The linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages

Chapter he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson he wider genealogical ailiations of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages have been the subject of much speculation. hese languages are surrounded by unrelated Austronesian languages, and atempts to locate related languages have focused on Papuan languages 800 km or more distant. his chapter draws on typological, pronominal, and especially lexical evidence to examine three hypotheses regarding the higher-level ailiations of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages: ( ) the languages are related to the North Halmaheran (West Papuan) languages; ( ) the languages are part of the Trans-New Guinea family; and ( ) the languages are related to the West Bomberai family, with no link to Trans-NewGuinea more broadly. We rely in particular on recent reconstructions of proto-Timor-Alor-Pantar vocabulary (chapter ). Of the hypotheses evaluated here, we ind the most striking similarities between TAP and the West Bomberai family. However, we conclude that the evidence currently available is insuicient to conirm a genealogical relationship with West Bomberai or any other family, and hence, TAP must be considered a family-level isolate. Introduction he non-Austronesian languages of the Alor and Pantar islands in eastern Indonesia have been shown to form a genealogical unit (see Chapter ) and these, in turn, have been shown to be part of a larger family which includes the nonAustronesian languages of Timor (see Chapter ). Here we examine the wider genealogical ailiations of the Timor-Alor-Pantar family, following Robinson & Holton, Gary & Laura C. Robinson. 0 . he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages. In Marian Klamer (ed.), he Alor-Pantar languages: History and typology. Berlin: Language Science Press. – 98 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson Holton ( 0 ). Prior to this work most authors assumed a connection to TransNew Guinea languages, based primarily on evidence from pronominal paradigms (Ross 00 ). However, several other plausible hypotheses have been proposed, which we shall examine in this chapter. he Timor-Alor-Pantar (TAP) languages are surrounded on all sides by Austronesian languages, with the nearest Papuan (non-Austronesian) language located some 800 km distant. Some putative relatives of the TAP family are shown in Figure . NORTH HALMAHERA SBH WEST BOMBERAI WISSEL LAKES DANI ALOR-PANTAR TIMOR 100km Figure : Location of Timor-Alor-Pantar languages (lower let) and putative related families discussed in this chapter his chapter difers from Robinson & Holton ( 0 ) in that it includes a discussion of the typological proiles of the TAP family and putative relatives, and has also been updated to relect new reconstructions, especially the proto-Timor-Alor-Pantar reconstructions in Chapter . In the absence of reconstructions for proto-Timor (now available in Schapper, Huber & van Engelenhoven 0 ) and proto-Timor-Alor-Pantar (see Chapter ), Robinson & Holton ( 0 ) relied exclusively on proto-Alor-Pantar reconstructions, with Timor look-alikes included where available. he extinct language of Tambora, known only from nineteenth century wordlists, was spoken some 0 km west of Pantar, and it is presumed to have been non-Austronesian (Donohue 007a). he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages In this chapter, we will consider three hypotheses about the wider relationships of the TAP family: ( ) the TAP languages are related to the North Halmaheran (NH) languages; ( ) the TAP languages belong to the Trans-New Guinea (TNG) family (broadly deined); and ( ) the TAP languages are related to certain Papuan languages within the putative TNG family, even though the evidence linking them with TNG as a whole is indeterminate and these languages may not in fact be TNG. In order to examine the irst two hypotheses we compare TAP reconstructed forms with proposed reconstructions for North Halmahera and Trans-New Guinea, respectively. In order to evaluate the third hypothesis we compare TAP reconstructions with languages from four smaller families: South Bird’s Head; Wissel Lakes; Dani; and West Bomberai. Although each of these families has been claimed to be a part of some version of the larger Trans-New Guinea group, the composition of these smaller families is uncontroversial and thus allows us to evaluate potential wider ailiations while remaining agnostic as to the status of Trans-New Guinea itself. Ideally, we would compare TAP to reconstructed proto-languages for each of these four families; however, given the limited historical work done on those families, we instead choose individual languages from each family for comparison with TAP. We examine each of the three hypotheses in light of recently collected data on the TAP languages, considering pronominal, typological, and lexical evidence. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the null hypothesis that the TAP languages form a family-level isolate. he irst hypothesis was suggested (and quickly discarded) by Capell ( 9 ), who noted similarities between the Papuan languages of Timor and those of North Halmahera but initially refrained from asserting a genealogical relationship. By that time, the non-Austronesian character of the NH languages had long since been recognized, having been mentioned by van der Aa & Carel ( 87 ) and later rigorously demonstrated by van der Veen ( 9 ). Anceaux ( 97 ), commenting on a ield work report from the Pantar language Teiwa (Watuseke 97 ), proposed including Teiwa and several Alor languages (Abui, Wersing, Kui) with Cowan’s ( 9 7) West Papuan group, which included NH. As later formulated, Capell’s ( 97 ) West Papuan Phylum included the “Alor-Timor” languages. In fact, only one Alor language, Abui, was included in Capell’s grouping, as Capell only belatedly became aware of the other extant Alor sources. Even with these additional data, Capell was quite conscious of the tenuous nature of the putative relationship between TAP (actually Alor-Timor) and North Halmahera, particuWatuseke ( 97 ) does not identify the language as Teiwa but merely refers to it as “a language of Pantar”. However, inspection of the data leaves no doubt that this is Teiwa. 7 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson larly the lack of identiiable lexical correspondences. He thus proposed a major split between Alor-Timor (and some Bird’s Head languages) on the one hand, and the rest of the West Papuan Phylum on the other. Stokhof suggested connecting TAP with several languages of the Western Bird’s Head of New Guinea, concluding that “the Alor-Pantar languages form a closely related group with Cowan’s West Papuan Phylum” ( 97 : ). However, the putative West Papuan languages with which Stokhof compared Alor-Pantar were later reclassiied as Trans-New Guinea, rendering this lexical evidence moot. More recently Donohue ( 008) has revived the NH hypothesis, based largely on pronominal evidence. With the exception of this recent work by Donohue, the second hypothesis connecting TAP with TNG has largely supplanted the NH hypothesis in the literature. Capell’s ( 97 ) paper arguing for the NH hypothesis was published with an editorial preface noting that the TAP languages should instead be included within TNG (Wurm 97 : 7). However, the accompanying paper on the TNG hypothesis in the same volume provides no data to back up this classiication and instead remains skeptical as to whether TAP should be classiied as TransNew Guinea or West Papuan. In particular, the authors assert that “whichever way they [the TAP languages] are classiied, they contain strong substratum elements of the other … phyla involved” (Wurm, Voorhoeve & McElhanon 97 : 8). Only recently have additional data been provided to support the TNG hypothesis. Pawley ( 00 ) cites lexical evidence from TAP languages in support of proto Trans-New Guinea (pTNG) reconstructions. Ross ( 00 ) connects TAP to TNG more broadly based on pronominal evidence. Although the evidence for the TNG hypothesis is far from overwhelming, it is today the most widely received classiication, appearing for example in the most recent edition of the Ethnologue (Lewis, Simons & Fennig 0 ). One of the challenges to inding support for the TNG hypothesis is the sheer size and diversity which exists within the family. Rather than only considering TNG as a whole, it is also useful to consider smaller families within TNG. Two proposals stand out. Reesink ( 99 ) suggests connections between TAP and the South Bird’s Head family (speciically the Inanwatan language). Cowan ( 9 ) also made this connection, though he went further to group both TAP and South Bird’s Head within his West Papuan Phylum. A second proposal is made by Ross ( 00 ), who considers TAP “possibly part of a western TNG linkage” including West Bomberai, Wissel Lakes, and Dani. As Ross suggests, this more circumscribed linkage is a group of languages descended from a dialect chain and therefore characterized by overlapping innovations. In particular, Ross notes that these languages (including the Timor languages, but excluding the Alor and 8 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages Pantar languages) all show an innovative metathesis of CV to VC in the irst person singular pronoun and that the TAP languages share an innovative irst person plural pronoun with the West Bomberai languages ( 00 : ). We are not aware of any serious proposals connecting TAP to Papuan languages outside NH (and the West Papuan Phylum) and TNG. he possibility that the TAP languages form a family-level isolate not demonstrably related to other Papuan languages was actually suggested by Capell, who concluded: Neither are the ‘Papuan’ languages outside New Guinea, in the Solomons, New Britain, Halmahera or Timor related to each other or to those of New Guinea. At least it cannot be assumed that any two are related…. ( 9 : ) However, this null hypothesis has not, to our knowledge, been given serious consideration in the literature. We return to this point in our conclusion (§ ). In the meantime we evaluate the irst two hypotheses in light of the typological evidence (§ ), pronominal evidence (§ ), and lexical evidence (§ ). Evidence for the third hypothesis linking the TAP family with individual languages in Papua is considered in § . Typological evidence Given that typological features can easily cross genealogical boundaries, typological evidence for genealogical relationships should be approached with caution. Klamer, Reesink & van Staden ( 008) argue that the region under consideration here—spanning from TAP to NH to New Guinea—is part of the East Nusantara linguistic area which shares a number of typological features in spite of genealogical diferences among languages. Moreover, these features are not particularly unique and hence do not provide any special proof of genealogical connection in the sense of Meillet ( 9 7). On the other hand, we feel that a volume on the AlorPantar languages would not be complete without a discussion of how the typological proile of the family relates to those of the surrounding Papuan languages. Nonetheless, we ind litle evidence for shared typological features between TAP and either the NH or TNG families. In this section we provide examples contrasting the typological proiles of these families, considering phonology (§ . ), morphology (§ . ), and syntax (§ . ). 9 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson . Phonology Foley ( 998) suggests two typically Papuan phonological features: the presence of a single liquid phoneme and the presence of pre-nasalized stops. Neither of these putative Papuan phonological features is found in proto-Timor-AlorPantar (pTAP), which had at least two liquids and lacks pre-nasalized stops. he pTAP consonant inventory (based on Chapter ), is shown in Table . Table : pTAP consonants (based on Chapter ) p b m t d n s w q k g h j lr Nor are these features present in proto-North Halmahera (pNH), shown in Table . On the other hand, both pre-nasalized stops and a single liquid phoneme are found in pTNG. Additionally, in contrast to either pTAP or pNH, pTNG contains only a single fricative (Table ). In many respects, these three consonant inventories are similar. Each contains two sets of stops. In pTAP and pNH, the distinction between the two sets is voicing, with one voiced set and one voiceless set. In pTNG the distinction is between oral and pre-nasalized. It is plausible that the pTNG pre-nasalized stops developed into the pTAP voiced stops. Nevertheless, considering just the four phonological features discussed above we ind greater similarity between TAP and NH than between TAP and TNG, as summarized in Table . Schapper, Huber & van Engelenhoven (this volume) note that there are three correspondence sets between AP on the one hand, and Timor-Kisar, on the other, and so they reconstruct a third liquid *R, but they do not speculate about the phonetic value of *R. Since none of the modern TAP languages has more than two liquids, we believe that the proto-language had just two liquids, and that the third correspondence set should be atributed to either *r or *l, with some as yet to be identiied conditioning. Note that the pTNG apical stop *t may have had a lap or trill allophone (Pawley 00 : 7 ). 0 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages Table : pNH consonants (ater Wada 980) p b m t d n s k g ŋ ɖ h w q l r Table : pTNG consonants (Pawley 99 , 00 ) p mb m t nd n s y l w q k ŋg ŋ Table : Summary of TAP, TNG and NH phonological features q TAP TNG NH ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ - Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson . Morphology Among the few typologically distinctive morphological features of the TAP languages is the presence of pronominal indexing of the patient-like argument of a transitive verb (P) via a pronominal preix (see Chapter 0). Relexes of a P preix are widely distributed across the family and can be reconstructed to pTAP. hese preixes generally have the same form as those which index possessors on nouns, as in the Teiwa example in ( ), where the third singular preix on the verb indexes the third singular P argument, while the irst singular preix on the noun ‘child’ indexes the possessor. () Teiwa (AP; Klamer 0 0: 9) Name, haʔan n-oqai g-unbaʔ? Sir -child -meet ‘Sir, did you see (lit. meet) my child?’ However, P preixes are in general not obligatory in TAP, and the conditions on pronominal alignment vary considerably among the individual languages of the family (Fedden et al. 0 :Chapter 0). For example, Bunaq (Timor) does not use pronominal preixes to index inanimate P arguments. In example ( ), there is no preix on the verb because the P argument zo ‘mango’ is inanimate. In example ( ), in contrast, the verb takes a third person preix which indexes zap ‘dog’. ( ) Bunaq (Timor; Schapper 0 0: Markus zo poi Markus mango choose ‘Markus chose a mango.’ ) ( ) Bunaq (Timor; Schapper 0 0: Markus zap go-poi Markus dog -choose ‘Markus chose a dog.’ ) In the AP language Abui, alignment is semantic, and most non-volitional arguments are marked with pronominal preixes, including non-volitional S arguments (Fedden et al. 0 : Chapter 0). In ( ) the sole argument is volitional, so there is no marking on the verb. In ( ) the irst person undergoer is non-volitional and is indexed on the verb with the preix no-. Likewise, in ( ) the verb wel ‘pour’ takes the third person preix ha- because the undergoer Simon is non-volitional. Finally, we see in (7) that even the sole argument of the verb can be indexed with a preix if it is non-volitional. he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages ( ) Abui (AP; Kratochvíl 007:80. 7 ) Na sei. come.down ‘I come down.’ ( ) Abui (AP; Kratochvíl 007:80. 7 ) Simon no-dik. Simon -tickle ‘Simon is tickling me.’ ( ) Abui (AP; Kratochvíl 007:80. 7 ) Na Simon ha-wel. Simon -pour ‘I washed Simon.’ (7) Abui (AP; Kratochvíl 007:80. 7 ) No-lila. -be.hot ‘I am hot.’ A few TAP languages also permit indexing of both A and P arguments via pronominal preixes. In such cases, the preix paradigms for each argument are identical. (8) Western Pantar (AP; Holton 0 0) Ke e pi-ga-ussar. ish - -catch ‘We’re catching ish.’ he North Halmaheran languages also index P arguments on the verb, and as in TAP, the conditions on pronominal indexing vary considerably across diferent languages in the family (Holton 008). However, pronominal indexing in NH languages difers in several respects from that found in TAP. First, not just P but also A is referenced on the verb in NH. Second, for most NH languages pronominal indexing is obligatory. hird, unlike TAP languages, the forms of A and P pronominal preixes difer from each other in NH. hat is, A and P arguments are marked by distinct paradigms, and this holds for both pronominal preixes as well as independent pronouns. he Tobelo example in (9) illustrates these properties. Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson (9) Tobelo (NH; Holton 00 ) (Ngohi) t-i-ngoriki. ( ) - . -see ‘I see him.’ Moreover, in NH languages the order of verbal referents is ixed as actorundergoer, while for TAP languages which permit two pronominal preixes, the order may in some cases be reversed as undergoer-actor, as in ( 0). ( 0) Western Pantar (AP; Holton ieldnotes) gai ya me ga-na-asang road - -say ‘I will tell him the way.’ (lit., ‘I will him about his road.’) Indexing of P arguments is also a prominent feature of verbs in Trans-New Guinea languages. Verbs with P arguments indexed via preixes are found for example in the Finisterre-Huon family, and P-marking preixes can be reconstructed at the level of pTNG (Suter 0 ). Indexing of P arguments is illustrated in ( ) with data from Fore, where the irst person singular object is indicated with a verbal preix. ( ) Fore (TNG; Scot 978: 07) Náe na-ka-y-e. . -see- . ‘He sees me.’ In contrast to both TAP and NH languages, pTNG indexed subjects (both A and S) via suixes, not preixes (Foley 000). However, subject preixes are not unknown in TNG languages. Foley cites Marind as an example of a Papuan language with both subject and object preixes, noting that “Marind is the only Papuan language I know which consistently exhibits A-U-V order” ( 98 : 8). ( ) Marind (TNG; Drabbe 9 , cited in Foley 98 : 8) A-na-kipraud. . - . -tie ‘He ties me.’ While the Marind example in ( ) may not be typical for TNG languages, it certainly shows much ainity with pronominal indexing paterns in both TAP and NH languages. he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages he TAP languages exhibit preposed possessor constructions, a typically Papuan feature, at least for East Nusantara (Klamer, Reesink & van Staden 008). he possessor precedes the possessum, whether the possessor is expressed as a full noun phrase ( ) or just with a pronoun ( ). ( ) Western Pantar (AP; Holton ieldnotes) yabbe si gai bla dog that . house ‘the dog’s house’ ( ) Western Pantar (AP; Holton ieldnotes) nai bla . house ‘my house’ NH languages exhibit a similar patern of possessor-possessum order, as in the Tobelo examples below. ( ) Tobelo (NH; Holton 00 ) o-kaho ma-tau -dog -house ‘the dog’s house’ ( ) Tobelo (NH; Holton 00 ) ahi-tau . -house ‘my house’ he order possessor-possessum is also found widely among TNG languages, as illustrated by the Enga and Mian examples below. ( 7) Enga (TNG; Foley 98 : namba-nyá mená pig ‘my pig’ ) ( 8) Mian (TNG; Fedden 0 : 7) ōb imak . . husband ‘your husband’ Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson he order possessum-possessor is also found in many TNG languages, particularly with inalienable nouns, as illustrated by the following examples from Fore and Barai. ( 9) Fore (TNG; Scot 978: ) yaga-nene pig- . ‘my pig’ ( 0) Barai (TNG; Olson 98 , cited in Foley 98 ) e n-one person ‘my people’ A distinction between alienable and inalienable possession is considered a typical Papuan feature, and TAP languages share this feature. While TAP languages vary in exactly how they realize this distinction, Western Pantar is typical in realizing this distinction in the possessive pronouns. In Western Pantar the third person singular inalienable form is ga- rather than gai-, as in ( ). ( ) Western Pantar (AP; Holton ieldnotes) ga-uta (*gai-) . -foot ( . -) ‘his/her/its foot’ Many of the TNG languages also share this distinction. In Inanwatan, alienably possessed nouns take independent pronouns, like tigáeso in ( ), while inalienably possessed nouns take pronominal preixes, like na- in ( ). ( ) Inanwatan (South Bird’s Head; de Vries 00 : 9, 0) ) tigáe-so suqére . - sago. ‘her sago’ ( ) Inanwatan (South Bird’s Head; de Vries 00 : 9, 0) ná-wiri -belly. ‘my belly’ he acute accent indicates lexical stress, which is distinctive in Inanwatan. he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages Table : Summary of TAP, TNG, and NH morphological features pronominal object preixes (P) pronominal subject aixes (A/S) preposed possessors alienable/inalienable distinction TAP TNG NH ✓ (✓) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (✓) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ - While NH languages also have obligatorily possessed nouns, these languages lack a distinct inalienable possession construction. In particular, in NH languages the same possessive construction is used regardless of whether the noun is obligatorily possessed or not. In Tobelo obligatorily possessed nouns such as lako ‘eye’ ( ) use the same possessive strategy as non-obligatorily possessed nouns such as tau ‘house’ ( ). ( ) Tobelo (NH; Holton ieldnotes) a. ma-lako -eye ‘eye’ b. o-kaho ma-lako -dog -eye ‘the dog’s eye’ c. ahi-lako . -eye ‘my eye’ he morphological features for TAP, TNG, and NH are summarized in Table . . Syntax he TAP languages, like most NH and TNG (Foley 000) languages, are rightheaded and verb-inal. ( ) Adang (AP; Haan 00 : ) Pen ti matε sεl alɔ ʔa-bɔʔɔi. John tree big two -cut ‘John cut the two big trees.’ 7 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson ( ) Tobelo (NH; Holton 00 ) Ngohi o-pine t-a-ija. -rice - -buy ‘I bought the rice.’ ( 7) Mian (TNG; Fedden 0 : ) Né imen-o wen-b-i=be. taro- . eat- . = ‘I am eating taro.’ Also like the NH languages and the TNG languages, the TAP languages have postpositions, as in the Bunaq example ( 8), where the locative postposition gene follows its nominal complement reu ‘house’. ( 8) Bunaq (Timor; Schapper 0 0: 0 ) neto reu gene mit house sit ‘I sit at home.’ In many TAP languages, however, the postpositions display verbal properties, as in ( 9), where the postposition/verb mi ‘(be) in’ is modiied by an aspectual marker. ( 9) Adang (AP; Robinson ieldnotes) ʔamɔ nu meja far mi eh. cat one table below be.in ‘A cat is beneath a table.’ Another typically Papuan feature in East Nusantara languages is the presence of clause-inal negation (Klamer, Reesink & van Staden 008). his feature is indeed found in TAP languages ( 0), though in NH languages the negator morpheme just follows the verb root rather than occurring in absolute inal position ( ). ( 0) Western Pantar (AP; Holton ieldnotes) Gang ke e na wang yawang kauwa. .act meat eat exist agree ‘He doesn’t like to eat meat.’ 8 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages ( ) Tobelo (NH; Holton 00 ) Wo-honenge-ua-ahi. . -die‘He is not yet dead.’ One notable syntactic feature absent from TAP is clause-chaining, which is one of the most distinctive features of Papuan languages in general and is particularly associated with TNG languages (Foley 98 : 7 , Roberts 997). Clause-chaining is also absent from NH languages. However, while clause-chaining may be one of the key distinguishing features of Papuan languages, it is important to note that this feature is completely absent from some TNG languages, such as Marind. In general, syntactic features do not distinguish the TAP languages from TNG or NH (Table ). Table : Summary of TAP, TNG, and NH syntactic features verb-inal postpositions clause inal negation clause chaining TAP TNG NH ✓ ✓ ✓ - ✓ ✓ ✓ (✓) ✓ ✓ ✓ - While the TAP languages share a number of morphological and syntactic features with TNG and NH languages, these features are typologically common, may be interrelated (such as verb-inal syntax and postpositions), and they may be indicative of a linguistic area (Klamer, Reesink & van Staden 008). We therefore do not ind the typological evidence convincing of genealogical relationship. Pronominal evidence When combined with other lines of evidence, homologous pronominal paradigms can provide strong support for proposals of genealogical relatedness. However, the use of pronominal paradigms as the sole evidence for genealogical relatedness has been repeatedly questioned in the literature (cf. Campbell & Poser 008). Pronominal paradigms were an important basis for the development of the TransNew Guinea hypothesis (Wurm, Voorhoeve & McElhanon 97 ), and pronouns have continued to play a starring role in atempts to subgroup the TNG languages 9 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson (Ross 00 , 00 ).7 In this section we consider the strength of the pronominal evidence in evaluating the Trans-New Guinea and North Halmaheran hypotheses. Since the full pronominal paradigm has not been reconstructed for pTAP, we consider the reconstructed pAP pronouns here. hey are shown in Table 7, together with the pTNG (Ross 00 ) and pNH (Wada 980) pronouns. Note that North Halmaheran pronouns are reconstructed in two forms corresponding to actor (“subject”) and undergoer (“object”). Table 7: pAP, pTNG, and pNH pronouns . . pAP pTNG pNH *na*(h)a*ga- *na *ŋga *ua, *(j)a *to*no*mo- ( ) *wo- ( ) *i- ( ) *si*ni*mi- ( *wi- ( *ja- ( *pi*ni*ta*(h)i*gi- *nu, *ni *nja, *ŋgi *i *po*mi*ni*jo- *na*mi*ni*ja- ) ) ) Several structural diferences are noticeable between these pronoun sets. First, AP and NH show an inclusive/exclusive distinction in irst person plural which is not found in TNG. his has been argued to be an areal feature resulting from Austronesian inluence (Klamer, Reesink & van Staden 008). Second, NH but not AP or TNG distinguish gender in third person pronouns. hird, a distributive pronoun is found only in AP. We consider irst the TNG pronouns. he pTNG pronominal reconstructions provide what some consider to be the strongest support for the genealogical connection between AP and TNG (Ross 00 ). Both pTNG and pAP show a paradigmatic distinction between a in the singular and i in the plural. However, the 7 As originally formulated, the Trans-New Guinea hypothesis linked Central and South New Guinea languages with the Finisterre-Huon languages based not on pronominal evidence but on lexical similarities (McElhanon & Voorhoeve 970). 70 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages correspondence is problematic due to the mismatch between the second and third person pronouns. Proto-TNG shows velar consonants in the second person forms, while pAP shows velar consonants in the third person forms. It has been suggested that the pTNG second person pronouns could have developed into the pAP second person pronouns by lenition of pTNG *ŋg > *g > *k > h. While this is possible, we ind stronger evidence that the pTNG prenasalized obstruents should correspond to the pAP voiced stops (see § ), if indeed the two are related at all. Another possible scenario connecting these two paradigms is to posit a liplop between the second and third person pronouns, as in ( ). As far as we are aware, such an inversion scenario was irst proposed by Donohue & Schapper ( 007). ( ) Putative lip-lop between second and third person pronouns pTNG *ŋga ‘ ’>pAP *ga- ‘ ’ pTNG *ŋgi ‘ ’ >pAP *gi- ‘ ’ pTNG *(y)a ‘ ’>pAP *(h)a- ‘ ’ pTNG *i ‘ ’ >pAP *(h)i- ‘ ’ his leaves only the fricative in the pAP second person forms unexplained, but external evidence from the Timor languages suggests that perhaps the pAP second person forms should be vowel initial (i.e., pAP *a ‘ ’ and *i ‘ ’). While it is not impossible that the pAP pronouns descend from the pTNG pronouns in this way, connecting the two requires us to posit a lip which makes the correspondence much less striking. he putative correspondence between the pAP and pTNG pronouns leaves at least one AP form unexplained: the AP distributive *ta- has no correspondent form in TNG. Donohue ( 008) posits a connection between the AP distributive and the pNH irst-singular active form *to-. According to this hypothesis the resemblance between the AP distributive and the pNH irst-singular active is evidence not of a genealogical relationship but rather a borrowing relationship within a contact area encompassing the Bomberai Peninsula and South Bird’s Head region. he semantic plausibility of this connection is based on an analysis of *ta- as the minimal / -person pronoun in a minimal-augmented system (Donohue 007b). However, the augmented counterpart is illed anomalously by *pi-, rather than the expected *ti-, though pAP *pi- does show striking semantic and structural similarity with pNH irst person inclusive *po-. Yet in the modern Alor-Pantar languages, relexes of *ta-, where they exist, have a clear distributive function. For example, compare the Adang irst person plural inclusive ( a) with the distributive ( b). 7 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson ( ) Adang (AP; Haan 00 ) a. Sa pi-ri . - bεh. hit ‘She hit (all of) us.’ b. Sa ta-ri bεh hit ‘She hit each one of us.’ he distributive function is expressed quite diferently in NH languages. In Tobelo the distributive is expressed with the verb preix koki- ( ) rather than with a pronoun. ( ) Tobelo (NH; Holton 00 ) ma-homoa yo-koki-honeng-oka -other -die‘Each of the others died.’ he AP distributive preix is extra-paradigmatic: it does not show the vowel grading found in the other preixes; and related independent pronouns are either absent or of limited distribution. his suggests that the pAP distributive has a distinct history from that of the other pAP pronominal forms, and that the resemblance between pNH *to ‘ ’ and pAP *ta ‘ . ’ is coincidental. he structural features of the pronominal systems are compared in Table 8. It is apparent that the AP pronominal system as a whole has relatively litle in common with TNG and NH. Table 8: Summary of AP, TNG, and NH pronominal [a] singular, [i] plural distributive pronoun inclusive/exclusive distinction gender distinction AP TNG NH ✓ ✓ ✓ - ✓ - ✓ ✓ Given the rather speculative nature of the second-third person inversion hypothesis, the pronominal evidence does not provide very strong support for either the TNG or NH hypothesis. Nevertheless, the formal correspondence in 7 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages irst-person forms between AP and TNG provide tentative support for a connection between TAP and TNG. Lexicon When combined with evidence from morphological paradigms, such as pronouns, lexical evidence based on regular sound correspondences is usually considered to be compelling evidence for positing genealogical relationships between languages. Unfortunately, very litle in the way of lexical evidence had been previously considered in assessing the wider genealogical relationships of the TAP languages before Robinson & Holton ( 0 ). We consider irst the lexical evidence for the NH hypothesis and then the lexical evidence for the TNG hypothesis. . Lexical evidence for the NH hypothesis he lexical evidence for a connection between TAP and NH languages is not particularly convincing. In a list of 9 basic vocabulary terms, Capell identiies which seem to show “common roots” with AP languages ( 97 : 8 ). Capell did not include data from Pantar languages and hence refers to this family as AlorTimor. In many cases Capell’s proposed Alor-Timor forms difer from the pTAP reconstructions in Chapter . his may be due in some cases to excessive reliance on Timor forms. In Table 9 we list Capell’s Alor-Timor alongside updated pTAP forms. Where available, we use pTAP reconstructions (Chapter ), but if no pTAP reconstruction exists, then we show lower-level reconstructions or forms from individual languages. In two cases Capell’s ‘Alor-Timor’ form is quite diferent from the updated TAP form. Capell’s hele ‘stone’ difers from pTAP *war but compares to Bunaq (Timor) hol. We have no reconstruction for ‘cut’ in pTAP, but Capell’s form uti compares with Makalero (Timor) teri. hree of Capell’s NH reconstructions are also problematic; we have noted these problems in the last column in Table 9. Capell’s NH *utu ‘ire’ should clearly be *uku, perhaps a typographical error. Capell’s *helewo ‘stone’ is found in Tobelo but does not reconstruct to NH. We are not able to identify Capell’s *hate ‘tree’; the form *gota reconstructs for the family. Even allowing for problematic forms in Table 9, it is diicult to infer much about regular sound correspondences from this list, since few of the correspondences repeat. A correspondence *m:*m is found in ‘biter’ and ‘smell’; however, the forms for ‘cold’ relect a diferent correspondence *p:*m. Careful inspection of Capell’s proposed correspondence reveals litle or no evidence for a relationship between TAP and NH languages. 7 TAP (Capell) TAP (revised) NH (Capell) ‘biter’ ‘cold’ ‘cry out’ malara palata (k)ole *mali *malata *orehe ‘cut’ ‘fall’ ‘ire’ ‘lower’ uti tapa ata buk ‘ly (n.)’ uhur(u) ‘smell’ ʔamuhu ‘stone’ hele proto-Alor (but not pAP or pTAP) *makal Abui, Kui palata Nedebang uwara, Sawila kawa, Makasae kaul ‘sing’ Makalero teri Western Pantar tasing, Sawila taani pTAP *hada Blagar buma, Klon bʊ:m, Kui bungan, Makasae puhu, Makalero, Bunaq buk Kaera ubar, Makalero uful, Makasae ufulae, Fataluku upuru, Oirata uhur Teiwa min, Kaera mim-, Nedebang mini, Blagar miming, Adang muning, Klon moin, Kui mun, Wersing muing, Makasae amuh, Makalero kamuhata, also pTAP *-mVN ‘nose’ pTAP *war ‘tree’ ate pTAP *hate *hate *ŋuki *tiwa *utu *hohoko NH (revised) *uku *guhuru *ami *helewo Galela teto, Tabaru madi *gota Capell was not originally aware of the Pantar languages and so referred to TAP as “Alor-Timor”. Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson 7 Table 9: Comparison of Capell’s TAP and NH, with modern TAP and NH reassessments he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages Table 0: pNH forms (ater Wada 980) with TAP equivalents (ater Schapper, Huber & van Engelenhoven this volume), sorted alphabetically by pNH form. A double dagger indicates a pNH form which is not in Wada or a pAP form which is not reconstructed at the level of pTAP.8 take, hold water blood tail come banana six smoke louse/lea salt(water) hand nail sit bite tree give laugh village spit coconut tooth spear thick tongue bat moon ten one betel nut ive pNH pTAP *aho *aker *aun *bikin *bola *bole *butaŋa *ḋopo *gani *gasi *giam *gitipir *goger *goli *gota *hike *hijete *hoana *hobir *igono *iŋir *kamanu *kipirin *akir *mano *mede *mogiowok *moi *mokoro *motoha *p(i,u)nV *jira *waj *-o(l,r)a9 *mai *mugul *talam *bunaq *kVt *tam(a) *-tan(a) *kusin *mit *ki(l) *hate *-(e,i)na *jagir *haban *pu(l,r)V(n) *wata *-wasin *qaba(k) *dumV *-lebu(l,r) *madel *hur(u) *qar*nukV *bui *jiwesin bird dream ish ear sea star child nose eat bathe stand they belly knee name fat/grease throw two die fruit burn ly (v.) black stone short pierce bad drink ire he sun pNH pTAP *namo *naner *nawok *ŋauk *ŋolot *ŋoma *ŋopak *ŋunuŋ *oḋom *ohik *oko *ona, yo *pokor *puku *roŋa *saki *sariwi *sinoto *soneŋ *sopok *sora, soŋara *sosor *tarom *teto *timisi *topok *torou *uḋom *uku *una, wo *waŋe *(h)adul *(h)ipar *habi *-wa(l,r)i *tam(a) *jib(V) *-uaqal 0 *-mVN *nVa *we(l,r)i *nat(er) *gi*-tok *uku *-en(i,u) *tama *od *araqu *mV(n) *is(i) *ede *jira(n) *aqana *war *tukV *tapa(i) *jasi *nVa *hada *ga*wad(i,u) 7 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson Donohue ( 008) lists two proposed lexical correspondences between pTAP and pNH. One of these, ‘tree’, is also found in Capell’s list, though Donohue reconstructs pTAP *aDa. he other, pTAP *jar, pNH *aker ‘water’ supports a correspondence between pTAP *r and pNH *r. As with Capell’s similar forms, it is diicult to infer anything about sound correspondences from these two forms. Chance resemblance remains the most economical explanation, though some similarities may also be due to loans from a common source. he lack of lexical correspondences in the data cited by Capell and by Donohue may be due in part to the unavailability of extensive lexical data for TAP. hanks to recent work, we now have available a number of pTAP and lower-level reconstructions (see Chapters and , and Schapper, Huber & van Engelenhoven 0 ). Examining the pTAP reconstructions (excluding pronouns), and drawing on pAP forms where no pTAP form is found, have glosses which can also be found in Wada’s ( 980) pNH reconstructions or can be easily reconstructed based on existing NH data. hese forms are compared in Table 0. Of these forms, only items (highlighted grey in Table 0) show some kind of plausible correspondence: *b:*m, *t:*t, and *k:*q. Again, with so few items it is impossible to infer anything about regular sound correspondences. And with only 8% of these basic vocabulary items showing potential cognacy, there is no clear lexical evidence for a genealogical connection between TAP and NH languages. . Lexical evidence for the TNG hypothesis In this section we consider the lexical evidence for the TNG hypothesis as relected in regular sound correspondences. For this purpose we use the rather broad formulation of TNG in Pawley ( 00 ) and Ross ( 00 ), which includes both 8 In the pTAP / pAP reconstructions, V stands for an unidentiied vowel, and N stands for an unidentiied nasal. he other reconstructed consonants have their values as laid out in Table . he vowels, while very tentative, are assumed to have their IPA values. 9 As mentioned in Footnote , Schapper, Huber & van Engelenhoven (this volume), reconstruct three liquids: *l, *r, and *R based on three correspondence sets. Since none of the modern TAP languages has three liquids, we assume that *R was actually *l or *r, with some as yet to be identiied conditioning, and we have therefore modiied the relevant reconstructions to relect this. 0 Schapper, Huber & van Engelenhoven (this volume) reconstruct pTAP *uaQal, where *Q is “a putative postvelar stop for which we have only very weak evidence”. We prefer to render this as *uaqal, showing more transparently the value we believe this consonant would have had. Donohue actually cites the form *gala as the reconstruction for pNH ‘water’, rather than Wada’s *aker. Moreover, the updated pTAP reconstruction for ‘water’ is *jira (see Chapter ), not *jar. 7 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages TAP and South Bird’s Head. While no botom-up reconstruction of proto-TNG has been completed, a set of top-down lexical reconstructions with extensive relexes has been widely circulated as Pawley (n.d.). Some of these forms were included as support for the reconstruction of pTNG obstruents (Pawley 00 ) and in other discussions of pTNG (Pawley 998, 0 ). We are not in a position here to assess the validity or quality of Pawley’s reconstructions. Rather, our intent is to assess the lexical evidence for a connection between TAP and TNG based on the available data. In contrast to the NH data, the pTNG lexicon shows more striking correspondences with TAP languages. Pawley (nd) proposes pTNG reconstructions with putative TAP relexes, out of approximately 80 pTNG reconstructions. Of those, thirteen (shown in ( )-( 7) below) appear to exhibit regular sound correspondences. Examples ( ) through ( 8) are reconstructed to pTAP. In ( ), the reconstructed pTNG form encompasses the meanings ‘tree’, ‘wood’, and ‘ire’, but in the TAP languages, only the later two meanings are found. here is a separate reconstruction for ‘tree’ in pTAP. ( ) pTNG *inda ‘tree, wood, ire’, pTAP *hada ‘ire, wood’ ( ) pTNG *panV ‘woman’, pTAP *pan(a) ‘girl’ ( 7) pTNG *amu, pTAP *hami ‘breast’ ( 8) pTNG *na-, pTAP *nVa ‘eat, drink’ ( 9) pTNG *kumV, pTAP *mV(n) ‘die’ (cf., pTim *-umV ) ( 0) pTNG *ata, pTAP *(h)at(V) ‘excrement’ Examples ( 9) through ( ) are found in a number of languages in both AP and Timor but have not yet been reconstructed to pTAP. Note that pTNG *L is probably a laterally released velar stop, so pharyngeal and velar fricatives would not be strange relexes. ( ) pTNG *maL[a], Teiwa (AP) moħoʔ, Kaera (AP) maxa, Klon (AP) məkεʔ, pTim *muka ‘ground, earth’ ( ) pTNG *gatata , Blagar (AP) tata, Adang (AP) taʔ ata, Klon (AP) təkat, Kui (AP) takata, Abui (AP) takata Fataluku (Tim), Oirata (Tim) tata ‘dry’ his pTIM form is from Schapper, Huber & van Engelenhoven ( 0 ); it does not appear in Chapter . 77 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson Table : pTNG and pTAP sound correspondences pTNG pTAP examples *t *k *nd *n *m Ø *t *k *d *n *m *h dry, short, leg, excrement die, leg, short, leaf internal organ, ire eat, eye, woman, , die, ground, internal organ, breast ire, breast, excrement ( ) pTNG *ini, Blagar (AP), Adang (AP) eŋ, Klon (AP), Kui (AP) -en, Abui (AP) -eiŋ, Kamang (AP) ŋ, Fataluku (Tim) ina, Makalero (Tim) ina, Oirata (Tim) ina ‘eye’ Examples ( ) through ( ) are found in just one of the two main branches of TAP. ( ) pTNG *tukumba(C), pAP *tukV ‘short’ ( ) pTNG *mundu ‘internal organ’, Oirata (Tim) muʈu ‘inside’, Makalero mutu ‘inside’, Fataluku mucu ‘inside’, Makasae (Tim) mutu ‘in’ ( ) pTNG *sasak, Oriata (Tim) asah(a), Makasae (Tim), Fataluku (Tim) asa, Makalero (Tim) hasa ‘leaf’ ( 7) pTNG *kitu ‘leg’ (possibly ‘calf’), Bunaq (Tim) -iri, Makasae (Tim) -iti ‘leg’ he correspondences which emerge from this set are not striking, but they are regular. Most interesting is the correspondence between the pTNG prenasalized stop and the pTAP voiced stop. Note that a correspondence between a prenasalized stop in pTNG and a voiced stop in pTAP (also a voiced stop in pAP) supports a hypothesis that pAP relects a lip of the pTNG second person pronouns *ŋga ‘ ’, *ŋgi ‘ ’ to pAP third person pronouns *ga ‘ ’, *gi ‘ ’, respectively, although the correspondence here is velar rather than the expected alveolar, as in Table . Two more forms might be included in the thirteen above, but they are somewhat problematic. he correspondence of ‘neck’ is based on two nasal phonemes and relexes in just three of the nearly thirty TAP languages. 78 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages ( 8) pTNG *kuma(n,ŋ)[V] (irst syllable lost in some cases), Sawila (AP) -maŋ, Oirata (Tim), Fataluku (Tim) mani ‘neck’ he form for ‘lightning’ likewise has a very limited distribution, with similarlooking forms occurring in just three closely related AP languages. Moreover, the vowels in the pTNG reconstruction were determined in part on the basis of the Blagar, possibly making the pTNG artiicially more similar to the AP languages than otherwise warranted. ( 9) pTNG *(mb, m)elak, Blagar (AP) merax, Reta (AP) melak, Kabola (AP) mereʔ, ‘lightning’ he pTNG form for ‘older sibling’ shows a striking correspondence with TAP languages, but this is a nursery form, and should be excluded from determinations of genealogical similarity. ( 0) pTNG *nan(a,i), pAP *nan(a), Bunaq (Tim) nana ‘older sibling’ he pTNG form for ‘to come’ is also strikingly similar to the pAP, but the pAP form may have its origins in Proto-Malayo Polynesian *maRi, which is irregularly relected as ma or mai in many Austronesian languages in the region, for example Mambai (Timor) ma, Manggarai (Flores) mai. ( ) pTNG *me-, pAP *mai ‘to come’ A further four forms were excluded because their correspondences were not regular. he form for ‘nose’ looks promising, but pTNG *nd should correspond with pTAP *d, not a nasal. ( ) pTNG *mundu, pTAP *-mVN ‘nose’ he pTNG reconstruction *wani ‘who’ looks similar to the Abui form hanin that was cited in Pawley (n.d.), but more recent research on Abui shows that ‘who’ is maa, and we know of no word hanin in Abui. he AP languages Adang, Hamap, and Kabola, all quite closely related, show somewhat similar forms, but the lack of correspondence in the initial consonants, combined with the limited geographic distribution, make these unlikely cognates. ( ) pTNG *wani, Adang (AP) ano, Hamap (AP) hano, Kabola (AP) hanado ‘who’ 79 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson A further two proposed cognates are simply not very similar in form to their putative TAP relexes. he pTNG form *pululu ‘ly, luter’ was originally considered cognate with Blagar (AP) iriri, alili, but our data show Blagar liri, and other cognates point to proto-Alor *liri. he competing form pAP *jira(n) has a wider distribution and is therefore reconstructed to pAP. Proto-Timor *lore suggests that Alor-Pantar *liri is older than previously assumed, but at any rate, the initial consonant from pTNG is only found in one TAP language (Fataluku (Tim) ipile). It seems much more likely that the resemblance between pTNG and the TAP languages is due to onomatopoeia. ( ) pTNG *pululu ‘ly, luter’, Blagar (AP) liri, Adang (AP) liliʔ, Klon (AP) liir, Kui (AP) lir, Abui (AP) liʔ, Kamang (AP) lila, pTim *lore ‘to ly’ Likewise, further data on pTNG reconstructions for ‘urine’ cast doubt on the purported cognacy with TAP languages. he pTNG *[si]si, *siti, *pisi ‘urine’ was originally considered cognate with Oirata (Tim) iri ‘urine, excrement’. he forms in the AP languages seem to be doublets with ‘water’, which is reconstructed as pTAP *jira. Although we have not established TAP correspondences for pTNG *s, there is insuicient formal similarity between the two reconstructions to retain them as cognate sets. ( ) pTNG *[si]si, *siti, *pisi ‘urine’, Western Pantar (AP) jir, Blagar (AP) ir, Klon (AP) wri, Reta (AP) vil, Sawila (AP) iripiŋ ‘urine’, Makalero irih ‘urinate’, Makasae iri ‘urine’, Oirata (Tim) iri ‘urine, excrement’ In terms of lexicon, then, we are let with thirteen potential pTNG - TAP cognates and a few tentative sound correspondences (Table ). Comparison with individual languages In the preceding section we examined evidence for a connection between TAP and TNG drawing on data from a top-down reconstruction of pTNG. Given that Pawley’s putative TNG contains some ive hundred languages, and that litle historical reconstruction work has been done for lower level subgroups, pTNG reconstructions must be considered tentative (though some reconstructed forms are more secure than others). Hence, it is useful also to examine potential relationships of TAP directly with lower level subgroups. We focus here on four such families. he irst, South Bird’s Head (SBH), is not actually included in Pawley’s hough note Makalero uful, Makasae ufulae, Fataluku upuru, and Oirata uhur ‘ly (n.)’. 80 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages TNG but was included in Wurm’s ( 98 ) previous formulation of TNG. his classiication is detailed in Voorhoeve ( 97 ), who along with Stokhof ( 97 ) argues for a somewhat distant (“subphylic”) connection between TAP and SBH. he other three families considered here are all classiied within Pawley’s TNG. he Dani and Wissel Lakes families were part of the original core group of TNG languages proposed by Wurm, Voorhoeve & McElhanon ( 97 ). heir membership in TNG is likely quite secure. he other TNG family considered here is West Bomberai. Like SBH, West Bomberai was originally classiied by Cowan ( 9 7) as part of the West Papuan Phylum, but it was later reclassiied as TNG and included as such by Pawley. Ross ( 00 ) also includes West Bomberai within TNG based on pronominal evidence. In fact, Ross proposes a “West Trans-New Guinea linkage” within TNG consisting of West Bomberai, Dani, Wissel Lakes, and TAP. All of these languages, including the Timor languages (but notably excluding Alor-Pantar) share an innovation whereby the pTNG irst singular pronoun *na is replaced by ani. Ross ( 00 : 7) also notes that the TAP languages share with West Bomberai an innovative irst-person plural form *bi (though this is an inclusive pronoun in TAP but an exclusive pronoun in West Bomberai). In the following sub-sections we compare TAP languages to each of these four families in turn, while remaining agnostic as to the status of TAP vis-à-vis TNG. Since we lack robust reconstructions at the level of any of these families, we instead compare pTAP reconstructions (see Chapter ) to selected individual languages from each of these families. . South Bird’s Head he South Bird’s Head family is here represented by Inanwatan (ISO 9- szp) and Kokoda (ISO 9- xod). he Inanwatan pronouns are given in Table (with pAP for comparison). Like the pAP and pTNG pronoun sets, these show /a/ in the singulars and /i/ in the plurals, although the Inanwatan third person singular does not follow this patern. hese are similar to the pAP pronouns in relecting *na ‘ ’ instead of *an. As in the TAP languages, the pTNG irst person plural pronoun *ni (if indeed Inanwatan is a TNG language) has been assigned to the exclusive, and a new form has been innovated for the inclusive. he inclusive form in Inanwatan, however, is not cognate with the inclusive in pAP. Inanwatan is also diferent from TAP languages in distinguishing between masculine and feminine in the third person singular. In the Inanwatan vocabulary, ive forms stand out as potentially cognate with TAP. 8 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson Table . . : Inanwatan pronouns (de Vries 00 : 7- 9) subject possessive preix pAP náiti/nári áiti/ári ítigi (m) ítigo (f) dáiti níiti íiti ítiga naaØ danii(da)Ø *na*(h)a*ga*pi*ni*(h)i*gi- ( ) Comparison of TAP with Inanwatan (de Vries 00 ) a. Inanwatan mo-, pAP *mai ‘to come’ b. Inanwatan ni- ‘eat, drink, smoke’, pTAP *nVa ‘eat, drink’ c. Inanwatan ʔ ero, pTAP *-wa(l,r)i ‘ear’ d. Inanwatan oro, pTAP *-ar(u) ‘vagina’ e. Inanwatan durewo ‘wing, bird’, pTAP *(h)adul ‘bird’ he form for ‘to come’ is likely a loan from an Austronesian language (and it is not found in Timor languages). he other correspondences look promising, although we see an r:r correspondence in (d), an r:l correspondence in (e), and a correspondence between r and an unidentiied liquid in (c). he South Bird’s Head language Kokoda also shows several promising lexical similarities with TAP, although both ‘pig’ and ‘come’ may be Austronesian loans, and the remaining items do not reconstruct to the level of pTAP. Curiously, only one of these has the same meaning as those we identiied from Inanwatan even though Inanwatan and Kokoda share 0% possible lexical correspondences (de Vries 00 : ). ( 7) Comparison of TAP with Kokoda (de Vries 00 ) a. b. c. d. Kokoda taˈbai, pTAP *baj ‘pig’ Kokoda kɔˈtena, pAP *-tok ‘belly, stomach’ Kokoda ˈɟεria, pAP *jira(n) ‘to ly’ Kokoda mɔe, pAP *mai ‘to come’ Robinson (to appear) provides evidence that words for ‘pig’ were borrowed separately into pAP and proto-Timor ater the breakup of pTAP. 8 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages If the suspected Austronesian loans are omited from the list above, the number of lexical similarities between TAP and Kokoda is reduced by half to only two items. . Dani he Dani family is here represented by Lower Grand Valley Dani (ISO 9dni) for the pronouns and Western Dani (ISO 9 - dnw) for the vocabulary. he Dani pronouns are given in Table (with pAP for comparison since pTAP reconstructions are not yet available). Like the pAP and pTNG pronouns, they have the paradigmatic vowels /a/ for singulars and /i/ for plurals, plus the use of /n/ for irst person, which is why Ross ( 00 ) suggested they might be related to the TAP languages. he Dani pronouns more closely match the reconstructed pAP pronouns than either match the pTNG pronouns, in that Dani also lacks a velar consonant in the second person forms (cf. Table 7). As with pAP, the Dani pronouns could be explained by positing a lip between the second and third person pronouns. If AP were indeed TNG, then this lip could constitute evidence of shared innovation in the AP and Dani group. Table : Lower Grand Valley Dani pronouns (van der Stap 9 : equivalents - ), with pAP personal pronouns possessive preixes pAP an hat at nit hit it n(a)h(a)Øninhinin- *na*(h)a*ga*pi-, *ni*(h)i*gi- Curiously, Dani shows an for the independent pronoun and n(a)- for the pronominal preix. he pAP pronouns (both the reconstructed preix, and the various derived independent pronouns found in individual AP languages) relect *na-, like the pTNG *na. he Timor languages, in contrast, relect *an in the . Donohue (p.c.) suggests that perhaps the pTNG reconstruction should instead be *an, and that many TNG languages have independently leveled the pronominal paradigm so that all the singulars are of the shape Ca. Donohue suggests that this is a simpler explanation for the pronominal distributions than claiming in- 8 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson dependent changes of *na > *an. On the other hand, the fact that the bound TNG pronoun reconstructs as *na- suggests that the CV form is older. In the vocabulary, Western Dani shares a handful of look-alikes with the TAP languages. hese are given below. ( 8) Comparison of TAP with Western Dani (Purba, Warwer & Fatubun 99 ) a. Western Dani ji, pTAP *jira ‘water’ b. Western Dani mugak ‘ko banana’, pTAP *mugul ‘banana’ c. Western Dani maluk, proto-Alor (but not pAP or pTAP) *makal ‘biter’ d. Western Dani nono ‘what’, Adang (AP) ano, Hamap (AP) hano, Kabola (AP) hanado ‘who’ e. Western Dani o ‘house’, Kui (AP) ow, Klon (AP) əwi Terms for ‘water’ and ‘banana’ are reconstructable to pTAP, but the other lookalikes occur only in the restricted geographic subset of the TAP languages, significantly increasing the probability of chance resemblance due to researcher bias. hat is, with some 0 languages, there are bound to be chance resemblances with individual languages, so methodologically, we should restrict ourselves to comparing proto-language with proto-language, rather than comparing to individual daughter languages within TAP. . Wissel Lakes he Wissel Lakes family is here represented by Ekari (ISO 9- ekg). he Ekari pronouns are listed in Table (with pAP for comparison). As in pAP and pTNG, Ekari pronouns have the paradigmatic vowels /a/ for singulars and /i/ for plurals, plus the use of /n/ for irst person. Like the Dani pronouns and the Timor pronouns, the Ekari pronouns show ani in the independent pronouns and nain the preixes. Unlike TAP and Dani, however, the Ekari pronouns show velar consonants in the second person, suggesting a straightforward inheritance from the prenasalized velars of pTNG. We identiied ive potential cognates in the vocabulary; these are listed in ( 9) below. ( 9) Comparison of TAP with Ekari (Steltenpool 9 9) a. Ekari nai ‘eat, drink’, pTAP *nVa ‘eat, drink’ b. Ekari menii ‘give to him/her/them (irregular)’, pTAP *-(e,i)na ‘to give’ c. Ekari mei ‘come’, pAP *mai ‘come’ 8 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages d. Ekari maki ‘land’, Teiwa (AP) moħoʔ, Kaera (AP) maxa, Klon (AP) məkεʔ, pTim *muka e. Ekari owaa ‘house’, Kui (AP) ow, Klon (AP) əwi Of these potential cognates, only ‘eat’ and ‘give’ are reconstructed to pTAP, though ‘give’ only matches in a subset of phonemes. As mentioned before, it is likely that both Ekari and AP borrowed ‘come’ from Austronesian sources (see discussion in § ). he forms for ‘house’ are only found in a geographical subset of the TAP languages, leaving only ‘eat, drink’ and ‘land’ as solid-looking potential cognates. Table . : Ekari pronouns (Drabbe 9 ), with pAP equivalents free object preix pAP ani aki okai ̯ inai ̯ ikai ̯ okeai ̯ inii ikii okei ̯ nakae- *na*(h)a*ga- nikie- *pi-, *ni*(h)i*gi- West Bomberai In the West Bomberai languages, stronger lexical similarities to TAP languages emerge, and we can posit tentative sound correspondences. he West Bomberai family is composed of three languages: Iha (ISO 9- ihp), Baham (bdw) and Karas (kgv), with the later of these thought to be more distantly related to the other two. he Iha pronouns are given in Table (with pAP for comparison). Iha shows /o/ in the irst and second person singular and /i/ in the other pronouns, paralleling the /a/ - /i/ paradigms of pTNG and pAP. Like Dani, Ekari, and the Timor languages, the Iha irst person singular pronoun is VC as opposed to the CV pronouns of Inanwatan, pTNG, and pAP. Iha also shows a similar metathesis in the irst person inclusive in from pTNG *ni. Like pTNG, Iha shows velar consonants 8 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson in the second person, as opposed to the velar third person seen in pAP, suggesting that Iha did not share the proposed innovative lip of second and third person pronouns. On the other hand, one of the sound correspondences outlined below (Iha k : pAP Ø) suggests that perhaps Iha ko ‘ ’ and ki ‘ ’ correspond to pAP *(h)a- ‘ ’ pAP *(h)i- ‘ ’, respectively. he reconstruction of *h in the second person pAP pronouns is based on only two languages (Teiwa and Western Pantar), and the other AP languages have vowel-initial second person pronouns, which matches with the Iha k : pAP Ø correspondence. Table : Iha personal pronouns (Donohue, p.c.), with pAP equivalents . . Iha pAP on mi mbi in ki mi *na*ga*pi*ni*(h)i*gi- We identiied thirteen potential TAP cognates in the Iha vocabulary (Donohue, p.c.), although some do not reconstruct to the level of pTAP and instead show similarities with the reconstructed pAP or forms in individual languages. he form ‘eat, drink’ has been reconstructed as pTNG *na- ‘eat, drink’. As mentioned in § , the term for older sibling has been reconstructed as pTNG *nan(a,i), although this could be a nursery form. ( 0) Potential cognates between Iha and TAP a. Iha nwV ‘eat’, pTAP *nVa ‘eat, drink’ b. Iha tan, pTAP *-tan(a) ‘arm/hand’ c. Iha wor, pAP *-o(l,r)a ‘tail’ d. Iha kar, pTAP *-ar(u) ‘vagina’ e. Iha wek, pTAP *waj ‘blood’ f. Iha ne, pAP *-en(i,u), pTim *-nej ‘name’ As mentioned above, Schapper, Huber & van Engelenhoven (this volume) reconstruct a third liquid (in addition to *l and *r), but we believe that third correspondence set should be assigned to either *l or *r with an as yet to be identiied conditioning. 8 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages g. h. i. j. k. Iha jet, pTAP *jagir ‘laugh’ Iha mbjar, pTAP *dibar ‘dog’ Iha mħen, pTAP *mit ‘sit’ Iha iħ, pAP *is(i) ‘fruit’ Iha nen ‘older brother’, Iha nan ‘older sister’, pAP *nan(a) ‘elder sibling’ l. Iha nemehar, Teiwa (AP) masar ‘man, male’ m. Iha ja, Blagar (AP) dʒe ‘boat’ Based on these thirteen potential cognates in the lexicon, plus the potential cognates in the pronouns, we can suggest possible sound correspondences (Table ). Table : Possible Iha : pTAP sound correspondences Iha pTAP examples r n m w k k h, ħ ħ mb mb j t t Ø r n m Ø before /o/, w elsewhere Ø h s t b p j t r g vagina, man, dog, tail eat, name, arm, older sibling, sit, man tail blood vagina, blood , man, fruit sit dog . laugh, boat arm laugh laugh Note that Teiwa [s] is the regular relex of pAP *s, which is, in turn, the regular relex of pTAP *s. Note that Blagar [dʒ] is the regular relex of pAP *j, which, in turn, is the regular relex of pTAP *j. But some of these correspondences conlict with each other. Note, for example that the h:s correspondence of ‘man’ and the ħ:s correspondence of ‘fruit’ conlict with ħ:t correspondence of ‘sit’. Without more examples, it is diicult to 87 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson Table 7: Baham pronouns (Flassy, Ruhukael & Rumbrawer 987) personal possessive pAP anduu tow kpwaw unduu kujuu kinewat ne te ka ni kuju kinewaat *na*(h)a*ga*pi-, *ni*(h)i*gi- determine whether these conlicts are due to conditioned sound change or false cognates. We posit only one conditioned correspondence, that of w:Ø before a back rounded vowel and w:w elsewhere. he West Bomberai language Baham also shows striking similarities to TAP languages. he Baham pronouns are given in Table 7, with the pAP pronouns for comparison. In the possessives, these pronouns show a irst singular ne, a third singular ka, and a irst plural ni that appear cognate to the corresponding pAP pronouns. he third person plural may be cognate in the irst segment. Other pronouns appear innovative. he Baham vocabulary reveals thirteen potential TAP cognates. Six of these terms are also found in Iha, and three have been reconstructed for pTNG: pTNG *na- ‘eat, drink’, pTNG *inda ‘tree’, and pTNG *tukumba(C) ‘short’. ( ) Potential cognates between TAP and Baham (Flassy, Ruhukael & Rumbrawer 987) a. Baham nowa ‘eat’, pTAP *nVa ‘eat, drink’ b. Iha: pTAP sound correspondences Baham adoq ‘tree’, pTAP *hada ‘ire, wood’ c. Baham toqoop, pAP *tukV ‘short’ d. Baham pkwujer, pTAP *wa(l,r)i ‘ear’ e. Baham kaar, pAP *-ar(u) ‘vagina’ f. Baham wijek, pTAP *waj ‘blood’ g. Baham mungguo, pTAP *mugul ‘banana’ h. Baham wuor tare, pTAP *o(l,r)a ‘tail’ i. Baham waar, pTAP *war ‘stone’ 88 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages j. k. l. m. Baham ɲie, pAP *-en(i,u), pTim *-nej ‘name’ Baham meheen, pTAP *mit ‘sit’ Baham jambar, pTAP *dibar ‘dog’ Baham wawa, cf., Teiwa (AP) wow, Nedebang (AP) wowa, Kaera (AP) wow ‘mango’ Once again, based on these thirteen potential cognates and the pronouns we can suggest potential sound correspondences (Table 8). Unsurprisingly, these correspondences are similar to the ones we propose for Iha, including a correspondence of pre-nasalized stops in Baham to voiced stops in pTAP, although the Baham form for ‘tree’ (cf. TAP ‘ire, wood’) does not it that trend. Table 8: Possible Baham : pTAP sound correspondences Baham pTAP examples r k k q q p w n, ɲ m mb ŋg d j t h Ø Ø r Ø h k Ø Ø Ø before /o/, w elsewhere n m b g/k d d t t h l ear, vagina, tail, stone, dog ear, vagina, blood short ire short, ear tail blood, mango, stone, ear eat, name, , banana, sit dog banana ire dog short sit ire banana he West Bomberai language Karas also shows several potential cognates with TAP languages, although information on Karas is more sparse than for Iha or Baham. In the vocabulary (Donohue, p.c.), nine potential cognates were identiied, six of which are also found in both Iha and Baham. hree of these are 89 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson reconstructed for pTNG: *na- ‘eat, drink’, pTNG *me-‘to come’, and pTNG *amu ‘breast’. ( ) Potential cognates between TAP/AP and Karas a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Karas nɪn ‘eat’, pTAP *nVa ‘eat, drink’ Karas tan, pTAP *-tan(a) ‘arm, hand’ Karas ɔrʊn, pTAP *o(l,r)a ‘tail’ Karas bal, pTAP *dibar ‘dog’ Karas wat, pTAP *wata ‘coconut’ Karas am, pTAP *hami ‘breast’ Karas i:n, pAP *-en(i,u), pTim *-nej ‘name’ Karas mej, pAP *mai ‘to come’ We can establish tentative correspondences from these forms (Table 9), although most correspondences occur only once in these data, and the inal /n/ in Karas ‘tail’ is unexplained. Table 9: Possible Karas : pAP sound correspondences Karas pAP examples m n n t r b l w Ø m n Ø t L b r w h come, breast eat, arm, name tail, eat arm, coconut tail dog dog coconut breast In the lexicon, then, the strongest correspondences are with West Bomberai languages, allowing us to posit some (very tentative) sound correspondences. In the pronouns, Iha shows an inclusive/exclusive distinction, with an exclusive pronoun that looks supericially similar to the reconstructed pAP inclusive pronoun *pi-. However, the sound correspondences suggest Iha mb : pTAP p, so perhaps both forms are independently innovated, with the similarity in vowels due to analogy with other pronouns in the paradigm (i.e., plurals have the vowel 90 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages /i/) and the similarity in consonants due to chance. An alternative explanation would rely on borrowing, which we return to in the following section. Discussion We have considered three hypotheses regarding the wider genealogical ailiations of the TAP languages. We now return to the null hypothesis proposed in § (that the TAP languages are a family-level isolate) and consider the strength of the evidence with regard to each of the proposals. he pronominal evidence points much more clearly toward a link with TNG as opposed to NH. he TAP pronouns share with TNG a vowel grading /a/ vs. /i/ in the singular vs. plural, respectively. In addition, TNG second person pronouns correspond well with TAP third person pronouns, although this correspondence requires us to posit a semantic lip between second and third person forms. his lip renders the pronominal evidence much weaker than it otherwise might be. he primary trace of similarity between the TAP and NH pronouns lies in the TAP irst person distributive form, which resembles the NH irst person singular. It is of course possible that the TAP pronoun system has been inluenced by both TNG and NH languages, as suggested by Donohue ( 008). In the lexicon, there is no evidence supporting a genealogical connection between TAP and NH languages. he lexical evidence for a link with TNG is more promising, and a few regular sound correspondences emerge, but a critical eye limits the number to thirteen, so we cannot establish a robust connection. However, if we focus our atention just on the West Bomberai languages, the pronominal and lexical evidence looks more promising and warrants further investigation. It is possible that the TAP and Bomberai languages are related either via a deep genealogical connection or via a more casual contact relationship. If it is a genealogical relationship, it is not yet clear whether they are both part of TNG or whether they share a relationship independent of that family. he spread of TNG is conventionally linked to the development of agriculture in the New Guinea highlands about 0,000 years ago (Bellwood 00 ), with a westward spread somewhat later, perhaps around ,000 BP (Pawley 998). his would place any putative TAP-TNG genealogical connection at the upper limits of what is possible using the comparative method. Another possibility is that the weak signal linking TAP with Bomberai is the result not of an ancient genealogical connection, but rather of more recent contact. he West Bomberai groups, for example, have a history of slaving (Klamer, Reesink & van Staden 008: 09). It is possible that they took Timor-Alor-Pantar peoples as slaves at some point, 9 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson and that this is the source of the connection between the two groups. More investigation of the social history of pre-Austronesian contact in East Nusantara is greatly needed. In conclusion, the existing evidence provides only weak support for a connection between TAP and Papuan languages spoken to the east. he most promising hypothesis would connect TAP with the West Bomberai languages, but even here the evidence is thin and does not support a deinitive conclusion. We hope that new ield research on the Bomberai languages, combined with reconstruction of proto-Bomberai, will eventually help clarify this question. Aknowledgements Field work on the Alor-Pantar languages was supported by grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientiic Research, the UK Arts and Humanities Council, and the US National Science Foundation (NSF-SBE 09 887), under the aegis of the European Science Foundation EuroBABEL programme. he authors are indebted to their colleagues in the EuroBABEL Alor-Pantar project for generously sharing their data and analyses, and for providing feedback on early versions of this paper. he authors also wish to thank numerous colleagues in Alor and Pantar who assisted with data collection. 9 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages Abbreviations A C N NH st person nd person rd person AP most agent-like argument TIM accusative actor alienable NH consonant classiier declarative distal TAP distributive dual TNG exclusive feminine SBH inalienable inclusive imperfective TAP locative TNG masculine nasal noun class . negator North Halmaheran noun marker V object obviative most patient-like argument proto-Alor-Pantor proto-Timor perfective plural proto-NorthHalmahera possessive progressive proto-Timor-AlorPantar proto-Trans-NewGuinea South Bird’s Head singular subject Timor-Alor-Pantar Trans-New Guinea undergoer verb verb (given when English translation is ambiguous, e.g. ‘ly (v.)’ vowel References van der Aa, Robide & Pieter Jan Batist Carel. 87 . Een tweetal bijdragen tot de kennis van Halmahera. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 9. – 9. Anceaux, J. C. 97 . Naschrit. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 9( ). Bellwood, Peter. 00 . Early agriculturist population diasporas? farming, language, and genes. Annual Review of Anthropology 0. 8 – 07. 9 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson Campbell, Lyle & William J. Poser. 008. Language classiication: History and method. Cambridge University Press. Capell, Arthur. 9 . Peoples and languages of Timor. Oceania ( ). 9– 8. Capell, Arthur. 97 . he West Papuan phylum: General, and Timor and areas further west. In Stephen A. Wurm (ed.), New Guinea area languages and language study, Papuan Languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene, vol. , 7–7 . Canberra: Research School of Paciic & Asian Studies, Australian National University. Cowan, H. K. J. 9 7. A large Papuan language phylum in West New Guinea. Oceania 8. 9– . Cowan, Hendrik Karel Jan. 9 . Voorlopige resultaten van een ambtelijk taalonderzoek in Nieuw-Guinea. ’S-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhof. Donohue, Mark. 007a. he Papuan language of Tambora. Oceanic Linguistics ( ). 0– 7. Donohue, Mark. 007b. he phonological history of the languages of the non-Austronesian languages of Southern Indonesia. Paper presented at the Fith East Nusantara Conference, August - . Kupang. Donohue, Mark. 008. Bound pronominals in the West Papuan languages. In Claire Bowern, Bethwyn Evans & Luisa Miceli (eds.), Morphology and language history: In honour of Harold Koch, – 8. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Donohue, Mark & Antoinete Schapper. 007. Towards a morphological history of the languages of Timor, Alor, and Pantar. Paper presented at the Fith East Nusantara Conference. Universitas Nusa Cendana, Kupang, Nusa Tenggara Timur, Indonesia, August - . Drabbe, Peter. 9 . Spraakkunst van het Ekagi: Wisselmeren Ned. N. Guinea. he Hague: Martinus Nijhof. Drabbe, Peter. 9 . Spraakkunst van het Marind: Zuidkust Nederlands NieuwGuinea. Vol. (Studia Instituti Anthropos). Wien-Mödling: Drukkerij van het Missiehuis St. Gabriël. Fedden, Sebastian. 0 . A grammar of Mian. Vol. (Mouton Grammar Library). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fedden, Sebastian, Dunstan Brown, Greville G. Corbet, Marian Klamer, Gary Holton, Laura C. Robinson & Antoinete Schapper. 0 . Conditions on pronominal marking in the Alor-Pantar languages. Linguistics ( ). –7 . Flassy, Don A. L., Constantinoepel Ruhukael & Frans Rumbrawer. 987. Fonologi Bahasa Bahaam. Jakarta: Departmen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Foley, William A. 98 . he Papuan languages of New Guinea (Cambridge language surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 9 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages Foley, William A. 998. Toward understanding Papuan languages. In Jelle Miedema, Cecilia Odé & Rien A. C. Dam (eds.), Perspectives on the Bird s Head of Irian Jaya, Indonesia, 0 – 8. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Foley, William A. 000. he languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of Anthropology 9( ). 7– 0 . Haan, Johnson Welem. 00 . he grammar of Adang: a Papuan language spoken on the island of Alor East Nusa Tenggara - Indonesia. Sydney: University of Sydney PhD thesis. http://www-personal.arts.usyd.edu.au/jansimps/haan/. Holton, Gary. 00 . Tobelo. Vol. 8 (Languages of the World/Materials). Menchen: Lincom. Holton, Gary. 008. he rise and fall of semantic alignment in North Halmahera, Indonesia. In M. Donohue & S. Wichmann (eds.), he typology of semantic alignment, – 7 . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holton, Gary. 0 0. Person-marking, verb classes and the notion of grammatical alignment in Western Pantar (Lamma). In Michael Ewing & Marian Klamer (eds.), Typological and areal analyses: contributions from east Nusantara, 97– 7. Canberra: Paciic Linguistics. Klamer, Marian. 0 0. A grammar of Teiwa (Mouton Grammar Library 9). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Klamer, Marian, Ger P. Reesink & Miriam van Staden. 008. East Nusantara as a linguistic area. In Pieter Muysken (ed.), From linguistic areas to areal linguistics (Studies in Language Companion Series 90), 9 – 9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kratochvíl, František. 007. A grammar of Abui: a Papuan language of Alor. Utrecht: LOT. Lewis, Paul M., Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig. 0 . Ethnologue: languages of the world. 7th edn. Dallas: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com. McElhanon, Kenneth A. & C. Voorhoeve. 970. he Trans-New Guinea phylum: explorations in deep-level genetic relationships (Paciic Linguistics: Series B ). Canberra: Research School of Paciic & Asian Studies, Australian National University. Meillet, Antoine. 9 7. he comparative method in historical linguistics. Paris: Champion. Olson, Michael. 98 . Barai clause junctures: toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Canberra: Australian National University PhD thesis. Pawley, Andrew K. 99 . C. L. Voorhoeve and the Trans New Guinea phylum hypothesis. In Connie Baak, Mary Bakker & Dick van der Meij (eds.), Tales 9 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson from a concave world: liber amicorum Bert Voorhoeve, 8 – . Department of Languages, Cultures of Southeast Asia & Oceania, Leiden University. Pawley, Andrew K. 998. he Trans New Guinea phylum hypothesis: a reassessment. In Cecilia Odé Jelle Miedema & Rien A. C. Dam (eds.), Perspectives on the Bird s Head of Irian Jaya, Indonesia, – 90. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Pawley, Andrew K. 00 . he Proto Trans New Guinea obstruents: arguments from top-down reconstruction. In Andrew K. Pawley, Malcolm Ross & Darrell Tryon (eds.), he boy from Bundaberg: studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Duton, – 00. Canberra: Paciic Linguistics. Pawley, Andrew K. 00 . he chequered career of the trans New Guinea hypothesis: recent research and its implications. In Andrew K. Pawley, Robert Atenborough, Jack Golson & Robin Hide (eds.), Papuan pasts: studies in the cultural, linguistic and biological history of the Papuan-speaking peoples (Paciic Linguistics 7 ), 7– 08. Canberra: Research School of Paciic & Asian Studies, Australian National University. Pawley, Andrew K. 0 . How reconstructable is Proto Trans New Guinea? problems, progress, prospects. In Harald Hammarström & Wilco van den Heuvel (eds.), History, contact and classiication of Papuan languages (LLM Special Issue), 88– . Port Moresby: Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea. Pawley, Andrew K. nd. Some Trans New Guinea phylum cognate sets. Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Paciic & Asian Studies, Australian National University. Purba, heodorus T., Onesimus Warwer & Reimundus Fatubun. 99 . Fonologi Bahasa Dani Barat. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Reesink, Ger P. 99 . Morpho-syntactic features of the Bird’s Head languages. In Ger P. Reesink (ed.), Studies in Irian languages, chap. . Roberts, John R. 997. Switch-reference in Papua New Guinea: a preliminary survey. Papers in Papuan Linguistics . Andrew K. Pawley (ed.). 0 – . Robinson, Laura C. to appear. he Alor-Pantar (Papuan) languages and Austronesian contact in East Nusantara. In Malcom Ross (ed.), Language contact and Austronesian historical linguistics. Canberra: Paciic Linguistics. Robinson, Laura C. & Gary Holton. 0 . Reassessing the wider genetic ailiations of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages. In Harald Hammarström & Wilco van der Heuvel (eds.), Contact and classiication of Papuan languages (Language and Linguistics in Melanesia Special Issue 0 -I), 9–87. Port Moresby: Linguistic Society of New Guinea. Ross, Malcolm. 00 . Pronouns as preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages. In Andrew K. Pawley, Robert Atemborough, Jack Golson & Robin 9 he linguistic position of the Timor-Alor-Pantar languages Hide (eds.), Papuan pasts: cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuanspeaking peoples, – . Canberra: Paciic Linguistics. Ross, Malcolm. 00 . Pronouns as markers of genetic stocks in non-Austronesian languages of New Guinea, island Melanesia and Eastern Indonesia. In Andrew K. Pawley, Malcolm Ross & Meredith Osmond (eds.), Papuan languages and the trans New Guinea family. Canberra: Paciic Linguistics. Schapper, Antoinete. 0 0. Bunaq: a Papuan language of central Timor. Canberra: Australian National University PhD thesis. Schapper, Antoinete, Juliete Huber & Aone van Engelenhoven. 0 . he historical relations of the Papuan languages of Timor and Kisar. In Harald Hammarström & Wilco van den Heuvel (eds.), History, contact and classiication of Papuan languages, 9 – . Language and Linguistics in Melanesia, Special Issue: On the History, Contact & Classiication of Papuan languages - Part I. Port Moresby: Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea. Schapper, Antoinete, Juliete Huber & Aone van Engelenhoven. this volume. he relatedness of Timor-Kisar and Alor-Pantar languages: A preliminary demonstration. In Marian Klamer (ed.), he Alor-Pantar languages, 99– . Berlin: Language Science Press. Scot, Graham. 978. he fore language of Papua New Guinea (Paciic Linguistics: Series B 7). Canberra: Research School of Paciic & Asian Studies, Australian National University. van der Stap, Petrus A. M. 9 . Outline of Dani morphology. ’S-Gravenhage: Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden PhD thesis. http://papuaweb.anu.edu.au/dlib/bk / kitlv/index.html#stap- 9 . Steltenpool, J. 9 9. Ekagi-Dutch-English-Indonesian dictionary (Verhandelingen van het KITLV ). he Hague: Martinus Nijhof. Stokhof, W. A. L. 97 . Preliminary notes on the Alor and Pantar languages (East Indonesia) (Paciic Linguistics: Series B ). Canberra: Research School of Paciic & Asian Studies, Australian National University. Suter, Edgar. 0 . Verbs with pronominal object preixes in Finisterre-Huon languages. In Harald Hammarström & Wilco van den Heuvel (eds.), History, contact and classiication of Papuan languages (LLM Special Issue 0 -I), – 8. Port Moresby: Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea. van der Veen, Hendrik. 9 . De Noord-Halmahera se taalgroep tegenover de austronesiese talen. Leiden: van Niterik. Voorhoeve, C. L. 97 . he central and Western areas of the Trans-New Guinea phylum: Central and Western trans-New Guinea phylum languages. In Stephen A. Wurm (ed.), New Guinea area languages and language study vol : Papuan 97 Gary Holton & Laura C. Robinson languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene (Paciic Linguistics: Series C 8), – 0. Canberra: Research School of Paciic & Asian Studies, Australian National University. de Vries, Lourens J. 00 . A short grammar of Inanwatan: an endangered language of the Bird s head of Papua, Indonesia (Paciic Linguistics 0). Canberra: Research School of Paciic & Asian Studies, Australian National University. Wada, Yuiti. 980. Correspondence of consonants in North Halmahera languages and the conservation of archaic sounds in Galela. In he Galela of Halmahera: A preliminary survey (Senri Ethnological Studies 7), 97– 9. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. Watuseke, F. S. 97 . Gegevens over de taal van Pantar: een Irian taal. Bijdragen tot de Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal, Land en Volkenkunde 9. 0– . Wurm, Stephen A. (ed.). 97 . New Guinea area languages and language study vol : Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene (Paciic Linguistics: Series C 8). Canberra: Research School of Paciic & Asian Studies, Australian National University. http://www.papuaweb.org/dlib/bk/pl/C 8/_toc.html. Wurm, Stephen A. 98 . he Papuan languages of Oceania (Ars Linguistica 7). Tebingen: Gunter Narr. Wurm, Stephen A., C. L. Voorhoeve & Kenneth A. McElhanon. 97 . he transNew Guinea phylum in general. In Stephen A. Wurm (ed.), New Guinea area languages and language study vol : Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene (Paciic Linguistics: Series C 8), 99– . Canberra: Research School of Paciic & Asian Studies, Australian National University. 98