The Reconstruction of Proto-SHWNG Morphology

David Kamholz Proto-SHWNG morphology

David Kamholz The Long Now Foundation, PanLex project

The reconstruction of Proto-SHWNG morphology

1 Introduction

• Proto-SHWNG is a high-level subgroup of Proto-Austronesian (Figure 1), first put on a firm empirical basis by Blust (1978)

• About 40 SHWNG languages are now spoken on South Halmahera, the Raja Ampat islands, Cenderawasih Bay, and the lower Mamberamo river (Figure 2 on the next page)

• Kamholz (2014) proposes a new subgrouping of SHWNG languages on the basis of morphological innovations, regular sound changes, and irregular phonological developments (Figure 3 on page 3)

• Kamholz (2014) locates the homeland of Proto-SHWNG in southern Cenderawasih Bay

• There is little previous work on Proto-SHWNG reconstruction; van den Berg (2009), by far the most ambitious previous attempt, is useful but relies on questionable subgrouping assumptions

• Goal: To reconstruct, if possible, the Proto-SHWNG subject and inalienable possessive marking paradigms, assuming the subgrouping of Kamholz (2014)

• Methodology: iterative bottom-up and top-down reconstruction, using data collected in Kamholz (2014)

Proto-Austronesian

Formosan Proto-Malayo-Polynesian

Western Malayo-Polynesian Proto-Central-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian

Central Malayo-Polynesian Proto-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian

Proto-South Halmahera–West Proto-Oceanic New Guinea

Figure 1: The higher branches of the Austronesian family tree, after Blust (2013: 729–743), originally appearing as Blust (1977). Nodes in italics are not proto-languages, but rather are cover terms for multiple primary branches.

13-ICAL – 1 – Academia Sinica, Taipei, July 19, 2015 David Kamholz Proto-SHWNG morphology Figure 2: Map ofRaja the Ampat SHWNG archipelago. region, with South Halmahera languages marked. The Raja Ampat language As, also marked, is spoken on the mainland just east of the

13-ICAL – 2 – Academia Sinica, Taipei, July 19, 2015 David Kamholz Proto-SHWNG morphology Proto-Central Yapen ... Kurudu Wabo Halmahera South Halmahera Proto-Southern South Proto-Central-Eastern Gebe Proto-Western Yapen Proto-Eastern Yapen Proto-Yaur-Yerisiam Umar Proto-Southwest Halmahera Proto-South Proto-Ambel-Biga Proto-Ma’ya-Matbat Fiawat As Proto-Biakic Proto-Yapen Cenderawasih Bay Bay Proto-RASH Tandia Moor Waropen Warembori Yoke Proto-Cenderawasih )’s subgrouping of SHWNG languages. 2014 Proto-SHWNG Figure 3: Kamholz (

13-ICAL – 3 – Academia Sinica, Taipei, July 19, 2015 David Kamholz Proto-SHWNG morphology

2 Defining innovations of SHWNG subgroups

• Proto-RASH: *R > ∅; 1sg and 2sg subject infix ‹y›

• Proto-South Halmahera: 2pl subject prefix f-; 1pl.in inalienable possessive suffix -d

• Proto-Central-Eastern South Halmahera: paradigmatic innovation in inalienable possessive marking; lexical innovations noted by Blust (1978)

• Proto-Southern South Halmahera: loss of inalienable possessive marking; lexical innovations noted by Blust (1978)

• Proto-Ambel-Biga: inalienable possessive plural suffix -n/-no

• Proto-Maˈya-Matbat: epenthetic final o on words with Fall or Low Fall tone; 1pl.in inalienable possessive suffix -n

• Proto-Cenderawasih Bay: 2sg subject infix ‹u› and 3sg subject infix ‹i›; 3sg vocalic conjugation subject prefix dy-

• Proto-Biakic: *u, *i, *ə > e ~ ə in final closed syllables of polysyllabic words; paradigmatic innovation in subject marking; paradigmatic innovation in inalienable possessive marking

• Proto-Yapen: 2sg vocalic conjugation subject prefix bu-

• Proto-Western Yapen: various innovations in inalienable possessive marking (3sg -mpai, 3sg -na/-ni, plural -mi/-mu); plural vocalic conjugation linking consonant -t-

• Proto-Central Yapen: 2sg vocalic conjugation subject prefix w- (from Proto-Western Yapen *bu-)

• Proto-Eastern Yapen: 2sg vocalic conjugation subject prefix b- (from Proto-Yapen *bu-)

• Proto-Southwest Cenderawasih Bay: *z > ∅; irregular *u > i in PMP *punti ‘banana’

• Proto-Yaur-Yerisiam: *ŋ > ∅

3 Reconstruction of Proto-SHWNG subject and inalienable possessive marking

• Tables 1–2 contain reconstructions of the subject marking paradigm of Proto-SHWNG and its subgroups1

• Tables 3–4 contain reconstructions of the inalienable possessive marking paradigm of Proto-SHWNG and its subgroups

• It is (apparently) possible to reconstruct both paradigms; some cells have multiple reconstructions

• Subject markers: consistently prefixing; infixes not reconstructible to Proto-SHWNG

• Inalienable possessive markers: prefixing in the singular; prefixing, suffixing, or both intheplural

1. Transcription closely follows original source orthography. The principal deviations from IPA are ’ = [ʔ], g = [ɡ], gh = [ɣ], gw = /gʷ/, j = [dʒ], ng = /ŋ/, v = [β], y = [j]. Bracketing in reconstructed forms follows the conventions introduced by Ross (1988): (x) indicates that it cannot be determined whether x was present; [x] indicates that the item is reconstructible in two forms, with and without x. In synchronic paradigms, (x) indicates that x is not present in all contexts; [x] indicates that x is optional in all contexts. Commas separate equivalent forms, with the selection of form determined by phonological context, inflection class, or dialect. Semicolons separate forms which belong to distinct subparadigms that the comparative table does not otherwise differentiate.

13-ICAL – 4 – Academia Sinica, Taipei, July 19, 2015 David Kamholz Proto-SHWNG morphology

1sg 2sg 3sg V C V C V C Buli ik- i- m- m- n- n- Maba k- k- m- m- n- n- Patani y-, k- ‹i›, y(i)-, ki- m(y)- m-(‹i›) n- n- Sawai k- k- m- m- ∅ ∅ pCESH *k-, *y- *k-, *‹i› *my- *m-‹i› *n- *n- Gane [ek-]k- ek- [em-]m- em- [en-]n- en- Taba k= k= m= m= n= n= pSSH *k- *k- *m- *m- *n- *n- Gebe y- ‹y› my- m-‹y› n- n- pSH *k-, *y- *k-, ‹y› *my- *m-‹y› *n- *n- Ambel y- ‹y› ny- n-‹y› n- n- Biga y- ya- m- ma- n- na- pAB *y- *‹y› *my- *m-‹y› *n- *n- Kawe y- ‹y› my- m-‹y› ny- n-‹y› Maˈya (S.) y- ‹y›, ya- my- m-‹y›, ma- ny- n-(‹y›), na- Matbat k- k- m- m- n- n- pMM *k-, *y- *k-, *‹y› *my- *m-‹y› *n- *n- As ‹y› (i-)‹y› m-‹y› m-‹y› n- n- Fiawat y- ye-‹y› m- ? n- ? pRASH *k-, *y- *k-, *‹y› *my- *m-‹y› *n- *n- Biak y- ya- w- wa-, ‹w› d- i-, ‹y› Dusner y- ya-, ∅ w- wa-, ‹w› nd-, ndi- i-, ‹i› Meoswar y- a- w- ‹u› d- ‹i› Roon y- ya-, i- w- wa- t- i- pB *y- *ya- *w- *wa-, *‹w› *d- *i-, *‹y› Busami ya- ya- w- ? s- ‹i› Munggui y- e- w- ‹u› ty- ‹y› Papuma y- e- w- ‹u› t- ‹i› Pom y- i- w- ‹u› dy- ‹i› Serui-Laut ya- y- w- ‹u› d- ‹i› pCY *y- *ya- *w- *‹u› *dy- *‹i› Ambai i- i- bu- ‹u› di- ‹i› Ansus ya- e- bu- ‹u› d- ‹i› Wandamen y- i- bu- ‹u› di- ‹i› Wooi y- ∅, i- bu- ‹u› ty- ‹y› pWY *y- *ya- *bu- *‹u› *dy- *‹i› Kurudu ay- a(y)- b- ‹u› d- ‹i› Wabo ai- a- b- o- d- ‹i› pEY *ay- *a- *b- *‹u› *d- *‹i› pY *y- *ya- *bu- *‹u› *dy- *‹i› Yaur igw- i- agw-‹u› a-‹u› ‹i› ‹i› Yerisiam ne-j- ne- a-gu- a-‹u› i-di- i-‹i› pYY *j-? *i- *agw- *a-‹u› *dy-? *i-‹i› Umar e- e- a(w)- a-‹u› j- i-‹i› pSCB *j-? *i- *aw- *a-‹u› *dy- *i-‹i› pCB *y- *ya- *aw- *‹u› *dy- *‹i› Moor i=gw- i= a=(gw-) a= j- ∅ Tandia ? ya- ? a(m)- ? i- Waropen r-, y- ra-, ya- agh-, a(u)- a- i(y)- ∅, i- Warembori ∅ i-, e-, ya- w- (w)a- y- i-, ya-, ∅ pSHWNG *y- *ya- *aw- *a- *y- *i-

Table 1: SHWNG singular subject markers, divided into vocalic and consonantal conjugations.

13-ICAL – 5 – Academia Sinica, Taipei, July 19, 2015 David Kamholz Proto-SHWNG morphology

Table 2: SHWNG plural subject markers. Markers differing in vocalic and consonantal conjugations are listed as vocalic | consonantal.

13-ICAL – 6 – Academia Sinica, Taipei, July 19, 2015 David Kamholz Proto-SHWNG morphology

1sg 2sg 3sg Buli ya-…-k a-…-m i- Maba a-…-g a-…-m i- Patani a-…-g a-…-m i- Sawai [a-]…-g, [ya-]…-g [a-]…-m [i-] pCESH *a-…-g *a-…-m *i- Gebe -k -m ∅ pSH *-g *-m *∅ Ambel -k -m ∅ Biga -g -m -o pAB *-g *-m *∅ Kawe -k, -g | -Vk, -Vg -m | -Vm ∅ | -V Maˈya (S.) -k | -Vk -m | -Vm ∅ Matbat -ŋ -m ∅ pMM *-g *-m *∅ As an- am- ni- pRASH *-g *-m *∅ Biak -ri; -si -m-ri; -m-si; -mi -ri; -si Dusner ? -meria; -mi -ri Meoswar -ri; -na -mri; -mna; -mi -ri; -na Roon -ri; -na; -etia -meri; -mena; -mi -ri; -na pB *-ri; *-na *-m-ri; *-mi *-ri; *-na Papuma -u -mu -[ne]mpae Pom -ni -mu -nani Serui-Laut -u -mu ∅, ne-, -ne[mpoi] pCY *-u, *-ni *-mu *-nempai, *-na-ni Ambai -ku -mu -n, -na Ansus -u -mpi ne-…-mpai Wandamen -ne[i] -mu[i] -pai; -ni pWY *-ku, *-ni *-mu *-n-pai, *-na-ni Kurudu ai- me- ne- pEY *ai- *me- *ne- pY *-ku, *-ni *-mu *-n-pai Yaur igw- | i- agw- | a- ∅ Yerisiam ne-ni- | ne- a-ni- | a- i-ni- | i- pYY ? *a- ? Umar -vie -vua -vre pSCB ? ? ? pCB *-ku? *-mu *∅? Moor -’a -ma -ra Waropen ra- a- ∅ Warembori e- a- i- pSHWNG *-ku *-mu *∅

Table 3: SHWNG inalienable possessive marking (singular forms). If there is a difference with vowel- and consonant-initial or final roots, the markers are listed as vocalic | consonantal.

13-ICAL – 7 – Academia Sinica, Taipei, July 19, 2015 David Kamholz Proto-SHWNG morphology

1pl.in 1pl.ex 2pl 3pl Buli ite-…-r ame-…-mam meu-…-meu si[le]-…-ri Maba ite-…-r a-…-am meu-…-meu si-…-ri Patani ite-…-r ama-…-mam me-…-me si-…-re Sawai [ite-]…-r [a-]…-mam [me-]…-mi [si-]…-ri pCESH *ite-…-r *ma-…-mam *meu-…-meu *si-…-ri Gebe -d -man -mo -ri pSH *-d *-mam *-meu *si-…-ri Ambel -n am-…-n mim-…-n -n Biga -no -no -no -no pAB *-n *-n *-n *-n Kawe -n | -Vn -m | -Vm -m | -Vm -n | -Vn Maˈya (S.) -n | -Vn -m | -Vm -m | -Vm -n | -Vn Matbat -n -m -m ∅ pMM *-n *-m *-m *-n As ti(N)- ami(N)- mi(N)- si(N)- pRASH *-nd *-mam *-meu *-ndri, *si- Biak ko-…-s-na nko-…-s-na mko-…-s-na si-…-s-na Dusner to-…-sesia ? mto-…-sesia si-…-sesia Meoswar ko-…-sna; inggo-…-sna; mko-…-sna; sko-…-sna; ko-…-sri inggo-…-sri mko-…-sri sko-…-sri Roon ko-…-sena; -kesia nggo-…-sena; moko-…-sena; si-…-sena; -setia -nggetia -meketia pB *to-…-sna *nto-…-sna *mto-…-sna *si-…-sna Papuma tas-…-mu antas-…-mu mintas-…-mu es-…-mu Pom ta(N)-…-mi -n minda(N)-…-mi ti(N)-…-mi Serui-Laut ta-…-mi ame-…-mi me-…-mi e-…-mi pCY *ta-…-mi *ama-…-mi *me-…-mi *se-…-mi Ambai ta-…-mi ame-…-mi me-…-mi e-…-mi Ansus ta(N)-…-minekuira ama-…-mine me(N)-…-mipakuira e(N)-…-miwanekuira Wandamen ta(N)-…-mi ama(N)-…-mi me(N)-…-mi se(N)-…-mi pWY *ta-…-mi *ama-…-mi *me-…-mi *se-…-mi Kurudu ta- na- mi- si- pEY *ta- *na- *mi- *si- pY *ta-…-mi *ama-…-mi *mi-…-mi *si-…-mi Yaur o’- om- am- oh- Yerisiam nek- nem- am- ih- pYY *k- *m- *am- *h- Umar -vte -viemi -vuamu -hien pSCB *t-? *-mi? *-mu? *si- pCB *ta-? *-mi? *-mu? *si- Moor -ta -ma -mu, -ma -ta Waropen ∅ a(N)- mi(N)- ki- Warembori ki-, ke- ami √ mi-, me- ti-, te- pSHWNG *-nd, *ta- *-mami? *-meu? *-ndri, *si-

Table 4: SHWNG inalienable possessive marking (plural forms). If there is a difference with vowel- and consonant-initial or final roots, the markers are listed as vocalic | consonantal.

13-ICAL – 8 – Academia Sinica, Taipei, July 19, 2015 David Kamholz Proto-SHWNG morphology

4 Towards reconstructing Proto-EMP

• Table 5 summarizes the preceding reconstructions and compares them with van den Berg (2009)

• Comparison with Proto-Oceanic pronouns (Table 6) shows substantial agreement in possessor markers

• Less agreement among subject markers

• What can be reconstructed to Proto-EMP? How should it be done?

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl.in 1pl.ex 2pl 3pl subject y- | ya- aw- | a- y- | i- t- am- m- si- possessor (K) -ku -mu ∅ -nd, ta- -mami? -meu? -ndri, si- possessor (vdB) -ku -mu -na -ta -mam -miu -ri?

Table 5: Summary of Proto-SHWNG reconstructions.

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl.in 1pl.ex 2pl 3pl independent [i]au [i]ko[e] ia kita ka[m]i, ka[m]u, (k)ira kamami kamiu subject ku=, au= mu=, ko= (y)a=, ∅, ta= ∅ ∅ ∅, ra= ña=, i= object =au =ko =a ∅ ∅ ∅ =ra possessor -gu -mu -ña -da -ma[m]i -m[i]u -dra

Table 6: Proto-Oceanic pronouns reconstructed by Lynch et al. (2002).

5 Conclusion

• Reconstruction of Proto-SHWNG morphology is somewhat challenging but appears to be possible

• Better data from certain key SHWNG languages (Patani, Gebe, Biga, Bata, Maden, As, Kurudu, Wabo, Yoke) will help fill in the comparative picture

• Comparisons between Proto-SHWNG and Proto-Oceanic are promising; it may now be possible to reconstruct some Proto-EMP morphology

• Should Proto-Maˈya-Matbat be abandoned?

References

Berg, René van den. 2009. Possession in South Halmahera–West New Guinea: typology and reconstruction. In Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: a Festschrift for Robert Blust, ed. by K. Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley, 217–247. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Blust, Robert A. 1977. The Proto-Austronesian pronouns and Austronesian subgrouping: a preliminary report. Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Hawai’i 9 (2): 1–15. . 1978. Eastern Malayo-Polynesian: a subgrouping argument. In Second International Conference on Aus- tronesian linguistics: proceedings, ed. by S. A. Wurm and Lois Carrington, 1:181–234. Pacific Linguistics. Canberra: Australian National University. . 2013. The Austronesian languages. Revised edition. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Stud- ies, The Australian National University. Kamholz, David. 2014. Austronesians in Papua: Diversification and change in South Halmahera–West New Guinea. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. http://linguistics.berkeley. edu/~kamholz/pdf/kamholz_dissertation_2014_austronesians_in_papua.pdf. Lynch, John, Malcolm Ross, and Terry Crowley, eds. 2002. The Oceanic languages. Surrey: Curzon. Ross, Malcolm. 1988. Proto-Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of Western Melanesia. Pacific Linguistics, C-98. Canberra: The Australian National University.

13-ICAL – 9 – Academia Sinica, Taipei, July 19, 2015