The Languages and Linguistics of the New Guinea Area: A Comprehensive Guide 9783110295252, 9783110286427

Citation preview

The Languages and Linguistics of the New Guinea Area WOL 4

The World of Linguistics

Editor

Hans Henrich Hock Volume 4

De Gruyter Mouton

The Languages and Linguistics of the New Guinea Area A Comprehensive Guide Edited by

Bill Palmer  

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-3-11-028642-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-029525-2 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-056726-7 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Velvetfish/iStock/Getty Images Plus Typesetting: Dörlemann Satz GmbH & Co. KG, Lemförde Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Table of contents 1

Language families of the New Guinea Area · Bill Palmer. . . . . . . . 1 1.1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2. The New Guinea Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.3 The Papuasphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Language families of the Papuasphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.5 Complexity of the research context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2

The Trans New Guinea family · Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.2 A brief history of the Trans New Guinea hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.3 Subgrouping and membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.3.1 Groups with relatively strong claims to membership in TNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.3.1.1 Angan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.3.1.2 Anim. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.3.1.3 Asmat-Kamoro. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.3.1.4 Awin-Pa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.3.1.5 Bosavi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.3.1.6 Chimbu-Wahgi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.3.1.7 Dagan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.3.1.8 Dani. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.3.1.9 Duna-Bogaya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.3.1.10 East Strickland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.3.1.11 Enga-Kewa-Huli. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.3.1.12 Finisterre-Huon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.3.1.13 Gogodalic-Suki. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2.3.1.14 Goilalan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 2.3.1.15 Greater Awyu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 2.3.1.16 Greater Binanderean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2.3.1.17 Kainantu-Goroka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 2.3.1.18 Kayagaric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2.3.1.19 Kiwaian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2.3.1.20 Koiarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

vi  Table of contents 2.3.1.21 Kolopom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 2.3.1.22 Kutubu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 2.3.1.23 Kwalean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 2.3.1.24 Madang. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 2.3.1.25 Mailuan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 2.3.1.26 Manubaran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 2.3.1.27 Mek. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 2.3.1.28 Marori. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 2.3.1.29 Ok-Oksapmin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 2.3.1.30 Paniai Lakes (Wissel Lakes). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 2.3.1.31 Somahai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 2.3.1.32 Turama-Kikori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 2.3.1.33 West Bomberai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 2.3.1.34 Wiru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 2.3.1.35 Yareban. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 2.3.2 Groups and isolates with weaker or disputed claims to membership in TNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 2.3.2.1 Bayono-Awbono. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 2.3.2.2 Komolom (Mombum). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 2.3.2.3 Mairasi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 2.3.2.4 Pauwasi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 2.3.2.5 Pawaian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 2.3.2.6 Sentanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 2.3.2.7 South Bird’s Head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 2.3.2.8 Tanah Merah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 2.3.2.9 Teberan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 2.3.2.10 Timor-Alor-Pantar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 2.3.2.11 Uhunduni (Damal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 2.3.3 Groups and isolates sometimes assigned to the TNG family without ­sufficient supporting evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.3.3.1 Dem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.3.3.2 Eleman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.3.3.3 Kaki Ae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 2.3.3.4 Kamula. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 2.3.3.5 Kaure-Narau. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 2.3.3.6 Mor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 2.3.3.7 Porome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 2.3.3.8 Purari. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 2.4 Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 2.4.1 Segmental phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 2.4.1.1 Consonants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 2.4.1.2 Vowels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84



Table of contents  vii 2.4.2 Phonotactics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 2.4.3 Prosody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 2.5. Morphosyntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 2.5.1 Introductory note. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 2.5.2 Nouns and nominal constructions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 2.5.2.1 Pronouns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 2.5.2.1.1 Independent personal pronouns. . . . . . . . . 91 2.5.2.1.2 Suffixes marking person and number of subject on final verbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 2.5.2.1.3 Object pronouns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 2.5.2.1.4 Possessive pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 2.5.2.1.5 Interrogative proforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 2.5.2.2 Noun class, gender and nominal classifiers. . . . . . . . . 95 2.5.2.4 Number and case marking on nouns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 2.5.2.5 Non-verbal sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 2.5.3 Verbs and verbal constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2.5.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2.5.3.2 Medial vs final verbs and reference-tracking . . . . . . . 98 2.5.3.2.1 The prevalence of switch reference systems in TNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2.5.3.2.2 Final verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 2.5.3.2.2.1 Tense, aspect and mood markers in final verbs. . . . . . 100 2.5.3.2.2.2 Evidentiality. . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 2.5.3.2.2.3 Interaction between TAM and subject agreement suffixes on final verbs . . . . . 102 2.5.3.2.3 Medial verb morphology. . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 2.5.3.2.4 Scope of negation in clause sequences with switch reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 2.5.3.3 Transitive and intransitive constructions. . . . . . . . . . 106 2.5.3.3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 2.5.3.3.2 Marking of case relations between verb and arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 2.5.3.3.3 Omission of subject and object NPs in connected discourse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 2.5.3.3.4 Deriving transitive verbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 2.5.3.4 Verb adjunct phrases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 2.5.3.5 Experiential constructions with impersonal subject. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 2.5.3.6 Constructions with existential or quasi-copular verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

viii  Table of contents 2.5.3.7 Serial verb constructions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 2.5.4 Adjectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 2.5.5 Spatial terms: place names, locatives and directionals . . . . . 119 2.5.6 Negators and question markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 2.5.7 Interrogative mood markers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 2.5.8 Conjunctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 2.5.9 Tail-Head linkage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 2.6. Lexicon and lexical semantics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 2.6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 2.6.2 On the size and composition of TNG lexicons . . . . . . . . . . . 122 2.6.3 Semantics of nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 2.6.3.1 Some nominal polysemies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 2.6.3.2 Multiword nominal expressions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 2.6.3.3 Taxonomies in the nominal lexicon . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 2.6.4 Verb polysemies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 2.6.5 Numerals and counting systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 2.6.6 Colour terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 2.6.7 Time words. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 2.6.8 Rhyming compounds or helter-skelter and fiddle-faddle expressions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 2.6.10 Pandanus avoidance language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 2.7 Reconstructing Proto Trans New Guinea and later stages. . . . . . . . . . 134 2.7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 2.7.2 pTNG segmental phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 2.7.1.2 Syllable and phonological word structure. . . . . . . . 137 2.7.1.3 Putative reflexes of pTNG consonants and vowels in Kalam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 2.7.1.3.1 Obstruents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 2.7.1.3.2 Nasals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 2.7.1.3.3 Other resonants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 2.7.1.3.4 Vowels in stressed position. . . . . . . . . . . 139 2.7.2 Lexical reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 2.7.3 Grammatical paradigms: Independent pronouns. . . . . . . . . . 146 2.7.4 Verb morphology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 2.7.4.1 Suffixes marking person-and-number of independent verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 2.7.4.2 Pronouns marking object. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 2.7.4.3 Medial vs final verb morphology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 2.8 On the origins and spread of the Trans New Guinea family. . . . . . . . 150 2.8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 2.8.2 On the chronology and causes of the Trans New Guinea dispersal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151



Table of contents  ix 2.8.3 Was the TNG expansion powered by agriculture?. . . . . . . . . 153 2.8.4 Borrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

3

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs · William A. Foley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 3.2 The Lower Sepik-Ramu family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 3.2.1 The Ramu family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 3.2.2 The Lower Sepik family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 3.3 The isolate Taiap (Gapun). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 3.4 The Yuat family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 3.5 The Upper Yuat family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 3.6 The Sepik family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 3.6.1 The Middle Sepik family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 3.6.1.1 The Ndu family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 3.6.1.2 The Nukuma family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 3.6.1.3 The Yellow River family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 3.6.2 The Sepik Hill family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 3.6.3 The Tama family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 3.6.4 The Ram family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 3.6.5 The Upper Sepik family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 3.6.5.1 The Wogamus family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 3.6.5.2 The Iwam family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 3.6.5.3 Abau. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 3.6.6 Amal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 3.6.7 Yetfa (Biksi, Biaksi, Inisine) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 3.7 The Torricelli family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 3.7.1 The Bogia family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 3.7.2 The Marienberg Hills family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 3.7.3 The Arapeshan family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 3.7.4. The Urim family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 3.7.5 The Maimai family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 3.7.6 The Wapei-Palei family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 3.7.7 The One family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 3.8 The Leonard Schultze family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 3.9 The Left May (Arai) family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 3.10 The Amto-Musan family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 3.11 The Kwomtari family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 3.12 The isolate Busa (Odiai). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358

x  Table of contents 3.13 The isolate Yadë (Yalë, Nagatman, Nagatiman). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 3.14 Karkar-Yuri and the Pauwasi family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 3.15 The Senagi family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374 3.16 The Border family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 3.17 The Sko family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419

4

The languages of Northwest New Guinea · William A Foley . . . 433 4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 4.2 The isolate Elseng (Morwap, Janggu, Sawa, Tabu). . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 4.3 The Sentani family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 4.4 The Nimboran family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 4.5 The Kaure family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454 4.6 The isolate Molof (Poule). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459 4.7 The isolate Usku (Afra) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 4.8 The Tofanma family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 4.9 The isolate Kembra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463 4.10 The isolate Yetfa (Biksi, Biaksi, Inisine) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464 4.11 The Lepki family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466 4.12 The isolate Kimki (Aipki, Sukubatom, Sukubatong). . . . . . . . . . . . 467 4.13 The Tor-Kwerba family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469 4.13.1 The Tor family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469 4.13.2 The Kwerba family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482 4.14 The isolate Mawes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496 4.15 The isolate Massep (Potafa, Wotaf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 4.16 The Lower Mamberamo family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 4.17 The isolate Burmeso (Taurap). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507 4.18 The isolate Abinomn (Avinomen, Foya). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513 4.19 The East Cenderawasih Bay family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 4.20 The isolate Keuw (Kehu). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528 4.21 The Lakes Plain family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 4.22 The Mairasi family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544 4.23 The Yapen family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560



5

Table of contents  xi

The Papuan languages of East Nusantara and the Bird’s Head · Gary Holton and Marian Klamer. . . . . . . . . 569 5.1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569 5.2. Documentation and genealogical classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 5.2.1. North Halmahera. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 5.2.2 Timor-Alor-Pantar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 5.2.3 Bird’s Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 5.2.3.1 West Bird’s Head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 5.2.3.2 East Bird’s Head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580 5.2.3.3 South Bird’s Head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 5.2.3.4 Bird’s Head Isolates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582 5.3 Language structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 5.3.1 Phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 5.3.2 Word order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 5.3.3 Person indexing and morphological alignment. . . . . . . . . . . . 590 5.3.3.1 No person indexing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591 5.3.3.2 Indexing of A/S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591 5.3.3.3 Indexing of A/S and O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 5.3.3.4 Indexing of O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 5.3.4 Nominal possession. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 5.3.5 Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604 5.3.6 Inclusive/exclusive distinction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606 5.3.7 Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606 5.3.8 Negation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608 5.3.9 Serial verb constructions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 5.3.10 ‘Give’ constructions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613 5.3.11 Morphological typology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615 5.3.12 Summary of language structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 5.4 Lexicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618 5.4.1 Reconstructed vocabulary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618 5.4.2 Numerals and numeral systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622 5.5 Contact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 5.5.1 North Halmahera. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 5.5.2 Timor-Alor-Pantar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 5.5.3 Bird’s Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625 5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625 5.7 Challenges for future research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629

xii  Table of contents

6

The languages of Southern New Guinea · Nicholas Evans, Wayan Arka, Matthew Carroll, Yun Jung Choi, Christian Döhler, Volker Gast, Eri Kashima, Emil Mittag, Bruno Olsson, Kyla Quinn, Dineke Schokkin, Philip Tama, Charlotte van Tongeren and Jeff Siegel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641 6.1 Introduction to the region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641 6.1.1 Southern New Guinea as a geographical and cultural region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648 6.1.2 Precontact history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649 6.1.3 Impact of modern political units on language use. . . . . . . . . . 651 6.2 Linguistic sketches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652 6.2.1 Yelmek-Maklew (Bulaka River). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652 6.2.1.1 Location and affiliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652 6.2.1.2 Demography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653 6.2.1.3 Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 654 6.2.1.4 Typological sketch: Yelmek and Maklew. . . . . . . . . 654 6.2.2 Marindic subgroup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655 6.2.2.1 Location and affiliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655 6.2.2.2 Demography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658 6.2.2.3 Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659 6.2.2.4 Typological sketch: Marind language. . . . . . . . . . . . 659 6.2.3 Kolopom and Komolom groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 6.2.3.1 Location and affiliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 663 6.2.3.2 Demography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664 6.2.3.3 Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664 6.2.3.4 Typological sketch: Kolopom group. . . . . . . . . . . . . 665 6.2.3.5 Typological sketch: Komolom languages. . . . . . . . . 671 6.2.3.6 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672 6.2.4 Marori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 6.2.4.1 Location and affiliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 6.2.4.2 Demography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 6.2.4.3 Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674 6.2.4.4 Typological sketch: Marori. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 674 6.2.5 The Yam (Morehead-Upper Maro) family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678 6.2.5.1 Location and affiliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678 6.2.5.2 Demography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681 6.2.5.3 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683 6.2.5.4 Typological sketch: Nen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685 6.2.5.5 Typological sketch: Komnzo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 691 6.2.5.6 Vowel harmony in Arammba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696



Table of contents  xiii 6.2.6

The Pahoturi River family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 6.2.6.1 Location and affiliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 6.2.6.2 Demography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698 6.2.6.3 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699 6.2.6.4 Typological sketch: Idi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699 6.2.7 Kiwai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705 6.2.7.1 Location and affiliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705 6.2.7.2 Demography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705 6.2.7.3 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705 6.2.7.4 Typological sketch: Kiwai languages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706 6.2.8 Oriomo (Eastern Trans-Fly) family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708 6.2.8.1 Location and affiliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708 6.2.8.2 Demography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 6.2.8.3 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 6.2.8.4 Typological sketch: Meryam Mir. . . . . . . . . . . . . 711 6.2.8.5 Typological sketch: Wipi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 6.2.9 Gogodala-Suki. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 6.2.9.1 Location and affiliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 6.2.9.2 Demography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 726 6.2.9.3 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 6.2.9.4 Typological sketch: Suki. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 727 6.2.10 Tirio subgroup (Lower Fly). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731 6.2.11 Western Torres Strait Language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732 6.2.11.1 Location and affiliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732 6.2.11.2 Demography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733 6.2.11.3 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733 6.2.11.4 Typological sketch: Western Torres Strait language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733 6.2.12 Tabo (a.k.a. Waia). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 6.2.12.1 Location and affiliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735 6.2.12.2 Demography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736 6.2.12.3 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736 6.2.12.3 Typological sketch: Tabo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736 6.3 Some typological features of the region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 738 6.3.1 Composition of grammatical number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739 6.3.2 Typological profile with respect to other Papuan languages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741 6.4 Historical issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743 6.4.1 Yam family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744 6.4.1.1 Phonology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744 6.4.1.2 Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749

xiv  Table of contents 6.4.1.3 Free Pronouns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752 6.4.1.4 Verb inflections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755 6.4.2 Possible relationships between Oriomo and Yam families. . . 761 6.5. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763 Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765 Other abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765 Symbols other than those given in the Leipzig Glossing Rules. . . . . . 765 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 766

7

The Papuan languages of Island Melanesia · Tonya Stebbins, Bethwyn Evans and Angela Terrill . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775 7.1 Introduction: theoretical issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775 7.1.1 Genetic classification and historical linguistics. . . . . . . . . . . . 777 7.1.2 Areal and contact linguistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780 7.1.3 Resources on the Papuan languages of Island Melanesia. . . . 780 7.1.4 Structure of this chapter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780 7.2 Rossel Island, Yélî Dnye. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 781 7.3 New Britain and New Ireland (Anêm, Ata, Kol, the Baining languages, Taulil and Butam, Sulka and Kuot). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784 7.3.1 Anêm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 7.3.2 Ata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789 7.3.3 Kol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793 7.3.4 Baining languages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 796 7.3.4.1 Phonology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 797 7.3.4.2 Word classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 7.3.4.3 Basic syntax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799 7.3.4.4 The verb complex and verbal morphology. . . . . . . . 800 7.3.4.5 Prepositions and prepositional phrases. . . . . . . . . . . 801 7.3.4.6 Noun phrases and nominal morphology. . . . . . . . . . 802 7.3.4.7 Clauses and clause combining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804 7.3.4.8 Summary of Austronesian and Papuan features in the Baining languages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 7.3.5 Taulil and Butam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806 7.3.6 Sulka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810 7.3.7 Kuot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813 7.3.8 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817 7.4 The Papuan languages of Bougainville. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818 7.4.1 History and genetic classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820 7.4.2 Typological overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825 7.4.2.1 Phonology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 826



Table of contents  xv 7.4.2.2 Syntax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828 7.4.2.3 The verb complex and verbal morphology. . . . . . . . 834 7.4.2.4 Noun phrases and nominal morphology. . . . . . . . . . 846 7.4.3 Language contact on Bougainville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856 7.5 Papuan languages of the Solomon Islands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861 7.5.1 History of ideas about the relatedness of the Solomon Islands Papuan languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 861 7.5.2 Grammatical features. What are these languages like?. . . . . . 863 7.5.2.1 Bilua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864 7.5.2.2 Touo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 868 7.5.2.3 Savosavo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873 7.5.2.4 Lavukaleve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876 7.5.3 Some concluding remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881 7.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 881 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 882

8

The morphosyntactic typology of Papuan languages · William A. Foley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895 8.1 Nouns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 896 8.2 Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 904 8.3 Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907 8.4 Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 920 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931

9

Contact phenomena in Austronesian and Papuan languages · Ger Reesink and Michael Dunn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939 9.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939 9.2 Classification problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944 9.3 Diffusion of structural changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 948 9.4 Changes in content form: word order features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950 9.4.1 Constituent order in the clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 950 9.4.2 Adpositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952 9.4.3 Constituents in the noun phrase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 953 9.4.4 Tail-Head linkage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955 9.4.5 Serial verb constructions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956 9.4.6 Position of the negator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 956 9.4.7 Possessive constructions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 959 9.4.7.1 Possessive suffix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 961

xvi  Table of contents 9.4.7.2 Alienable- Inalienable distinction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966 9.4.7.3 Order Possessor and Possessed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967 9.5 Content substance features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968 9.5.1 Verbal affixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 968 9.5.2 Valence changing affixes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969 9.5.3 Pronominal and counting systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971 9.6 Population genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 974 9.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975 9.8 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976 9.9 Appendix. Language samples used in sections 4 and 5. . . . . . . . . . . . 984



General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 986



Index of Languages and Language Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1008



Table of Maps Map. 1.1: Map. 1.2: Map. 2.1: Map. 2.2: Map. 3.1: Map. 4.1: Map. 5.1: Map. 5.2: Map. 5.3: Map. 5.4: Map. 6.1: Map. 6.2: Map. 7.1: Map. 7.2: Map. 7.3: Map. 7.4:

Language families of the New Guinea Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Papuan families and isolates of the Gulf of Papua . . . . . . . . . . 11 Trans New Guinea (families with strong claims to membership) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 The incidence of body-tally systems in New Guinea . . . . . . . 131 Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and environs . . . . . . . . 202 Languages of Northwest New Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434 Papuan languages of the Bird‘s Head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571 Papuan languages of Halmahera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572 Papuan languages of Timor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 Papuan languages of Alor and Pantar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 Languages of southern New Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642 The Yam family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679 Area map of Island Melanesia showing the Papuan languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 776 Papuan languages in East New Britain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798 The languages of Bougainville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 821 The Papuan languages of the Solomon Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . 862

1

Language families of the New Guinea Area Bill Palmer

1.1. Introduction1 The New Guinea Area is arguably the region with the highest level of language diversity on earth, in terms of both total number of languages, and number of apparently unrelated language families. On the basis of present knowledge, it is home to more than 1,300 languages, almost one fifth of the world’s total number, belonging to upward of 40 distinct language families with no generally accepted wider phylogenetic links, as well as several dozen isolates2. It is also the world’s least documented linguistic region. Of Hammarström’s (2010) list of the 27 least documented families (including isolates) in the world, 20 are located in this area. In some cases, an entire family is known only from a few short wordlists of its members. The region is also the locus of considerable language endangerment. Many of its languages are spoken by a few hundred or very few thousand people, and extensive pressure from larger languages is common, including from larger indigenous languages supplanting smaller languages, and from lingua francas such as Tok Pisin in the east and Papuan Malay in the west. For the exceptionally complex Sepik-Ramu basin, for example, Foley (this volume chapter 3) states that “virtually all languages within the Sepik-Ramu basin are endangered, some critically so” (Foley’s emphasis). The sheer number of languages that are largely unknown to research, together with the rapid pace of language loss, means the complete phylogenetic and typological picture of the area may never be fully known. This volume sets out to give an overview of the languages, families and typology of this area on the basis of current knowledge. 1.2.  The New Guinea Area The island of New Guinea, the second largest in the world after Greenland, consists broadly of two ecological zones: highlands and lowlands. The highlands are 1



2



I am grateful to Harald Hammarström, Andrew Pawley, Nick Evans and Sebastian Fedden for comments on this chapter. All errors remain my own. I am grateful to Kay Dancey of ANU Cartographic for preparing most of the maps in this volume. The New Guinea Area as defined in this chapter contains 862 identified languages of the various Papuan families, as well as upward of 450 Austronesian languages from southern and central Maluku, the Timor area, Aru, coastal mainland New Guinea, the islands of West Papua and Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands.

DOI 10.1515/9783110295252-001

2 

Language families of the New Guinea Area

dominated by rugged mountains and fertile temperate valleys that support dense traditional farming populations. The more sparsely populated lowlands have a tropical climate, with large areas of swamp and some regions of savannah or hill country. Outside the mainland, the New Guinea Area includes a third ecological zone: the islands. Mainland New Guinea lies at the centre of a myriad of lesser islands. A few are small islands off the north or south coasts. Most, however, extend east through the Bismarck Archipelago and Solomon Islands out into the Pacific, and west into the Indonesian archipelago. How far into these eastern and western chains of islands can the New Guinea Area be construed as extending? The Pacific islands to the east of New Guinea are often viewed as consisting of Near Oceania and Remote Oceania, following a distinction proposed by Pawley & Green (1973). Near Oceania refers to the network of intervisible islands including and extending from mainland New Guinea through the Bismarck Archipelago as far as the eastern limits of the main Solomon Islands chain. At the extreme of the last ice age, the Last Glacial Maximum around 21,000 years ago, sea levels were around 120–130 meters lower than at present. Even at that time, many of the island groups in Near Oceania remained separated by water. Indeed, while the region between the present south coast of New Guinea and northern Australia was a continuous continental landmass, the north coast of New Guinea and the coastlines of New Britain and New Ireland were largely identical to those existing today. However, at that time and continuing to the present day with its higher sea levels, aside from a number of tiny outlier islands and atolls, it was possible to see from one island to the next from mainland New Guinea as far east as the island of Makira at the eastern extremity of the Solomon Islands chain, or at the very least, to see the island ahead of you on the ocean while still within sight of the island you had left behind. Beyond the limits of Near Oceania lies Remote Oceania – islands and island groups separated by expanses of open ocean requiring advanced maritime technology and navigational skills to cross. This notion of intervisibility defines the distinction between Near and Remote Oceania. Near Oceania extends as far east as Makira. Beyond that is Remote Oceania. The range of much of the fauna of New Guinea extends to the edge of Near Oceania as far as the eastern Solomons, although faunal diversity drops significantly towards the periphery of the region (Flannery 1995: 44–46). The same is true of the dispersal of human populations through the region. The earliest currently claimed archaeological site in New Guinea dates from 48,000 years bp (before present) (Hope & Haberle 2005: 542; see Allen & O’Connell 2014: 91). Parts of the eastern highlands were settled by 46,000 years bp (Allen & O’Connell 2014: 96; Summerhayes et al. 2010), and human settlement of the region had extended into the Bismarcks by 43,000 bp (Allen & O’Connell 2014: 91–92), and Greater Bougainville, a large island exposed by lower sea levels encompassing most of the Solomons chain, by 29,000 bp (Specht 2005, Spriggs 1997). The earliest confirmed archaeological date for the easternmost extent of Near Oceania, the relatively underinvestigated eastern



Bill Palmer 

3

Solomons, is 6,000 bp for Guadalcanal (Duggan et al. 2014: 722), still well before the arrival of maritime Austronesian speaking peoples around 3,500 years ago. However, as Greater Bougainville in the late Pleistocene extended from today’s Buka almost to Guadalcanal, it seems likely that first settlement of Guadalcanal would have been much earlier. Beyond the limits of Near Oceania the time depth for human settlement is considerably shallower, beginning around 3,200 bp, and is associated with Austronesian dispersal into Remote Oceania into regions never previously inhabited by humans (Green 1991; Kayser 2014: R197; Spriggs 2011: 523). The open ocean beyond Near Oceania defines a natural geographic boundary that also represents a linguistic boundary, as well as a biogeographic boundary, including for pre-Austronesian human settlement of the Pacific. To the west of mainland New Guinea a different natural boundary exists. At the Last Glacial Maximum many of the islands of the Indonesian archipelago were joined within two large landmasses exposed by the low sea levels. To the west, the Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Java, Bali and Borneo were joined to mainland Southeast Asia in a landmass known as Sunda. In the east, New Guinea and a number of current islands, principally the Aru Islands, formed a single landmass with Australia and Tasmania, known as Sahul. Even at the lowest extent of sea levels, Sunda and Sahul were separated by deep ocean trenches. This boundary is reflected in very distinct suites of flora and fauna. Western Indonesia is home to Asian fauna types such as tigers, rhinoceros, monkeys and apes. New Guinea shares with Australia marsupials such as possums, kangaroos, echidna and bandicoots, as well as ratite birds such as the cassowary and other Australian bird species. The region between Sunda and Sahul, known as Wallacea, always contained separate islands, the largest being Sulawesi, which are home to a mix of Asian and Australia fauna types (Flannery 1995: 41–44). The Weber line running through Wallacea represents the westernmost extent of the region in which Australian-type fauna predominates. In terms of human populations, eastern Indonesia, broadly east of the Weber line but including East Nusa Tenggara containing the Timor area including the state of Timor Leste, displays a mix of genetic signals revealing unique population mixing of westward immigrants from Melanesia with eastward immigrants from East Asia, along with several genetic signals apparently indigenous to that region, some shared with Australia (Mona et al. 2009). In short, the region shows a unique mix of settlement from both New Guinea and Asia, overlaid on a pre-existing human population. On the basis of this geographic, biogeographic and human settlement profile, the New Guinea Area can be defined as the region of the Sahul landmass north of continental Australia, along with its immediately adjacent islands, comprising the island of New Guinea and its offshore islands, extending in the west to the Wallacea fringe islands of Halmahera, Seram and Timor and their accompanying smaller islands including Alor and Pantar, and in the east to the Bismarck Archipelago and the Solomons group: a region bounded in the west by the Weber line and the Timor area and in the east by the extent of Near Oceania.

4 

Language families of the New Guinea Area

1.3.  The Papuasphere Numerous language families are represented within the New Guinea Area defined above. Two of these families, Austronesian and Pama-Nyungan3, are primarily located outside the New Guinea Area. The Pama-Nyungan family is represented in the New Guinea Area by a single language, Western Torres Strait, with its best known dialect Kala Lagaw Ya (Alpher et al. 2008; N. Evans et al. this volume). Otherwise, this family is found only on mainland Australia. The Austronesian family, on the other hand, is represented in the New Guinea Area by numerous languages. While mainland New Guinea is overwhelmingly occupied by non-Austronesian languages, Austronesian languages are present in the Bird’s Neck4, sporadic pockets along the north coast, the region of the Markham Valley in the east, the southeasternmost tip, and eastern coastal areas of the Gulf of Papua (see Map 1.1). On the islands the situation is reversed. Austronesian languages dominate, with non-Austronesian languages confined to parts of the Timor area, northern Halmahera, east New Britain, Bougainville and the Solomon Islands. Nonetheless, despite the large number of Austronesian languages in the New Guinea Area, it remains a family the majority of whose members lie outside the region, in island and peninsula Southeast Asia and in the central and south Pacific. It is found across a very substantial portion of the globe, from Formosa in the north to New Zealand in the south, and from Madagascar in the west to Easter Island in the east. The Proto-Austronesian homeland is outside the New Guinea Area in Formosa, and of the family’s many major subgroups, few are found in the New Guinea Area. These two families, Australian and Austronesian, differ from all other language families of the New Guinea Area in that they are primarily located outside the area. (As such, they are the focus of other volumes in the present series, on Australia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific.) The remaining 43 distinct language families identified in this volume are endemic to the New Guinea Area – all are found only within this complex region. It is these endemic families that are the focus of the present volume.5 3



4



5



The Pama-Nyungan family is viewed by many as belonging within a larger Australian language family, although this larger grouping is not universally accepted. The island of New Guinea is often viewed as resembling a bird in shape, with the head facing west (see Map 1.1). The large peninsular in the northwest of the island is traditionally referred to as the Bird’s Head (dating back to the Dutch colonial period with the term Vogelkop). The narrower section of the island joining the Bird’s Head to the rest of the mainland is sometimes referred to as the Bird’s Neck. The southeastern extremity of the island in Papua New Guinea is sometimes referred to as the Bird’s Tail. Papuan languages have been claimed to exist in two locations outside the New Guinea Area defined here. In the east, the Reefs-Santa Cruz languages are spoken on several small islands which, while politically part of the Solomon Islands, are midway between



Bill Palmer 

5

These endemic language families have traditionally been referred to as Papuan. However, aside from a few attempts at macrogrouping, such as Greenberg’s (1971) Indo-Pacific hypothesis, which was never widely accepted and has since been disproved (Pawley 2009), it is widely accepted that the non-Austronesian languages of the New Guinea Area cannot be shown to form a single family. Far from it. At the current state of knowledge the region contains 43 distinct Papuan families and 37 isolates identified in this volume (see Tables 1 and 2). Even if it were the case that all Papuan language families do ultimately reflect settlement of the region by a single linguistic population, and this is a highly unlikely scenario, the time depth involved would make it impossible to detect this ultimate phylogenetic unity using comparative linguistic methods. The island of New Guinea has been settled by humans for approaching 50,000 years. Over the intervening millennia, any linguistic signals reflecting shared ancestry would have been diluted to the point of being undetectable. In any case, it seems implausible to hypothesise that the region was only ever settled by a single linguistic population. If one human population was able to cross Wallacea and reach New Guinea bringing their language with them, it is implausible to imagine that this settlement event was never repeated. Combining that assumption with the current phylogenetic diversity of the region, it is reasonable to hypothesise that there was never a single ancestral Proto Papuan, and that at least some of the current language families reflect the arrival of separate linguistic populations into the region in deep time. The term Papuan therefore cannot be assumed to refer at any level, even in deep time, to a single phylogenetic group. For a time this view, or at least a recognition of the need to remain agnostic on phylogenetic links, prompted the use of “Non-Austronesian” (NAn) in place of “Papuan”, a term that gained some currency in the 1960s and 1970s (see the Solomons chain and Vanuatu, and are the first group in Remote Oceania beyond the limits of Near Oceania. These were argued to be Austronesianized Papuan languages by Wurm (1978). However, in recent years they have been conclusively demonstrated to be members of a divergent high-order subgroup of the Austronesian Oceanic branch (Næss 2006; Næss and Boerger 2008; Ross and Næss 2007), so are not Papuan, vindicating Lincoln (1978). At the other end of the region, in Indonesia, an area around the volcano Tambora in central Sumbawa was home to a language that became extinct when almost its entire speaker population was wiped out in a cataclysmic eruption in 1815. This language was located within Wallacea, more than 500 kilometers to the west of the boundary of the New Guinea Area defined above. On the basis of an extremely small amount of data, a wordlist of fewer than 50 items collected at the beginning of the 19th Century by a colonial officer, Donohue (2007) makes a case that the language was Papuan, which he intends here to simply mean non-Austronesian. The data includes a handful of possible Austronesian etyma, potentially loans, but overall the lexicon does not look Austronesian. It is possible that more data would have shown it to be an aberrant Austronesian language, as with Reefs-Santa Cruz, or it may have been a pre-Austronesian relic. Tambora remains unclassified.

6 

Language families of the New Guinea Area

e.  g. Capell 1969), but which, while phylogenetically sound, was unsatisfactory by defining a category of languages in negative terms. However, the term Papuan has no phylogenetic status. In the early post-WWII decades of research into languages of New Guinea, the term “Papuan” developed something of a typological flavour (e.  g. Capell 1969: 65–116, especially the list of structural features on pp65–66), a sense that persists to some extent into the present. Papuan languages were regarded as a regional and to some extent typological grouping. It transpires that this was largely an artefact of how little was known at that time about languages of the region. There are a handful of linguistic characteristics that are widespread in the region: head-final structures, including OV ordering giving rise to SOV clause structure; a clear distinction between nouns and verbs; complex verb morphology; and head-marking for argument structure seen in verb agreement. However, while these are common, it transpires they are far from universal, and as more Papuan languages are described, and more is known about their structural characteristics, the more typological diversity is revealed, even in core aspects of putative Papuan typology such as clause structure and verb morphology. While it is possible to provide a meaningful typological overview of languages of the region (see Foley this volume chapter 8), as it is for any region, Papuan can no longer be considered in any way a typological grouping. Moreover, some of the structural similarities that do exist between some Papuan languages appear to have arisen through long periods of multilingualism, the region forming a large complex contact zone. While the term ‘Papuan’ has no phylogenetic or typological status, it does refer to a group of families and isolates that share one crucial characteristic: all are endemic to the New Guinea Area. They are found wholly within the region, and have been in situ for a considerable period of time, significantly predating the arrival of Austronesian speakers around 3,500 bp. The term ‘Papuan’ can therefore be defined as referring to those languages and families that are endemic to the New Guinea Area and which represent a continuation of the region’s deep time linguistic history. The term ‘Papuasphere’ may be used to refer to the linguistic world which these families and isolates are located. 1.4.  Language families of the Papuasphere The Papuasphere, encompassing mainland New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago, Bougainville, the Solomon Islands, Halmahera, and the islands of Timor, Alor and Pantar, contains, by the current count, 862 languages comprising 43 distinct families (Table 1) and 37 isolates (Table 2).6 A proper survey of the area must give 6

Any precise number of languages must be tentative and somewhat arbitrary, due to the difficulties distinguishing dialects from separate languages. In some cases, limited



Bill Palmer 

7

due weight to the phylogenetic and typological diversity of Papuan languages. It would be difficult to fully do justice to so many families and languages in a single volume, and the limited knowledge we have of many entire families or regions within the overall area compounds this difficulty. However, in recent years Papuan languages, families and regions have been the focus of an increasing amount of research. This volume provides the most thorough survey of the area possible at the time of writing. The overall New Guinea Area (Map 1.1) can be viewed as comprising a number of smaller geographic regions in which one or more groups of families are found. Each of these regions is surveyed in a chapter or section of a chapter in this volume. In the west, the islands of Timor, Alor and Pantar form a distinct linguistic region, as does the northern half of the island of Halmahera. Similarly, in the east, the Bismarck Archipelago (New Britain and New Ireland) forms a linguistic region, as does Bougainville, and the western and central Solomon Islands. On mainland New Guinea, the largest region comprises the Highlands, spreading west into the lowlands of south western New Guinea, and east to the coast of Madang in the north, the Gulf of Papua in the south and into the Bird’s Tail. This enormous region is dominated by languages belonging to the large Trans New Guinea (TNG) family, interspersed with occasional isolates and small families, typically of contested TNG membership. At the western end of the mainland the Bird’s Head forms a region that is home to several families and isolates. Along the mainland’s south coast, straddling the border between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, lies a lowland region of considerable linguistic complexity, stretching from Kolopom Island in the west to the Fly River in the east. The Gulf of Papua is also home to a number of small families and isolates of disputed TNG membership (Map 1.2). Surpassing the southern region in language and family density, and significantly larger in size and numbers of families, the entire north coast and its interior from the base of the Bird’s Neck to east of the town of Bogia in Papua New Guinea forms a patchwork of numerous families, including the exceptionally complex Sepik-Ramu basin, almost certainly the phylogenetically most complex linguistic region in the world. Each of these regions is covered in a chapter of this volume, arranged anticlockwise from the centre of the area. Pawley and Hammarström’s chapter 2 covers the region dominated by Trans New Guinea, including the Gulf of Papua. The large north coast and Sepik-Ramu basin is surveyed in two chapters, broadly corresponding to the Papua New Guinea and Indonesian halves of the region. Foley’s chapter 3 covers the Papua New Guinea region from data and data of varying quality and age means that the degree of mutual intelligibility between related communalects can only be estimated. In other cases, larger languages, such as Engan, represent highly complex dialect networks. The figure of 862 languages represents the best assessment on the basis of current knowledge, as presented in the regional survey chapters of this volume.

8 

Language families of the New Guinea Area

Table 1: Papuan language families, arranged by size7  8 Family

no. region langs

Trans New Guinea

431

Torricelli

50

Sepik

45

Lower Sepik-Ramu 35

Family

no. region langs

Highlands/ south­western/ eastern New Guinea Sepik-Ramu basin Sepik-Ramu basin Sepik-Ramu basin Southern New Guinea Timor area

Pauwasi

5

North coast/hinterland

Yuat

5

Central Solomons8

4

Sepik-Ramu basin Solomon Islands

South Bougainville 4

Yam

27

Timor-Alor-Pantar

26

Tor-Kwerba

23

Lakes Plain

20

Border

14

Sko

13

East Cenderawasih Bay North Halmahera

10 10

North coast/ hinterland North coast/ hinterland North coast/ hinterland North coast/ hinterland North coast/ hinterland Halmahera

South Bird’s Head

10

Bird’s Head

7



8



North Bougainville 4

Bougainville

Oriomo

4

Sentani

4

Southern New Guinea North coast/hinterland Bougainville

Mairasi

3

Amto-Musan

2

Bayono-Awbono

2

Butam-Taulil

2

Doso-Turumsa

2

Kaure

2

North coast/hinterland Sepik-Ramu basin Central West Papua Bismarck Archipelago Southern New Guinea North coast/hinterland

Numbers of languages in each family, particularly the larger families, should be taken as conservative and in many cases tentative. In some instances, isolates or small families may transpire to belong within existing larger phylogenetic groupings. In others, hitherto unrecognized languages may exist that belong to these families. In still other cases putative families may combine branches that turn out to be unrelated on closer investigation. B. Evans (this volume) do not treat Central Solomons as a genetic grouping, citing a lack of cognate vocabulary greater than chance similarity, once loans are eliminated. However, Ross (2001:316–317) presents evidence leading him to conclude that many pronominal forms across the four languages are cognate (2001:311), evidence B. Evans et al (this volume) regard as promising. At this stage Central Solomons as a family must be regarded as tentative.

Bill Palmer 

 Family

no. region langs

Family

no. region Langs

Kwomtari

6

Lepki

2

Leonard Schultze

6

Senagi

2

Upper Yuat

6

Teberan

2

West Bird’s Head

6

Tofanma

2

Baining

5

Komolom

2

East Bird’s Head

5

Yapen

2

Eleman

5

Yelmek-Maklew

2

Left May

5

Isolates total

37

Nimboran

5

TOTAL

862

Pahoturi River

5

Sepik-Ramu basin Sepik-Ramu basin Sepik-Ramu basin Bird’s Head Bismarck Archipelago Bird’s Head Southern New Guinea Sepik-Ramu basin North coast/ hinterland Southern New Guinea

9

North coast/hinterland North coast/hinterland Gulf of Papua/ hinterland North coast/hinterland Southern New Guinea North coast/hinterland Southern New Guinea all regions

Table 2: Isolates and unclassified languages, grouped by region (with location on Map 1.1) Languages

no. langs

region

Abun (a), Mpur (b), Maibrat (c), Mor (e), Tanah Merah (d) Abinomn (i), Burmeso (j), Elseng (m), Kapauri (n), Kembra (q), Keuw (f), Kimki (s), Massep (k), Mawes (l), Molof (o), Usku (p), Yetfa (r) Dem (h), Uhunduni (g) Busa (t), Taiap (v), Yadë (u) Dibiyaso (x), Kaki Ae (cc), Kamula (w), Karami (extinct), Pawaia (bb), Porome (z), Purari (aa), Tabo (y) Anêm (dd), Ata (ee), Kol (ff), Kuot (ii), Makolkol (gg), Sulka (hh) Yélî Dnye (jj) Total 

5

Bird’s Head/Bomberai Peninsular

12

North coast/hinterland

2 3 8

Central West Papua Sepik-Ramu basin Gulf of Papua/hinterland

6

Bismarck Archipelago

1 37

Rossel Island (Louisiade Archipelago)

Map. 1.1: Language families of the New Guinea Area. Families and isolates that are disputed possible members of TNG are treated separately in this map. (Isolates and unclassified languages are represented by letters and identified in Table 2).

10  Language families of the New Guinea Area



Bill Palmer 

11

Map. 1.2: Papuan families and isolates of the Gulf of Papua.

the ­Sepik-Ramu basin west to the international border, and into Indonesia with families that straddle the border. Foley’s chapter 4 continues the survey westward to east Cenderawasih Bay. The regions of the Bird’s Head, North Halmahera, and Timor, Alor and Pantar are discussed together in Holton and Klamer’s chapter on east Nusantara. The southern lowlands are surveyed by N. Evans and his collaborators in chapter 6. Finally, the three regions of island Melanesia – the Bismarck Archipelago, Bougainville and the Solomon Islands, are covered together by B. Evans et al. in chapter 7. The final two chapters of the volume give an overview of the area, from typological and language contact perspectives respectively. 1.5.  Complexity of the research context The situation presented in this volume, in terms of the numbers of languages and their phylogenetic affiliations, must be taken as to varying extents provisional, due to a lack of comparative research, and the extreme paucity of material on many

12 

Language families of the New Guinea Area

of the region’s languages. Hammarström (2010) lists what he identifies as the world’s least documented language families (including single member families, i.  e. isolates). To qualify, a family has to not be extinct, and for all its members between them to have “less documentation than a rudimentary sketch grammar” (2010: 178) – i.  e. no member of the family has any significant documentation. It is a testament to the unique language diversity and under-documented status of the New Guinea Area that of Hammarström’s 27 families, four are in South America, one each in Africa, India and Great Nicobar Island, and the remaining 20 are in New Guinea, primarily in West Papua.9 In Hammarström and Nordhoff’s (2012) thorough survey of available materials on the languages of Melanesia, 13.8% of Papuan languages are documented in a full grammatical description (150 pages or more), and a further 17.9% are the subject of a grammar sketch, while 61.7% are represented by a wordlist or less (2012: 24). This makes the Papuasphere the world’s least documented region, both in terms of absolute numbers of languages, and in proportion of languages documented. By comparison, the next least documented region, Eurasia, is represented by proportionately almost three times as many full-length grammars (35.3%), with significantly fewer languages (41.8%) represented by a wordlist or less (Hammarström and Nordhoff 2012: 26).10 As a result of this under-documentation, no region of the world is less well understood in terms of the phylogenetic status of its languages. As Pawley and Hammarström (this volume) note in relation to several regions and to the periphery of Trans New Guinea, “the available information and/or existing comparative research has not been sufficient to allow firm conclusions on phylogenetic groupings”. In a few cases, sufficient work has been done on an isolate or small family to allow confidence that it is not demonstrably related to any other grouping in the area. In many more cases, small families and isolates must be treated as separate because the available data is insufficient to demonstrate any wider phylogenetic relationships, or because no significant comparative work has been done on them, or often both. In other words they are unclassified, rather than confirmed isolates or small families. The island of New Guinea is divided between the state of Papua New Guinea in the east, and in the west the Indonesian provinces of Provinsi Papua (the main part of the island, excluding the Bird’s Head), and Provinsi Papua Barat (centred on the Bird’s Head). Together these are traditionally referred to as West Papua in English (superseding the earlier term Irian Jaya). The term Papua Barat itself translates as ‘West Papua’, and the term ‘Papua’ is also traditionally used for the southern half of the state of Papua New Guinea. To avoid confusion, in this chapter the term ‘Provinsi Papua’ is used to refer to that Indonesian province, while ‘West Papua’ is used to refer to the Indonesian provinces of Papua and Papua Barat together. 10 Hammarstrom and Nordhoff (2012: 25–26) compare the level of documentation of Papuan and Austronesian languages as a region with levels for Africa, Australia, Eurasia, North America, and South America. The figures above compare just the Papuan figures with those for Eurasia. 9





Bill Palmer 

13

It is likely that with more data and further research, some of these isolates or small groupings will turn out to belong within larger families. Until recently, for example, a putative Lower Mamberamo family of two languages, Warembori and Yoke spoken on the north coast of West Papua, were regarded as Papuan languages showing heavy influence from Austronesian (Donohue 1999). Recent work has shown that they are Papuanized Austronesian languages (Dunn & Reesink this volume; Foley this volume chapter 4.16; Kamholz 2014: 32)11. Similarly, Yetfa, classified here as an isolate, may well turn out to be a member of the Sepik family (Foley this volume chapter 3.6.7). There are numerous other such examples. It is probably significant that it is the least documented region, the north coast and highlands of Provinsi Papua, that contains the most isolates – at 14, more than a third of the total number of isolates identified in this volume. With more documentation and comparative work, some of these may be shown to have wider links. However, the reverse is also true. As more is known about some languages and small groups currently linked to larger families it will transpire that they are in fact unrelated. For example, Laycock and Z’Graggen (1975: 752–753) group together six languages spoken along a tributary of the Sepik River in a Leonard Schultze “family”, named for the tributary on which they are found, claiming that this group forms a branch of the large Sepik family. This is the position taken by Ethnologue (Simons and Fennig 2017). However, Laycock and Z’Graggen’s assessment is based on a very limited data consisting of short wordlists used to group four of the languages (Walio, Pei, Yawiyo and Tuwari) on the one hand, and Baiyamo (a.k.a. Paupe) and Asaba (a.k.a. Duranmin) on the other. Laycock and Z’Graggen join these groups on the basis of possible shared typological features of their classifier systems (Laycock 1973). The linking of these two groups, and their association with the Sepik family, is therefore based on slender evidence. An appraisal of the original data as well as some more recent documentation, particularly on Asaba, leads Foley (this volume chapter 3.8) to conclude that these languages do not belong to the Sepik family at all. Leonard Schultze is accordingly treated as a separate family in this volume. However, linking the two groups into a single family is itself suspect, based as it is on a typological assessment of one area of the grammar. Foley (this volume chapter 3.8) takes the view that the Leonard Schultze languages may turn out to belong to more than one family. Given that the level of cognacy claimed by Conrad and Dye (1975: 13) between Yabio and Baiyamo was 7%, it is likely that Leonard Schultze itself represents two unrelated families, one containing Asaba and Baiyamo, the other containing the remaining four languages. In general where a grouping is discussed in more than one chapter of this 11

Kamholz (2014: 18,32,141–142) treats the two languages of the putative Lower Mamberamo family, Warembori and Yoke, as each forming a first order subgroup of the Austronesian subgroup South Halmahera-West New Guinea.

14 

Language families of the New Guinea Area

volume, there is broad agreement. However, there are exceptions, for example the family containing Kaure, where uncertainty again arises from the very limited nature of the available documentation. Two reported lects, Kaure and Narau, certainly belong together (Pawley and Hammarström this volume). Two other languages have also been discussed in relation to the group: Kosare and Kaupari. Documentation of Kapauri in particular is especially limited. Pawley and Hammarström (this volume) are inclined to view proposed links as unsupported in the case of both Kosare and Kapauri. Foley (this volume chapter 4), on the other hand, includes Kosare, and links Kapauri, but regards the link with Kapauri as questionable. The comparative evidence presented by Foley is plausible for Kosare, but much less so for Kapauri, so in this chapter and in Tables 1 and 2 the family is treated as including Kosare, but not Kapauri. To add to the complexity of the situation, Kaure and Narau themselves may well represent a single language. They are reported to be mutually intelligible (Dommel and Dommel 1991: 1–3), and the sole primary source for Narau, a short wordlist (Giël 1959), is regarded by Hammarström (p.c.) as not appreciably different to Kaure. ‘Narau’ is the name of a river now frequented by Kosare and Kapauri speakers (Wambaliau 2006: 1), and the Kaure speakers present there when Giël collected his wordlist appear to have subsequently relocted northwards to villages where ‘Kaure’ data was later collected (see Dommel and Dommel 1993). It is possible that Kaure and Narau are not merely dialects of a single language, but doculects of a single variety. They are treated as belonging to a single language in Table 1, where the Kaure family is taken to consist of Kaure (including Narau) and Kosare. To make the picture still more complex, it is possible that the Kaure family itself is a subgroup of TNG. The paucity of data and complexity of the phylogenetic situation across the New Guinea Area mean that uncertainties of this type are common. This situation is compounded by the highly endangered status of many languages of the area. For example, Kembra, spoken in northeastern Provinsi Papua, is highly endangered (see Foley this volume chapter 4.9). It was reported as having only 30 speakers in 1991, and described as being very different to the neighbouring languages (Doriot 1991). The only documentation known to exist on this language is a short handwritten wordlist. Not surprisingly, its affiliation is unclear (Foley this volume chapter 4), and is likely to remain so. In part the high level of endangerment of languages of the area is due to vulnerability arising from very low speaker numbers. The overwhelming majority of the 862 Papuan languages identified here have fewer than 10,000 speakers. Only seven appear to have 100,000 speakers or more. With one exception from Timor-Alor-Pantar, all are probable Trans New Guinea languages, principally from the highlands.12 Only a further seven languages appear to have more than 50,000 speakers. Four of these are probable Trans New Guinea, along with two 12

They are Enga and Huli (both TNG Enga-Kewa-Huli), Melpa and Kuman (both TNG



Bill Palmer 

15

from Timor-Alor-Pantar and one from North Halmahera.13 Only one Papuan language, Enga (Trans New Guinea, Enga-Kewa-Huli) has more than 200,000 (Foley 2000: 359), with Ethnologue (Simons and Fennig 2017) giving a figure of 230,000 for the year 2000. The lack of information on many of the languages of the region means that newly identified languages regularly emerge. For example, Tupper (2007) reports briefly on previously unrecognised Turumsa, a language with 5 elderly speakers in 2002 and now almost certainly extinct. Its speakers were resident in Makapa village in Papua New Guinea’s Western Province, whose inhabitants otherwise speak Dibiyaso, a language that probably belongs to the Trans New Guinea family but whose own phylogenetic position is not fully understood (Pawley and Hammarström this volume 2.3.1.5). However, Turumsa does not appear to be related to Dibiyaso. Tupper (2007) reports 61% lexical similarities with Doso, but the position of Doso itself is uncertain (see Pawley and Hammarström this volume 2.3.1.5). On the basis of Tupper’s figure for lexical similarity, Hammarström et al. (2016) treat Doso and Turumsa as members of a two language family, and that view is adopted here. However, no materials on Turumsa have been published so it is not possible to test Tupper’s figure, and nothing more is known at this stage. Another recently identified language, Magɨ (Daniels 2016), spoken in central Madang province, Papua New Guinea, presents a different picture of the discovery to science of a previously unknown language. While the existence of Turumsa was previously wholly unknown to the outside world, Magɨ was previously thought to be a dialect of Aisi. Daniels (2016) presents lexical and grammatical evidence that the two varieties are separate languages. Here there is no mystery about the language’s phylogenetic status – it belongs to the Sogeram subgroup of the Madang branch of Trans New Guinea. However, it adds a previously unrecognised subgroup (Aisian) to Sogeram, and adds to the total number of languages spoken in the region. More importantly, it adds an additional witness to the typological and historical situation in New Guinea. Membership of Trans New Guinea is an area of particular uncertainty. Several versions of the Trans New Guinea hypothesis have been advanced at various times (this history is summarised by Pawley and Hammarström (this volume), see also Pawley (2005)). Pawley and Hammarström discuss a number of subgroups for which evidence of Trans New Guinea membership is relatively strong, and which Chimbu-Wahgi), Western Dani (TNG Dani), Ekari (TNG Paniai Lakes), and Western Pantar (Timor-Alor-Pantar). 13 They are Golin and Sinasina (both TNG Chimbu-Wahgi), Mid Grand Valley Dani (TNG Dani), Kamano (TNG Kainantu-Goroka), Bunaq and Makasae (both Timor-Alor-Pantar), and Galela (North Halmahera). Pawley and Hammarström (this volume) cite the Ethnologue figure for Makasae of 102,000. However, Holton and Klamer (this volume) give a probably more accurate figure of 70,000.

16 

Language families of the New Guinea Area

therefore are usually treated as belonging within TNG. However, they also discuss a number of phylogenetic groupings and isolates that are of disputed TNG membership or for whom the evidence supporting possible TNG membership is weak (this volume 2.3.2), as well as groups and isolates that have at varying times been assigned to TNG but which on closer inspection lack any evidence currently supporting a link (this volume 2.3.3). All the disputed groups and isolates are treated separately here (see Map 1.1) – only the TNG subgroups for whom evidence is relatively strong (see Table 3) are counted within TNG in Table 1. Each other disputed TNG family and isolate is treated separately. However, several of these may ultimately turn out to be TNG on the basis of further research. Table 3: Subgroups with strong evidence for TNG membership, with numbers of languages Madang Finisterre-Huon Kainantu-Goroka Ok-Oksapmin Anim Chimbu-Wahgi Greater Awyu Enga-Kewa-Huli Angan Dani Greater Binanderean Asmat-Kamoro

107 62 29 20 17 17 17 14 13 13 13 11

Dagan Mailuan Bosavi Koiarian Mek East Strickland Kiwaian Goilalan Paniai Lakes Yareban Gogodala-Suki Turama-Kikori

9 8 7 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 4 4

Kayagaric Kolopom Kutubu Kwalean West Bomberai Awin-Pa Duna-Bogaya Manubaran Somahai Marori Wiru Total

3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 431

1.6. Conclusion This volume sets out to present current knowledge of this highly complex linguistic region. Given the paucity of data for many areas of New Guinea we can be sure more languages will emerge as research reveals small languages previously unknown to scholars, and languages previously not recognised as having separate identities. Increased documentation will provide the data needed to support further comparative research requiring revision of the phylogenetic classification of many languages and families. It is likely that some isolates will be demonstrated to belong to a known family, and that some families will transpire to be branches of larger phylogenetic groupings. The reverse is also likely – some languages and families will turn out not to fit where they are currently understood to sit in the region’s phylogenetic landscape, turning out to be isolates or members of newly recognized small families. What is certain is that much more research is needed in this most complex linguistic region.



Bill Palmer 

17

References Allen, Jim and James F. O’Connell 2014 Both half right: Updating evidence for dating first human arrivals in Sahul. Australian Archaeology 79: 86–108. Alpher, Barry, Geoffrey O’Grady and Claire Bowern 2008 Western Torres Strait language classification and development. In: Claire Bowern, Bethwyn Evans and Luisa Miceli (eds.), Morphology and Language History, in Honour of Harold Koch, 15–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Capell, Arthur 1969 A survey of New Guinea languages. Sydney: University of Sydney Press. Conrad, Robert J. and T. Wayne Dye 1975 Some language relationships in the Upper Sepik region of Papua New Guinea. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics 18: 1–35. Daniels, Don 2016 Magɨ: an undocumented language of Papua New Guinea. Oceanic Linguistics 55(1): 199–224. Dommel, Peter R. and Gudrun Dommel 1993 Orang Kaure. In: Etnografi Irian Jaya: panduan sosial budaya, buku satu. 21–75. [Jayapura]: Kelompok Peneliti Etnografi Irian Jaya. Dommel, Peter R. and Gudrun E. Dommel 1991 Kaure phonology. Workpapers in Indonesian Languages and Cultures 9: 1–68. Donohue, Mark 2007 The Papuan language of Tambora. Oceanic Linguistics 46(2): 520–537. Donohue, Mark 1999 Warembori. München: Lincom Europa. Doriot, Roger E. 1991 6–2–3–4 Trek, April-May, 1991. MS. Duggan, Ana T., Bethwyn Evans, Françoise R. Friedlaender, Jonathan S. Friedlaender, George Koki, D. Andrew Merriwether, Manfred Kayser and Mark Stoneking 2014 Maternal history of Oceania from complete mtDNA genomes: Contrasting ancient diversity with recent homogenization due to the Austronesian expansion. The American Journal of Human Genetics 94: 721–733. Flannery, Tim 1995 Mammals of the South-west Pacific and Moluccan islands. Sydney: Reed Books. Foley, William A. 2000 The languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of Anthropology. 29: 357–395. Giël, R. 1959 Exploratie Oost-Meervlakte [Exploration of the Eastern Lakes Plain Area]. Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Koloniën: Kantoor Bevolkingszaken Nieuw-Guinea te Hollandia: Rapportenarchief, 1950–1962, nummer toegang 2.10.25, inventarisnummer 13. Green, Roger C. 1991 Near and Remote Oceania – disestablishing “Melanesia” in culture history. In:

18 

Language families of the New Guinea Area

Andrew K. Pawley (ed.), Man and a half: Essays in Pacific anthropology and ethnobiology in Honour of Ralph Bulmer. Auckland: The Polynesian Society. 491–502. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1971 The Indo-Pacific hypothesis. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 8: Linguistics in Oceania. 808–71. The Hague: Mouton Hammarström, Harald 2010 Status of least documented language families. Language Documentation & Conservation 4: 177–212. Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel, Martin Haspelmath and Sebastian Bank (eds.) 2016 Doso-Turumsa. Glottolog 2.7. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Hammarström, Harald and Sebastian Nordhoff 2012 The languages of Melanesia: Quantifying the level of coverage. In: Nicholas Evans and Marian Klamer (eds.), Melanesian languages on the edge of Asia: Challenges for the 21st Century. 13–33. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Hope, Geoffrey S. and Simon G. Haberle 2005 The history of the human landscapes of New Guinea. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 541–554. Kamholz, David C. 2014 Austronesians in Papua: Diversification and change in South Halmahera–West New Guinea. PhD thesis: University of California, Berkeley. Kayser, Manfred 2010 The human genetic history of Oceania: Near and Remote views of dispersal. Current Biology 20(4) DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2009.12.004 Laycock, Donald C. 1973 Sepik languages – checklist and preliminary classification. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Laycock, Donald C. and John A. Z’Graggen 1975 The Sepik-Ramu phylum. In: Stephen A. Wurm (ed.) New Guinea area languages and language study, Volume one: Papuan languages, 731–766. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Lincoln, Peter C. 1978 Reef-Santa Cruz as Austronesian. In: Wurm and Carrington (eds.), 929–967. Mona, Stefano, Katharina E. Grunz, Silke Brauer, Brigitte Pakendorf, Loredana Castrì, Hera­wati Sudoyo, Sangkot Marzuki, Robert H. Barnes, Jörg Schmidtke, Mark Stoneking and Manfred Kayser 2009 Genetic admixture history of Eastern Indonesia as revealed by Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA analysis. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 26(8): 1865–1877. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msp097 Næss, Åshild 2006 Bound nominal elements in Äiwoo (Reefs): A reappraisal of the ‘multiple noun class systems’. Oceanic Linguistics 45: 269–296. Næss, Åshild and Brenda H. Boerger 2008 Reefs-Santa Cruz as Oceanic: Evidence from the verb complex. Oceanic Linguistics 47: 185–212.



Bill Palmer 

19

Pawley, Andrew K. 2009 Greenberg’s Indo-Pacific hypothesis: an assessment. In: Bethwyn Evans (ed.), Discovering history through language: papers in honour of Malcolm Ross. 153–180. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Pawley, Andrew 2005 The chequered career of the Trans New Guinea hypothesis: Recent research and its implications. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 67–108. Pawley, Andrew K. and Roger C. Green 1973 Dating the dispersal of the Oceanic languages. Oceanic Linguistics 12: 1–67. Pawley, Andrew, Robert Attenborough, Jack Golson and Robin Hide (eds.) 2005 Papuan pasts. Cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Ross, Malcolm 2001 Is there an East Papuan phylum? Evidence from pronouns. In: Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross, and Darrell Tryon (eds.), The boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Dutton, 301–321. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Ross, Malcolm and Åshild Næss 2007 An Oceanic origin for Aiwoo, the language of the Reef Islands? Oceanic Linguistics 46: 456–498. Simons, Gary F. and Charles D. Fennig (eds.) 2017 Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Twentieth edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com. Specht, Jim 2005 Revisiting the Bismarcks: some alternative views. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 235–288. Spriggs, Matthew 2011 Archaeology and the Austronesian expansion: where are we now? Antiquity 85(328): 510–528. Spriggs, Matthew 1997 The Island Melanesians. Oxford: Blackwell. Summerhayes, Glenn R., Matthew Leavesley, Andrew Fairbairn, Herman Mandui, Judith Field, Anne Ford and Richard Fullagar 2010 Human adaptation and plant use in highland New Guinea 49,000 to 44,000 years ago. Science 330: 78–81. Tupper, Ian 2007 Endangered languages listing: TURUMSA [tqm]. www.pnglanguages.org/ pacific/png/show_lang_entry.asp?id=tqm Wambaliau, Theresia 2006 Draft laporan survei pada Bahasa Kosare di Papua, Indonesia [Draft Survey Report on the Kosare Language in Papua, Indonesia]. MS. SIL. Wurm, Stephen A. 1978 Reef-Santa Cruz: Austronesian, but …! In: Wurm and Carrington (eds.), 969– 1010. Wurm, Stephen A. and Lois Carrington (eds.) 1978 Second International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics: proceedings. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

2

The Trans New Guinea family Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

2.1 Introduction The island of New Guinea is a region of spectacular, deep linguistic diversity.1 It contains roughly 850 languages, which on present evidence fall into at least 18 language families that are not demonstrably related, along with several isolates.2 This immense diversity, far greater than that found in the much larger area of Europe, is no doubt mainly a consequence of the fact that New Guinea has been occupied for roughly 50,000 years by peoples organised into small kin-based social groups, lacking overarching political affiliations, and dispersed across a terrain largely dominated by rugged mountains and swampy lowlands, with quite frequent population movements. Among the non-Austronesian families of New Guinea one family stands out for its large membership and wide geographic spread: Trans New Guinea (TNG). With a probable membership of between 300 and 500 discrete languages, plus hundreds of highly divergent dialects, TNG is among the most numerous of the world’s language families.3 TNG languages are spoken from the Bomberai Peninsula at the western end of mainland New Guinea (132 degrees E) almost to the eastern tip of the island (150 degrees E). Most of the cordillera that runs for more than 2000 kilometers along the centre of New Guinea is occupied exclusively by TNG languages. They are also prominent in much of the lowlands to the south of the cordillera and in patches to the north, especially from central Madang Province eastwards. There are possible outliers spoken on Timor, Alor and Pantar. The breakup of the common ancestor of the core members of TNG (see sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.8) was recent enough for their common origins to be still detectable, yet early enough for the language family to be lexically much more diverse than either the well-established Indo-European or Austronesian families and to severely limit what can be done by way of reconstructing Proto Trans New Guinea 1



2



3



We are indebted to Meredith Osmond for research assistance in compiling section 3 of this paper, to Sebastian Fedden, Bill Palmer and Ger Reesink for helpful comments on a draft of this chapter, and to Bill Foley whose surveys of Papuan languages (Foley 1986, 2000) provided a valuable guide in writing sections 2.4 and 2.5. Based on Ross (2000, 2005a). More conservative classifications, e.  g. Nordhoff et al. (2013), recognise a much larger number of demonstrated families. Ethnologue (Lewis et al. 2013) gives the following estimates for major language families: Niger-Congo (1524), Austronesian (1221), Trans New Guinea (475), Sino-Tibetan (456), Indo-European (436), Afro-Asiatic (366). These estimates are problematic for a number of reasons but give a rough idea.

DOI 10.1515/9783110295252-002

22 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

(pTNG) lexicon. A case can be made for associating the initial dispersal of TNG languages with the spread of agriculture through the major valleys of the highlands perhaps between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago (see section 2.8). Section 2.2 of this chapter gives a brief history of the TNG hypothesis. Section 3 treats the subgrouping and membership of the family. Sections 2.4–2.6 sketch structural similarities and differences exhibited by TNG languages in phonology, morphology-syntax and lexical semantics, respectively. Section 2.7 summarises progress to date in reconstructing the phonology and morphosyntax of early TNG and later interstages. The final section asks questions about the circumstances that led to the present distribution of TNG languages. For example, what circumstances enabled TNG languages to spread over the large area of New Guinea they now occupy while preventing them from spreading into other areas? Where was the primary dispersal centre and what was the chronology of the dispersal? In order to tackle such questions it is necessary to compare linguistic evidence with that of other historical disciplines, such as archaeology, palaeobotany, geomorphology, climatology, and biological anthropology. The best print-published bibliography of Papuan linguistics is Carrington (1996), which gives a near exhaustive treatment of published and unpublished materials up to 1995. A large and up-to-date on-line bibliography is the appendix to Hammarström and Nordhoff (2012). Foley (1986) gives the clearest account of the structural features of Papuan languages in general, updated in Foley (2000). Quite detailed historical reviews of research on Papuan languages up to the early 1970s are provided by Laycock (1975) for Papua New Guinea, and Voorhoeve (1975) for Irian Jaya (today’s Indonesian provinces of Papua and Papua Barat)4. Wurm (1982) reviews research on the major groups of Trans New Guinea and other Papuan languages up to the late 1970s. The atlas of Wurm and Hattori (1981–83) maps the distribution of these languages. More recent commentaries on historical research on TNG can be found in Pawley et al. (2005) and Hammarström and van den Heuvel (2012).

4



The Indonesian half of the island of New Guinea comprises two provinces: Provinsi Papua (the main part of the island, excluding the Bird’s Head), and Provinsi Papua Barat (centred on the Bird’s Head). Together these are often referred to as West Papua. Confusingly, Provinsi Papua Barat is also known as West Papua, and the term Papua is also traditionally used for the southern half of Papua New Guinea. To avoid confusion, in this chapter the terms Provinsi Papua and Papua Barat are used respectively for the two provinces of the Indonesian half of the island. The term West Papua will be used to refer to the two provinces together.

The Trans New Guinea family 

 2.2

23

A brief history of the Trans New Guinea hypothesis

It was not until the 1890s (Ray 1893, Schmidt 1900–1901) that linguists demonstrated conclusively that western Melanesia, and especially New Guinea, contains many languages that do not belong to the vast Austronesian family. These were given the collective name ‘Papuan’. Until the late 1940s it was thought that no family of Papuan languages had more than about 20 members, with each of these small families having no demonstrable relationship to the rest. The unexpected discovery in the 1930s of substantial populations inhabiting the central highlands of what is now Papua New Guinea (Connolly and Anderson 1987) was to change that view. When the first descriptions of languages of the central highlands appeared in the 1940s, linguists noticed that they show some striking structural resemblances to the non-Austronesian languages of the Huon Peninsula in northeast New Guinea (Capell 1948–1949), suggestive of a distant relationship. In the late 1950s and 1960s a number of scholars in the Netherlands (Anceaux, Cowan, and Voorhoeve) began looking for wider relationships among small families of Papuan languages. Around the same time scholars at the Australian National University (ANU) led by Stephen Wurm began a program of field surveys and comparative research in New Guinea.5 In a series of papers (especially Wurm 1960, 1964, 1965) Wurm noted the existence of four small families situated in the central highlands between the Strickland River in the west (143 degrees E) and just beyond Kainantu in the east (146 degrees E), and argued that all should be assigned to a larger group of more than 50 languages which he called the East New Guinea Highlands stock (ENGHS). His grounds for the ENGHS were mainly lexicostatistical percentages, and typological features considered to be diagnostic. Although these were not the kinds of evidence used in classical demonstrations of genetic relationship (Shafer 1965), the quantity of the arguments Wurm advanced was impressive and there is no doubt he was right in concluding that most of these languages share a common origin. In the late 1960s he speculated on the possibility that many other non-Austronesian groups in the highlands might be related to the ENGHS. By the late 1960s a number of scholars were asserting the possibility, even likelihood, that various geographically distant groups of Papuan languages in New Guinea share a common ancestor, foreshadowing the Trans New Guinea hypothesis.6 5



6



In addition to the staff members of the Department of Linguistics then working in New Guinea – Stephen Wurm, Tom Dutton, Bert Voorhoeve and Don Laycock – several PhD students who had lengthy field experience in Papua New Guinea made key contributions, especially Karl Franklin, Alan Healey, Kenneth A. McElhanon (all members of The Summer Institute of Linguistics) and John Z’graggen. In a paper drafted much earlier but not published until 1971, Joseph Greenberg suggested that all the Papuan languages of Melanesia, Timor, Alor, Pantar and Halmahera

24 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

There have been at least four versions of this hypothesis, each significantly different in scope, reflecting changes in knowledge and interpretation over the last 50 years. Trans New Guinea I. In 1970 a small but data-rich monograph appeared arguing for the common origin of some 70 languages of the Finisterre and Saruwaged Ranges and Huon Peninsula region of NE New Guinea and about 70 languages spoken several hundred kilometres to the west in central and southwest New Guinea (McElhanon and Voorhoeve 1970). The authors gave the name ‘Trans New Guinea (phylum)’ to this putative group. We will call this ‘TNG I’. With the partial exception of Greenberg (1971) (see footnote 6), McElhanon and Voorhoeve were the first to specify a significant body of putative cognate sets in basic vocabulary, some 90 sets in all, shared by distant groups of Papuan languages.7 They did not attempt to apply the comparative method to these sets of resemblant forms. However, they observed that some of the sets have resemblant forms in additional small groups of Papuan languages, especially Binanderean in south-east New Guinea and certain languages of Madang Province. They anticipated that further work would confirm a distant family relationship between TNG I and these other groups and also with the collection of groups assigned by Wurm to his East New Guinea Highlands Stock. Trans New Guinea II. Their expectation was soon fulfilled. During the next few years Wurm and his Australian National University research team put forward two expanded versions of TNG (Wurm (ed.) 1975; Wurm et al. 1975). One consisted of a ‘main section’ or core group of 256 languages, which were regarded unequivocally as members of TNG. We will call this TNG II. It contains all the languages spoken along the central cordillera east of the Bird’s Head, from the Wissel

7



belong to a vast ‘Indo-Pacific’ group, to which he also assigned the Southern Andaman Islands group and the Tasmanian languages. Greenberg’s Indo-Pacific proposal rested mainly on a tenuous chain of resemblances in lexical forms (84 sets) and grammatical forms (10 sets). The resemblances were tenuous because of the uneven distribution of forms across language groups and the lack of means to distinguish chance and borrowing from shared retention. Only about 25 of the sets of resemblant forms supporting Indo-Pacific are reasonably convincing and almost all of these are confined to what today we recognise as the TNG family (Pawley 2009). Within Indo-Pacific Greenberg posited some 14 major subgroups. He divided the non-Austronesian languages of New Guinea into seven groups. One of these, the ‘Central’ group, included all the central highlands languages from the Baliem Valley in West Papua to the Huon Peninsula group in Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea, i.  e. most of the core members of TNG. Evidence for such a group was however not given except as part of the etymologies adduced in support of Indo-Pacific as a whole. McElhanon and Voorhoeve’s cognate sets represent only 53 meanings from the basic vocabulary list. However, they found multiple separate series of cognate sets for many meanings, yielding some 90 putative cognate sets in all.



The Trans New Guinea family 

25

Lakes and the Baliem Valley to the southeast of West Papua, together with some languages spoken to the north of the central ranges (chiefly the Finisterre-Huon and Binanderean groups) and a few spoken to the south (such as the Asmat-Kamoro and Awyu-Dumut groups). Three main types of evidence were cited as diagnostics for deciding whether a language belongs to TNG II (McElhanon 1975: 150–151, Wurm et al. 1975: 306–7, Wurm 1975c,d). To qualify, a language should meet one or more of the following criteria: (a) It should have several forms belonging to a small body of cognate sets (about 10 were identified) in basic lexicon, each of which is very widely distributed among TNG languages. (b) It should have certain structural features in morphology and syntax that are common among TNG languages but rare or absent in other Papuan languages, e.  g. switch reference morphology on medial verbs. (c) It should have reflexes of some personal pronouns from set 1. Three sets of free form pronouns, called sets 1, 2 and 3, were posited as having great antiquity in Papuan languages. Set 1 was said to be original to TNG. Sets 2 and 3 originally belonged to other families. If a language has reflexes of several pronouns belonging to set 1, especially drawn from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd singular and 1st plural forms, this is strong evidence for its membership in TNG II. By contrast, if reflexes of sets 2 and 3 are found in a language that satisfies other grounds for inclusion in TNG, this is taken as evidence that the language contains a non-TNG substratum (and so is included in TNG III – see below). Trans New Guinea III. At the same time, Wurm et al. (1975) also posited a much larger, more speculative group, referred to here to as Trans New Guinea III. TNG III covers most of the inhabited regions of the New Guinea mainland. Almost the only Papuan languages of New Guinea excluded from it were (i) many of the languages of those parts of central and western New Guinea that lie to the north of the central cordillera, especially in Sandaun and East Sepik Provinces and in the western part of Madang Province and (ii) some of those spoken in the Bird’s Head Peninsula at the western end of the island. The Papuan languages of Timor, Alor and Pantar in eastern Indonesia were also tentatively included in TNG for the first time. About 491 languages were assigned to TNG III, consisting of the 256 assigned to TNG II, which formed a core group of unequivocal members of the family, plus another 235 said to have mixed origins. The genealogical status of the latter set was considered problematic because they satisfy only one or two of criteria (a)–(c). Some exhibit no or very few specific lexical resemblances with typical TNG languages. Some lack any set 1 pronouns. Furthermore, some are structurally aberrant – exhibiting many “non-TNG phylum” grammatical features. Wurm et al. regarded these aberrant languages as hybrids, or “partially TNG” languages, resulting from the overlaying of a TNG component on a non-TNG substratum.

26 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström ...It appears that much of the Trans New Guinea Phylum area may have originally been occupied by a number of probably unrelated earlier languages, and that the inter-relationship of many of the present-day Trans-New Guinea Phylum languages is, in a way, secondary, or partial and fractional, in nature and brought about by the very strong and pervading influence of an originally little differentiated element manifested in both the lexical and structural-typological levels, and attributable to the spreading of daughter languages of the Trans-New Guinea Phylum proto-language first from west to east through much of the New Guinea mainland well over five thousand years ago, and perhaps much more vigorously, from east to west during the last five thousand years or so... The presence of the older, different languages upon which the Trans-New Guinea Phylum languages appear to have been superimposed in the course of these migrations, is noticeable in the form of substrata of varying strength throughout the greater part of the Trans-New Guinea Phylum. (Wurm et al. 1975: 300. Our italics: AP & HH)

Wurm et al. go on to indicate the regions of New Guinea where substrate residues are strongest: The main characteristics [of TNG phylum languages] show a fair amount of homogeneity…except that the influence of various substrata is in evidence in most parts of the phylum, with their influence being particularly strong in some, mostly marginal areas where the languages contain a considerable number of non-Trans-New Guinea Phylum features and are quite aberrant… Such areas are, in particular, in a rather extended region in the central south, in the border area between the West Sepik District [today’s Sandaun Province] of Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya [today’s Papua and Papua Barat provinces of Indonesia], in the north and extreme west of Irian Jaya, as well as in Madang District. … it has nevertheless been decided to include such fringe area language groups in the Trans-New Guinea Phylum,… even though only a component part of each of them is likely to be genetically related to other Trans-New Guinea Phylum languages. Other language groups which…show quite strong, but apparently less incisive, Trans-New Guinea Phylum influence, have been excluded…with the decisions…being perhaps somewhat arbitrary in some cases. (Wurm et al. 1975: 300. Our italics: AP & HH)

The groups regarded as made up of hybrid languages included Madang-Adelbert Range, Border, Eleman, Inland Gulf, Kalam-Kobon-Gants, Kolopom, South Bird’s Head, Southeast Papuan, Teberan-Pawaian and Trans-Fly. In his review of Wurm (ed.) (1975), Lang (1976) was sharply critical of the weight given to substratum influence as an explanation of diversity within TNG languages: [W]hat evidence we have of population movements in Papua New Guinea is of a kind that does not allow for substrata. Populations have been displaced in recent history... through either of two events (or a combination of the two): (a) natural disasters such as volcanic eruption, an earthquake, or drought and/or frost have driven populations from their home ground; (b) warfare has had the same effect. When they have left their home ground they have either moved into virgin bush to carve out an entirely new existence for themselves... or they have taken refuge with allies, in which case they have been



The Trans New Guinea family 

27

absorbed into the host group, thus giving up their language and adopting that of their hosts. ... It would seem that the natural fragmentation of the country and the social conditions (partly brought about by geographical factors) would be much stronger determinants of linguistic diversity than substratum influence. But how the social conditions bring about linguistic changes, of this we know precious little in the New Guinea area. The sophisticated sociolinguistic research has just not yet been carried out. (Lang 1976: 77–78)

Surprisingly, it was the more speculative TNG III, rather than TNG II, that was represented in Wurm and Hattori’s (1981–1983) influential two volume Atlas of Languages of the Pacific Area. It is probably fair to say that for next 15–20 years all variants of the TNG hypothesis were regarded with great reserve by most of the small band of historical linguists knowledgeable about Papuan languages. Reviews of Wurm (ed.) (1975) were highly critical of the case for TNG II and III (Foley 1986, Haiman 1979, Heeschen 1978a, Lang 1976). Indeed, serious reservations were entered by two of the principal contributors to Wurm (ed., 1975), namely McElhanon (1975) and Z’graggen (1975). The criticisms were largely justified. In their haste to rewrite the linguistic map of the New Guinea area the ANU researchers had detected a number of promising resemblances (and overlooked others, indicated by Haiman 1979) but they had not done the systematic comparative work needed to make a convincing case for a large TNG family. There had been no serious attempt to reconstruct pTNG phonology or lexicon. With respect to TNG II, comprising the ‘main section’ branches of TNG in Wurm (ed., 1975), there had been just a handful of attempts to determine regular sound correspondences within low-order subgroups (Healey 1964, 1970 on the Ok and Awyu-Dumut subgroups and Voorhoeve 1980 on Asmat), let alone across subgroups. And for many of the language groups and isolates assigned to TNG III the available data were of the most fragmentary kind; all that connected them to core TNG languages was a handful of impressionistic lexical resemblances. The critics of Wurm (ed., 1975) argued that even if one applied the Comparative Method to TNG data, a top-down approach, one that focused on comparing data from distantly related subgroups, would not yield convincing reconstructions because the body of convincing cognate forms would be too small. The only hope was to work from the bottom-up, beginning with the reconstruction of the proto-languages of lower-order subgroups. Trans New Guinea IV. In the 1990s a number of linguists began to reconsider the case for a large TNG family. Evidence has accumulated that supports a grouping whose membership is smaller than TNG III but more extensive than TNG II. We will call this proposed grouping TNG IV. The new wave of research, which relied heavily (but not exclusively) on top-down methods of reconstruction, has yielded the following evidence:

28 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

(1) Systematic form-meaning correspondences in personal pronouns, permitting reconstruction of a virtually complete pTNG paradigm for free form pronouns and a partial paradigm for object pronouns, along with reconstructed pronoun sets for most low-order and some middle-order interstages. Work in the 1960s and early 1970s had identified pronominal forms typical of TNG but not attempted systematic reconstruction. Ross (2000a, 2005a) reconstructed independent pronoun forms for the proto-languages of around 40 branches of TNG and for pTNG. He attributed the following independent pronominal roots to pTNG: *na ‘1 sg ’, *ŋga ‘2 sg ’, *ua and *ya ‘3 sg ’, *ni (with variant *nu) ‘1 pl ’, *ŋgi ‘2 pl ’ and *i 3 pl . A striking feature of this paradigm is the pattern of contrast between the vowel in singular pronouns (*a) and the plural pronouns (*i). Dual pronouns were formed by adding dual suffixes, probably of the form *-li or *-ti, to the plural roots. Ross also reconstructs the same singular and plural roots as bound object pronouns, prefixed to transitive verbs. Suter (2012) has provided further evidence for reconstructing object pronouns for a large class of Northeastern TNG languages. (2) Some 200 putative cognate sets, most of them belonging to basic vocabulary, with each set represented in two or more subgroups that are not closely related (Pawley 2011). (3) A body of sound correspondences that allow a good part of the pTNG consonant and vowel systems to be tentatively reconstructed (Pawley 1995, 1998, 2001). (4) A few fragmentary but striking resemblances in verb morphology that allow partial paradigms to be reconstructed. These are chiefly suffixes marking subject agreement, prefixes marking object (mentioned in (1) above), and a suffix marking a medial verb as having the same subject as the next verb. In addition, the distribution of certain striking structural resemblances noted by Wurm and his associates, such as switch reference morphology in clause chains, has been more precisely charted, and shown to correlate rather closely with the distribution of TNG IV languages (Roberts 1997). While the possibility of diffusion means that such structural evidence cannot be primary grounds for positing a genetic stock it carries some weight as corroborative evidence. The most comprehensive reassessment of TNG membership is that of Ross (2000a, 2005a), which relies largely on pronominal agreements, with some attention to the other criteria. Obviously, the more putative reflexes of pTNG personal pronouns a language exhibits, the stronger the case for its inclusion in TNG. If a language retains two or more pTNG pronouns, Ross assigns it to TNG8. However, 8



Contra Ross (2005a: 49–53), Hammarström (2012) argues that only showing reflexes of the putative pTNG 1SG and 2SG pronouns is not enough evidence for a TNG affiliation, since chance cannot be ruled out.



The Trans New Guinea family 

29

failure to meet this criterion is not sufficient grounds for excluding a language. There are a number of well-marked groups or individual languages that show enough reflexes of other pTNG lexical items to make a strongish case for their inclusion in TNG. Well described languages that show no systematic resemblances in lexicon or morphosyntax to core members of TNG are excluded. We have largely adopted this approach, and the classification of possible TNG languages presented in section 2.3 corresponds broadly to TNG IV. Ross concludes that at least 347 languages meet his minimal requirements for inclusion in TNG. There remains a sizeable residue of languages for which the data are too slender to do more than make a very tentative preliminary assignment. Of course, it should be kept in mind (see footnote 2) that any exact estimate of the number of languages spoken in TNG, or indeed of any linguistically diverse region, is likely to be misleading because of the difficulties of placing language boundaries in dialect networks. A recent paper by Reesink et al. (2009) investigates similarities among 121 Papuan and non-Papuan languages in the Oceania area using a database of 160 structural features, e.  g. presence of genders, the position of adjectives and the existence of a switch reference system. These data are fed into an algorithm that attempts to explain the input languages as a mix of a number of populations. The algorithm was originally designed to recover gene admixture and as such the outcome is difficult to interpret in terms of language history. Rather than being synthesized from various populations, languages are known to develop through inheritance and innovation through a series of nested proto languages, coupled with changes due to contact with neighbouring languages. Nevertheless, the inferred populations are reminiscent of (macro-)families and Reesink et al. (2009) hope that the outcome carries a deep historical signal. The sample in Reesink et al. (2009) includes a subset of TNG languages, most of which are clustered into one population. Since the TNG family was posited by Wurm and colleagues partly based on typological features, this result is hardly surprising. Rather, the study by Reesink et al. (2009) is a welcome addition because it is systematic and objective. But as it does not distinguish chance, universals, and areal diffusion from genealogical inheritance (Reesink and Dunn 2012), the results are exploratory rather than proof of genealogical relationship. As with any deep language family, we can predict, on logical grounds, that the precise limits to membership of the TNG family will remain uncertain. There are two reasons for this. First, it is possible, indeed probable, that some languages in the New Guinea area are very remotely related to TNG languages (i.  e. are related at a higher level than pTNG) but retain only the faintest traces of common origin with them. Second, it is possible, indeed probable, that there are some languages that derive from pTNG but whose claims to membership in TNG will never be established with certainty because the traces of common ancestry they retain are too fragmentary.

30 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

2.3

Subgrouping and membership

The task of establishing a family tree for TNG has proved to be daunting. Many low-order subgroups are easily identified by inspection but middle-order and high-order relationships are for the most part poorly understood. This is unsurprising given the very limited amount of rigorous reconstructive work needed to identify and sequence innovations that has been carried out so far and given the extensive lexical borrowing that has occurred within the family.9 Ross (2000a, 2005a) uses pronominal innovations as his main evidence for identifying subgroups. The more shared changes to the pTNG pronominal paradigm that a set of languages exhibit, the stronger the evidence for assigning them to a subgroup. The same principle applies to lexical innovations. About 60 small groups have been identified that are roughly comparable in internal diversity to Germanic or Romance, or to the Polynesian group, i.  e. indicating that they probably derived from a common proto-language within the last 1000 to 2500 years. Such groups are generally transparent – obvious on inspection. They typically contain from two to about 30 languages. Only two subgroups with more than 40 members are commonly assumed: Finisterre-Huon, with about 70 languages, and Madang, with about 100. These are high-order subgroups, each dividing into a number of intermediate subgroups which in turn divide into smaller, transparent groups. Other higher-order subgroups have been proposed but few of these are secure. A large subgroup proposal combining Ok, Awyu-Dumut and Asmat-Kamoro (amounting to over 40 languages) has been articulated by Voorhoeve (2005) based on higher rates of shared proto-vocabulary between Awyu-Dumut and Ok, and to a lesser extent, Asmat. A detailed re-evaluation by van den Heuvel and Fedden (2014) finds practically no 9



We will mention just two studies indicating extensive borrowing of basic vocabulary between neighbouring Papuan languages that are only distantly related. Comrie (1986, 1989) found that Haruai, a language of the Western Schrader Ranges, shares about 35 percent resemblant forms with Kobon, a neighbouring language belonging to the Kalam branch of the Madang group. Given that the genetic relationship, if there is one, between Haruai and Kobon is extremely remote (they are very unlike in morphology) almost all of this agreement can be attributed to borrowing. In a similar vein, Shaw (1986) notes that Huli, a language of the Enga-Huli group spoken in the southern highlands of Papua New Guinea shares only 5 to 10 percent of resemblant forms in a basic vocabulary list with Bogaya, a language of the Central and South New Guinea Stock spoken not far away in the Mt Bosavi region, but shares 27–32 percent with Duna, another language of Southern Highlands Province. However, Duna shares 20–28 percent with Huli. It would seem that Duna’s percentages with at least one of the languages, either Huli or Bogaya (or both) have been inflated by about 20 percent by borrowing. Presumably, the items in question are loans into Bogaya, a small language socio-economically dominated by its larger neighbour Duna (San Roque 2008).

The Trans New Guinea family 



31

shared morphology between the groups, and, giving primacy to morphology, they prefer to interpret the lexical items as early borrowings. There are several possible isolates, single languages that appear to belong to TNG but have no good claims to be subgrouped with any other language(s). And there are other small sets of TNG languages whose subgroup status is problematic. In the discussion that follows, we divide language groups and isolates into three categories according to the relative strength of the evidence for including them in the TNG family: (i) Groups and isolates that have relatively strong claims to membership in TNG. (ii) Groups and isolates whose claims to membership are relatively weak or disputed. (iii) Groups and isolates which have been claimed at one time or another to be members of TNG but for which no supporting evidence has been presented, or the supporting evidence is so weak that their inclusion in TNG is at the present time not warranted. Given the incipient state of historical linguistic research outlined above, it goes without saying that proof of TNG membership in the sense of orthodox comparative methodology (Campbell and Poser 2008) remains to be spelled out for most of the groups listed below. For each putative subgroup, we list the member languages and whatever is known about subclassification. For each language, we give an estimate of speaker numbers drawn from Lewis et al. (2013), the iso-639-3 code (if available), and the most extensive source(s) of data (minimal, overview, sociolinguistic study, wordlist, phonological description, study of a specific typological feature, dictionary, grammar sketch, grammar). 2.3.1

Groups with relatively strong claims to membership in TNG

Groups with relatively strong evidence supporting TNG membership, include Angan, Anim, Asmat-Kamoro, Awin-Pa, Bosavi, Chimbu-Wahgi, Dagan, Dani, Duna-Bogaya, East Strickland, Enga-Kewa-Huli, Finisterre-Huon, Gogodala-Suki, Goilalan, Greater Awyu, Greater Binanderean, Kainantu-Goroka, Kayagaric, Kiwaian, Koiarian, Kolopom, Kutubu, Kwalean, Madang, Mailuan, Manubaran, Mek, Marori, Ok-Oksapmin, Paniai (Wissel) Lakes, Somahai, Turama-Kikori, West Bomberai, Wiru, and Yareban. 2.3.1.1 Angan About 12 languages spoken in Morobe and Gulf Provinces, Papua New Guinea, extending into Eastern Highlands Province. They are bounded by the Kainantu and Goroka groups to the northwest, Pawaian to the west and the Oceanic languages

Map. 2.1: Trans New Guinea (families with strong claims to membership).

32  Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström



The Trans New Guinea family 

33

of the Huon Gulf and Markham Valley to the northeast. A subclassification based on the lexicostatistical figures in Lloyd (1973a: 36) is given below, with the addition of the subsequently discovered Susuami, said to be closest to Kamasa (Smith 1992). Angaatɨha [agm] 2,100; specific feature: Huisman 1973 NUCLEAR ANGAN B aruya -S imbari Baruya [byr] 6,600; grammar sketch: Lloyd 1989; dictionary: Lloyd 1992 Simbari [smb] 3,040; phonology: Lloyd 1973 K apau -M enya Hamtai [hmt] 45,000; grammar: Oates and Oates 1968 Menya [mcr] 20,000; grammar: Whitehead 2004 W ojokesic K amasa -S usuami Kamasa [klp] 7; phonology: Lloyd 1973 Susuami [ssu] 10; grammar sketch: Smith 1990 Safeyoka [apz] 2,390; grammar: West 1973 Kawacha [kcb] 12; phonology: Lloyd 1973 A nkave -T ainae -A koya T ainae -A koye Tainae [ago] 1,000; grammar: Carlson 1991 Akoye [miw] 800; phonology: Lloyd 1973 Ankave [aak] 1,600; phonology: Speece 1988 Yagwoia [ygw] 10,000; phonology: Lloyd 1973 All three reconstructable Proto Angan object prefixed pronouns, *nə ‘1 sg ’, *gə ‘2 sg ’, *wə ‘3 sg ’, continue pTNG *na, *ŋga, *wa, respectively. Proto Angan pronouns also show a number of replacement innovations, including free forms *ti ‘2 sg ’, *nai ‘1 pl ’, *sai ‘2 pl , *yai ‘1 du ’ and *kai ‘2 du ’. 2.3.1.2. Anim Anim is a recently proposed subfamily consisting of the Marindic, Yaqayic, Lake Murray, Lower Fly and Inland Gulf groups (Usher and Suter 2015). The Anim languages occupy a discontinuous territory. The westernmost are the Marindic and Yaqayic languages, which occupy a sizable area of south-central West Papua, between Asmat languages (to the west), and Awyu-Dumut and Kayagaric (east and north). The Lake Murray languages are found in Western Province, Papua New Guinea, south of Lake Murray, around the Upper Fly River, abutting Ok and Pa languages in the north. The poorly known Lower Fly (or Tirio) languages are spoken to the west of the Fly River close to its mouth. Inland of them to the west

34 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

we find languages of the Yam and Pahoturi families, and to the south and east the Kiwai languages. The Inland Gulf languages constitute the easternmost subgroup of Anim and are geographically disconnected from the rest. The Western Inland Gulf languages are closely related, constituting a dialect chain, while Ipiko is so different that is was initially not even considered related to the others (Franklin 1968b). The family is posited on the grounds of an ablaut system with four genders and a small body of cognates in basic vocabulary (Usher and Suter 2015). Usher and Suter (2015: 126) assume that the Marindic and Yaqayic languages form a subgroup, but they share no exclusive phonological innovations in the posited phonological history and the lexicostatistical figures from Voorhoeve (1968: 5) are only marginally in favour of this. The same lexicostatical figures matched with a cognate count projectable from Usher and Suter (2015) may also be interpreted as a subgroup consisting of Marindic, Yaqayic and Lake Murray and this solution is adopted here. The moribund Abom language discovered only in the survey of Jore and Alemán (2002) is excluded from the Anim family by Usher and Suter (2015) because of the shortage of inherited-looking lexical cognates between Abom, the Lower Fly and the other Anim languages. However, the grammatical data collected by Jore and Alemán (2002), although meagre, shows Abom to have the same gender ablaut pattern in the verb as the Lower Fly languages. It could be that these data reflect insertions of lexical stems of a moribund language in the verbal template of a dominant (Lower Fly) language, but if not, Abom must be an Anim language on the same logic that the Lower Fly are so considered. Karami is an extinct language known only from a wordlist collected by Flint (1917–1918) and was traditionally considered an Western Inland Gulf language (Franklin 1973b: 269–273) but Usher and Suter (2015: 125) argue that the similarities are loans, in which case there remains no evidence that Karami is a Trans New Guinea language. See N. Evans et al. (this volume) for further discussion of the Anim group. INLAND GULF Ipiko [ipo] 345; wordlist: Chance 1926, Petterson 2007, Z’graggen 1975a WEST INLAND GULF H oyaic Hoia Hoia [hhi] 80; wordlist: Carr 1991 Hoyahoya [hhy] 95; wordlist: Carr 1991 Minanibai-Foia Foia [mcv] 3 00; wordlist: Franklin 1973a, Johnston 1920, Z’graggen 1975a, Carr 1991 Mubami [tsx] 1,730; wordlist: Z’graggen 1975 Mahigi [-] 0; wordlist: Cridland 1924 LOWER FLY (TIRIO) Abom [aob] 15; wordlist: Jore and Alemán 2002



The Trans New Guinea family 

35

nuclear lower fly Baramu [bmz] 850; wordlist: Jore and Alemán 2002 Were [wei] 490; wordlist: Jore and Alemán 2002 Makayam [aup] 1,300; wordlist: Chalmers 1897, Jore and Alemán 2002, Ray 1907c, 1923, Riley and Ray 1931 Bitur [mcc] 860; wordlist: Jore and Alemán 2002 MARIND-BOAZI-YAQAY B oazi Kuni-Boazi [kvg] 4,500; grammar sketches: Drabbe 1954b, EdwardsFumey 2006 Zimakani [zik] 1,500; text: Unevangelized Fields Mission 1956, 1966 M arindic Bian Marind [bpv] 2,900; wordlist: Drabbe 1954a, 1950a, Voorhoeve 1975b Marind [mrz] 7,000; grammar: Drabbe 1955, Geurtjens 1926 Y aqayic Warkay-Bipim [bgv] 300; wordlist: Voorhoeve 1971, 1975 Yaqay [jaq] 10,000; grammar sketch: Drabbe 1954b Usher and Suter (2015) reconstruct a full set of proto Anim pronominal object prefixes: *na- ‘1 sg ’, *ŋga- ‘2 sg ’, *(u)a- ‘3 sg ’, *ni- ‘1 pl ’, *ja ‘2 pl ’, *ja ‘3 pl ’, all of which except the last reflect pTNG free form pronouns as reconstructed by Ross (2000a, 2005). Marind-Boazi-Yaqay languages distinguish 3rd singular masculine and feminine pronouns. Ross (2000a) reconstructs the following “pMarind” (i.  e. pMarindBoazi-Yakay) pronouns: *no-[ko] ‘1 sg ’, *ɣo-ko ‘2 sg ’, *ɛ-ɣi, *ɛ ‘3SGmasc’ *-u- ‘3SGfem’ *ni-ki ‘1 pl ’, *zo-ko ‘2 pl ’, *ya-Xa ‘3 pl ’. Marind-Boazi-Yaqay languages retain reflexes of a number of pTNG lexical etyma, e.  g. Marind kase ‘saliva’ < pTNG *kasipa ‘spit’, maŋgat ‘mouth’ < *maŋgat[a], mudu-meŋ ‘belly’ < *mundu-maŋgV ‘heart’, mokom ‘fruit, seed’ < *maŋgV, saŋga ‘hand, finger, arm’ < *sa(ŋg,k)(a,i)l ‘hand, claw’, sâ ‘sand’ < *sa(ŋg,k)asiŋ, de ‘tree’ > *inda, iwar ‘wind’ < *kumbutu, kuyu ‘cassowary’ < *ku(y)a, Ross (2000a) reconstructs Proto Inland Gulf *no ‘1 sg ’, *go ‘2 sg ’ and *ni ‘pl ’, reflecting pTNG *na, *ŋga and *ni. Inland Gulf languages show probable reflexes of several pTNG lexical etyma, e.  g. Hoia Hoia, Mubami, Ipiko de ‘tree’ < *inda, Hoia Hoia mo’noto, Ipiko manoto ‘mouth’ < *maŋgat[a] ‘mouth, teeth’, Mubami mo’moʔo, Hoiahoia mo’mo:ko ‘seed’ < *maŋgV. Lower Fly languages show probable reflexes of a few pTNG etyma, e.  g. Makayam mako:th, Baramu mango:t ‘chin’ < *maŋgat[a] ‘mouth, teeth’, Makayam (Giribam dialect) Bitur, Baramu mo:m ‘seed’ < *maŋgV ‘fruit, seed, round’, Makayam sakoa ‘lower arm’, Baramu saga ‘arm’ < *sa(ŋg,k)(a,i)l ‘hand, claw’.

36 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

2.3.1.3 Asmat-Kamoro Up to 10 languages spoken in the coastal lowlands in southern Indonesian Papua, from the western margins of the Digul River Basin to the Bomberai Peninsula. All languages for which there are data are transparently related in basic vocabulary. Looking at lexicon and phonology, Voorhoeve (2005: 148–149) sees four primary branches: three small branches Sabakor, Sempan and Kamoro and the Asmat branch. The Sabakor group occupies a small part of the Bomberai Peninsula discontinuous with the rest. The only published information on Diuwe (Lewis et al. 2013) is its number of speakers and location in the remote area north of the Citak. Van Arsdale (1974, 1987) collected a wordlist from people near the Brazza river, which matches the location of Lewis et al.’s (2013) Diuwe. This wordlist indicates a close relationship to Citak. ASMAT C entral -Y aosakor A smat Yaosakor Asmat [asy] 2,000; grammar sketch: Drabbe 1963a Central Asmat [cns] 7,000; wordlist: Drabbe 1959a; grammar: Drabbe 1959b, Voorhoeve 1965 C itak A smat Diuwe [diy] 100; wordlist: Van Arsdale 1974 Tamnim Citak [tml] 290; wordlist: Drabbe 1963b, Van Arsdale 1974, Voorhoeve 1980 Citak [txt] 8,000; grammar sketch: Kruidhof 1979 Casuarina Coast Asmat [asc] 9,000; wordlist: Drabbe 1963b, Voorhoeve 1980 Momogo-Pupis-Irogo [nks] 1,000; wordlist: Feuilleteau de Bruyn 1913, 1915, Voorhoeve 1980 SABAKOR Buruwai [asi] 1,000 wordlist: Voorhoeve 1975b Kamberau [irx] 1,570 wordlist: Voorhoeve 1975b Kamoro [kgq] 8,000 grammar: Drabbe 1953 Sempan [xse] 1,000 wordlist: Drabbe 1954a, 1950a, Galis 1955, Voorhoeve 1975b The uniformity of pronoun forms among Asmat languages suggests that their differentiation is recent. Ross reconstructs Proto Asmat *no ‘1 sg , *o or *we ‘2 sg ’ and *a ‘3 sg ’, which appear to continue pTNG *na, *ŋga, *wa, with vowel change and loss of velar stop in the 2 sg form. Of the Proto Asmat plural forms *ca ‘2 pl ’ may continue pTNG *ja ‘2 pl ’. Some possible reflexes of pTNG lexical etyma in pAsmat-Kamoro (largely following Voorhoeve 2005) are: *fiti ‘fingernail’ < pTNG mb(i,u)t(i,u)C, *isi ‘mosquito < *kasin, *ese ‘blood’ < *kenja, *masap or *masip ‘saliva’ < *si(mb,p)atV, *yi ‘urine’ < *[si]si, *asa ‘excrement’ < *asa, *manaka

The Trans New Guinea family 



37

‘eye’ < *mun(a,e,i)ka, *sisi ‘tooth’ < *(t,s)i(t,s)i, *yirama ‘night’ < *k(i,u)tama ,*tama ‘morning’ < *k(i,u)tama, *na- ‘eat’ < *na-. 2.3.1.4. Awin-Pa Two closely related languages (Voorhoeve 1975a) or one quite diverse dialect cluster (Stewart no date:2). Aekyom (or Awin) is bisected by the Fly River, Pare (or Pa) is spoken over an area extending from the Strickland River to the east and Lake Murray to the south. To the north lie the Ok languages of Faiwol, Ninggerum and Yonggom.

Aekyom [awi] 8,000; grammar sketch: Stewart no date Pare [ppt] 2,000; wordlist: Franklin 1973, Shaw 1986, Z’graggen 1975a

Proto Awin-Pa pronouns are conservative, with pTNG *na, *ŋga and *ya continued as *na, *go and *ya. It is more difficult to reconstruct non-singular forms but Ross posits *ne ‘1 pl ’ and *ge ‘2 pl ’, next to *ni ‘1 du ’ and *gi ‘2 du ’, with vowel ablaut distinguishing them from their singular counterparts. Some probable reflexes of pTNG etyma are Aekyom: kendoke ‘ear’ < *kand(e,i)k[V], khatike ‘leg’ < *k(a,o) ndok[V], kare ‘skin’ < *(ŋg,k)a(nd,t)apu, di ‘firewood, fire’ < *inda. Pa: keba ‘head’ < *kV(mb,p)(i,u)tu, ama ‘mother < *am(a,i), di- ‘burn’ < *nj(a,e,i). 2.3.1.5. Bosavi The Bosavi languages lie to the east and south of the East Strickland group, around Mt Bosavi, east of the Strickland River and southwest of western edge of the central highlands of Papua New Guinea. No detailed study of subgrouping has been done, but the lexicostatistical study by Shaw (1986: 53) gives some indications. Kaluli and Sunia share 70 % lexicostatistical similarity which is higher than with any other languages, so the two probably form a subgroup. Similarly, Etoro and Bedamini form a subgroup with a percentage of 67 %. Aimele, Kasua, Onobasulu, Kaluli-Sunia share more isoglosses with each other than with the Etoro-Bedamini group, some of which are likely innovations. BOSAVI WATERSHED K aluli -S unia Kaluli [bco] 2 ,500; grammar sketches: Grosh and Grosh 2004, Schieffelin 1995; dictionary: Schieffelin and Feld 1998 Sonia [siq] 400; wordlist: Shaw 1986 Aimele [ail] 140; wordlist: Shaw 1986 Kasua [khs] 600; grammar sketch: Logan 2007 Onobasulu [onn] 1,000; wordlist: Shaw 1986

38 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

ETORO-BEDAMINI Beami [beo] 4,200; wordlist: Shaw 1986, Z’graggen 1975a Edolo [etr] 1,670; grammar sketch: Gossner 1994 Shaw (1986: 50) lists a few lexical items common to the Bosavi languages and the East Strickland languages. However, there are hardly enough of them to set up sound correspondences. Even though the items in question are not localized to specific adjacent pairs of Bosavi-East Strickland languages, the bulk of the lexicon of the two groups is different and, given their proximity, some early loans are to be expected. Another language often associated with the Bosavi group is the southern neighbour Dibiyaso. Reesink (1976: 12) gives a number of lexical lookalikes between Dibiyaso and Kaluli. These contain a few fairly convincing comparisons where Dibiyaso p corresponds to Kaluli f. The items in question are common to the entire Bosavi Watershed group (not just Kaluli) but none are found in the Etoro-Bedamini group. This suggests that we are dealing with loans between Dibiyaso and the Bosavi watershed group. Yet another language to the south is Doso, attested only in unpublished Summer Institute of Linguistics survey data and by a short wordlist taken from a second language speaker in Shaw (1986: 68). This wordlist has a few items with forms identical to Dibiyaso. The fact that those items are identical whereas the bulk of items are different, again suggests borrowing. Doso, however, is reported to have 61 % lexicostatistical similarity with the newly discovered and highly endangered Turumsa language, for which no data has yet been published (Tupper 2007c). Finally, Kamula, also to the south, is cited by Shaw (1986: 53) as having high lexicostatistical similarity (38 % to 55 %) with languages in the Bosavi Watershed group. We have not been able to reproduce anything like these figures, nor have other comparisons with much improved knowledge of Kamula such as Reesink (1976: 15) who finds 5 % similarity with Kaluli where Shaw (1986: 53) has 44 % and Routamaa (1994: 7) who, with much improved knowledge of Kamula, finds “very few similarities”. In fact, Kamula, apart from a few obvious cultural wanderwörter, appears to have a basic lexicon totally different from the Bosavi languages. (See 3.3.4 below.) The Proto Bosavi pronouns are conservative. Ross reconstructs singular forms *na, *ga, *ya, and plural forms *ni-pl , *gi-pl and *i-pl , all of which continue pTNG antecedents. (*-pl here represents a plural suffix whose precise form is not reconstructable.) 2.3.1.6. Chimbu-Wahgi This group is situated in Simbu and Western Highlands Provinces, Papua New Guinea, east and south of Mt Hagen, in the large Wahgi, Nebilyer and Kaugel



The Trans New Guinea family 

39

Valleys, and north of the Sepik-Wahgi Divide in the Jimi Valley and in the Bismarck Range. Extensive dialect chaining in the major valleys makes any estimate of the number of languages problematic but it is customary to distinguish about 12. The best known members are probably Kuman (Chimbu), Middle Wahgi, Sinasina and Melpa. A group-wide subclassification has not been done, but a four-way division seems likely, following the impressions of Capell (1962: 105–128). The internal classification of the microgroups Jimi (Cook 1966) and Simbu (Tida 2011, 2012) have been investigated, whereas with the Wahgic and Hagen group we are left with the suggestions of Capell (1962) and some remarks on sound correspondences by Shafer (1965: 370–372). HAGEN A ua -G awil Imbongu [imo] 42,500; grammar sketch: Stefaniw 1987 Umbu-Ungu [ubu] 34,200; grammar: Head 2011 M elpa -T embagla Melpa [med] 1 30,000; grammar sketches: Berthold 2008, Strauss no date, Vicedom and Tischner 1948; dictionary: Stewart et al. 2011 Bo-Ung [mux] 40,900; grammar sketch: Merlan and Rumsey 1991 JIMI K andawo -N arak Kandawo [gam] 4,000; dialectology: Graham 1998 Narak [nac] 6,220; comparative study: Cook 1966 Maring [mbw] 11,000; grammar sketch: Woodward 1973 SIMBU C huave -N omane Chuave [cjv] 23,100; phonology: Swick 1966 Nomane [nof] 6,700; comparative study: Tida 2012 N uclear S imbu G olinic Golin [gvf] 51,100; grammar: Evans et al. 2005 Salt-Yui [sll] 6,500; grammar: Irwin 1974 Sinasina [sst] 50,100; grammar: McVinney and Luzbetak 1964 K uman -D om -G unaa Dom [doa] 12,000; grammar: Tida 2006 Kuman [kue] 115,000; grammar: Bergmann 1953 WAHGIC Nii [nii] 12,000; grammar sketch: Stucky and Stucky 1970 Wahgi [wgi] 39,000; grammar: Phillips 1976; dictionary: Ramsey 1975 North Wahgi [whg] 47,000; grammar sketch: Aufenanger 1953

40 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Chimbu-Wahgi languages typically distinguish two or three laterals (see Phonology, section 4). They have contrastive tone and this is manifested in the pronoun system. Singular pronouns are reconstructable with high tone, marked here by an acute accent. Two Proto Chimbu-Wahgi (pChW) singular free form pronouns, *ná ‘1 sg ’ and *[y]é ‘3 sg ’, appear to continue pTNG etyma. Chimbu-Wahgi languages reflect *nim ‘2 sg ’ as an innovation replacing pTNG *ŋga. The pChW dual marker *-l and plural marker *-n appear to reflect pTNG counterparts. pChW non-singular roots are hard to reconstruct. Some possible reflexes of pTNG etyma follow, from the Middle Wahgi language. Middle Wahgi: ama ‘mother’ < *am(a,i), amu ‘breast < *amu, numan ‘louse’ < *niman, numan ‘thought, mind, will’ < *n(o,u) man, muŋ ‘fruit, nut, lump’, muŋgum ‘kidney’ < *maŋgV ‘round object’, mundmuŋ ‘heart’ < *mundun-maŋgV, mokum, mokem ‘knuckle, joint’ < *mo(k,ŋg) Vm ‘joint’, mundun mo- ‘be pot bellied’< *mundun ‘internal organs, belly’, ŋaŋ ‘small male child’ < *ŋaŋ[a] ‘baby’, apa- ‘maternal uncle’ < *apa ‘father’, embe(m) ‘name’ < *imbi ‘name’, muk ‘blue’ < *muk, tuk- ‘chop’ < *tVk- ‘cut, cut off’, no- ‘eat’ < *na-, mek si- ‘to vomit’, mek ‘vomitus’ < *makV[C] + t(e,i)- ‘to vomit’. 2.3.1.7 Dagan Dagan is the most easterly subgroup of TNG, occupying the mountainous southeastern region of Papua New Guinea almost to the tip. Lexicostatistical agreements among Dagan languages given by Dutton (1971: 15–19) range from 29 % to 51 % but do not indicate any consistent subgroupings. Troolin (1998) adds Turaka, also with lexicostatical figures around 20 %.

Daga [dgz] 9,000; grammar: Murane 1974 Umanakaina [gdn] 2,400; wordlist: Anonymous 1914a, Ray 1938 Ginuman [gnm] 1,440; a list of numerals: Lean 1986b: 24–25; comparative study: Dutton 1975b Dima [jma] 750; wordlist: Ray 1938 Mapena [mnm] 270; comparative study: Dutton 1971 Maiwa (Papua New Guinea) [mti] 1,400; specific feature: Nakamura and Nakamura 2002 Onjob [onj] 150; specific feature: Capell 1976 Kanasi [soq] 2,200; grammar sketch: Pappenhagen 1986 Turaka [trh] 25; wordlist: Troolin 1998

Several Proto Dagan pronouns reflect pTNG etyma. pTNG *na ‘sg ’, *nga ‘2 sg ’ and *nu ‘1 pl ’ (*u-gade) are continued by pDagan *na ,*ga and *nu. Dagan languages share several innovatory pronouns: *me ‘1 sg , *ya ‘2 pl ’ and *m[a]u ‘3 pl ’. Some possible reflexes of TNG lexical etyma follow, from Daga and Kanasi. Daga: ama ‘breast’ < *amu, meri(nawa) ‘tongue < *me(l,n)e, ira ‘tree’ < *inda. Kanasi:



The Trans New Guinea family 

41

asi ‘ear’ < *kand(e,i)k(V], etepa ‘bark’ < *(ŋg,k)a(nd,t)apu ‘skin’, obosa ‘wind’ < *kumbutu, oman ‘stone’ < *ka(m,mb)u[CV], nene ‘bird’ < *n(e)i. 2.3.1.8 Dani Consists of about a dozen languages spoken in the western highlands of West Papua along the Balim (Baliem) Valley, and its side valleys, situated between the Mek group in the east and the Paniai Lakes group in the west. Larson (1977) provides a lexicostatistical subclassification with three branches, and, Etherington (2002) adds Nggem as a fourth. CENTRAL DANI G rand V alley D ani Upper Grand Valley Dani [dna] 20,000; wordlist: Bromley 1967, Larson 1977 Lower Grand Valley Dani [dni] 20,000; grammar: Bromley 1972, 1981, Fahner 1979, van der Stap 1966 Mid Grand Valley Dani [dnt] 50,000; wordlist: Bromley 1967, Larson 1977 Hupla [hap] 3,000; overview: Silzer and Heikkinen-Clouse 1991 P yramid -S wart V alley Western Dani [dnw] 180,000; grammar: Barclay 2008 Walak [wlw] 20,000; wordlist: Bromley 1967, Larson 1977 NGALIK-NDUGA Y alic Ninia Yali [nlk] 10,500; ethnographic: Wilson 1986, 1988 Pass Valley Yali [yac] 5,000; grammar: Fahner 1979 Angguruk Yali [yli] 15,000; wordlist: Bromley 1967, Larson 1977 Nduga [ndx] 10,000; wordlist: de Bruijn 1941, Feuilleteau de Bruyn 1913, 1915, Galis 1955, Larson 1977, Le Roux 1950: 901– 913, Ranneft 1953, van Nouhuys 1912 Silimo [wul] 5,000; wordlist: Bromley 1967, Larson 1977, Voorhoeve 1975b Nggem [nbq] 4,400; grammar: Etherington 2002 Wano [wno] 1,000; phonology: Burung 2007 Proto Dani pronouns are conservative. pDani *an ‘1sg’, *ka-t ‘2sg’ and *a-t ‘3sg’ continue pTNG *na, *nga and *ya. pDani *ni-t ‘1pl’, *ki-t ‘2pl and i-t ‘3pl’ continue pTNG *ni, *ki and *i. Five of the six pDani pronouns show a suffix -t of uncertain function. pDani *an ‘1sg’ for expected *na is a feature shared with several other groups in the far western part of the TNG region. Some possible reflexes of lexical etyma in Dani languages are: Grand Valley Dani: ap ‘man’ < *ambi, meli ‘tongue’

42 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

< *me(l,n)e, n-esi ‘hair’ < *iti[C] (n- is 1sg possessor), me(m)- ‘come’ < *me-, ket ‘new’ < *kVndak. Western Dani: ap ‘man’ < *ambi, (n)iti < *iti[C], meli ‘tongue’ < *me(l,n)e, get ‘new’ < *kVndak, okut ‘leg’ < *k(a,o)ndok[V], kat(lo) ‘skin’ < *(ŋg,k)a(nd,t)apu, idu ‘tree’ < *inda. Ngalik: idu(k)etu ‘tree’ < *inda, Ngalik (nak) amu ‘breast’ < *amu, tokon ‘full’ < *tVkV[ti], kopu ‘smoke’ < *kambu. 2.3.1.9 Duna-Bogaya Two languages: Duna (Yuna), Bogaya (Pogaia, Pokoi), which occupy contiguous regions northwest of the central highlands of Papua New Guinea. Duna is spoken in the Lake Kopiago and Koroba Districts in the northwest corner of Southern Highlands Province, next to Huli, of the Enga-Huli group. Voorhoeve (1975a: 395–396) gives some reasons for subgrouping Duna and Bogaya, namely perceived innovations in pronouns and some lexical resemblances. While Voorhoeve (1975a: 395–396) and Shaw (1986: 53) give lexicostatistical figures above 20 %, these are difficult to reproduce, and, in any case, loans would be expected from Duna to Bogaya. If the subgroup relation is real, it must be quite distant.

Duna [duc] 11,000; grammar: San Roque 2008 Bogaya [boq] 300; wordlist: Franklin 1973a, Shaw 1986

Their free form pronouns largely agree, allowing reconstruction of Proto Duna-Bogaya *nó ‘1 sg ’, *gó ‘2 sg , *kó ‘3 sg ’, *i-nu ‘1 pl ’ *ki-nu ‘3 pl ’, of which the 1 sg and 2 sg forms continue pTNG *na and *ŋga, and the 1 pl form may contain a reflex of pTNG *nu ‘1 pl ’. The other pronoun forms appear to be innovations. Possible Duna reflexes of other pTNG etyma are: amu ‘breast’ < *amu, konane ‘ear’ < *kand(e,i)k(V], kuni ‘bone’ < *kondaC. 2.3.1.10  East Strickland A long dialect chain from Konai in the north down to Odoodee in the south along mainly the east side of the Strickland river. Somewhat artifically (see Dwyer et al. 1993 for an introduction to clan interrelations) divided into six languages by Shaw (1986). Based on mutual intelligibility and relatively high lexicostatistical agreement, the Kubo-Samo-Bibo varieties form a subgroup within the chain. KUBO-SAMO-BIBO Gobasi [goi] 1,100; wordlist: Shaw 1986, Z’graggen 1975a Kubo [jko] 1,000; wordlist: Shaw 1986, Z’graggen 1975a Samo [smq] 900; grammar sketch: Shaw 1973 Fembe [agl] 350; wordlist: Shaw 1986, Z’graggen 1975a Odoodee [kkc] 490; wordlist: Shaw 1986 Konai [kxw] 600; phonology: Årsjö and Årsjö 2005



The Trans New Guinea family 

43

Proto E. Strickland (pES) *na ‘1 sg ’and *yõ ‘3 sg ’ continue pTNG *na and *ya and the first element in the 3 du pronoun *i-le may reflect pTNG *i ‘3 pl ’. The other pronominal roots appear to be shared innovations of pES. However the pTNG dual marker is retained as a suffix in the pES dual pronouns *o-li and *a-la ‘1 du ’, *nĩ-le ‘2 du ’ and *i-le ‘3 du ’. Some possible E. Strickland reflexes of pTNG etyma in Samo, Bibo and Agala follow. Samo: (da)subu ‘ashes’ < *sumbu, si- ‘burn’ < *nj(a,e,i)-, na- ‘eat’ < *na-, magara ‘mouth’ < *maŋgat[a], korofu ‘skin’ < *(ŋg,k) a(n,t)apu, mere(ma) ‘tongue’ < *me(l,n)e, mini ‘nose’ < *mundu. Bibo: (da)suf ‘ashes’ < *sumbu. Agala: fulu(ma) ali ‘to fly’ > *pululu-. 2.3.1.11 Enga-Kewa-Huli A well-defined group of about a dozen languages, including Engan, Huli, Kewa and Angal (Mendi), occupies a large continuous area at the western end of the central highlands of Papua New Guinea, in Enga Province, overlapping into East Sepik Province in the north and Southern Highlands Province in the south. This group, termed ‘Enga-Kewa-Huli’ here, is bordered by Chimbu-Wahgi to the east, Wiru to the southeast, Kutubu to the south and Sepik languages to the north. The subgroup relationship of the Enga-Kewa-Huli languages is not in doubt, as they exhibit numerous regular sound correspondences and lexicostatistical agreements in the range of 40 % or above (Franklin 1975a). Within Enga-Kewa-Huli there is a clearly demarcated Engic subgroup that includes Engan, Ipili, Kyaka and Lembena (Conrad and Lewis 1988, Davies and Comrie 1985, Franklin 1975a, 1997). Similarly, Sau, Angal (Mendi) and Kewa form a subgroup (Franklin 1968a). Franklin (1997) groups Huli and Sau-Angal-Kewa together as South Enga-Kewa-Huli on the basis of isoglosses in pronoun forms. ENGIC O uter E nga Bisorio [bir] 2 60; wordlist: Conrad and Lewis 1988, Davies and Comrie 1985 Nete [net] 750; wordlist: Davies and Comrie 1985 Enga [enq] 230,000; grammar sketch & dictionary: Lang 1973 Ipili [ipi] 26,000; comparative study: Franklin 1975 Kyaka [kyc] 15,400; dictionary: Draper and Draper 2002 Lembena [leq] 1,760; grammar sketch: Heineman 1998 KEWA-HULI S au -A ngal -K ewa A ngal -K ewa A ngal M endi Angal [age] 18,600; grammar sketch: Madden no date Angal Heneng [akh] 40,000; grammar sketch: Williams 1940

44 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Angal Enen [aoe] 22,000; specific feature: Tipton 1982 K ewa West Kewa [kew] 4 5,000; grammar: Franklin 1971; dictionary: Franklin and Franklin 1978 East Kewa [kjs] 45,000; grammar: Yarapea 2006 Erave [kjy] 10,000; specific feature: Franklin 1968 Samberigi [ssx] 3,130; wordlist: Franklin 1973a, Z’graggen 1975a Huli [hui] 150,000; grammar: Lomas 1988 The neighbouring Wiru language has been put forward as a possible immediate relative of the Enga-Kewa-Huli group (Kerr 1975), but the similarities can also be explained as general typological resemblances and loans of cultural vocabulary into Wiru. Ross (2000a: 127), following Franklin (1997), finds that full sets of free pronouns can easily be reconstructed for a northern and a southern subgroup, respectively, but because of sharp differences between the two subgroups, it is much harder to reconstruct Proto Enga-Kewa-Huli. Ross tentatively reconstructs a partial paradigm for pEnga-Kewa-Huli: *n ‘1 sg ’, *ne(ke) ‘2 sg ’ *(n)i/*(n)u ‘3 sg ’, *ni[a] ‘2 pl ’, *ñi[a]-li ‘2 du ’. Among these only the 1 sg form and the dual marker *-li continue pTNG etyma. Some possible reflexes of pTNG etyma in Enga-Kewa-Huli languages follow. Enga: mona ‘heart’ < *mundun, yaka ‘bird’ > *yaka(i), lyaŋa ‘ashes’ < *la(ŋ,k)a, ŋaŋa ‘baby < *ŋaŋ(a), (m)ama ‘mother’ < *am(a,i), kuri ‘bone’ < *kondaC, kare ‘ear’ > *kand(e,i)k(V], ne- ‘eat’ > *na-, apa(ne) ‘father’ < *apa, iti ‘hair’ < *iti[C], endo ‘fire’ < *kend(o,u)p, lema ‘louse’ > *niman, kana ‘moon’ < *takVn[V], mana ‘instructions’ < *mana, kitama ‘morning’ < *k(i,u)tuma, kumi- ‘die’ < *kumV-, re‘speak’ < *nde-, maa ‘taro’ < *mV, ita ‘tree’ < *inda. Huli: ega ‘bird’ < *yaka(i), na- ‘eat’ < *na-, aba ‘father’ < *apa, iri ‘hair’ < *iti[C], ira ‘tree’ < *inda, ma ‘taro’ < *mV. Kewa: ama ‘mother’ < *am(a,i), ibi ‘name’ < *imbi, iri ‘hair’ < *iti[C], uni ‘bone’ < *kwanjaC, apu ‘tail’ < *a(mb,m)u, lema ‘louse’ < *niman, oma ‘die’ < *kumV-, reka- ‘stand’ < *t(a,e)kV-, la- ‘talk’ < *nde-, maa ‘taro’ < *mV, yaa ‘bird’ < *yaka(i). Mendi: am ‘mother’ > *am(a,i), ap ‘father’ > *apa, mbi ‘name’ < *imbi, ome- ‘die’ < *kumV-. 2.3.1.12 Finisterre-Huon A large group, numbering 60 to 70 languages, depending on language/dialect placement, occupying most of the western part of Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea. A fine-grained subgrouping is not available, but ongoing studies by Suter (2010, 2012) assume a primary split between the Finisterre and the Huon groups as well as a six-way division within Finisterre and a two-way division within Huon taken over from foundational work by McElhanon (1967, 1973). The eight micro-



The Trans New Guinea family 

45

groups can be further divided in accord with the lexicostatistical figures in Hooley and McElhanon (1970), McElhanon (1970b: 44) and Carter et al. (2012), though this leaves a few question marks regarding the placement of languages discovered subsequently or languages with little data. FINISTERRE-SARUWAGED E rap B oana N ek -N uk Nek [nif] 2,000; comparative studies: Claassen and McElhanon 1970, Ross 1995 Nuk [noc] 900; comparative study: Claassen and McElhanon 1970 Mungkip [mpv] 12; wordlist: Retsema et al. 2009 Nakama [nib] 980; wordlist: Retsema et al. 2009 Numanggang [nop] 2,300; specific feature: Hynum 2010 F inungwan -M amaa -G usan Finongan [fag] 1,300; minimal: Rice and Rice 2002 Gusan [gsn] 800; comparative studies: Claassen and McElhanon 1970, Ross 1995 Mamaa [mhf] 200; comparative study: Claassen and McElhanon 1970 S auk -N imi Nimi [nis] 1,700; comparative study: Claassen and McElhanon 1970 Sauk [skc] 1,500; phonology: Pennington (2013) Uri [uvh] 2,500; phonology: Webb 1974 G usap -M ot G ira -N eko -N ekgini Madi [grg] 3 80; comparative study: Claassen and McElhanon 1970 Neko [nej] 640; comparative study: Claassen and McElhanon 1970 Nekgini [nkg] 430; comparative studies: Claassen and McElhanon 1970, Ross 1995 U fim -R awa -N ahu Iyo [nca] 6,900; grammar sketch: Minter 2009 Rawa [rwo] 11,500; grammar: Toland and Toland 1991 Ufim [ufi] 550; comparative study: Claassen and McElhanon 1970 Ngaing [nnf] 2,020; comparative studies: Claassen and McElhanon 1970, Ross 1995

46 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

U ruwa S akam -S om Sakam [skm] 1,300; comparative studies: Claassen and McElhanon 1970, Ross 1995 Som [smc] 80; comparative studies: Claassen and McElhanon 1970, Ross 1995 ?Weliki [klh] 2 00; comparative study: Claassen and McElhanon 1970 Nukna [klt] 1,000; comparative studies: Claassen and McElhanon 1970, Ross 1995 Yau (Morobe Province) [yuw] 1 ,700; comparative studies: Claassen and McElhanon 1970, Ross 1995 W antoatic W antoat -A wara Awara [awx] 1,900; phonology: Quigley 2003, Quigley and Quigley 2011; grammar sketch: Quigley and Quigley 2011 Wantoat [wnc] 8,200; phonology: Davis 1994; grammar sketch: Davis 1964a, 1964b; dictionary: Dangepnana et al. 2012 Tuma-Irumu [iou] 1,100; comparative study: Ross 1995 W arup Muratayak [asx] 810; wordlist: Carter et al. 2012 Bulgebi [bmp] 50; overview: Z’graggen 1975b Gwahatike [dah] 1,570; wordlist: Carter et al. 2012 Degenan [dge] 790; wordlist: Carter et al. 2012 Forak [frq] 280; wordlist: Carter et al. 2012 Guya [gka] 130; overview: Z’graggen 1975b Yagomi [ygm] 280; overview: Z’graggen 1975b M olet -A saroo Molet [–] No estimate available; wordlist: Carter et al. 2012 Asaro’o [mtv] 1,250; wordlist: Carter et al. 2012 Y upna B wana -M oam -T apen Domung [dev] 2,330; comparative studies: Claassen and McElhanon 1970, Ross 1995 Ma (Papua New Guinea) [mjn] 570; overview: Z’graggen 1975b K ewieng -B onkiman -N okopo Bonkiman [bop] 180; a list of numerals: Smith 1988 Yopno [yut] 9,000; specific feature: McElhanon 1973 ?Yout Wam [ytw] 270; wordlist: Gray 2007 Nankina [nnk] 2,500; grammar: Spaulding and Spaulding 1994



The Trans New Guinea family 

47

HUON E astern H uon K ate -M ape -S ene Kâte [kmg] 2 0,000; grammar sketches: Grube 1895, Pilhofer 1927, 1933, Schneuker 1962; dictionaries: Flierl and Strauss 1977, Keyßer 1925 Mape [mlh] 1,700; wordlist: McElhanon 1967 Sene [sej] 0; a list of numerals: Smith 1988 M omare -M igabac Migabac [mpp] 2,600; grammar: McEvoy 2008 Momare [msz] 1; minimal: Smith 1988 T obo -K ube Kube [kgf] 7,500; specific feature: McElhanon 1973 Tobo [tbv] 2,230; wordlist: McElhanon 1967 Dedua [ded] 6,500; specific feature: Blake 2000 Kovai [kqb] 6,000; grammar sketch: Bugenhagen 1994 W estern H uon K inalakna -K umukio Kinalakna [kco] 305; a list of numerals: Smith 1988 Kumukio [kuo] 1,050; a list of numerals: Smith 1988 K osorong -B urum -M indik Burum-Mindik [bmu] 9,000; dictionary: Olkkonen and Olkkonen 2004 Borong [ksr] 2,200; grammar sketch: Olkkonen and Olkkonen 2000; dictionaries: Olkkonen and Olkkonen 2004 N abak -M omolili Mese [mci] 4,000; wordlist: McElhanon 1967 Nabak [naf] 16,000; grammar: Fabian et al. 1998 T imbe -S elepet -K omba S elepet -K omba Komba [kpf] 15,000; grammar: Southwell 1979, Southwell and Southwell 1972 Selepet [spl] 7 ,000; grammar: McElhanon 1970a,b; dictionary: McElhanon and McElhanon 1970 Timbe [tim] 11,000; grammar sketch: Foster 1981 Nomu [noh] 400; a list of numerals: Smith 1988 Ono [ons] 10,000; grammar sketch: Wacke 1931 Sialum [slw] 400; wordlist: Dempwolff 1905, Ray 1919 Abaga is a highly endangered (if not extinct) language sometimes associated with the Finisterre-Huon group (McElhanon 1975: 543). The evidence for this association has never been published, and from the little data available (pace Tupper

48 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

2007a), lower numerals (Lean 1986a: 27–29) and other items of basic vocabulary look similar to their Eastern Highlands counterparts, especially in the Kamano-Yagaria group. Most of the Finisterre-Huon languages have been conservative in their free pronoun forms, continuing several pTNG etyma. For Proto Finisterre Ross (2000a) reconstructs *na[k] ‘1 sg ’ < pTNG *na, *ga[k] and *gi-[n] ‘2 sg ’ < *ŋga, *wa ‘3 sg ’ < *wa ‘2 pl ’, *ni[n] ‘1 pl ’ < *ni, *nu and *ja[n] ‘2 pl ’ < *ja, as well as a series of dual pronouns that continue the pTNG dual suffix. For Proto Huon Ross reconstructs *na ‘1 sg ’, *ga 2 sg ’, *ya (ka) ‘3 sg ’, as well as dual and plural forms. (See 2.7.2 for conventions for use of parentheses and square brackets in reconstructed forms.) Some probable reflexes of pTNG etyma in Kâte and Selepet follow. Kâte: bɔruŋ ‘flame’ < *mbalaŋ ‘flame’, butoŋ ‘fingernail’ < *mb(i,u)t(i,u)C, bekɔ ‘orphan’ < *mbVŋga(-masi), masiŋ ‘widow’ < *masi, sambɔŋ ‘sky’ < *sambV ‘cloud’, tofeʔ ‘saliva’ < *si(mb,p)atV, lo- ‘take’ < *(nd,t)a-, munduŋ ‘inner yolk of egg’ < *mundun ‘internal organs’, go ‘2 sg ’ < *ŋga, hɔmo- ‘die’ < *kumV-, bɔriʔ ‘glitter, flash of lightning’ b (realised as [mb] initially and medially, [mp] finally): *mbapa ‘father’ > bapi, *ambi ‘man’ > b, *sambV ‘cloud’ > seb, *imbi ‘name’ > yb, *kamb(a,u)u[na] ‘stone’ > kab, *si(m,mb)u ‘guts’ > sb *mb > m in at least one case: *mbalaŋ ‘flame’ > malaŋ, maŋlaŋ. Note also *(mb,m)elak ‘light, lightning’ > melk ‘light’ *p > p initially and medially (realised as [ɸ] initially, [β] medially): *panV ‘female’ > pañ, *apus(i) ‘grandparent’ > aps ‘grandmother, *mapVn ‘liver > mapn *nd > d [nd] medially: *mund-maŋgV ‘heart’ > mudmagi, *kindil ‘root’ > kdl *t > t initially and finally (realised as [t] initially, [r] elsewhere): *takVn[V] ‘moon’ > takn, *tuk- ‘cut’ > tk- ‘sever’, *tu ‘axe’ > tu, *tumuk or *kumut ‘thunder’ > tumuk, *-it ‘2/3 dual verbal suffix’ > -it *t > zero medially or finally in one case: *maŋgat[a] ‘teeth’ > meg *s > s initially and medially: *sambV ‘cloud’ > seb, *si(m,mb)i ‘guts’ > sb, *apus(i) ‘grandparent’ > aps ‘grandmother’ *ŋg > g [ŋɡ] medially and [ŋk] finally: *maŋgat[a] ‘teeth’ > meg, *maŋgV ‘round object, egg’ > magi. In one case *g has varying reflexes in different dialects of Kalam: *nVŋg- ‘see’ > ng-, nŋ- in Ti dialect, but nŋ- in Etp dialect. *k > k ([ɣ] medially, [k] elsewhere): *kambu[na] ‘stone’ > kab, *k(aw,o)nan ‘shadow’ > kawnan, *kinV- sleep’ > kn-, *kumV- ‘die’ > kum-, *kakV- ‘carry on shoulder’ > kak-, *muk ‘milk’ > muk (Ti dial. mok), *muk ‘brain’ > muk, *takVn[V] ‘moon’ > takn, *tuk- ‘cut’ > tk- ‘sever’ 2.7.1.3.2

Nasals

*m > *m: *maŋgV ‘egg’ > magi, *ma- ‘not’ > ma-, *muk ‘milk’ > muk, mk, *mVna- ‘be’ > md-, *am(a,i) ‘mother’ > ami, *kumV- ‘die’ > kum-, *niman ‘louse’ > iman *n > n : *nVŋg- ‘see’ > ng-, nŋ-, *kin(i,u)[m]- ‘sleep’ > kn-, *niman ‘louse’ > iman, *takVn[V] ‘moon’ > takn, *wani ‘who?’ > an *n > ñ in a few words: *nV ‘child’ > ñi ‘son’, *panV ‘female’ > pañ ‘daughter’, *nok ‘water > ñg; in one case *n > d: *mVna- ‘be’ > md*ŋ > ŋ. Attested only in medial and final position: *nVŋg- ‘see’ > ng, nŋ-, *ŋaŋa ‘baby’ > -ŋaŋ, *mbalaŋ ‘flame’ > malaŋ, maŋlaŋ 2.7.1.3.3  Other resonants *l > l (retroflex lateral flap): *mbalaŋ ‘flame’ > malaŋ, maŋlaŋ, *[mb, m]elak ‘light, brightness’ > melk, *kindil ‘root’ > kdl *w > w although good cognate sets are few: *k(aw,o)nan ‘shadow/spirit’ > kawnan, *walaka ‘testicles’ > walak

The Trans New Guinea family 



139

*y > y but relevant cognate sets are few: *yaka[1] > yakt ‘bird’ , *aya ‘sister’ > ay 2.7.1.3.4  Vowels in stressed position The most common Kalam outcomes of pTNG vowels are as follows: *a usually gives a: *am(a,i) ‘mother’ > ami, *kakV- ‘carry’ > kak-, *maŋgV ‘compact round object’ > magi, *ma- ‘negative’ > ma-, *niman ‘louse’ > iman, *ŋaŋa ‘baby’ > -ŋaŋ, *takVn[V] ‘moon > takn However, *a > e in the following cases: *maŋgat[a] ‘teeth’ > meg, *sambV ‘cloud’ > seb *i usually gives i (written y in some contexts): *imbi ‘name’ > yb [yimp], *niman ‘louse’ > yman *u usually gives u: *kumV- ‘die’ > kum-, *tumuk/kumut ‘thunder > tumuk, *-un 1st plural subject’ > -un pTNG *e and *o are not well attested in Kalam. There is one reflex of *e and none of *o: *[mb, m]elak ‘light, brightness’ > melk Certain pTNG vowels are, under unknown conditions, reflected in Kalam by a short high central vowel [ɨ] which can be analysed synchronically as a non-phonemic transitional vocoid between consonants. Examples: *[mb,m]elak ‘light, brightness’ > melk [melɨk], *kin(i,u)[m] ‘sleep’ > kn [kɨn], *si(m,mb)i ‘guts’ > sb [sɨmp], *sisi > ss [sɨs] ‘urine’. Final syllables (-V, -VC) in pTNG disyllables and trisyllables are sometimes lost in Kalam: *imbi ‘name’ > yb [yimp], *maŋgat[a] ‘teeth’ > meg [meŋk], *apus[i] ‘grandparent’ > aps [aβɨs]’grandmother, *si(m,mb)i ‘guts’ > sb [sɨmp], *takVn[V] ‘moon’ > takn [taɣɨn] 2.7.2

Lexical reconstruction

Almost 200 etyma have been attributed to an early stage of TNG (eTNG) because they are reflected in two or more subgroups that are not known to belong to a higher-order subgroup of TNG (Pawley 2011). It is likely that some of these etyma will turn out not to be valid, because the putative cognate sets on which they are based involve borrowing or chance resemblances. Of the 188 eTNG reconstructions examined, 100 are found in both the eastern and western halves of New Guinea. For present purposes the dividing line between eastern and western New Guinea approximates the border between Papua New Guinea and Provinsi Papua and groups that straddle the political border, such as the Ok and Marindic groups, are assigned to the western half. The geographic distribution of the remaining lexical reconstructions shows a strong eastern bias. Eighty-four reconstructions have reflexes in subgroups confined to the eastern half of New Guinea. Just four reconstructions are attested

140 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

only in western New Guinea. This bias probably reflects two factors: (i) there are considerably more TNG languages in the eastern half of New Guinea than in the western half, (ii) a more diligent search has been carried out among eastern languages than among western languages. No one TNG language today retains more than a very small proportion of the set of eTNG reconstructions. The largest number of reflexes so far noted for any one language is around 40, for Kalam. In some putative TNG languages for which data are scanty, it is difficult to find more than four or five reflexes. Even for languages with good dictionaries one can often find only 20 or so. Now 20 reflexes, or even 100, are not enough to work out in detail the phonological development of a language from pTNG to the present. However, between them, the various members of a sizeable subgroup will have more reflexes than any single language. In such cases, it is sometimes possible to use the sound correspondences exhibited by members of the subgroup to extend the range of correspondences between pTNG and any one contemporary language. The following is a list of lexical reconstructions attributed to pTNG or to later but still early stages. This list comprises most of the reconstructions, given with supporting cognate sets in Pawley (2011). The items are grouped by fields of meaning. There are about 37 verbs, 9 adjectives, 41 body-part nouns, 11 kin terms, 6 nouns denoting other human statuses, 29 nouns denoting inanimate world things, 5 terms for artefacts, 8 terms for intangible cultural concepts, 4 terms for insects, 7 for birds and bird parts, 11 for plants and plant parts, some 10 forms for independent pronouns, 6 subject-marking suffixes to verbs, and a few other words. Of the reconstructions listed, perhaps two thirds occur in widely distributed subgroups and can be attributed to a very early stage of TNG with considerable confidence. Others can be attributed to fairly early interstages on the grounds that they occur in at least two major subgroups that are not contiguous. What makes a set of putative cognates likely to be the outcome of common heritage rather than diffusion? Conformity to regular sound correspondences is one indicator. (However, in many cases the sound correspondences have not been established.) A wide but discontinuous geographic distribution is a second measure. A third indicator is the nature of the meaning(s) represented in the cognate set. Almost all the reconstructions cited here refer to ‘basic’ semantic concepts, denoting body parts (e.  g. head, nose, eye, ear, tongue, teeth, hand/arm, foot/leg, bone), terms for kinship relations (e.  g. mother, father) and human age-gender status (man, woman), salient elements of the inanimate and animate environment (e.  g. rock, water, cloud, moon, tree, ashes, louse, fly, mosquito) and some verbs and adjectives denoting everyday activities and processes and states (be/stay, die, eat, sleep, stand, see/know, hit, blow, spit, burn) or important attributes (old, new, long, short, straight, cold, dry), and pronouns (on which see 2.7.3 and 2.7.4). Although terms for these kinds of concepts are not impervious to borrowing, comparative studies around the world have shown that they are less likely to be borrowed than



The Trans New Guinea family 

141

terms for culture-specific concepts such as names of domesticated plants, weapons and tools, ornaments, and magico-religious concepts (Tadmor et al. 2010). Many reconstructed forms show indeterminacies in one or more segments, because reflexes have irregular correspondences that cannot readily be explained. This is especially common in the vowels and obstruents, less so in the case of nasals. In eTNG *niman ‘louse’, for example, all five of the reconstructed segments are secure but in eTNG *k(a,o)nd(a,o)[C] ‘foot’ the vowels in both the syllables are indeterminate between *a and *o and it is unclear whether a final consonant should be reconstructed. Such indeterminacies are to be expected in reconstructing an ancestral stage that existed many thousands of years ago. In a detailed account of each reconstructed lexical item one could assign an approximate confidence level ranking to each segment. The conventions used to represent indeterminacies are exemplified by the following: *m(i,u)ndu ‘nose’ *maŋgat[a] ‘mouth, teeth’ *takVn[V] ‘moon’ *(m,mb)elak ‘lightning’ *maŋgV ‘round object’ *(mb,p)(i,u)t(i,u)C ‘fingernail’

*L

indeterminate between *mindu and *mundu indeterminate between *maŋgat and *maŋgata indeterminate between *takVn and *takVnV indeterminate between *melak and *mbelak V is indeterminate between three or more vowels first consonant indeterminate between mb and p, first and second vowels both indeterminate between i and u. C is indeterminate between three or more consonants indeterminate between *l and *t

Table 13: Some pTNG and early TNG lexical reconstructions organised by semantic fields body parts: arm, forearm belly, internal organs blood bone brain breast buttocks cheek claw, hand ear excrement 1 excrement 2 eye 1 (cf. egg 2) eye 2 eye 3 fingernail

*mbena *mundun *ke(nj,s)a *kondaC *muk[V] *amu *simbi + modifier *mVkVm *sikal or *sakil *kand(i,e)k[V] [same as ‘guts’] *ata *(ŋg,k)iti-maŋgV *ŋg(a,u)mu *nVpV *(mb,p)(i,u)t(iu)C

142 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

foot, lower leg forehead, head guts, intestines, bowels hair 1 hair 2, leaf head 1 head 2 heart 1 (cf. belly, egg 2) heart 2 heart 3 knee leg 1 leg 2, calf liver milk, sap mouth, teeth navel neck 1 neck 2, nape, side of nose penis saliva shoulder skin testicles tongue 1 tongue 2 tooth 1 tooth 2 urine

*k(a,o)nd(a,o)[C] *mVtVna *sim(i,u), *simbi *(nd,s)umu(n,t)[V] *iti *kV(mb,p)utu *mVtVna *mundu-maŋgV *simu *kamu *(ŋg,k)atuk *k(a,o)nd(a,o)[C] *kitu *[ma]pVn *muk *maŋgat[a] *simu + modifier *k(a,e)(nd,t)ak *kuma(n,ŋ)[V] *mundu *mo *si(mb,p)at[V] *kinV *(ŋg,k)a(nd,t)apu *walaka *mbilaŋ *me(l,n)e (see mouth) *titi *[si]si, *siti, *pisi

kin terms: brother, older father grandparent husband, man mother, free form mother, bound form sibling, older sibling, older same sex sister

*[mb]amba *apa, *mbapa *apus[i] *ambi *am(a,i,u) *na*nan(a,i) *[mb]amba *aya

age-gender and other social categories baby *ŋaŋa boy *nV man, husband *ambi orphan, widow & child *mbeŋga-masi woman, female *panV

The Trans New Guinea family 

 birds, bird parts: bird 1 bird 2 cassowary egg 1 egg 2, fruit, seed tail wing

*n[e]i *yaka[i] *ku[y]a *mun(a,e,i)ka *maŋgV *a(mb,m)u *mbutu

insects: butterfly fly louse mosquito

*apa[pa]ta *ŋgambu *niman, *iman *kasin

plants, plant parts: bark casuarina fruit, seed (cf. egg 2) leaf 1, hair leaf 2 root sap, milk taro tree, wood

*ka(nd,t)ap[u] *kal(a,i)pV *maŋgV *iti *sasak *kindil *muk *mV *inda

inanimate world: ashes 1 ashes 2 ashes 3 cloud 1, sky cloud 2 fire 1 fire 2 fire 3 flame ground 1 ground 2 lightning, light moon 1 moon 2 morning night sand sky 1, cloud thunder, sky 2 smoke 1 smoke 2 stone 1

*sumbu *kambu-sumbu *la(ŋg,k)a *samb[V] *ka(mb,p)utu *k(a,o)nd(a,u)p *inda *kambu *mbalaŋ *man[a] *maka[n] *(mb,m)elak *takVn[V] *kal(a,i)m *k(i,u)tuma + X *k(i,u)tuma *sa(ŋg,k)asiŋ *samb[V] *kumut, *tumuk *kambu(s,t)(a,u) *kambu-la(ŋg,k)a *kamb(a,u)na

143

144 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

stone 2 sun 1 sun 2 water 1 water 2 wind 1 wind 2, breeze

*[na]muna *kamali *ketane *ok[V] *nok *kumbutu *pinVm

artefacts: axe fence netbag 1 netbag 2 string, rope

*tu *wati *kun *at(i,u) *asi

intangible cultural concepts: instructions, language, word, speech mind, thought name 1 name 2, who shadow, spirit song, type of witchcraft

*mana *n(o,u)man *imbi *wani *k(aw,o)nan *saŋ *kum

independent pronouns (for subject, object, possessor): 1 singular *na 2 singular *ŋga 3 singular *ya 3 singular *wa 1 plural *ni, *nu 1 plural *ni 2 plural *ŋgi, *ki 1 dual *niLi, *nuLi 2 dual *ŋgiLi, *kiLi 3 dual *iLi verbal suffixes marking person-number of subject: 1 singular *-Vn 2 singular *-an 1 dual *-uL 2/3 dual *-iL 1 plural *-un 1 singular different subject *-pa verbs: be (live, stay, sit) bite blow break

*mVna*s(i,u)*pu + verb *pa(ŋg,k)-

The Trans New Guinea family 

 burn burn, light a fire carry (on back, shoulder) come cook cut, chop die do, make dream eat, drink fly, flutter give go 1 go 2 hit know, hear, see laugh live, be, sit put say, speak see, know, perceive shoot sleep 1, lie down sleep 2 speak, talk spit stand swell take tie turn (oneself) urinate vomit

*nd(a,e,i)*ki*kak(i,u)*me*andu*tVk*kumV*ti*kina(mb,p)*na*putu(putu)*mV*pu*yata*tu*nVŋg*ŋgiti (+ verb) see ‘be’ *(m,p)a(l,t)V*nde*nVŋg*tVmV*kin(i,u)[m] *p(e,i)t(e,i)o*nde*kasipa*t(a,e,i)k[V]*su + verb *(nd,t)a*ndiŋga-, *ndaŋgi *mbuli[ki] + verb *X + *si- (urine + verb) *mVŋ[g]V ti-

adjectives: blue cold dry full heavy long new short straight

*muk[V] *kukam(o,u) *ŋgatata *t(o,u)k(i,u) ti*kenda *k(o,u)t(u,i)p *kVtak *tumba *tutu[tu]ku

145

146 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

conjunctions: and

*ito

negatives: not

*ma- (+ verb)

numerals: two

*ta(l,t)(a,e)

2.7.3

Grammatical paradigms: Independent pronouns

The most complete grammatical paradigm so far reconstructed for pTNG is that of the independent or free pronouns (cf. 2.5.1.2.1). As noted in section 2.2, a set of pronoun reconstructions was adumbrated in the 1970s (Wurm 1975d, Voorhoeve 1975, 1980), but the pronominal evidence was not systematically tabulated and analysed until Malcolm Ross took up the matter (Ross 1995, 2000a, 2005a). Here we will only summarise Ross’s reconstructions.20 Note the pattern whereby the consonant remains constant in the corresponding persons, with the singular/plural contrast marked by vowel variation: *a (singular) vs *i (plural). Table 14 pTNG free pronouns singular plural (i-grade) (u-grade) plural

1st person

2nd person

3rd person

*na *ni *nu *ɲʤa

*ŋga *ŋgi, *ki

*wa, *[j]a *i

Among the cognate sets of free pronouns we also find evidence for reconstructing dual pronouns. Ross (2000a: 77, 158–160) refers to a dual suffix *-li or *-ti and a plural suffix *-n[V], although he does not say whether these could be combined with all the singular pronominal roots. Languages in several widely scattered subgroups have dual pronouns that reflect such a suffix. And among languages that lack a dual/plural contrast there are some whose plural pronouns appear to reflect ancient dual forms. There is support from another quarter for a dual/plural contrast in the free form pronouns. We refer to the verbal suffixes which mark person-and-number of the subject of the verb. Some of the pTNG verbal suffixes (2.7.4.1) appear ultimately to be cognate with the pTNG free form pronouns.

20

We write *wa for Ross’s *ua ‘3SG, on the assumption that pTNG did not allow vowel clusters.

The Trans New Guinea family 



147

Ross also tentatively reconstructs pTNG collective number suffixes *-pi- (dual) and *-m- (plural) which functioned as inclusive when used in the first person. However, the collective suffixes might not be as old as pTNG because reflexes are limited to parts of the highlands of Papua New Guinea. 2.7.4

Verb morphology

2.7.4.1 Suffixes marking person-and-number of independent verbs It is possible to reconstruct a partial paradigm of suffixes marking subject person-and-number of independent verbs for an early stage of TNG, ancestral at least to several disparate subgroups found in northeast New Guinea: (i) Madang, (ii) Finisterre-Huon, and (iii) Kainantu-Goroka. Following Suter (1997) we will refer to the immediate common ancestor of these three groups as Proto Northeast New Guinea (pNENG), without implying that such a stage was necessarily distinct from pTNG. Languages of each of the three subgroups characteristically have several sets of suffixes in independent verbs, each of which (a) mark person-and-number of the subject, (b) generally distinguish singular and plural (and often dual) numbers, and (c) do not distinguish between 2nd and 3rd person suffixes at least in the dual number. Each set is associated with one or more markers of tense, aspect or mood. Some (not necessarily all) tense-aspect-mood (TAM) markers occur as the final or outer suffix on the verb, following the subject suffixes. In some cases the categories of subject and TAM are syncretic, i.  e. are represented by portmanteau suffixes. The phonological interactions between subject and TAM markers, and between suffixes and roots, is one of several factors leading to morphological change and the restructuring of paradigms in TNG languages, complicating the task of reconstructing verb morphology. Table 15 gives reconstructions of verbal suffixes marking subject in the proto-languages of each of the three groups, based on evidence presented in Pawley (2000). Table 15: Reconstructed verbal suffixes marking subject in Proto Madang, Proto FinisterreHuon and Proto Kainantu-Goroka proto Madang proto FH proto KG

1 sg

2 sg

3 sg

1 du

2/3 du

1 pl

2/3 pl

*-in ? *-u

*-an,*-i *-an *-an

*-a,*-an *-a,*-i *-ai,*-i

-*-u(l,t) *-u(l,t) *-ur

*-i(l,t) *-i(l,t) ?

*-un *-un *-un

*-ai,*-i *-e,*-i *-a

Most of the Proto Madang reconstructions are quite well supported. There is a pattern in pMadang whereby 1 sg and 1 pl suffixes differ in the vowel, while keeping constant the consonant, n. The dual pronouns share a consonant, t, while

148 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

showing a vowel contrast between 1 du and 2/3 du . Problems lie in the 3 sg , 2 pl and 3 pl forms. The form *-a is widely reflected as a 3 sg marker. Only two Madang languages, both of the South Adelbert Range subgroup, show -i, but -i is common as a 3 sg marker in certain other TNG groups outside of Madang. Many languages do not distinguish the 2 pl and 3 pl suffixes and there is some evidence for reconstructing both *-ai and *-i for 2/3 pl . However, a fair number do distinguish 2 pl from 3 pl and there is some evidence for a distinct 2 pl form, possibly *-(m)an. The (very tentative) reconstructions for Proto Finisterre-Huon show correspondences with Madang forms in all except 1 sg . Reconstructed Proto Kainantu-Goroka verbal suffixes show probable cognates with the Madang and Finisterre-Huon paradigms in the 2 sg , 3 sg , 1 du and 1 pl forms. Agreements between the three North-East New Guinea subgroups cited above allow partial reconstruction of a pNENG paradigm as in Table 16. In the case of the 1 sg and 2 sg forms, agreements with TNG languages outside of the three NENG groups help to resolve indeterminacies. Table 16: Proto North-east New Guinea verbal suffixes marking subject 1 sg

2 sg

3 sg

1 du

2/3 du

1 pl

2 pl

3 pl

*-Vn

*-an

*-a,*-i

*-u(l,t)

*-i(l,t)

*-un,*-i

*-ai,*-i,*-a

*-ai

What of TNG groups other than Madang, Finisterre-Huon and Kainantu-Goroka? This question awaits further research but for a few subject-marking suffixes there are some promising agreements. For example: Angan: Chimbu-Wahgi

Baruya Kuman Salt-Yui Golin Orokaiva Korafe Suena: G.V Dani

Binanderean: Dani

1 du -olo, 2 du -ilo, 1 pl -ono 1 sg -i, 2 sg -in, 2 du -buri, 1 pl -mun, -umun 1 sg /1 pl -i, 2 sg /2 pl -n, 1 du -bil, 2 du -bil, 3 du -bil 1 sg -bin, 2 sg -n, 1/2/3 du -bil 1 sg -n, 3 sg -i 1 sg -n 1 sg -n, 3 sg -i 1 sg -i-, -y, 2 sg -n, 3 sg /pl -a, 1 pl -u, -o

These resemblances, together with the NENG material, suggest a very tentative reconstruction of a partial paradigm for pTNG: Table 17: pTNG verbal suffixes marking subject 1 sg

2 sg

3 sg

1 du

2/3 du

*-Vn

*-Vn

*-a,*-i

*-u(l,t)

*-i(l,t)

The Trans New Guinea family 



149

Two of the subject-marking suffixes attributed to pMadang show an interesting resemblance to pTNG free form pronouns. pMadang *-in ‘1 sg ’ and *-un ‘1 pl ’ resemble pTNG *ni ‘1 pl ’ (i-grade) and *nu ‘1 pl ’ (u-grade), the formal difference being a metathesis of the consonant and vowel. One might speculate that the pMadang verbal suffixes are ultimately derived from free form pronouns which underwent metathesis after suffixation, with *ni > *-in, and *nu > *-un. In certain contemporary TNG languages we find parallel cases where several of the subject suffixes of one paradigm differ from those of another paradigm in that the order of consonant and vowel are reversed. By extension we may suppose that there were pTNG free form dual pronouns that contained (or consisted of) cognates of the dual subject suffixes but with the order of C and V reversed, i.  e. *(t,l)u ‘1 du ’ and *(t,l)i ‘2/3 du ’. 2.7.4.2 Pronouns marking object Suter (2012) has shown that pTNG had a set of pronouns preposed to the verb marking the object of transitive verbs. Reflexes of these pronouns in most contemporary languages are either proclitics or (more commonly) prefixes. Clitic pronouns in a particular language generally closely resemble its independent pronoun forms. Prefixed forms often show considerable allomorphy, e.  g. the unstressed vowel of the prefix assimilates to the first vowel of the verb root. Suter (2012) is able to reconstruct pTNG object prefixes for four person-andnumber distinctions, with cognate reflexes in such diverse subgroups as Gorokan, Finisterre-Huon, Ok and Dani. The following table gives reflexes of the pTNG verb root *tu ‘hit’ with object prefixes in a sample of daughter languages from the Huon Peninsula (HP), Finisterre-Saruwaged (FS), Ok and Dani groups. Forms in parentheses are not cognate with the reflexes of the pTNG etymon at the head of the column. Table 18: pTNG *tu ‘hit’ with object prefixes and their reflexes (after Suter 2012: 52) Language

Subgroup

Meaning

1 sg

2 sg

3 sg

3 pl

pTNG Ono Nomu Yau Gwahatike Mian G.V. Dani W. Dani

HP HP FS FS Ok Dani Dani

hit shoot shoot hit shoot hit hit hit

*na=tu nato nito not nur nalo nat noot

*ga=tu gato gito got gur kalo hat koot

*wa=tu (yato) (yoto) wot ur walo (f ) wat wat

*ya=tu (egotat) yeito (top) yur yalo (inat) (inoot)

150 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

2.7.4.3 Medial vs final verb morphology Given their wide distribution across TNG groups, it is very likely that the essential structural distinctions between medial and final verbs outlined in section 2.5.1 above were present in pTNG. However, this supposition can only be confirmed by discovering sets of cognate suffixes marking same subject, different subject and relative tense. Little work has been done in this domain. An exception is Suter (1997), who reconstructs *-pa ‘1st person singular different subject’ as a medial verb suffix for an early stage of TNG, ancestral to three Northeast New Guinea groups. 2.8

On the origins and spread of the Trans New Guinea family

2.8.1 Introduction Among all the Papuan language families Trans New Guinea stands out as having a much wider distribution than any other. It also stands out for its extreme internal diversity – it contains many putative subgroups that show few lexical resemblances with one another. The creation of a large language family is not just a linguistic event, to be viewed solely in terms of linguistic systems and change, and of divisions and contacts among such systems. It is a chapter in human history. When an ancestral language gives rise to hundreds of daughter languages over several millennia it is bound to be the result of diverse forces, social, environmental, economic, technological, demographic, etc., that at certain times drove the expansion of particular linguistic communities and at other times divided or diminished them. For example, New Guinea is a very large island, some 2,300 kilometers from east to west, with a continuous mountain chain running along the centre from the neck of the Bird’s Head in the west almost to the eastern tip. And unusually for New Guinea, where Papuan language families are generally confined to small areas, the entire central cordillera is dominated by farming peoples speaking languages of a single family, Trans New Guinea. These peoples occupy not only the few large, broad mountain valleys, but also many narrow, steep-sided valleys. Gardens are planted up to 2,500 metres in some regions and the lower slopes of the inhabited valleys are now largely deforested due to millennia of slash and burn agriculture. What factors made the TNG expansion along the highlands possible? When and where did it begin? How long did it take? Were there permanent populations in parts of the highlands before the TNG dispersal or was the expansion largely into uninhabited lands? What changes in climate and vegetation cover, and what technological innovations may have influenced the timing and directions of the expansion? To have any chance of answering such questions we must seek the testimony of various other historical disciplines, such as archaeology, ethnology, palaeobot-



The Trans New Guinea family 

151

any, geomorphology, climatology and biological anthropology. This section will briefly review evidence from a range of disciplines that bears on the origins and development of the TNG family. 2.8.2

On the chronology and causes of the Trans New Guinea dispersal

A number of pertinent observations can be made regarding the chronology of the TNG dispersal. The New Guinea area has many language families and isolates which on present evidence cannot be shown to be related. Ross (2000a, 2005) counts 23 such families and 13 isolates, but other estimates, e.  g. Foley (2000), Ethnologue (Lewis et al. 2013) or Glottolog 2.1 (Nordhoff et al. 2013), have about twice as many. Regardless of the exact number, this is an order of diversity much greater than that of Europe and arguably greater than is found in the whole of Africa. As Map 2.1 shows, each of the non-TNG families and isolates are all quite localised. There are two main regions in New Guinea dominated by non-TNG languages. The largest occupies a considerable part of northern New Guinea, from the Sepik-Ramu basin west as far as the Bird’s Head. This region harbours at least 15 language families in an area no larger than Britain. A second area of high diversity lies in the southern lowlands of central New Guinea, between the Digul River and the Gulf of Papua, where at least three families and some isolates are located. How did this distribution of language families come about? First, the various Papuan language families of Melanesia probably developed within Melanesia itself. At any rate, none have known relatives outside of Melanesia, apart from those of Halmahera and the Timor area where the Papuan families are probably intrusive from New Guinea. Second, there has been plenty of time for a plethora of language families to develop in Melanesia. Archaeological research has shown that western Melanesia was first settled in the Pleistocene – New Guinea, New Britain and New Ireland more than 40,000 years ago and Bougainville at least 28,000 years ago (Allen and Gosden 1996, Pavlides and Gosden 1994, Specht 2005, Spriggs 1997, Summerhayes et al. 2010). It appears that, of all the indigenous language families of Melanesia, only one is a recent arrival: Austronesian. Archaeological dates for the first appearance of an Austronesian-associated material culture in northwest Melanesia cluster around 3400–3300 BP (Specht 2005). Within a few centuries this culture, known as Lapita, spread from the Bismarck Archipelago across the southwest Pacific as far east as Tonga and Samoa. Data from population genetics (Friedlander 2007) indicate initial settlement of Australia and western Melanesia between 50,000 and 25,000 years ago by one or a few already related populations. There is no sign of further genetic influence from outside this region until the Holocene, when there was a rapid spread of peoples from East Asia to Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia. The East Asian genetic signal is strongest in Polynesia and Micronesia.

152 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

What survives of the tool kits and habitation sites from the pre-20,000 BP period in the New Guinea area suggests that the people were broad spectrum foragers, hunting and gathering a range of animals and plants. There were no sedentary settlements, only camps and seasonal bases. The first settlers relied heavily on the rich food resources to be found on the seashore (Allen 2000) but people soon pressed inland, exploring the uplands. During the late Pleistocene, when temperatures were about 4 degrees cooler than today, the valleys in the central highlands of New Guinea contained extensive grasslands which were home to a considerable mega fauna. As early as 40,000 BP people were seasonal visitors to parts of the highlands, coming to hunt game and harvest mountain pandanus nuts (Evans and Mountain 2005, Summerhayes et al. 2010). Third, TNG is essentially a family of the New Guinea highlands whereas the non-TNG families are found in the lowlands. This distributional pattern suggests that most pockets of Papuan languages in New Guinea that do not belong to the TNG family belong to long-established lowlands families that managed to resist the TNG expansion. If TNG languages were unable to replace non-TNG families in much of the lowlands of New Guinea, what enabled them to completely dominate the highlands? Answers to this question are suggested by evidence from palaeobotany and archaeology. During the Pleistocene the climate in the highlands was several degrees colder than now and human occupation was probably limited to seasonal foraging. After about 14,000 BP the climate warmed by several degrees and the highland grasslands were replaced by dense forests, dominated by Nothofagus, making the region harder to penetrate and unfriendly to foragers. To render the highlands habitable at this time it would have been necessary to clear or burn areas of forest. Around 10,000 years ago highlands landscapes began to be modified by humans, with a marked increase from about 5,000 years ago (Hope and Haberle 2005). There is strong evidence for some form of shifting agriculture as early as 10,000 BP in fertile swamplands at Kuk, in the Upper Wahgi Valley (Denham et al. 2003, Denham 2005, Golson 1991, Golson et al. in press). This earliest phase of the Kuk swamp sequence indicates shifting cultivation on the wetland edge, with pits, stakeholes, postholes, runnels, consistent with planting and tethering. At that time the Kuk site seems to have presented a more favourable environment for habitation than other Highland valleys. Denham et al. (2003: 190) write that “[u]nlike other valleys in the uplands, the grasslands within the Kuk swamp catchment did not succumb to the forest advance at the onset of the Holocene. Instead, the grasslands and fern flora increased at the expense of forest between 10,200 and 7,400 [years ago] under the influence of periodic fire episodes and probably anthropogenic clearance.” The main cultivated plants are thought to have been Colocasia taro and bananas. Starch grains of Colocasia esculenta and Musa bananas are present as phaetoliths. Colocasia is a lowlands plant but Denham argues that it had spread naturally into the highlands by 10,000 BP.



The Trans New Guinea family 

153

In phase 2 at Kuk, dated to 6900–6400, there was mounding and draining of wetland soils, consistent with intensive cultivation, implying a high dependence on food production relative to foraging. A higher incidence of taro and bananas remains are present, and in a grassland environment it is unlikely that bananas would have grown wild in such frequency. In phase 3, dated to 4350–3980 BP, there are sequential ditch networks linking major drainage channels. The shift from a foraging to a primarily agricultural economy may have taken place over many millennia at Kuk. As to how fast and far agriculture spread in New Guinea in the period 10,000 to 3000 BP, the archaeological evidence at present is skimpy. There are several sites in the Upper Wahgi Valley with welldated drainage systems older than 3000 BP (Denham 2002). These remain the only New Guinea sites of this kind with secure dates for agriculture although there is another early site at Yeni swamp in the lower Jimi Valley with signs of drainage structures at 5000 BP (Gorecki and Gillieson 1989). Pollen analysis shows that reduction in forests due to burning is first evident in the Tari Basin in the southern Highlands of Papua New Guinea , where it is first evident only at 1,700 BP (Hope and Haberle 2005). However, Golson (1991: 487) observes that pollen cores from the Kelala swamp in the Baliem Valley record an almost “continuous vegetation history from beyond 7000 [BP] to the present, reflecting progressive human impact by way of agriculture through the increasing representation of secondary forest taxa and associated changes… This new evidence from the Baliem is the strongest independent support for the claims of 9000 year old agriculture based on Kuk.” 2.8.3

Was the TNG expansion powered by agriculture?

It is unlikely that the TNG family would have achieved its present wide distribution unless its speakers possessed cultural advantages that enabled them to build up populations that could (a) expand fairly rapidly along the central cordillera of New Guinea, and (b) maintain continuous habitation of the major highlands valleys, through periods of change in climate, vegetation and fauna. Was the initial spread of TNG languages associated with the development of plant domestication? At present the connection between the advent of agriculture and the dispersal of TNG is no more than circumstantial. We lack a mass of linguistic evidence that directly points to knowledge of farming by speakers of pTNG or early stages of TNG. At this stage a term for ‘taro’ (something like *ma) is about the only relevant lexical reconstruction that can be tentatively attributed to early TNG because of its wide distribution. But as the term *ma ‘taro’ stands alone, instead of being embedded in a full terminology for parts of the plant and practices associated with its cultivation, diffusion cannot be ruled out. We know of no other widely distributed cognate sets for names of plants and their parts and for implements and processes associated with their cultivation. There are some names for plants and other enti-

154 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

ties that have spread recently (Hays 2005) but these do not count in the search for early TNG words. The very high degree of lexical diversity within TNG suggests a date for the dissolution of pTNG that is consistent with the earliest dates for agriculture in the highlands, referred to in 8.2. The breakup of the family was early enough for it to be far more diverse, lexically, than either Indo-European or Austronesian, two families whose initial breakup can be dated with some confidence as occurring more than 5,000 years ago. Pairs of languages drawn from the most lexically diverse branches of Nuclear Indo-European (i.  e. excluding Hittite and Tocharian) share between 10 and 20 percent of cognates in a 200 item basic vocabulary list (Dyen et al. 1992). The figures across high-order subgroups of Austronesian are similar (Dyen 1965, cf. Blust 2000). By contrast, for pairs of languages drawn from different core TNG subgroups (excluding subgroups that are close neighbours) the percentage of putative cognates is consistently below five. This measure would place the breakup of pTNG as occurring as early as 10,000 BP. While one might speculate that the rate of lexical replacement has tended to be much higher in TNG languages than in Indo-European or Austronesian, it seems unlikely that that would have been the case in every one of the core subgroups. Most of the core subgroups of TNG are located in high valleys (1500m and above) along the cordillera that runs for more than 2000 kilometers along the centre of New Guinea. A minority are located in lowlands and mountain ranges situated to the north and south of the central cordillera. Such a distribution of subgroups indicates that parts of the central highlands were settled very early by TNG speakers. Can we say, on linguistic grounds alone, which parts were settled earliest? Measured in terms of the density of high-order subgroups, the region of greatest diversity is that area of Papua New Guinea between the Strickland River in the west and the Eastern Highlands province in the east, together with Madang Province and the Finisterre Ranges and Huon Peninsula Province to the north. It is safe to say that this was a very early area of TNG expansion. Whether it was the primary dispersal centre is another matter. It is true that the highlands in West Papua and the far west of Papua New Guinea contain fewer high-order subgroups. That is not to say, however, that TNG languages have not been present in this region for as long, or almost as long as they have been in the eastern highlands. Without a better understanding of the high-order subgrouping than exists for the family at present we cannot on linguistic grounds alone confidently identify its primary dispersal centre. Where the shift from an economy based primarily on foraging to one based primarily on intensive agriculture did occur it must have brought about changes in patterns of settlement and social organisation as well as material culture. Agriculturalists are sedentary, tied to the land they have cleared, tilled, planted and fallowed. There is potential for faster population growth, larger social units and



The Trans New Guinea family 

155

social hierarchy and for the making of ‘heavy’ artefacts, such as substantial houses, elaborate carvings and large containers. Ethnographic evidence suggests that the shift to intensive agriculture occurred faster in certain regions than others, the broad, fertile highland valley floors being among the first. At this stage it is not clear how far comparative work will enable lexical reconstructions for early stages of TNG to extend into the domain of material culture, including the cultivation of plants. As yet no historical linguist has undertaken a thorough, New Guinea-wide search for cognates in this domain; however, extensive data sets have been assembled by an anthropologist (Hays 2005). The job is made harder by major gaps in the descriptive sources. It is also slowed by the lack of manpower – only a handful of linguists are active in TNG historical studies. The possible directions of spread of TNG languages have been constrained by a number of geographic factors, including sea level shifts. Since the height of the last ice age, around 21,000 years ago, the coastlines of New Guinea, particularly on the southern side, have changed a good deal. Chappell (2005) gives a recent assessment of the major changes. After 21,000 BP the Sahul-Arafura shelf which linked Australia and New Guinea was gradually flooded by rising seas, with the last land connections (through Torres Straits) inundated shortly before 8,000 BP. By 6,000 BP rapid changes to the New Guinea coastline ceased, with changes since then largely confined to the progradation of coastal plains and deltas. Chappell refers to significant gradual changes in two regions over the last six millennia. During the mid Holocene much of what is now the Sepik-Ramu coastal plain was below sea level. A shallow sea extended inland, at its maximum possibly as far as Ambunti (Swadling 1997) and almost certainly west of the confluence of the Yuat and Sepik. According to Chappell the inland sea reached its maximum extent about 5500–6500 BP, then contracted gradually under deposits of alluvial soils from the Sepik and Ramu river systems. This inland sea would have separated the central highlands from higher-lying areas of northeast New Guinea in what are now the Sepik and Sandaun Provinces. It is noteworthy that TNG languages are largely absent from the Sepik-Ramu coastal plain and contiguous higher-lying areas. The other region showing significant coastline changes during the last few millennia is the Fly-Digul Platform in southern New Guinea. The low-lying Digul River region, which forms the western half of this platform, was invaded by the sea and inundated at about 6,000 BP, as was the delta and narrow floodplain of the Fly River. It appears that most of the swampy Digul lowlands has been established over the past few millennia as a result of slow isostatic emergence. Two groups of TNG languages are now spoken in the Digul lowlands, Asmat-Kamoro and Awyu-Dumut (Voorhoeve 2001, 2005). These groups, and especially Asmat, may have expanded within the past three millennia into areas of swampy land that were previously below sea level.

156 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

2.8.4 Borrowing Austronesian loanwords in TNG languages are a possible indicator of the age of some TNG subgroups. Austronesian speakers first moved into northwest Melanesia about 3500–3300 BP. It follows that if Austronesian loanwords were already present in a certain TNG interstage (an intermediate proto language) that the breakup of that interstage must postdate contact with Austronesian speakers. Most of the Austronesian languages now present on the north coast of the New Guinea mainland and offshore islands are closely related and probably arrived there only within the past 1,500–2,000 years (Ross 1988). However, there is some evidence (Ross 1988: 21) of lexical borrowing from Austronesian sources by TNG languages of the north coast of New Guinea that predates these more recent arrivals. What dates the loans as early is that they retain original Oceanic root final consonants, whereas these consonants have been lost in all contemporary Oceanic languages of the north coast of New Guinea. Loans showing such final consonant retentions appear to be restricted to certain branches of the Madang subgroup of TNG. McElhanon and Voorhoeve (1970) and Lynch (1982) pointed to possible early TNG borrowings from Austronesian languages, including items of basic vocabulary that are more or less widespread among TNG languages. On closer study the case for early Austronesian borrowings in TNG basic vocabulary appears to be weak, as Chowning (1987) has argued with some force. There are, however, a few clear cases of widespread loans in cultural vocabulary, e.  g. words for ‘pig’ ultimately derived from POc *boRok ‘pig’ are found in many Papuan languages. References Adams, Karen, Linda Lauck, Jelle Miedema, F. Welling, Wim A.L. Stokhof, Don A.L. Flassy, Hiroko Oguri, Kenneth Collier, Kenneth Gregerson, Thomas R. Phinnemore, David Scorza, John Davies, Bernard Comrie, and Stan Abbott 1985 Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 22. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Anceaux, Johannes Cornelis 1958 Languages of the Bomberai Peninsula: Outline of a linguistic map. NieuwGuinea Studiën 2: 109–121. Anfert’ev, A.N. (ed.) 1951 Stat’i i materialy po antropologii i ètnografii narodov Okeanii (Sobranie sočinenij v šesti tomax 3: 1). Moscow: Nauka. Anonymous 1913 Vocabularies of native languages spoken in East-Central Division. Papua Annual Report 1912–1913: 172–172. Anonymous 1914a Vocabularies of languages spoken by the people of the Gwoiru mountains, and the Kanamara people on the main range and from Paiwa, Goodenough Bay, N. E. D. Papua Annual Report 1913–1914: 184–184.



The Trans New Guinea family 

157

Anonymous 1914b Vocabularies of native languages spoken in East-Central Division. Papua Annual Report 1913–1915: 191–194. Anonymous 1914c Vocabulary of the language spoken by the Kwateva tribe, between the Gwoira range and Lakwa, Collingwood Bay, North-Eastern Division. Papua Annual Report 1913–1914: 185–187. Anonymous 1902 Vocabulary of Iaibu. Annual Report of British New Guinea 1900–1901: 154– 157. Arka, I Wayan 2012 Projecting morphology and agreement in Marori, an isolate of southern New Guinea. In: Evans and Klamer (eds.), 150–173. Årsjö, Sören and Britten Årsjö 2005 Phonology and orthography essentials: Konai (Kalai) language (Western Province Papua New Guinea). In: Parker (ed.), 211–260. Aufenanger, Heinrich 1952 Vokabular und Grammatik der Gende-Sprache in Neuguinea. Posieux: Anthropos Institut. Aufenanger, Heinrich 1953 Vokabular und Grammatik der Nondugl-sprache in Zentral-Neuguinea. Posieux: Anthropos Institut. Auri, Piter, Peter R. Dommel and Markus Pokoko 1991 Kaureki a Opoksel (Percakapan-percakapan Dalam Bahasa Kaure: Kaure Conversations). Jayapura: University of Cenderawasih and Summer Institute of Linguistics. Austing, John. n.d. Ömie dictionary. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Austing, John F. and Randolph Upia 1975 Highlights of Ömie morphology. In: Dutton (ed.), 513–598. Baak, Connie, Mary Bakker and Dick van der Meij (eds.) 1995 Tales from a Concave World. Liber Amoricum Bert Voorhoeve. Department of Languages and Cultures of South-East Asia and Oceania, Leiden University. Baird, Louise 2008 A Grammar of Klon: a Non-Austronesian Language of Alor, Indonesia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Barclay, Peter 2008 A Grammar of Western Dani. München: Lincom. Barker, Fay and Janet Lee 1985 Waskia Diksenari. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Bee, Darlene 1965 Usarufa: A descriptive grammar. PhD thesis: Indiana University. Bee, Darlene 1973 Usarufa: A descriptive grammar. In: McKaughan (ed.), 225–323. Bee, Darlene 2008 Binumarien grammar essentials for translation. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Berghäll, Liisa 2010 Mauwake reference grammar. PhD thesis: University of Helsinki.

158 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Bergmann, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm 1953 Grammar of the Kuman Language. Ega Chimbu: Lutheran Mission. Berry, Keith and Christine Berry 1987 A survey of the South Bird’s Head Stock. Workpapers in Indonesian Languages and Cultures 4: 81–117. Berthold, Falko 2008 A sketch grammar of Melpa. MA thesis: Universität Leipzig. Bidri, Midim, Ivy Lindsay and Grahame Martin 1981 Godte gi amkari titrum ine [Suki New Testament]. Port Moresby: Bible Society of Papua New Guinea. Blevins, Juliette and Andrew Pawley 2010 Typological implications of Kalam predictable vowels. Phonology 27(1):1– 44. Blowers, Bruce L. and Ruth Blowers 1970 Kaugel verb morphology. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 12, 37–60, Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Blust, Robert 2000 Why lexicostatistics doesn't work: the ‘universal constant’ hypothesis and the Austronesian languages. In: Colin Renfrew, April McMahon and Robert L. Trask (eds.), Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, 311–331. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Boelaars, Jan H. M. C. 1950 The Linguistic Position of South-Western New Guinea. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Boush, Al 1975 Tifal grammar essentials. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Boxwell, Maurice 1967 Weri pronoun system. Linguistics 29: 34–43. Boxwell, Maurice 1990 Co-referentiality through nominal elements in Weri. PhD thesis: Macquarie University. Bradshaw, Robert L. 2007 Fuyuge Grammar Sketch. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG Academic Publications. Bradshaw, Robert L. 2012 Doromu-Koki Grammar Sketch. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG Academic Publications. Bromley, Myron H. 1966–1967 The linguistic relationships of Grand Valley Dani: A lexicostatistical classification. Oceania 37: 286–305. Bromley, Myron H. 1981 A Grammar of Lower Grand Valley Dani. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Brongersma, Leo Daniël and G. F. Venema 1960 Het Witte Hart van Nieuw-Guinea: Met de Nederlandse Expeditie naar het Sterrengebergte [The White Heart of New Guinea: With the Dutch Expedition to the Star Mountains]. Amsterdam: Scheltens and Giltay. Brown, Herbert A. 1972 The Elema languages: A comparative study of the Toaripi, Orokolo and their related dialects. PhD thesis: University of London.



The Trans New Guinea family 

159

Brown, Herbert A. 1973 The Eleman Language Family. In: Franklin (ed.), 281–376. Brown, Janessa L. 2009 A brief sketch of Urama grammar with special consideration of particles marking agency, aspect and modality. MA thesis: University of Calgary. Brumbaugh, Robert Conrad 1980 A secret cult in the West Sepik Highlands. PhD thesis: State University of New York at Stony Brook. Buchanan, W. E. 1899 Dialect used by the Kokila, Owalla, Seramino, and Demori natives. Annual Report of British New Guinea 1897–1898: 130–130. Bugenhagen, Robert D. 1994 Language change on Umboi island. In: Tom Dutton and Darrell T. Tryon (eds.), Language Contact and Change in the Austronesian World, 43–108. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Bulmer, Ralph N.H. 1967 Why is the cassowary not a bird? A problem of zoological taxonomy among the Karam of the New Guinea highlands. Man 2(1): 5–25. Bulmer, Ralph N.H. 1968 Kalam colour categories. Kivung 1(3): 120–133. Bulmer, Ralph N.H. 1974 Folk biology in the New Guinea highlands. Social Science Information 13(4/5): 9–28. Bulmer, Ralph N.H. and J.I. Menzies 1972–1973 Kalam classification of marsupials and rodents. Journal of the Polynesian Society 81(4): 472–499, 82(1):86–107. Bulmer, Ralph N.H. and Michael Tyler 1968 Karam classification of frogs. Journal of the Polynesian Society 77(4): 621– 639. Bulmer, Ralph N.H., J.I. Menzies and F. Parker 1975 Kalam classification of reptiles and fish. Journal of the Polynesian Society 84(3): 267–308. Bunn, Gordon 1965 Golin Dictionary. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Bunn, Gordon 1974 Golin Grammar. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Burung, Willem 2007 The Phonology of Wano. Dallas: SIL International. Campagnolo, Henri 1973 La langue des Fataluku de Lórehe (Timor Portugais). PhD thesis: Université René Descartes, Paris. Campagnolo, Henri 1979 Fataluku I: Relations et Choix: Introduction Méthodologique à la Description d’une langue "non-Austronésienne" de Timor Oriental. Paris: SELAF. Campbell, Lyle and William J. Poser 2008 Language Classification: History and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

160 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Capell, Arthur 1948–1949  Distribution of languages in the Central Highlands, New Guinea. Oceania 19: 104–129, 234–253, 349–365. Capell, Arthur 1951–1952  Languages of Bogia District, New Guinea. Oceania 22: 130–147, 178– 207, 317–317. Capell, Arthur 1962 Linguistic Survey of the South-Western Pacific. (New and revised edition.) Noumea: South Pacific Commission. Capell, Arthur 1969 A Survey of New Guinea Languages. Sydney: University of Sydney. Capell, Arthur 1976 Austronesian and Papuan "mixed" languages: General remarks. In: Stephen A. Wurm (ed.), New Guinea Area Languages and Language Study. Vol 2. Austronesian Languages, 527–579. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Capell, Arthur, A. Healey and D. Wilson (eds.) 1969 Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 9. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Carlson, Terry 1991 Tainae grammar essentials. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Carr, Philip J. 1991 Foyafoya (Bibisa, W.P. at Kamusi), Hoyahoya (Matakaia, W.P. at Gagoro), Hoyahoya/Hoiahoia (Ukusi-Koperami, W.P. two young men visiting Torobina). Manuscript. Carrington, Lois 1996 A Linguistic Bibliography of the New Guinea Area. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Carter, John, Katie Carter, John Grummitt, Bonnie MacKenzie and Janell Masters 2012 A Sociolinguistic Survey of the Mur Village Vernaculars. Dallas: SIL International. Chalmers, James 1897 Vocabularies of the Bugilai and Tagota dialects, British New Guinea. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 27: 139–143. Chance, Sydney H. 1926 Vocabulary of Ipikoi. British New Guinea Annual Report 1925–1926: 91–91. Chappell, John 2005 Geographic changes in the Papuan past. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 525–540. Chinnery, E. W. P. and W. N. Beaver 1915 Language groups: Mambare and Kumusi Divisions, Papua. Papua Annual Report 1914–1915: 158–187. Christensen, Steve 1995 Yonggom grammar essentials. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Chowning, Ann 1987 The supposed Austronesian content of the Trans-New Guinea Phylum. In: Laycock and Winter (eds.), 119–125. Claassen, Oren R. and Kenneth A. McElhanon 1970 Languages of the Finisterre Range. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 11, 45–78. Caberra: Pacific Linguistics



The Trans New Guinea family 

161

Clifton, John M. 1995 A grammar sketch of the Kaki Ae language. In: Albert J. Bickfield (ed.), Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session, 33–80. Grand Forks, North Dakota: SIL Colburn, Michael A. 1984 The functions and meanings of the Erima deictic articles. In: Ross, M., Siegel, J., Blust, R., Colburn, M. and Seiler, W. (eds.), Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 23, 209–272. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Collier, Kenneth J. and Kenneth J. Gregerson 1985 Tabla verb morphology. In: Adams et al. 155–172. Comrie, Bernard A. 1986 Haruai verb structure and language classification in the Upper Yuat. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 17: 140–160. Comrie, Bernard A. 1989 Genetic classification, contact, and variation. In: T.J. Walsh (ed.), Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Linguistic Variation and Language Change (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1988), 81–93. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Connolly, Bob and Robin Anderson 1987 First Contact. Penguin Books. Conrad, Robert J. and Ronald K. Lewis 1988 Some language and sociolinguistic relationships in the Upper Sepik region of Papua New Guinea. In: Smith et al. 243–273. Cook, Edwin A. 1966 Narak: Language or dialect? Journal of the Polynesian Society 75: 437–444. Cott, Sara Van and Juliann Spencer 2010 A sociolinguistic survey of Setaman [stm]. Dallas: SIL International. Cowan, H. K. J. 1953 Voorlopige Resultaten van een Ambtelijk Taalonderzoek in Nieuw-Guinea [Tentative Results of a Governmental Linguistic Study in New Guinea].’S-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Cowan, H. K. J. 1965a Grammar of the Sentani Language with Specimen Texts and Vocabulary. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Cowan, H. K. J. 1965b The Oirata language. Lingua 14: 360–370. Cridland, E. 1924 Vocabulary of Mahigi. British New Guinea Annual Report 1923–1924: 58–58. Cruse, D.A. 1986 Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Damal people and CMA 1988 Haik-A Ongam Kal: Perjanjian Baru Dalam Bahasa Damal [Haik-A Ongam Kal: The New Testament in Damal]. Jakarta: Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia. Dangepnana, John, Donald R. Davis and Susan R. Quigley 2012 Wantoat Trilingual Dictionary – Wantoat to Tok Pisin and Wantoat to English. MS.

162 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Daniels, Don 2010 A preliminary phonological history of the Sogeram languages of Papua New Guinea. Oceanic Linguistics 49(1): 163–193. Daniels, Don 2012 Gants lexicon. Computer file. Department of Linguistics, University of California at Santa Barbara. Daniels, Don 2013a Gants grammar sketch. Computer file. Department of Linguistics, University of California at Santa Barbara. Daniels Don 2013b Manat grammar sketch. Computer file. Department of Linguistics, University of California at Santa Barbara. Daniels, Don 2013c Aisi grammar sketch. Computer file. Department of Linguistics, University of California at Santa Barbara Daniels, Don 2015 A reconstruction of Proto-Sogeram phonology, lexicon and morphosyntax. PhD thesis: University of California at Santa Barbara. Daniels, Don 2016 Magɨ: an undocumented language of Papua New Guinea. Oceanic Linguistics 55(1): 199–224. Davidoff, Jules, Ian Davies and Debi Roberson 1999 Colour categories in a stone-age tribe. Nature vol. 398, 18 March: 203–204. Davies, John 1981 Kobon. Amsterdam: North-Holland, Davies, John 1985 Kobon-English, English-Kobon dictionary. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Davies, John 1987 Kobon syntax. PhD thesis: University of Cambridge. Davies, John and Bernard Comrie 1985 A linguistic survey of the Upper Yuat. In: Adams et al., 275–312. Davis, Donald R. 1964a Wantoat verb stem classes and affixation. In: Elson (ed.), 131–180. Davis, Donald R. 1964b Wantoat clauses. MA thesis: Indiana University. Davis, Donald R. 1994 Wantoat organised phonology Data. MS. http://www.sil.org/pacific/png/ abstract.asp?id=928474542364 de Bruijn, J. V. 1941 Verslag van een Tocht naar Beura, het Stroomgebied van de Beurong en Lelop, het Stroomgebiet van de Ielorong in Centraal Nieuw Guinea door den Controleur der Wisselmeren van 9 Juni 1941 tot 7 Augustus 1941 [Report of a Survey Trip to Beura, the Beurong and Lelop Watersheds, the Ielorong Watershed in Central New Guinea by the Wissel Lakes Administrator the 9th of June 1941 to the 7th of August 1941]. Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Koloniën: Kantoor Bevolkingszaken Nieuw-Guinea te Hollandia: Rapportenarchief, 1950–1962, nummer toegang 2.10.25, inventarisnummer 256.



The Trans New Guinea family 

163

Deibler, Ellis W. 1973 Gahuku verb structure. PhD thesis: University of Michigan. Deibler, Ellis W. 1976 A Gahuku-Yaweyuha comparative grammar. MS. Deibler, Ellis W. 2008 Dictionaries of Alekano - English and English - Alekano Compiled by Wanimapi. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Dempwolff, Otto 1905 Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Sprachen von Deutsch-Neuguinea. Mittheilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen 8(1): 182–254. Denham, Tim 2002 Archaeological evidence for mid-Holocene agriculture in interior New Guinea: a critical review. Archaeology in Oceania 38(3): 159–176. Denham, Tim 2005 Disjuncture or emergence? Implications of the shift from curvilinear to rectilinear cultivation practices in the Wahgi Valley, Western Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 329–361. Denham, Tim P., Simon G. Haberle, C. Lentfer, T. Fullagar, J. Field, M. Therin, N. Porch and B. Winsborough 2003 Origins of agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the Highlands of New Guinea. Science 201: 189–193. de Josselin de Jong, Jan Petrus Benjamin 1937 Studies in Indonesian Culture I: Oirata, a Timorese Settlement on Kisar. Amsterdam: Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers-Maatschappij. de Vries, Lourens 1993 Forms and Functions in Kombai, an Awyu Language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. de Vries, Lourens 1996 Notes on the morphology of the Inanwatan language. In: Ger P. Reesink (ed.), Studies in Irian Languages Part I. 97–127. Jakarta: Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya. de Vries, Lourens 1998 Body part tally counting and Bible translation in Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya. The Bible Translator (Practical Papers) 49(4): 409–415. de Vries, Lourens 2002 An Introduction to the Inanwatan language of Irian Jaya. In: Alexander K. Adelaar and Robert Blust (eds.), Between Worlds: Linguistic Papers in Memory of David John Prentice, 77–94. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. de Vries, Lourens 2004 A short grammar of Inanwatan: an endangered language of the Bird’s head of Papua, Indonesia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. de Vries, Lourens 2005 Towards a typology of tail-head linkage in Papuan languages. Studies in Language 29(2): 363–384. de Vries, Lourens 2012 Speaking of clans: Language in Awyu-Ndumut communities of Indonesian West Papua. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 214: 5–26.

164 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

de Vries, Lourens and Robinia de Vries-Wiersma 1992 The Morphology of Wambon of the Irian Jaya Upper-Digul Area. Leiden: The KITLV Press. de Vries, Lourens and Gerrit J. van Enk 1997 The Korowai of Irian Jaya: Their Language and its Cultural Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press. de Vries, Lourens, Ruth Wester and Wilco van den Heuvel 2012 The Greater Awyu language family of West Papua. In: Hammarström and van den Heuvel (eds.), 269–312. Doble, Marion L. 1960 Kapauku-Malayan-English Dictionary. The Hague: Nijhoff. Doble, Marion L. 1962 Essays on Kapauku grammar. Neu Guinea Studiёn 6: 152–155, 11–218, 279– 298. Doble, Marion L. 1987 A description of some features of Kapauku language structure. Oceanic Linguistics 26(1–2): 55–113. Dommel, Peter R. & Gudrun E. Dommel 1991 Kaure phonology. Workpapers in Indonesian Languages and Cultures 9: 1–68. Donohue, Mark 1997a Tone systems of New Guinea. Linguistic Typology 1: 347–386. Donohue, Mark 1997b Inverse in Tanglapui. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 27: 101–118. Drabbe, Petrus 1949a Aantekeningen over twee talen in het centraal gebergte van Nederlands NieuwGuinea [Notes on two languages in the Central Highlands of Dutch New Guinea]. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië 105: 423–444. Drabbe, Petrus 1949b Bijzonderheden uit de Talen van Frederik-Hendrik-Eiland: Kimaghama, Ndom en Riantana [Particularities from the languages of Frederik-Hendrik Island: Kimaghama, Ndom and Riantana]. Bijdragen tot Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 105: 1–24. Drabbe, Petrus 1950a Twee dialecten van de Awju-taal [Two dialects of the Awyu language]. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 106: 92–147. Drabbe, Petrus 1950b Talen en dialecten van Zuid-West Nieuw-Guinea [Languages and dialects of Southwest New Guinea]. Anthropos 45: 545–574. Drabbe, Petrus Spraakkunst van het Ekagi: Wisselmeren Ned. N. Guinea [A Grammar of 1952 Ekagi: Wissel Lakes, Dutch New Guinea]. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Drabbe, Petrus Spraakkunst van de Kamoro-Taal [A Grammar of the Kamoro language]. 1953 ’S-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Drabbe, Petrus Comparative Vocabulary 100 words in 24 languages. Posieux/Fribourg: 1954a Instituut Anthropos.



The Trans New Guinea family 

165

Drabbe, Petrus Talen en dialecten van zuid-west Nieuw-Guinea [Languages and Dialects of 1954b Southwest New Guinea]. Posieux/Fribourg: Instituut Anthropos. Drabbe, Petrus 1955 Spraakkunst van het Marind: Zuidkust Nederlands Nieuw-Guinea [A Grammar of Marind: South Coast of New Guinea]. Wien-Mödling: Drukkerij van het Missiehuis St. Gabriël. Drabbe, Petrus Spraakkunst van het Aghu-Dialect van de Awju-Taal [A Grammar of the Aghu 1957 Dialect of the Awyu language]. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Drabbe, Petrus Dictionary of the Asmat Language. Syracuse, Indiana: Our Lady of the Lake 1959a Press. Drabbe, Petrus 1959b Grammar of the Asmat Language. Syracuse, Indiana: Our Lady of the Lake Press. Drabbe, Petrus 1959c Kaeti en Wambon: twee Awju-dialecten [Kaeti and Wambon: Two Awyu Dialects]. ’S-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Drabbe, Petrus 1959d Spraakkunst der Moni-Taal [A Grammar of the Moni Language]. Hollandia: P. Drabbe. Drabbe, Petrus 1963a Drie Asmat-Dialecten [Three Asmat Dialects]. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Drabbe, Petrus 1963b Woordenlijst van Kawenak, Keenok, Keenakap, Kaünak en Kaweinag [Wordlist of Kawenak, Keenok, Keenakap, Kaünak and Kaweinag]. In: Drabbe 1963a, 212–233. Draper, Norm and Sheila Draper 2002 Dictionary of Kyaka Enga, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Dubert, Raymond and Marjorie Dubert 1978 Biangai lower levels of grammar. MS. Dutton, Tom 1969 The Peopling of Central Papua: Some Preliminary Observations. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Dutton, Tom 1970 Notes on the languages of the Rigo Area of the Central District of Papua. In: Wurm and Layock (eds.), 879–983. Dutton, Tom 1971 Languages of South-East Papua. In: Dutton et al. (eds.), 1–46. Dutton, Tom 1975a A Koita grammar sketch and vocabulary. In: Dutton (ed.), 281–412. Dutton, Tom 1975b South-Eastern Trans-New Guinea Phylum languages. In: Wurm (ed.), 613– 664. Dutton, Tom (ed.) 1975c Studies in Languages of Central and South-east Papua. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

166 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Dutton, Tom 1979 Simplified Koriki: A second trade language used by the Motu in the Gulf of Papua. Kivung 12(1): 3–73. Dutton, Tom 1982 Borrowing in Austronesian and non-Austronesian languages of coastal southeast mainland Papua New Guinea. In: Amran Halim, Lois Carrington and Stephen A. Wurm (eds.), Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol 1: Currents in Oceanic, 109–177. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Dutton, Tom 1996 Koiari. München: Lincom. Dutton, Tom 1999 From Pots to people: Fine-tuning the prehistory of Mailu Island and neighbouring coast, South-East Papua New Guinea. In: Roger M. Blench and Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and Language, III. 90–108. London and New York: Routledge. Dutton, Tom 2003 A Dictionary of Koiari, Papua New Guinea: with Grammar Notes. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Dutton, Tom 2010 Reconstructing Proto Koiarian: The History of a Papuan Language Family. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Dutton, Tom, Clemens L. Voorhoeve, and Stephen A. Wurm (eds.) 1971 Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 14. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Dwyer, Peter D., Monica Minnegal and Vance Woodyard 1993 Konai, Febi and Kubo: The northwest corner of the Bosavi language family. Canberra Anthropology 16(1): 1–14. Dyen, Isidore 1965 A Lexicostatistical Classification of the Austronesian Languages. International Journal of American Linguistics Memoir 19. Baltimore: Waverly Press. Dyen, Isidore, Joseph B. Kruskal and Paul Black 1992 An Indo-European Classification: A Lexicostatistical Experiment. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Earl, George Windsor 1853 The Native Races of the Indian Archipelago: The Papuans. London: Hippolyte Bailliere. Edwards-Fumey, Deborah 2006 The verb subject prefix in Kuni. MA thesis: Universität Bern. Egidi, Vincenzo M. 1907 La tribù di Tauata. Anthropos II: 675–681, 1009–1021. England, A.C. 1902 Vocabulary of Iaibu. Annual Report of British New Guinea 1900–1901. 154– 157. Etherington, Paul Anthony 2002 Nggem morphology and syntax. MA thesis: Northern Territory University, Darwin.



The Trans New Guinea family 

167

Evans, Benjamin and Mary-Jane Mountain 2005 Pasin bilong tumbuna: archaeological evidence for early human activity in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 363–386. Evans, Bethwyn (ed.) 2009 Discovering History through Language: Papers in Honour of Malcolm Ross. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Evans, Nicholas, Jutta Besold, Hywel Stoakes and Alan Lee 2005 Materials on Golin: Grammar, Texts and Dictionary. Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, University of Melbourne. Evans, Nicholas and Marian Klamer (eds.) 2012 Melanesian Languages on the Edge of Asia: Challenges for the 21st Century. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Ewande, Rosemary, Clement Java and Winnyfaith Nai 2004 Godon Vuak Ma Ijin [Namiai New Testament]. 1st edn. Orlando, FL: Wycliffe Inc. Fabian, Grace, Edmund Fabian and Bruce Waters 1998 Morphology, Syntax and Cohesion in Nabak, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Fahner, Christiaan 1979 The morphology of Yali and Dani: A descriptive and comparative analysis. PhD thesis: Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. Farr, Cynthia J. M. 1999 The Interface between Syntax and Discourse in Korafe, a Papuan Language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Farr, Cynthia J. M., Bomi Terrence Furoke and James Buyers Farr n. d. Tafota Baruga grammar notes. MS. Farr, James and Cynthia J.M. Farr 2008 The Korafe-Yegha Dictionary, Oro Province, Papua New Guinea. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Faust, Vera 2006 Oirata: A language of Kisar. MA thesis: Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. Fedden, Sebastian 2011 A Grammar of Mian. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Flassy, Don A.L. 2002 Inflections are derivations in mBahaam Maaq. In: Don A.L. Flassy and Otto I.M.S. Nekitel (eds.), Proceedings of an International Conference on New Guinea Languages and Linguistics, 298–327. 2nd edn. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Flassy, Don A.L., Constrantinopel Ruhukael and Frans Rumbrawer 1983/1984  Struktur Mbahaam Maaq / Bahasa Bahaam: Morfologi dan Sintaksis [The Structure of Mbahaam Maaq / The Bahaam Lanaguage: Morphology and Syntax]. Jakarta: Departmen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Flassy, Don A. L. and Lisidius Animung 1992 Struktur Bahasa Iha [The Structure of the Iha Language]. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Flierl, Wilhelm and Hermann Strauss (eds.) 1977 Kâte Dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

168 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Flint, L. A. 1917–1918  Vocabulary: Name of tribe, Karami. People. Name of village, Kikimairi and Aduahai. Commonwealth of Australia. Papua: Annual Report for the Year 1917–1918: 96–96. Foley, William A. 1986 The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foley, William A. 2000 The languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 357–404. Foster, Michael 1981 Timbe grammar sketch: Cohesion in Timbe texts. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Franklin, Karl J. 1968a The Dialects of Kewa. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Franklin, Karl J. 1968b Languages of the Gulf District: a preview. In: Voorhoeve, et al. (eds.), 19– 44. Franklin, Karl J. 1971 A Grammar of Kewa, New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Franklin, Karl J. 1972 A ritual pandanus language of New Guinea. Oceania 43(1): 66–76. Franklin, Karl J. 1973a Appendices. In: Franklin (ed.), 539–592. Franklin, Karl J. 1973b Other language groups in the Gulf District and adjacent areas. In: Franklin (ed.), 263–277. Franklin, Karl J. (ed.) 1973c The Linguistic Situation in the Gulf District and Adjacent Areas, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Franklin, Karl J. 1975a Comments on Proto-Engan. In: Wurm (ed.), 263–276. Franklin, Karl J. 1975b Isolates: Gulf District. In: Wurm (ed.), 891–896. Franklin, Karl J. 1995 Some further comments on Kaki Ae. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 26: 195–198. Franklin, Karl J. 1997 Engan pronouns and their old endings. Australian Journal of Linguistics 17: 185–217. Franklin, Karl J. 2001 Kutubuan (Foe and Fasu) and proto Engan. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 143–154. Franklin, Karl J. and Joice Franklin 1978 A Kewa Dictionary: with Supplementary Grammatical and Anthropological Materials. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Franklin, Karl J. and Clemens L. Voorhoeve 1973 Languages near the intersection of the Gulf, Southern Highlands and Western Districts. In: Franklin (ed.), 149–186.



The Trans New Guinea family 

169

Frantz, Chester I. 1962 Grammatical categories as indicated by Gadsup noun affixes. In: James C. Dean (ed.), Studies in New Guinea Linguistics by Members of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (New Guinea Branch). Sydney: University of Sydney. Frantz, Chester L. 1976 Gadsup sentence structure. In: Loving (ed.), 73–191. Friedlaender, Jonathan S. (ed.) 2007 Genes, Language and Culture History in the Southwest Pacific. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gabelentz, Georg von der and Adolf Bernard Meyer (eds.) 1882 Beiträge zur Kenntnis der melanesischen, mikronesischen und papuanischen sprachen. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Gajdusek, D. Carleton 1980 Territory of Papua New Guinea: Return to New Britain, Kuru Investigations in the Okapa Region, Kukukuku Studies and a Journey through Genatei, Awa, Oweina-Waisara and Pinata-Tairora Villages. December 25, 1963 to April 13, 1964. Bethesda, Maryland: National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke. Galis, Klaas Wilhelm 1955 Talen en dialecten van Nederlands Nieuw-Guinea [Languages and dialects of Netherlands New Guinea]. Tijdschrift Nieuw-Guinea 16: 109–118, 134–145, 161–178. Galis, Klaas Wilhelm 1956 Ethnologische Survey van het Jafi-district (Onderafdeling Hollandia) [Ethnographic Survey of the Jafi-District (Hollandia Subdivision)]. Hollandia: Gouvernement van Nederlands Nieuw-Guinea. Galis, Klaas Wilhelm 1960 Telsystemen in Nederlands-Nieuw-Guinea [Counting systems in Netherlands New Guinea]. Nieuw Guinea Studien 4(2): 131–150. Garland, Susan 1980 Mountain Koiali grammar: Sentences, paragraphs, and discourses. In: Hutchisson (ed.), 107–222. Geary, Elaine 1977 Kunimaipa Grammar: Morphophonemics to Discourse. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Geurtjens, Hendrik 1926 Spraakleer der Marindineesche Taal [A Pedagogical Grammar of the Marind Language]. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Geurtjens, Hendrik 1933 Marindineesch-Nederlandsch Woordenboek. [Marind-Dutch Dictionary] Bandoeng: Nix. Gibson, Gwen and Joy McCarthy 2002 [1967]  Kanite grammar sketch. MS. Giël, R. 1959 Exploratie Oost-Meervlakte [Exploration of the Eastern Lakes Plain Area]. Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Koloniën: Kantoor Bevolkingszaken Nieuw-Guinea te Hollandia: Rapportenarchief, 1950–1962, nummer toegang 2.10.25, inventarisnummer 13.

170 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Goddard, Jean 1974 Notes on Agarabi grammar. In: Richard Loving (ed.), Grammatical Studies in Three Languages of Papua New Guinea. 75–118. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Goddard, Jean 1976 Higher levels of Agarabi grammar. In: Loving (ed.), 5–72. Goddard, Jean 1980 Notes on Agarabi grammar. In: M. Boxwell, J. Goddard, Malcolm Ross, A. Sanders, J. Sanders and H. Davies. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics 20, 35–76. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Godschalk, Jan Anthonie 1993 Sela valley: An ethnography of a Mek society in the eastern highlands, Irian Jaya, Indonesia. PhD thesis: Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam. Golson, Jack 1991 Bulmer Phrase II: early agriculture in the New Guinea highlands. In: Pawley (ed.), 484–491. Golson, Jack, Timothy Denham & Pamela Swadling (eds.) in press Ten Thousand years of Gardening in New Guinea: the Kuk Site of Early Agriculture. Terra Australis monographs, Australian National University, Canberra. Gorecki, Paul and D.S. Gillieson 1989 A Crack in the Spine: Prehistory and Ecology of the Jimi-Yuat River. Cairns: James Cook University. Gossner, Jan D. 1994 Aspects of Edolo grammar. MA thesis: University of Texas at Arlington. Graham, Mack 1998 Dialect survey of the Kandawo language, Western Highlands Province. MS. Gray, Rachel 2007 A sociolinguistic survey of the Domung [dev] and Yout Wam [code pending] languages. MS. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1971 The Indo-Pacific hypothesis. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics. vol. 8. Linguistics in Oceania, 807–871. The Hague: Mouton. Grosh, Andrew and Sylvia Grosh 2004. Grammar essentials for the Kaluli language. MS. Grube, Wilhelm 1895 Ein Beitrag zur Kenntniss der Kai-Dialekte. Zeitschrift für afrikanische und orientalische Sprachen I: 83–94, 118–131. Haan, Johnson Welem 2001 The grammar of Adang: A Papuan language spoken on the island of Alor East Nusa Tenggara - Indonesia. PhD thesis: University of Sydney. Hagen, Bernhard 1899 Unter den Papua’s. Wiesbaden: C.W. Kreidel. Haiman, John 1979 Review of Wurm (ed.) 1975. Language 55(4): 894–903. Haiman, John 1980a Gimi and Siane. In: Haiman 1980b, 515–546.



The Trans New Guinea family 

171

Haiman, John 1980b Hua: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haiman, John 1987 Proto-Gorokan syllable structure. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 16: 1–22. Haiman, John 1991 Hua-English Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Haiman, John and Pamela Munro (eds.) 1983 Switch Reference and Universal Grammar: Proceedings of a Symposium on Switch Reference and Universal Grammar, Winnipeg, May 1981. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hammarström, Harald 2010 The status of the least documented language families in the world. Language Documentation and Conservation 4: 177–212. Hammarström, Harald 2012 Pronouns and the (preliminary) classification of Papuan languages. In: Hammarström and van den Heuvel (eds.), 428–539. Hammarström, Harald and Wilco van den Heuvel (eds.) 2012 History, Contact and Classification of Papuan Languages. (Language and Linguistics in Melanesia Special Issue 2012). Port Moresby: Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea. Hanke, August Die Sprachverhältnisse in der Astrolabe-Bai in Deutsch-Neuguinea. Mitthei 1905 lungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen VIII(1): 255–262. Hanke, August Grammatik und Vocabularium der Bongu-Sprache (Astrolabebai, Kaiser-Wil 1909 helmsland). Berlin: Georg Reimer. Harris, Kyle 1990 Nend grammar essentials. In: John R. Roberts (ed.), Two Grammatical Studies, 73–156. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Hartzler, Margaret and Kenneth J. Gregerson 1987 Towards a reconstruction of Proto Tabla-Sentani phonology. Oceanic Linguistics 26: 1–29. Hays, Terence 2005 Vernacular names for tubers in Irian Jaya: implications for prehistory. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 625–670. Head, June 2011 A grammar of Umbu-Ungu. Manuscript. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Healey, Alan 1964a The Ok language family in New Guinea. PhD thesis: Australian National University. Healey, Alan 1964b Telefol Phonology. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Healey, Alan, Ambrose Isoroembo and Martin Chittleborough 1969 Preliminary notes on Orokaiva grammar. In: Capell et al. 33–64. Healey, Phyllis M. 1966 Levels and Chaining in Telefol Syntax. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

172 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Healey, Phyllis, Alan Healey and W. Steinkraus 1972 A Preliminary Vocabulary of Tifal Vocabulary with Grammar Notes. Santa Ana, CA: SIL. Heeschen, Volker 1978a Review of Wurm (ed.) 1975. Anthropos 72: 978–980. Heeschen, Volker 1978b The Mek languages of Irian Jaya with special reference to the Eipo language. Irian 7(2): 3–46. Heeschen, Volker 1982 Some systems of spatial reference in Papuan languages. In: J. Weissenborn and W. Klein (eds.), Here and There. Cross-linguistic Studies in Deixis and Demonstration, 81–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heeschen, Volker 1992a A Dictionary of the Yale (Kosarek) Language (with Sketch of Grammar and English Index). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Heeschen, Volker 1992b The position of the Mek languages of Irian Jaya among the Papuan languages: History, typology and speech. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 148(3/4): 465–488. Heeschen, Volker 1998 An Ethnographic Grammar of the Eipo Language. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Heeschen, Volker 2000 Die Yale-Sprache, eine Papua-Sprache. In: Ludger Hoffmann (ed.), Sprachwissenschaft: Ein Reader, 759–774. 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Heeschen, Volker 2001 Event formulas: sentences as minimal narratives. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 155– 173. Heeschen, Volker and Wulf Schiefenhövel 1983 Wörterbuch der Eiposprache: Eipo-Deutsch-Englisch. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Heider, Eleanor Rosch 1972 Probabilities, sampling and ethnographic method: the case of Dani colour names. Man 7: 448–466 Heineman, Paul 1998 A grammar of Lembena. MS. Hepner, Mark 2006 Bargam grammar sketch. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Hepner, Mark 2007[2002] Bargam dictionary. MS. Hischier, Phyllis 2006 Exploration of the remote Kopayap and Urajin areas in West Papua, Indonesia: A first contact in Kopayap and Urajin. MS. Holmes, John H. 1913 A preliminary study of the Namau language, Purari Delta, Papua. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 43: 124– 142.



The Trans New Guinea family 

173

Holton, Gary, Marian Klamer, František Kratochvíl, Laura Robinson and Antoinette Schapper 2012 The historical relations of the Papuan languages of Alor. Oceanic Linguistics 51(1): 86–122. Holton, Gary and Laura Robinson 2014 The linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages. In: Klamer (ed.), 155–198. Holton, Gary and Mahalalel Lamma Koly 2007 Kamus Pengantar Bahasa Pantar Barat: Tubbe – Mauta – Lamma [An Introductory Dictionary of Western Pantar: Tubbe – Mauta – Lamma]. No publisher stated. Hooley, Bruce A. and Kenneth A. McElhanon 1970 Languages of the Morobe District. In: Wurm and Laycock (eds.), 1065–1094. Hope, Geoffrey and Simon Haberle 2005 The history of the human landscapes of New Guinea. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 541–554. Hotz, Joyce M. and Mary D. Stringer 1979 Waffa, Tok Pisin, English. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Huber, Juliette 2011 A grammar of Makalero: A Papuan language of East Timor. PhD thesis: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Hughes, Jock 2009 Upper Digul Survey. Dallas: SIL International. Huisman R. 1973 Angaataha verb morphology. Linguistics 110: 43–54. Hull, Geoffrey 2005 Fataluku. Dili: Instituto Nacional de Linguística of the Universidade Nacional Timor Lorosa’e. Hutchisson, Don (ed.) 1980 Grammatical Studies in Fasu and Mt. Koiali. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Hynum, David Ergative in Numanggang. In: Joan Hooley (ed.), Papers on Six Languages of 2010 Papua New Guinea, 129–156. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Ikamu, Gabriel and Joong-Hwan Jo 2014 Tentative grammar description for the Tairuma language. MS. www.sil.org/ pacific/png/abstract.asp?id=928474556077 Im, Youn-Shim 2005 Draft survey report on the Tebi language of Papua, Indonesia. MS. SIL. Ingram, Andrew 2001 Anamuxra: A language of Madang Province, Papua New Guinea. PhD thesis: University of Sydney. Inselmann, Rudolf 1941 Nobonob – English Dictionary. Madang: Lutheran Mission. Irwin, Barry 1974 Salt-Yui Grammar. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. James, Dorothy and Denise Potts 1968 English-Siane dictionary. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG.

174 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

James, Dorothy and Denise Potts 1975 Siane-English dictionary replacement. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Jang, Hong-Tae 2003 Survey report on languages of southeastern foothills in Papua Merauke Regency of Papua, Indonesia. MS. Johnston, H. L. C. 1920 Vocabulary of Eme-Eme. British New Guinea Annual Report 1919–1920: 120. Johnston, H. L. C. 1921 Appendix VI: Vocabulary Kikori Station, Delta Division: Tribe, Karima, Name of village, Kibeni. Commonwealth of Australia. Papua: Annual Report for the Year 1919–1920: 119. Johnston, H. L. C. 1923 Appendix IX: Vocabulary Kikori Station, Delta Division: Tribe, Barika, Name of village, Asanu. Commonwealth of Australia. Papua: Annual Report for the Year 1921–1922: 166. Jore, Tim and Laura Alemán 2002 Sociolinguistic survey of the Tirio language family. Manuscript. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Kairi, T. and John Kolia 1977 Purari language notes. Oral History 5(10): 1–90. Kaspruś, Aloys 1942/1945 Languages of the Mugil District, NE-New Guinea. Anthropos 37/40: 711–778. Kerr, Harland B. 1967 A preliminary statement of Wiru grammar: the syntactic role and structure of the verb. MA thesis: University of Hawai’i. Kerr, Harland B. 1975 The relationship of Wiru in the Southern Highlands District to languages of the East New Guinea Highlands Stock. In: Wurm (ed.), 277–296. Keysser, Christian 1925 Wörterbuch der Kâte-Sprache, Gesprochen in Neuguinea. Berlin: Reimer. Kim, So Hyun 2006 Draft survey report on the Sowari language of Papua, Indonesia. MS. SIL. King, Copland 1927 Grammar and Dictionary of the Binandele Language, Mamba River, North Division, Papua. Sydney: D.S. Ford. Kirch, Patrick V. 1997 The Lapita Peoples: Ancestors of the Oceanic World. Oxford: Blackwell. Klamer, Marian 2010 A Grammar of Teiwa. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Klamer, Marian 2014 Kaera. In: Schapper (ed.), 98–146. Klamer, Marian (ed.) 2014 Studies in Alor-Pantar Language History and Typology. Berlin: Language Science Press. Kluge, Theodor 1938 Die Zahlbegriffe der Australier, Papua und Bantuneger nebst einer Einleitung



The Trans New Guinea family 

175

ueber die Zahl; ein Beitrag zur Geistesgeschichte des Menschen. Berlin: Steglitz. Kratochvíl, František 2007 A grammar of Abui: A Papuan language of Alor. PhD thesis: University of Leiden. Kratochvíl, František 2014 Sawila. In: Schapper (ed.), 275–338. Kriens, Ron and Randy Lebold 2010 Report on the Wildeman River Survey in Papua, Indonesia. Dallas: SIL International. Kriens, Ron, Randy Lebold and Jacqualine Menanti 2011 Report on the Haju Subdistrict Survey in Papua, Indonesia. Dallas: SIL International. Kroneman, Dick 2004 [Unpublished Summer Institute of Linguistics survey data.] In: Wilbrink 2004a, 107. Krosschell, J. M. 1961 Samenvattend rapport over de detacheringsperiode aan de Casuarinenkust (Afdeling zuid-Nieuw-Guinea) [Summary report of the period of duty on the Casuarina Coast (South New Guinea Division)]. Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Koloniën: Kantoor Bevolkingszaken Nieuw-Guinea te Hollandia: Rapportenarchief, 1950–1962, nummer toegang 2.10.25, inventarisnummer 438. Kruidhof, J. 1979 Bahasa Citak. Catatan-catatan tentang bahasa Citak seperti diucap orang Tiau [The Citak Language: Notes about the Citak Language as Spoken by the Tiau People]. Tiau: ZGK Tiau. Lambrecht, Philip, Alison Kassell, Margaret Potter and Sarah Tucker 2008 The Sociolinguistic Situation of the Uyajitaya [Duk] Language. Dallas: SIL International. Lambrecht, Philip, Alison Kassell, Margaret Potter and Sarah Tucker 2009 A Sociolinguistic Profile of the Waube [kop] Language Group. Dallas: SIL International. Lane, Jonathan 2007 Kalam Serial Verb Constructions. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Lang, Adrienne J. 1973 A Dictionary of Enga. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Lang, Adrienne J. 1975 The Semantics of Classificatory Verbs in Enga (and other Papua New Guinea Languages). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Lang, Ranier 1976 Review of S.A. Wurm (ed.) 1975. Kivung, Journal of the Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea 9(1): 72–80. Lanyon-Orgill, Peter A. 1944 A Dictionary of the Mailu language Edited and Enlarged from the Researches of the Rev. W.J.V. Saville and the Comte d’Argigny by Peter A. Lanyon-Orgill with a Foreword by Ernst Schwazenburg. London: Luzac.

176 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Larsen, Marlys 1984 Orokaiva-English Dictionary. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Larsen, Robert E. (Bud.) 1977 Orokaiva grammar. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Larsen, Robert E. and Marlys Larsen 1982 Orokaiva Legends, Lessons, and Grammar Notes. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Larson, Gordon F. 1977 Reclassification of some Irian Jaya Highlands language families: A lexicostatistical cross-family subclassification with historical implications. Irian 6(2): 3–40. Larson, Gordon F. and Mildred O. Larson 1958 Preliminary studies in the Moni language. Bijdragen tot Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 114: 406–431. Larson, Gordon F. and Mildred O. Larson 1956 Moni-Malay-English Dictionary. Wisselmeren, Netherlands New Guinea. Laycock, Donald C. 1975 A hundred years of Papuan linguistic research, Eastern New Guinea area. In: Wurm (ed.), 219–233. Laycock, Donald C. 1986 Papuan languages and the possibility of semantic classification. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 24, 1–10. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Laycock, Donald C. and Werner Winter (eds.) 1987 A World of Language: Papers Presented to Professor S.A. Wurm on his 65th Birthday. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Le Roux, C. C. F. M. 1950 De Bergpapoea’s van Nieuw-Guinea en hun Woongebied [The Mountain Papuans of New Guinea and their Habitat]. Vol 2. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Le Roux, C. C. F. M. no date Woordenlijsten [Wordlists]. Nachlass of Le Roux, C. C. F. M., item no 30, Nationaal Archief, Den Haag. Lean, Glendon A. 1986a Eastern Highlands. (Counting Systems of Papua New Guinea 8.) Lae: Papua New Guinea University of Technology. Draft edition. Lean, Glendon A. 1986b Milne Bay Province. (Counting Systems of Papua New Guinea 6.) Lae: Papua New Guinea University of Technology. Draft edition. Lean, Glendon A. 1991 Counting Systems of Papua New Guinea. 2nd edition, Volumes 1 to 17. Lae: Papua New Guinea University of Technology. Lean, Glendon A. 1993 Counting systems of Papua New Guinea and Oceania. PhD thesis: Papua New Guinea University of Technology. Lebold, Randy, Ron Kriens and Peter Jan de Vries 2010a Report on the Okaba Subdistrict Survey in Papua, Indonesia. Dallas: SIL International. Lebold, Randy, Ron Kriens, Peter Jan de Vries and Benny Rumaropen 2010b Report on the Assue Subdistrict Survey in Papua, Indonesia. Dallas: SIL International.



The Trans New Guinea family 

177

Lebold, Randy, Ronald Kriens and Yunita Susanto 2013 A Report on the Bamgi, Kia, and Lower Digul River Language Survey in Papua, Indonesia. Dallas: SIL International. Lee, Janet and Fay Barker 1985 Waskia Diksenari – Waskia, Tok Pisin, English. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Lee, Myung Young 2006 Draft survey report on the Emem language of Papua. MS. SIL. Lewis, Paul M., Gary F. Simons and Charles D. Fennig 2013 Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 17th edn. Dallas: SIL International. Lillie, Pat 1999 Girawa Dictionary. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Lloyd, Joy A. 1992 A Baruya-Tok Pisin-English Dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Lloyd, Richard G. 1973a The Angan language family. In: Franklin (ed.), 31–110. Lloyd, Richard G. 1973b The Angan language family: Neighbouring languages. In: Franklin (ed.), 93–94. Lloyd, Richard G. 1989 Bound and Minor Words in Baruya. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Lloyd, Richard G. and Joy Lloyd 1981 The dialects of the Baruya languages. In: Phyllis Healey (ed.), Angan Languages are Different: Four Phonologies, 25–50. Huntington Beach California: SIL. Loeweke, Eunice and Jean May 1980 General grammar of Fasu (Namo Me). In: Hutchisson (ed.), 5–106. Logan, Tommy 2007 Kasua Grammar Sketch. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Lomas, Gabriel 1988 The Huli language of Papua New Guinea. PhD thesis: Macquarie University. Loughnane, Robyn 2009 A grammar of Oksapmin. PhD thesis: University of Melbourne. Loughnane, Robyn and Sebastian Fedden 2011 Is Oksapmin Ok? A study of the genetic relationship between Oksapmin and the Ok Languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 31(1): 1–42. Louwerse, John 1988 The Morphosyntax of Una in Relation to Discourse Structure. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Loving, Richard (ed.) 1976 Higher Level Studies of Two Papua New Guinea Related Highlands Languages. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Loving, Richard and Aretta Loving 1975 Awa Dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Loving, Richard and Howard McKaughan 1973 Awa. In: McKaughan (ed.), 6–174. Luzbetak, L.J. 1956 Middle Wahgi Phonology. Sydney: University of Sydney.

178 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Lynch, John 1981 Austronesian loanwords (?) in Trans-New Guinea Phylum vocabulary. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 21, 165–180. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. MacDonald, George E. 1976 Dadibi grammar: Morpheme to sentence. MA thesis: University of Papua New Guinea. MacDonald, J. 1900 Yoda valley or Koriri. Annual Report of British New Guinea 1898–1899. 42–42. MacDonald, Lorna 1990 A Grammar of Tauya. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. MacDonald, Lorna 2013 Tauya Dictionary. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Marshall, Lawrence 1993 Oksapmin Dictionary. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. McElhanon, Kenneth A. 1967 Preliminary observations on Huon Peninsula languages. Oceanic Linguistics 6(1): 1–45. McElhanon, Kenneth A. 1970a Selepet Grammar: Part I: From Root to Phrase. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. McElhanon, Kenneth A. 1970b The Selepet language within the Finisterre-Huon phylum (New Guinea). PhD thesis: Australian National University. McElhanon, Kenneth A. 1970c Lexicostatistics and the classification of the Huon Peninsula languages. Oceania 40(3): 214–231. McElhanon, Kenneth A. 1973 Towards a Typology of the Finisterre-Huon Languages, New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. McElhanon, Kenneth A. 1975 North-Eastern Trans New Guinea Phylum languages. In: Wurm (ed.), 527– 567. McElhanon, Kenneth A. and Noreen A. McElhanon. 1970 Selepet-English Dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. McElhanon, Kenneth A. and Sigkepe Sogum 1976 English-Wasembo vocabulary. In: Richard Loving (ed.), Surveys in Five Papua New Guinea Languages, 113–119. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. McElhanon, Kenneth A. and Clemens L. Voorhoeve 1970 The Trans-New Guinea Phylum: Explorations in Deep-level Genetic Relationships. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. McEvoy, Richard Steven 2008 Grammar of narrative discourse in Migabac, a Papuan (non-Austronesian) language. MA thesis: Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics. McKaughan, Howard 1964 A study of divergence in four New Guinea languages. American Anthropologist 66(4): 98–120.



The Trans New Guinea family 

179

McKaughan, Howard (ed.) 1973 The Languages of the Eastern Family of the East New Guinea Highland Stock. Seattle: University of Washington Press. McKaughan, Howard P. and Doreen Marks 1973 Notes on Auyana phonology and morphology. In: McKaughan (ed.), 181–189. MacKenzie, Bonnie, Guillermo Muñoz, Juliann Spencer and Sara Van Cott 2011 A Sociolinguistic Survey of the Wagi [fad] Language. Dallas: SIL International. McVinney, Paul A. and Louis J. Luzbetak 1964 Tabare Dialect: vol 1, Grammar. Catholic Mission, Alexishaven, Madang. Majnep, Ian Saem and Ralph Bulmer 1977 Birds of my Kalam Country. Auckland: Auckland and Oxford University Presses. Majnep, Ian Saem and Ralph Bulmer 2007 Animals the Ancestors Hunted: An Account of the Wild Mammals of the Kalam Area, Papua New Guinea. Adelaide: Crawford House Australia. Marks, Doreen 1969–1975  Kosena-English dictionary. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Marks, Doreen 1974 Kosena grammar. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. May, Jean and Eunice Loeweke 1965 The phonological hierarchy in Fasu. Anthropological Linguistics 7/3(2): 89–97. May, Jean and Eunice Loeweke 1981 Fasu (Námo-Mё)-English dictionary. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. May, Jean and Eunice Loeweke 1985 A recommended alphabet for Maiani, Miani, Mala and Maia – four languages of the Kaukambaran language family. In: John M. Clifton (ed.), Five Phonological Studies, 1–25. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG Mecklenburg, Charlotte 1974 Phonology of Faiwol. In: Richard Loving (ed.), Studies in Languages of the Ok Family, 143–165. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Menanti, Jacqueline and Yunita Susanto 2001 Draft Report on the Kimaam District Survey in Papua, Indonesia. MS. SIL. Merlan, Francesca and Alan Rumsey 1991 Ku Waru: Language and Segmentary Politics in the Western Nebilyer Valley, Papua New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Michel, Thomas 1983 Interdependenz von Wirtschaft und Umwelt in der Eipo-Kultur von Moknerkon Bedingungen für Produktion und Reproduktion bei einer Dorfschaft im zentralen Bergland von Irian Jaya (West-Neuguinea), Indonesien. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Miklucho-Maclay, Nikolai von 1876 Verzeichniss einiger Worte der Papuas der Küste Papua-Kowiay in NeuGuinea. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (TBG) 23: 372–379.

180 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Miklucho-Maclay, Nikolaj von 1882 Papua-Dialekte der Maclay-Küste in Neu-Guinea. In: Gabelentz and Meyer (eds.), 491–510. Miklucho-Maclay, Nikolaj N. 1951a Neskol’ko slov dialekta Raj [Some words in the Rai dialect]. In: Anfert’ev (ed.), 184–184. Miklucho-Maclay, Nikolaj N. 1951b Papuasskie dialekty berega Maklaya na Novoj Gvinee [Papuan dialects on the Maclay Coast in New Guinea]. In: Anfert’ev (ed.) 170–183. Miklucho-Maclay, Nikolaj N. 1951c Spisok nekotoryx slov dialektov Papuasov berega Papua-Koviaj na Novoj Gvinee [Some words in the dialects of the Papuans of the Papua-Kowiai Coast in New Guinea]. In: Anfert’ev (ed.), 208–211. Minter, Paul 2009 Iyo Grammar Sketch. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Moxness, Mike 2002 Auye grammar. MS. Murane, Elizabeth 1974 Daga Grammar: From Morpheme to Discourse. Oklahoma: SIL. Murane, John and Elizabeth Murane 1974 Daga-English and English-Daga dictionary, MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Nacher, Alfonso 2003/ 2004 Léxico Fataluco-Português. Studies in Languages and Cultures of East Timor 5: 138–196; 6: 119–177. Nilles, J. 1969 Kuman-English Dictionary. Kundiawa: Catholic Mission. Nitbani, Semuel H., Jeladu Kosmas, Sisila Wona and Hilda Naley 2001 Struktur Bahasa Lamma [Structure of the Lamma Language]. Jakarta: Pusat Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. No Author Stated 1977 Nama gamoze gelekaká puku = Hap tok bilong Tokano na Pisin = [Phrases in Gahuku and Melanesian Pidgin]. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Nordhoff, Sebastian, Harald Hammarström, Robert Forkel and Martin Haspelmath 2013 Glottolog 2.1. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at http://glottolog.org. Oates, W. and L. Oates 1968 Kapau Pedagogical Grammar. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Olkkonen, Soini and Kaija Olkkonen Iklis keugö könai Somba Siawari keunö: Iklis SomSi Diksönöri bohoni. 2004 Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Olson, Michael L. 1975 Barai grammar highlights. In: Dutton (ed.), 471–512. Olson, Michael L. 1981 Barai clause junctures: Toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. PhD thesis: Australian National University. Osmond, Meredith 2001 The semantics of moŋ in the Chimbu-Wahgi languages of the Central Highlands, Papua New Guinea. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 251–259.



The Trans New Guinea family 

181

Pappenhagen, Ronald W. 1986 Kanasi: a brief grammar sketch. Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota. 30: 106–132. Parker, Steve (ed.) 2005 Phonological Descriptions of PNG Languages. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Parlier, James 1970 Managalasi sentences. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Parlier, Judith and James Parlier 1981 Managalasi Dictionary. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Parrington, Doug and Margaret Parrington n. d. An introduction to Notu-Ewage grammar. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Pawley, Andrew Kenneth 1966 The structure of Karam: A grammar of a New Guinea highlands language. PhD thesis: University of Auckland. Pawley, Andrew 1987 Encoding events in Kalam and English: Different logics for reporting experience. In: R. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 329–360. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pawley, Andrew 1992 Kalam Pandanus Language: An old New Guinea experiment in language engineering. In: T.E. Dutton, M.D. Ross and D. T. Tryon (eds.), The Language Game: Papers in Memory of Donald C. Laycock, 313–34. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Pawley, Andrew 1995 Clemens L. Voorhoeve and the Trans New Guinea Phylum hypothesis. In: Baak et al. (eds.), 83–122. Pawley, Andrew 1998 The Trans New Guinea Phylum hypothesis: A reassessment. In: Jelle Miedema, Cecilia Odé, Rien A.C. Dam (eds.), Perspectives on the Bird’s Head of Irian Jaya, Indonesia, 655–689. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi. Pawley, Andrew 2000 Notes on early Trans New Guinea verb morphology: reconstructing subject suffixes. MS. Dept. Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Pawley, Andrew 2001 The Proto Trans New Guinea obstruents: arguments from top-down reconstruction. In: Pawley et al., 261–300. Pawley, Andrew 2005 The chequered career of the Trans New Guinea hypothesis: Recent research and its implications. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 67–108. Pawley, Andrew 2008 Compact vs narrative serial verb constructions in Kalam. In: Gunter Senft (ed.), Serial Verb Constructions in Austronesian and Papuan Languages, 171–202. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Pawley, Andrew 2009 Greenberg’s Indo-Pacific hypothesis: an assesssment. In: Evans (ed.), 153– 180.

182 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Pawley, Andrew 2010 Helter skelter and ñugl ñagl: English and Kalam rhyming jingles and the psychic unity of mankind. In: Ger Reesink and Ken McElhanon (eds.), A Mosaic of Language and Culture: Studies Celebrating the Career of Karl Franklin, 273–293. Dallas: SIL International. Pawley, Andrew 2011 Some Trans New Guinea etymologies. Computer file. Department of Linguistics, School of Culture, History and Language, College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University. Pawley, Andrew, Robert Attenborough, Jack Golson and Robin Hide (eds.), 2005 Papuan Pasts: Cultural, Linguistic and Biological Histories of Papuan-speaking Peoples. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Pawley, Andrew and Ralph Bulmer 2011 A Dictionary of Kalam with Ethnographic Notes. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Pawley, Andrew, S.P. Gi, J. Kias and I.S. Majnep 2002 Hunger acts on me: the grammar and semantics of bodily and mental processes in Kalam. In: V. de Guzman and Byron Bender (eds.), Grammatical Analysis in Morphology, Syntax, and Semantics: Studies in Honor of Stanley Starosta, 153–185. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pawley, Andrew and Jonathan Lane 1998 From event to grammar: serial verb constructions in Kalam. In: Anna Sierwierska and Jaejung Song (eds.), Case, Typology and Grammar, 201–227. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Pawley, Andrew, Malcolm Ross, and Darrell Tryon (eds.) 2001 The Boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour of Tom Dutton. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Payne, A. M. and D. E. Drew 1966 Kamano Language Learning Lessons. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Payne, Audrey M. and Dorothy E. Drew 1970 Kamano grammar sketch. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Peckham, Lloyd 1982 Mairasi verb morphology. Workpapers in Indonesian Linguistics 1: 75–96. Peckham, Lloyd 1991a Etna Bay survey report: Irian Jaya Bird’s Neck languages. Workpapers in Indonesian Languages and Cultures 10: 147–185. Peckham, Lloyd 1991b Mairasi phonology. Workpapers in Indonesian Languages and Cultures 10: 111–145. Peckham, Nancy, Adriana Waryengsi, Esther Fov and Mariana Oniw 1991 Farir Mairas na’atuei = Perbendaharaan kata bahasa Mairasi = Mairasi vocabulary. SIL Pennington, Ryan 2013 Ma Manda phonology. MA thesis: Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics. Petterson, Robert 1999 Rumu – English – Hiri-Motu Dictionary. Palmerston North, New Zealand: International Pacific College.



The Trans New Guinea family 

183

Petterson, Robert 2010 Porome Daporo Avea Buka = Porome Language Picture Dictionary. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Phillips, Donald J. 1976 Wahgi Phonology and Morphology. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Phinnemor, Penny and Tom Phinnemore 1986 Ono dictionary. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Pilhofer, Georg 1926–1927  Formenlehre der Kâte-Sprache (Neuguinea). Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen 17: 1–40. Pilhofer, Georg 1933 Grammatik der Kâte-Sprache in Neuguinea. Hamburg: Verlag von Dietrich Reimer (Ernst Vohsen). Poole, Fitz J. P. 1976 The Ais Am: An introduction to male initiation ritual among the Bimin-Kuskusmin of the West Sepik District, Papua New Guinea. PhD thesis: Cornell University. Price, Dorothy and Veda Rigden 1988 Karkar-Yuri–English dictionary. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Priestley, Carol 2009 A grammar of Koromu (Kesawai), a Papuan language spoken in Papua New Guinea. PhD thesis: Australian National University. Quigley, Edward C. 2003 Awara phonology. MA thesis: University of North Dakota. Quigley, Edward C. and Susan R. Quigley 2011 The Phonology and Verbal System of Awara. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Ramsey, Evelyn 1975 Middle-Wahgi Dictionary. Mt Hagen: Church of the Nazarene. Ranneft, R. Meyer 1953 Uittreksel uit het verslag van de tocht naar de Baliemrivier van 22 december 1951 tot 9 maart 1952 ondernomen door de controleur van de Wisselmeren [Snippets from the report of the trip to the Baliem river from 22 December 1951 to 9 March 1952 undertaken by the administrator of Wissel Lakes]. Tijdschrift Nieuw Guinea 14: 46–54. Ray, Sidney H. 1893 The languages of British New Guinea. In: Delmar E. Morgan (ed.), Transactions of the Ninth International Congress of Orientalists, Vol II, 754–770. London: Committee of the Congress. Ray, Sidney H. 1907a Grammar notes on the Binandele language spoken in the North East of British New Guinea. In: Ray (ed.), 365–374. Ray, Sidney H. 1907b Papuan languages of the North Eastern coast. In: Ray (ed.), 362–364, 387–412. Ray, Sidney H. 1907c Papuan languages west of the Fly River. In: Ray (ed.), 291–301. Ray, Sidney H. (ed.) 1907d Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits. Vol. III. Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

184 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Ray, Sidney H. 1912 A grammar of the Fuyuge language. In: Robert W. Williamson (ed.), The Mafulu: Mountain People of British New Guinea, 307–331, 336–344. London: MacMillan and Co. Ray, Sidney H. 1919 The languages of Northern Papua. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 49: 317–341. Ray, Sidney H. 1923 The languages of the Western Division of Papua. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 53: 332–360. Ray, Sidney H. 1931 A Grammar of the Kiwai Language, Fly Delta, Papua with a Kiwai Vocabulary. Port Moresby: Edward George Baker, Government Printer. Ray, Sidney H. 1938 The languages of the Eastern and South-Eastern Division of Papua. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 68: 153–208. Reesink, Ger P. 1976 Languages of the Aramia River area. In: Ger P. Reesink, L. Fleischmann, S. Turpeinen, Peter Lincoln. (eds.), Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 19, 1–37. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Reesink, Ger P. 1987 Structures and their Functions in Usan: A Papuan Language of Papua New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reesink, Ger P. 2013 Expresssing the GIVE event in Papuan languages, a preliminary survey. Linguistic Typology 17(2): 217–266. Reesink, Ger and Michael Dunn 2012 Systematic typological comparison as a tool for investigating language history. In: Evans and Klamer (eds.), 34–71. Reesink, Ger, Ruth Singer and Michael Dunn 2009 Explaining the linguistic diversity of Sahul using population models. PLoS Biology 7(11): 1–9. Reimer, Martha 1986 The notion of topic in Momuna narrative discourse. Pacific Linguistics, A-74, 181–204. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Renck, G. L. 1975 A Grammar of Yagaria. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Rice, Chris and Amy Rice 2002 Finongan organised phonology data. MS. SIL Richert, Ernest L. 1975 Sentence structure of Guhu-Samane. In: Dutton (ed.), 771–815. Richert, Ernest L. n. d. An introduction to Mid-Waria grammar. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Richert, Ernest and Marjorie Richert 1972 Phonology of Guhu-Samane. Te Reo 15: 45–51. Rigden, Veda n. d. Karkar grammar essentials. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG.



The Trans New Guinea family 

185

Riley, E. Baxter and Sidney H. Ray 1930–1931  Sixteen vocabularies from the Fly River, Papua. Anthropos 25: 173–193, 831–850, 26: 171–192. Riley, E. Baxter 1931 Tirio. Anthropos 26: 172–192. Robbins, Joel Lee 1998 Becoming sinners: Christian transformations of morality and culture in a Papua New Guinea society. PhD thesis: University of Virginia. Roberts, John R. 1987 Amele. London: Croom Helm. Roberts, John R. 1988 Switch-reference in Papua New Guinea languages: a syntactic or extra-syntactic device? Australian Journal of Linguistics 8: 75–117. Roberts, John 1998 Give in Amele. In: John Newman (ed.), Give, a Cognitive Linguistic Study, 1–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Roberts, John 1990 Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages. Journal of Linguistics 26(2): 363–401. Roberts, John R. 1997 Switch-reference in Papua New Guinea: A preliminary survey. In: Pawley (ed.), Papers in Papuan linguistics no. 3, 101–241. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Robidé van der Aa and Pieter Jan Baptist Carel 1879 Reizen naar Nederlandsch Nieuw-Guinea Ondernomen op Last der Regeering van Nederlandsche Indie in de Jaren 1871, 1872, 1875–1876 door de Heeren P. van Crab en J.E. Teysmann, J.G. Coornengel, A.J. Langeveldt van Hemert en P. Swaan [Travels to Dutch New Guinea Undertaken for the Government of the Dutch Indies in the years 1871, 1872, 1875–1876 by P. Van Crab and J. E. Teysmann, J. G. Coornengel, A. J. Langeveldt van Hemert and P. Swaan]. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Robinson, Laura and Gary Holton 2012 Reassessing the wider genealogical affiliations of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages. In: Hammarström and van den Heuvel (eds.), 59–87. Ross, Malcolm 1995 The great Papuan pronoun hunt: recalibrating our sights. In: Baak et al. (eds.), 139–168. Ross, Malcolm 2000a Grouping the languages of the Trans New Guinea phylum: Preliminary evidence from pronouns. In: Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross and Meredith Osmond, Papuan languages and the Trans New Guinea phylum. MS. School of Culture, History and Language, College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University. Ross, Malcolm 2000b A preliminary subgrouping of the Madang languages based on pronouns. MS. School of Culture, History and Language, College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University.

186 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Ross. Malcolm 2005a Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 15–65. Ross, Malcolm 2005b Towards a reconstruction of the history of tone in the Trans New Guinea family. In: Shigeki Kaji (ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium Crosslinguistic Studies of Tonal Phenomena: Historical Development, Tone-syntax Interface, and Descriptive Studies, 1–31. Tokyo: Research Insitute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Ross, Malcolm and John Natu Paol 1978 A Waskia Grammar Sketch and Vocabulary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Routamaa, Judy 1994 Kamula grammar essentials. MS. SIL Rule, Joan 1965 A comparison of certain phonemes of the languages of the Mendi and Nembi Valleys, Southern Highlands, Papua. Anthropological Linguistics 7(5): 98–105. Rule, Murray 1993 The Culture and Language of the Foe: The People of Lake Kutubu, Southern Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea. Merewether, New South Wales: Chevron Niugini. Rumaropen, Benny 2006 Draft Survey Report on the Kapauri Language of Papua. MS. SIL. Salisbury, Richard F. 1956 The Siane Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Anthropos 51: 447–480. San Roque, Lila 2008 An introduction to Duna grammar. PhD thesis: Australian National University. San Roque, Lila and Robyn Loughnane 2012 Inheritance, contact and change in the New Guinea Highlands evidentiality area. In: Hammarström and van den Heuvel (eds.), 397–427. Saunders, H. W. 1924 Kikori Station, Delta Division: Name of tribe: Dugemi, name of village: Sorobo. Commonwealth of Australia. Papua: Annual Report for the Year 1923–1924, 57–57. Saville, William J. V. 1912 A grammar of the Mailu language, Papua. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 42: 397–436. Schapper, Antoinette 2010 Bunaq: a Papuan language of central Timor. PhD thesis: Australian National University. Schapper, Antoinette 2014a Kamang. In: Schapper (ed.), 224–274. Schapper, Antoinette (ed.) 2014b Papuan Languages of Timor-Alor-Pantar: Sketch Grammars Volume I. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schapper, Antoinette and Rachel Hendery 2014 Wersing. In: Schapper (ed.), 340–390.



The Trans New Guinea family 

187

Schapper, Antoinette, Juliette Huber and Aone van Engelenhoven 2012 The historical relations of the Papuan languages of Timor and Kisar. In: Hammarström and van den Heuvel (eds.), 194–242. Schapper, Antoinette, Juliette Huber and Aone van Engelenhoven 2014 The relatedness of Timor-Kisar and Alor-Pantar languages: A preliminary demonstration. In: Klamer (ed.), 99–154. Schieffelin, Bambi B. 1995 The acquisition of Kaluli. In: Dan I. Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, 525–593. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schieffelin, Bambi and Steven Feld 1998 Bosavi-English-Tok-Pisin Dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Schmidt, Wilhelm 1900 Die Sprachlichen Verhältnisse von Deutsch-Neuguinea. Zeitschrift für afrikanische und orientalische Sprachen 5: 354–384. Schneuker, Carl L. 1962 Kâte Language Handbook. Madang, New Guinea: Lutheran Mission Press. Scott, Graham 1973 Higher Levels of Fore Grammar. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Scott, Graham 1978 The Fore Language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Shafer, Robert 1965 Was New Guinea the graveyard of 100 South Asian and Pacific cultures? Orbis 14(2): 312–385. Shaw, Daniel 1986 The Bosavi language family. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics 24, 45–76. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Shaw, Daniel R. 1973 A tentative classification of the languages of the Mt. Bosavi region. In: Franklin (ed.), 189–215. Silzer, Peter J. and Heljä Heikkinen-Clouse 1991 Index of Irian Jaya Languages. 2nd edn. Jayapura: Program Kerjasama Universitas Cenderawasih and SIL. Sims, Anne and Andrew Sims 1982 Ketengban phonology. Workpapers in Indonesian Linguistics 1: 50–74. Smallhorn, Jacinta 2009 Binanderean as a member of the Trans New Guinea family. In: Evans (ed.), 205–222. Smallhorn, Jacinta 2011 The Binanderean Languages of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Smith, Geoffrey P. 1988 Morobe counting systems. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 26, 1–132. Smith, Geoffrey P. 1990 Susuami: An Angan Language of the Upper Watut Valley, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea. Lae: Department of Language and Communication Studies, Papua New Guinea University of Technology.

188 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Smith, Geoff P. 1992 Survival and Susuami: A ten year perspective. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 23: 51–56. Smith, Geoffrey P., Tom Dutton, Clemens L. Voorhoeve, Stephen Schooling, Janice Schooling, Robert Conrad, Ron Lewis, Stephen A. Wurm and Theo Baumann (eds.) 1988 Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 26. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Smith, Jean and Pamela Weston 1974 Notes on Mianmin grammar. In: Richard Loving (ed.), Studies in Languages of the Ok Family. 35–142. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Smith, Jean and Pamela Weston 1986 Mianmin – English English – Mianmin Tok Pidgin – Mianmin dictionary. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Smits, Leo and Clemens L. Voorhoeve 1994 The J. C. Anceaux Collection of Wordlists of Irian Jaya Languages B: Non-Austronesian (Papuan) languages (Part I). Leiden-Jakarta: Department of Cultures and Languages of Southeast Asia and Oceania. Smits, Leo and Clemens L. Voorhoeve 1998 The J.C. Anceaux Collection of Wordlists of Irian Jaya Languages B: Non-Austronesian (Papuan) languages (Part II). Leiden-Jakarta: Department of Cultures and Languages of Southeast Asia and Oceania. Sohn, Myo-Sook 2006 Report on the Muting District Survey. Dallas: SIL International. Southwell, Neville 1979 Komba grammar sketch. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Southwell, Neville and Gwyneth Southwell 1972 Komba and paragraph types. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Spaulding, Craig and Pat Spaulding 1994 Phonology and grammar of Nankina. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Specht, Jim 2005 Revisiting the Bismarcks: some alternative views. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 235–287. Speece, Richard F. 1988 Phonological processes affecting segments in Angave. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 17(1/2): 1–139. Spriggs, Matthew 1997 The Island Melanesians. Oxford: Blackwell. Stefaniw, Roman 1987 A comparison of Imbongu grammar with the Kaugel grammar essentials. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Steinhauer, Hein 1995 Two varieties of the Blagar language. In: Baak et al. (eds.), 265–296. Steltenpool, J. and Petrus van der Stap 1959 Leerboek van het Kapauku [A Pedagogical Grammar of Kapauku]. Hollandia: Office of Aboriginal Welfare. Stewart, Jean n. d. Aekyom language write-up: Morphophonemic, phonetic and grammar statements. MS.



The Trans New Guinea family 

189

Stewart, Pamela J., Andrew J. Strathern and Jürgen Trantow 2011 Melpa-German-English Dictionary. Pittsburgh: University Library System. Stokhof, W. A. L. 1975 Preliminary Notes on the Alor and Pantar Languages (East Indonesia). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Stokhof, W. A. L. (ed.) 1982 Holle Lists: Vocabularies in Languages of Indonesia, Vol.5/1: Irian Jaya: Austronesian Languages; Papuan Languages, Digul Area. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Stokhof, W. A. L. 1987 A short Kabola text (Alor, East Indonesia). In: Laycock and Winter (eds.), 631–648. Strange, David Upper Asaro noun inflection. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. 1972 Strauss, Hermann n. d. Grammatik der Melpa-Sprache. MS. Stringer, M. and J. Hotz 1969–1971 Waffa syntax: Verbs and verb phrases + clauses. MS. Ukarumpa: SILPNG. Strong, W. M. 1911 Notes on the languages of the north-eastern and adjoining divisions. Annual Report for the year ending 30th June 1911, 767–781. Stucky, Al[fred] and Dellene Stucky 1970 Nii grammar essentials for translation. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Summerhayes, Glenn R., Leavesley, M., Fairbairn, A., Mandui, H., Field, J., Ford, A. and Fullagar, R. 2010 Human adaptation and use of plants in highland New Guinea 49,000–44,000 years ago. Science 330: 78–81. Susanto, Yunita. 2004 Report on the Mapi River Survey South Coast of Irian Jaya. Dallas: SIL International. Suter, Edgar 1997 A comparative look at the dual and plural forms of inflections and pronouns in Northeast New Guinea. Languages and Linguistics in Melanesia 28: 17–68. Suter, Edgar 2012 Verbs with pronominal object prefixes in Finisterre-Huon Languages. In: Hammarström and van den Heuvel (eds.), 23–58. Suter, Edgar forthcoming  Comparative morphology of the Huon Peninsula languages (Papua New Guinea). PhD thesis: University of Cologne. Swading, Pamela 1997 Changing shorelines and cultural orientations in the Sepik-Ramu: implications for Pacific prehistory. World Archaeology 29: 1–14. Thomson, N. P. 1975 Magi phonology and grammar – fifty years afterwards. In Dutton (ed.) 1975c, 599–666. Tadmor, Uri, Martin Haspelmath and Bradley Taylor 2010 Borrowability and the notion of basic vocabulary. Diachronica 27(2): 226– 246.

190 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Tida, Syuntarô A grammar of the Dom language: A Papuan language of Papua New Guinea. 2006 PhD: University of Kyoto. Tida, Syuntarô 2011 Higasi Simbû Syogo Sabugurûpingu ni Mukete [Towards a subgrouping of East Simbu languages]. Tikyûken Gengo Kizyutu Ronsyû 3: 153–182. Tida, Syuntarô Tonal evidence for subgrouping the Simbu dialects. Paper presented at the 2012 symposium on History, contact and classification of Papuan languages, 2–3 Feb 2012, Amsterdam. Tipton, Ruth A. 1982 Nembi Procedural and Narrative Discourse. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Toland, Norma and Donald Toland 1991 Reference Grammar of the Karo/Rawa Language. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Trefry, David 1969 A Comparative Study of Kuman and Pawaian. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Troolin, David Turaka Preallocation Survey Report [Ethnologue code – TRH]. Ukarumpa: 1998 SIL-PNG. Troolin, Dave and Sarah Troolin 2005 Sam (Songum, Songumsam) language [Madang Province]. In: Parker (ed.), 39–48. Tupper, Ian 2007a Endangered languages listing: ABAGA [abg]. www.pnglanguages.org/pacific/ png/show_lang_entry.asp?id=abg accessed 1 May 2007. Tupper, Ian 2007b Endangered languages listing: ABOM [aob]. www.pnglanguages.org/pacific/ png/show_lang_entry.asp?id=aob accessed 1 May 2007. Tupper, Ian 2007c Endangered languages listing: TURUMSA [tqm]. www.pnglanguages.org/ pacific/png/show_lang_entry.asp?id=tqm accessed 1 May 2007. Unevangelized Fields Mission 1956 Jesu’ba Woituwoituda. Unevangelized Fields Mission. Unevangelized Fields Mission 1966 John’ba Lagitada Magata. Unevangelized Fields Mission. Usher, Timothy 2015a Awyu. A section of "Newguineaworld": Classification and reconstruction of Papuan language families. MS. http://sites.google.com/site/newguineaworld/ families/trans-new-guinea/central-west-new-guinea/digul-river-ok/digulriver/central-digul-river/awyu accessed 29 March 2015. Usher, Timothy 2015b Ok. A section of "Newguineaworld": Classification and reconstruction of Papuan language families. MS. http://sites.google.com/site/newguineaworld/families/trans-new-guinea/central-west-new-guinea/digul-river-ok/ok accessed 29 March 2015. Usher, Timothy and Edgar Suter 2015 The Anim languages of Southern New Guinea. Oceanic Linguistics 54(1): 110–142.



The Trans New Guinea family 

191

Van Arsdale, Peter 1974 Report of an expedition to the interior Asmat and Cicak regions of Irian Jaya, Indonesia (Catalina, Vriendschap, Kolff, and Upper Eilanden Rivers). MS. Van Arsdale, Peter W. 1987 First contact with New Guinea primitives: Expedition conceals discovery to prolong culture. Explorer's Journal 65(1): 14–21. van den Heuvel, Wilco and Sebastian Fedden 2014 Greater Awyu and Greater Ok: inheritance or contact? Oceanic Linguistics 53(1): 1–35. van der Stap, Petrus A. M. 1966 Outline of Dani morphology. ’S Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. van Nouhuys, J. W. 1912 Eerste Bijdrage tot de kennis van de Taal der "Pĕsĕgem" van Centraal NieuwGuinea. Bijdragen voor de taal-, land- en volkenkunde van Nederlandsch Indië 66: 266–273. Verbeek, R. D. M. 1914 De eilanden Alor en Pantar: Residentie Timor en onderhoorigheden [The Alor and Pantar Islands: Timor Residency and Associated Territories]. Tijdschrift van het Koninklijk Aardrijkskundig Genootschap 31(1): 70–102. Versteeg, H. 1983 Zijn stam en taal [Tribe and Language]. In: Tjerk Sijbe de Vries (ed.), Een Open Plek in het Oerwoud: Evangelieverkondiging aan het Volk van Irian Jaya, 21–25. Groningen: Vuurbaak. Vicedom, G. F. and H. Tischner 1943–1948 Die Mbowamb: Die Kultur der Hagenberg-Stämme im Östlichen Zentral-Neuguinea. 3 vols. Hamburg: Kommissionsverlag Cram, de Gruyter and Co. Vincent, Alex R. and Lois E. Vincent 1962 Introductory notes on Tairora verb morphology. In James C. Dean (ed.), Studies in New Guinea Linguistics by Members of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (New Guinea Branch), 4–27. Sydney: University of Sydney. Vincent, Alexander 1973 Notes on Tairora noun morphology. In: McKaughan (ed.), 530–546. Vincent, Lois E. and Anisi Kaave 2010 Tairora-English Dictionary. Orlando, FL: Wycliffe Inc. Voorhoeve, Bert 2005 Asmat-Kamoro, Awyu-Dumut and Ok: An enquiry into their linguistic relationship. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 145–166. Voorhoeve, Clemens L. 1965 The Flamingo Bay Dialect of the Asmat Language.’S Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. Voorhoeve, Clemens L. 1968 The Central and South New Guinea Phylum: A report on the language situation in South New Guinea. In: Voorhoeve et al. (eds.), 1–17. Voorhoeve, Clemens L. 1970 Some notes on the Suki-Gogodala subgroup of the Central and South New Guinea Phylum. In: Wurm and Laycock (eds.), 1245–1270.

192 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Voorhoeve, Clemens L. 1971 Miscellaneous notes on languages in West Irian, New Guinea. In: Dutton et al. 47–114. Voorhoeve, Clemens L. 1975a Central and western Trans-New Guinea Phylum languages. In: Wurm (ed.), 345–460. Voorhoeve, Clemens L. 1975b Languages of Irian Jaya, Checklist: Preliminary Classification, Language Maps, Wordlists. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Voorhoeve, Clemens L. 1980 The Asmat Languages of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Voorhoeve, Clemens L. 1985 Some notes on the Arandai language. Irian 8: 3–40. Voorhoeve, Clemens L. 2001 Proto Awyu-Dumut phonology II. In: Pawley et al. (eds.), 345–360. Voorhoeve, Clemens L., Karl J. Franklin and G. Scott 1968 Papers in New Guinea Linguistics No. 8. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Wacke, K. 1930–1931 Formenlehre der Ono-Sprache (Neuguinea). Zeitschrift für Eingeborenensprachen 21: 161–208. Wade, Martha 1987 A survey of the grammatical structures and semantic functions of the Apali (Emerum) language. MS. Madang: Pioneer Bible Translators. Wade, Martha 1997 Switch reference and control in Apalɨ. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 28: 1–16. Wade, Martha. n.d. Dictionary of the Apalɨ language. MS. Madang: Pioneer Bible Translators. Wakidi, Tarno, Yosep Hayon and A. M. Mandaru 1989 Morfo-Sintakis Bahasa Blagar [Morphosyntax of the Blagar Language]. Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Wambaliau, Theresia 2006 Draft Laporan Survei pada Bahasa Kosare di Papua, Indonesia [Draft Survey Report on the Kosare Language in Papua, Indonesia]. MS. SIL. Wambaliau, Theresia 2004 Draft Laporan Survei pada Bahasa Towe di Papua, Indonesia [Draft Survey Report on the Towe Language in Papua, Indonesia]. MS. SIL. Webb, Thomas 1974 Urii phonemes. In: Richard Loving (ed.), Phonologies of Four Papua New Guinea Languages, 45–96. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Webb, Ross and Lyndal Webb 1974 [revised ed. 1996] Tuma-Irumu dictionary. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Wegmann, Urs 1996 Yau dictionary. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Weimer, Harry 1978 Comparative grammar of 5 Yareban family languages. MS. Weimer, Harry and Natalia Weimer 1972 Yareba phonemes. Te Reo 15: 52–57.



The Trans New Guinea family 

193

Weimer, Harry and Natalia Weimer 1975 A short sketch of Yareba grammar. In: Dutton (ed.) 1975c, 667–729. Weisenburger, Linda, Mavis Price, Susan Richardson, Edwin Richardson, Eunice Loeweke, Jean May and Barbara Hardin 2008 Maia - English - Tok Pisin Dictionary. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Wells, Margaret A. 1979 Siroi Grammar. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. West, Dorothy 1973 Wojokeso Sentence, Paragraph, and Discourse Analysis. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Wester, Ruth 2014 A linguistic history of Awyu-Dumut; morphological study and reconstruction of a Papuan language family. PhD thesis: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Whitehead, Carl R. 2004 A reference grammar of Menya, an Angan language of Papua New Guinea. University of Manitoba doctoral dissertation. Wilbrink, Ans 2004a Appendices. In: Wilbrink 2004b, 97–219. Wilbrink, Ans 2004b The Kopkaka of Papua. Provisional notes on their language, its language affiliation and on the Kopkaka culture. MA thesis: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Williams, Franklin E. 1940 Provisional notes on the Augu language. Annual Report of British New Guinea 1938–1939: 52–67. Wilson, Darryl 1969 The Binandere language family. In: Capell et al., 65–86. Wilson, Darryl Suena Grammar. Ukarumpa: Summer Insitute of Linguistics. 1974 Wilson, Darryl 1980 A brief comparative grammar of Zia and Suena. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Wilson, John D. 1986 Steps towards knowledge: Male initiation practised by the Yali of the Heluk Valley in the Jayawijaya Mountains of Irian Jaya. Irian 14: 3–13. Wilson, John D. 1988 Scripture in an oral culture: The Yali of Irian Jaya. MA thesis: University of Edinburgh. Wilson, Jonathan P. 1996 Binandere nominal structures. MA thesis: University of Texas at Arlington. Wilson, Jonathan P. 2002 Binandere verbal structures. Manuscript. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Woodward, Lance B. 1973 Maring sentences. In: Alan Healey (ed.), Three Studies in Sentence Structure, 5–20. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Woodward, Lance B. 1988 Maring dictionary. MS. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. Wurm, Stefan 1951 Studies in the Kiwai Languages, Fly Delta, Papua, New Guinea. Wien: Herold.

194 

Andrew Pawley and Harald Hammarström

Wurm, Stefan 1960 The changing linguistic picture of New Guinea. Oceania 31(2): 121–136. Wurm, Stephen A. 1961 The linguistic situation in the Highlands Districts of Papua and New Guinea. Australian Territories 2: 14–23. Wurm, Stephen A. 1964 Australian New Guinea highlands languages and the distribution of their typological features. American Anthropologist 66(4): 77–97. Wurm, Stephen A. 1965 Recent comparative and typological studies in Papuan languages of Australian New Guinea. Lingua 15: 373–399. Wurm, Stephen A. 1971 Notes on the linguistic situation of the Trans-Fly area. In: Dutton et al., 115– 172. Wurm, Stephen A. 1973 The Kiwaian language family. In: Franklin (ed.), 217–260. Wurm, Stephen A. (ed.) 1975 New Guinea Area Languages. Vol. 1. Papuan Languages and the New Guinea Linguistic Scene. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Wurm, Stephen A. 1975a The Central and Western areas of the Trans-New Guinea Phylum: The TransFly (Sub-Phylum-Level) Stock. In: Wurm (ed.), 323–344. Wurm, Stephen A. 1975b Eastern Central Trans-New Guinea Phylum languages. In: Wurm (ed.), 461– 526. Wurm, Stephen A. 1975c The application of the comparative method to Papuan languages: General and Highlands. In: Wurm (ed.), 237–261. Wurm, Stephen A. 1975d Personal pronouns. In: Wurm ed., 191–217. Wurm, Stephen A. 1982 Papuan Languages of Oceania. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Wurm, Stephen A. and Shiro Hattori 1981–1983. Language Atlas of the Pacific Area. vol. 1, 1981, volume 2, 1983. Canberra: Australian Academy for the Humanities in collaboration with the Japanese Academy. Wurm, Stephen A. and Donald C. Laycock 1961–1962 The question of language and dialect in New Guinea. Oceania 32: 128– 143. Wurm, Stephen A. and Donald C. Laycock (eds.), 1970 Pacific Linguistic Studies in Honour of Arthur Capell Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Wurm, Stephen A. and Kenneth A. McElhanon 1975 Papuan language classification problems. In: Wurm (ed.), 143–164. Wurm, Stephen A., Clemens L. Voorhoeve and Kenneth A. McElhanon 1975 The Trans New Guinea Phylum in general. In: Wurm (ed.), 299–322.



The Trans New Guinea family 

195

Xiao, Hong 1990 A genetic comparison of Hua, Awa and Binumarien. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 21: 143–166. Yarapea, Apoi Mason 2006 Morphosyntax of Kewapi. PhD thesis: Australian National University. Young, Robert E. 1964 The primary verb in Bena-bena. In: Elson (ed.) 1964, 45–83. Young, Robert E. 1971 The Verb in Bena-bena: Its Form and Function. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Z’graggen, John A. 1971 Classificatory and Typological Studies in Languages of the Madang District. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Z’graggen, John A. 1975a Comparative wordlists of the Gulf District and adjacent Areas. In: Richard Loving (ed.), Comparative Wordlists I. 5–116. Ukarumpa: SIL-PNG. (Rearranged version of Franklin ed. 1973: 541–592) with typographical errors.) Z’graggen, John A. 1975b The Languages of the Madang District, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Z’graggen, John A. 1975c The Madang-Adelbert Range Sub-Phylum. In: Wurm (ed.), 569–612. Z’graggen, John A. 1980a A Comparative Word List of the Mabuso Languages, Madang Province, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Z’graggen, John A. 1980b A Comparative Word List of the Northern Adelbert Range Languages, Madang Province, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Z’graggen, John A. 1980c A Comparative Word List of the Rai Coast Languages, Madang Province, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Z’graggen, John A. 1980d A Comparative Word List of the Southern Adelbert Range Languages, Madang Province, Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Zöller, Hugo 1891 Deutsch-Neuguinea und meine Ersteigung des Finisterre-Gebirges. Stuttgart: Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft.

3

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs William A. Foley

3.1. Introduction1 The drainage area of the Sepik and Ramu rivers is undoubtedly the most complex region linguistically in all of New Guinea, and, as the island of New Guinea is in turn the most diverse region linguistically in the world, this fact places the SepikRamu basin in global pole position for linguistic diversity. Although I remain not entirely convinced by his methodology, in Ross’s (2005) classification of Papuan languages based on pronominal data, nine or 50 % of his suggested eighteen Papuan language families are found in this region (another five Papuan language families are found on the islands which lie to the east of the main island of New Guinea, another area of high diversity). Four or 67 % of the six isolates that Ross (2005) identifies are also found in the Sepik-Ramu basin, though, as I will demonstrate in this chapter, one of these isolates, Karkar-Yuri, turns out not to be an isolate at all. All of this diversity is found in an area of less than 100,000 km2 or less than 13 % of the land mass of New Guinea of 786,000 km2. While the actual number of Papuan languages spoken here is only a little over a hundred of the five hundred or more Papuan languages spoken in the southwestern Pacific, the genetic diversity is extremely high, a much more accurate measure of its linguistic complexity. The reasons for such a multiplicity of language groups is three fold. First, human occupation of the region is very old, somewhere between forty and sixty thousand years (Swadling 1986). Given such a time depth and making a very conservative assumption of linguistic differentiation of one language splitting into two every thousand years, over a period of forty thousand years the processes of language divergence would theoretically result in 240 or 1012 languages, many more than there are people on the planet! Still, such a modeling does provide a glimpse of the potential for linguistic differentiation over such a great time span. Secondly, the Sepik-Ramu basin represents a ‘residual zone’, a region which homogenizing linguistic changes have passed by. (Nichols 1992). It probably represents a reasonable facsimile today of the linguistic diversity that obtained 1



Data presented in this chapter employs the following orthographic conventions: /j/ = y, /ʤ/ = j, /ɟ/ = j, /c/ = c, /ʧ/ = c, /ɸ/ = f, /β/ = v. Where the sources provide the necessary information, the phonemic identity of f and v is stated. However, where the sources do not provide this information and no statement is given, those graphemes may refer to the labiodental or bilabial fricatives. Other orthographic conventions are stated in the text.

DOI 10.1515/9783110295252-003

198 

William A. Foley

throughout all of New Guinea before the homogenizing influence of the Trans New Guinea family (Pawley and Hammarström this volume), as it spread from east to west along the mountain cordillera on the island and adjacent regions and then later into the southern lowlands. It is to be noted that the languages of the southern lowlands (N. Evans at al. this volume) have also preserved a relatively high degree of genetic diversity, as the penetration of Trans New Guinea languages into this region seems rather recent. Although it cannot be proven, it would seem more than likely that the highlands and their foothills once contained many more language families than they do currently, after the languages of the Trans New Guinea family have displaced them. And, thirdly, the Sepik-Ramu basin has undergone very disruptive geomorphic changes over the last six thousand years or so which has greatly affected demographic residency patterns and hence the distribution of languages spoken there. About 6000 BP, as sea levels rose throughout the world because of the end of the last Ice Age and resultant global warming, the low lying areas of the SepikRamu basin were flooded by the incoming sea (Swadling 1990, 1997). People who lived in the basin would have had to seek higher ground along the shores of this inland sea, in the mountain coastal range and its foothills that lie between the current Sepik-Ramu basin and the coast, and in the foothills of the central highlands that lie to its south. This would have undoubtedly caused a significant mixing of ethnic groups and alterations of earlier distributions of languages. The Sepik and Ramu rivers still existed, but they emptied into the inland sea in bird’s feet deltas (Swadling 1997), well to the west, around Ambunti, and the south, downriver from Aiome, respectively, of their current positions. With the geological uplift of the central highlands, the two rivers bore enormous amounts of sediment downriver, gradually infilling the inland sea and advancing their mouths. The current shoreline and positions of the mouths of the two rivers was only reached in about the last thousand years, but the basin remains very low lying and is flooded every wet season, as the rivers and their tributaries breach their banks. The habitations of peoples and the distribution of languages they speak within the area of the former inland sea, i.  e. all low lying areas east of Ambunti and north of Aiome, cannot be older than five thousand years, and in many cases, particularly in the eastern half of that area, no more than two thousand years, shortening further for the coastal regions to a thousand years. Many ethnic groups currently dwelling in the Sepik-Ramu basin have legends about extensive migrations from other regions, e.  g. Telban (1998) on the Karawari speaking village of Ambonwari. Many of these legends report migrations from the south, the foothills of the central highlands, into an area of the basin. The southern foothills would have been an area to which many ethnic groups retreated as the sea flooded the basin, but as it gradually infilled, they would have migrated down the rivers into new regions to colonize. This complex scenario of multiple migrations gradually reclaiming the Sepik-Ramu basin over the past four thousand years or so would have resulted



The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 

199

in a picture of linguistic diversity exactly as we see it today: many smaller language groups largely concentrated around rivers and their immediate drainage areas. In investigating the classification of the languages of the Sepik-Ramu basin into genetic groupings, a careful and explicit methodology needs to be adopted. The genetic groupings of relatively closely related languages, like the Lower Sepik or Ndu families, which are on the order of Germanic or Romance, are clear; for these we can find a reasonable set of lexical cognates, identify regular sound correspondences and reconstruct proto-forms. It is also usually possible, particularly in the morphologically more complex languages, like those of the Lower Sepik family, to reconstruct a good part of the grammar of the proto-language (for such a reconstruction in the Lower Sepik family, see Foley (1986: 214–229)). But once we go deeper, to higher levels of genetic relatedness, say parallel to that across the divergent sub-families of the Indo-European family, we immediately encounter difficulties. Usually there are very few cognates, certainly not enough to establish regular sound correspondences and hence reliable reconstructions. For instance, for the Lower Sepik-Ramu family, first proposed in Foley (1999) and extended in Foley (2005), there was a sum total of four lexical cognates identified, and one of these was problematic. For higher level groupings we need to employ different methods. Ross (2005) suggests using pronouns, and I will use pronominal evidence in part here as well. But pronoun forms on their own can only be used very cautiously, and we should be rightly skeptical if they comprise the sole basis for genetic classification (morphological formatives within pronominal systems, however, are another matter; they constitute part of the bound morphology of a language and that is generally powerful evidence for genetic relatedness). As Nichols and Peterson (1996) point out, the risk of chance resemblances in the base forms of pronouns is high. Second, while the likelihood of borrowing for pronouns is undoubtedly lower than for other areas of the grammar, it cannot be ruled out: the borrowing of they, their, them in English from Scandinavian languages being a case in point. Ross (2005) attempts to argue that this case is unique, in that the borrowing filled a weakness in the earlier pronominal system due to the nominatives of the third singular and plural falling together. But how do we know this is unique (note also the lack of a singular and plural distinction for the second person in English you, but English has yet to borrow a form to fill that gap, although some speakers have already stepped in with the substandard yous or more dialectal and acceptable y’all from you all) when we lack any documentation of the earlier stages of the vast majority of the world’s languages and specifically for almost all Papuan languages? There could have been many cases of pronominal paradigm repair through borrowing in many languages of the Sepik-Ramu basin; we simply do not know (the total restructing of the pronominal system in Abau (section 3.6.5.3) suggest something akin to this). Therefore, I view similarity of pronominal forms on their own as insufficient evidence for confident claims of genetic classi-

200 

William A. Foley

fication, though that can prove useful as a diagnostic for a preliminary hypothesis of relationship. In my view, it is morphology, and, in particular, bound morphology, and, even better, irregular or suppletive morphology that provides the best evidence for genetic groupings among Papuan languages, as they are the most resistant to borrowing, and in the case of irregular or suppletive morphology, essentially impervious. If all the evidence available for a genetic relationship between German and English was good:better:best and gut:besser:best, I would still be confident in declaring a genetic relationship, as the chance of borrowing of such a paradigm is infinitesimally remote. Nor would I expect all three words to be borrowed; as a paradigm, I would expect one could be borrowed, such as the neutral form, and the others generated from indigenous resources. In the case of the deeper genetic relationship between the Lower Sepik family and the Ramu family, it was exactly evidence like this in the irregular plural allomorphs of nouns that led me to claim the link. Pronominal evidence can be cogent in a similar way when it is grounded not just in similarity in pronominal forms, but in the formative morphemes by which they are assembled. For instance, in the Lower Sepik-Ramu family there is a clear dual formative ŋg in the pronominals: 1 du : Yimas aŋga, Watam aŋga, Tangu naŋgi, Adjora aŋgi, Banaro ŋgwaʔan, Akruray aŋgə. On its own this could be a chance resemblance, but in combination with other morphological patterns it is powerful confirmatory evidence of a genetic relationship. Given the weight placed on morphological evidence, many Papuan languages of the Sepik-Ramu basin, but by no means all, present another difficulty: their relative morphological impoverishment. Papuan languages generally across diverse families exhibit a morphologically elaborate agglutinative typology. While there are morphologically simple languages elsewhere in New Guinea, in the Bird’s Head, for instance, or on Kolopom Island or in the Lakes Plain region, nowhere else is there such a concentration in such a small area of morphologically stripped down languages across a number of unrelated families: Ndu, Yuat, Ramu. This fact alone calls out for some explanation. It could be an areal feature spread by diffusion, but this seems unlikely in light of the fact that not all languages of the region exhibit it; in particular, the Ndu, Yuat and Ramu family languages which do are separated by the Lower Sepik languages, which are among the most complex morphologically in all of New Guinea. Furthermore, at least in the case of the Ramu languages, we know that this morphological simplicity is an innovation, as they are related to the Lower Sepik languages, and internal evidence in the family indicates that the Lower Sepik languages more faithfully preserve the older forms (Foley 2005). So I would like to present here very tentatively and provisionally what I will term the Creolization Hypothesis. It is important to note that many of the demographically successful language communities, those of many villages spread out over a large territory, belong to the morphologically simpler languages: Abau, Iwam, Kwanga, Ambulas, Boiken, Iatmul, Ap Ma, Mikarew, Adjora, Rao.



The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 

201

These are presumably languages which have spread by assimilating less viable languages, quite possibly their relatives, and we know that linguistic complexity typically drops when a language functions as a language of wider communication (Kusters 2003), as these languages must have been before they overcame and supplanted the languages previously spoken in their territories. But what was the mechanism of simplification here? We know that trade and exchange pidgin languages were widespread in the Sepik-Ramu basin prior to contact and the subsequent adoption of Tok Pisin. We have documentary evidence of pidgins based on Iatmul (Bateson 1932), Manambu (Bowden 1997) and Yimas (Foley 1988, 2006, 2013; Williams 2000), and undoubtedly many others existed which have escaped documentation. The pidginized form of Yimas, a highly morphologically complex Lower Sepik language, is in grammatical structure remarkably like that of the morphologically simpler languages like Rao. These Sepik-Ramu pidgins were not held in low repute like the pidgins and creoles based on metropolitan European languages elsewhere in the world, but on the contrary they were prized for their use in the interlingual village trade patterns and knowledge of them was passed down in clans from father to son as valued patrimony (Foley 2006, 2013). It seems not too far a jump to imagine that a trade pidgin of a powerful clan linked to rich and favored trading partners could be adopted as the village language and then in turn by neighboring trading partners. Such a language would be easily learnable and spread rapidly, resulting in the association we currently see of economically and politically powerful groups often speaking languages of relative morphological simplicity. I repeat, this is only a very tentative hypothesis, but, I think, an appealing one. It is also buttressed by the geomorphological history of the region; as people moved down to occupy the areas newly built up by the sediment deposited by the rivers, a high degree of population mixing would presumably have occurred, a scenario which is well known to favor the formation of pidgin languages. Yet another supporting point is that the morphologically simple languages are mainly found east of Ambunti, in the area covered by the inland sea, and with a particular concentration east of the Yuat river, which was still under the inland sea only two thousand years ago. A note on terminology: in this chapter I will stick with traditional usage in historical and comparative linguistics and refer to genetic groupings as families or sub-families. In the same way as Indo-Europeanists talk of the Celtic family or Slavic family, although they are both subgroups within the large Indo-European family, I will speak of the Lower Sepik family or the Middle Ramu family, although both are subgroups, albeit of different levels, of the larger Lower SepikRamu family. I will then speak of sub-families, sometimes labeled as first order, second order, etc when the occasion arises. I will thereby eschew the biological terminology, such as the terms ‘phylum’ and ‘stock’, that have been smuggled into Papuan historical and comparative linguistics (Wurm 1975, 1982), in my view with no gain and much obfuscation.

Map. 3.1: Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and environs.

202  William A. Foley



The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 

203

We will survey the languages of the Sepik-Ramu basin from east to west. The languages of this region are encompassed to the east and south by montane languages of the Trans New Guinea family and to the west by diverse families that lie west of the border region with the Indonesian province of Papua, surveyed in my chapter on that region in this volume (chapter 4). As we proceed in the survey, I will not be providing estimates of numbers of speakers because to do so would be nothing more than guesswork. Language endangerment and death is well advanced in many areas of the Sepik-Ramu basin, and populations estimates based on censuses of villages classified as speaking a given language are no guide as to the actual current number of speakers or their status as fluent or semi-speakers, although I will sometimes note moribund languages when such situations are known to me. For instance, population estimates for Yimas speaking villages are over three hundred, but I estimate that there are fewer than fifty fluent speakers remaining. I would classify the language as moribund. For Kopar, the resident population estimates would be even higher, but even fewer fluent speakers, possibly as low as ten, and the language is also moribund. The situation is not always this dire; in Watam village, almost all of the local population of three hundred speaks the language, although some younger people, males in particular, are less skilled semi-speakers. In the light of such facts, any estimates of speaker numbers for communities I am not personally familiar with would be sheer flights of fancy on my part, and so I will refrain. What can be stated with certainty is that virtually all languages within the Sepik-Ramu basin are endangered, some critically so. Documentation of these languages is needed now, for they will soon be lost forever. 3.2.

The Lower Sepik-Ramu family

This is a language family of some forty members spoken along the lower and middle courses of the Ramu river and adjoining swampy regions and the lower course of the Sepik river, its tributaries and adjoining swamps and coastline. Its eastern border is the mountainous area east of the Ramu river and the coastline east of Hansa Bay, both occupied by speakers of languages of the Madang sub-family of the Trans New Guinea family. This family was first proposed in Foley (1999) and extended in Foley (2005). The primary branches of the family, the Lower Sepik family and the Ramu family, are quite distantly related; Foley (2005) could only find four plausible lexical cognates linking these, the best of them being *am(b) ‘eat’ and *kwand/kwar ‘ear’. Yet morphological evidence renders the genetic link inescapable. Languages of both sub-families exhibit complex and often irregular plural formatives for nouns. This is a function of the noun classification system in the Lower Sepik languages, but this has collapsed in the Ramu languages, leaving only irregular and unpredictable plural suffixes, as we can see in comparing plural

204 

William A. Foley

formation in the Lower Sepik language Yimas and the Ramu language Watam (velars are often palatalized in Watam and *r > t word finally in Yimas): Table 1: Lower Sepik-Ramu morpheme cognates    Yimas2 ‘gecko’ ‘bone’ ‘tooth’ ‘sago’ ‘name’

    Watam

wik wik-at sg : tanm pl : tan-pat sg : trŋ pl : trŋ-ki sg : tnum pl : tpw-i sg : pl :

pl :

wi-ɲcəmpət

‘man’ ‘bandicoot’ ‘turtle’ ‘sago’ ‘name’

namot namt-ar sg : maŋem pl : maŋ-bar sg : nisiŋ pl : nisi-ɲjir sg : wak pl : wik sg : wi pl : wi-remb sg : pl :

Other diagnostics of genetic relationship in the Lower Sepik-Ramu family are the third person pronouns built on a near-distal deictic stem m-: Yimas sg : mən du : mərəm pc : məŋkət pl : mum; Watam sg : ma du /pc miŋga pl : min; the dual (perhaps paucal) pronominal formative in (ŋ)g: Yimas naŋka- 2 du .imp , paŋkət 1/2 pc , Watam noŋgo 2 du , niŋga 2 pc ; and a common ablauting pattern of front vowels versus back vowels for non-singular for first and second person pronouns respectively: Murik gai 1 du , agi 1 pc , e < a + i 1 pl versus gau 2 du , agu 2 pc , o < a + u 2 pl , Rao ɲi 1 pl , ɲo 2 pl . Often the front vowel marking the first person non-singular is lost, but the second person in a back vowel or semi-vowel is highly stable: Yimas kapa 1 du , but kapwa 2 du ; Watam aŋga 1 du , but noŋgo 2 du ; Mikarew ga 1 du , but goa 2 du ; Igom naŋgi 1 du , but nuŋgi 2 du ; Banaro ŋgwaʔan 1 du , but uŋgwaʔan 2 du ; Adjora aŋgə 1 du , but oŋgə 2 du ; and Akruray aŋgə 1 du , but ŋgu 2 du . All in all such patterns provide conclusive evidence for this genetic relationship in spite of the fact that lexical cognates are all but non-existent. 3.2.1

The Ramu family

The Ramu family is spoken along the middle and lower stretches of the Ramu river and adjoining regions to the coast. In terms of numbers of languages and speakers, this is the larger of the two primary branches of the Lower Sepik-Ramu family. The clearest diagnostics of the Ramu family are reconstructed singular pronouns found as cognates across the languages: a form *(ŋ)go 1 sg and a form *nu 2 sg ;

2



Yimas c = /c/.



The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 

205

a stem in *n- commonly used to build second person non-singular pronouns; a dative case marker *mV; and a clutch of lexical cognates: *ŋgwarak ‘bird’, *v/ɣi ‘name’, *kwar ‘ear’, *nda(r) ‘tooth’, *rapar ‘leaf’, *(a)gar ‘bone’, *am(b) ‘eat’. The Ramu languages are very poorly described; there is no published comprehensive grammar for any of them, although I undertook extensive fieldwork in Watam in the 1990s and will be publishing a full grammar in due course. I also conducted shorter spells of fieldwork on the other languages of the Lower Ramu sub-family of the Ramu family and supervised an unpublished dissertation on Awar (Levy 2002). There is in addition a very short sketch published of Rao (Stanhope 1980) and some unpublished missionary and bible translator materials of variable quality on a few other languages, but for most members of the family there is little more than word lists. In such a situation, any proposed subgrouping within the family must be regarded as highly provisional, but current evidence available to me, based mainly on lexical and morphological innovations, suggests the subgrouping in Figure 1. In Foley (2005), the Koam languages were not included in the Grass family, but material on these languages which has since become available to me supports the view that they belong there, as they show clear innovations in their pronominal systems shared with other Grass languages. Although they adjoin them, they are transparently not Yuat family languages. As the documentation for both the Tangu and Tamolan families consists only of short wordlists, the complete phonetic accuracy of which cannot be guaranteed, it is impossible to provide a more detailed classification. The relatively large number of languages in the Tamolan sub-family suggests some internal subgrouping, but insufficient data are available to attempt this. Laycock and Z’Graggen (1975) grouped the Tamolan and Tangu sub-families together in a larger sub-family within the Ramu family they called Goan, but I can find no convincing evidence for this and have separated them, although further work may justify rejoining them or placing either or both within another sub-family already identified, with the Lower or Middle Ramu families being the obvious candidates. The position of the Grass family also requires comment. Although its membership within the larger Lower Sepik-Ramu family seems secure, its inclusion within the Ramu family is debatable. Grass family languages exhibit two major divergences in their pronominal systems, *ɲi 1 sg and *re 3 sg , and a low percentage of Ramu family cognates, in the case of Banaro and Ap Ma virtually none. I have placed them within the Ramu family due to their strong structural and typological similarity to the languages of that group, but as we know from linguistic areas like Southeast Asia, such similarities are often the result of areal diffusion and poor diagnostics of genetic relationship. Provisionally, then, I have included them here, but further research may prove them to be a third branch of the Lower Sepik-Ramu family, coordinate to the Lower Sepik and Ramu families. The languages of the Ramu family are typologically similar. The basic consonantal phonemes are shown in Table 2, represented by the Ap Ma system:

206 

William A. Foley

Figure 1: The Ramu family

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



207

Table 2: Ap Ma consonant phonemes p m b m w

t

d n s r~l

n

ʤ ɲ

ɲ

k ɡ ŋ

ŋ

j

This is the system of Ap Ma. Note the gap for the voicelss alveopalatal affricate; this is actually realized by /s/, so underlyingly we could argue that these languages lack a fricative series, a widespread feature of languages of the Sepk-Ramu basin. The languages typically have a single liquid, realized variably as [l] or [r]. The languages of the Lower and Middle Ramu families have elaborated this system by adding extra series; for instance, Watam has in addition to the above a plain non-prenasalized voiced series, /b/, /d/, /ʤ/, /ɡ/, while Rao adds a preglottalized voiced series, /ʔb, ʔd, ʔ < *ʔɡ/ (Stanhope 1980). Many languages supplement the fricative series; a bilabial /β/ and velar /ɣ/ are common and often interchangeable synchronically and in inter-language cognates, e.  g. *v/ɣi ‘name’, but it is not clear whether these are better analyzed as approximants rather than fricatives, as voiceless counterparts are typically lacking. Kire (Pryor 1981; Pryor and Clifton 1987) reaches the apogee of complexity of consonantal phonemes in the Ramu family. Table 3: Kire consonant phonemes p pʰ m p b m b f v fʰ m ʋ

t tʰ n t d n d s z sʰ n z n r

k kʰ ŋ k ɡ ŋ ɡ

h

ŋ j

The vocalic system of Proto-Ramu had seven vowels.

208 

William A. Foley

Table 4: Proto-Ramu vowel phonemes i

ɨ ə a

e

u

o

This is still preserved in a number of languages of different sub-families, e.  g. Aion of the Grass family and Awar of the Lower Ramu family (Levy 2002), but most languages have reduced the seven vowels to six by collapsing the two non-low central vowels to /ə/. Watam and Kaian of the Lower Ramu family have gone one better; both of these languages betray strong influence from the Austronesian languages of their island trading partners and possess the typical Austronesian five vowel system: /i, e, a, o, u/. Pronouns systems in Ramu languages vary in the number distinctions made, but most distinguish at least singular, dual and plural. Watam in addition has a paucal number. Table 5: Watam pronouns 1 2 3

sg

du

pc

pl

yak u ma

aŋga noŋgo miŋga

apak niŋga miŋga

ae ne min

Possessives are formed by adding a possessive postposition to the pronominal, as in Watam (1a-b), though Rao (Stanhope 1980) has a distinct set of possessive pronouns, e.  g. ŋa(be) in (2a) (the independent form is ŋgo 1sg). Possessors can precede or follow the possessed noun in Watam, as in (1a-b), but must precede in Rao (2). Nominal possessors employ the same syntactic pattern, as shown in (1c) and (2b). 3 (1)

a. c.

(2)

3

a.

wi yak na name 1 sg poss ‘my name’ namot na endau poss house man ‘the man’s house’

b.

yak na wi 1 sg poss name ‘my name’

[Watam]

ŋa(be) ji 1 sg .poss name ‘my name’

b.

ʔra nə ji pig poss name ‘the pig’s name’

[Rao]3

Rao j = /ʤ/, c = /ʧ/.

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



209

Adjectives follow their head nouns: (3)

yak na markum 1 sg poss pig ‘my black pig’

(4)

ponugum ŋəŋə rat black ‘a black rat’

mbukmbuk black

[Watam]

[Rao]

The morphology of nouns in Ramu languages, if any, is normally restricted to number marking. The languages of the Ottilien sub-family of the Lower Ramu family are the most conservative and have preserved the complex and sometimes suppletive marking for plural number inherited form Proto-Ramu, and that in turn as vestiges of the noun classification system of Proto-Lower Sepik-Ramu, for instance, Watam: Table 6: Watam plural formatives ‘ear’ ‘elbow’ ‘buttocks’ ‘leg’ ‘man’ ‘girl’ ‘nose’ ‘bandicoot’ ‘sago’ ‘betelnut’

sg

pl

kwar tutup tok or namot namoŋ ŋgum maŋem wak meɲjak

kwair tutpemb toke orar namtar navgor gubeb maŋbar wik miɲjik

Dual number is indicated straightforwardly, by a suffix –ni attached to the singular form. There is a set of complex phonological rules that derive most of the forms (for instance, a dissimilation rule for prenasalized stops in a word is responsible for the plural form of ‘nose’: *ŋgumb-emb > gubeb), but a good deal of lexical stipulation is still necessary, a relic of the older noun classification system. Outside of the Lower Ramu family, languages have largely lost all marking for number, Rao kro ‘bird/birds’, but even within it, some languages have much simplified and regularized the system, Mikarew ‘leg’ sg : sue-m; du : sue-m-ni; pl : sue-ba. All Mikarew nouns inflect following the same pattern (Z’Graggen 1971). In none of the Ramu languages are verbs inflected with pronominal agreement affixes for any core arguments. What verbal morphology is present is restricted to expressing tense, aspect and mood, mainly through suffixes. This suffixation is typically agglutinative and transparent, but in some languages morphophonemic

210 

William A. Foley

rules and conjugation classes complicate the picture somewhat. Compare these forms for ‘see’ from Watam and Rao: Table 7: Verbal conjugation in Ramu languages

prs pst fut imp

Watam

Rao

ndo-ta ndo-ri ndo-na(n) ndo

na-i na-g na-u na

Imperative forms typically are unaffixed and most closely correspond to the root. More complex tense, aspect, mood distinctions are expressed by independent particles (5), or serial verb constructions (6). (5)

ŋgo cici tara-i 1 sg prog go-prs ‘I’m going now.’

(6)

yak tau da-gwe-r mamai-r 1 sg sugarcane foc -bite-real finish-real ‘I finished biting off the sugarcane.’

[Rao]

[Watam]

Ramu family languages are verb final in their basic clausal constituent order, but typically not rigidly so. Oblique phrases, particularly locationals, commonly follow the verb: yak ma gi-do-ri endau 1 sg 3 sg foc -see-pst house ‘I saw him inside the house.’

(7)

nik inside

[Watam]

The core arguments subject and object must precede the verb, and the favored order is SOV, but this also is not rigidly fixed. Some languages like Watam have postpositions marking the noun phrases not functioning as subject and thereby allow flexibility in order; the same postposition marks both indirect objects of ditransitive verbs and animate direct objects of transitive verbs, as in (8). This is a very widespread pattern across diverse language families in the Sepik-Ramu basin, what I term the nominative-dative system (Silverstein 1993) and therefore I gloss the case form as dative (dat ). Without mo dat the constituent order becomes fixed as SOV, as in (9) (8)

a.

namot mo yak meɲjak dat 1 sg betelnut man ‘I gave the man betelnut.’

neŋg-ri give-pst

[Watam]

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 

 b.

yak mo ma ruŋg-ri 1 sg dat 3 sg hit-pst ‘He hit me.’ ma yak ŋga-ruŋg-ri 3 sg 1 sg foc -hit-pst ‘He hit me.’

(9)

211

[Watam]

Bosmun not only has the dative case form, but also a nominative case marker for subjects, a true overt nominative-dative case system: (10)

a. b. c. d.

me-t ba-prit 3 pl - nom eat-prf ‘They have eaten.’ me-t ŋgo-ma vase-t 3 pl -nom 1 sg -dat see-pst ‘They saw me.’ ŋgo-t me-ma ŋa-təm 1 sg - nom 3 pl -dat hit-fut ‘I’ll hit them.’ me-t ei-m mbok-oma neɲje-t 3 pl - nom 1 pl -dat betelnut-dat give-pst ‘They gave me betelnut.’

[Bosmun]4

Even clauses lacking such case suffixes or postpositions can exhibit some flexibility. Stanhope’s (1980) sketch of Rao presents the language essentially as SOV, but in a text recorded by Capell (1952) we find the sentence in (11) with OSV order (compare with (12)): (11)

pram-da-g kenam walking-dep -seq snake ‘Walking, I saw a snake.’

ŋgo 1 sg

na-g see-pst

(12)

kenam ŋgo-mu na-nda-g ŋgo-mu gederie snake 1 sg -dat see-dep -seq 1 sg -dat follow ‘The snake seeing me follows me.’

[Rao]

[Rao]

All Ramu family languages have clause chaining constructions, with stripped down medial dependent verbs, but they are not greatly elaborated (verbal inflection is already quite simple) nor do they signal switch reference, the same dependent verb forms being used whether the subject of the following clause is coreferential or not. The dependent verb commonly indicates the temporal relationship

4



Bosmun j = /ʤ/

212 

William A. Foley

between the two clauses, either simultaneous or sequential, as in these Rao examples (Capell 1952): (13)

a. b.

duari mə pra-nda-i kenam mə child 3 sg walk-dep -sim snake 3 sg ‘While walking, the child sees a snake.’ ŋgo buti diena-nda-g ŋgo kenam 1 sg stick find-dep -seq 1 sg snake ‘I found a stick and killed the snake.’

na-i see-prs

[Rao]

mama-g hit-pst

Interestingly, in Rao the tense suffixes for independent verbs, -i prs and –g pst , are used with dependent verbs to indicate relative tense, simultaneous and sequential respectively. Note that the same dependent verb forms are used when the subjects of the two clauses are non-coreferential; there is no switch reference morphology: mvendu ŋgo-mu na-nda-i ŋgo birapra-g woman 1 sg -dat see-dep -sim 1 sg run.away-pst ‘The woman saw me while I was running away.’

(14)

[Rao]

In Watam, basic clause chaining constructions are mainly restricted to sequential events; simultaneous events can only be expressed this way if the dependent clause is marked in some way for durative aspect, typically by reduplication: saŋg~aŋg-ar ŋgum was ni miŋga ŋgo-r 3 du sleep-real go~red -real nose breath du ma-iri-tak prog -go.down-prs ‘While they were both sleeping, their snoring decreased’

(15)

[Watam]

Dependent verbs, while not inflected for tense in Watam, are marked for mood, realis versus irrealis, another likely diffusion from neighboring Austronesian languages: (16)

a. b.

saŋg-ri min amb-r-a 3 pl eat-real -dep go-pst ‘They ate and went.’ min am-(m)be saŋ-nan 3 pl eat-dep .irr go-fut ‘They will eat and go.’

[Watam]

 3.2.2

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 

213

The Lower Sepik family

Unlike their kin in the Ramu family, the languages of the Lower Sepik family are among the most complex morphologically in New Guinea, if not the world. Both of the major parts of speech, nouns and verbs, exhibit great morphological elaboration. The Lower Sepik languages are among the better documented in the region. I published a comprehensive grammar of Yimas (Foley 1991) and have undertaken fieldwork in all six languages of the family. Foley (1986: 215–229) presents some lexical, phonological and morphological reconstruction in the family. A major isogloss which separates the Lower Sepik and Ramu branches of the Lower SepikRamu family is the singular pronouns: whereas the Ramu languages have *ŋgo 1 sg and *nu 2 sg , the Lower Sepik languages have *ama 1 sg and *mi 2 sg . The current view of subgrouping within this family is:

Figure 2: The Lower Sepik family

There is some very weak evidence for grouping Angoram with Murik-Kopar and some slightly stronger evidence for joining Chambri with Yimas-Karawari, but this is very inconclusive, so I will adhere to the clearly established links represented above. As their name implies, the Lower Sepik languages are found along the lower reaches of the Sepik river, but they are also spoken along the Karawari river up to just below the foothills of the central highlands, where the Yimas speaking village is found. Chambri is spoken on the southern shores of its eponymous lake and has been cut off from the other languages of the family by the spread of Iatmul, a Sepik family language, over the last few centuries. All speakers of Lower Sepik languages inhabit a riverine or lacustrine habitat, although the lakes are salt water mangroves in the case of Murik. The consonantal systems of Lower Sepik languages are similar to those of Ramu languages, with discrepancies in some part due to differences in analysis. I analyze the prenasalized voiced stops of Yimas as clusters, so that there is only a single series of voiceless stops:

214 

William A. Foley

Table 8: Yimas consonant phonemes p m w

t n r

c ɲ lʲ j

k ŋ

For other languages two series of stops contrasting in voice is warranted, and, not surprisingly, Murik and Kopar have a three way contrast like their neighbor, the Lower Ramu language Watam: Table 9: Murik and Kopar consonant phonemes p b m b m w

t d n d n s r

ʤ ɲ ʤ ɲ

k ɡ ŋ ɡ ŋ

j

The vowel system is the six vowel system widespread among Ramu languages, as in Table 10, except for Yimas-Karawari, which have lost the mid front and back vowels and have a four vowel system, as in Table 11. Table 10: Lower Sepik vowel phonemes in languages other than Yimas-Karawari i

e

ə a

o

u

Table 11: Yimas-Karawari vowel phonemes i

ə a

u

I provide below the independent pronoun systems of Yimas and Murik and then the system I reconstruct for Proto-Lower Sepik:

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



215

Table 12: Yimas Independent Pronouns 1 2 3

sg

du

pc

pl

ama mi mən

kapa kapwa mərəm

paŋkət paŋkət məŋgət

ipa ipwa mum

Table 13: Murik independent pronouns 1 2 3

sg

du

pc

pl

ma mi mən

ga-i ga-u məndəb

ag-i ag-u məŋgə

e < *a + i o < *a + u mwa

Table 14: Proto-Lower Sepik independent pronouns 1 2 3

sg

du

pc

pl

*ama *mi *mən

*ka-(pa)-i *ka-(pa)-u *məndəmb

*(pa)ŋg-i *(pa)ŋg-u *məŋgə

*a-(pa)-i *a-(pa)-u *mumb

The third persons pronouns are all built on a near distal deictic stem m- plus number markers. Not all distinctions are preserved in all six languages. Yimas has merged the first and second paucal forms; Karawari has lost the paucal number altogether; and Angoram has lost both the dual and paucal numbers, with its plural pronouns an amalgam of older paucal and plural forms. Proto-Lower Sepik resembled Bantu languages like Kiswahili in being a multiple noun classifying language; comparative reconstruction indicates that it had eight noun classes, though daughter languages may have fewer (Angoram) or more (Yimas). Noun classification has been preserved in all subgroups of the family except Murik-Kopar. In Murik all nouns are inflected invariably for plural number with –mot and are not inflected at all for number in Kopar. In the other four languages each noun class has its specified allomorphs to mark number. In Yimas-Karawari and Chambri, nouns exhibit a three-way contrast in number, singular, dual and plural, but in Angoram, only singular and plural, although it seems probable on comparative evidence (and still witnessed by nineteenth century Murik) that Proto-Lower Sepik noun had a four way contrast for number, adding a paucal, like the pronouns. As in Bantu languages all modifiers of nouns, like possessors, deictics, numerals, adjective and relative clauses must agree in class and number with their head noun. The basis of noun classification in Lower Sepik languages is a mix of semantic and phonological criteria. There is always an animate class (split in Yimas into three, for male humans, for female humans and for higher

216 

William A. Foley

animals, essentially mammals and the cassowary), one for useful plants, and a number of classes defined by the final phoneme of the root, e.  g. –ŋg, -mb, -i, -aw, etc. Consider the examples of Angoram concordial agreement in (17). (17)

a.

b.

c.

imbarŋgar ta ami-na-klea these.i .pl 1 sg -poss -i .pl pig. i . pl kup-le big-i .pl ‘these three big pigs of mine’ paruŋgli kle ami-na-ŋglea betelnut.iii .pl these.iii .pl 1 sg -poss -iii .pl kup-aŋglea big-iii .pl ‘these three big betelnuts of mine’ səmur wura ami-na-kura cane.viii .pl these.viii .pl 1 sg -poss -viii .pl kup-ura big-viii .pl ‘these three big (pieces of) cane of mine’

sum-erəm i .pl -three

[Angoram]

kl-erəm iii .pl -three

wa-rəm viii .pl -three

The morphology of the verb is equally daunting in the languages of this family and unusual among Papuan languages in being mainly prefixal; only the tense markers are suffixed. All six languages have complex systems of pronominal agreement prefixes which indicate core grammatical relations like subject and object. There is no case marking for core arguments in these languages, and while the verb is usually clause final, order of nominal clausal constituents is free, so that the verbal agreement morphology is the sole device for indicating core grammatical relations in these languages; they are a paradigm case of head marking languages (Nichols 1986). The pronominal agreement prefixes are split by person as to their type of case marking system: first and second person usually align according to a nominative-accusative system, with one form for subjects of intransitive and transitive verbs and another for the objects of transitive verbs, or they exhibit a three-way contrast, distinctive forms for subjects of intransitive verbs, those of transitive verbs, and the object of transitive verbs; third person pronominal agreement prefixes align to an ergative-absolutive system, having one form for the subject of transitive verbs and another for the subjects of intranstive verbs and objects of transitive verbs. The system of Murik pronominal agreement prefixes illustrates this well:

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



217

Table 15: Murik pronominal agreement affixes

1

sg du pc pl

2

sg du pc pl

3

sg du pc pl

nom

erg

acc

maageagie-

aageagie-

ŋaŋeŋiŋe-

meagoaguo-

Ø agoaguo-

naŋoŋuŋo-

obodg-

Øbo-/mbabo-/ŋgabo-/mbwa-

Ø/obodg-

Note that the first and second person singular forms show a three way split, the ergative, nominative and accusative are all distinct, but the non-singulars are simply nominative-accusative, the forms in ergative and nominative columns are the same. But the third person forms are always ergative-absolutive, so that the nominative and accusative columns are identical. Note also the second and third singular ergative forms are both zero. This is a crosslinguistically rare but diagnostic property of Lower Sepik languages; these two forms are typically homophonous, even if not necessarily zero (in Yimas the form is n-). These languages also share a fairly widespread typological property of head marking languages, also found in families like Algonkian, Mixe-Zoquean or Tibeto-Burman, a direct-inverse inflectional system. The paradigm case of this is the Algonkian languages. In languages with a direct-inverse inflectional pattern, the pronominal agreement affixes are ranked according to their person, first and second persons outranking third person. When a higher ranked person is the subject and a lower ranked person the object of a transitive verb, that is the direct inflectional pattern; when the linking is reversed, that is the inverse inflection. In the Lower Sepik languages the system works according to the following rule: whichever pronominal agreement prefix refers to the higher ranked person occurs closer to the verb stem. But if both referents of both affixes are lowly ranked third persons, then that for the subject holds the higher rank and occupies that position (examples from Murik, but the pattern holds throughout the family): do-bo-kərə-na /3 pc .nom -3 pl .erg -hit-prs / ‘they hit them’. But if one of the pronominal agreement prefixes is first or second person and the other third person, the former as the higher ranked always occupies the position next to the verb stem, regardless of its role as subject or object, and, when the higher ranked person is the object, the inverse situation, the Murik verb necessarily takes an inverse circumfix n-…-ŋa. Compare (18a) and (18b):

218 

William A. Foley

(18)

a. b.

g-a-kərə-na 3 pl .nom -1 sg .erg -hit-prs ‘I hit them.’ n-umbwa-ŋa-kərə-ŋa-na inv -3 pl .erg -1 sg .acc -hit-inv -prs ‘They hit me.’

[Murik]

Like everything else, the expression of tense, aspect and mood is morphologically complex in Lower Sepik languages, too much so to go into any real detail, and in any case varies a good deal from language to language. Tense is invariably indicated by suffixes, often with multiple distinctions of temporal distance, as in these forms for wa- ‘go’ in Yimas: Table 16: Tense marking in Yimas wa-ntut wa-kiantut wa-nan wa-t wa-n wa-wat wa-kiak wa-kt

go-rm . pst go-fr . pst go-nr . pst go-imm . pst go-prs go-hab go-nr . fut go-rm . fut

‘went more than a few days ago’ ‘went a few days ago’ ‘went yesterday’ ‘went today’ ‘going now’ ‘usually go’ ‘will go tomorrow’ ‘will go after tomorrow’

Aspect is indicated by a mix of prefixes, suffixes, and in the case of Yimas by some incorporated adverbials: (19)

a.

bo-uga-ra 3 du .nom -see-prog ‘They are seeing.’

(20)

a.

pu-mal-capi-kia-wat 3 pl .nom -die-compl -night -hab ‘They all die during the night.’ na-mp-nanaŋ-yawra-kia-na-ntut 3 sg .acc -3 du .erg -dur -gather-night -dur -rm . pst ‘They both were getting it during the night.’

b.

b.

to-bo-uga prf -3 du .nom -see ‘They have seen.’

[Murik]

[Yimas]

Mood is again variable, but in Yimas, normally marked by prefixes and suffixes: (21)

a. b.

ka-ŋkl-ya-ka-arm-n

likely -3 pc .nom -come-seq -board-prs

‘Those few will probably be boarding now.’ wi-ŋka-pra-n up-go.by.land-toward -imp ‘Come up here!’

[Yimas]

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



219

Tense, aspect, mood inflection quite typically affect the system of pronominal agreement inflections. Compare (22a) with (22b) for Yimas and (23a) with (23b-c) for Angoram: (22)

a.

pu-ŋkra-tay-n b. 3 pl .acc -1 du .erg -see-prs ‘We two saw them.’

aŋka-tay-ɲa-m 1 du .hort -see-imp -3 pl .acc ‘Let us two see them.’

(23)

a.

apwa-rik-anb-aŋge b. inv -hit-prog -1 du .acc ‘They are hitting us two.’ p-apwa-rik-iŋge fut -inv -hit-1 du .acc ‘They will hit us two.’

rik-ri-aŋge hit-prf -1 du .acc ‘They have hit us two.’

c.

[Yimas]

[Angoram]

Verbal morphology reaches it greatest development in Yimas, which is a polysynthetic language exhibiting extensive incorporation and applicative derivations, as the following examples illustrate: (24)

a. b. c. d.

ka-mpu-pay-ma-takat-ɲa-mpa-m likely -3 pl .erg -first-in-touch-imp -3 pl .dat -vii .sg ‘Let us first put it on them inside.’ ura-mpu-kra-taŋ-ntak-mpi-ɲa-ntut ix .pl -3 pl .erg -1 pl .acc -comit -leave-seq -stay-rm . pst ‘They left those behind with us.’ anta-pay-wi-ŋka-pu-kiak 1 du .hort -first-up-go.by.land-away -nr . fut ‘Let me go up to the house first.’ ta-pu-n-yaŋkuraŋ-takal-war-mpwi neg -3–2 sg .erg -thought-touch-hab -talk.acc ‘You never think about that.’

[Yimas]

The Lower Sepik languages have the same type of clause chaining constructions as the Ramu family languages and also lack switch reference marking, as (25) illustrate: (25)

a. b.

kaprak-mpi yaŋi-ɲan na-mp-ayŋ pot-obl 3 sg .acc -3 du .erg -put.in cut.up-seq ‘Having cut it up, they put it in a pot.’ tmal kray-mpi ya-kay-am-wat v .pl -1 pl .erg -eat-hab sun dry-seq ‘The sun having dried it, we always eat it.’

[Yimas]

220 

William A. Foley

In the first example the referents of the subjects of the two clauses are the same, but in the second, they are different, but in each case the same morphology for the dependent verb, -mpi seq , is used. Yimas, however, does not really use clause chaining as its favored device for linking clauses together. Rather it favors subordination via nominalization, either finite or non-finite. For instance, clauses in a simultaneous temporal relationship are signaled by subordinating one of them with a non-finite nominalization: maɲckrm tantaw-am-kia-r-awt-ɲan sit-eat-night -nfn -sg . m -obl bindings.v .du tma-mp-kra-k v .du -3 du .erg -cut-irr ‘While he was sitting down eating, they two cut the two bindings.’

(26)

[Yimas]

Conditionals and temporal clauses are expressed as finite nominalizations, essentially as relative clauses taken to modify an understood noun pucm ‘part, place, time’, which is simply realized as its noun class suffx –mp vii .sg : (27)

a.

b.

3.3.

m-mpu-ŋa-na-tay-ɲc-mp-n [Yimas] nr . dist -3 pl .erg -1 sg .acc -now-see-prs -vii .sg -obl pu-ka-apan-kt 3 pl .acc -1 sg .erg -spear-rm . fut ‘When they see me, I will spear them.’ m-n-tay-c-mp-n na-kra-i-ɲa-mpwi nr . dist -2 sg .erg -see-imm . pst -vii .sg -obl imp .pl -1 pl .dat -tell-imp -talk ‘If you see him, tell us!’

The isolate Taiap (Gapun)

Taiap is spoken by a very small language community, a single village named Gapun. It only probably numbered about a hundred speakers at contact and is now very seriously endangered and likely to disappear in the next generation or so. The current village is situated upon a hill reached through low lying swampy ground, and this hill is located on the western edge of a plateau that originates in the east around the village of Bosmun. During the period of the Sepik-Ramu inland sea, this higher ground constituted a large island at its mouth. It seems not too far fetched to speculate that Taiap, now a language isolate, is the sole surviving descendent (and a tenuous one at that!) of the language or languages that were spoken on that island over two thousand years ago. Now surrounded by languages of the Lower Sepik-Ramu family, Taiap is strikingly different from them, and the differences for Gapun village are not confined to language. While the surrounding

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



221

villages speaking Lower Sepik-Ramu languages trace descent patrilinearly, Gapun villagers do so matrilinearly. These facts find explanation in the historical scenario just alluded to. Taiap speakers are the autochthonous inhabitants of the area, while Lower Sepik-Ramu speakers are immigrants from the foothills, claiming territory as the inland sea receded. Phonologically there is nothing unusual about Taiap; the consonant and vowel inventories are typical of the neighboring Ramu family languages (all data on Taiap from Kulick and Stroud 1992): Table 17: Taiap phonemes p m b m w

t

d n s r

n

ɟ ɲ

ɲ

k ŋ ɡ ŋ

i

e

ə a

o

u

j

Grammatically, however, the language is highly divergent. Nouns, other than a handful of kinship terms, are not marked for number, but, in a manner highly reminiscent of Sepik family languages (see section 3.6), all nouns are assigned to one of two gender classes, masculine or feminine. Nouns with inanimate referents are always feminine, and so this is the unmarked gender. Nouns with animate reference are assigned gender according to sex, where this is relevant or evident, or shape; nouns whose referents are long, high, thin or big are masculine (the phallic source here is obvious), while those with referents which are short, stocky or small are feminine. Thus, snakes are usually masculine, but the death adder, a short squat venomous snake, is feminine. The noun itself does not overtly indicate gender; rather it become apparent through its co-occurrence with modifiers like adjectives, case markers or verbal pronominal agreement affixes: ror ainde /child this.m / ‘this boy’ versus ror aŋgode /child this.f / ‘this girl’. Compare (28a) and (28b). (28)

a. b.

ŋgon ror-ŋi ɲje ta-n-ku-n 3 sg . f . poss child-erg .m dog see-3 sg .m .sbj -3 sg . f . obj -sg .sbj ‘Her son saw a (female) dog.’ ŋgon ror-yi ɲje ta-t-aŋgə-n 3 sg . f . poss child-erg .f dog see-3 sg . f . sbj -3 sg .m .obj -sg .sbj ‘Her daughter saw a (male) dog.’

The Taiap pronouns also distinguish gender in the third person, but in contrast to Sepik family languages in the plural as well as singular:

222 

William A. Foley

Table 18: Taiap independent pronouns 1 2 3m 3f

sg

pl

ŋa yu ŋə ŋgu

yim yum ŋgi ŋgə

Possession is indicated by adding a suffix in –n to these pronominal forms, as in (29a), but nominal possessors use a different suffix (29b). Adjectives follow their head nouns (30). (29)

a.

ŋ(ə)-an 3 sg .m -poss ‘his dog’

ɲje dog

b.

ɲje-ma ŋgasgon dog-poss tail ‘dog’s tail’

awin sawir water black ‘black water’

(30)

Taiap verbal inflection is very complex. Unlike the relatively transparent Lower Sepik languages, Taiap has conjugation classes and discontinuous subject marking and some fusion of tense suffixes with pronominal agreement markers. Taiap is predominantly suffixing. It lacks tense, but has a basic three-way mood contrast between realis which is unmarked, irrealis indicated by –k ~ –kr and hypothetical expressed by –rək. The mood inflection affects the pattern of pronominal agreement for subject; if the verb is realis and hence unmarked for mood, agreement is discontinuous: the first part immediately follows the verb root and the other section occurs word finally. Taiap has seven conjugation classes, three for transitive verbs and four for intransitive verbs; these are distinguished through the sets of discontinuous agreement suffixes employed. As Taiap is suffixing, subject pronominal agreement affixes normally follow the verb and are broken up by the object agreement suffixes, if present, but if the verb begins in a vowel, the first section of the subject agreement marker is prefixed: (31)

a.

ta-nə-ŋgə-n b. see-3 sg .m .sbj -3 sg . m .obj -sg .sbj ‘He saw him.’

k-a-ku-n 3 sg .m .sbj -eat-3 sg . f . obj -sg .sbj ‘He ate it.’

The initial segment of these discontinuous subject agreement affixes, -nə versus k- in these examples, is what distinguishes the conjugation classes. For instance, all transitive verbs have the same set for the final segment of the subject agreement markers, but contrast in the initial part:

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



223

Table 19: Taiap subject agreement affixes for transitive verbs Final

sg

1 2 3m 3f

du

pl

1 2 3

Class i

Initial Class ii

Class iii

-n -n -n -n

pppp-

kkkw-

-n -t -n -t

-r

p-

w-

-t

-n -rem -ro

ppp-

kkw-

-n -n -t

The verb roots of classes 1 and 2 are vowel initial, non-low versus low respectively, so the first section of the discontinuous subject agreement markers are prefixed; roots of class 3 start in consonants, so it is suffixed. Note the high degree of homophonous forms. For class 1, for instance, all singular and the first plural forms are homophonous, while for class 2, the same forms collapse except for third singular feminine. In general high degrees of homophony are evident throughout the verbal paradigms of Taiap. Each class is exemplified in (32). (32)

a. b. c.

p-o-ku-n sg /1 pl .sbj -shoot-3 sg . f . obj -sg /1 pl .sbj ‘I/you(sg )/he/she/we shot it.’ w-a-ku-n 3 sg . f . sbj -eat-3 sg . f . obj -sg /1 pl .sbj ‘She ate it.’ ni-tu-ku-ro make-2 sg /3 sg . f /du /3 pl .sbj -3 sg . f . obj -3 pl .sbj ‘They made it.’

Intransitive verbs show the same pattern over four conjugation classes, identical final segments, but variable initials, but strikingly the set of final segments for intransitive verbs is not the same as that for transitive verbs. Compare (33) with (32): (33)

mb-o-t sg /1 pl /2 pl -go-sg .m ‘I(m )/you(sg )(m )/he went.’

The set of object agreement suffixes also exhibits a high degree of homophony, but surprisingly in the singular less than that of the subject markers:

224 

William A. Foley

Table 20: Taiap object agreement affixes sg

-i -u -ŋgə -ku

1 2 3m 3f

pl

-mə -mbə

Outside of the maximal paradigm of the singular suffixes, there is simple binary contrast of –mə first person plural versus –mbə non-first plural; there is no distinction for dual number unlike elsewhere in the verbal system. If the verb is in the realis mood and hence unaffixed for mood, the object suffixes are sandwiched between the discontinuous subject agreement affixes, but if the verb is in the irrealis or hypothetical mood, indicated by –k ~ –kr and –rək respectively, the object suffix follows the mood suffix immediately and may merge phonologically with it. The subject agreement markers follow it and are no longer discontinuous, and typically show formal discrepancies from the forms used in the realis mood: (34)

a. b. c.

p-o-ku-n sg /1 pl /2 pl -go-sg .m ‘I(m )/you(sg )(m )/he went.’ o-kr-(k)u-net hit-irr -3 sg . f . obj -1 sg .m /3 sg .m ‘I( m )/he will hit her.’ wak-rək-ku-n hit.hyp -hyp -3 sg . f . obj -sg /1 pl .sbj ‘I/you(sg )/he/she/we might hit her.’

It is interesting to note that the irrealis mood makes more formal distinctions for the person and number of the subject than does the unmarked realis or the hypothetical; the above irrealis form can only mean ‘I ( m ) /he will hit her’ in contrast to the other two multiply ambiguous forms ‘I/you(sg )/he/she/we hit her’. This mood simply has more contrasting subject agreement suffixes, as shown in (35). Strikingly, Taiap makes a contrast in gender here for first person singular that does not appear elsewhere in the paradigm of transitive verbs. Compare (35c) with (35b): (35)

a. c.

o-kr-(k)u-tak hit-irr -3 sg . f . obj -3 sg . f . sbj ‘She will hit her.’ o-kr-(k)u-net hit-irr -3 sg . f . obj -1/3 sg . m . sbj ‘I ( m )/he will hit her.’

b.

o-kr-(k)u-nak hit-irr -3 sg . f . obj -1 sg . f /1 pl .sbj ‘I( f )/we will hit her.’

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



225

Note the gender contrast is signaled mainly by the final consonants, -t m versus –k f . For intransitive verbs this gender contrast is extended to all persons in the singular, even in the realis mood: (36)

a.

mb-o-t b. sg /1 pl /2 pl .sbj -go-sg . m ‘I ( m )/ you (sg ) ( m )/ he went.’

mb-o-k sg /1 pl /2 pl .sbj -go-sg . f ‘I ( f )/ you (sg ) ( f )/ she went.’

The order of clausal constituents in the clause is normally SOV in Taiap, but oblique noun phrases commonly follow the verb, and the order of the subject and object noun phrases is flexible. Subjects of transitive verbs are normally marked with the ergative case suffix. There is an applicative suffix –ata which permits benefactive, malefactive and possessor noun phrases to be expressed as core argument object noun phrases instead of obliques. Compare (37a) with (37b): (37)

a. b.

ŋə-ŋi ŋaŋan mbor p-o-ku-n 3 sg -erg . m 1 sg .poss pig sg /1 pl . sbj -shoot-3 sg . f . obj - sg /1 pl . sbj ‘He shot my pig.’ ŋə-ŋi ŋaŋan mbor 3 sg -erg . m 1 sg .poss pig p-o-i-ata-n sg /1 pl .sbj -shoot-1 sg .obj -appl -sg /1 pl .sbj ‘He shot my pig on me.’

Unlike its neighboring Ramu family languages and most Papuan languages, Taiap lacks true clause chaining constructions. There are no stripped down dependent verb forms. Clauses can be coordinated, but both verbs are fully inflected and often linked by a coordinating suffix –a; the same pattern obtains whether the referents of the subjects of the two clauses are the same or different: (38)

a. b.

ŋa tutu-ku-net-a rambu-kr-(k)u-net 1 sg sit-irr -1/3 sg . m . sbj -cnj carve-irr -3 sg . f . obj -1/3/m . sbj ‘I will sit and carve it’ ut-ak ru-kr-(k)u-net-a atə-kə-tak push-sg . f propel-irr -3 sg . f . obj -1/3 sg . m . sbj -cnj fall-irr -3 sg . f . sbj ‘I ( m ) /he will push her and she will fall’

As in Yimas, subordination through finite nominalization is a favored way to knit clauses together; again they are marked with the oblique case marker: (39)

ŋə ai-ki-net-re ŋa-yi o-ŋgrə-net 3 sg . m come-irr -1/3 sg . m . sbj -obl 1 sg -erg hit-3 sg . m . obj -1/3 sg . m . sbj ‘If/when he comes, I will hit him.’

226 

William A. Foley

3.4.

The Yuat family

This is a small language family of five relatively closely related languages spoken along the middle course of the Yuat river, a southern tributary of the Sepik river. All five languages are poorly attested, but the scant current lexical and morphological evidence available suggests the following subgrouping, although it must be admitted that the placement of Changriwa and Mekmek is mainly due to the complete lack of evidence beyond very short and suspicious word lists; for the other three languages there is more material available:

Figure 3: The Yuat family

Ethnologue (Lewis et al. 2014) also lists a sixth language, Maramba, spoken in the village of the same name, as a Yuat family language. Laycock (1975) listed Maramba village as speaking Angoram of the Lower Sepik family and this is in fact correct. There are no published materials on any of the Yuat languages, but I have available a grammar sketch of Mundukumo by a University of Sydney honors student in linguistics (McElvenny 2007), based on two months fieldwork, the source of the Mundukumo data here, and my own brief fieldnotes on Miyak (Bun is regarded locally as almost a dialect of Mundukumo). Structurally the Yuat family languages are similar to those of the Ramu family, but demonstrate no evidence of a genetic relationship to these. The phonemic systems are closely parallel. The only difference is the addition of the labial fricatives. E.  g. Mundukomo: Table 21: Mundukomo phonemes p m b m f m v w

t

d n s

n

r

ʤ ɲ

ɲ

j

k ŋ ɡ ŋ

 

i

e

ə a

o

u

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



227

However, the pronominal systems are very divergent from those of Ramu languages; consider these pronominal roots from Mundukumo and Miyak: Table 22: Pronouns in Yuat languages

sg

pl

1 2 3 1 excl 1 incl 2 3

Mundukumo

Miyak

ŋə də u i abə ya wa

ŋə də u ni aba be vara

None of the diagnostics of Lower Sepik-Ramu languages are here: no third person pronouns in m- nor any high or mid back vowels for second person non-singular. Nor do any of the lexical cognates from either of the two branches of the Lower Sepik-Ramu family have any clear reflexes among the attested Yuat family languages. One interesting overlap though is the distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person, which the Yuat languages share with the languages of the Grass sub-family within the Ramu family. As the Yuat and Grass family languages are contiguous, this is most likely an areal feature, most likely spread from the Yuat languages, whose speakers were culturally dominant in the area (Mead 1963; McDowell 1991), as it is not found elsewhere among Lower Sepik-Ramu languages. The pronouns form possessives through the addition of a suffix –ke, Mundukomo na-ke yavət /1 sg -poss body/ ‘my body’, and the same form is used with nominal possessors, klaŋgi-ke sabaŋ /house.pl -poss measurement/ ‘the houses’ dimensions’. Possessors can either precede or follow their possessed nouns, but adjectives and deictics typically precede and agree for number, this feature of agreement being one that Yuat languages share with those of the Lower Ramu sub-family of the Ramu family, except that adjectives follow their heads in Lower Ramu languages: (40)

a. b.

tanə satək this.sg little.sg ‘this little pig’ talə salə this.pl little.pl ‘these little pigs’.

vle pig.sg vliu pig.pl

[Mundukumo]

228 

William A. Foley

And this is not the only grammatical trait in common with Ramu languages, in particular those of the Lower Ramu sub-family. Like these, Yuat family languages have complex allomorphy for noun pluralization. There is a complex maze of plural suffixes, and the choice of allophones boils down to a combination of phonological criteria, semantics and outright lexical stipulation; again forms from Mundukomo: Table 23: Plural formatives in Mundukomo

root ends in /k/ root ends in /d/ [nd] → n/_#

root ends in /ɡ/ [ŋɡ] → ŋ/_# root ends in /b/ [mb] → m/_# root ends in /m/

‘snake’ ‘tooth’ ‘bone’ ‘nose’ ‘thigh’ ‘hand’ ‘dog’ ‘betelnut’ ‘ear’ ‘fire’ ‘basket’ ‘mouth’ ‘house’ ‘star’ ‘water’ ‘neck’ ‘ball’ ‘cassowary’ ‘girl’ ‘paddle’

sg

pl

mas adusuva avu ŋlək guak klik ken siman tuan mən ban balaŋ klaŋ susuaŋ mam volam muŋmam kalim analom dum

mase adusuvavi avuvavi ŋlu go klia kidu simadu tuadu məda bada balagi klagi susuagi mabi volabi muŋmabi kalimu analomu dumu

While the overall pattern is impressively similar to what occurs in the Lower Ramu languages and in turn to the complex plural allomorphs of the noun classification systems of the Lower Sepik languages, and, further, such systems are typologically unusual among Papuan languages and the languages of the world generally, no convincing cognates between the plural allomorphs of the Yuat languages and those of the Lower Sepik-Ramu can be identified. The only phonological parallel are the forms adding a final –i to roots ending in /ɡ/: e.  g. /klaɡ/ ‘house’ > sg klaŋ ([ŋɡ] → ŋ/_#), pl klag + i pl . Exactly the same alteration and plural allomorph is found in Lower Sepik-Ramu languages like Yimas and Watam. But this is far too slender a thread on which to stake a claim of genetic relationship in the face of all the contrary evidence. On most other grammatical traits as well, the Yuat languages are typologically similar to Ramu family languages, being largely isolating languages with no pro-

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



229

nominal agreement affixes on verbs and essentially restricting verbal morphology to suffixation for tense. Yuat languages do have case marking for noun phrases, and they do so with a nominative-accusative alignment. They, however, belong to the crosslinguistically unusual class of languages with marked nominatives, i.  e. the subject noun phrase is case marked, by a suffix –n, and the object remains unmarked for case, as in these Miyak examples: (41)

a. b.

avit-ən sabut-va man.sg -nom stand-prs ‘The man is standing up.’ avit-ən ken mat-va man.sg -nom dog.sg hit-prs ‘The man is hitting the dog.’

[Miyak]

Nominative case marking only occurs on singular nouns; plural nouns remain unmarked. In addition, in Miyak first and third person singular pronouns have distinct accusative forms, but for other person-number combinations, the independent pronoun is used. Compare (42a) and (42b): (42)

a.

u-n ŋunu jit-va b. 3 sg -nom 1 sg .acc see-prs ‘He sees me.’

u-n be jit-va 3 sg -nom 2 pl see-prs ‘He sees you (pl ).’

[Miyak]5

Yuat languages also have a dative case suffix –tə for indirect objects of ditransitive verbs: (43)

avit-ən me-tə simadu masi-va man.sg -nom woman.sg -dat betelnut.pl give-prs ‘The man is giving betelnuts to the woman.’

[Miyak]

However, in marked contrast to Ramu languages and many other diverse families of the Sepik-Ramu basin, the dative case is never extended to mark objects of transitive verbs with animate reference. Yuat family languages are true nominative-accusative-dative languages, while Ramu languages and those of many other families are nominative-dative languages. Yuat languages also have a locative case suffix –(n)i and a instrumental/comitative case –di: (44)

kabən-(n)ə maikua-ni lə-və go-cont child-nom road-loc ‘The child is walking on the road.’

(45)

avit-ən vli sa-va gaga-di man-nom pig cut.up-prs knife-instr ‘The man is cutting up the pig with a knife.’

5

Miyak j = /ʤ/.

[Mundukumo]

[Miyak]

230 

William A. Foley

The verbal morphology of Yuat languages is also simple; there is a single suffix to mark tense-aspect and mood. There is a basic contrast between real events which are unmarked and unreal events, which in Mundukomo are further distinguished according to degrees of probability, as in (46). Other suffixes are indicators of aspectual distinctions (47). (46)

a.

(47)

a.

mal-(n)ə vui-kani rain-nom fall-irr ‘It could rain.’ də mlaŋa-nə a 2 sg .nom take-prf q ‘Have you gotten it?’

b. b.

mal-(n)ə vui-kani [Mundukomo] rain-nom fall-likely ‘It’s going to rain.’ u inə-bə [Mundukomo] 3 sg .nom sleep-compl ‘He’s gone to sleep.’

The ubiquitous suffix –və (Miyak –va), a grammaticalization of the verb ‘stay’, marks a continuous aspect, most typically in present time and hence glossed prs here: tanə wakən-(n)ə sui this.sg bigman.sg -nom sago.jelly ‘The bigman is eating sago jelly.’

(48)

jə-və eat-prs

[Mundukomo]

The only prefixes found in Mundukomo are the imperative da- (də da-la /2 sg . nom imp -go/ ‘you go!’) and an evidential of certainty prefix a- which asserts that an event is 1: now happening, 2: must happen as a result of someone expressing a command that the event must be undertaken, or 3: certainly will happen in the future (in the latter usage only with first person singular subjects for obvious reasons). (49) b.

ŋə sui a-ji-və 1 sg .nom sago.jelly cert -eat-prs ‘I’m eating sago right now.’ ŋə a-l-adi 1 sg .nom cert -go-likely ‘I’m definitely about to go.’

[Mundukomo]

The order of clausal constituents in Yuat languages is rigidly SOV, not surprisingly in the face of the impoverished nature of the system of case marking and the lack of any pronominal agreement affixes for core grammatical relations on the verb. But they are not rigidly verb final; non-subject case marked noun phrases such as datives and instrumentals or those marked by locational postpositions can freely follow the verb:

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 

 (50)

a. b.

avit-n simadu masi-va medu-tu woman.pl -dat man.sg -nom betelnut.pl give-prs ‘The man gave betelnuts to the women.’ avit-ən vli sa-va gaga-di man. sg - nom pig cut.up-prs knife-instr ‘The man is cutting up the pig with a knife.’

231

[Miyak]

Clause chaining constructions, if present at all, are minimally developed, again not surprisingly in the light of the minimal verb inflection. Clauses in a sequential temporal relationship can be linked by suffixing the completive suffix –bə ~ -pə to the verb of the prior clause: (51)

a. b.

sijiŋ la-pə sat-kadi lə-və bark take.away-compl scrape-likely go-prs ‘After taking away the bark, it’s scraped out.’ də mla-bə a-sela a-imə 2 sg .nom take-compl cert -go.out cert -come ‘After you take it, you must come outside.’

[Mundukomo]

However, these are not dependent in any true sense because they can stand on their own as complete independent clauses. Miyak seems to have a conjunction ga, which indicates that the referents of the subjects of two conjoined clauses are not coreferential (the suffix –e is also found on verbs in negated clauses and on imperative verbs in Miyak, as well as here on the verb of a conjoined clause, but available data are not sufficient to determine its exact function): (52)

a. b.

avit-ən ken mat-v(a)-e (*ga) mut-va dr run.away-prs man.sg -nom dog hit-prs -? ‘The man hits the dog and he (the man) runs away.’ avit-ən ken mad-v(a)-e *(ga) mut-va dr run.away-prs man.sg -nom dog hit-prs -? ‘The man hits the dog and it (the dog) runs away.’

[Miyak]

Yuat languages form subordinate clauses in a manner typical of the immediate area, by suffixing an oblique case marker to the final verbal head of the clause, but interestingly they employ the instrumental/comitative case for this: (53)

vei katag-və-di makət balə viak face clean sago.sg sago.pl cut-prs -instr katak-(k)ani cut-irr ‘When you cut sago trees down, clean the bark and then cut it down.’

[Mundukomo]

232 

William A. Foley

(54)

:

3.5.

Kak ŋə-ma-di avit-ən ken mat-va boy.pl come-prs -instr man.sg -nom dog hit-prs ‘While the boys are coming, the man is hitting a dog.’

[Miyak]

The Upper Yuat family

This family is spoken on the upper reaches and headwaters of the Arafundi river and across to the headwaters of the Yuat river in the Schrader Ranges. It consists of two sub-families, the Piawi languages and the Arafundi languages; in the latter the exact number of distinct languages is unclear, as the border between language and dialect is hazy, but Hoenigman (2007) suggests at least four distinct languages within the Arafundi family, and there may be more, but I will adopt this view here. In the Piawi family, the relationship between Hagahai and Pinai is unclear; they may prove to be separate languages. The relationships within the Upper Yuat family at this stage of our knowledge are as follows:

Figure 4: The Upper Yuat family

A striking fact about the Upper Yuat family is that while the languages within the two sub-families are quite closely related, in the case of the Arafundi languages almost a dialect chain, so that in my survey of the family in the 1980s I regarded it as a highly diversified single language, the relationship between the two sub-families is very remote, with few identifiable cognates, and in fact these two families may not be related, depending how one regards the evidence I provide below for a genetic relationship. At a minimum this suggests that the time depth of separation between the two constituent families is very great, but that after their initial separation, Proto-Piawi and Proto-Arafundi stayed together for a long period of time as unified speech communities before diversifying into the current daughter languages. The case for the genetic relationship between the Piawi and Arafundi

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



233

languages revolves around putative cognates in their pronominal forms (data from Comrie (1986, 1987), Davies and Comrie (1985), Hoenigman (2007) and my own fieldnotes): Table 24: Upper Yuat pronouns

sg du pl

1 2 3 1 2/3 1 2/3

Harway

Hagahai

Pinai

Lower Upper Awiakay Arafundi Arafundi

nɨgə nago nugʷə

ŋɨgə naɣə nəɣʷə

nɨga naga

angə ɲɨgə

angə ɲegə

nanəga ɲiga

ɲɨŋ nan an as nɨɲ aŋ noŋ

niŋ nan as nen noŋ

niŋ nan an as neɲ aŋ noŋ

Clearly the form –ga ~ -gə is a suffix used to augment the pronouns in the Piawi languages; removing this shows how close the Piawi forms are to their Arafundi counterparts. The first and second person forms need no comment; if cogate, they would go back to something like Table 25: Proto-Upper Yuat pronouns 1 2

sg

pl

*ni *na

*an ~ *aŋ *ne

But the third person singular form in the Piawi languages would seem to be cognate with the second/third person plural in the Arafundi languages. Its original number is not clear, so I will just reconstruct it as *nu 3. The overwhelming presence of initial /n/ in these pronoun series is striking and the main evidence for the genetic relationship of these two families in spite of the lack of further evidence at present; how one evaluates this evidence depends on how one weighs the possibilities of this arising by chance (most languages have nasals in the first or second person pronouns or both) or by borrowing wholesale the pronominal paradigm. Neither of these can be completely ruled out, so this claim of genetic relationship must remain provisional, though I believe the weight of the evidence does justify relatedness as a hypothesis worth further investigation. Further research into the lexical and grammatical resources of these languages may bolster it. There is also some similarity between these reconstructed pronominals and those of the Grass languages of the Ramu family, but this is less convincing. Only *ni may be cognate in form and meaning. The Grass family’s *nu 2 sg is formally identical to Pro-

234 

William A. Foley

to-Upper Yuat *nu 3, but the lack of a meaning match is problematic, although the shift from second person to third is not impossible, given the fact that these two persons conflate in the non-singular anyway. The possible link between the Ramu and Upper Yuat languages is intriguing, but at this point inconclusive and will require further investigation. It would not be implausible, though, given the fact that the oral histories of many villages speaking Lower Sepik-Ramu languages tell of migrations from a homeland in the foothills and mountains where the Upper Yuat languages are currently spoken. Prima facie evidence against a genetic link to the Ramu languages is that the Upper Yuat languages are typologically very different from them. The languages of the two sub-families within the Upper Yuat family are, of course, in turn different from each other, but the general pattern is that they are both typologically more like the languages of the Trans New Guinea family of the central highlands to their south than they are to the Lower Sepik-Ramu and Yuat languages to their north, although there is a twist: the languages or dialects of the Arafundi languages that are found in the Sepik lowlands, such as Awiakay or the Lower Arafundi dialect of Imanmeri, with major trading relationships among other lowland Sepik villages, are more like the languages of their Sepik neighbors, while those closer to the mountains are more similar to the montane Trans New Guinea languages. Consider the differences in clause chaining structures between these two dialects of Lower Arafundi, that of Imanmeri in the Sepik lowlands and Auwim of the foothills: (55)

a. b.

(56)

a. b.

ɲɨŋ nam yɨpɨ-pɨɲ ambuk [Imanmeri] 1 sg woman see-sr go.1 sg .sbj .pst ‘I saw a woman and went.’ ɲɨŋ nam yɨpɨ-k nam anan 1 sg woman see-1 sg .sbj . prf woman go.3 sg .sbj .pst ‘I saw a woman and the woman went.’ ɲɨŋ nam yepe-a ambuk 1 sg woman see-sr go.1 sg .sbj .pst ‘I saw a woman and went.’ ɲɨŋ nam yepe-tum-uŋ aɲ 1 sg woman see-dr -1 sg .sbj go.3 sg .sbj .pst ‘I saw a woman and (she) went.’

[Auwim]

The Auwim dialect like many Trans New Guinea languages has distinct switch reference suffixes on dependent verbs, the first, signaling that the referent of the subject of the following clause is different from that of its own clause, here – tVm dr, and the second, one of a specialized set of subject suffixes indicating the person and number of the subjects of dependent verbs, -uŋ 1sg.sbj in the example provided. The Imanmeri dialect, on the other hand, like languages of the Lower

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



235

Sepik-Ramu or Yuat families has no specialized switch reference forms in clause chaining constructions. If there is a need to indicate a change in the referents of subjects across clauses, it simply conjoins two clauses with fully inflected independent verbs as in the example above. Not surprisingly, the Piawi languages located even further in the mountains are more like the Auwim dialect in this regard, as (57) from Harway bear out (Comrie 1993), although Harway, in keeping with the general typological profile of the Piawi languages, is less complex in this feature than Auwim. (57)

a. b.

nɨ ha nugu-ən bər du-m-a 1 sg child see-sr run go-1 sg .sbj .pst -decl ‘I saw the child and ran away.’ nɨ ha nugu-mən bər du-əŋ-a 1 sg child see-dr run go-3 sg .sbj .pst -decl ‘I saw a child and (he) ran away.’

[Harway]

All Upper Yuat languages exhibit typological features of the Trans New Guinea languages to their south and east to a greater or less extent, not unexpectedly given their geographical position adjoining them. But Harway goes further and displays strong influence at all levels from the Trans New Guinea language, Kobon, to its east. Besides obvious grammatical features in common, like switch reference illustrated above, extensive vocabulary has been borrowed, even very basic items. Sometimes there are doublets in Harway, a native word and a borrowed item (Comrie 1990): ‘sun’ nayə and sdə (Kobon sda), ‘dog’ wəɲə and kəyn (Kobon kayn), ‘father’ acə and bəp (Kobon baap). But in other cases, the Kobon loan has completely replaced the native term: ‘wife’s brother’ bənəy (Kobon bane), ‘grandmother’ əpsəw (Kobon aps), ‘ear’ rmj (Kobon rmd). It is interesting to note that a study of basic vocabulary showed essentially the same percentage (~33 %) shared between Harway and Hagahai, both members of the Piawi family, as between Harway and Kobon, two languages not demonstrably related. The inflated percentage in the latter case is clearly due to borrowing from Kobon, a culturally prestigious group for the neighboring Harway, but this case should sound alarm bells for anyone making a case for genetic relationship mainly on the basis of plausible lexical cognates, even those drawn from basic vocabulary. This is why my preferred source of evidence for both arguments of genetic relationships and subgrouping is always morphological. Most Upper Yuat languages have phonological systems closely in line with the general Sepik-Ramu pattern. Palatal consonants are strongly entrenched in their phonemic systems, occurring in all positions of the word, even word finally. The system for the Auwim dialect of the Lower Arafundi language is:

236 

William A. Foley

Table 26: Lower Arafundi (Auwim) consonant phonemes p m b m

t

c ɟ ɲ

d n r

n

w

k ɡ ŋ

ɲ

ŋ

j

The phoneme /c/ varies allophonically between [c] and [s]. Interestingly, Harway is innovative by splitting these allophones so that it has a phonemic distinction between /c/ and /s/; this is rare in the Sepik-Ramu region. As in Auwim, the Harway palatal obstruents are /c/ and /ɟ/. However, Harway also has a set of palatalized consonants to supplement the basic palatal series of the Arafundi languages: /bʲ/, /pʲ/, /mʲ/, /ɡʲ/, /ŋʲ/, and also unusually for the immediate region, a distinction between /l/ and /r/ (the Lower Sepik language Yimas also has two liquids, but they are /r/ and /lʲ/). The Upper Yuat languages also typically have the seven vowel system widespread in the region, shown in Table 27, although in some, such as Awiakay, the common merger of the two non-low central vowels results in the typical six vowel system, as in Table 28. Table 27: Typical Upper Yuat vowel phoneme system i

e

ɨ ə a

o

u

Table 28: Awiakay vowel phonemes i

e

ə a

o

u

The Piawi languages are morphologically much simpler than the Arafundi languages; I illustrate with Harway (Comrie 1987). Nouns are uninflected for case, and even possessors are normally unmarked and juxtaposed: nəbə hən /man pig/ ‘the man’s pig’. What morphological complexity there is accrues to the verb and even here it is low. An independent verb is inflected for tense, with a three way contrast: past, present, future, and the person-number of its subject: pal-m-ə /hitpst -2 sg .sbj / ‘you (sg ) hit’. There are some zero morphemes (1 sg .sbj and 3 sg . sbj are both zero!), and rules like palatalization that often obscure the inflectional pattern, but essentially this is the sum of it. A dependent verb is even simpler, as the examples above demonstrate: they are simply marked for same versus different referents of the subjects across the clauses. Clausal constituent order is also more rigid than in some Lower Sepik-Ramu languages. Harway is a rather rigid verb

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



237

final language, only allowing locative noun phrases and some particles to follow the verb. Order of noun phrases before the verb is freer, although, with the lack of case marking, there is a preference for SOV, but this preference can easily be overridden by extralinguistic factors. The Arafundi languages are of a middle rank in morphological complexity, with a mixed agglutinative-fusional profile. I will illustrate with examples from the Auwim dialect of the Lower Arafundi language. This language is unusual for the region in having a distinct set of possessive pronominal affixes which are suffixed directly to the possessed noun root, as in this paradigm for taum ‘dog’, although this affixes need not be employed and a periphrastic construction with a free possessive pronoun can be used instead: Table 29: Lower Arafundi (Auwim) possessive affixation sg du pl

1 2 3 1 2/3 1 2/3

taumb-uk taumb-un taumb-a taumb-is taumb-ɨɲ taumb-ɨŋ taumb-ɨnɨŋ

  taum acɨm taum nandɨm taum andam taum atɲɨm taum nɨɲɨm taum aŋəm taum noŋom

Verbs are more complex and are exclusively suffixing. The basic order of suffixes is the pronominal agreement suffix for the object preceding that for the subject, i.  e. V-o-s, with the latter portmanteau for tense-mood, as is commonly the case in Trans New Guinea languages, but much less so for languages of this region: (58)

a.

kam-aŋgi-wam b. gather-1 pl .obj -3 pl .sbj .pst ‘They collected us.’

poko-nci-mɨɲ hit-1 sg .obj -3 du .sbj .pst ‘They (two) hit me.’

[Auwim]

Object agreement is not obligatory so that pronominal objects can occur as free accusatively case marked pronouns. Compare (59) with (58b). (59)

ci poko-mɨɲ 1 sg .acc hit-3 du .sbj .pst ‘They (two) hit me.’

[Auwim]

The range of subject agreement suffixes across tense-mood can be illustrated with the following partial paradigms of the verb pak- ‘carry’ (where -ɨp is a progressive suffix):

238 

William A. Foley

Table 30: Lower Arafundi (Auwim) subject agreement affixes

sg pl

1 2 3 3

pst

prs

irr

pak-ek pak-man pak-e pak-wam

pak-ɨp-ɨcɨk pak-ɨp-anɨm pak-ɨp-eɲ pak-ɨp-etam

pak-ŋ pak-en pak-am pak-aŋ

Clausal constituent order in the Auwim dialect is mainly SOV, but not fixed, as oblique noun phrases can follow the verb, and the relative order of the subject and object noun phrases is flexible. There is also an as yet poorly understood ergative suffix for subjects of transitive verbs where there is potential ambiguity as to grammatical relations; this is yet another feature shared with many Trans New Guinea languages: (60)

3.6.

nuŋgum-ən yay yaw kutə yəp-e pig house inside see-3 sg .sbj .pst man-erg ‘The man saw the pig in the house.’

[Auwim]

The Sepik family

The Sepik family is a working hypothesis about possible genetic relationships among some groups of languages rather than a strong claim of relatedness definitively established by a robust collection of evidence. The hypothesized Sepik family would be the second largest in the Sepik-Ramu basin in the number of languages, and the largest in number of speakers and geographical extent, with over forty languages spread over ten sub-families. The Sepik family stretches from its border with the Lower Sepik-Ramu family in the east to the border with the Indonesian province of Papua, spread along the Sepik river and the adjoining swamps to its south and the swamps and grasslands to its north. An interesting trait of many sub-families within the Sepik family is the high degree of typological variation within them; the same sub-family can contain quite morphologically simple, largely isolating languages and languages with complex agglutinative suffixing morphology, for instance, within the Ndu family, isolating Ambulas with agglutinative Manambu; within the Sepik Hill family, Sanio-Hiowe with Alamblak; or within the Tama family, Yessan-Mayo with Mehek. This is in stark contrast to some other language families considered so far, such as the Ramu, Lower Sepik or Yuat families, in which all related languages share a similar typological profile. With our current understanding of the comparative situation within the Sepik family, it is not clear which was the direction of change, from isolating to agglutinative or vice versa, although comparative evidence reported here comparing the subject pronominal agreement suffixes in two languages of distinct sub-families, Mehek and Alamblak, hints at the former.

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



239

A salient feature of Sepik family languages, and one quite in contrast with those of the Lower Sepik-Ramu, Yuat and and Upper Yuat families, but shared with Taiap, is a two gender system for nouns, rather like Romance languages, in which nouns referring to humans and higher or domestic animals are assigned grammatical gender, masculine or feminine, by the referent’s sex, but those referring to lower animals and inanimate objects, by a number of complex principles, but most widespread in the Sepik languages, by an appeal to shape: long and thin things are masculine, and short squat things are feminine. Also in parallel to Taiap, the feminine gender is most commonly the unmarked gender in Sepik languages. In most sub-families of the Sepik family nouns are overtly marked for gender and number by a set of suffixes; their reconstructions for Proto-Sepik are: Table 31: Proto-Sepik number-gender markers sg m

*-r

f

*-t ~ *-s

 

du

*-f

 

pl

*-m

Gender is only overtly marked in the singular. The families that comprise the Middle Sepik subgroup of the Sepik family, such as the Ndu family, are aberrant in having no overt marking of gender for their nouns; there it is a covert category only determinable by the choice of third person singular pronouns, for instance, Proto-Ndu *nd- 3 sg . m and *l- 3 sg . f . The pronominal systems of Sepik languages are remarkably unstable; in some languages such as Abau, the whole system seems to have been reconstructed around an innovative, presumably deictic, stem, while in others like Alamblak of the Sepik Hill family or Namia of the Yellow River family, this restructuring seems restricted to the third person forms. In any case, most Sepik family languages have a reflex of *na ~ *an for 1 sg , *no for 1 pl , *ni for 2 sg (this last form becomes the second singular feminine pronoun in Middle Sepik languages, while other Sepik languages only make gender distinctions in the third person singular pronouns). There is also a small set of lexical cognates found throughout the family: *muk ‘breast’, *ta(w)r ‘tongue’, *mi ‘tree’, *wara ‘dog’, *nim ‘louse’, *ri ‘feces’, *(y) i ‘go’ and *ya ‘come’. There are also a few pieces of proto-grammar that can be reconstructed in addition to the gender and number suffixes. First of all, there is a postposition/suffix *ni used to mark dative or indirect object noun phrases attested in many sub-families of the Sepik family. In addition and in opposition to this, there is another postposition/suffx *kV that marks locative or allative noun phrases. Finally in contrast to dative noun phrases with the semantic role of recipient, i.  e. the indirect object of ‘give’ indicated by the form *ni noted above, beneficiary noun phrases are

240 

William A. Foley

expressed through a verb compounding or serializing construction involving the root of the verb ‘give’, *kwV ~ kVw; this is widely preserved in the daughter languages in a range of sub-families, as exemplified here from Ambulas of the Ndu family (Laycock 1965), Yessan-Mayo of the Tama family (Foreman 1974), Autuw of the Ram family (Feldman 1986) and Abau (Bailey 1975): (61)

mɨnɨ kwəlpɨk yə-kway-wɨtə-kwə 2 sg bow do-ben -1 sg -npst ‘I made a bow for you (sg ).’

(62)

wara kep a(n)-ni wala wuri bet-kwu-ti one get-ben -fut tomorrow 2 du 1 sg -dat dog ‘Tomorrow you (two) will kill a dog for me.’

(63)

Wawpey yen-e yaw də-kə-kow-o pn 2 sg -dat pig fact -get-ben -pst ‘Wawpey got a pig for you (sg ).’

(64)

fi fa-ne ma-me-sor-kow 3 sg . m 1 sg -dat again-say-tell-ben ‘He will tell me again.’

[Ambulas]

[Yessan-Mayo]

[Autuw]

[Abau]

This last construction and cognate forms is strong evidence in favor of a genetic relationship that includes all these languages, the hypothesized Sepik family. There is no stronger evidence than cognate bound forms within a construction or paradigm. While it is arguable that the specific beneficiary serialization pattern could have diffused, the shared bound formative to realize this structure is a very strong diagnostic of genetic relationship.

Figure 5: The Sepik family

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 

 3.6.1

241

The Middle Sepik family

This is a provisional grouping of four sub-families of the Sepik family based on some apparent innovations in the pronominal systems. The first of these innovations is the extension of the contrast between masculine and feminine gender in third person to second person, with the old second person singular pronoun now restricted to feminine gender and the consequent innovation of a new second person singular pronominal form in *m for the masculine gender. The second is the development of a second/third person dual pronoun with a form like *(m)pri. The final and least certain innovation is a new second person plural pronoun with a form (ŋ)kwV; this is less unconvincing because it could be inheritance from Proto-Sepik, which may very well have had *ko 2 pl . All these innovations can be illustrated in the following pronoun series, from Manambu of the Ndu family (Aikhenvald 2008), Kwoma of the Nukuma family (Kooyers 1974), Yerakai (Laycock fieldnotes in my possession) and Namia of the Yellow River family (Feldpausch and Feldpausch 1992): Table 32: Middle Sepik pronouns

sg

du

pl

1 2m 2f 3m 3f 1 2 3 1 2 3

Manambu

Kwoma

Yerakai

Namia

wun mɨn ɲɨn ndɨ lɨ an mbɨr mbɨr ɲan ŋgwur ndɨy

an mɨ ni rɨ sɨ si ki pɨr no kwo ye

ana mun nen dit sis tet mbot ŋgit no-m ŋgo-m lal

ona am ne lo-ko e-ko era awa-pli la-pli-ko ema wa-m lo-m-ko

The suffix –m on the plural forms in Yerakai and second and third plural in Namia is none other than a reflex of the Proto-Sepik gender number marker *-m pl , as are the r/d and s forms in the third singular in Kwoma and Yerakai forms, which come from *-r sg . m and *-t ~ *s 3 sg . f . The Yellow River language Namia is clearly the most divergent, and the inclusion of the Yellow River family within the Middle Sepik family must remain highly provisional, although its membership in the wider Sepik family is not in doubt.

242 

William A. Foley

3.6.1.1 The Ndu family This language family takes its name from the word for ‘man’. A clear diagnostic of the Ndu family is the innovation of *wun for the Proto-Sepik first singular pronoun *an ~ *na, which then became the form for the first dual pronoun. All languages in this family and no others in the Sepik family exhibit this development. The languages of the Ndu family are relatively closely related, on the order of Polynesian or Romance, as can be gleaned by comparing pronominal systems across languages of the family (Gala and Manambu forms from Aikhenvald (2008); Kaunga and Boiken from Laycock 1965; Iatmul from Staalsen (1965); and Ambulas from Wilson (1980); practical orthographies of original sources altered to demonstrate phonological commonalities): Table 33: Ndu pronouns

sg

du

pl

1 2m 2f 3m 3f 1 2 3 1 2 3

Gala

Manambu

Kaunga6

Iatmul

Ambulas

Boiken

wun mɨn yin kɨl/r ki an mbɨn (na)bɨl nan ŋgun lal/r

wun mɨn ɲɨn ndɨ lɨ an mbɨr mbɨr ɲan ŋgwur ndɨy

wuni mɨni ɲɨɲi ndɨ lɨ ani mbɨni mbɨrɨ ɲani ŋguni ɲji

wun mɨn ɲɨn ndɨ lɨ an mbɨt mbɨt nɨn ŋgut ndi

wunɨ mɨnɨ ɲɨɲɨ ndɨ lɨ anɨ mbɨnɨ mbɨt nanɨ ŋgunɨ nde

nwə mɨnɨ ɲɨnɨ ndɨ ni nənɨ mbɨrɨ mbɨrɨ nanɨ ŋgurɨ ndi

The Ndu family consists at a minimum of the following seven languages:

Figure 6: The Ndu family 6

Kaunga j = /ɟ/.

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



243

More detailed sub-classification may be possible; it does seem likely that Gala split off from the remaining Ndu languages first, but beyond that the picture is not clear. The last four languages listed traditionally had numbers of speakers in the tens of thousands, are spread over a large area and exhibit very high dialect diversity (Staalsen 1969, 1975; Wilson 1976; Freudenberg 1976). It is quite likely that their dialect diversity is so high as to constitute distinct languages, but insufficient research has been conducted to determine this, so I will adhere to the conservative listing of seven Ndu languages above (though see Staalsen 1975). Ethnologue (Lewis et al. 2014)), on the other hand, lists thirteen Ndu languages. The Ndu family is among the better documented in the Sepik-Ramu basin and among the best in the whole of New Guinea. We have extensive grammars of Ambulas (Wilson 1980), Wosera (a dialect of Ambulas) (Wendel 1993), Iatmul (Jendrascheck 2012) and Manambu (Aikhenvald 2008); phonological statements for a number of languages, Ambulas (Wearne and Wilson 1970), Iatmul (Staalsen 1966; Jendraschek 2008), Boiken (Freudenberg and Freudenberg 1974); dialect studies of Ambulas (Wilson 1976), Iatmul (Staalsen 1969, 1975) and Boiken (Freuenberg 1976); miscellaneous articles dealing with aspects of grammar for Ambulas (Wilson 1973), Iatmul (Staalsen 1964, 1965, 1972; Jendrascheck 2009a,b) and Manambu (Aikhenvald 2009); a detailed dictionary of Ambulas (Kundama et al. 1987); and finally a brief comparative study (Laycock 1965). This section draws on data from these sources. The proper phonemic analysis of the Ndu languages has been of some controversy ever since Laycock’s seminal study (1965). The consonants are not such a big issue; most Ndu languages conform fairly closely to a typical inventory for the Sepik-Ramu basin, as here for Ambulas (Wearne and Wilson 1970): Table 34: Ambulas consonant phonemes p m b m β w

t

d n s

n

l r

ʤ ɲ

ɲ

k ɡ ŋ

ŋ

j

Ambulas again exemplifies the pattern already seen many times of /s/ functioning as the realization of the palatal voiceless stop. What is less typical is the presence of a bilabial fricative /β/ and a contrast between /l/ and /r/, though both of these features are common in languages of the adjacent Torricelli family. Certainly languages of the Lower Sepik-Ramu family have but a single fricative although some within its Grass sub-family like Ap Ma do contrast a bilabial or labiodental frica-

244 

William A. Foley

tive to /s/, although this too could be due to influence from the adjoining Yuat languages, which do have such a contrast. Some other Ndu languages such as Boiken (Freudenberg and Freudenberg 1974) and Iatmul (Staalsen 1966) add a second voiced fricative, a velar /ɣ/, to the set above, while Aikhenvald (2008) argues for a further labialized series /pʷ, bʷ, kʷ, ɡʷ/, which other scholars have analyzed as clusters of stop plus semivowel, although I suspect the Aikhenvald analysis is the more accurate. The only real controversy in the consonants concerns the status of the prenasalized voiced stops. The Yangoru dialect of Boiken has lost the entire set by devoicing this to a voiceless series: ‘water’ Ambulas ŋgu, Iatmul ŋgu, but Yangoru Boiken ku. If they are analyzed as clusters, i.  e. /ŋk/, ‘water’ ŋku, this change can be accounted for as simply the loss of the initial nasal. Staalsen (1966) does in fact analyze this voiced prenasalized series in Iatmul as clusters, i.  e. /mp/, /nt/, /ɲc/, / ŋk/, noting that in this language the stop component is not necessarily voiced following the prenasalization, although it appears they are always voiced in Ambulas and Manambu. It may be that the proper analysis varies in the different Ndu languages depending on language specific details. The analysis of the vowels is more problematic. In terms of basic surface phonemic contrasts, most Ndu languages pattern like Ramu and Upper Yuat languages in having seven vowels: Table 35: Typical Ndu family vowel inventory i

e

ɨ ə a

o

u

As with Ramu and Upper Yuat languages the low vowel is noticeably longer than the others, and in most Ndu languages is also typically exhibits glottalization, sometimes realized as [aʔa]. This system of seven vowels is what is suggested for Ambulas by Wearne and Wilson (1970), but Laycock (1965) suggested a different analysis for that language, and Staalsen makes a very similar suggestion for Iatmul. Both of them note the fact that the high vowels /i/ and /u/ seem to be allophones of /ɨ/ in the environment of palatal or labiovelar consonants respectively: Iatmul (Staalsen 1966) ‘grass’ /yɨwɨy/ [yuwiy]; and /e/ and /o/ are allophones of /ə/ in the same environments: Iatmul (Staalsen 1966) ‘shrunken’ /ndəw/ [ndow]. So [u] is underlyingly /ɨw/ while [o] is /əw/. A bit of anecdotal evidence in support of Staalsen’s analysis comes from my experience with a Iatmul speaker literate in Tok Pisin, but not Iatmul; when asked how he would spell the word for ‘tree’, phonetically [mi] and completely homophonous with the Tok Pisin word for the first singular pronoun mi, he replied to my surprise mwy, with the w here his ad hoc attempt to represent /ɨ/. Laycock’s (1965) analysis of Ambulas is similar except that

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



245

he treats /i/ and /u/ as also arising from syllabic variants of /j/ and /w/ respectively. Hence, both Staalsen’s (1966) analysis of Iatmul and Laycock’s (1965) analysis of Ambulas propose only three vowel phonemes, three heights of central vowels as in Table 36, with the lowest significantly longer and often glottalized as well. Table 36: Alternative proposed Iatmul and Ambulas vowel phonemes ɨ ə a

Jendrascheck (2008) challenges Staalsen’s (1966) analysis of Iatmul, and his reanalysis suggests the seven vowel description is more faithful to the data. Also, glottalization is a feature of both the mid /ə/ and low /a/ central vowels: [məʔk] ‘edge of house’ versus [maʔk] ‘back of the neck’, although this contrast is very marginal, being restricted in the data presented to monosyllabic roots ending in velar consonants. The Manambu vocalic system presented by Aikhenvald (2008) is quite different from that of Iatmul or Ambulas. Manambu exhibits the type of vocalic system paradigmatic collapse we saw illustrated by Yimas of the Lower Sepik-Ramu family. Essentially the seven vowels of Iatmul and Ambulas collapse to a four vowel system, with the low vowel in turn being split between a front and non-front variant, resulting in five phonemic vowels: Table 37: Manambu vowel phonemes i

æ

ɨ

a

u

This development from the seven vowel system is not as farfetched as it might seem. Even in Iatmul the mid central vowel /ə/ often has a noticeably fronted articulation, so that the Manambu system could really be underlyingly: Table 38: Possible alternative Manambu vowel phonemes i

ɨ ə a

u

And then, if we in turn analyze /i/ and /u/ as syllabic /j/ and /w/ respectively, as Laycock (1965) did, we are back to the three vowel system originally proposed by Staalsen (1966) and Laycock (1965). One clear difference between Manambu and the other two languages, though, is a length distinction for all the vowels

246 

William A. Foley

save /ɨ/, although it does seem marginal for /i/ and /u/, again arguing for treating these separately, as syllabified semivowels. The low vowels attest a robust length distinction (Aikhenvald 2008): yæy ‘appendix’, yæ:y ‘paternal grandfather’; sar ‘fowl’, sa:r ‘a fly’. It is quite likely these long vowels are the result of the loss of the glottalization of the non-high vowels in other Ndu languages. Indeed, Aikhenvald (2008: 42) notes that older speakers used glottalized variants as an alternative to vowel length: mæ:r ~ mæʔær ‘plate’, ma:n ~ maʔan ‘bird of paradise’. The Ndu languages exhibit well the point made earlier about the high degree of typological variation within the sub-families of the Sepik family. Hence, I will illustrate Ndu structures with data from both Ambulas (Wilson 1980) and Manambu (Aikhenvald 2008), which represent the range from morphologically less to more complex. Both languages like Sepik languages generally have a two gender system, contrasting masculine with feminine, determined by sex for nouns with highly animate referents and by shape and size for others. Surprisingly, though the unmarked gender is feminine in Manambu, the typical pattern among Sepik languages, for Ambulas most nouns have masculine gender, and here it appears to be the unmarked option. Nouns have no obligatory inflection in any Ndu language. Possession is usually marked by a suffix normally subject to a person based split: first and second person possessors are marked with a form in –n, but third person with –k: (65)

wunɨ-nə 1 sg -poss ‘my pig’

mbalɨ pig

(66)

wun-(n)a ma:m 1 sg -poss older.sibling ‘my elder sister’

b.

ndɨ-ku mbalɨ 3 sg -poss pig ‘his pig’

b.

ndɨ-kɨ-ndɨ ya:mb 3 sg -poss -m .sg road ‘his road’

[Ambulas]

[Manambu]

Other than possession, nouns may be marked for case. There is a general locative suffix –mb (simplified to –m in Manambu): Ambulas kwalɨ kambɨlɨ-mbə /neck river-loc / ‘at the source of the river’, Manambu ŋgu-a:m /water-link .loc / ‘in water’. There are two dative-type case markers with rather complex distributions that vary across the languages, -t (-r in Manambu) and –k. The former has a more allative meaning, i.  e. ‘to’ or ‘toward’, while the latter more receipient/beneficiary, but the actual descriptive semantic facts vary for each individual language: (67) b.

ndu mbɨrɨ takwə mbɨr-ət pl woman pl -all man ‘toward the men and women’ ɲjɨmba yə-kwə ndu-kɨ work do-prs man-ben ‘for the men who work’

[Ambulas]

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 

 (68)

a. b.

ar-a:r yi-tɨk lake-link .all go-1 du .sbj .imp ‘Let’s both go to the lake.’ a-ndɨ ɲɨnɨk that-m .sg child.link .ben ‘for that child’

247

[Manambu]

As with many languages of the Sepik-Ramu basin dative case markers are extended to mark animate objects of transitive verbs, e.  g. the –t in Ambulas: wunɨ ɲan-ɨt kenək-kwə 1 sg child-all scold-prs ‘I’m scolding the child.’

(69)

[Ambulas]

In Manambu (Aikhenvald 2008: 147–152), such a system reaches a high degree of elaboration. This language contrasts direct objects marked with the locative –m with those marked with the benefactive –k and in turn with those zero case marked. Objects marked with –m are more fully affected, the result of telic actions, as compared with those which are zero case marked, while marking with –k ben indicates a weakened, attenuated or frustrated action, as these examples with kwakɨ- ‘look for’ illustrate: (70)

a. b. c.

a takwa:m kwakɨ-ku [Manambu] that.sg .f woman.link .loc look.for-compl .sr ‘Having found that woman …’ amæy kwakɨ-ya-mbana mother look.for-come-1 pl .sbj -3 sg . f . obj ‘We are looking for the mother.’ a-ndɨ kɨyak kwakɨ-n tɨ-la that-sg . m key.link .ben look.for-seq say-3 sg . f . sbj /3 sg . f . obj ‘She is constantly looking for the key (but not finding it).’

Here is another contrastive pair of –m loc versus –k ben : (71)

a. b.

mbap-a:m vya-kɨ-na-ndɨwun moon-link .loc hit-fut -foc -1 sg . m . sbj ‘I will kill the moon.’ ɲɨn-a:k vya-na 2 sg .f -link .ben hit-foc .3 sg . f . sbj ‘She struck at you (sg .f ).’

[Manambu]

The verbal morphology of Ndu languages is predominantly suffixing and on the whole relatively unelaborated, although Manambu does appear to be the most complex language in the family. Tense, aspect and mood is largely signaled by suffixes: Ambulas kɨra-k /get-pst / ‘got’, Manambu ya-k-na-mbran /come-fut -foc -

248 

William A. Foley

1 du .sbj / ‘we (two) will come’. Agreement for core grammatical relations shows variability: none in Ambulas, for subject in Iatmul and for subject and object in Manambu. So, Ambulas independent verbs lack any pronominal agreement, but their Manambu equivalents have agreement for both subject and object: (72)

nde mbaŋgɨ viya-l mbandi-t 3 pl stick hit-pst children-all ‘They hit the children with a stick.’

(73)

a-ndɨ ɲʤagɨr vyapra-tua-l that-m .sg garfish shoot-1 sg .sbj -3 sg . f . obj ‘I speared a garfish.’

[Ambulas]

[Manambu]7

Interestingly, though, Ambulas dependent verbs in switch reference usage, when the subject of the following clause is not coreferential, do have pronominal agreement suffixes for their subjects: (74)

kɨra-lɨ-k ndɨ get-3 sg . f . sbj -pst 3 sg . m ‘She got (it) and he went.’

yɨ-k go-pst

[Ambulas]

Ndu languages have often been listed among the groups of languages that exhibit the common Papuan pattern of being verb final. While the constituent order SOV is perhaps true of most clauses, with oblique noun phrases often following the verb, as in other languages of the Sepik-Ramu basin, this by no means hold universally; quite unusual constituent orders are not infrequently encountered: (75)

kɨni mu-kɨ watə-kɨ wunɨ this thing-ben ask-fut 1 sg ‘I will ask you about this thing.’

(76)

ma:

mɨn-ət 2 sg . m -all

nɨmbay vɨ lɨ-kɨ-m ɲɨn yet see.neg 3 sg .f -obl -loc 2 sg .f ‘It’s you who hasn’t yet seen her.’

[Ambulas]

[Manambu]

neg

Ndu clause constituent order is quite sensitive to discourse factors, and reflects information structure needs and other pragmatic factors, as in the Lower Sepik languages. The order SOV may be used in the most neutral contexts, say in presentative constructions or when all the information is new, but relatively few clauses uttered actually have such neutral contexts. Ndu language may be more accurately characterized as variable word order languages informed by pragmatic conditions, rather than as SOV.

7

Manambu j = /ʤ/.

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



249

Ndu languages richly exemplify clause chaining constructions, but rather than the simple systems we encounter in the Lower Sepik-Ramu languages, their patterns of clause chaining are more complex. Ndu languages have overt switch reference morphology, which is lacking in Lower Sepik-Ramu languages. Typically in Ndu languages a sr dependent verb whose subject’s referent is the same as that of the following clause lacks any subject agreement suffix, while dr dependent verbs for which they are non-coreferential have obligatory subject agreement suffixes: (77)

a. b.

(78)

a. b.

r-e ndɨ tɨpə viya-knwu-k sit-sr .sim 3 sg again hit-tentative-pst ‘He was sitting and again tried to hit it.’ rə-wurɨ-kə mbɨt ya-k sit-1 sg .sbj .dr -seq 3 du come-pst ‘I was sitting and they (two) came.’

[Ambulas]

vya-ku kɨ-kɨ-mbana-mbɨr [Manambu] hit-sr .seq eat-fut -1 pl .sbj -3 du .obj ‘Having killed (them (two)), we will eat them (two).’ ata wa-tuɨ-k asa:y ata wa:nd thus say-1 sg .sbj .dr -seq father thus say.3 sg . m . sbj ‘After I had spoken thus, father spoke thus.’

Allen (2005), Foley (2005) and Roscoe (1989, 1994) have all discussed the prehistory and reconstructed migration patterns of the speakers of Ndu languages. Given the fact that the Ndu family’s closest relatives, the other sub-families of the Middle Sepik family, are all located to its west, further up the Sepik river and its tributaries, and also the additional fact that the Ndu family is the most easterly sub-family of the entire Sepik family, it is a straightforward conclusion that Ndu migration was from west to east, from a position further up the Sepik river. Such a pattern also holds true within a single Ndu language; the dialects of Iatmul are more diverse in the western part of the language’s range than in its eastern half (Staalsen 1969). Hence current understanding of Ndu prehistory suggests a homeland somewhere upriver from Ambunti. Ndu migration proceeded along the Sepik river to an area near the current border between Manambu and Iatmul where a large northern tributary of the Sepik river, the Screw river, joins it. Ancestors of current Ambulas speakers migrated up the Screw river and its tributaries to their current location (Allen 2005), while those of Boiken also migrated up from the Sepik river along its northern tributaries, but on those downriver further east (Roscoe 1989). The ancestral Iatmul then expanded along the Sepik river, moving downriver from their earlier base near Ambunti and supplanting the languages previously spoken there, probably members of the Lower Sepik family. The current encirclement of the Lower Sepik language Chambri by Iatmul and its consequent separation from its sister languages further east strongly supports this scenario, as do migration

250 

William A. Foley

histories related by speakers of two other Lower Sepik languages Karawari and Yimas. Some ancestral Iatmul speakers also expanded into the grassy plains north of the Sepik river, where they are currently given the ethnic label Sawos, so some groups labelled as speaking Sawos typically speak dialects of Iatmul or languages very close to it, while others speak a distinct language or perhaps several languages, given the apparent high diversity within it, also called Sawos here. 3.6.1.2 The Nukuma family This is a language family spoken in the hills and swamps north of the Sepik river near Ambunti and west of the Ambulas speaking region of Maprik; it is composed of three languages:

Figure 7: The Nukuma family

Mende and Kwanga were treated as a single language with high dialect diversity in Laycock and Z’Graggen (1975), but speakers claim that they are distinct languages (Hoel et al. 1994) and therefore regarded that way here. There is only a single paper published on Kwanga, but somewhat more available on Mende (Hoel et al. 1994, 1997; Ikäheimonen 1998a,b; Ikäheimonen and Nozawa 1998; Nozawa 2000, 2006) and Kwoma (Bowden 1997; Kooyers 1974, 1975; Kooyers et al. 1971). On the basis of the data available the Nukuma languages do seem typologically very similar and quite closely related, as the pronominal series in Kwoma and Mende make clear: Table 39: Nukuma pronouns

sg

du

pl

8

1 2m 2f 3m 3f 1 2 3 1 2 3

Kwoma

Mende8

an mɨ ni rɨ sɨ si ki pɨr no kwo ye

an ~ na ~ a mi ɲi or ~ ri os ~ si ʃi ʃi fri ni ci li

Mende c = /ʧ/.

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



251

Note that the Proto-Sepik gender-number markers are much in evidence here in the third person forms: *r 3 sg . m , *s 3sg .f and *f du ; only *m pl is lacking. Possessive pronouns are formed from these bases by adding a suffix –ti ~ -ci in Kwoma, pɨrɨ-ti veyi /3 du -poss canoe/ ‘their (two) canoe’ and –hi in Mende, asa an-hi /dog 1 sg -poss / ‘my dog’. Interestingly, pronominal possessors precede their possessed nouns in Kwoma, but follow in Mende. The consonantal phonemes of Kwoma are fairly typical for languages of the Sepik region except that it has both an alveo-palatal affricate [ʧ]) and an /s/, which in turn contrasts with an alveopalatal fricative [ʃ], and that the typical bilabial stop /p/ is respresented in Kwoma by a bilabial fricative /ɸ/: Table 40: Kwoma consonant phonemes t

b ɸ β m

m

ʧ ʤ ʃ

d s

ɲ

n r

ɲ

n

w

k ɡ

ʔ

ŋ

h

j

The status of the voiced prenasalized series in Mende is problematic; while phonetically present, they may be better analyzed as clusters of nasal plus voiceless plosive. Mende has a velar nasal in addition to the palatal nasal and an /l/ in addition to /r/. It also has a phoneme very rare in languages of the Sepik-Ramu basin, an alveolar laterally released affricate [tɬ]: hatɬa ‘dry’, hala ‘type of mat’. Kwoma has an unusual seven vowel system for the area (Table 41), but Mende only has five vowels, surprisingly with no non-low central vowels (Table 42): Table 41: Kwoma vowel phonemes i

e

ɨ ɛ

o

a

Table 42: Mende vowel phonemes i

e

a

o

u

u

252 

William A. Foley

Morphology in Nukuma languages is only weakly developed. Pronouns and nouns take case endings to signal grammatical functions. There is a suffix –n(a) dat , used to mark the indirect objects of ditransitive verbs, but extended in the typical Sepik-Ramu way to mark direct objects, and not only restricted to those with human and higher animate referents: (79)

a.

b.

(80)

a. b. c.

Wanio rɨ rɨ-ti yembɨru 3 sg . m 3 sg . m -poss axe Wanio sɨ-na ha-r 3 sg .f -dat give-pst ‘Wanio gave his axe to Muwaye.’ ɛta yikapwa a(n)-na pi-wa 1 sg -dat hit-prs that child ‘That child has hit me.’

Muwaye Muwaye

[Kwoma]

nakmica las or-in li-mu ha-ra [Mende] 3 sg . m -dat 3 pl -top give-narr . pst sago.bundle a ‘They gave a sago bundle to him.’ asa fle-n or-mu fle-ra dog pig-dat 3 sg . m -top sniff-narr . pst ‘The dog sniffed the pig.’ ma lar Pita-hi akwa-n hirnya-ri steal-fr . pst man a Peter-poss food ‘Someone stole Peter’s food.’

There is also a general oblique case suffix –k used to mark temporal, locative and instrumental noun phrases: (81)

a.

b.

(82)

a.

sɨ-ta rɨ-ta-k i rɨ-na 3 sg .f -link 3 sg . m -link -obl go 3 sg . m -dat kubu-k pi-wa hit-prs stick-obl ‘She has gone to him and hit him with a stick.’ yadɨ nedɨ-k rɨ ya-r day time-obl 3 sg . m come-pst ‘He came during the day.’

[Kwoma]

Made wolo-k Nuku-k ni miting Monday time-obl Nuku-obl 1 pl meeting u-ku-a do-fut -cert ‘We will hold a meeting at Nuku on Monday.’

[Mende]

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 

 b.

253

adule-k or ci-ri hit-fr . pst knife-obl 3 sg . m ‘He cut (it) with a knife.’

Verbal morphology is also rather simple, with little beyond suffixes that indicate tense, aspect and mood; Mende appears to be somewhat more complex in this domain than Kwoma. There is no affixation for pronominal agreement of either subject or object. Kwoma has a single applicative suffix –ci that indicates beneficiary noun phrases functioning as the core grammatical relation of object: sɨ otɨ-ci-mba i-r 3 sg .f do-ben -also go-pst ‘She also did it for (him) and went.’

(83)

[Kwoma]

This is lacking in Mende, which instead uses a postpositon cik for benefactive participants: Lona layi-hi uku-n an cik tarmu-hu Lona go.down-sr water-dat 1 sg ben pour-sr la-ha-rasa-ri take-link -bring-pst ‘Lona went down and brought water for me.’

(84)

[Mende]

As a consequence Mende exhibits dative-shift constructions in which dativetype arguments can be marked obliquely with cik or as an object core argument – compare (85a) and (85b): (85)

a. b.

kowe kaso-n an cik si ha-ri 3 sg .f give-pst clothes this.f -dat 1 sg ben ‘She gave those clothes to me.’ kowe kaso-n an-in si ha-ri clothes this.f -dat 1 sg -dat 3 sg .f give-pst ‘She gave me those clothes.’

[Mende]

There are two orders of suffixes that indicate tense, aspect and mood. The suffixal position closest to the root indicates aspect, while the final suffix marks tense/mood. A verb can have both positions filled: Kwoma ba-ta-r /speak-cont pst / ‘was speaking’, Mende i-rako-ri /go-compl -pst / ‘all gone’. Kwoma makes a three way distinction of tense in sentence final independent verbs, past i-r / go-pst / ‘went’, i-wa /go-prs / ‘has gone/goes’ and i-k /go-fut / ‘will go’. Mende is more complex, with seven tenses: narrative past –ra, tasa-ra /come.up-narr . pst / ‘came up’; far past –r(i) for events before yesterday night, tasa-ri /come.up-fr . pst / ‘came up before yesterday night’; near past –wa for events that happened today or the night before, tasa-wa /come.up-nr . pst / ‘just came up’; present –w for events happening at the moment of speaking, tasa-w /come.up-prs / ‘just coming

254 

William A. Foley

up’; a present progressive –du for events which overlap with the moment of speaking and extend beyond it, tasa-du /come.up-prs .prog / ‘be in the process of coming up (as we speak)’; a habitual –da for regularly repetitive events, tasa-da /come. up-hab / ‘comes up regularly’ (e.  g. (86)); and a future or irrealis –ku for events yet to happen, tasa-ku /come.up-fut / ‘will come up’. mica-n a waro-da nir-a grass-dat 1 sg weed-hab 1 sg -cert ‘I habitually weed grass.’

(86)

[Mende]

Unmarked clausal constituent order in Nukuma languages is SOV, but there is some degree of flexibility. Clauses are typically verb final, but oblique constituents can follow: ye-ci karakada veyi-k dɨka iyare-wa 3 pl -poss small canoe-obl here arrive-prs apa-k now-obl ‘(They) just arrived here now in their small canoe.’

(87)

[Kwoma]

The order of subject and object before the verb is also not rigidly fixed; particularly if the subject is a pronoun and the object a full noun phrase, the order OSV is usual: naku-n a a-du sago-dat 1 sg eat-prs .prog ‘I’m eating sago.’

(88)

[Mende]

In fact in Nukuma languages it is very common for pronominal forms for subjects to occur immediately before the verb, and they can be resumptive for overt subject noun phrases in the clause initial subject position: (89)

apo sɨ saka-r bird 3 sg .f fall-pst ‘The bird fell down.’

(90)

ma lar asa-n or-mu ci-ra man a dog-dat 3 sg . m -top hit-narr . pst ‘A man hit a dog.’

[Kwoma]

[Mende]

Even, more strikingly, there is a set of presumably focal pronouns which can actually follow the verb and function resumptively either for subject or object: (91)

a.

nuku-k a i-ku-a nir go-fut -cert 1 sg Nuku-obl 1 sg ‘I’m definitely going to Nuku.’

[Mende]

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 

 b.

iɲi waia oso-n ni taitim fence wire that.f -dat 1 pl tighten ‘We will certainly fix up the fence.’

255

u-ku-a sir do-fut -cert 3 sg .f

Nukuma languages have clause chaining constructions, but unlike the Ndu languages and in keeping with their general typology, there is no subject agreement for dependent verbs with switch reference. Rather a switch reference dependent verb is marked for tense and and a suffix –k which signals that the subject of the following clause is not coreferential with its own subject. Same referent dependent verbs simply mark the temporal relationship between the two clauses: (92)

a. b. c. d.

(93)

a.

b.

otɨ-ci-ba a-niga i-r [Kwoma] do-ben -too eat-sim go-pst ‘He did it for her and went away while eating.’ rɨ saka ya ruwu-ci hɛci akɨ amaba i-wa 3 sg . m down come dress-seq leave afraid run go-prs ‘He came down and dressed and then ran away frightened.’ otɨ a-ci-ba-ta-re-k ya-r do eat-ben -too-dur -pst -dr come-pst ‘While she was cooking for him, he arrived.’ sɨ yikapwa yimowu-re-k pɨr rɨ-ti hi Jon 3 sg .f child bear-pst -dr 3 du 3 sg . m -poss name John haba-r call-pst ‘She bore a child and they (two) named him John.’ li rasa-ha ol-mu ari 3 pl come.up-seq .sr 3 pl -top feather o-ra wear-narr . pst ‘They came up and put on their feathers.’ akwa-n or ha-ri-k a-mu food-dat 3 sg . m give-pst -dr 1 sg -top ‘He gave food, and I ate (it).’

li-hi-n 3 pl -poss -dat

[Mende]

a-ra eat-narr . pst

3.6.1.3 The Yellow River family This sub-family is, not surprisingly, spoken along the Yellow river, a northern tributary of the Sepik river and quite far upriver from the other sub-families of the Middle Sepik family, from which it is separated by uninhabited territory and some of the other branches of the Sepik family. It consists of three languages:

256 

William A. Foley

Figure 8: The Yellow River family

It is not known how closely related the languages of this family are, as significant data are only currently available on Namia (though there is a smattering of vocabulary and a few sentences for Ak and Awun in Kelm and Kelm (1980)), and all information provided here is on that language (Feldpausch and Feldpausch 1992, 2003, 2006, 2009). Namia has a simple consonantal system, lacking a voicing contrast in stops: Table 43: Namia consonant phonemes p m w

t n l r

ʧ

k

j

The /r/ and /t/ are almost in perfect complementary distribution, /t/ word initially and /r/ elsewhere, but synchronically this will not work as they contrast as onsets across syllable boundaries: [amral] ‘boundary’ [amtou] ‘red pandanus’. The /ʧ/ also looks like it was originally an allophone of a /t ~ r/ phoneme, as it only occurs word medially after a high vowel /i/ or /u/: [iʧo] ‘water’, but it does contrast with /r/ in such environments [iron] ‘men’s house’, so it must be awarded separate phoneme status. As a result of such phonemic splits, Namia now clearly has an /l/-/r/ contrast: er ‘we (two), el ‘woman’; tir ‘shell’, təl ‘who’. The vowel system of Namia is the standard six vowel one widespread in the Sepik-Ramu basin: Table 44: Namia vowel phonemes i

e

ə a

o

u

The pronouns of Namia were given in section 3.6.1. The only additional point to make is that Namia is unusual for Sepik family languages in having an inclusive-exclusive distinction in the first person non-singular pronouns; this may very well be due to diffusion from neighboring languages of the Torricelli family.

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



257

Table 45: Namia inclusive and exclusive pronouns 1 excl 1 incl

du

pl

era awera

ema awema

The grammar makes no mention of a gender contrast for nouns, so common in other languages of the Sepik family, though both the second person and third person singular pronouns distinguish masculine and feminine forms. Possession is signaled by adding –ka to a pronominal base: awapli-ka aya /2 du -poss father/ ‘your (two) father’. Kinship terms must be possessed, so there is a small set of inalienable possessed nouns in the language, though this class does not extend to body parts. The suffix –k(a) is actually a generalized oblique suffix in the language, and the indication of possession is only one of its uses; in locative uses it often co-occurs with a more specific locational affix like allative:9 era apo Yuwali-k-ya yaki-ca 1 excl . du today Yuwali-obl -all go.north-IRR ‘We (two) will go north to Yuwali today.’

(94)

[Namia]9

The other important case suffix is –m(a) dat , which again in a typical Sepik-Ramu feature marks indirect objects of ditransitive verbs and salient animate or affected direct objects of transitive verbs: (95)

a. b. c.

Yaupa ona-ma iki-ma tica p-no-we seq -give.sg -prs Yaupa 1 sg -dat canoe-dat a ‘Yaupa gives me a canoe.’ on mo aya-m ta-ke-inaki-ca 1 sg mother father-dat pot -tr -see-irr ‘I may see my mother and father.’ loko na ewae-m ical-k-wa 3 sg sago leaf-dat pull.out-compl -irr ‘He will have pulled the sago leaf out of the way.’

[Namia]

Namia verbs lack true pronominal agreement for the core grammatical relations subject and object; only vestigial and optional number agreement for non-singular objects or intransitive subjects is found. Nonetheless, they are quite complex with up to six prefix positions and nine suffix positions (Feldpausch and Feldpausch 2003), although none are obligatory, and a verb can consist of just a root, in which case it signals imperative mood. The prefixes mark valence and applicative deri-

9

Namia c = /ʧ/.

258 

William A. Foley

vations, elevationals/directionals, some aspectual notions, modality, and relative tense like simultaneous or sequential. The suffixes express, moving rightward from the verb root, number marking, aspectuals, directionals, incorporated adverbials and mood. I provide a few illustrative examples: (96)

a. b. c.

p-la-ilon-pa-nak-e seq -downriver-spear-n . sg .sbj -dur -real ‘and (we) continued to go downstream spearing.’ p-arpa-naka-la-m-ka-ni-re seq -again-comit -downriver-there-tr -sit-real ‘then again sat down there with others.’ p-la-m-ninaki-peina-rar-e seq -downriver-there-wait-uselessly-briefly-real ‘briefly and uselessly waited down there.’

[Namia]

Clausal constituent order in Namia is normally SOV, but this is not rigid, as seen in (97a), and as in most other languages of the Sepik-Ramu basin, oblique noun phrases quite freely follow the verb (97b): (97)

a. b.

ona-ma lapliko po-ko-kwam-e 1 sg -dat 3 du seq -tr -say-real ‘They (two) told me.’ ona mi p-kicwelir-e ura-mae 1 sg tree seq -cut.down-real garden-loc ‘I cut down trees in the garden.’

[Namia]

One typological feature in which Namia does stands out is that it completely lacks clause chaining constructions. This lack has been reported from some other Papuan languages with a right-headed verb final profile, such as those of the south coast, but not many, although it is found in some other members of the Sepik family. The lack of clause chaining in Namia could be the result of diffusion from neighboring languages of the Torricelli family, which also lack it due to their left-headed verb medial typology. Namie has no dependent verb forms; all verbs have the same possibilities of inflection. Clauses are linked by simple coordination, juxtaposition of fully inflected verbs, with or without a conjunction, whether or not they are same subject, as in (98a) or different subject, as in (98b). Temporal words can be added to further specify the relationship between the clauses (98c):

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 

 (98)

a.

b.

c.

259

lomko na p-weir-e ica na olli [Namia] 3 pl sago seq -work-real and sago thing p-lala-walir-e seq -hand-put-real ‘They made sago and picked up their sago tools.’ Luwariya par-pa-m-kopreyel-e ica ema Luwariya again-seq -away-arrive-real and 1 excl . pl pa-nir-e seq -stay-real ‘Luwariya arrived again and we stayed there’ ema lira lommo-ma p-ra-e popo ica 1 excl . pl coconut 3 pl -dat seq -eat-real after and ema p-le 1 excl . pl seq -go ‘After we ate those coconuts, we went.’

Namia also has subordinate clauses, but instead of being subordinated simply by suffixing an oblique case suffix to the fully inflected verb, the whole clause is nominalized and placed in apposition to a singular pronominal with or without–ma top (homophonous with –ma dat): (99)

3.6.2

lu kelo yar-e lomo-ma ica man many come-real 3 sg -top and lomo-ma o-wa 3 sg -top do-fut ‘If many men come, we will have school.’

skul school

[Namia]

The Sepik Hill family

This is the largest sub-family in the Sepik family, consisting of some sixteen languages located in the swamps and foothills up to the adjoining highlands south of the Sepik river, from the area of the Karawari-Korosmeri rivers in the east to the Wogamus river in the west. The sixteen languages divide into eastern, central and western divisions (Bruce 1979) (two additional, now moribund or extinct, Sepik Hill languages, Wagu and Nigilu, are mentioned in Dye and Dye (2012), but is not know whether either of these are identical to languages listed by Bruce (1979) and tabulated below); both are very closely related to Bahinemo, about 60 % lexical cognacy):

260 

William A. Foley

Figure 9: The Sepik Hill family

For purposes of illustrating the structure of Sepik Hill languages, I will draw on one language from each subgroup: Alamblak from the eastern (Bruce 1984), Sare from the central (Sumbuk 1999) and Saniyo-Hiyewe from the western subgroup (Hepburn 1985; Lewis 1972; Lewis and Lewis 1972). The Sepik Hill languages exhibit quite high divergence in their typological structures; those in the south of the family’s distribution are heavily influenced by neighboring languages of the Trans New Guinea family, but even without such influence the languages can display strikingly different typological profiles. Alamblak of the eastern subgroup is a morphologically highly complex language of a polysynthetic type through agglutinative morphology, while Saniyo-Hiyewe from the western subgroup is morphologically rather simple, approaching an isolating language. The Sare system of consonantal phonemes can be taken as basic for Sepik Hill languages:

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



261

Table 46: Sare consonant phonemes p b f m w

t d s n r l

k ɡ x

j

The first point to be noted is that the voiced stops are not prenasalized. Alamblak differs from Sare in lacking an /r/-/l/ contrast and adding a set of alveopalatal consonants /ʧ, ʤ, ʃ, ɲ/ derived synchronically by a productive rule of palatalization. Saniyo-Hiyewe, on the other hand, not only loses the /r/-/l/ contrast but also the voicing distinction in stops; it has a single series of stops, /p t k ʔ/. The vowel phonemes of Sare and Alamblak are the same, the standard seven vowel system of this part of the Sepik-Ramu basin. Saniyo-Hiyewe diverges from this in lacking the non-low central vowels, although [ə] is a non-conditioned free variant of /e/ in all positions in Hepburn’s (1980) description, so the system could be taken as shown in Table 49, where /e/ and /ɛ/ of Table 48 are /ə/ and /e/ respectively. Table 47: Sare and Alamblak vowel phonemes i

e

ɨ ə a

o

u

Table 48: Saniyo-Hiyewe vowel phonemes i

e

ɛ

o

u

a

Table 49: Saniyo-Hiyewe vowel phonemes – alternative analysis i

e

ə a

o

u

262 

William A. Foley

Both Alamblak and Sare preserve the gender and number markers for nouns inherited from Proto-Sepik, but these are lost in Saniyo-Hiyewe. Table 50: Sepik Hill number-gender markers sg m f

du

-r -f -s (Sare) / -t (Alamblak)

pl

-m

Nouns in both languages are classified into gender classes on the basis of biological sex for nouns with higher animate referents and size and shape for others, although there is a good deal of complexities and irregularities; consider these examples of nouns with the gender-number markers: Sare ‘house’ sg : wunɨ=r du : wunɨ=f pl : wunɨ=m, ‘stone’ sg : oba=s du : oba=f pl : oba=m; Alamblak ‘snake’ sg : nandəm=r du : nandəm=f pl : nandəm=m, ‘lime gourd’ sg : ku=t du : ku=f pl : ku=m. The markers are actually enclitics as they attach to the final element of a complex noun phrase: (100) yiofɨsuka dɨba=r betelnut one=m ‘one betelnut’

[Sare]

(101) bro graf fəx krta=r big wild pig black=m ‘a big black wild pig’

[Alamblak]

Possession is marked by a suffix in all three languages, transparently related in Sare and Alamblak, but less so in Saniyo-Hiyewe: (102) kanau=r-xu doxu=r Kanau=m -poss canoe=m ‘Kanau’s canoe’

[Sare]

(103) yira-f-xo mox=t fish-du -poss hole=f ‘the two fishes’ hole’ (103) Ami-ro fei Ami-poss pig ‘Ami’s pig’

[Alamblak]

[Saniyo-Hiyewe]

The basic pronominal systems of the three languages are as follows:

The Languages of the Sepik-Ramu Basin and Environs 



263

Table 51: Sepik Hill pronouns

sg

du

pl

1 2 3m 3f 1 2 3 1 2 3

Sare

Alamblak

SaniyoHiyewe

an nɨ rɨ sɨ nond fin fɨ nom mɨ rom

na ni rər rət nə nifɨn rəf nəm nikə(m) rəm

ane ne rei noto-(si) fene-si rowe-si nomo fene rowe

These three pronominal systems are obviously related, and reconstructing the ancestral system would not be a difficult task once we ascertain the proto-language’s vocalic system. Saniyo-Hiyewe has lost the gender contrast in the third singular, and its current second and third person plural forms seem to derive from the ancestral dual forms, so that new dual forms have been innovated with a suffix – si du