoretically possible CVC complexes in that 2 language, or, applying the /3 correction, a phonetic ratio of 864. Even if we assume that the N.W. Vogelkop languages have many less phonemes than Tobelo, the phonetic ratio of 1:100 — which indeed has been suggested by Swadesh to be a convenient and satisfactory index for more general comparative uses than that for which it was first worked out — seems to be on the safe side. My comparisons, then, have yielded the following possible agreements:

I. Between Kalabra/Moraid and Moi on one and NH on the other side: Engltsh KL, Mr., Moi N.H. head KI. safas, P. saek, Tob. haeke, Mr. sawag, Tab. saeke, Sahu saJe, Moi sagusu Gal. sahe meat KI. waken, P. lakem, Tob. akeme, Mr. pégé, Gal. lake, Moi wegem Sahu la'eme eye KI. sifoko, P., Tob., Gal. lako, Moi wisuwoo Sahu laso, Tab. 'a'ako tree KI. kout, P., Tob., Gal. gota, Moi wout Sahu ate, Tern., Tid. hate water KI. kala, Tob. akere, Tab. akere, Mr. këla, Tern. ake (cf. also Tob. Moi kala okere, P. okel, "to drink") hear KI. ne-win, P. ilen, Tob. ihene, Mr. ne-weni-fëse (both Tab., Sahu isene with pron. pref. 2nd p.s., Mr. also with imperat. particle) stab KI. seka, Tob. hakara Mr. n-sga-sé (with (< *sakar) pron. pref. and - imperat. part.) These are a, a, e, ê, i, !, o, ö, u; k, g, n, p, b, m, t, d, n, h (f,s), 1, 1' r, j, A n, c, g, w.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access H. K. J. COWAN.

English KL, Mr., Moi N.H. five KL mohot, Gal. motoha, other dialects Mr. mahat, motoa (N.B. v. d. Veen Moi mafut says that mo- is a "numeral formant") I KI. tit, P., Tab. noi, Gal., Tob. Mr. tit, nohi, Loda nodji, Tem. Moi tiku . riori; pron. pref. to-, ti-, ta- thou KI. mejanin, Gal. etc. nona, Tern., Sahu Moi nin nana; pron. pref. no-, ni-, na-

The first eight of these agreements are CVC or higher value complexes. Even if we discount as dubious "five" (because this implies the assumption of metathesis) and either "water" or "stab" (because the different treatment of the original final consonant might be considered an objection here) there remain 6 CVC agreements of which, moreover, two ("head" and "meat") may be regarded as CV(C)VC complexes and two ("eye" and "water" or "stab") as CVCV complexes. Six CVC correspondences alone offer a chance probability percentage of only ca. 0,05 or one chance in approximately 2000. Some of. the phonetic changes need some explanation. For KL, Mr., Moi w : P. etc. l in "meat", "eye" and "hear" cf. the similar develop- ment in NH itself, e.g. P. lepe, Tob. woe, "much" ; P. kolan, Tob. koano, "king"; P. molaju, Tob. moaju, "Malay" (loanword from Mal. melaju). The same happens in Tabaru. Otherwise the other NH dialects usually have r when P. has /; in a few cases P. / is represented by Gal., Tab. s, Tob. h and Loda §. As for w : f : p in KL, Mr., Moi "head", "meat" and "eye" see van der Veen about the interchange of these consönants in NH (o.c, p. 158—9). As a general rule P. has preserved the original final consönants, Tob. and Tab. having added a supporting vowel and Gal. and Tern. having dropped the consonant.

II. Between Karón/Madik and NH: English Kr., Md. N.H. nose Kr. m-ungguwen P. unuri, Sahu nunun, (with poss. pref.) Tob. nununu, Gal. nunu fish Kr. boge, Md. wo P. nauk, Tob. nauoko, Tab. naolo, Sahu nao, Gal. nawo

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 89

English Kr., Md. N.H. five Kr., Md. mek Gal. motoha feather, hair Kr. go, Md. gwo all dialects: gogo I Kr. tat, Md. dji P., Tab. noi, Gal., Tob. hohi, Loda nodji, Tern. nori; pref. to-, ti-, ta- thou Kr., Md. nan Gal. etc. nona, Tem., Sahu nana; pref. no-, ni-, na-

The comparison "five" must be discounted for the same reason as for Kalabra/Moraid. Even if we count "nose" and "fish" as fully valid CVC correspondences> which is questionable, there are only two of them. Among an additional 8 words occurring in Swadesh's lexicostatistic list another CVC agreement is found, viz. Kr. nam- in namgan, "bird", and namgo, "feather", cf. also Md. dam, "bird", and damgwo, "feather" (Kr. sugo, Md. sugwo, "hair of the head", from su, "head"), if this can be compared with Tab., Loda namoro, Gal. namo, "bird" (< *namor). But this is not enough. A connection, though, can be constructed by chain procedure and/or intersection via KI., Mr., Moi.

- III. Between Ajamaru and NH: only one dubious CVC comparison, viz. mat, "five" : Gal. motoha; and two CV correspondences, viz. Ho, djio, "1", and nio^nio, "thou". This makes no case. Relationship can be reconstructed-by chain procedure via Kr., Md. and KL, Mr. though by a very round-about way because the latter languages had themselves to be connected with Ajamaru by that method together with intersection. Our net result of the comparisons are, therefore, fairly satisfactory for Kalabra/Moraid, much less so for Karón/Madik and still less for Ajamaru. The chain relationship which can be constructed between the latter languages and NH, however, finds support in the strongly sug- gestiye and significant fact that the pronouns, including those that do not occur in Swadesh's 97 word list, show a close likeness to those in the NH languages. This is particularly the case — or appears clearest because it is grammatically better known than the others — in Ajamaru, and notably also for the pronominal prefixes in use in conjugation as is shown by the following table.

N.H. Ajam. N.H. Ajam. 1 p.s. to- t(e)- 1 p.p.e. mi- 2 p.s. no- n(e)- 1 p.p.i. po-, wo-, fo-, ho- n(o)-

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access 90 H. K. J. COWAN.

N.H. Ajam. N.H. Ajam. 3 p.s.m. wo-, o- j(e)- (but inc- Pron- (but incorp. obJ- -na"> and pron. obj. f"11 Pr°n. none, -wi-, -i-) nene) 3 p.s.f. mo- ^(e)- 2 p.p. ni- n(e)-, b(o)- 3 p.p. (d)jo-, du-, na- n(e)-, m(e)- (persons); i- (things); full pron. ona(na), ana(na) for pers., maena for things.

It appears that for 5 of the 7 persons (Ajamaru has only one form for both the lst p. excl. and incl. so that this may be counted as one) these prefixes correspond with those in NH while for the remaining two persons (the 3rd p.s.m. and the lst p.p.i.) they correspond with the forms of the incorporated pronoun object in NH. For the lst p.p.i., moreover, the prefix in Ajamaru also corresponds with the full pronoun in NH. This is also the case for the 3rd p.p. so that the many different forms of the prefix for this person in NH are no objection. The chances that all this is coincidence are practically negligible. As for the fact that the t- and n- elements for the lst and 2nd p.sg., that do occur as items in Swadesh's 97 word list, are found in all these languages, it is important to hear what Swadesh himself had to say about such elements in Amerindian languages: "At least two short elements, n for the first personal pronoun and m for the second, can be safely added to the list of recurrent elements even tho they do not meet the CVC requirement. The point is that they are so numerous as to virtually eliminate the chance factor despite their brevity. In fact, even if one disregarded the cases which have one or the other and included only the languages which have both n and m for first and second person respectively, and if one holds to the restriction that both forms must belong to the same functional type — whether independent pronoun or subject, object or possessive affixes — the list of language groups would still be fairly impressive." 32 If we weigh the evidence for and against an Aun. or NH relationship of the N.W. Vogelkop languages in question, it cannot be denied that

32 M. Swadesh, o.c, pp. 191-2.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "pAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 91 it is in favour of the latter. If some doubt still remains because of the uncertain phonetic rules conditioning the agreements and, for some languages, the small number of the agreements, it is yet a notable step forward if now the relationship with NH can at least be said to bea real possibility whereas heretofore 33 I had to deny that pointing out likenesses meant suggesting connectedness. It is the application of Swadesh's methods that has enabled us to make that step. H. K. J. COWAN. ***

ADDENDUM The comparison of KI. waken, Mr. pégé, Moi wegem with Pagu lakem, Tob. akeme, "meat", is proved correct beyond doubt by the form lagém, "meat" in the Mosana language of eastern Salawati island facihg the Vogelkop peninsula. This language, a ms. vocabulary of which is in the possession of the Bureau for Native Affairs at Hollandia, was in my "Voorlopige Resultaten" (pp. 43—44) shown to be closely related to Moi. This important piece of evidence, previously overlooked, also proves correct the phonetic change of l > w in the Vogelkop languages that was deduced from the comparisons of "meat", "eye" and "hear" together with the fact that it also occurs in NH itself. H. K. J. COWAN.

33 In my "Voorlopige resultaten", pp. 25 and 28.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access