Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:48:39 +0100
To: " AUSTRONESIAN LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS"
Subject: Re: Bazaar Malay; Mal. nyawa
I at first answered directly to C.C. and J.W., but looks
like this is becoming an interesting discussion, so here's my squalk
to the cage shake:
25-Mar-97 to C.C.:
Malay nyawa indeed reflects an apparently original Proto-Austronesian
form, which has been reconstructed so far as:
where the apostrophe in n' is a "palatalized
articulation" mark, @ is IPa turned-around e (so-called "schwa"),
segments in parantheses are optional ("prefix").
Reflexes are attested for languages of Taiwan, the Philippines
Indonesia, and Melanesia (and further out in Oceania), i.e., it is not
restricted to Indianized languages. Incidentally, in Malay it is not a
special feature of Bazaar Malay.
|*n'ava ||(Dempwolff 1938)|
|*ñiSawa ||(Tsuchida 1975)|
|*(Ra-)SiNawa ||(Zorc 1982)|
|*(Ri-)ñ@Saua ||(Mahdi 1988)|
25-Mar-97 to J.W.:
Here are some more reflexes (from Mahdi 1988):
| Thao||Snau ||(S= sh) perhaps a loan|
| Itbayaten||hinawa || |
| Aklanon||ginhawa||(!! compare your Cebuano form)|
| Pangasinan||lina'wa||(disambiguates initial *[gR]
| Kapampangan||inawa ||(ditto)|
| || ||all "breath, etc."|
| Wogeo||ma-ñawa||"to rest"|
J.W. replied to me:
Thanks for the message. I wonder if the Bukidnon form isn't the
most conservative -- i.e. a proto-Philippine form being *Rehinyawa. I don't
know that we could go back to PAN with that because the prefix (?Re-) is
only reflected as far south as Baree and no further north than Itbayatan.
This is indeed a very plausible solution. Only the relative position
of *@ (your *e) to *i and of *S (> PPh *h)
to *ñ (your *ny) seems
to be subject to metathesis and one could probably debate endlessly
over whether it is
(3) seems objectional because of the sequence *ñi, but Bob Blust
quite neatly obviates this by positing *n in place of *ñ,
because *ni/_V in tri- or more -syllabic forms (also bisyllabic forms of
a gramaticalized nature, e.g. pronouns) would predictably result in ny
in those languages in which we find it in reflexes of the protoform. The sole
counterevidence is the Kanakanavu reflex, which would require an *ñ
(Tsuchida). Your objection to Tsuchida's alignment is well placed, because
it is based on very few examples, and there is at least one counter-example.
Nevertheless, I prefer to be a bit cautious here. *ñ is a relatively
rarely occurring proto-phoneme, so one would not expect many examples.
These indeed happen to be all the data we have on *[ñ] in Kanakanavu,
and all adjacent languages in the wider neighbourhood have united *ñ
with *N or *n, so the counterevidence in Kanakanavu could be a
|(1)||*(R@)Siñaua (your proposal, cf also Zorc 1982)|
|(4)||*(Ri)ñ@Saua (my 1988 proposal)|
Thao suggests (2), but in view of the analogical irregularity (loss of
final vowel) it should pobably be connected with the Tsou reflex through
metathesis n/s. In the Philippines, Cebuano and Aklanon point to (4),
Pangasinan and Kapampangan are impartial to (4) or (2), while WB Manobo
and Itbayaten are conform with (1).
So my conclusion at this point is, that we are undecided between
(1) *(R@)Siñaua, (3a) *(R@)niSaua, and
(4) *(Ri)ñ@Saua, where (3a) depends on the rejection of
Tsuchida's *ñ > Kanakanavu ny assignment. If the
optional *(R) had indeed been a later innovation,
not shared by languages of Taiwan, then Kanakanavu points to (1),
while Tsou and Thao (which are probably not independent) suggest (4).
Not very much, because Kanakanavu ng raises questions, while the Tsou
and Thao reflexes have an undisputable irregularity.
Back to index