PACIFIC LINGUISTICS Se�ie� B - No. 16 THE TRANS-NEW GUINEA PHYLUM: EXPLORATIONS IN DEEP-LEVEL GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS by K.A. McElhanon C.L. Voorhoeve Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific Studies THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY McElhanon, K.A. and Voorhoeve, C.L. The Trans-New Guinea Phylum: Explorations in deep-level genetic relationships. B-16, vi + 112 pages. Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University, 1970. DOI:10.15144/PL-B16.cover ©1970 Pacific Linguistics and/or the author(s). Online edition licensed 2015 CC BY-SA 4.0, with permission of PL. A sealang.net/CRCL initiative. PACIFIC LINGUISTICS is published through the L�ngu�4 t�e C��ele 06 Canbe��a and consists of four series : SERIES A - OCCAS IONA L PAPERS SERIES B - MONOGRAPHS SERIES C - BOOKS SERIES V - SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS EDITOR: S. A. Wurm. ASSOCIATE EDITORS: D.C. Laycock, C. L. Voorhoeve, D. T. Tryon, T.E. Dutton. EDITORIAL ADVISERS: B. Bender, University of Hawaii A. Healey, Summer Institute of Linguistics A. Capell, University of Sydney N. D. Liem, University of Hawaii S. Elbert, University of Hawaii H. McKaughan, University of Hawaii K. Franklin, Summer Institute of Linguistics G. N. O'Grady, University of Victoria, B. C. W.W. Glover, Summer Institute of K. Pike, University of Michigan; Linguistics Summer Institute of Linguistics G. Grace, University of Hawaii E. Uhlenbeck, University of Leiden ALL CORRESPONDENCE concerning PACIFIC LINGUISTICS , including orders and subscriptions , should be addressed to : The Secretary, PACIFIC LINGUISTICS, Department of Linguistics , School of Pacific Studies , The Australian National University, Box 4, P.O. , Canberra , A.C.T. 2600 . Australia. Copyright (§) The Authors . First published 19 70 . Reprinted 1978 . The editors are indebted to the Australian National University for help in the production of this series . This publication was made po ssible by an initial grant from the Hunter Douglas Fund . National Library of Australia Card Number and ISBN 0 85883 048 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page. O. INTRODUCTION 1 0.1. GENERAL 1 0.2. BACKGROUNV 3 0.3. SCOPE 3 0.4. VOCABULARY ITEMS 4 0.5. METHOV 5 0.6. OVERVIEW 6 1. PRELIMI NARIES 7 1.1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 7 MAP I 9 1.2. LANGUAGES OF THE CENTRAL ANV SOUTH NEW GUINEA PH YLUM 10 MAP II 11 1.3. LANGUAGES OF THE FINISTERRE-HUON PHYLUM 12 MAP III 13 1.4. FINVER LIST OF VOCABULARY ITEMS 14 MAP IV 15 1.5. SPEL LING 16 1.6. PRESENTATION OF THE VATA 18 2. VOCABULARY COMPARISONS 20 1. Arm, hand 20 2. Bone 22 3. Breast 24 4. Ear 26 5. Eye 28 6. Foot, Leg 30 7. Hair 32 111 iv Pa.ge. 8. Head 34 9. Mouth, jaw 36 10 . Knee 38 11. Nail- 39 12 . Neak 40 13. Skin, bar>k 41 14. N08e 42 15. SpittZ.e 44 16 . Tongue 46 17. Tooth 48 18. Ur> ine 50 19 . Name 52 20 . EZder> Br>other> 54 2l. EZder> Si8ter> 55 22 . Mother> 56 23. I 58 24. We 60 25. You 62 26 . You (p Zur>aZ) 64 27. He 66 28. LOU8e 68 29 . Wing 70 30 . A8he8 72 3l. Rain 74 32. Road 76 33. Fir>e 78 34. Dog 79 35 . Leaf 80 36. Moon 81 37. Sand 82 38. Smoke 83 39 . Star> 84 40 . Sun 85 4l . Water> 86 42 . Wind 87 43 . FuZZ 88 44 . Long 89 45 . New 90 46 . Str>aight 92 47. War>m 93 v Pa.ge 48. Burn 94 49 . Eat 95 50 . Shoot 96 51- Tie 97 52 . Say, speech 98 53. SZeep 100 3. CONCLUS ION 102 4. FURTHER OUTLOOK 103 5. LI ST OF SOURCES 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY 105 McElhanon, K.A. and Voorhoeve, C.L. The Trans-New Guinea Phylum: Explorations in deep-level genetic relationships. B-16, vi + 112 pages. Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University, 1970. DOI:10.15144/PL-B16.cover ©1970 Pacific Linguistics and/or the author(s). Online edition licensed 2015 CC BY-SA 4.0, with permission of PL. A sealang.net/CRCL initiative. O. INTRODU CTION 0.1. GENERAL From the nineteenth century onwards it has been known that the number of languages in the New Guinea area was multitudinous . The most recent estimates ( Wurm and Laycock, 19 61; Wurm , 1970 ) place this number in excess of 1,000, of which approximately 700 are regarded as Papuan ( i.e., non-Austronesian ) . Bringing order in this bewildering mass of languages is a formidab le task, and it was only af ter the lexico­ statistical method developed by Swadesh and expounded by Gudschinsky (1956) had been adopted that linguists had a tool with which they could hopefully tackle the classification of Papuan languages. After a slow start a great activity in this field developed during the last decade , and the existence of more and more groups of genetically re lated languages was posited. A first overall classification was devised by the Voegelins (1965); it was still rather vague , since most groups of purportedly related languages, except single language families . were indis criminately coined 'phylum' . The Voegelins posited a Central New Guinea Macro Phylum as follows· : Central New Guinea Macro-phylum ( by the Voegelins ) (1) East New Guinea Highlands Micro-phylum (2) Ekagi-Wodani-Moni Fami ly (3) Southeastern West New Guinea Phylum (4) Kamoro-Sempan-Asmat Family (5) Southern We st New Guinea Group (6) Ok-Oksapmin Phylum (7) Binandere Phylum (8) Kate Phylum (9) Ndu Family (10) Ndani Family (11) Various language isolates 1 McElhanon, K.A. and Voorhoeve, C.L. The Trans-New Guinea Phylum: Explorations in deep-level genetic relationships. B-16, vi + 112 pages. Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University, 1970. DOI:10.15144/PL-B16.1 ©1970 Pacific Linguistics and/or the author(s). Online edition licensed 2015 CC BY-SA 4.0, with permission of PL. A sealang.net/CRCL initiative. 2 The Voegelins also posited other phyla which were apparently unrelated to the Central New Guinea Macro-phylum, notab ly the Sentani­ Demta-Nimboran and the Kiwai Phyla. Since 1965 additional studies have been undertaken by members of the Australian National University and the Summer Institute of Linguistics, and many gaps in the New Guinea linguistic picture have been rapidly filled in. Wurm' s most recent survey of the results from these .studies ( Wurm, 1970) also asserts the existence of a Central New Guinea Macro-phylum but one differing slightly from that of the Voege lins . Including the addenda to Wurm' s article the following picture emerges: Central New Guinea Macro-phylum (by Wurm ) (1) East New Guinea ijighlands Phylum (2) Central and South New Guinea Phylum (3) West New Guinea Highlands Phylum (4) Finisterre-Huon Phylum (5) South-East New Guinea Phylum (6) Madang Phylum (7) Adelbert Range Phylum (8) Ramu Phylum (?) (9) Middle Sepik Phylum (?) (10) Upper Sepik Phylum (?) (11) Sepik Hill Family (?) The establishment of the various linguistic groups constituting the proposed Central New Guinea Macro-phylum was based mainly upon lexico­ statistic evidence. In all but one case, viz ., Healey (1964 ), the appli cation of the method did not follow reconstruction so that there is the possibility that the presence of unrecognized loans skewed the results. Moreover, in many cases the data were scanty so that supposed cognates were identified solely by the use of the 'inspection method', ( see Gudschinsky, 1956). Therefore, one may regard the sub-classifi­ cation of many of these groups as tenuous and not adequately reflecting genetic relationship but still useful in the present context of New Guinea studies and the need to refer to particular languages as members of groups of languages. The evidence for linking the various linguistic groups together in a ma cro-phylum was largely typological, and of ten only a few lexical items ( e.g., pronouns in the singular number) were said to be cognate throughout most of the member languages. Wurm, in asserting the existence of the macro-phylum, stated that there is "the very real possibility that further changes, including additions, will occur in its proposed composition in the very near future in view of 3 the present rapid progress in New Guinea linguistics" (Wurm . 1970). The present writers suggest what may well be the first of a number of changes in the internal composition of the macro-phylum and present data to support this change . 0.2. BACKGROUNV This study involves comparison of lexical items from two widely separated phyla which were posited independently by the lexicosta­ tistical method . The phyla involved are the Central and South New Guinea Phylum (CSNGP - Voorhoeve . 1968) and the Finisterre-Huon Phylum (FHP - Hooley and McElhanon . 1970 ). Since the appearance of his 1968 article . Voorhoeve has expanded the membership of the CSNGP and revised. its substructure . Map 2 presents the member languages and shows their grouping into lexicostatistically determined groups . Map 3 presents the same for the FHP . The stimulus for a closer study of the possible genetic relation­ ships of the two phyla came from independent ob s ervations by the authors which led to a converging of their interests . McElhanon in 1967 noted structural simi larities between the Telefol language of the Ok family (see P. He aley . 1964. 1965a. 1965b . 1965c. 1966) and the languages of the Huon Peninsula group . Voorhoeve . when studying the genetic relationship of the Asmat and Sentani language s (Voorhoeve . 1970). found evidence which pointed to the possibility that their proto-language had been spoken somewhere in the Sepik or Ramu River basins . At the same time . Voorhoeve noted that lexical data collected in the Madang District languages by Rev.