The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages (2 Vols.) 9004283579, 9789004283572

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgements
List of Maps
Abbreviations
Notes on Contributors
Volume 1
Part 1 General Chapters
Chapter 1 Editors’ Introduction
Chapter 2 The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview
Chapter 3 Austroasiatic Classification
Chapter 4 Austroasiatic Comparative-Historical Reconstruction: An Overview
Chapter 5 Overview of the Munda Languages
Part 2 Grammar Sketches
Section 1 Aslian
Chapter 1 Northern Aslian
Chapter 2 Semaq Beri
Section 2 Monic
Chapter 3 Old Mon
Chapter 4 Modern Mon
Section 3 Pearic
Chapter 5 Chong
Section 4 Khmeric
Chapter 6 Old Khmer
Chapter 7 Modern Khmer
Volume 2
Section 5 Bahnaric
Chapter 8 Bunong
Chapter 9 Kơho-Sre
Chapter 10 Sedang
Section 6 Katuic
Chapter 11 Kui Ntua
Chapter 12 Pacoh
Section 7 Vietic
Chapter 13 Vietnamese (Tiếng Việt)
Section 8 Khmuic
Chapter 14 Kammu
Chapter 15 Mlabri
Section 9 Mangic
Chapter 16 Bugan
Section 10 Palaungic
Chapter 17 Dara’ang Palaung
Chapter 18 Danau
Section 11 Khasian
Chapter 19 Standard Khasi
Chapter 20 Pnar
Section 12 Nicobarese
Chapter 21 Car Nicobarese
Appendix
Index of Languages
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages Volume 1

Grammars and Language Sketches of the World’s Languages Mainland and Insular South East Asia Editor Paul Sidwell (Australian National University)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/gswl

The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages VOLUME 1

Edited by

Mathias Jenny and Paul Sidwell

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The handbook of Austroasiatic languages / Edited by Mathias Jenny and Paul Sidwell.   p. cm.  Includes bibliographical references and index.  ISBN 978-90-04-28295-7 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-28357-2 (e-book) 1. Austroasiatic languages—Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Jenny, Mathias, editor. II. Sidwell, Paul, editor.  PL4283.H36 2014  495.9’3—dc23 2014033059

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 2352-9342 isbn 978-90-04-28295-7 (set hardback) isbn 978-90-04-28750-1 (vol. 1) isbn 978-90-04-28752-5 (vol. 2) isbn 978-90-04-28357-2 (e-book) Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Contents volume 1 Acknowledgements  ix List of Maps  x Abbreviations  xi Notes on Contributors  xiv

Part 1 General Chapters 1 Editors’ Introduction  3 Mathias Jenny and Paul Sidwell 2 The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview  13 Mathias Jenny, Tobias Weber and Rachel Weymuth 3 Austroasiatic Classification  144 Paul Sidwell 4 Austroasiatic Comparative-Historical Reconstruction: An Overview  221 Paul Sidwell and Felix Rau 5 Overview of the Munda Languages  364 Gregory D. S. Anderson

part 2 Grammar Sketches Section 1 Aslian 1 Northern Aslian  419 Nicole Kruspe, Niclas Burenhult and Ewelina Wnuk

vi 2 Semaq Beri  475 Nicole Kruspe

Section 2 Monic 3 Old Mon  519 Mathias Jenny and Patrick McCormick 4 Modern Mon  553 Mathias Jenny

Section 3 Pearic 5 Chong  603 Suwilai Premsrirat and Nattamon Rojanakul

Section 4 Khmeric 6 Old Khmer  643 Paul Sidwell 7 Modern Khmer  677 Walter Bisang

volume 2 Section 5 Bahnaric 8 Bunong  719 Becky Butler 9 Kơho-Sre  746 Neil H. Olsen

Contents

Contents

10 Sedang  789 Kenneth Smith and Paul Sidwell

Section 6 Katuic 11 Kui Ntua  837 Kees Jan Bos and Paul Sidwell 12 Pacoh  881 Mark J. Alves

Section 7 Vietic 13 Vietnamese (Tiếng Việt)  909 Marc Brunelle

Section 8 Khmuic 14 Kammu  957 Jan-Olof Svantesson and Arthur Holmer 15 Mlabri  1003 Kevin Bätscher

Section 9 Mangic 16 Bugan  1033 Jinfang Li and Yongxian Luo

Section 10 Palaungic 17 Dara’ang Palaung   1065 Sujaritlak Deepadung, Ampika Rattanapitak and Supakit Buakaw

vii

viii 18 Danau  1104 Aung Si

Section 11 Khasian 19 Standard Khasi  1145 K.S. Nagaraja 20 Pnar  1186 Hiram Ring

Section 12 Nicobarese 21 Car Nicobarese  1229 Paul Sidwell Аppendix  1266 Index of Languages  1320 Index of Subjects  1326

Contents

Acknowledgements   

This book would not have been possible without the work, cooperation, and goodwill of the contributors, editorial assistants, and our publisher. We would like to thank the Institute of Comparative Linguistics, University of Zurich, for affording Mathias time and resources to work on the project, including financial support for students to assist with copyediting and formatting manuscripts. The Institute also assisted Paul with accommodation and facilities during several visits to Zurich for work on the volume. Work done by Paul towards the project during 2009–11 was made possible by financial support provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities (Washington) for his Mon-Khmer Languages Project, and since December 2012 by financial support provided by the Australian Research Council under its Future Fellowship scheme.

List of Maps Chapter 3 1 Branches of the Austroasiatic Phylum  144 Chapter 5 2 Location of the Munda languages in India  364 3 Munda languages of Odisha  366 4  Location of languages represented in the grammar sketches  416

Abbreviations 1 2 3 i, ii, iii, . . . A ABL ABIL ABS ACC ACP ACS ACT ADD ADDR ADH ADJ ADV ADVRS AGR AGT ALL ANA ANIM ANTIP AOR APPL APPR APRX ART ASP ASRT ASSOC ATTR AUX

first person second person third person verb/tense class (Munda) agent ablative abilitive absolutive accusative attention calling particle accessible active additive address particle adhortative adjective adverb(alizer) adversative agreement agent(ive) allative anaphoric animate antipassive aorist applicative approving particle aproximative article aspect assertive particle associative attributive auxiliary

AVC BEN CAUS CLF COLL COM COMP COMPAR COMPL COND CONS CONSUL CONT CONTR COP COORD CSP CVB DAT DCON DECL DEF DEM DES DESC DET DIM DIR DRCT DISC DIST DISTR DS DU DUR

auxiliary verb construction benefactive causative classifier collective comitative complementizer comparative completive conditional consequence consultative continuous contrastive copula coordinating particle consent seeking particle converb dative discontinuous declarative definite demonstrative desiderative descriptive determiner diminutive directional direct (speech) discourse particle distal demonstrative distributive different subject dual durative

xii DYN ECHO EMPH EMOT ENUM EQUD EPIST ERG EUPH EXCL EXCLAM EXP F FAM FILLER FIN FOC FREQ FUT G GEN GOAL GRNDV H HAPP HES HON HORT HUM IDEOPH IDF, id IMM IMP INCEP INCL INCLIN INAN INC.OBJ INCL

Abbreviations dynamic aspect echo word emphatic emotional particle enumerative particle equidistal demonstrative epistemic particle ergative euphonic exclusive marker exclamation experience feminine familiar filler finite focus frequentative future goal, recipient genitive goal gerundive high honorific happenstance hesitation honorific hortative human ideophone identificational particle immediate (future) imperative inceptive inclusive marker inclinative inanimate incorporated object inclusive

iNCLIN IND INDF INDR INF INS INTER INTR INTS IPFV IRR ITER L LINK LOC M MANN MEDL MID MIR MPROX N NNEG NEWINF NFIN NML NOM NSIT NVIS NVOL OBJ OBL OPT ORD P PART PASS PERF

inclinative indicative indefinite indirect (speech) infinitive instrumental interrogative intransitive intensifier imperfective irrealis iterative low honorific linker locative masculine manner medial demonstrative middle voice mirative mid-proximal neuter nonnegation, negative new information non-finite nominal(izer) nominative new situation non-visible non-volitional object oblique optative ordinal number patient partitive passive perfect

xiii

Abbreviations PFV PL PN POL POSS PP PRED PROG PROH PROX PRS PST PTCP PTCL PURP Q QUOT REAL RECP RED REF REFL REL REM REP REP.SP REPET REQ RES RESTR RHET

perfective plural proper name politeness particle possessive preposition phrase predicative progressive prohibitive proximal demonstrative present past participle particle purposive question marker quotative realis reciprocal reduplication referential reflexive relativizer remote reported reported speech repetitive request particle resultative restrictive rhetorical question

RLZ ROY RTOP RTR S SBJ SBJV SEQ SG SNS SRP SS STAT SUB SUPER SURP T TAG TCL TEMP TITLE TOP TR UNIT VENT VIS VOC VOT

realizing particle royal language resumptive topic retracted tongue root single argument subject subjunctive sequential singular sensed (non-visual) self reflecting particle same subject static aspect, stative copula subordinate superlative particle expressing surpise theme tag particle topic-comment linker temporal title topic transitive unitized ventive visible vocative voice onset time

Notes on Contributors Mark Alves has been a professor in the Department of Reading, ESL, and Linguistics at Montgomery College in Rockville, Maryland (USA) since 2004. His presentations and publications over the past 20 years have focused on historical, comparative, and typological linguistics in Southeast Asia, especially Vietnamese and Mon-Khmer languages. Gregory D.S. Anderson is founder and director of Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages. His research focuses on the description and history of the Munda languages of India, covering topics ranging from comparative phonology to verb typology, and to situate these in broader South Asian areal and Austroasiatic historical contexts. Aung Si is a McKenzie postdoctoral fellow at the School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne, Australia. His interests include ethnobiology, anthropological linguistics and language contact. He has carried out fieldwork in southern India (Karnataka state), Myanmar (Shan state), Bhutan and Australia (west Arnhem Land). Kevin Bätscher (MA, Simon Fraser University) is pursuing his PhD degree in linguistics at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. His primary interests lie in clause linkage, spatial relations and language revitalization, with a focus on the linguistic areas of South East Asia (Austroasiatic, Austronesian, Sinitc, Thai) and the Pacific Northwest (Salishan). Walter Bisang is professor of General and Comparative Linguistics at the University of Mainz since 1992. He has studied General Linguistics, Chinese and Georgian at the University of Zürich (Switzerland). Main interests: linguistic typology, grammaticalization, complexity. Languages of interest: East and mainland Southeast Asian languages, Austronesian, Caucasian, Yoruba.

Notes On Contributors

xv

Kees Jan Bos is a linguist with SIL International. For the past nine years he has worked with the Kui language in Cambodia, doing linguistic analysis, language development and translation. Marc Brunelle is an associate professor in linguistics at the University of Ottawa. His main research interests are the phonetics and phonology of Southeast Asian languages, with a special emphasis on tones and prosody. His research mostly focuses on Vietnamese and Eastern Cham. Supakit Buakaw is a lecturer of linguistics at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Thailand. His main fields of interest are phonetics, phonology, and Southeast Asian linguistics. Niclas Burenhult is associate professor of General Linguistics at Lund University and research associate at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen. His research interests include the relationship between language, culture and cognition, semantic typology, language documentation and description, and linguistic prehistory, with particular focus on Austroasiatic and Southeast Asia. Becky Butler recently completed her Ph.D. in linguistics at Cornell University and currently works as an ESL specialist at the University of North Carolina. She researches the phonology and phonetics—both articulatory and acoustic—of languages in mainland Southeast Asia, with a special focus on Austroasiatic languages. Sujaritlak Deepadung is an associate professor of linguistics at The Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia, formerly known as Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University, Thailand. Her main fields of interest are pragmatics, field methods in linguistics, and Austroasiatic linguistics, on which she has conducted field work and published over the past 15 years.

xvi

Notes on Contributors

Arthur Holmer is associate professor at the Department of Linguistics in the Centre for Languages and Literature at Lund University (Sweden). His primary research focus lies within Formosan (Austronesian) syntax, but he has also worked on the syntax of other East and Southeast Asian languages, especially Kammu (Austroasiatic: Laos). Mathias Jenny is a senior researcher and lecturer at the Department of Comparative Linguistics, University of Zurich, Switzerland. His main fields of interest are language contact and language change in Southeast Asia, with a special focus on the languages of Myanmar/Burma, on which he has conducted fieldwork and widely published over the past twenty years. Nicole Kruspe is a researcher at the Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, Sweden. She is a specialist in the documentation and description of the Aslian languages, and has conducted research on the Semelai, Mah Meri, Semaq Beri and Ceq Wong languages. Jinfang Li is a professor at Minzu University of China. His fields of research interest are Tai-Kadai languages and other non-Han minority languages in south China and surrounding regions, with a focus on documentation of lesser-known languages. Yongxian Luo is an associate professor at the University of Melbourne. The focus of his research is in the comparative reconstruction of Tai and Kam-Sui language history, with particular emphasis on the Sino-Tai connection. Patrick McCormick is a research fellow at the Department of Comparative Linguistics at the University of Zurich and is also a historian affiliated with the École française d’Extrême-Orient in Rangoon, Myanmar/Burma. His main field of linguistic interest is the history of language contact and convergence in Mainland Southeast Asia.

Notes On Contributors

xvii

Keralapura Shreenivasaiah Nagaraja professor of linguistics at Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute, Pune, India, from 1981 until his retirement in 2009. His specialization is Austroasiatic and other languages of India, on which he has conducted extensive field work, including Austroasiatic Khasi and Korku, Tibeto-Burman Konyak, as well as the language isolate Nihali. He has published numerous books and articles in national and international journals. Neil H. Olsen earned his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Utah. As a documentary linguist, his research interests include the Austroasiatic languages, with a special focus on the minority languages of Vietnam, especially Kơho, on which he has conducted fieldwork and published over the past forty years. Suwilai Premsrirat is an emeritus professor at at the Resource Center for Documentation and Revitalization of Endangered Languages, Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia, Mahidol University, Thailand. Her main fields of interest are Austroasiatic linguistics, language documentation and description, and language revitalization and maintenance. Ampika Rattanapitak is a lecturer at the Burmese Division of the Oriental Languages Department, Faculty of Humanities, Chiang Mai University, Thailand. Her main fields of interest are pragmatics and the Burmese language, on which she has taught and conducted field-work over the past five years. Felix Rau (University of Cologne) has conducted extensive fieldwork on Gorum and Gutob and has been working in the Koraput Area of Odisha (India) since 2002. His research interest includes the Munda languages and the historical relationship of this branch to the rest of the Austro-Asiatic family. Hiram Ring is a linguist and researcher at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His main interests are in phonology, morphology and syntax, particularly of Khasian/Meghalayan languages.

xviii

Notes on Contributors

Nattamon Rojanakul is a researcher at the Resource Center for Documentation and Revitalization of Endangered Languages, Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia, Mahidol University, Thailand. Her fields of interest focus on Pearic languages research and digital documentation for the endangered language. Paul Sidwell is a senior lecturer and research fellow at the Department of Linguistics, College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University (Canberra). The focus of his research lies in the comparative reconstruction of Austroasiatic language history and its wider implications for the history of Mainland Southeast Asia. Kenneth D. Smith served with the Summer Institute of Linguistics since 1962 in Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand. His linguistic research concentrated on the Sedang language of the Vietnam Central Highlands. After 1975 he was an administrator with SIL in Southeast Asia and since 2011 has been a finance officer of the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics in Dallas, Texas. Jan-Olof Svantesson is Professor Emeritus in General Linguistics at Lund University, Sweden. His main research area is the phonology, morphology and phonetics of Southeast Asian languages and Mongolian languages. Tobias Weber is a Ph.D. student and lecturer at the University of Regensburg, Germany. His main research interests include the typology of case systems and their diachronic development, phonology, and the areal-typological profile of Southeast Asia. Rachel Weymuth is a master student of General Linguistics at the Department of Comparative Linguistics, University of Zurich, Switzerland. Her main interests are the three varieties of Palaung: Shwe, Rumai and Ruching, the interplay with their contact languages as well as the features of negation in the Austroasiatic languages.

Notes On Contributors

xix

Ewelina Wnuk is a PhD candidate in the Language and Cognition Department at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. She has conducted fieldwork among the speakers of Maniq since 2009. Her research interests are: language description and language documentation, ethnobiology, semantics, in particular semantic specificity and language of perception.

Part 1 General Chapters

⸪

chapter 1

Editors’ Introduction

Background to This Handbook

Seeing the Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages come to fruition is something like seeing a difficult adopted son finally leave home; taking him on was the right thing to do, it was necessary, and it felt almost noble at the beginning, but we didn’t really know what would be necessary and now there is a real sense of relief that things have moved on. There are always orphans that need taking care of, and Austroasiatic was definitely in that category. While some find good homes, others are left uncared for. There are false starts, broken promises, the failures to follow through. Institutional arrangements exist, but in the end it is the decisions made by individuals that matter. Other language families have more congenial histories: family reunions that draw hundreds of participants, homes of bricks and mortar that provide reliable shelter over decades, and wealthy uncles and rich inheritances underlying well documented lineages. But in this world of diverse circumstances and mixed fortunes fates are not fixed in stone. One can still make a go of things, and to the bold, as well as the lucky, can come the opportunities. A major step forward for our side came in 2008 with the publication of The Munda Languages (Routledge) edited by Gregory Anderson (who also provides a chapter in this volume). This achievement both inspired and shamed us by not only showing what could be done, but by starkly reminding us what had yet to be done, as the Munda languages are but one branch beside a dozen others on which scores of linguists have been working over decades. The concerns and emphases among Austroasiatic scholars vary considerably according to geography, with consequences for the study of such a dispersed language family. Our counterparts in the sub-continent toiled through the 20th century to collect extensive vernacular texts, compiled extraordinarily encyclopaedic dictionaries (such as the 16 volumes of Hoffman & Emelen’s Encyclopedia Mundarica 1928–37, and Bodding’s five volume A Santali dictionary 1929–36), and invested heavily in understanding morpho-syntax. More or less from the beginning of modern linguistic inquiry, Munda languages were rendered into writing without fuss; their easily distinguished syllables and modest segmental inventories were readily Romanised. And within the Indian cultural and political context, in which diverse ethnic groups have recognition

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283572_002

4

Editors ’ Introduction

and often official status, and epic narratives enjoy great currency, it is understandable that extensive texts would be collected and grammatical analyses could proceed. At the same time, comparative studies have been neglected; historical linguistics within India is dominated by Sanskrit and does not take an especially outward looking stance. The master work of Pinnow (1959) was exceptional, and despite great hopes did not catalyse subsequent comparative Munda reconstruction in phonology or lexicon among that generation. A somewhat different environment prevailed in Southeast Asia, especially with the blooming of American structuralist linguistics from the 1960s. Field workers enthusiastically collected survey wordlists and fussed endlessly over issues of confusing and competing phonological analyses. This has fed a veritable frenzy of mostly low-level comparative Austroasiatic work (see Sidwell’s 2011 historiography of such studies) and a fascination with phonology. Complex tone and phonation systems, bewildering arrays of vowels and different consonant types packed into highly asymmetrical syllables still present fundamental problems of analysis, providing ongoing fodder for research. By comparison, syntax has not seemed quite so interesting. With little in the way of morphology, the apparent areal dominance of national languages such as Thai and Vietnamese, and the popularity of questionnaire-based data elicitation methods, a narrative of syntactic convergence has come to powerfully influence thinking. There are also the problems that arise in connection with local national scholarly traditions. The huge region encompassing South and Southeast Asia is divided between many countries, and there is little harmony or cooperation between academic traditions. Local research practices have not favoured innovation or otherwise kept up with the rest of the world. Thus, even when nations such as India, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and China have produced descriptive materials over recent decades in the form of dissertations and monographs, the methods have often been highly formulaic and lacking in sophistication, the output frequently not in international languages, and the volumes can be difficult to obtain even if you can find the responsible university or publisher. When language development work is done, circumstances often demand ill-fitting local orthographies and other unfortunate accommodations to national languages. As a consequence these descriptions and published vernacular text collections are very mixed in their extent, quality, transcription systems, and accessibility. Additionally, even experienced western scholars can find it difficult to cooperate or work beyond rather narrow local or personal imperatives. It has proved profoundly difficult to organise international meetings, or to otherwise coordinate activities. Although there is in principle a single journal of record

Editors ’ Introduction

5

for Austroasiatic linguistics, the Mon-Khmer Studies journal, the bulk of output by scholars is dispersed and difficult to keep track of. During more than a century of Austroasiatic linguistics, there has been a lamentable history of failure to follow through; perhaps the most egregious being the failure to publish the papers of the second ICAAL meeting (also known as SICAL, held in Mysore 1978). In 1983 the editors quietly abandoned the project with approximately half the papers already finalised and typeset. At around the same time Harry Shorto also put aside the extensive Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary he had been compiling and refining since the 1960s, and that manuscript was only resurrected and published in 2006, a decade after his passing. It is fair to say that the 1980s marked a period of failure of leadership in Austroasiatic studies. There has been a tendency to blame wider circumstances for decline experienced through this period: Austroasiatic linguistics also went into a period of relative decline as empirical linguistic research and analytical language documentation went out of fashion due to the international influence of anti-empiricist trends in linguistic theory prevailing at the time. van Driem, http://www.himalayanlanguages.org/icaal

However, this appeal to fashion is not enough to explain the broad atomisation of Austroasiatic studies, with its hallmark lack of programmatic coordination over many decades, especially the failure to leverage off the bold syntheses offered by figures such as Schmidt, Blagden, Pinnow, and Shorto. These scholars achieved what they did by going beyond local or fashionable concerns, taking a broader view in the conduct of their work. We paid a heavy price for the failure of leadership and international coordination through the “Long Pause” (as van Driem calls it). By the end of the 20th century there had been relatively few informative descriptions of Austroasiatic languages written in contemporary typological terms. Thankfully the situation began improving with the new millennium, particularly stimulated by the language documentation movement. Grammars began appearing such as Kruspe (2004) A grammar of Semelai, Burenhult (2005) A grammar of Jahai, Jenny (2005) The verb system of Mon, Alves (2006) A grammar of Pacoh, Peterson (2011) A grammar of Kharia, and so forth. But the output has remained relatively meagre against the absolute scale of Austroasiatic diversity and compared to the prodigious efforts of scholars working in the neighboring Tibeto-Burman or Austronesian worlds. In recent years we also began to regain some of the momentum that high level comparative reconstruction had attained 30 years before, and in

6

Editors ’ Introduction

2006 Sidwell oversaw the posthumous publication of Shorto’s Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary. That work had grown directly out of Shorto’s (1971) Dictionary of Mon Inscriptions, with partial incorporation of new data and insights achieved in the 1970s. Despite its late appearance, the need was great as no such comparative Austroasiatic compilation had appeared in print since the work of Schmidt (1905) and Blagden (1906), a full century before. Consequently the field finally acquired a basic comparative reference comparable to works of similar scope and quality for other language families of the region, such as Dempwolff’s (1938) Vergleichende Lautlehre des austronesischen Wortschatzes or Emeneau and Burrows & Emeneau’s (1961) Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. Importantly with this publication came the imperative to surpass it, to demonstrate to the field what we have learned in the meantime and outline how our work can best proceed. A direct consequence was the establishment of the Mon-Khmer Languages Project with its extensive online resources for comparative work (http://sealang.net/monkhmer). The new zeitgeist of interest and activity also saw the irregular resumption of the ICAAL (International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics) meetings in 2007, with the 3rd ICAAL held at Deccan College Post-Graduate & Research Institute in Pune (India), after a hiatus of nearly 30 years. The meeting was organised by K.S. Nagaraja, with encouragement from (in particular) George van Driem. Although a modestly sized meeting, it brought together various old and new generation figures, stimulating a cautious optimism. Crucially, it brought together Indian scholars, working on Munda, Khasian and Nicobarese, with SEAsian and Western scholars who work in Thailand, IndoChina, Myanmar and Malaysia. This was properly the formal re-establishing of Austroasiatic-wide scholarly relations after decades of purely locally focussed distributed efforts. It was followed by ICAAL4 in Bangkok (2009) and ICAAL5 in Canberra (2013). A meeting had been planned for 2011 in Bangkok but had to be abandoned due to flooding in central Thailand at that time.

The Birth of the Handbook

With the resumption of international contacts the circumstances for the conception of this volume came into being. The idea first emerged during a casual conversation in London at the 40th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, on a fateful September day in 2008. The gentlemen who would eventually edit this volume were making small talk to provide distraction—and some sense of scholarly solidarity—during a somewhat unimpressive paper presentation. Discussing the recent resumption of ICAAL,

Editors ’ Introduction

7

the appearance of various new grammars, and Anderson’s Munda handbook, the theme of conversation turned to the possibility of a broad Austroasiatic handbook. More than one academic publisher has its long-standing language family handbook series yet apparently none had yet commissioned a volume for the phylum that stands at the geographical crossroads of the East’s great civilizations and which itself gave birth to one of history’s greatest monumental cultures, Angkor. The more we thought about it the more we recognised an obligation to act rather than complain. The following year ICAAL was held in Bangkok (at Mahidol University Salaya campus), the largest gathering of its kind so far. At the business meeting on the evening of the last day discussions crystallized into a formal proposal, as Mathias suggested that the time was right to put together a handbook. There was much discussion over the hour; in particular there was some debate over whether to go with a printed volume at all or proceed to a purely digital living work. Objections to a printed volume included:

• •

a book quickly becomes outdated as knowledge improves; hardcovers are expensive—a publisher could charge three or four hundred dollars a copy for the initial print run, while a paperback might take five years to appear, or not appear at all. Yet others present asserted that their institutions would only recognize hardcopy publication, and this would not necessarily rule out an electronic version that could be developed as an extensible resource. It was also put that a book project is positive because it forces coordination and deadlines such that work comes to fruition that might otherwise drag on, unfinished and unpublished, an all too familiar problem in our field. Eventually agreement was reached and a number of scholars present pledged to contribute chapters to the handbook. It was agreed that Mathias and Paul would approach publishers and negotiate a satisfactory deal, and several potential publishers were nominated. In fact not much happened for the next two years as other business kept us busy, until in 2011 Mathias created the project website (sites.google.com/site/icaalprojects) and began laying out details, including proposed table of contents, standardized notational conventions, invitations and suggestions for contributions. The initial plan was intended to be straightforward: 24 language sketches of 20 pages each (two for each branch except Munda, which was already well presented in Anderson’s handbook) plus historical and typological overview chapters. The whole thing would be around 650 pages and our naive expectation was that this would be minimally burdensome on the authors, who would be encouraged to adapt

8

Editors ’ Introduction

existing work into our template. The publication was not intended to be primarily a showcase for new and interesting results, but to give an overview of the language family.

How the Book Came Together

The project took some time to gain momentum, with relatively little happening over the first year and a half. The situation turned with the holding of a workshop for participants at the 45th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 25 October 2012. This was an all day workshop with 13 presentations, which included discussion of draft sketches by Mathias Jenny (Mon) and Paul Sidwell (Sedang). Many practical issues were raised and discussed. It was in discussions at this meeting that we realized that some adjustments to our original plan would be necessary. A particular sticking point was that everybody with a substantial amount of data on their particular language seemed to want to provide as full a description as they could muster, and there was mention of drafts of 60, 70 or more pages length. Given the publisher’s limit of being able to accommodate a book of no more than approx. 1000 pages, and being reluctant to produce multiple volumes, we suggested that sketches should be limited to 30 pages or around 10,000 words maximum. In the end we came to something like this result, with the shortest sketches being just over 6,000 words and the longest a little more than 13,000.1 Another pleasing outcome of the Singapore meeting was the participation of Gregory Anderson. The project was initially launched as the MonKhmer Languages Handbook, intended to complement Anderson’s The Munda Languages volume, consistent with the tendency over the past half century to recognize Austroasiatic as a phylum consisting of Munda and Mon-Khmer families. But as comparative-historical work has progressed in recent years it has become increasingly clear that there is no such dichotomy, there is not even such a thing as a Mon-Khmer family, but rather a phylum with some 13 branches which coordinate historically in a manner that is not quite clear. Also, the publications by Anderson and others have revealed that Munda is underlyingly much more similar to what was previously regarded as the MonKhmer type, and it would not be appropriate to continue the historical mischaracterisation of Austroasiatic by crystallizing the notion in a Mon-Khmer 1  As the manuscripts were typeset it became evident that the book would count around 1300 pages, which forced the publisher to split the publication into two volumes.

Editors ’ Introduction

9

handbook. It was with great satisfaction that Anderson agreed to contribute his Munda overview chapter to the handbook, allowing it to have properly Austroasiatic scope and carry Austroasiatic in the title. There was also discussion in Singapore about notational conventions and standards for the handbook. It has always been the editors’ strong intention that the content of the sketches be consistent in presentation, utilizing a single TOC template, a unified list set of glossing abbreviations, and consistent use of IPA in vernacular transcription.2 Remarkably, this attitude did encounter some resistance. The inertia of long-time local traditions and expectation of deference to authorial preferences over editorial authority run deep in linguistics, where egos are all too often placed above the greater good of the discipline. We managed to largely stand our ground, making some minor accommodation in order to admit some sketches, and ultimately a couple of originally intending contributors did withdraw from participation, but we are satisfied that we took the right approach. Throughout the project we have endeavored to conduct things in a transparent and cooperative manner, nonetheless we could not accommodate the full diversity of views and intentions that have been expressed at times. A case in point is that from the beginning Gérard Diffloth expressed strong support for the project and volunteered to come on board as an editor. We were quite pleased at the prospect of Gérard contributing the benefit of his specialist knowledge and vast experience, not the least of which was the prospect of a historical and classification overview chapter that he proposed to contribute. However, it was not to be, as eventually irreconcilable editorial differences emerged, and Gérard withdrew from the project. Readers will notice that we did not quite achieve our aim of two representative sketches for each Austroasiatic branch. Various specialists in the respective languages who are well placed to make contributions were contacted and did signal agreement. However, the academic life is a demanding one, and it can happen that one may not find the time to put together two dozen pages of notes within a timeframe of three or four years, despite one’s best intentions, and as editors we recognize these limitations. In a couple of cases we were provided with drafts, but they were so divergent from what was requested that they could not be used. In other cases authors withdrew quite late in the project creating serious possible gaps in our plan. Fortunately we were able to find willing and able authors who contributed 2  The parallel layout of the grammar sketches allows the reader to easily find specific topics in each language. This also allowed the editors to restrict the index to the first part of the publication, covering the general chapters. 

10

Editors ’ Introduction

chapters at relatively short notice, and in this connection we would like to especially thank: Becky Butler, Hiram Ring, and Aung Si. Consequently only Vietic, Pearic, Nicobarese and Mangic are represented by single sketches in this handbook. Also, it is significant that we include a number of grammar sketches of languages for which previously there were no grammatical descriptions available, in addition to some languages that are already quite well known.

A Unifying Typological Approach

Our original editorial intention was quite clear; it was not really so much about a book, as a new programmatic vision for Austroasiatic studies, to overcome the lack of direct comparability that has characterized work until now. We take a broad typological approach, recognizing that recurrent features of languages ought to be appropriately described in a consistent manner, without imposing theoretical bias on the languages described. This led to our insistence on consistent glossing, even to the extent that it can make the translations appear somewhat opaque outside the areal context. An example is the semantically bleached verbs used in modal/aspectual functions, such as the ‘give’ benefactive and causative constructions that frequently turn up in the sketches. Our attitude is that these should be glossed with their lexical meanings, rather than labeled according to their contextual functions— the latter should always be clear from the translations. This practice nicely captures an important recurring feature of the language family and area, of the kind inherently interesting to typology, historical linguistics, contact linguistics, cognitive studies etc. and which might otherwise be obscured under a diversity of labels, interpretations and competing theoretical imperatives. Understandably, as drafts came in, it became apparent that our recommendations to authors were not always followed. This should not have been a surprise, as what we have been intending all along is a new level of coordination in our field. This typological approach specifically prioritizes the coherence of the work above the autonomy of the individual writers. This is a paradigm shift from the established culture of the field, which failed to spontaneously manifest coherence to the extent that we ought to expect of a mature field. As scholars it is important that we conduct and report our work in a manner that maximizes its accessibility and intelligibility; not just within AA studies but to the broader context comprised of all subfields of linguistics.

Editors ’ Introduction

11

Consequently we had to deal with the extensive editorial challenge of finessing the texts to conform to the volume requirements without interfering with the individual authors’ analyses. This task, both time consuming and frustrating, yielded substantial benefits. As a consequence of working through all the chapters we have now developed an elaborated list of glossing conventions that covers a wider and more appropriate range of categories than the standard Leipzig Glossing Rules list, unified the application of IPA to segmental representations, and consolidated a range of descriptive and analytical tools for ongoing use. This is the basis of our unifying typological approach with which we intend to coordinate efforts in Austroasiatic studies going beyond this handbook.3 Mathias Jenny and Paul Sidwell June 2014 Zurich References Alves, Mark. 2006. A Grammar of Pacoh: a Mon-Khmer language of the central highlands of Vietnam. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics (PL580). Anderson, Gregory (ed.). 2008., The Munda languages. London/New York: Routledge. Blagden, Charles Otto. 1906. Pagan races of the Malay Peninsula. Vol. 2. London: Macmillan. Bodding, P.O. 1929–1936. A Santali dictionary (5 volumes). Oslo: I Kommisjon Hos Jacob Dybwab (Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters). Burenhult, Niclas. 2005. A grammar of Jahai. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Burrow, Thomas & Murray Barnson Emeneau. 1961. Dravidian etymological dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dempwolff, Otto. 1938. Vergleichende Lautlehre des austronesisches Wortschatzes. Bd. III: Austronesisches Wörterverzeichnis. Berlin and Hamburg: Dietrich Reimer. Hoffmann, John & Arthur van Emelen. 1928–37. Encyclopedia Mundarica (16 volumes). Patna: Government Superintendent Printing

3  Our attitude is also consistent with the advocacy of unified methods in data warehousing and sharing by Doug Cooper of the Centre for Research in Computational Linguistics (Bangkok), such as presented the 24th SEALS meeting in Yangon, in May 2014.

12

Editors ’ Introduction

Jenner, Philip N., Laurence C. Thompson, and Stanley Starosta (eds.). 1976. Austroasiatic Studies (2 vols.). Honolulu: University of Hawaii (Oceanic Linguistics, Special Publication, No. 13). Jenny, Mathias. 2005. The Verb System of Mon. Zurich: Universität Zürich. Kruspe, Nicole D. 2004. A grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peterson, John. 2011. A grammar of Kharia: a South Munda language. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Pinnow, Heinz-Jürgen. 1959. Versuch Einer Historischen Lautlehre Der Kharia-Sprache. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1905. Grundzüge einer Lautlehre der Mon-Khmer-Sprachen. Denkschrift der Akademie der Wissenschaften. Wien, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 51:1–233. Shorto, Harry L. 1971. A dictionary of the Mon inscriptions, from the sixth to the sixteenth centuries, incorporating materials collected by the late C.O. Blagden (London Oriental Series 24). London: Oxford University Press. Sidwell, Paul. 2011. Comparative Mon-Khmer Linguistics in the 20th Century: where from, where to? In K.S. Nagaraja (ed.) Austro-Asiatic Linguistics: In memory of R. Elangaiyan. (Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Austroasiatic Languages) Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages, 38–104.

chapter 2

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview Mathias Jenny, Tobias Weber and Rachel Weymuth The Austroasiatic (AA) languages are geographically widespread, occurring in mostly discontinuous pockets of speech communities. The vast majority of AA languages have no official status; the only exceptions are Vietnamese and Khmer, which are the national languages of Vietnam and Cambodia, respectively, and Khasi, which has official status in the Indian state of Meghalaya, where it is effectively used as a majority language by one million plus speakers for many purposes. Serving as vernaculars of non-majority populations in most countries where they are spoken, the AA languages are exposed to external influence to varying degrees. This has led to the great diversity of structures found in the AA languages today, which is partly due to different degrees of retention of inherited features, partly to language change, mostly under the influence of dominant neighboring languages. As the overall structure of the proto-language is not well known apart from various morphological processes found in branches separated by hundreds or thousands of kilometers for many centuries, it is often difficult to make conclusive statements concerning the origin of specific structural features in individual languages. While the verb final constituent order in the Munda languages can be attributed to areal South Asian influence with some confidence, we cannot readily explain the presence of verb initial structures found in Nicobarese as well as some Khasian and Palaungic languages. Typologically, the AA languages can be superficially grouped into three distinct subgroups which belong to three geographic regions of the AA speaking area. The Munda languages in central and eastern India are consistently verbfinal agglutinating languages, with a large number of affixes expressing derivational processes as well as case relations with nominals, and tense-aspect and person with verbs. The Nicobarese languages, spoken on the Nicobar islands in the Andaman Sea, are generally verb-initial and exhibit complex morphological processes, including prefixes, infixes, and suffixes. The rest of the family, mostly spoken in Mainland Southeast Asia, is generally verb-medial, and apart from traces of inherited derivational morphology, isolating. A large number of other features and isoglosses cut across the boundaries of these three © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283572_003

14

Jenny, weber and weymuth

groups, though. In addition, at least in the case of the Munda languages, the preset typological profile is at least partly due to the areal influence of South Asian languages. No such influence can be conclusively claimed in the case of Nicobarese languages, but in both Munda and Nicobarese there are traces of different word orders, which may be seen as older. The present typological appearance is therefore not enough for an internal classification of the AA languages into three groups, but may rather be the (recent) outcome of events in the history of these languages. This chapter brings together data from a large number of AA languages covering all known or described branches. The examples are mostly taken from the grammar sketches by various authors in this publication, complemented with data from other published sources. No complete typological profile of the AA family is attempted here, as the state of AA studies is still far from a point where this undertaking would be possible. Our aim is rather to give a short overview of structures found in the different AA languages, illustrating the diversity of the family. Extensive text corpora on which a more in-depth study of morphosyntactic structures would have to based are to the present day nonexistent in next to all AA languages. Also comprehensive descriptive grammars are, with a few exceptions, not available for most AA languages, and the available material covers only a small part of the whole family. We are therefore not yet in a position to synthesize a complete typological profile of AA, and must content ourselves with a descriptive presentation of the structures encountered in the individual languages. 1

Phonetics and Phonology

AA languages generally tend to reflect the typological phonological profile of the geographical areas in which they are spoken. Hence, Munda languages follow patterns typical of South Asia, while the AA languages spoken in Mainland Southeast Asia follow patterns typical of that area. However, AA languages also exhibit features that are frequent in the family but not typical of the languages of other families of the respective areas. Besides the characteristic features of AA, individual languages in some cases considerably differ from each other and exhibit features that are rare—from an areal or even from a worldwide perspective. The branches of AA show differing degrees of internal phonological diversity. Fairly diverse branches are Bahnaric, Palaungic, Aslian, and Vietic (cf. Diffloth 1980: 3). The reasons for that might be partly the number of languages that belong to each branch (Bahnaric being the largest) and partly the areal profile of the languages (small languages spoken in remote areas and/or in

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

15

contact with different dominant languages tend to be more diverse, cf. Nichols 2003), but the broader picture of the exact nature of the typological diversity found among AA languages remains to be established. 1.1 Word and Syllable Structure Austroasiatic languages usually have monosyllabic and disyllabic phonological words. Additionally, due to morphological derivations and loanwords from other languages, most prominently Sanskrit and Pāli (often mediated through third languages such as Thai or Lao) and later also English and French, many allow for polysyllabic words. A characteristic feature of many Austroasiatic languages (although less so especially in Munda, Vietnamese, and Nicobarese) are phonological words that consist of two syllables, whereby an initial unstressed syllable (often called ‘minor syllable’ or ‘presyllable’) is followed by a stressed full syllable (‘main syllable’). This word structure has also been called ‘sesquisyllable’ (‘one-and-ahalf’ syllables long) since Matisoff (1973). First raised by Shorto (1963: 46), the original idea of this term was to describe a situation where an onset consonant was preceded by another (‘pre-initial’) consonant, and for phonotactic reasons an unstressed vowel occurs between the two consonants, creating the nucleus of an unstressed syllable. The nature of the first unstressed syllable, however, differs from language to language. A typical structure of such sesquisyllabic words is the following, taken from Mon: (1) Mon1 (Cə).C(C)V(C)

Other languages also allow for closed minor syllables. Pacoh is a case in point: (2) Pacoh CV(C).C(C)V(C)

Sesquisyllabicity has also been postulated for Proto-AA (Donegan & Stampe 2004, Shorto 2006, Sidwell this volume). Furthermore, it has also been postulated for some other language families of Southeast Asia and adjacent areas, namely for Proto-Sino-Tibetan (Benedict 1972, Handel 1998), and also for the Kam-Sui branch of Tai-Kadai (Solnit 1988). Moreover, lexemes reconstructed for Proto-Tai-Kadai (Ostapirat 2005) and Proto-Hmong-Mien (Ratliff 2010) 1  All examples, unless otherwise indicated, are taken or adapted from the respective grammar sketches in the two volumes of this publication. In addition, some of the Mon examples are from MJ’s own field notes, and the Rumai data is mostly from RW’s fieldnotes.

16

Jenny, weber and weymuth

have maximally two syllables. On the other hand, words in Proto-Austronesian are longer due to affixation (Dempwolff 1934, Blust 1988, Wolff 2010). In sesquisyllabic words of AA languages, generally only the first consonant of the second (main) syllable has the full consonant inventory. The inventory of the second consonant of the main syllable is often limited to sonorants. The inventory of the final consonants often roughly corresponds to the inventory of the onset consonants of main syllable but lacking an apparent voicing or VOT contrast;2 in some cases there are further restrictions in fricatives and liquids. Some AA languages only permit closed main syllables, e.g. Mlabri, Old Mon (with some exceptions), and some Aslian languages (e.g. Jahai). That is, there is a strong tendency for stressed syllables to be heavy, i.e. bimoraic. Anderson (2004) describes the concept of a ‘bimoraic constraint’, which can explain why some monosyllabic free forms in Munda have to be expanded (i.e. resyllabified and/or reduplicated) in order to remain heavy. The combinations of consonants in the main syllable are often heavily restricted. Usually all consonants can occur in the first position, if no consonant follows. Otherwise, the first position is usually also restricted to stops and, in some cases, additionally also to some fricatives, while only liquids and occasionally glides are possible in the second position. In Mon, for instance, the following clusters are permitted: (3) Mon kj kr kl kw khj khr khl khw pj pr pl phj phr phl

Other AA languages allow for more cluster combinations. Sedang additionally has nasal-plus-liquid and stop-plus-h combinations: (4) Sedang -h: ph th (ch) kh -l: pl (tl) kl bl gl ɓl ml 2  We say ‘apparent’ because there is a tendency—for example in Khasi (see Nagaraja this publication)—for codas to be longer after short vowels than after long nuclei. Conceivably this could relate to a historical voicing or VOT feature in syllable codas.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview -r: pr tr br dr ɓr ɗr mr ˀmr

17

kr gr ŋr ˀŋr ŋ̊ r

In Khasi morphemes are predominantly monosyllabic, and the syllables have the following structure: (C)CV(C). Most syllables are closed, and there are many combinations of onset consonants, some of them go against the sonority hierarchy, but sequences of the same place of articulation are avoided. Dental+alveolar clusters such as tn-, tr-, tl-, tʰn-, tʰr-, tʰl do occur, however. Khasi onset clusters include the sequences of two stops, one of them voiceless and the other voiced (Henderson 1989–1990: 62): (5) Khasi bti bthi dkar dkhar dpei

‘to lead by the hand’ ‘sticky’ tortoise’ ‘plainsman’ ‘ashes’

pdot pdeng tbian tba

‘throat’ ‘middle’ ‘floor’ ‘to feel’

Some rare sequences of two voiceless stops are also attested (ibid.): (6) Khasi tkor-tkor ptej-ptej kpa

‘plump and tender’ (used of something very sticky) ‘father’

Furthermore, Khasi has nasal+stop clusters such as mtung ‘in a large heap’ and mthin ‘strong and stout’. Khmer also has a lot of CC combinations in the onset of the main stressed syllable. Most notably there are no restrictions in the second onset position, and the first onset onset position is restricted to p, t, c, k, ʔ, s, d, m and l. Furthermore, Huffman (1967) lists some monosyllabic loanwords that have three consonants in the onset: (7) Khmer (Huffman 1967) sthaːn ‘place’ lkhaon ‘theater’

18

Jenny, weber and weymuth

Sre permits maximally three consonants in the onset. The third consonant has to be a glide: (8) Kơho ŋgwi krjaŋ

‘to sit down’ (type of hard wood)

On the other hand, Nicobarese and some Munda languages can only have maximally one consonant in syllable onsets. The syllable structure of Kharia is the following: (9) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 32) (C)V(C)

The consonant inventory of the first (minor) syllable is often also smaller than that of the second (main) syllable. The vowel inventory of the minor syllable is often limited to [ə], which in many languages does not have phonemic status. Some AA languages also allow a number of vowels other than [ə] in that position, but not the full range of vowels that can occur in the main syllable. In North Aslian languages, the default epenthetic vowel is [ə], but [i] and [u] also occur, depending on the onset consonant of the following syllable: palatal consonants condition [i], bilabial, labiovelar and velar consonants condition [u]. In some languages the vowel of the minor syllable is phonemic, i.e. it is not predictable from the environment of the syllable. In Pacoh, for instance, the minor syllable has the structure CV(C). In the onset position any consonant except postglottalized glides and aspirated stops can occur, the nucleus can be filled with the vowels a, i, and u, and in the coda position nasals and liquids are allowed. Kri also permits a, i, and u. In the same position, r can also occur: (10) Kri (Enfield & Diffloth 2009: 35) C{V/r}.(C)CV(C)

Mlabri shows some variation in the vowel of the minor syllable, which however is not phonemic: (11) Mlabri təguk ~ tuguk chəmɔn ~ chɔmɔn chr̩kɛŋ ~ chərkɛŋ bm̩ bwaj ~ bumbwaj

19

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

Northern Kammu distinguishes between non-tonal and tonal minor syllables: non-tonal minor syllables consist of a consonant and (in careful speech) an epenthetic (non-phonemic) ə and bear the same tone as the following main syllable. Tonal minor syllables, on the other hand, consist of a consonant and a nasal, between which usually an epenthetic ə is inserted; this second syllable type carries a tone that is independent of the tone of the following main syllable: (12) Northern Kammu non-tonal minor syllable: tonal minor syllabe:

c.mə̀ km̀ .múʔ

[cə̀.mə̀ ʔ] [kə̀ m.múʔ]

‘rope’ ‘human being’

A minority of AA languages such as Khmer or Kui have CC onsets in minor syllables. The second consonant is restricted to l and r. (13) Kui crə.lia ‘thorn’ krə.wiən ‘sickle’ trə.bɒh ‘break’

Minor syllables that are created by partial reduplication of the main syllable are also attested in AA. In Sedang, the onset consonant or even onset clusters consisting of two consonants can be reduplicated. In some instances, the vowel of the main syllable is also reduplicated: (14) Sedang reduplication of the (only) onset C of the main syllable: reduplication of two onset Cs of the main syllable: reduplication of the onset C and the nucleus V of the main syllable:

cicow, dudat, ɲiɲɔn krikro̰w, tritrow kiki, hihiə, iʔiw

Monosyllabic words are also frequent in most other AA languages, although far less frequent than in Khasi. The typical structure of monosyllabic words in AA has the following shape: (15) e.g. Jahai CV(C)

Vietnamese restructured its phonology considerably under Sinitic influence. Consequently, it became predominantly monosyllabic as it lost all the minor

20

Jenny, weber and weymuth

syllables of sesquisyllabic words (see Ferlus 1997 for an overview). But in contrast to Khasi, and also to Khmer, Vietnamese allows only one consonant in the onset (followed by an optional w, however): (16) Vietnamese C(w)V(V)(C)

Contemporary Vietnamese has driven monosyllabicity to the extent that it can be analyzed without postulating the phonological word as a separate prosodic unit from the syllable (cf. Schiering et al. 2010), i.e. there does not appear to be a prosodic unit between the syllable and the phonological phrase that is relevant for any phonological rule or process. However, this does not entail that Vietnamese lexemes cannot be di- or polysyllabic, as the following examples illustrate. The semantics of single syllables of di- and polysyllabic lexemes is not always transparent: (17) Vietnamese semantically transparent:

quán ăn

[kwanB1 ɁănA1]

‘restaurant’ (lit. ‘shop eat’) semi-opaque compounds: Hà Nội [haA2-nojB2] ‘Hanoi’ (lit. ‘river interior’) loanwords: ban công [ɓanA1-kowŋ͡mA1] ‘balcony’ (< Fr. balcon)

However, although it has been recognized that there is a tendency for sesquisyllabic words to become monosyllabic (cf. e.g. Matisoff 2001, Brunelle 2009, Michaud 2012), sesquisyllabic words in AA appear to be diachronically very stable, and Vietnamese is a rare deviation from that stability. Moreover, Brunelle & Pittayaporn (2012: 412) argue that a change from sesquisyllabicity to monosyllabicity is less common than generally assumed. In a number of AA languages, words can be more complex. Disyllabic words in which the first syllable is not reduced also occur in some AA languages that otherwise predominantly have monosyllabic and sesquisyllabic words but are rarer and usually occur in derivations and loanwords (cf. Section 2). Lexemes do not always consist of a single phonological word. In Sedang, mono- or disyllabic words can be partly or fully reduplicated, creating lexemes, which especially also include onopatopoeia. (18) Sedang: complete word reduplication ʔblut ʔblut ‘little by little’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview (19) Sedang: partial reduplication CV reduplication: Initial and final C reduplication: Initial C reduplication: Minor syllable and initial C reduplication:

baŋ bal kuŋ kiŋ kɔŋ cek caŋ kəʔblou kəʔbla

21 (kind of catfish) ‘elbow’ ‘to lie on one’s side’ ‘very crowded’

Due to affixation and compounding, phonological words in Khasi can also be more complex, consisting of up to five syllables: (20) Khasi two syllables: three syllables: four syllables: five syllables:

laŋ.brot kʰa.basa eːr.laŋ.tʰa.ri pɨn.hiar.mɨn.siem.set

‘lamb’ ‘fish variety’ ‘whirl-wind’ ‘snore’

Some Aslian languages also allow for more complex words. Jahai, for instance, has tetrasyllabic words with the form /C.C.C(V)C.CVC/ as in t-b-tadɔʔ (relprog-wait) ‘waiting’. The main stress is always on the last syllable. Infixes in AA are always inserted after the first onset consonant. Aslian and Nicobarese have a process whereby the coda of the final syllable is reduplicated and inserted in the empty coda position of the first unstressed syllable, as in Semaq Beri bəq ‘to tie’ vs. nk-bək [nək.bək] ‘tying’. This process has also been referred to as ‘incopyfixation’ (cf. Matisoff 2003). Outside Aslian and Nicobarese, Khmuic also shows some traces of coda copying, which increases the likelihood that it was already present in Proto-AA (cf. Sidwell’s overwiew chapter on comparative-historical reconstruction). Munda (with the exception of Gtaʔ, see Anderson this volume) and Nicobarese languages do not have sesquisyllabic words of the types found in Mainland Southeast Asia. They allow for more complex morphology, including suffixation. To what degree such more complex morphological words correspond to phonological words is still under-investigated. 1.2 Phoneme Ιnventory and Phonotactics 1.2.1 Consonants The size and structure of Austroasiatic consonant inventories vary considerably. As already mentioned, the phonemic inventories of AA languages are largest in the first onset position of the main (stressed) syllable. Fairly small consonant inventories are found in different branches of AA and include those of Car Nicobarese and Khmer (17 consonants each). On the other hand, several AA languages have consonant inventories consisting

22

Jenny, weber and weymuth

of 30 or more consonants, e.g. Kharia (34, including consonants occurring in loanwords only, Peterson 2011: 29), Ruching Palaung (31), Bugan (36), or Sedang (39). The majority of AA languages have between 20 and 30 consonants, which are also about average-sized inventories from a worldwide perspective (Maddieson 2013a). AA languages typically have five places of articulation for stops and four for nasals: bilabial, dental/alveolar, palatal, velar, and glottal (for stops only). The most common fricatives are s and h, f is rarer, and further fricatives yet rarer. Furthermore, AA languages typically have one rhotic (r), one lateral approximant (l), and two glides (w and j). AA languages differ with respect to the stop series. Several have two stop series, usually distinguishing between voiceless (unaspirated) and voiced stops, which in some languages are implosive. They are found in most branches of AA. Khmer is an example for a language that has two stop series, voiceless (plain) vs. voiced: (21) Khmer consonant phoneme inventory (fully available in the initial position of main syllables) p t c k ʔ b d m n ɲ ŋ (f) s h r v l j

Phonetically, however stop+[h] sequences occur in the onset. Before a vowel, they are the realization of the phonemic sequence of a stop plus h, as in khɤŋ ‘angry’. On the other hand, the first stop of a two-stop cluster is inherently aspirated (e.g. [khp]; see also Huffman 1972). Many other AA languages (including the reconstructed Proto-AA) have three stop series. Chong has three stop series: voiceless plain, voiceless aspirated, and voiced: (22) Chong p t c k ʔ ph th ch kh b d m n ɲ ŋ ( f ) s h r w l j

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

23

Implosive stops are a further feature found in many languages of Mainland Southeast Asia but only very rarely in other parts of Eurasia and also somewhat rarely worldwide (Maddieson 2013c). Following this areal trend, they are also found frequently in the AA languages of Mainland Southeast Asia. The phonemic status of the implosive stops differs, however. Aslian languages do not have implosive stops. Kammu has three stop series, including an implosive series: (23) Kammu p t c k ʔ ph th ch kh ɓ ɗ m n ɲ ŋ s h r w l j ʔw ʔj

Note the typologically fairly unusual contrast between plain and glottalized glides, which are also found in a number of other AA languages. Car Nicobarese has only one stop series, namely unaspirated voiceless stops. (24) Car p t c k ʔ m n ɲ ŋ f s h r ɽ v l j

r is unusual in that it is realized as prestopped rhotic in initial position, as [t] before voiceless consonants and as [d] elsewehere. On the other side of the extreme, some Munda languages such as Kharia follow the South Asian trend in having four stop series, including retroflex stops: voiceless unaspirated (p, t, ʈ, c, k), voiceless aspirated (ph, th, ʈh, ch, kh), voiced plain (b, d, ɖ, ɟ, g), and breathy voiced (bʱ, dʱ, ɖʱ, ɟʱ, gʱ). (25) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 29) p t ʈ c k (ʔ) tʰ ʈʰ cʰ kʰ b d ɖ ɟ g bʱ dʱ ɖʱ ɟʱ gʱ m n (ɳ) ɲ ŋ

24

Jenny, weber and weymuth f s h r (ɽ) (ɽʱ) w l j

Munda languages generally have retroflex stops, both voiceless ʈ and voiced ɖ. The retroflex nasal ɳ is also common but does not occur in all Munda languages, while a phonemic contrast between r and ɽ is more frequent. Thus, with the presence of retroflex consonants the Munda languages again follow the pattern typical of South Asia. They may stem from contact influence of Dravidian (and/or later Indo-Aryan). However, the phoneme inventories of other Munda languages such as Santali are much smaller; they have only two stop series, namely voiceless and voiced. Khasi, on the other hand, as a non-Munda language spoken more in the periphery of South Asia, also exhibits the four stop series described for Kharia, but lacks retroflex sounds. (26) Khasi p t k ʔ pʰ tʰ kʰ b d ʤ bʱ dʱ ʤʱ m n ɲ ŋ s ʃ h r w l j

Closely related Pnar has six contrastive places of articulation, distinguishing between apical and laminal stops, but lacks the breathy voiced stop series found in Khasi:3 (27) Pnar p t t̪ ʧ k ʔ ph th kh b d d̪ ʤ

3  In the cognate lexicon in Pnar, the breathy stops are resyllabified, e.g. compare Khasi bʱa ‘good’ with Pnar băha ‘good’.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

25

m n ɲ ŋ s h r w l j

Katu has a different set of four stop series; it lacks breathy voiced stops but has a distinction between plain voiced and implosive: (28) Katu (Costello 1971) p t c k ʔ pʰ tʰ kʰ b d ɟ g ɓ ɗ ʄ m n ɲ ŋ s h r w l j

Danau also has the same four stop series, but the fricative inventory is larger and includes five places of articulation and voicing: (29) Danau p t c k ʔ ph th ch kh b d ɟ g ɓ ɗ m n ɲ ŋ f s ç x h sh v z r w l j

The rare fricative sh is also found in varieties of Burmese, thus the presence of this phoneme can be explained in terms of languages contact. v occurs only rarely, e.g. in dəvaɛ ‘tiger’, which is realized with an inserted glide, i.e. [dəvwaɛ]. Mon has three stop series, voiceless non-aspirated, voiceless aspirated, and implosive, and a voicing contrast in nasals and glides:

26

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(30) Mon p t c k ʔ ph th ch kh ɓ ɗ m n ɲ ŋ m̥ n̥ ɲ̊ s ɕ h r w l j w̥ l ̥

Northern Vietnamese has the same three stop series (although the voiceless aspirated series is restricted to tʰ) and a fricative inventory that is unusually large in the AA context: (31) Northern Vietnamese (initial consonants) t ʧ c k Ɂ tʰ ɓ ɗ m n ɲ ŋ f s z x h v ɣ l

Also note the absence of voiceless bilabial stops (p and pʰ), g, r, and glides, which, however, occur in other positions of the syllable. The consonant inventory of Northern Vietnamese differs from the one of Southern Vietnamese in several ways: Southern Vietnamese r and j are merged into z, and Southern Vietnamese has retroflex consonants and g instead of ɣ. As already mentioned, the vast majority of AA languages have four nasals: m, n, ɲ, ŋ. They can occur in both onset and coda positions. Nasals frequently occur word-finally, but are relatively infrequent in the initial position of monosyllabic words. The distribution of word-initial ŋ in AA follows areal tendencies. In Eurasia, it is present in the northeast and in the southeast, but not elsewhere (cf. Anderson 2013, Comrie 2007: 33). Accordingly, it is present in the AA languages of Southeast Asia but rare in the Munda languages—at least as word-initial onset consonants—as in other languages of South Asia. Some AA languages (including Munda languages) have syllabic nasals, cf. Remo ŋkuj or Gtaʔ ŋkui ‘water pot’ (Bhattacharya 1975: 47).

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

27

A number of AA languages has prenasalized stops in the onset position of main syllables. In Sedang, the voiced stop series is obligatorily prenasalized, i.e. prenasalization is not contrastive. On the other hand, Bunong has both a plain voiceless and a prenasalized voiceless stop series: (32) Bunong p t c k ʔ ph th ch kh ɓ ɗ (ʄ) (ɠ) ɲc ŋk mp nt ç h r w l j ˀw ˀj

Note also the glottalized glides. Bugan has more nasal+stop sequences, including both voiceless affricates and voiced stops and affricates, but they may be analyzed as sequences of two phonemes: (33) Bugan onsets p t ʦ k q ʔ pʰ tʰ ʦʰ kʰ mʦ mʦʰ b d g mb nd ndz ŋg ŋq md mdz m n ȵ ŋ f θ, s ɕ x h ʑ ɣ w l

Bugan has further unusual segments: a large inventory of fricatives, including both voiceless and voiced palatal and velar, a voiceless interdental θ, and the voiceless uvular stop q. Some Palaungic and Khmuic languages, among them Mlabri and Eastern Kammu, have a voicing contrast in both stops (p, t, c, k vs. b, d, ɟ, g) and sonorants (m̥ , n̥ , ɲ̊ , ŋ̊ , l ̥, r̥, w̥ , j̊ vs. m, n, ɲ, ŋ, l, r, w, j). Northern and Western Kammu have lost this distinction and retained only the unmarked members of the series, i.e. voiceless stops and voiced sonorants.

28

Jenny, weber and weymuth

The differentiation between voiced and voiceless sonorants was also present in Proto-Southwestern Tai and is still present in a number of other non-AA languages of Southeast Asia, especially in Burmese and other Sino-Tibetan languages spoken in Myanmar and adjacent areas in China and India. Sedang is unusual4 in having three sonorant series: voiced, glottalized, and voiceless: (34) Sedang p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g ɓ ɗ (ʄ) m n ɲ ŋ ˀm ˀn ˀɲ ˀŋ m̥ n̥ ɲ̊ ŋ̊ s, ʂ h r ˀr r̥ w l j ˀw ˀl ˀj w̥ l ̥ j̊

The voiced stops are generally realized as prenasalized. Stop plus [h] can be analyzed as the realization of a sequence of two phonemes. The inventory of syllable-final consonants is smaller than that of onset consonants in AA languages in that there is only one series of stops, which are always voiceless and typically unreleased, i.e. accompanied by glottal restriction which stops the airflow. The other consonants that can occur in the onset position of main syllables are typically permitted, including nasals in all four places of articulation. Some languages, however, have more restrictions. In Kui, for instance, s occurs in syllable-initial position but cannot occur in the coda:

4  The contrast of glottalized and voiceless sonorants is probably much more common among Bahnaric and Katuic languages than reported. E.g. see the phonology of Bahnar as described by Banker, Banker and Mơ (1979).

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

29

(35) Kui coda consonants p t c k ʔ m n ɲ ŋ h r w l j

In Danau, x is the only fricative occurring in coda position, which is in sharp contrast to the large fricative inventory in the initial position of stressed syllables. Khasi further restricts its coda consonant inventory; fricatives and l are not allowed: (36) Khasi coda consonants p t ʲt k ʔ m n ɲ ŋ r w j

However, r can occur. Bunong, on the other hand, does not allow any liquids in coda position. Bugan is yet more restrictive and limits its coda consonant inventory to the nasals m, n, ŋ and the stops p, t, k. Thus, the coda inventory is much smaller than in most other AA languages, but fits fairly well into the areal Chinese context. Southern Vietnamese also has a very restricted set of coda consonants. Palatals and fricatives are not permitted, and the alveodentals and the velars occur in allophonic distribution which can be predicted by preceding vowels: (37) Southern Vietnamese p t/k m n/ŋ w j

Munda languages, on the other hand, are an exception in that they allow for final stops that are described as voiced, i.e. the glottal restriction is released while the oral closure is still maintained, cf. Kharia mɔ’ɖ. In some northern Munda languages final stops can be nasally released; Osada (2008) transcribes Mundari b and d phonetically as [ʔb̥ m], [ʔd̥ n].

30

Jenny, weber and weymuth

In North Aslian languages, word-final nasals are preploded ([bm, dn, ᶡɲ, gŋ]) if they occur after an oral vowel. Aslian languages share these syllable-final stop-plus-nasal sequencies with Dayak languages of Borneo (cf. Matisoff 2003: 19). 1.2.2 Vowels AA languages typically have very large vowel inventories. For instance, Vương Hừu Lễ (1999) claims 42 vowel phonemes for Bru. The full vowel inventory is only available in main stressed syllables. Minor syllables usually only have ə (often non-phonemic), some languages, esp. Aslian and Khmuic permit a, i, and u. The standard (simple) vowels are represented in the system as it is found in Chong. All vowels qualities have a length contrast: (38) Chong i/iː ɨ/ɨː u/uː e/eː ə/əː o/oː ɛ/ɛː ɔ/ɔː a/aː

Typically, AA languages have two mid-vowel series and also two central vowels, although ɨ is missing in some languages. Munda vowel systems show a greater degree of diversity, but are generally smaller. Mundari, Keraʔ, Korku, Kharia, Sora and Gutob have a 5-vowel system. (39) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 27) i u e o a

The central unrounded non-low vowels ə and ɨ are absent in most languages, but Sora has both, Santali only ə, and Gtaʔ only ɨ. Munda languages often apparently only have one series of mid-level vowels. Juang has a constrast between o and ɔ, Santali, Gtaʔ and some Ho varieties distinguish both e vs. ɛ and o vs. ɔ. Santali exhibits morphologically-driven vowel harmony, with a vowel alternation between e and ɛ in some affixes, depending on the vowels in the stem. The third singular agreement marker is a case in point:

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

31

(40) Santali (a) ɛɽɛ=jɛ rɔɽ-a (b) səri=je rɔɽ-a lie=3 speak-fin truth=3 speak-fin ‘he tells lies’ ‘he tells the truth’

Khasi also has only one series of mid-high vowels. Note the presence of ɨ and the absence of ə. All vowels except ɨ can be both short and long. (41) Khasi i/iː ɨ u/uː e/eː o/o: a/aː

Car, on the other hand, has two mid-vowel series: (42) Car i e ɛ (æ)

ɨ u ɤ o ə ɔ a

Most notably, Car has a rarely occurring phonemically relevant distinction between /ɤ/ and /ə/, as in lɤ́ːkə ‘to be gone along’, by way of’ vs. lə́ːkə ‘to do well’. The phoneme /æ/ is restricted to English loanwords. Some AA languages, such as Kơho, functionally have four degrees of vowel hight, giving them two low non-front vowels: (43) Kơho i ɨ u e ǝ o ɛ ɔ a ɑ

Bugan notably has the front rounded vowel y: (44) Bugan i, y ɯ u e ə o ɛ ɔ a

32

Jenny, weber and weymuth

Front rounded vowels are frequent in the languages of northern Eurasia including China but rare in the whole rest of the world, including South and Southeast Asia (Maddieson 2013b). Thus, the occurrence of y in Bugan is peculiar in the AA context but fits into the areal picture for a language spoken in China. In most AA languages vowel length is contrastive. In some cases, however, contrastive length is restricted to a subset of vowel qualities, i.e. the inventory of long vowels is smaller than that of short vowels. Thus, for instance in Bunong, front vowels do not have a length contrast: (45) Bunong i ɨ/ɨː u/uː e ə/əː o/oː ɛ ɔ/ɔː a/aː

Short vowels in Bunong are generally more centralized and lax. Kammu also has fewer long vowel phonemes than short vowel phonemes, but the restrictions are of a different kind than those of Bunong in that midopen vowels are always short: (46) Kammu i/iː ɨ/ɨː u/uː e/eː ə/ə o/oː ɛ ʌ ɔ a/aː

In Northern Vietnamese, out of 12 vowels only a and ə contrast in length, rarely also ɛ and ɔ. Several AA languages, among them Munda, Aslian, Palaungic languages, have lost the phonemic length contrast. However, non-phonemic vowel length is still present in some of these languages. In Danau, for instance, monophthongs also have different durations, depending on the syllable type and tone; vowels in closed syllables with falling tone are shorter than vowels with high-falling and high tone. In Mon, monophthongs are still realized with various degrees of length. Longer vowels occur in open syllables and in syllables ending in a nasal or an approximant. Vowels in checked syllables (i.e. ending in a stop) are between long and short, while syllables ending in a glottal consonant (ʔ or h) contain short monophthongs. AA languages often have a large diphthong inventory. Diphthongs are also present in several AA languages that do not have a phonemic length contrast. Danau has the following diphthongs:

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

33

(47) Danau eɪ ui ɪɛ ou ɛə eɯ

In addition, Danau also has nasalized diphthongs, which differ from oral diphthongs in their place of articulation: (48) Danau eɪ̃ oũ ɐɪ̃ ɐũ æɛ̃

Mon is another example of a language which lacks a phonemic vowel length contrast but has a fairly rich inventory of diphthongs: (49) Mon iə uə ɒə eə oə ao ɛə ɔə

An abundance of diphthongs and triphthongs are also described for some Munda languages, e.g. in Santali (Ghosh 2008: 24f). There are also some AA languages with only few diphthongs. Kammu, for instance, only has three diphthongs, namely ia, ɨa and ua, and Pacoh has iə, ɨə, uə. Surin Khmer is remarkable in being described as having no diphthonged vowels in closed syllables (see Chantrapanth & Phromjakgarin 1978). 1.3 Suprasegmentals Many AA languages have phonologically relevant register and/or tone distinctions. Register (i.e. phonation type) and tone have often been treated separately, i.e. the relevant contrasts were analyzed in terms of register or tone only. However, the two phenomena are often not independent of one another and should therefore be analyzed in a comprehensive way. For instance, creaky voice is often associated with a higher pitch, while breathy voice is associated with lower voice. Traditionally, AA languages have been characterized as register languages, i.e. register has been considered to be phonologically relevant, while tone is considered to be merely a phonetic epiphenomenon, which is not phonologically relevant. Unless more detailed phonetic analyses are available, we follow this practice here, with the caveat that most AA languages are still

34

Jenny, weber and weymuth

in need of more thorough phonetic analyses. Register differences are worldwide fairly uncommon, but most notably they are rare in Southeast Asia outside AA. Still, it is interesting to note that tone is not a prevalent feature of AA, although complex tone systems are very prominent in the non-AA languages of Mainland Southeast Asia (Sino-Tibetan, Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien). 1.3.1 Registers/Phonation Types AA languages are well known for having phonologically relevant phonation types which are relevant for vowels, usually referred to as ‘registers’. In principle, the following phonation types are relevant in the context of AA: – –

–

Modal (or clear) voice: default phonation type Creaky voice (laryngealization): vocal folds are vibrating while the arytenoid cartilages are much closer together than in modal voice; laryngeal musculature is tensed, the vocal folds do not vibrate as a whole (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 53) Breathy voice (murmur): vocal folds vibrate in a looser form, sounds have a higher flow rate (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 57)

Many AA languages have a two-way contrast between breathy and modal voice. Languages of this type include Wa, Mon, Kri (Enfield & Diffloth 2009), Pacoh, Paraok, Mon, Bunong, Kui, and some Western Khmer dialects, but not Standard Khmer as spoken in the Phnom Penh. Other AA languages such as Sedang have a contrast between modal and creaky voice. The following examples illustrate minimal pairs. (50) Sedang modal creaky ka ‘to eat’ ka̰ kan ‘big’ ka̰n bau ‘to wash face’ ba̰w pəla ‘chaff’ pəla̰ ma ‘eye’ ma̰ soj ‘to err’ so̰ j

‘fish’ ‘chief’ ‘field rice’ ‘elephant tusk; between’ ‘we two (excl.)’ ‘to sarifice’

The two registers of Bunong differ in their realization, depending on the vowel quality, as the following table illustrates.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview Table 2.1

35

Registers in Bunong

High and mid vowels Low vowels

Register 1: – lowered in mouth – modal Lower pitch, diphthong Equal pitch, monophthong

Register 2: – raised in mouth – breathy Higher pitch, monophthong Equal pitch, diphthong

Bugan also has a tense versus lax distinction in all vowels but y. For tense vowels, the tongue position is lower and further back. For instance, in ta³¹ ‘near’, the vowel is realized as [a], but in ta̠³¹ ‘to bet’, it is close to [ɑ]. In Suoy, breathy vowels tend towards diphthongization (Michaud 2012: 123). Register is not always a property of just the vowel, but can also spread to other syllables. In Mon, for instance, which has a two-register contrast between clear and breathy voice, the vowel of the first unstressed syllable is always in the same register as the vowel of the second stressed syllable. Phonemic register distinctions are also found in Munda languages: Gorum has creaky voice (cf. Anderson & Rau 2008), and Sora has glottalized vowels (Zide 2008). In Santali, certain vowels are associated with a degree of laryngeal tension (cf. Zide 2000: 9). The most complex register systems are found in Pearic languages. Chong has a four-way contrast (see also DiCanio 2009 for a detailed phonetic analysis): (51) Chong Register 1: Register 2: Register 3: Register 4:

clear-modal clear-creaky breathy breathy-creaky

Aslian languages, on the other hand, do not exhibit register contrasts (with the apparent exception of Mah Meri, cf. Stevens et al. 2006), and neither does Car Nicobarese. 1.3.2 Nazalization A minority of AA languages belonging to different branches exhibit a phonemic contrast between oral and nasalized vowels. Among them are several Munda languages such as Santali; Sedang; Aslian languages, and Nicobarese.

36

Jenny, weber and weymuth

Nasality is often subject to certain constraints. Usually, the inventory of nasal vowels is smaller than that of oral vowels. Bugan has the nasal vowel phonemes ã õ ũ ũ ə̃, as opposed to an inventory of the ten oral vowels a, ɔ, o, u, i, e, ɛ, ɨ, ə, and y. The syllable structure can also restrict nasalization. Some AA languages (e.g. Sedang) do not allow nasalized vowels in syllables ending in nasal consonants. Finally, further restrictions include the combination of nasalization and phonation type. In Sedang, for instance, nasalization and creaky voice can only co-occur in open syllables and syllables ending in j or w. Overall, nasalized vowels are fairly rare in Sedang. 1.3.3 Tones Tone and registers are often dependent on one another; this might pose a problem to phonological descriptions, if languages should be classified as ‘tone languages’ or ‘register languages’. Often, one of the two domains is more relevant for phonology (i.e. for phonological processes or rules). Marginal tone contrasts have been reported for some Northern Aslian languages (Schebesta 1928 for Jahai, Bishop 1996 for Kensiw), and Hajek (2003) also assumes tonal activity in Northern Aslian languages, Wnuk and Burenhult (fc.), however, question the evidence brought up. Tone systems are especially prominent in Palaungic languages. Danau has a four-tone system: (52) Danau high-level (55) long-falling (442) short-falling (31) low-level (11)

ā (e.g. shī ‘sun’) â (e.g. kɨ̂ ‘go’) à (e.g. plù ‘thigh’) a (e.g. thwɐn ‘lime’)

Additionally, Danau also exhibits tone-sandhi, but the exact rules need further investigation. Other branches of Palaungic also have tone systems: Angkuic developed a tone system out of the vowel length contrasts, and Lamet has a two-tone system (cf. Sidwell’s chapter on the reconstruction). Some Khmuic languages have simple tone systems: Northern and Western (but not Eastern) Kammu dialects have a tone system consisting of a high level and a low level tone, which can occur in all syllable types. Originally these varieties had a voicing distinction in initial consonants. The loss of this distinction led to the emergence of a tonal

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

37

distinction of the following vowels in Northern Kammu. In Western Kammu, the voiced stops became aspirated, but otherwise the tonogenesis took place along similar lines. Eastern Kammu remained non-tonal. The following examples illustrate the processes: (53) Kammu tonogenesis Eastern Northern Western a. klaːŋ kláːŋ kláːŋ ‘eagle’ glaːŋ klàːŋ kʰlàːŋ ‘stone’ m̥ aːn máːn máːn ‘to bury’ maːn màːn màːn ‘pregnant’ b. kʰuʔ kʰúʔ kʰúʔ ‘weaver ant’ sɨaŋ sɨ́aŋ sɨ́aŋ ‘pig’ ˀjiak ˀjíak ˀjíak ‘shit’ ˀmec ɓéc ɓéc question particle ʔɔŋ ʔɔ̀ ŋ ʔɔ́ ŋ ‘hornet’

Bugan has a much more complex tone system, consisting of six tones in unchecked syllables: high level 55, mid-level 33, rising 35 and 13, and falling 31, neutral; 55, 33, 31 also occur in checked syllables; and finally the neutral tone occurs in some prefixes. Tones in Bugan are apparently fairly unstable, and many forms are recorded with alternate tones, e.g. ʑou³³/⁵⁵ ‘earth’, or χau⁵⁵/³¹ ‘valley’. The best described tone system of an AA language is certainly the one of Vietnamese. Northern Vietnamese has six tones that can occur in unchecked syllables; they combine pitch and phonation type contrasts: (54) Northern Vietnamese tones (Brunelle 2009: 80) A1 (‘ngan’) level, modal voice A2 (‘huyền’) starting low and falling smoothly, modal or breathy voice B1 (‘sằc’) starting mid-range and rising rapidly B2 (‘nặng’) falling, short, ending in a glottal stop C1 (‘hỏi’) falling dramatically, then accompanied by a slight laryngealization C2 (‘ngã’) falling, then interrupted by a glottalization, ending on a dramatic rise

Additionally, Northern Vietnamese has two tones that occur in checked syllables. They are similar to the tones B1 and B2. Southern Vietnamese has five tones, and, in contrast to Northern Vietnamese, phonation type is not relevant.

38

Jenny, weber and weymuth

2.3.3 Stress The vast majority of AA languages, which are sesquisyllabic, are strongly iambic, i.e. the first minor syllable is weak and unstressed and followed by a strong stressed main syllable. This pattern is not confined to AA languages in mainland Southeast Asia but is also found in other languages of the area, e.g. in Thai (Bennett 1994), or Burmese (Green 2005). South Asian languages, on the other hand, are trochaic, i.e. they have feet consisting of a first stressed syllabe and a second unstressed syllable. Munda languages have also been described along these lines (Donegan 1993, Donegan & Stampe 2004). And indeed Tibeto-Burman languages of eastern India, Bhutan and Nepal (LaPolla 2003) have also been described as trochaic. However, metric patterns in Munda are a fairly complex matter. Their exact nature is still under-researched, but often different types of metric patterns seem to coexist. Phonological and morphological words are often distinct and have different prosodic patterns. One of the patterns is the iambic stress pattern. Peterson (2011: 35) describes the prosodic pattern of phonological words in Kharia as low-high. Similarly, in Santali (Ghosh 2008) and Plains Remo (Anderson & Harrison 2008), the stress is always on the second syllable. Car is usually also iambic, but due to morphological processes, the stress can also fall on the penultimate or antepenultimate syllable. However, it remains to be established whether the syllables that follow the stressed syllable are also part of the same phonological word. Car has been described as having three contrastive stress degrees: primary, weak, and emphatic. The stress domain is not always the single word. In Mon, for instance, the stress domain can also be the phrase, as the following examples show: (55) Mon hɒəʔ ˈpèh ɗɔə ˈhɒəʔ ciəʔ ˈpɤŋ

2

‘your house’ ‘in the house’ ‘eat rice’

Word Formation

2.1 Compounding Different types of compounding are found in AA languages, expressing different functions. Compounds can consist of two (or more) nouns, a noun and a verb, or two (or more) verbs. Compounds can in most cases be distinguished from phrases only by stress pattern and semantics. In one common kind of

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

39

compounding, the nouns joined asyndetically result in a meaning that includes both parts, as seen in Vietnamese cha mẹ ‘father mother’, meaning ‘parents’, or qua�n áo ‘pant shirt’ meaning clothes’ (both from Brunelle, this publication). The order of the elements is fixed and the resulting meaning, though semantically transparent, is conventionalized. Other examples of juxtapositional noun-noun compounds are given in the following example. Interestingly, many AA languages have the order ‘mother-father’ for ‘parents’, unlike most neighboring languages, such as Thai and Burmese, which consistently show the inverse order of the elements. (56) Noun-noun compounds Khmer ʔoːpùk-mdaːj ‘father-mother’ ‘parents’ Bugan mau³³-na³³ ‘younger.brother-younger.sister’ ‘sibling’ Mlabri diŋ-roj ‘older.sibling-younger.sibling’ ‘siblings’ Kơho mɛʔ-baːp ‘mother-father’ ‘parents’ Mon mìʔ-mɛ̀ʔ ‘mother-father’ ‘parents’ Pacoh ʔaʔi-ʔaʔam ‘mother-father’ ‘parents’ Sedang now-pa ‘mother-father’ ‘parents’ Sedang ɟa-poə ‘grandmother-grandfather’ ‘grandparents’ Kơho muh-mat ‘nose-eye’ ‘face’ Pacoh duŋ-vḛːl ‘house-village’ ‘neighborhood, society’ Mon ɗɤŋ-kwan ‘town-village’ ‘land, country’

In endocentric compounds, one of the parts modifies or specifies the other. The first element of the compound usually is the head of the whole expression. In Car assimilation and deletion rules apply to compounds. Examples are given in (57). (57) Modifying compounds Car cɛ́hɛcóːn cɛ́hɛn ‘thing’ + cóːn ‘tree’ ‘bird’ Car kɤɲkúːn kóːɲ ‘male’ + kúːn ‘child’ ‘son-in-law’ Chong n9aːj-tɔŋ ‘owner-house’ ‘head of the family’ Khmer nɛːək-srae ‘man-rice.field’ ‘farmer’

In a few cases the head noun is the second element of the compound. This can be due to wholesale borrowing of the expression, as is the case in Mon pɤ̀-kjɤ̀k ‘commander’ from Burmese bo-ʨʰouʔ [bo.ʥouʔ] (lit. ‘forces-cover’). The Bugan word for ‘rice field’, da³⁵-ta̠ɯ̱³⁵ ‘water-field’, is made up of native elements, but shows head-final structure, perhaps influenced by neighboring head-final languages such as Chinese.

40

Jenny, weber and weymuth

One common type of modifying compounds is a class term followed by a specifying term, as seen in the following examples. This kind of compound can be called specifying compound, though the distinction from other modifying compounds is not always clear-cut. (58) Specifying compounds Mon ɗɤŋ-sem Danau souʔ-pəlwe

‘town-Thai’ ‘Thailand’ ‘plant-banana’ ‘banana plant’

Besides nominal compounding, the compound form can consist of verbal elements or verb phrases, including a P argument. (59) Chong tʰa̤ːk cʰaː water eat ‘drinking water’ (60) Khmer nɛːək-cap-trɤj man-catch-fish ‘fisherman’

Like nouns, verbs can also be combined to achieve new meanings or nuances of meanings. The resulting meaning can be the addition of the meanings of the parts of the compound, as in (61). In some cases, as in the Bunong (Phillips 1973b: 131) and Vietnamese (Brunelle, this publication) examples in (62), no clear difference of meaning between the elements and the compound can be detected. Verbal compounds are not always clearly distinguishable from multiverb predicates or serial verb constructions. (61) Additive verbal compounds Vietnamese mua-bán ‘buy-sell’ ‘trade’ Mon sɒh-ràn ‘sell-buy’ ‘trade’ (62) Euphonic verbal compounds Bunong cʰoŋ-cʰaː ‘eat-eat’ ‘eat’ Vietnamese lười-biếng ‘be.lazy-be.lazy’ ‘be lazy’

In Car, nouns can be compounded with prepositional elements, resulting in nouns.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

41

(63) Car ʔɛlrə́ːn ʔɛl ‘loc’ + rə́ːn ‘foot’ ‘sole’ ʔɛlkɛ́ːl ʔɛl ‘loc’ + kɛ́ːl ‘arm’ ‘armpit’

Unlike most other AA languages, in which no morphological clues can be used to distinguish compounds from phrases, Khasi makes a clear distinction between the two. This is true for nominal and verbal modifying compounds, as seen in the following examples, where the phrase level expressions on the right side have an overt linker and no morphological reduction of the elements. (64) Khasi (a) ka=um-mat (b) ka=um ʤoŋ ka=kʰmat f=water-eye f=water gen f=eye ‘tear’ ‘water of the eye’ (65) Khasi (a) u=laŋ-jap (b) u=phlaŋ (u) ba jap m=grass-die m=grass (m) rel die ‘straw’ ‘grass (that) which dead’ (66) Khasi (a) u=riew-bʱa (b) u=briew (u) ba bʱa m=man-good m=man (m) rel good ‘good man’ ‘man (he) who is good’ (67) Khasi (a) jaːʲt-waːt (b) jaːʲt ban waːt walk-search walk inf search ‘to walk searching’ ‘to walk in order to search’

Khasi also shows noun incorporation, whereby a noun loses its syntactic independence and is closely linked to a verb. (68) Khasi (a) thiet-kot (b) thiet ja ka=kot buy-book buy acc 3sg=book ‘to purchase (a) book’ ‘to purchase a book’

42

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(69) Khasi (a) jaːʲt-lɨnti (b) jaːʲt ha ka=lɨnti walk-path walk on path ‘to travel’ ‘to walk on the path/way’

Similarly, nouns can be incorporated in a verbal expression in Pnar. The incorporated noun can be either the P argument or an oblique participant. As in Khasi, the incorporated noun loses its syntactic independence, as can be seen by the loss of the class marker. (70) Pnar ku u [Ø] da ka=jiŋ.ken. climb m - ins f=ladder ‘he climbs (the tree) with/by the ladder’ (71) Pnar ku jiŋ.ken u [Ø] climb ladder m ‘he ladder-climbs (the tree)’ (72) Pnar ku deɲ u da ka=jiŋ.ken. climb tree m ins f=ladder ‘he tree-climbs with/by the ladder’

2.2 Reduplication Another common type of word formation found in AA languages is reduplication. Reduplication appears in different forms, as full or partial reduplication, with or without phonetic change in the reduplicated part. Reduplication has different functions in AA languages, the most common being adverbial and intensifying for verbs, and plurality or non-specificity for other categories. Full reduplication without alternation is attested in most or all AA languages with different functions, including intensification and plurality. (73) Intensifying Vietnamese Bunong Khasi Kui

đỏ kwɔŋ suki plɜm

‘red’ ‘big’ ‘slowly’ ‘fat’

đỏ-đỏ kwɔŋ-kwɔŋ suki-suki plɜm-plɜm

‘reddish’ ‘really big’ ‘very slowly’ ‘very fat’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

43

(74) Chong ne̤ːw~ne̤ːw coːk ceːn c9aːk tɔŋ. child~red run come from home ‘The children run from their home.’ (75) Bugan hɛ⁵⁵~hɛ⁵⁵ day~red ‘every day, always’

In Khasi, full reduplication of verbs can result in iterative or continuous meaning, or express indirect causative. (76) Khasi her kʰlik bɨnrap haːp

‘fly’ ‘flicker’ ‘collect, gather’ ‘fall’

her~her kʰlik~kʰlik bɨnrap~bɨnrap haːp~haːp

‘continue to fly’ ‘continue to flicker’ ‘ask someone to put things together’ ‘ask somebody to fall’

Mon uses full reduplication to express indefinite notions. The reduplicated element can be verbal or nominal, as seen in the following examples. (77) Mon pɤ̀m lɒ ɗɛh hɒm~hɒm, ʔuə hùʔ pətɛh pùh. manner inter 3 speak~red 1sg neg believe neg ‘However he speaks, I don’t believe him.’ (78) Mon ɲèh~ɲèh ʔuə~ʔuə klùə klɤŋ cɒp phɛ̀ə roŋ. person~red 1sg~red gather come arrive monastery asrt ‘Everyone will come and gather at the monastery.’ (79) Mon mənìh mùə~mùə human one~red ‘someone’

In Kharia, monosyllabic verbs are reduplicated to form verbal nouns (‘masdars’), which cover different functions, including attributive and complement clauses.

44

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(80) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 94f) ho=kaɽ=aʔ ter~ter jo=joˀɟ. that=sg.hum=gen give~red see=act.pst.1sg ‘I saw him give/his (act of) giving [something to someone].’

Reduplication with stem alternation includes full reduplication with change in onset, vowel, rhyme, or tone, as well as partial reduplication. Partial reduplication usually consists of the repetition of the initial consonant with the same or different vowel. The functions covered by reduplication with alteration are very diverse and cannot easily be categorized. In some cases the function of the reduplicated form is not evident, or the basic form may be missing altogether. Partial reduplication is already well attested in the Old Khmer corpus, with examples like krek /krɤːk/ ‘to stir’ > kakrek /kə krɤːk/ ‘to quake’. (81) Vietnamese: Change in tone đỏ ‘red’ đo đỏ ‘reddish’ nhẹ ‘light’ nhè nhẹ ‘rather light’ (82) Khmer: Change in onset mɛ̀ːn-tɛ̀ːn ‘really’ slòːt-bòːt ‘nice, kind, agreeable’ (83) Sedang: Change in vowel and rhyme mɛ ˀni~ˀnɔ ku~ka mi~mot tuŋ mɛ so red~pull.out red~bite red~enter inside so ‘(The snake) came out (of the water) killed (the girl) and entered into that (water).’ (84) Partial reduplication Khmer keh ‘scratch’ kə-keh ‘to scratch constantly’ Khmer baoh ‘sweep, brush’ bə-baoh ‘to brush or caress lightly and frequently’

Aslian languages have complex systems of reduplication, including full reduplication without alternation, full reduplication with vowel alternation, full reduplication with vowel loss, and partial reduplication. The following examples illustrate these processes in Jahai and Semelai. (85) Jahai (Burenhult 2005: 94f) cɨp ‘go’ cɨp-cɨp continuative

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview cip-cɨp ca-cɨp cp-cɨp

45

durative recpiprocal imperfective

Semelai (Kruspe 2004: 110f) goŋ gŋ-goŋ

‘carry’ imperfective

In a number of cases a lexeme looks like a reduplicated form, usually with vowel alternation, but no basic form is attested in the language. This is the case for example in Mlabri, Kui, and Kơho. (86) No basic form attested Mlabri mic-mɛc Mlabri ɲ̊ im-ɲ̊ ɛm Kui leːp-laːp Kơho cɔk-cɛk

‘ant’ ‘eyelashes’ ‘butterfly’ ‘to gossip’

2.3 Derivation AA languages have a native system of derivational affixes, consisting mainly of prefixes and infixes. Only few cases of suffixes are attested. A few of the derivational affixes can be reconstructed to the proto-language with well defined functions. In a number of languages the old derivational processes have lost their productivity and in some cases new derivational affixes were introduced to the language. While Old Mon had a full set of derivational affixes, the derived forms, though surviving in modern Mon, have been merged in many cases, resulting in the opposition basic form—derivate, without distinguishing between different function. The process of underspecified derivation by means of a prefix hə- has retained some degree of productivity in spoken Mon. (87) Development of derivation in Mon Old Mon gloss process gloṅ ‘be many’ base gumloṅ ‘many’ attr girloṅ ‘quantity’ nml guloṅ ‘increase’ caus

Modern Mon klɒ̀ ɲ həlɒ̀ ɲ həlɒ̀ ɲ həlɒ̀ ɲ

In some AA languages, all derivational morphology has been lost and compounding is the only way to derive new words. Examples are Vietnamese, Chong, and Bunong. In these languages, verbs can be nominalized by adding a

46

Jenny, weber and weymuth

noun with a general meaning ‘matter, affair, fact’ or similar, as in the following examples. In the case of Chong, the nominalizing noun kʰw9aːm ‘matter, affair’ is a loan from Thai, where it serves a similar function. (88) Bunong rawe > nau-rawe ‘worry’ ‘matter-worry’ (89) Chong pʰoʔ > kʰw9aːm-pʰoʔ ‘dream’ ‘matter-dream’

2.3.1 Nominal derivation The range of nominal derivation by affixation is illustrated by Old Khmer. There are both prefixes and infixes, and they can be applied to nominal as well as verbal roots. (90) Old Khmer pN-, ’N- j9av ‘barter’ > pamj9av ‘bartered goods’ ruṅ ‘big, mature’ > ʼaṃruṅ ‘size, extent, area’ -n- pvas ‘enter holy orders’ > phnvas ‘holy orders’ sre ‘riceland’ > sanre ‘ricefield’ -m- pre ‘use’ > pamre ‘servant’ cer ‘transgress’ > cmer ‘transgressor’ -mn- jvan ‘offer’ > jaṃnvan ‘offering’ -p- car ‘plant in a row’ > c(h)par ‘flower garden, plot’

Modern Khmer has retained some of of the inherited affixes of Old Khmer, with a number of innovations. Not all affixes in modern Khmer are fully productive, and some are found only in fossilized forms. (91) Khmer k-: s-: m-: N-: -b-: -m-: -n-: -vmn-: bvN-:

ba ŋ pɪ̀ːən hoːp baos rɔːəm sòːm kɪ̀ːəp dam tùk

‘to screen, to shade/cover sth.’ > k-baŋ ‘screen, movable curtain’ ‘pass over, traverse’ > s-pɪ̀ːən ‘bridge’ ‘eat’ > m-hoːp ‘food’ ‘sweep’ > ʔɔm-baos ‘brush, n.’ ‘dance’ > rəbam ‘dance, n.’ ‘ask’ > smòːm ‘beggar (so. who asks)’ ‘squeeze, apply pincers’ > khnɪ̀ːəp ‘pincers’ ‘plant, v.’ > dɔmnam ‘plant, n.’ ‘put away, keep’ > bɔntùk ‘cargo, load’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

47

kvN-: cas ‘old’ > kɔɲcas ‘old man [derogative]’ svN-: bɔ̀ ːk ‘peel, strip of bark or skin’ > sɔmbɔ̀ ːk ‘shell, husk, bark, skin’

In other languages, the number of retained derivational affixes is usually smaller and in many cases they have lost their productivity, so that the derived forms are to be considered lexical forms. A frequently found general nominalizing device is an -n- infix, in some cases with phonotactic change. The antiquity of this infix is shown by its occurrence in all branches of AA, including Nicobarese and Munda. (92) Pacoh katɨp tapaʔ taŋɨh kar

‘cork’ ‘make fish sauce’ ‘breathe’ ‘drill a hole’

(93) Sedang ciə ‘dig’ soə̰ŋ ‘divide’ pa̰n ‘raise’ (94) Kơho pat sɛ blɔ

həniə hənoə̰ŋ məna̰n

‘to knead, squeeze’ ‘to turn, detour’ ‘to wear in the ear’

kəntɨp təmpaʔ tərŋɨh kanaːr

‘cork, n.’ ‘fish sauce’ ‘breath’ ‘hole-driller’

‘shove-hoe’ ‘problem’ ‘domestic animals’ pənat sənɛ bənɔ

‘s.t. kneaded (clay, dough, etc.)’ ‘place where detour begins or ends’ ‘earring’

(95) Mlabri chrɛt ‘comb’

chnrɛt

‘com, n.’

(96) Mon ceh

‘descend’

hneh

‘pier’ ()

(97) Car ŋát fóh kɛ́ːl

‘tie’ ‘whip’ ‘arm’

ŋanát fanɔ́ h kanɛ́ːl

(98) Mundari (Osada 2008: 116) dub ‘sit’ dunub ol ‘write’ onol tebaʔ ‘arrive’ tenebaʔ

‘cord’ ‘whip, n.’ ‘tusk’

‘meeting’ ‘writing’ ‘arrival’

48

Jenny, weber and weymuth

Other infixes are also used to derive nouns from verbs, as seen in the following examples. (99) Kơho kal ‘bolt, bar’ saːc ‘fish by draining’ sɔːl ‘illuminate’ (100) Car tɨ́ːc ‘plant, v.’ séːɲ ‘mince’

kərnal ‘wooden door bolt’ səmpaːc ‘the place one stands to fish by draining’ səmpɔːl ‘torch’

tahɨ́ːc sahéːɲ

‘what is planted’ ‘something minced’

(101) Kammu tə́ːm ‘sing’ húːc ‘sting, v.’

tŕ.nə̀ːm hŕ.nùːc

‘song’ ‘sting (of an insect)’

(102) Mlabri tɛk tɯj kwac gwɛc

trnɛk trnɯj krwac grwɛc

‘hammer’ ‘mortar’ ‘broom’ ‘finger’

‘hit’ ‘pound’ ‘sweep’ ‘poke’

A number of languages use prefixes to derive nouns. One common prefix is a nominalizing ʔi-, associated in some languages with female personal names and kinship terms, as in Mon, or general with humans, as in Dara’ang. A similar prefix, ʔə- is found in many AA languages as general nominalizer, as in Danau. In Mon it is often associated with male kinship terms. (103) Mon ʔiʔnàj ʔənàj

‘aunt’ ‘uncle’

(104) Dara’ang Ɂikăt Ɂimaj Ɂiŋauh

‘older brother or older sister’ ‘male, husband’ ‘killer’

(105) Danau mɛt sòn

‘all’ ‘red’

ə-mɛt ə-sòn

‘all of it/them’ ‘the red one’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

49

Other nominalizing prefixes are found in AA languages, some of which may be related to the infixes described above. This is the case for example in Kammu. Car uses a prefix ta-/tə-, together with changes in the stem and/or suffixes. (106) Kammu tèn ‘sit’ cét ‘sour’ (107) Car vúːj ŋɛ́ːʔ rɨ́ːla ʔamínuvə

rǹ.tèn rǹ.cét

‘chair’ ‘sourness’

tavúːj taŋɛ̃ː́ ʔ tərɨ́ːla ́ təʔamĩːnu

‘be hot’ ‘be hard’ ‘be crawling’ ‘possess’

‘sun’ ‘bone’ ‘animal, beast’ ‘owner’

Khasi and Pnar have a general nominalizer ʤiŋ, which is prefixed to verbs, besides more specific agentive and instrumental nominalizing prefixes. Another way to nominalize verbs is by attaching a noun class marker to them directly. The choice of noun class markers determines the exact function of the nominalized form. (108) Pnar i=ʤiŋ-ɛʔ n=nml-be.difficult ‘difficulty’

ka=krɛʔ f=work ‘the work (completed)’

i=krɛʔ n=work ‘the working (ongoing)’

In Dara’ang, a prefix da- is used to derive ethnic names. The origin of this prefix is unknown. It has apparently become a fixed part of the ethnonym Dara’ang. (109) Dara’ang dasiam dakhε daraɁaŋ

‘Tai people’ ‘Chinese people’ ‘Palaung people’

A set of prefixed nouns in Sedang can be compared to Vietnamese forms which include a generic class term cái. This may give a hint regarding the origin of at least some of the derived forms also in other languages. (110) Sedang and Vietnamese Sedang kəɓaŋ ‘table’

Vietnamese cái bàn

50

Jenny, weber and weymuth kəhop kəkeo̰ kəli kəmajʔ

‘can’ ‘bottle’ ‘glass’ ‘machine’

cái hộp cái kéo cái ly cái máy

Nicobarese and Munda languages are unlike other members of the family in having not only derivational prefixes and infixes, but also suffixes. In Car, suffixes can be combined with other affixes in nominal derivation, as the following examples illustrate. (111) Car ʔáːp cóːŋ rát lím tɔ́ ːp ɲáh

‘canoe’ ‘ship’ ‘slice’ ‘fold’ ‘grasp’ ‘beat’

héŋ miʔáːpə héŋ micóːŋə miráːtə milíːmə tɔ́ ːpə ɲáhã

‘one canoe plus contents’ ‘one ship plus contents’ ‘slice, n.’ ‘parcel’ ‘tongs’ ‘injury’

(112) Juang gata ‘say’

agatae

‘untold story’

(113) Remo re sil aŋ

regəta sita aŋto

‘wound’ ‘pain, sickness’ ‘taboo’

‘cut’ ‘sick’ ‘be taboo’

2.3.2 Verbal Derivation The most wide-spread type of verbal derivation in AA languages is the labial causative prefix, which appears to have reflexes in all branches, at least in fossilized lexical forms. The realization of the prefix varies greatly among the languages, with three main underlying forms, namely pə-, pN-, and mə-. The connection between the different forms and their distribution patterns are not always clear. (114) Causative (labial prefix) Old Khmer tval ‘fall’ > phtval ‘fell, bring down,  overthrow, topple’ Old Khmer ket ‘born’ > paṅketa ‘give birth, beget, topple’ Khmer kaət ‘born, arise, happen’ > prəkaət ‘cause, bring about’ Khmer dac ‘break, be torn apart’ > phdac ‘break, separate, tr.’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview Chong Sedang Sedang Sedang Sedang Pacoh Kui Kơho Kơho Kơho Mon Mon Nyahkur Kammu Kammu Mlabri Samlong Khasi Khasi Khasi Pnar Car Car Gorum Kharia

hoːc ta̰ caj loj rɛh sər boːl sɔŋ kap haːp tɛt ceh tun màh ràːs bɯl jʌm jap baːm laʲt jap huɽíŋ ɽáːc gidʒu ɲoʔ

51

‘die’ > mahoːc ‘kill’ ‘go around’ > məda̰ ‘cause to go around’ ‘sick’ > məɟaj ‘cause to be sick’ ‘abandon’ > pəloj ‘cause to abandon’ ‘alive’ > pərɛh/mərɛh ‘nourish’ ‘go up’ > pasər ‘raise’ ‘drunk’ > pəmboːl ‘intoxicate’ ‘straight’ > bəsɔŋ ‘straighten’ ‘bite’ > bəkap ‘cause to bite’ ‘envious’ > pənhaːp ‘beautify’ ‘exit’ > pətɛt ‘take out’ ‘descend’ > phjeh ‘take down’ ‘rise’ > pətun ‘arm a spring-trap’ ‘eat’ > pń.màh ‘feed’ ‘dry’ > pś.ràːs ‘dry’ ‘die’ > pabɯl ‘kill’ ‘die’ > pjʌm ‘kill’ ‘die’ > pɨnjap ‘kill’ ‘eat’ > pɨnbaːm ‘feed’ ‘escape’ > pɨllaʲt ‘set free’ ‘die’ > pn̩ -jap ‘kill’ ‘black’ > miɽíŋ ‘make black’ ‘hot’ > haɽáːc ‘to heat’ ‘see’ > abgidʒu ‘show’ ‘eat’ > oˀbɲoʔ ‘feed’

Khasi allows recursive causativization, as in the following example. (115) Khasi u-san u pʰaʔ-pɨn-jap ja u=ʤɔn ha u=bil m-pn m caus-caus-die acc m=pn dat m=pn ‘San made Bill kill John.’

Other prefixes with causative function also occur in different languages. (116) Bunong (Vogel 2006: 173) (a) kə̤p pi̤c (b) kə̤p rpi̤c kɔːn ci̤ː 1sg lie 1sg lay child ill ‘I lie down/sleep.’ ‘I put my sick child to bed.’

52

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(117) Semelai (Kruspe 2004: 128f) kɒh ‘come undone’ > tar-kɒh ‘take off’ pər ‘fly’ > taŋ-pər ‘get sth. to fly’’ (118) Kơho ʔaɲ tən-git gə kʰaj ʔin 1sg caus-know 3 3sg dat ‘I cause (or make) him to know it.’ (119) Bunong khət > ŋ-khət ‘die’ ‘kill’ (120) Nyahkur (Diffloth 1984) tho̤w > kətho̤w ‘hurry away’ ‘take away’

Another causative affix consists of a labial or vocalic infix. The former is found in Old and modern Khmer and Kui, the latter in Old Mon. (121) Old Khmer sl9ap ‘die’ cren ‘grow’

> >

saṃl9ap caṃren

‘cause to die’ ‘cause to grow’

(122) Khmer sʔaːt ‘clean’ > sɔmʔaːt

‘clean, tr.’

(123) Kui təkɒw təliəj

‘cause to sit’ ‘break’

‘sit’ > təmkɒw ‘broken’ > təmliəj

(124) Old Mon gloṅ ‘many, much’

>

guloṅ

‘increase’

In Pacoh, an anti-causative prefix is used with some verbs. (125) Pacoh hɛʔ

‘tear’

>

tihɛʔ

‘torn’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

53

In some cases Car uses vowel alterations in intransitive-transitive pairs. In this case it is not evident which form is to be taken as basic and which as derivate. (126) Car non-agentive agentive gloss intransitive transitive cavíː cuvíː ‘rotate, circle, turn around’ falál filál ‘break’ kaín kijín ‘shake’

Other verbal derivational affixes are used to express reciprocity, adversity, nonvolitionality, and others. The distribution of these affixes and the wide range of functions associated with similar forms in different languages do not allow a reconstruction to the proto-language of specific forms, though the system as such may be postulated to have been in existence already in the ancestor language. (127) Pacoh (reciprocal) ʔacuən ‘hit’ >

ʔrcuən

‘hit each other’

(128) Sedang (reciprocal) ma̰ tə-cuə̰ dej pɔ̰ 1du recp-obey with each.other ‘We two obey each other.’ (129) Sedang (reciprocal) prḛj tə-weə̰ŋ dej pɔ̰ 3du recp-help with each.other ‘Those two help each other.’ (130) Sedang (reciprocal) mɛ prḛj tə-l ̥ɔ dej pɔ̰ then 3du recp-see with each.other ‘Then those two saw each other.’ (131) Dara’ang (reciprocal) katuh ‘bump against’ kamuan ‘talk together’

katun kathăɁ

‘meet’ ‘clap with hands’

54

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(132) Pacoh (non-volitional) pḛɲ ‘shoot’ > tapḛɲ

‘shoot accidentally’

(133) Sedang (adversative) poə ʔɛh lə-how grandfather 2sg advrs-hate ‘Grandfather, you hate us two.’

ma̰ 1du.excl

(134) Sedang ʔa̰ saw ʔɛh lə-kəde ʔa̰ 1sg fear 2sg advrs-kill 1sg ‘I’m afraid you will kill me’

In Danau verbs can be gerundivized with the prefic pə- to form a non-finite verbal construction that can take direct objects. (135) Danau tə-kɨ̂ pin tʰæ̀ x bēj nì=nə pə-jɔx ɐ̀ kùtʰokæ̃ ɛ̆ cond-go kill life other prox=top nfin-do sin ‘If (you) go and kill another, it is the same as committing sin.’

ɐnɐnɐj same

2.3.3 Other Types of Derivation The prefix hə- forms locative adverbials in Kơho, similar to the prefix pa- in Chong and na- in Kammu. (136) Kơho gah nɛ ɗap ɗaŋ ɗəm (137) Chong dɨŋ heːn tʰɛ̤ːw nih kə̰ːt cʰaː

‘side’ > hə-gah ‘on the side/edge’ ‘that’ (equidistant from the object) > hə-nɛ ‘over there’ ‘the portion of land in front of’ > hə-ɗap ‘in front of’ ‘up, above, top’ > hə-ɗaŋ ‘on top of’ ‘below, under(neath)’ > hə-ɗəm ‘underneath’

‘on’ > padɨŋ ‘that’ > paheːn ‘other’ > patʰɛ̤ːw ‘where’ > panih ‘low’ > pakə̰ːt ‘to eat’ > pacʰaː

‘above’ ‘there’ ‘elsewhere’ ‘where’ ‘below’ ‘a place for food’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

55

(138) Kammu locative prefix na- signifies a location. na-Ɂac ‘before, in front of’ na-påan ‘behind’ na-khεŋ ‘inside, in the back’ na-rec ‘outside’

In Mlabri the marker luŋ/nuŋ is also used in combination with the demonstratives to form luŋgʌh ‘here’ and luŋɲʌʔ ‘there’. The reason why this compound is analyzed as one word, rather than as a phrase, is that the locative marker luŋ seems to undergo the same vowel assimilation that is found in minor syllables. (139) Mlabri mɛh chi ɗaj ŋ̊ uh luŋ-luah lɛh 2sg want get sit loc-outside q ‘Do you want to go sit outside?’ (140) Mlabri leh lɯŋ-kal come loc-front ‘[He] came before [the others]’ or ‘[He will] come later’

Kơho forms interrogatives by prefixing a nasal consonant to demonstratives and nouns. The nasal has the same place of articulation as the initial of the stem. (141) Kơho bɛ bəh *ɗɑː teːŋ caw cʰi

‘that; as’ ‘from’ (origin, source) [no base form] ‘place, direction’ ‘person’ ‘(any-, some-) thing’

> > > > > >

mbɛ mbəh nɗɑː nteːŋ ɲcaw ɲcʰi

‘how’ ‘(from) where; what source’ ‘how much/many’ ‘where’ ‘who, which’ ‘what’

In Mon, different prefixes are attached to the demonstrative and interrogative stems to derive pronouns and adverbs. While the pronominal and locative prefixes originate in old nominal prefixes, the manner adverbial prefix is shortened from the noun sac ‘kind, type, color’, which still appears in this form in literary Mon. The prefix ʔiʔ- in colloquial Mon merges with the initial of the stem and causes palatalization, possibly by a process of metathesis which results in the prefixes becoming an infix (ʔiʔnɔʔ >*niɔ > ɲɔʔ) (see Jenny 2003).

56 (142) Mon Base Pronoun

Jenny, weber and weymuth

nɔʔ ‘this’ ʔiʔ-nɔʔ ~ ɲɔʔ ‘this one’ ʔə-nɔʔ ‘here’

Adverb 1 locative Adverb 2 hə-nɔʔ ‘like this’ manner

kɔ̀ h ‘that’ ʔiʔ-kɔ̀ h ~ cɔ̀ h ‘that one’ ʔə-kɔ̀ h ‘there’

tɤʔ ‘that (over there)’ lɒ ‘which’ ʔiʔ-tɤʔ ~ cɤʔ ʔiʔ-lɒ ~yɒ ‘that one’ ‘which one’ ʔə-tɤʔ ‘there’ ʔə-lɒ ‘where’

hə-kɔ̀ h ‘like that’

(hə-tɤʔ)5

hə-lɒ ‘how’

Sedang has two prefixes that attach to numerals, resulting in different derivative meanings. The prefix tə- forms measure words, the prefix mə- ordinal 5 numerals. (143) Sedang peə̰ ‘two’ > pa̰j ‘three’ > pṵn ‘four’ >

təbeə̰ ‘two fingers’ width’ təpa̰j ‘three fingers’ width’ təpṵn ‘four fingers’ width’

(144) Sedang məmoj ‘first’ məpeə̰ ‘second’ məpa̰j ‘third’ məpṵn ‘fourth’

A complex and heterogeneous system of derivation is found in Bugan, where a change of vowel, tone or consonant results in a new, but related meaning. (145) Bugan vowel/tone/consonant alternation derivation ɕi⁵⁵po³¹ ‘yesterday evening’ ɕa⁵⁵po³¹ ‘tomorrow evening’ ŋɔ³³ ‘peppery’ ŋa³³ ‘salted’ ʦa̠¹³ ‘to bite’ ʦo̱ u̱³¹ ‘to eat’ la̠³⁵ ‘to return’ li̱³⁵ ‘to change’ ʦa̠n²⁴ ‘to smell’ ʦïan³³ ‘smelly’ kʰo⁴⁴ ‘ladle’ kʰo²⁴ ‘to scoop’ mʦʰa¹³ ‘to kill’ mʦa³¹ ‘to die’ nap⁵⁵ ‘be closed’ ȵap⁵⁵ ‘to close one’s eyes, to shut up’

5  The form hətɤʔ is not in common use. A periphrastic construction like pɤ̀m tɤʔ ‘that manner’ is used instead.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

3

57

Clause Structure

3.1 Simple Clauses 3.1.1 Intransitive Clauses Intransitive clauses in most AA languages exhibit the basic word order SV. The single argument (‘subject’) of the clause precedes the verb, which may or may not be accompanied by tense-aspect-modality markers, directionals, or other modifiers. This word order is already attested in the earliest documents of AA, namely Old Mon and Old Khmer. (146) Old Khmer ’ry9aṃ l9a. elder.sibling depart ‘[My] older brother took his leave.’

In Khasi, the single argument is cross-referenced in the verb phrase by the gender marker, which precedes the verbs and tam markers. (147) Khasi u=briew u la wan. m=man m pst come ‘The man came.’

In some languages, the normal order of constituents may be inverted, as in Mon, where the orders SV and VS are both possible with a small number of verbs, mostly existential or presentational verbs. The two word orders have different information-structural functions, as seen in the following examples. The different readings are in line with the general topic-comment structure of the language (see also section 3.6). (148) Mon pɤŋ seh mɔ̀ ŋ ɲìʔ thɔ̀ raʔ cooked.rice remain stay little only foc ‘There’s a little bit of rice left.’ (149) Mon seh mɔ̀ ŋ chaʔ pɤŋ, hwaʔ ʔɒt ʔa jaʔ left stay excl cooked.rice curry all go nsit ‘There’s only rice left, the curry is gone.’

58

Jenny, weber and weymuth

Also in Dara’ang, the subject of an intransitive expression can occur after the verb. The exact function of this inversion in Dara’ang is not clear, but there are presumably information-structural factors. (150) Dara’ang Ɂăw jic maso. neg get.up dog ‘The dog didn’t get up.’

In intransitive clauses in Aslian languages, the subject may either precede or follow the predicate, as seen in example (151) from Semelai and (152) from Semaq Beri. (151) Semelai (Kruspe 2004: 255) ga=dmdəm ʔəɲ, bhih ɲɔʔ lpəc. imm=lie.down 1f be.full very stomach ‘I’m going to lie down, (my) stomach is really full.’ (152) Semaq Beri kɛ jlaŋ. 3sg be.long ‘It is long.’

In Munda languages, such as Santali, the order is SV if the S argument is overtly expressed by a full NP or by a pronoun. (153) Santali (Ghosh 2008: 55) khan-gɛ paʈoari dɔ-e then-foc pn top-3sg.sbj ‘The Patoari ran away.’

dəɽ-ked-a. run-pst.act-fin

If the single argument is omitted, it is marked on the verb by a suffix which appears in the final slot of the verb complex, after the finite marker. The order of elements within the intransitive verb form is therefore V-S. (154) Santali (Ghosh 2008: 61) sɛn-akan-a-e. go-perf.mid-fin-3sg.sbj ‘He has gone.’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

59

A handful of languages are exceptional in the AA family in having verb initial basic word order. These include Pnar, Amwi and War (but not the closely related Khasi), Wa (but not other Palaungic languages), and the Nicobarese languages. (155) Car lə́ːk an ŋam máj calm 3sg the sea ‘The sea is calm.’ (156) Pnar jap u. die m ‘He died.’ (157) Pnar jap u=wɔʔ kiaŋ.naŋ.baʔ die m=hon pn ‘Mr. Kiang Nangbah died.’

3.1.2 Transitive Clauses The most frequently encountered word order in transitive expressions in AA languages is AVP, that is, the agent precedes the main verb, the patient follows it. This is also the normal word order in the Old Mon and Old Khmer inscriptions, and it is found throughout the eastern (non-Munda, non-Nicobarese) branches of AA, including standard Khasi, which coreferences the A in the verb phrase by the appropriate gender marker. (158) Old Khmer paṃnvas cya sl9a monks eat areca ‘The monks were chewing areca nut.’ (159) Khmer (Jacob 1968: 59) mdaːj thvɤ̀ ː mhoːp. mother make food ‘Mother is making the meal.’

60

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(160) Sedang ga̰ w̥ aŋ ga̰ tuŋ trap 3sg throw 3sg inside mud ‘He threw him in the mud’ (161) Kơho kʰaj ləh hiw pa 3sg build house new ‘He built a new house.’ (162) Bugan pə⁵⁵kan³³ ȵu³³mʦaŋ³⁵ kai³³ ʔo⁵⁵ biou³³ bugan celebrate festival mountain top ‘The Bugan celebrate their festivals on top of the mountain.’ (163) Bunong (Vogel 2006: 110) paŋ kɛ̤h rəwɛh 3sg have elephant ‘He has (an) elephant(s).’ (164) Danau ō swe bɯ̄ 1sg eat rice ‘I am eating (rice).’ (165) Kammu róːj l̀.wàːŋ kóh cŕ.kùːl.tíʔ kə̀ spirit sky cut finger 3sg.m ‘The sky spirit cut off his fingers.’ (166) Mlabri ʔoh kɔbɔ boŋ cin 1sg neg eat meat ‘I don’t eat meat’ (167) Mon kalaʔ kɔ̀ h mìʔ.kon.plɛm kɔ̀ h pətɛt kəsɔp raʔ. time medl pn medl caus.exit nml.think.over foc ‘Then Mi Kon Plem made her plans.’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

61

(168) Khasi u=ksew u baːm doʔ m=dog m eat flesh ‘The dog eats flesh.’

Deviations from the standard constituent order are frequent for pragmatic reasons (see section 3.6), as is the omission of contextually retrievable arguments and other constituents. The Munda languages exhibit basic verb final word order if the arguments are overtly expressed by full NPs or pronouns. In the following example from Santali, the A argument is expressed by a free pronoun as well as a clitic, and the object is expressed by a full NP and cross-referenced on the verb by a suffix. The constituent order in this case can be taken as AVP, with originally extra-clausal NPs expressing A and P: [A P] AVP. The fact that the finite marker appears after the P suffix suggests that it was originally a free form and the P formed a closer unit with the verb. (169) Santali (Ghosh 2008: 75) am ɖaŋra=m əgu-e-a. 2sg bullock=2sg.sbj bring-3sg.obj-fin ‘You will bring the bullock.’

If both arguments are omitted, they are indicated by affixes on the verb. The order in this case is VPA, and the finite marker occurs between the two argument suffixes. (170) Santali (Ghosh 2008: 61) dal-akad-e-a-m. beat-perf.act-3sg.obj-fin-2sg.sbj ‘You have beaten him.’

If we take AVP as the underlying original word order in Santali, the position of the agent after the finite marker can be explained as anti-topic, which is frequent in the languages of he area, including verb-final languages. Alternatively, we might take VPA as the original word order, as suggested by the pronominalized verb forms in Santali. This is found as the basic constituent order in the Khasian languages Kudeng War and Amwi, as well as in Nicobarese, as in the following examples.

62

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(171) Kudeng War (Anne Daladier, p.c.) ə əri viɛr ʔi hun kə. decl leave lose pl child f ‘She left her children for ever.’ (172) Amwi (Weidert 1975: 214) jaʔlə beʔ škɛ ʔi hnthlɛ cuprəw ʔi. go.together hunt deer 1pl seven person 1pl ‘We went deer hunting together, seven of us.’ (173) Nancowry (Reid 1994: 333) kalóʔ nɔ́ t cə́ -n steal pig my-nom ‘The thief stole my pig.’

kamalóʔ. thief

In Wa, unlike other Palaungic languages, the basic constituent order appears to be VAP, though alternative orders are also attested, as seen in the following examples from Tangyan Wa (Shan State). (174) Wa (field notes MJ) sɔm ʔɤʔ ʔɯp. eat 1sg rice ‘I eat rice.’ (175) Wa (field notes MJ) ʔaŋ ʔɤʔ seʔ sɔm ʔɯp. neg 1sg tam eat rice ‘I don’t eat rice.’

Semelai, an Aslian language of the Malay peninsula, shows different word orders depending on the context (Kruspe 2004: 253ff). In what Kruspe (2004: 254) calls “universal clauses”, the verb occupies the position between A and P, as seen in example (176). (176) Semelai (Kruspe 2004: 254) pɔdɔŋ ca smaʔ. tiger eat person ‘Tigers eat people.’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

63

In perfective clauses, the verbal predicate occurs in the clause-initial position, as in example (177). Notice though that a pronominal agent proclitic occurs before the predicate, so that one may still argue that the underlying structure is AVP, with the A resumptively expressed in postverbal position. (177) Semelai (Kruspe 2004: 255) ki=bukɒʔ la=kniek hn=pintuʔ. 3a=open a=husband p=door ‘The husband opened the door.’

The A argument can be fronted to the preverbal position, as seen in example (178). (178) Semelai (Kruspe 2004: 257) smaʔ, ki=tampɔŋ cɔ. person 3a=hit dog ‘The person, he hit the dog.’

3.1.3 Ditransitive Clauses Ditransitive clauses contain three arguments, agent, theme, and goal or recipient. The order of these arguments with respect to the verb and to each other differs among the AA languages. Like with transitive clauses, the most frequent word order is apparently AVGT or AVTG. In many AA languages there is only a handful of real ditransitive verbs, in some cases with ‘give’ as only member of the category. The constituent order AVGT is found, for example, in Vietnamese, Kui, Sedang, and Mon. In these cases no overt marker of grammatical role is found and the word order and semantics alone determine the function of the arguments. (179) Vietnamese Hương cho họ.hàng thuốc. pn give relatives drug ‘Hương gives relatives drugs.’ (180) Kui kruː.pɛ̤ːt ʔɒːn beːʔ ʔiː krən.caɲ muŋ doctor give person ill malaria mosquito.net ‘The doctor is giving the malaria patients mosquito nets.’

64

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(181) Sedang ŋin ʔa̰m ʔɛh pəkeə̰ŋ 1pl.excl put 2sg powder ‘We give you the powder.’ (182) Sedang pin ɟa ʔɛh troə̰ŋ həda 1pl.incl show 2sg path escape ‘We will show you the escape route.’ (183) Mon ʔəmè kɒ kon kwaɲ rɤ̀h ŋuə. mother give offspring sweets every day ‘The mother gives her child sweets everyday.’

In Khmer, Chong and Mlabri, the order is AVTG, with no overt marker of G or T. (184) Khmer khɲom ʔaoj luj kòət. 1sg give money 3sg ‘I give him money.’ (185) Chong ʔuːɲ ʔɨt kataŋ boːt father give money younger.sibling ‘Father gives money to my younger brother.’ (186) Mlabri maʔ khanom mɛh give cookie 2sg ‘give the cookie to you’

Old Khmer and a number of other AA languages mark the recipient as oblique by means of a dative or other preposition. The word order in Old Khmer, Kammu, Dara’ang, Khasi, and Semaq Beri is AVTG.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

65

(187) Old Khmer . . . kamrateṅ kaṃtvan ’añ viṅ oy pras9ada bhūmi srat9ac . . . high.lord maternal 1sg again give favour land pn ṛdval ta loñ vasudeva pn obl title pn ‘. . . My High Lord in the maternal line again give the tracts in Sratāc [and] Ṛdval as a royal grant to the loñ Vāsudeva. . .’ (188) Dara’ang Ɂo taih khamun dɨ Ɂalɔt 1sg give sweet goal pn ‘I gave Alot some sweets.’ (189) Kammu ʔòʔ ʔùːn k.múːl jʌ̀ kə̀ 1sg give money ins 3sg.m ‘I handed money to him.’ (190) Khasi ŋi-n aːj ja ka=kot ha pʰi 1pl-fut give acc f=book dat 2 ‘We will give the book to you.’ (191) Semaq Beri kɛ jon lapan ratus haʔ ʔəɲ 3pl give eight hundred loc 1sg ‘They gave me 800 (ringgit).’

In Kơho, the recipient is marked by a dative postposition and occurs between V and T. (192) Kơho kʰaj ʔaj ʔaɲ ʔin do məŋan dɑːʔ 3sg give 1sg dat one bowl water ‘S/he gave me a bowl of water.’

Pnar has the basic constituent order VATG, with the recipient marked as oblique and the T left unmarked.

66

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(193) Pnar e kɔ ka=hu.kum ja o give 3sg.f f=command ben 3sg.m.top ‘She gave the command (to him).’

In many languages ditransitive expressions with overt G and T are usually avoided, omitting or fronting either G or T, as seen in the following example from Danau. (194) Danau nì=nǝ ō ɐ kɔʔ mǝ̀ prox=top 1sg give neg.cop 2sg ‘I won’t give this to you.’ (lit. ‘This, I won’t give to you.’)

Another strategy is to use biclausal constructions, as illustrated by the following example from Kammu. (195) Kammu ʔòʔ cə̀ ʔùːn mè 1sg irr give 2sg.m ‘I will give you some rice seeds.’

tèʔ ŋɔ́ ʔ sḿ.làh get rice seed

3.2 Subordinate Clauses Subordinate clauses are clauses that cannot form a complete sentence by themselves and have one of a number of functions. Traditionally, subordinate clauses are divided into relative or attributive clauses, complement clauses, and adverbial clauses. The latter category is very diverse, both cross-linguistically and often also within a particular language; furthermore, it cannot be seen as a uniform class apart from the general semantics of ‘event modification or specification’. In many AA languages, subordinate clauses cannot readily be distinguished from coordinate or juxtaposed independent clauses, as often no overt marker is used and the function of the clause is determined by the context alone. This underspecification in clause types may be due to the fact that the majority of AA languages do not have literary traditions, and orally transmitted languages tend towards simpler clauses and juxtaposition (see e.g. Karlsson 2009). The subordinators most commonly used in the AA languages can be classified into three groups, namely, 1. grammatical function words, which often cover a wide range of functions, including prepositions, 2. partly desemanticized verbs, and 3. desemanticized nouns. Desemanticized

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

67

verbs, usually with the lexical meaning ‘say’ or similar, are frequently used as complementizers, while verbs or nouns with a wide range of lexical meanings are used to introduce adverbial clauses. In Car, the word order in subordinate clauses differs from matrix clauses in that matrix clauses are generally verb initial, while subordinate clauses are verb medial and the S/A pronoun takes a special subordinate form, as illustrated in the following examples. (196) Car (a) Independent clause: (b) Dependent clause: ləːk an ŋam maj heː ŋam maj nə calm 3sg def sea time def sea 3sg.sub ‘The sea is calm.’ ‘when the sea is calm’

leːk calm

(197) Car vɛ́ːɲə naŋ cɔːn tə cu min ŋac umuh tell ear pn link 1sg.poss fut finish there ‘Tell John that I will be there.’

3.2.1 Relative Clauses Relative clauses in AA languages in most cases follow the head noun they modify, in line with the usual position of postposed modifiers in general. The relative clause may be introduced by a relativizer, or they may be formally unmarked. In Bunong, the demonstrative determiner iː also functions as relativizer, as seen in (198). (198) Bunong kə̤p rəwat rawɛːh iː cʰa reːb ta nɛʔ 1sg buy elepant rel eat herb loc there ‘I bought the elephant that is eating grass there.’

Khasi and Pnar use a relativizer together with the appropriate noun class marker to introduce postnominal relative clauses. The noun class marker agrees with the head noun. (199) Khasi ka=briew ka ba tʰoʔ siti f=person f rel write letter ‘the woman who writes a letter. . .’

68

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(200) Pnar man kɔ ka=kn̩ .ten ka wa jar bha. be 3sg.f f=word f rel wide very ‘It is a very wide/encompassing word.’

Khmer, Kammu, Sedang, and other languages use a relativizer to introduce relative clauses. The relativized function of the head noun covers different ranges in different languages, including possessive and oblique roles in Khmer and Kammu. A relativizer is also used in Kui relative clauses with the referentiality marker as a dummy nominal head. (201) Khmer mənùh dael khɲom nɪ̀jɪ̀ːəj human rel 1sg talk ‘the man about whom I talk’ (202) Kammu c.mə̀ʔ kə̀m kə̀ túk púas k.nìʔ rope rel 3sg.m tie deer medl ‘the string with which he had tied the deer’ (203) Kammu kòn kə̀m róːj.ʔèːs túk hŕ.màːl k.nàːj person rel area.spirit tie soul dist ‘the person whose soul the area spirits have tied’ (204) Sedang tədroə̰ŋ ki ʔa̰ ˀnaj thing attr 1sg know ‘the things I know’ (205) Kui ʔaː ləm kuəj bɒn srɒn mənia~mənia ref rel person beg ask how.many~red ‘That which the people had begged [during the past year].’

The relative marker in Danau appears in the immediate preverbal position, and the relative clause precedes the modified head noun. This non-typical position of both the whole relative clause and the relative marker could be due to Burmese influence, which has the same syntactic structure.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

69

(206) Danau kɐntʰɯ̄ =nə mə̀ pəʔ swe tū nɐ̄ ɔ=nə tū ɲɯŋ jɪn yesterday=top 2sg rel eat curry that=top curry meat chicken ‘The curry you ate yesterday was chicken curry.’

Headless relative clauses functioning as nominals exhibit the same structure as headed relative expressions. The relativizer may be omitted, as in example (207). (207) Danau ɐn tə̄ŋ tʰə̀ mɛʔ nɐ̄ ɔ=nəʔ kɐt soʊʔ kədɯ 3sg prog sit obl dist=top under tree pine ‘Where he is sitting is under a pine tree.’

Old Mon uses a relativizer ~ to introduce attributive clauses. Similar to Danau, Middle Mon places the relativizer directly before the verb, but in Mon the whole relative clause follows the modified head noun. This structure is found also in literary Mon, while the relativizer has been all but lost in most varieties of colloquial Mon. The following examples illustrate the development of relative clauses in Mon. (208) Old Mon (Shorto 1971: 123) mirmas guṇ ma smiṅ ʔiñcim jirku. remember favour rel king sustain body ‘He remembered the favors with which the king had sustained him.’ (209) Middle Mon (Shorto 1971: 282) gal9an dewat9au ma huim word god rel speak ‘the words that the gods spoke’ (210) Literary Mon həlàn ɲèh mə=hɒm kɔ̀ h word person rel=speak medl ‘the words that he spoke’ (211) Modern Mon ʔərè ɗɛh hɒm language 3 speak ‘the words he spoke’

70

Jenny, weber and weymuth

In Mlabri, relative clauses, like other subordinate clauses, are adjoined to their head noun without being formally marked. Like other subordinate clauses, relative expressions are not frequently used in the language and examples are hard to find in the texts. (212) Mlabri [β] (Rischel 1995: 190) khep mɤm maʔ ʔoh ʔa ɲon, ʔa tac slippers father give 1sg nsit neg.exist nsit break ‘The slippers father gave me are used up, they’re broken.’

Also other AA languages put the attributive clause after the head noun without using overt relative markers. (213) Bugan ʔɔ³¹ ʑaɯ³¹ bɔ⁵⁵ mə³³ bɔ⁵⁵ mda³³ te³¹ qou³³ nan⁵⁵~nan⁵⁵ 1sg see star one clf shine very bright idioph~red ‘I saw a star (which was) shining bright.’ (214) Chong nēːm ʔuːt ʔuːɲ kat.praʔoː pēn neːm̤ .ŋɔ̄ ʔ tree father cut yesterday be rambutan.tree ‘The tree that father cut down yesterday is a rambutan tree.’ (215) Kơho baːr nəm sraʔ təj ʔaɲ kʰaj bləj ŋaj ʔɔr dɔ two clf book French 1sg 3sg buy day previous prox ‘these two French books of mine he bought yesterday’ (216) Dara’ang Ɂo nap Ɂikăt tuc dɨ dɔj 1sg know elder sit goal there ‘I know the elder (who) sits there.’ (217) Kui kəː pə̤ːʔ cuəh tʰaːw bɛc kuə lɜŋ pə̤ːŋ brɒw 1sg see tiger lie sleep be.at in cave mountain ‘I saw a tiger sleeping in a mountain cave.’

In some languages, the relative clause is marked not by a clause initial relativizer, but rather by a clause final referential marker, indicating that the clause is

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

71

to be understood as non-predicative expression. One case in point is Mon, as seen in example (218). (218) Mon kɤ̀ʔ tɛ̀h ɓɛ̀ʔ kon ŋèə həkaoʔ klàj kɔ̀ h. get hit ref offspring frog body seek medl ‘He got the little frog he was looking for (by coincidence).’ (NM_frog01)

Old Khmer and Vietnamese use a general linker or subordinator to introduce relative clauses. (219) Old Khmer saṅ khñuṃ jmaḥ khdic ’añ jvan ta vraḥ śivaliṅga make slave name pn 1sg offer link holy śivaliṅga ‘[He] made [me] the pious gift of a slave named Khdic, whom I offered up to the holy śivaliṅga.’ (220) Vietnamese Nhà (mà) Ø bán giò.chả ở đa�u đường giàu. house comp sell k.o.sausage reside head street rich ‘The family that sells sausage at the beginning of the street is rich.’

3.2.2 Complement Clauses Complement clauses most frequently occur as clausal arguments of verbs of saying, perception, and cognition. In many cases, perhaps in the majority of instances, complement clauses are unmarked and directly adjoined to the matrix clause. This is also the case when more than one complement clause occurs in a sentence, as in the double embedded construction in the Sedang example (222). Unmarked complement clauses can easily be found in most branches of AA, as illustrated by the following examples. (221) Vietnamese Nhiều người Hà.Nội gốc tha�y là mình tinh.tế hơn many person Hanoi root see cop self sophisticated more người khác. person different ‘Many old-time Hanoians think that they are more sophisticated than other people.’

72

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(222) Sedang ʔa̰ taŋ waj to̰ j kla̰ hiə̰ŋ ka co̰ j 1sg hear 3sg tell tiger already bite deer ‘I hear (that) they say (that) a tiger has killed a deer.’ (223) Kui kəː kət paːj daːʔ.kʰiəl haj sɔt me̤ːn.te̤ːn 1sg think say honey 1 pure intns ‘I think that my honey is pure indeed.’ (224) Pnar jo-luti ɔ bam kɔ see-way 1sg eat 3sg.f ‘I hope she eats.’

In Semaq Beri, the complement clause is not marked by a subordinator and usually follows the matrix clause, though it may precede it. (225) Semaq Beri ʔəɲ btʰɔŋ swak~swak gaʔ bri 1sg be.afraid walk~cont goal forest ‘I am afraid to keep walking in the forest.’ (226) Semaq Beri kɛ, kɨŋ kɛ kʰɛʔ
 3sg make.shelter 3sg know ‘Her, she knows (how) to make a shelter.’

Also when embedding questions, both polar and content, as in the following Bunong, Chong and Mlabri examples, no complementizer is necessary but the question is apparent by the presence of the question word. (227) Bunong (Bequette 2008: 79) paŋ iriː oːp cə̤t mɔːh naw maj 3sg FOC ask more what matter 2sg.m.poss ‘He (the bull owner) asked further, “What is your problem?”’ (228) Chong wa̤ːj tʰ9aːm wə̤t cʰaː panih tiger ask search eat where ‘A tiger asked “where will you find the food?”’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

73

(229) Mlabri mɔj sop leh ɗaj lɛh 3sg ask come can q ‘He asks if he can come.’

An overt complementizer may be used optionally in Bunong and Chong, though, as illustrated by the following example. (230) Bunong (Bequette 2008: 50) kə̤p ntoːn lah ntro̤ j maj ŋan 1sg suspect comp fiancée 2sg.m.poss truly ‘I suspected that she was really your fiancée.’ (231) Chong pʰɨ̄ən tʰ9aːm lok ʔiːn pih wə̄j friend ask sub exist what disc ‘Friends ask what it happened.’

Car uses a general linker, which also serves other functions, to introduce complement clauses. (232) Car vɛ́ːɲə náŋ cɔ́ ːn tə́ cu min ŋac umúh tell ear John link 1sg.poss fut finish loc.dist ‘Tell John that I will be there.’ (233) Car kɔ́ ːʔtəkúːʔ cáʔa, tə́ ɔ nə kucíːkə ɽɔ́ ŋ find 3du.pl link 3sg.anim 3 tasty fruit ‘They found that it’s fruit was tasty.’

Khmer, Kui, Kammu, Dara’ang and Mon, among others, use a grammaticalized verb ‘say’ to introduce complement clauses, besides the possibility of asyndetically joining them to the matrix. (234) Khmer (Jacob 1968: 100) krùː prap khɲom thaː kmeːŋ nùh prəlɔːŋ cɔːəp. teacher tell 1sg say boy dist sit.for.examination pass ‘The teacher told me that the boy will pass the examination.’

74

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(235) Kui pɛːn suər paːj naːw mɜʔ haːn mṳːt baːŋ ʔɛŋ ʔəː Pen tell say 3 neg dare enter stream ana.dist emph ‘Pen says he doesn’t dare to enter that stream.’ (236) Kammu km̀ .múʔ tŕ.kə̀t sáh lòːk kì ʔàh sáːm cèn Kammu believe say world prox have three level ‘The Kammu believe that this world has three levels.’ (237) Dara’ang daraɁaŋ ɲɨm tauh boŋ Ɂakja kɨn~kɨn dɨ pən dɨ houɁ wpn believe tell make merit lot~red goal get goal ascend məŋdεŋ heaven ‘Dara’ang people believe (that) making lots of merit will make them be able to go to heaven.’ (238) Mon ɲèh thiəŋ.həjaʔ kɛ̀h rɔ̀ ə həkaoʔ khjɒt ʔa jaʔ 3h think say friend body die go nsit ‘He thought that his friend was dead.’

In the following example from Danau, two independent clauses are juxtaposed and the whole sentence can be read as ‘I called you, did you hear me?’. (239) Danau ō heiʔ mǝ̀ mǝ̀ on 1sg call 2sg 2sg hear ‘Did you hear me call you?’

jɐ̂ q

An alternative construction in Danau is to have the complement clause precede the matrix like a fronted topic. This is also a frequent construction in Mon, where the fronted complement clause is overtly marked as topical or non-predicative by the medial demonstrative. (240) Danau ɐn=nə ɐn klɐj tɯ̀ lò kətʰê ō on tʰənəʔ=nə 3sg=top 3sg become perf person rich 1sg hear like.that=top ‘I heard that he has become a rich man.’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

75

(241) Mon kɤ̀ʔ pɔŋ.phak ʔa mùə.han kom.kaoʔ kao plàj get associate go together with older.brother young.man kɔ̀ h tɔ̀ h hùʔ màn raʔ medl be neg win foc ‘It is impossible that I will stay together with you, my brother.’ (MKP)

3.2.3 Adverbial Clauses Adverbial clauses cover a wide range of functions and do not form a structurally or semantically uniform category. This is reflected by the greatly diverging constructions found in the different AA languages to express adverbial information about the clause. The main functions expressed by adverbial clauses include conditional, causal, temporal, and manner, among others. As with other subordinate clauses, many AA languages employ an asyndetic strategy, juxtaposing two formally independent clauses. This strategy is available for different functional types of adverbial clauses. This leads in many cases to an ambiguity in the expression which must be resolved by the context. (242) Kammu mè ʔùːn ʔòʔ tèʔ sɨ́p màn, ʔòʔ cə̀ ʔə̀h 2sg.m give 1sg get ten piastre, 1sg irr do ‘If you give me ten piastres, I will do it.’ (243) Mlabri [β] (Rischel 1995: 193) kibi bi:ʔ boŋ di chɛʔ neg satisfied eat link much ‘If you aren’t full yet, eat some more!’ (244) Dara’ang Ɂăn raɲ ɡan kasɔ ʔăn pən rən ʔicak 3sg do work hard 3sg get money little ‘(Though) he works hard, he gets small amount of money.’ (245) Danau ō pə-ljɐk jɪ̄n ɲɐ̄ =nə ɐn mɐ̀ mɐ̃ ɔ tɯ̀ 1sg nfin-arrive return home=top 3sg already dark perf ‘When I arrived home, it was already dark.’

76 (246) Danau ɲɯŋ wæx=nə ō kʰrɯ̄ k meat cow=top 1sg like ‘Although I like beef, I don’t eat (it).’

Jenny, weber and weymuth

mə̄nɔʔ, ō lɐ-swe kɔʔ stat 1sg neg-eat neg.cop

(247) Pacoh ʔrbaŋ bɔː mat lɨː sky rain cool very ‘When it rains, it’s very cool.’ (248) Pnar man da slap, tɛ happen real rain nvis ‘When it rains, then it is cold.’

kʤam be.cold

Besides unmarked, and therefore often ambiguous, subordinate clauses, overt subordinators are commonly found in many languages in different functions. These markers may or may not have transparent semantics, that is, they may be synchronically linked to lexical verbs or nouns. In Chong, the conditional subordinator tʰ9aː is clearly a loan from Thai tʰâː ‘if’. (249) Chong tʰ9aː me̤ː ʔuːɲ dak ceːn || cʰ9an kɔ̄ ː tɔ̄ ŋ ceːw ʔih if mother father 3 come 1sg then must go neg ‘If their parents come, I do not go with them.’ (250) Khmer (Haiman 2011: 316) baə ʔaoj daə taːm thɔːəmmedaː, prəhael mɯ̀ n dɔl tèː. if give walk follow normal perhaps neg arrive neg ‘If [they] had made me walk normally, I might not arrive at all.’ (251) Sedang taŋ cuo tɔ̰ poj ta wɛh ʔoh if in.law laugh imp neg turn neg ‘If you (my in-law) laugh, don’t turn away.’ (252) Bunong (Bequette 2008: 51) lah aj ŋkɔ̤ːn aj ɔn ta̤ːk wiː . . . if 2sg.f cook 2sg.f put.aside water rice.water . . . ‘If you cook rice, you put aside the rice water for me . . .

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

77

(253) Dara’ang se Ɂo mə̆h rən Ɂo dɨ raɲ kaŋ kamaj if 1sg have money 1sg goal do house new ‘If I have money, I will build a new house.’ (254) Kui prənɒː bɜː mia cənap lic tuɒn həːj krənaː tomorrow if rain strong flood again nsit road ‘If it rains hard tomorrow the road will be flooded again.’ (255) Mon jɔ̀ ʔuə hùʔ chɤ klɤŋ ɲèh mùə hùʔ chɤ if 1sg neg find come person one neg find ‘If I hadn’t found it, no one would have found it.’ (256) Pacoh nam ʔarbaŋ bɔː kɨː ləjʔ boːn cho̰ ː tuː duŋ if weather rain 1sg neg get return to home ‘If it’s raining, I can’t go home.’

The conditional subordinator in Danau occurs as a prefix on the verb, rather than in clause initial position. (257) Danau lo-si-nì kəlē də-pəʔ=nə̀ ō kɨ̂ now-day-prox rainfall cond-rain=top 1sg go ‘If it rains today, I won’t go to Aungban.’

kɔʔ ŋbæ̃ ̂ ɛ̆ neg.cop Aungban

Temporal clauses may be expressed by a subordinator. They may express anteriority, simultaneity, or posteriority. (258) Bunong (Bequette 2008: 51) ce̤h caː plɔn hjak ri ɲut lah . . . after eat eggplant type dist pn say . . . ‘After (she) ate that eggplant, Nhut said. . .’ (259) Khasi katba u la da tʰjaʔ ki la leʲt haŋtaj while m pst ins sleep pl pst go there ‘While he slept they went there.’

78

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(260) Khasi ɨnda ka la dep baːm dep diʔ ka la ʃim ja when f pst finish eat finish drink f pst take acc ka=ʃaŋkwaːj ban baːm kwaːj. f=betel-basket inf eat betelnut ‘When she finished eating and drinking, she took the betel-basket to eat betelnut.’ (261) Kui pɒ̤ h cɛːn bəːn kuəj naːw taʔ caː swaːj to̤ ʔ when ripe get person 3 pick eat mango dist ‘When [they are] ripe, people will pick and eat those mango’s over there.’

Causal subordination is usually expressed by a clause initial conjunction. Danau is exceptional here in having a clause final causal marker. This may be due to influence from Burmese, which consistently uses clause final subordinators. (262) Vietnamese Duy ngủ không sâu vì hàng.xóm đang xây nhà. pn sleep neg deep because neighbor prog build house ‘Duy does not sleep well because the neighbors are building a house.’ (263) Sedang ga̰ ko̰ pa̰ŋ rədej klaj suə̰ ga̰. pa.seə̰ŋ weə̰ŋ ga̰ mɛ 3sg prox able strong what because 3sg father.spirit help 3sg so ‘This one was quite strong because he—the father spirit—helped him.’ (264) Kui cɒw.rɜː naːw səʔiə bəːn bəːn naːw kʰɒm.wuɒ kaːr cənap because 3 want get get 3 make.effort labour strong ‘It’s because he wants to get [it] that he’s working so hard.’ (265) Danau kʰæ̃ ̂ wæ̃ ̂ sɐʔouʔ hō hɔʔ (kʰɐũ� ) ō æ̃ ̂ kɨ̂ mɛʔ tǝ-sʰɐĩ purp buy book exist cop (because) 1sg fut go obl all-shop ‘I will go to the shop in order to buy a book.’ [‘. . . because there is a need to buy a book.’]

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

79

(266) Danau jwɐn.swe kæ̃ ɛ̆=nə̀ kʰɐ̃ ɔ̂ ̆ son.klɛ̀ hɔʔ lu hɔʔ believe karma=top because sacrifice cop donate cop ‘Because you believe in karma, you give away possessions, you perform charity.’

Causal clauses in Kammu are formed with the instrumental preposition jʌ̀ ‘instrumental’ or the subordinator pʰɔ́ ʔ wà, borrowed from Tai. (267) Kammu jàːm jʌ̀ tè cə̀ pə́ pɨ̀an pə̀ʔ màh mɨ̀ s.kí cry ins refl irr neg can eat rice day today ‘[I] am crying because I will not be able to eat anything today.’ (268) Kammu kĺ.ʔàːk nɔ́ ŋ jíaŋ cén kʰ.ɗíʔ, pʰɔ́ ʔ.wà trɨ́al tà kə̀ jʌ̀ crow still black until now, because pheasant paint 3sg.m ins kǹ.sáh charcoal ‘The crow is still black until now because the pheasant painted it with charcoal.’

Danau has a special negative clause final subordinator mɐ̄ to mark subordinate clauses with the meaning ‘without V-ing’’. The structure and function of this subordinator is similar to the corresponding Burmese negative subordinator mə-V-pɛ̀ ‘neg-V-neg.sub’, which may be have served as model of the Danau construction. (269) Danau ɐn mə-swe kɔʔ bɯ̄ mɐ̄ ɐn kɨ̂ pon nthɯn 3sg irr-eat neg.cop rice neg.sub 3sg go exit out ‘He went out without eating.’

A common structure found not only in AA languages, but also other languages of Southeast Asia, is the use of a (topic-comment) linker (tcl) to connect clauses. The linker, which may otherwise function as topic marker as in Mon, is usually placed between the two clauses and can be translated as ‘then, but, because, so’, among other possibilities, depending on the context. The first clause may or may not be introduced by a subordinator. Through prosodic reanalysis, the linker may become attached to the first clause, resulting in what looks on the surface like a clause final subordinator.

80

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(270) Mon pɤ̀m.praŋ pèh nɔʔ jɔ̀.raʔ wətɒə tɛm klɤŋ chɤ teh, appearance 2 prox if pn know come find top ɗɛh chanɗu noŋ, pèh thiəŋ ha. 3 pity asrt 2 think q ‘Do you think Wati would feel pity for you if she knew about your condition and came to see you?’ (271) Dara’ang mε si haw mɨ haw 2sg want go tcl go ‘(If) you want to go, then go.’ (272) Kơho dilah gəs jət naʔ caw taːm rəndɛh, gɛn hat ŋan if exist ten clf people loc vehicle tcl crowded very ‘If there are ten people in the car, then it is very crowded.’ (273) Kơho kʰaj at do paŋ sraʔ, gɛn sraʔ ruŋ de uː 3sg hold one clf paper tcl paper fall to ground ‘He held a sheet of paper, (and) it fell to the ground.’

Purposive clauses are frequently expressed by a verb meaning ‘give’, which in many languages also has permissive, jussive, or general causative meaning. (274) Khmer (Bisang 1992: 442) kɔːət prap tɤːu kmeːŋ ʔaoj jɔ̀ ːk tɤːu cùːn cɔmpùəh nɛːək.srɤj bɔndoːl. 3sg tell go boy give take go give to Miss pn ‘He told the boy to take [the parcel] and deliver it to Miss Bondol.’ (275) Pacoh pḛːh cɛːn ɟo̰ ːn kɨː ŋɔjʔ daːʔ get glass give 1sg drink water ‘Get a glass for me to drink water.’

In Kammu, the verb ‘give’ appears to have come to indicate conditional relations as well. The following example can possibly be paraphrased as ‘Let your stone sing and we will give you all this merchandise’.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

81

(276) Kammu (ʔùːn = ‘give’?) ʔùːn klàːŋ mè k.nìʔ tə́ːm sáh, ʔìʔ cə̀ mʌ̀t kʰɔ́ ŋ.krùa if stone 2sg.m medl sing quot 1pl irr take merchandise kì ʔùːn mè tèʔ lòːc prox give 2sg.m get exhaust ‘If your stone sings, we will give you all this merchandise.’

3.3 Clause Chaining and Coordination In many AA languages, clauses expressing individual, but connected events can be chained without overt linker. An intonational pause may or may not occur between the clauses, and the status of the clauses as dependent or independent is not always clearly definable. Also the distinction between chained events and serial verb constructions is not always obvious, as the definition of a single event vs. multiple events can be elusive. Frequently, paratactic chaining is used when there is no change of subject from one clause to the next, and the events occur in consecutive order. (277) Old Khmer dep saṅ goś9ala duk thpal ta gi saṅ chp9ar next build stable assign herd link it build garden ‘[They] next built a cow stable, assigned a herd to it, [and] made a garden’ (278) Bunong (Philips 1973: 132) ɲup paŋ choŋ klup təm ntrṳŋ catch 3sg carry throw loc pen ‘Catch it, carry it over and throw it into the pen.’ (279) Pacoh kinoː kɨː poːk mamɔjʔ boːn pḛɲ kunɛː yesterday 1sg go hunt get shoot deer ‘Yesterday, I went hunting and was able to shoot a deer.’ (280) Kui beːʔ.re̤ːn ʔɛːl kɒŋ cih ciə dɔŋ ciə student take bicycle drive go house go ‘The students took their bikes and rode back home.’

krɔːj back

82

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(281) Kammu r̀.wàːc k.máŋ tè, cùːr tà kàːŋ, rù hḿ.ràŋ, pàk grab sword refl go.down loc house lead horse, ride hḿ.ràŋ tè jɔ̀ h horse refl go ‘[He] grabbed his sword, went down from his house, fetched his horse and rode away.’ (282) Danau ō jɪ̄n mɛ 1sg return fut ‘I’ll go home and eat.’

ɲɐ̄ house

jɪ̄n return

swe eat

bɯ̄ . rice

The two clauses may also express a contrast, without overt concessive marker, or they may include different subjects, as in the example from Chong. In this case, there is an intonational pause between the clauses, which are syntactically independent. (283) Danau ɲɯŋ wæx=nə ō kʰrɯ̄ k meat cow=top 1sg like ‘Although I like beef, I don’t eat (it).’

mə̄nɔʔ, ō stat 1sg

lɐ-swe neg-eat

kɔʔ neg.cop

(284) Chong lūŋ tʰɔː sūən || tʰɔm kɨj tɔŋ kʰīlɛ uncle do garden aunt stay home disc ‘My uncle is planting garden and my aunt is staying at home.’

A number of languages use dedicated coordinating conjunctions, such as the Chong disjunctive particle rɨ̄ ‘or’ (probably from Thai rɯ̌ ː ‘or’) or Kui rɜː ‘and’, which occurs together with the clause final inclusive marker lɒŋ. (285) Chong kʰe̤ːc ceːw cʰuːn rɨ̄ː ʔuːɲ kɛ̄ː dak ceːn c9a 2sg fut go send or father 3 come receive ‘You will send (her) home or her father will come (to take her home).’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

83

(286) Kui prənɒː haj ciə srɛː croːt srɒː lɒŋ wa̤h daːʔ tomorrow 1 go fields harvest rice incl make.incision water srɛː lɒŋ rɜː taʔ pələj cətɒːŋ lɒŋ. fields incl and pick.pluck fruit beans incl ‘Tomorrow I go to the fields to harvest rice, to regulate the water and to pick beans.’

In other cases prepositions are used to join clauses or sentences, as in Kơho, where the instrumental marker mə appears in coordinating function. (287) Kơho ŋgum kɔj mə pʰɛ ŋkʰjaŋ kʰaj 3sg winnow paddy ins separate uncooked.rice ‘She winnows the paddy and [she] separates the rice.’

An additive marker ‘also, even’ after the first clause may indicate concessive or consecutive events, as in Dara’ang. (288) Dara’ang ma tauh dɨ mana bə hom dop ɡuɲ Ɂăn lε mana mother tell goal pn wait eat with father 3sg add pn tu bǝ neg wait ‘Mother told Mana to wait and eat with her father, but Mana did not wait.’

Some languages employ more or less desemanticized verbs like ‘finish’ to link events, as seen in Mon. (289) Mon kraoh pèh həlɒ̀ c kətɒ nù kəmot toə kəliəŋ.cao klɤŋ kəpac male 2 shake rise abl fire finish return come side hɒəʔ pèh raʔ. house 2 foc ‘Your husband got up from the fire and came back to your house.’

84

Jenny, weber and weymuth

3.4 Questions Interrogative expressions are of two types, namely polar questions and content questions. Polar questions may be marked only by a change of intonation, usually a rise of pitch towards the end of the sentence. (290) Dara’ang mε dɨ tăh kəɲ̊ a tomorrow 2sg goal come ‘Tomorrow, will you come again?’ (291) Kammu mè mʌ̀t mɨ́ar 2sg.m take loincloth ‘Did you take my loincloth?’

pɔlεɁ again

ʔòʔ 1sg

(292) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 369) beghma, am ɖaʔ uʈh=oˀb? pn 2sg water drink=act.pst.2sg ‘Beghmna, did you drink water?’

In Kui a yes-no question can be asked with a raising intonation clause finally, or with a falling final pitch if the topic is fronted. (293) Kui ʔaːw niː prox shirt ‘Is this your shirt?’

maj ↑ 2

(294) Kui maj niː ↓ ʔaːw shirt 2 prox ‘Is this your shirt?’

Very common are sentence final questions particles, which mark the utterance as an interrogative. (295) Dara’ang mε dɨ loŋ dop khu hεɁ 2sg goal descend with teacher q ‘Will you go down (from Angkhang mountain) with me?’

85

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview (296) Mon pèh ciəʔ pɤŋ 2 eat cooked.rice ‘Have you eaten?’

toə finish

(297) Kammu kì pɔ̀ kùːɲ plàːŋ rɔ̀ t 2pl see pn come prox ‘Have you seen Plàaŋ coming here?’ (298) Mlabri mɛh kɔbɔ ɟak 2sg neg go ‘Aren’t you going?’

ja ʔ nsit

ha. q

há q

lɛh q

(299) Kơho me lɔːt draːʔ 2sg.m go market ‘Are you going to market?’

səl q

(300) Semaq Beri gi lompot bəh, beh bəh? hn 3pl flee q neg q quot ‘“Have they fled, or not?” he (asked himself)?’

kɛ
 3sg

(301) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 370) kinbhar=te munga daru on=oˀb no, courtyard=obl munga tree plant=act.pst.2sg q ‘Did you plant the munga tree in the courtyard, oh mother?’

m9a mother

joy. voc

Some AA languages, for example Chong, have different question particles, expressing different kinds or nuances of polar questions. The exact functions and meanings of these particles are not always clear or retrievable from the available material. (302) Chong cəʔ ʔ9aj pʰ9aj meet addr Phai ‘Did you see Phai?’

ʔih q

w9a sp

86

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(303) Chong hiw plɔŋ hungry cooked.rice ‘Are you hungry?’

hiːt q

In Danau, the allomorphy of the question particle seems to be caused by the phonetic environment, though the rules are not clear. (304) Danau mə̀ sù kəɲwɐ̄ n 2sg walk path ‘Are you walking?’ (305) Danau ō tʰɯ̄ tənī 1sg sit there ‘Can I sit there?’

bɪ̃ get

ɐ̂ q

jɐ̂ q

Clause initial interrogative particles also occur, though apparently less commonly than clause or sentence final markers. (306) Sedang ʔa̰j ʔa hom ʔo̰ j q q remain exist ‘Is there still more wine?’

drow wine

neo̰ more

(307) Kammu k.màʔ rɔ̀ t ɓéc hŋ́ .kúːr q storm rain come ‘Has there been a rainstorm?’

Another possibility to express polar questions encountered in AA languages is by juxtaposition of the affirmative and negative form of the predicate, or by adding a negative element as question marker.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

87

(308) Pnar ha ka=ʧi-snɛm, ʧi-sen ʧi-snɛm ʤoʔ laj phi nɛ m̩ loc f=one-year one-time one-year same go 2pl tag neg ɛm nɛ, mɔ have tag q ‘Once a year also, you go or not?’

Content questions contain an interrogative pronoun or adverb, which usually occurs in situ, that is, in the position where the element about which information is asked would occur. Temporal interrogatives in Kui are distinguished as to whether the event is in the past (təh naː) or in the future (pɒ̤ h nia). Both forms are found in situ. (309) Kui ciə pʰsaːr pɒ̤ h.nia go market when ‘When do [you] go to town?’ (310) Kui təh.naː kɒːn maj n̩ druh sɛːŋ when child 2 fall descend ‘When did your child fall from the house?’ (311) Chong cʰɔː tap tōŋ nih dog bite loc where ‘Where did the dog bite you?’ (312) Mlabri naŋsɯ ʔoh dɔk gəlɛŋ book 1sg put where ‘Where [shall] I put the book?’ (313) Kui maj səʔiə ca ː ntuɒ. 2 want eat what ‘What do you want to eat?’

rɜː from

dɔŋ house

88

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(314) Kammu pàːr klám mə̀ʔ cə̀ who irr carry two ‘Who will carry two [loads]?’ (315) Dara’ang mε və̆h malouh dop mase 2sg open door with what ‘With what did you (use to) open the door?’

Interrogative pronouns and adverbs may be fronted as in the following examples. Mon also allows some fronted interrogatives, most commonly mùʔ ‘what’, to be resumptively repeated in situ. (316) Mon hɒm. mùʔ ɗɛh what 3 speak ‘What did he say?’ (317) Mon ʔaŋkəlòc kɔ̀ h mùʔ ɗɒc klɤŋ mùʔ. English medl what ride come what ‘What did the English ride when they came here?’ (318) Kơho nteːŋ me lɔːt where 2sg.m go ‘Where are you going?’

(tajh) (q)

(319) Pacoh ʔa.məh maj pa.pi: what 2sg say ‘What are you saying?’

In Kharia, the interrogative pronouns or adverbs regularly appear in the immediate preverbal position, which is the default focus position in this language. (320) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 370) laʔ tama raij ber calay=e. then now kingdom who drive=act.irr ‘Now who will lead their kingdom?’

89

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

Some AA languages have a sentence final content question marker, which is different from the polar question marker. Danau uses the same question marker in content questions as in polar questions. The use of the content question marker is often optional. (321) Mon hnòk ʔɒt kɔ̀ h klon ʔəwao older.brother big all medl do ‘What does your oldest brother do?’ (322) Kơho me lɔːt nteːŋ 2sg.m go where ‘Where are you going?’

mɔ̀ ŋ stay

mùʔ what

rao. q

(tajh) (q)

(323) Pacoh tikuəj pako̰ h viː klɨŋ jaːʔ people Pacoh have many family.names ‘Do the Pacoh people have many family names?’

ləʔj q

(324) Danau dəmwɐ̀-rɐ̂ where-q ‘Where?’ (325) Danau ɐn lɯ kətʰɐn 3sg desire what ‘What does he want?’

ɐ̂ q

Car uses a special set of subject pronouns in interrogative expressions. (326) Car sítih kanɔ́ ːʔŋəváhtíːʔ how catch.prfv ‘How did you catch it?’

ʔəm 2sg.sub

tə́ rel

(327) Car iɽɔ́ ːŋə ʔac véː how.many 3du.pl.q prox.pl.anim ‘How many men there are!’

ʔɔ 3sg.anim.q

tarík people

90

Jenny, weber and weymuth

Alternative questions may be either formed by a disjunctive conjunction, or by parallel affirmative-negative questions, as in Mon, or by juxtaposing two lexemes with opposite meanings, as in Old Khmer. (328) Mon pèh ket pɤŋ ha, 2 take cooked.rice q ‘Do you want rice or a snack?’

kwaɲ sweets

ha. q

(329) Old Khmer vnaṃ khvuṅ d9ap ○ khvuṅ hill high low high ‘Is the hill high or low? [It] is high’

3.5 Imperatives Imperative expressions are used to issue commands to the addressee. In many cases, the most simple form of an imperative expression is the plain verb, with or without the addressee overtly expressed. (330) Chong kʰɨŋ kəpaw hold bag ‘Hold my bag!’

ʔɨt give

mɔŋ. also

(331) Kammu mʌ̀t ˀwɨ́ar jɔ̀ h kɨ̀t take knife go cut ‘Go cut it with a knife!’ (332) Mlabri (mɛh) (di) 2sg link ‘Smile!’

rɛʔ smile

(333) Mlabri mɛh gʌm ɟak 2sg proh go ‘Don’t go [there]!’

kə̀. 3sg.m

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

91

(334) Khasi leʲt go ‘Go!’ (335) Khasi kʰala.kʰala wan come soon ‘Come soon!’

A downtoning word may be added to an imperative expression in order to soften the one and make the expression appear more polite. The downtoner may be a sentence particle or a lexical verb, often with a meaning like ‘ask’, ‘invite’, or similar. (336) Khmer (Bisang 1992: 439) soːm taː ʔɔɲcɤ̀ːɲ6 ask grandfather invite ‘Please, you go and thank him.’ (337) Kơho ɗəs mham ʔet dan please speak fast little ‘Please speak a little faster.’

tɤːu go 6

ʔɔːkùn thank

kèː 3sg

coh. imp

taj more

In other cases, an imperative marker is added, as in Kơho and Kui, or a reinforcing verb, frequently with the lexical meaning ‘go’, is added, as seen in the Chong example. (338) Kơho lɔːt laʔ, ʔaɲ ʔɑːʔ go imp 1sg neg ‘(You) go, I’m not going!’

lɔːt go

6  ʔɔɲcɤ̀ːɲ is a polite word that typically is used to show respect, and has nothing to do with imperatives—e.g. ‘Grandfather went’ would also use ʔɔɲcɤ̀ːɲ (Franklin Huffman p.c.).

92

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(339) Kơho lɔːt tɛʔ bal.mə bɔl.hi go imp with 1pl.excl ‘(You) come along with us.’ (340) Kui ciə maj sɒh go 2 ascend ‘Go into the house!’

dɔŋ house

ciə imp

(341) Chong ceːw leː̤ŋ ŋa̤ːˀj~ŋa̤ːˀj ceːw go play far~red go ‘Go and play far from here!’

Negative imperatives or prohibitives are often expressed differently from negative statements by employing a special prohibitive marker. This will be discussed in section 4.3.3. 3.6 Pragmatics and Syntax Many AA languages exhibit strong tendencies towards pragmatically determined sentence structure. Constituents can be fronted for informationstructural or other pragmatic effects, and retrievable or known arguments can freely be omitted. Topicalization is much favored already in the Old Khmer inscriptions. Topicalized NPs are commonly but not always introduced by the prepositions ri ~ ri e, e, or nau ~ nau ru. Typically, topicalized NPs serve as the direct object, brought up to the sentence head. Occasionally they are the subject, and are followed by an anaphoric pronoun, or a genitive NP. Example of a genitive topic: (342) Old Khmer k9ap thpvaṅ nau ta yokk neḥ ta roḥ neḥ ti pre top link take prox link manner this link order chop head ‘Of those who take these aforesaid—[the executioner] shall be ordered to cut off [their] heads.’

Similar constructions are found in many AA languages, often without overt marking of the topic and with a wide range of semantic roles of the fronted element.

93

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview (343) Khmer (Haiman 2011: 211) cɪ̀ːə bɤj phtɛːəh thmɤj nɪ̀h kèː khan house new prox 3pl divide be three ‘This new house, they divided into three rooms.’

bɔntùp. room

(344) Mlabri naŋsɯ ʔoh dɔk gəlɛŋ book 1sg put where ‘Where [shall] I put the book?’ (345) Kammu kʰ.ɗíʔ prìaŋ pháːn sɨ́aŋ, prìaŋ pə̀ʔ ʔàh sɨ́aŋ, sɔ́ ʔ prìaŋ pə́ pháːn now people kill pig, people eat meat pig, dog people neg kill ‘Nowadays people slaughter pigs and eat pork, but dogs they don’t slaughter.’ (346) Mlabri kap boŋ duck eat ‘(We do) eat ducks.’ (347) Mon mənìh prèə kɔ̀ h ɲèh kok.khao human female medl person call ‘The woman was called Mi Lim Canay.’

ciəʔ eat

mìʔ.lìm.cənaj pn

raʔ. foc

(348) Pacoh kərnaː ʔn.nɛh ʔipoːk ʔɔː lɨː road prox 3sg.go good very ‘As for this road, one goes well.’ or ‘This road is very good to go on.’ (349) Dara’ang maɡreih haj Ɂăn hεɁ bear ferocious 3sg already ‘The ferocious bear, he already killed.’

ŋauh kill

If the subject is topicalized in Pnar, the clause structure is AVP, with fronted object the constituent order becomes PVA.

94

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(350) Pnar u=bru ʧim u ka=wat̪ m=person take m f=sword ‘the man, he took the sword’ (351) Pnar ka=wat̪ ʧim u=bru f=sword take m=person ‘the sword, the man took (it)’

In Mon, fronted topical arguments are usually, though not obligatorily, marked as such by the medial demonstrative kɔ̀ h. This is also true in clauses with recursive fronting, that is, with the A argument fronted after the object has been moved to the clause initial position. In this case the A can be resumptively expressed by a pronoun in situ. (352) Mon ʔəpa ʔuə (kɔ̀ h), ʔərɛ̀k ( ɲèh) hùʔ sɤŋ, ɓɔk ( ɲèh) hùʔ sɤŋ. father 1sg medl liquor person neg drink cigar person neg drink ‘My father, he doesn’t drink, nor does he smoke.’

Danau and other AA languages have dedicated topic markers. (353) Danau mǝ̄nɐ̃ɔ khɯ̀ =kɐ̄ khɯ̀ .sû ē pɐj kɔʔ mɛ̀ speech 3pl=top pol 1pl can neg.cop epist ‘We could not speak their language (as you probably know).’

A more elaborate form of topic marking in Danau involves the embedding of the topicalised NP between the preposition kwe ‘on’ and the demonstrativetopic marker complex nì=nǝ or nɐ̄ ɔ=nǝ. (354) Danau kwe ǝlu.ǝtæ̃ ̂ ɛ̆ pɯ̄ nɐ̄ ɔ=nǝ, nɔǝ̆t kǝdɐj nì hō kɔʔ on charity 2pl dist=top mind stinginess prox exist neg.cop ‘When it comes to your being charitable, [there should be] no meanness of spirit.’

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

4

95

Grammatical Categories

4.1 TAM and Directionals 4.1.1 Tense and Aspect The grammatical category tense is not present in the majority of AA languages, though some languages express a distinction future vs. non-future grammatically. This is usually achieved by a particle indicating future tense, though it is not clear that the marker glossed as ‘future’ is not rather a marker of irrealis or probability, and should be treated as indicator of modality rather than of tense. (355) Kơho nam daʔ kʰaj rəp lɔːt year next 3sg fut go ‘Next year, I will go to Đà Lạt.’

tam to

Daːlaːc Dalat

(356) Danau ō æ̃ ̂ ɛ kɨ̂ tǝ-shɐ̃i 1sg fut go all-shop ‘I will go to the shop.’

Besides the preverbal future marker æ̃ ̂ ɛ, Danau also employs a posterbal marker mɛ, which appears to be a loan from the Burmese postverbal future or irrealis marker mɛ. (357) Danau ō jɪ̄n mɛ 1sg return fut ‘I’ll go home and eat.’

ɲɐ̄ house

jɪ̄n return

swe eat

bɯ̄ . rice

Khasi overtly marks past and future tense, while the present remains unmarked. The future marker appears as a clitic on the subject. (358) Khasi ki la wan pl pst come ‘They came.’

96

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(359) Khasi ki=n wan pl=fut come ‘They will come.’

In Car, future and past are marked overtly by free markers. The past tense is also indicated by the use of a special set of past tense pronouns. (360) Car kaláh cin min jih try 1sg fut come ‘I will try to come to you.’

ʔin obl

mɛh 2sg.poss

(361) Car heŋ taka ək misíːʔ tafísi tə one person 3sg.pst pst widow link ‘Once there was a widow who had four children.’

fɛːn four

manɨ́k clf

kuːn child

Kharia and other Munda languages mark past and present tense together with active and middle in fusional morphemes. The future is expressed by the irrealis marker, which is also fused with the voice marker. These markers are clitics which may attach to verbal or nominal elements alike. (362) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 295) koɖpuɽuʔ=ki gam=na=ʔ hosiyar gam man=pl say=inf=gen intelligent say ‘Men call themselves intelligent in (= of) speech.’

ɖom=ta=ki. refl=mid.prs=pl

(363) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 297) u kamu ikon=oˀj. this work do=act.pst.1sg ‘I did this work.’

Imperfective events are expressed by the addition of an aspect marker or a verb with lexical meaning ‘continue’ or ‘be at, stay’. (364) Pacoh ʔacaːj ʔat toːŋ older.sibling be.at say ‘What are you saying?’

ʔaməh what

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

97

(365) Sedang da̰ deə loj ʔɛh 2sg continue water release ‘You continue to pour out (the liquid).’ (366) Bugan ʔɔ³¹ sai³³ 1sg dur ‘I’m writing.’

pioŋ¹³ write

(367) Bugan mɛ⁵⁵ be³⁵ ʦu³¹ ʔɔŋ³⁵(¹³) child hold cont sugar.cane ‘This boy is holding two sugar canes.’ (368) Danau ɐn tɐ̄m swe 3sg prog eat ‘He is still eating.’

bi³¹ two

ʦʰe¹³ clf

bɯ̄ rice

In Kharia, different morphemes are used to express imperfective, perfective, inceptive and progressive, among others. The imperfective marker laʔ appears as free morpheme, to which tense and person markers may be cliticized. The main predicate appears in the infinitive. (369) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 342) khaɽiya lebu=ki pujapaʈh katay=na laʔ=ki=may. Kharia man=pl sacrifice do=inf ipfv=mid.pst=3pl ‘The Kharia men used to perform sacrifices.’

Imperfective markers may also appear in negated contexts, as in the following example from Danau. (370) Danau ɐn khɐ kɨ̂ kɔʔ ŋbæ̃ ̂ ɛ̆ 3sg cont go neg.cop Aungban ‘He hasn’t gone to Aungban as yet.’

Perfective situations are often expressed by the addition of a secondary verb with intrinsic telic meaning, such as ‘throw’, ‘complete’, or ‘finish’. The latter has

98

Jenny, weber and weymuth

in a number of languages developed into a marker of ‘new situation’ (nsit), an aspectual category widespread in Southeast Asia which expresses that a situation has been established after a change of state. In negated expressions, the reading is regularly ‘not anymore’. nsit expressions are often (wrongly) translated or analyzed as perfect or past tense. It is not always evident from the available material whether an element glossed as past or perfect(ive) is actually an nsit marker or not. This is the case in the following example from Kơho and Car, where ŋác has the lexical meaning ‘finish’. (371) Kơho kʰaj nɛh lɔːt tam Daːlaːc 3sg pst go to Dalat ‘S/he went to Đà Lạt yesterday.’

ŋa j day

(372) Car jɔ́ ːklə ŋác ŋam ʔám (nə) climb finish def dog 3 ‘The dog climbed up on his back.’

i ʔúk on back

ʔɔr previous

ɔ 3sg.anim

In Khasi, it is not clear whether the preverbal dep ‘finish’ expresses only completed events (perfective), or also events that have begun (nsit). (373) Khasi ɨnda ka la dep baːm dep diʔ ka la ʃim ja when f pst finish eat finish drink f pst take acc ka=ʃaŋkwaːj ban baːm kwaːj. F=betel.basket inf eat betelnut ‘When she finished eating and drinking, she took the betel-basket to eat betelnut.’

In Kui, the sentence final particle həːj is apparently a loan from Khmer haəj ‘finish, nsit’. (374) Kui haj wuɒ bəːn həːj 1 make get nsit ‘I have done/completed it.’

99

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview (375) Kui to̤ ʔ cɛːn həːj swaːj mango dist ripe nsit ‘That mango is already ripe.’

Other languages have the category nsit, but the marker is not related to the verb ‘finish’, or any other known lexical source, as is the case in Mon and Mlabri. (376) Mon ɲèh thiəŋ.həjaʔ kɛ̀h rɔ̀ ə həkaoʔ 3h think say friend body ‘He thought that his friend was dead.’

khjɒt die

ʔa go

(377) Mlabri [β] (Rischel 1995: 190) khep mɤm maʔ ʔoh ʔa ɲon, ʔa slippers father give 1sg nsit n.exist nsit ‘The slippers father gave me are used up, they’re broken.’

jaʔ. nsit

tac break

(378) Mlabri ki a-pluŋ neg nsit-hot ‘not hot anymore’

The spread and exact range of functions in different languages, both Austroasiatic and others in Southeast Asia, is still to be established and needs more in-depth research in the relevant languages. 4.1.2 Modality Like aspect, modality is mostly expressed in AA languages by secondary verbs. One common construction is a main lexical verb combined with a grammaticalized verb meaning ‘get’ to express possibility or similar notions. This pattern is very widespread throughout Southeast Asia and beyond (Enfield 2003). In the following example from Kammu, the lexical meaning of the verb pɨ̀an ‘get’ is still transparent, while it is more bleached in other instances. The position of potential ‘get’ is either preverbal or postverbal.

100

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(379) Kammu pə́ pɨan pə̀ʔ màh mə̀ʔ pə́ hóːc hń.túʔ cń.tràŋ tè indf neg finish hole pole refl neg get eat rice ‘Those who have not finished their hole for the pole will not get anything to eat.’ (380) Dara’ang Ɂăw pən dɨ kauɁ Ɂăn neg get goal bite 3sg ‘The bear was not able to bite him.’ (381) Sedang ka pin ca 1pl.incl get eat ‘We can eat boar.’ (382) Danau mə̀ swe nɐ̄ɔ 2sg eat that ‘You can eat that.’

bɪ̃ get

rəka̰j boar

mə̄nɔʔ stat

In Mon, the verb kɤ̀ʔ ‘get’ occurs in two postverbal position, either directly after the main verb, or after the object. The reading of the two structures is different, as illustrated in the following examples. (383) Mon ɗɛh rɔ̀ p kɤ̀ʔ kaʔ. 3 catch get fish ‘He caught a fish.’ (‘He succeeded in catching a fish.’) (384) Mon ɗɛh rɔ̀ p kaʔ kɤ̀ʔ. 3 catch fish get ‘He can catch fish.’ (‘It is possible/allowed for him to catch fish.’)

Other modals are frequent in preverbal position, expressing different notions. Their lexical sources are in many cases not known and they must be regarded as purely grammatical markers in many languages. In Khasi, some modal verbs are linked to the main verb by the infinitive marker.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview (385) Kui mɒːŋ mɜʔ kɜːt haj səʔiə ʔɒːn sɛːm.saːj pələj kroːc 1 des give relatives fruit orange but neg exist ‘We want to give oranges to my relatives, but we don’t have many.’ (386) Danau ō (kǝ)lɐ swe 1sg dare eat ‘I dare to eat it.’

101 kəlɜŋ much

mə̄nɔʔ stat

(387) Khasi u=n ʤinda m=fut may ‘He may go.’

leʲt go

(388) Khasi u dej ba n m must inf ‘He must eat.’

baːm. eat

(389) Khasi u=n sa laʔ m=fut definitely able ‘He will be able to go.’

ban inf

leʲt go

In Kharia, the lexical verb lam ‘look for’ is used as postverbal desiderative auxiliary and appears with the infinitive of the main predicate. Tense and person markers are attached to the auxiliary. (390) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 347) iɲ u ikuˀɖ sundar kontheˀɖ=ki=te bajhay=kon satay=na 1sg prox very beautiful bird=pl=obl trap=seq torment=inf um=iɲ lam=te. neg=1sg want=act.pres ‘I don’t want to trap these beautiful birds and torment them.’

4.1.3 Directionals Secondary verbs with lexical meanings ‘come’ and ‘go’, as well as a small number of others, function in many AA languages as directionals with spatial as well as temporal meaning.

102

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(391) Chong m9an hɔːt ceːw 3 drag go ‘It drags (him) away.’ (392) Chong ne̤ːw~ne̤ːw coːk ceːn c9aːk child~red run come from ‘The children run from their home.’

tɔŋ home

(393) Mon klɒ kɔ̀ h həɗiəŋ krìp ʔa teh, hətum ceh ʔa ɗɔə ɓi. dog medl chase run go top fall descend go loc river ‘As the dog ran after the deer, it fell down into a river.’ (394) Khmer (Bisang 1992: 442) kɔːət prap tɤːu kmeːŋ ʔaoj jɔ̀ ːk tɤːu cùːn cɔmpùəh nɛːək-srɤj bɔndoːl. 3sg tell go boy give take go give to person-woman pn ‘He told the boy to take [the parcel] and deliver it to Miss Bondol.’

Mon has a kind of transitivity harmony in complex predicates involving a main verb and a directional. If the patient is principally affected by the event described by the transitive predicate, the directional must appear in the transitive/causative form. If the agent is principally affected, the directional remains in the basic/intransitive form, irrespective of the transitivity value of the main verb. The choice of the form of the directional in Mon is obviously based on affectedness, rather than syntactic transitivity. (395) Mon ɗɛh pɛ̀k ʔa ka. 3 follow go car ‘He drove the car (away from here).’ (396) Mon ɗɛh pɛ̀k na klèə. 3 drive caus.go cow ‘He drove the cattle (away from here).’

4.1.4 Other Secondary Verbs Other secondary verbs can be used to express notions that are not easily classified and do not fall in the categories of tam or directionality. One example

103

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

is a morpheme expressing non-volitionality or non-intentionality of the agent, indicating that he or she did something without meaning to do it or without considering the consequences. In Mon, the verb tɛ̀h ‘hit, touch, come into contact with’ is used in this function. In Danau, no lexical source has been identified. (397) Mon kɤ̀ʔ tɛ̀h ɓɛ̀ʔ kon ŋèə həkaoʔ klàj kɔ̀ h. get hit ref offspring frog body seek medl ‘He got the little frog he was looking for (by coincidence).’ (398) Danau ō swe mɛ̃j bɯ̄ frɐ̄ 1sg eat nvol rice Buddha ‘I accidentally ate the rice (meant as an offering) for Buddha.’ (399) Danau mə̀ pə-heiʔ ō=nə 2sg nfin-call 1sg=top ‘I didn’t hear you calling me.’

ō 1sg

lɐ-on neg-hear

mɛ̃j nvol

kɔʔ neg.cop

Other secondary verbs found in AA languages combine aspectual with manner notions. A verb with the lexical meaning ‘eat’, for example, expresses that something is done regularly or habitually, with a connotation of inward-directedness or self-benefactive. A verb meaning ‘throw, throw away’ is often used to indicate that an activity is carried out completely and impulsively, often irreversibly. The verbs involved in these constructions and the range of functions varies greatly among AA languages, so that hardly any general pattern across the family can be established. 4.2 Causative and Passive Constructions Besides the morphological causatives described in section 2.3.2, many AA languages also have the possibility to form causatives periphrastically. This is frequently achieved by a preverbal auxiliary or secondary verb with the lexical meaning ‘give’. This pattern is widespread in the languages of Southeast Asia, and also found in other parts of the world, though the exact form of the construction may vary considerably. In some cases the lexical semantics is transparent, as in the following example from Pacoh, while in other cases the verb ‘give’ is more grammaticalized. The structure commonly found in AA languages is ‘CAUSER GIVE CAUSEE V’, with the causee appearing as subject of its own predicate. This construction is already found in Old Khmer. In modern Khmer,

104

Jenny, weber and weymuth

‘give’ may occur on its own or in connection with the verb meaning ‘do, make’. The latter construction is also found in Khmer and Mon, especially with nonhuman causers. (400) Old Khmer ta sruk pvan oy śapata ’anak give swear person link village four ‘to administer the oath to men of four villages’ (‘make them swear to the men of the four villages’) (401) Pacoh pḛːh cɛːn ɟo̰ ːn kɨː ŋɔjʔ get glass give 1sg drink ‘Get a glass for me to drink water.’

daːʔ water

(402) Khmer (Haiman 2011: 316) baə ʔaoj daə taːm thɔːəmmedaː, prəhael mɯ̀ n dɔl if give walk follow normal perhaps neg arrive ‘If [they] had made me walk normally, I might not arrive at all.’

tèː. neg

(403) Mon ʔəŋàn mùə ŋuə ɗɛh kɒ, ɗɛh kwɒ klon raʔ, ɗɛh kɒ quota one day 3 give 3 neg.give make foc 3 give cù raʔ ʔiʔ-kɔ̀ h ɗɛh kɒ cù. rest foc nml-medl 3 give rest ‘They gave us (the money) for one day’s work quota, then they wouldn’t let us work anymore, they let us rest; they let us rest like then.’ (404) Khmer (Bisang 1992: 441) thvɤ̀ː-ʔaoj khɲom ceh.tae cɔŋ nɪ̀ːjɪ̀ːəj cɔŋ khɤ̀ːɲ heːŋ make-give 1sg constantly want speak want see pn ‘[This] made me constantly want to talk and to see you, Heng.’ (405) Mon kja pɒc paʔ kɒ taj wind blow do give hut ‘The wind destroyed the hut.’

lɤ̀m destroy

ʔa. go

ʔaeŋ. 2sg

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

105

The periphrastic permissive causative in Kharia is formed by combining the main predicate in the infinitive with the verb ter ‘give’, which takes tense and person markers, or combines with aspectual auxiliaries. (406) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 347) beʈ=ɖom kosu buŋ jhalay=kon kamu=na=jo um son=3poss sickness ins be.troubled=seq work=inf=add neg ter=na laʔ=ki. give=inf ipfv=mid.pst ‘With her son suffering so much from the illness, [his mother] didn’t even let him work.’

In Bugan, periphrastic causatives are constructed with ŋgɔ̱³⁵, which is derived from the lexical meaning ‘to drive out’. (407) Bugan xo̱ u̱³⁵ ‘ride (a horse)’ pa̠ɯ̱³¹ ‘get up’

ŋgɔ̱³⁵xo̱ u̱³⁵ ŋgɔ̱³⁵ pa̠ɯ̱³¹

‘to make/force sb. to ride (a horse )’ ‘to make sb. get up’

In other cases, such as Kammu and Danau, the lexical source of the periphrastic causative marker is not known. (408) Kammu kə̀ lə̀ tòk k.sés róːŋ 3sg.m then caus fall mouth.harp ‘He then dropped his mouth harp (by mistake).’

tè refl

(409) Danau mɐj ɐn=nǝ sho kɨ̂ lùpē ŋbæ̃ ̂ ɛ̆ mother 3sg=top caus go child Aungban ‘The mother sends the child to Aungban.’ (lit: His mother makes the child go to Aungban.)

Few AA languages have special morphological or periphrastic passives. Frequently, unmarked verb forms can receive passive reading, depending on the context. A limited number of NPs in Old Khmer consisting of a head + genitive dependent, when attributive to a head, can be interpreted as passivized by virtue of their position. In this case the genitive dependent may be said to function as the agent.

106

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(410) Old Khmer lon sre pradāna poñ riceland gifted title pn ‘Rice land gifted by the poñ Lon’ (411) Old Khmer . . . prasap sre daṃnuñ chloñ vidy9amaya . . . abut field purchased title pn ‘. . . [it] abuts on the ricefield purchased by the chloñ Vidyāmaya’

Old Khmer and Old Mon have particles marking the passive. In Old Khmer, the marker ti is of unknown origin, while Old Mon ñin is related to an AA verb root meaning ‘receive, accept’ (Shorto 1971: 133). Note that the verb cincon in Old Mon can be translated as ‘decorate’ or ‘be decorated’, that is, the passive marker is not compulsory to achieve passive reading. The agent in Old Khmer is not demoted to an oblique role but apears in its normal preverbal position. No passive clause with overt agent is found in the Old Mon data. (412) Old Khmer mrat9añ oy ta ti vraḥ sruk sre ta village field link pass lord give link holy ‘village [and] ricefields which were given by the lord to the divinity’ (413) Old Mon (Shorto 1971: 132) dinṅal thar ma ñin cincon mirror gold rel pass decorate ‘a golden mirror set with gems’

na ins

rat gem

In Vietnamese, the passive voice can be expressed by one of a number of auxiliaries. Like in Old Khmer, the agent is not demoted in these constructions but appears in the position before the main verb and does not receive any oblique marking. (414) Vietnamese Quyển sách này do Vũ.Trọng.Phụng viết clf book prox pass pn write ‘This book was written by Vũ Trọng Phụng in Hanoi.’

ở reside

Hà.Nội. Hanoi

In Jahai, progressive forms can be used with passive meaning and the patient is marked as subject. Nothing in the morphology of the verb indicates the passive function, though.

107

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview (415) Jahai (Burenhult 2005: 158) ka=gtah, wa=bk-ʔɛk wa=bk-ʔɛk irr.3sg=prog-give sbj=rubber irr.3sg=prog-give ‘Rubber will be given, oil palms will be given.’

ka=klapah.sawit sbj=oil.palm

Kơho and Pnar have passive markers, the use of which results in the patient appearing as subject and the agent being demoted to an oblique role. (416) Kơho caːl paːʔ mpoːŋ wind open door ‘The wind opened the door.’ (417) Kơho mpoːŋ gə-paːʔ mə caːl door pass-open ins wind ‘The door was opened by the wind.’ (418) Pnar ʧ aʔ pn̩ -jap ka=khla ha pass caus-die f=tiger loc ‘the tigress was killed by the man’

u=bru m=person

In Car, as one of the few AA languages with a morphological passive, the suffix -ə is attched to the verb stem, which may in turn be expanded by aspect and other markers. This suffix has a number of allomorphs: ə ~ a ~ Ø ~ əŋə ~ və ~ u ~ u(ə). The patient appears as subject of the clause, and the agent is demoted to an oblique role, marked with the general linker tə. (419) Car mɨ́kka ən ŋíh look.ipfv.pass 3sg.prox prox.sg.inan ‘This book is looked after by Jane.’

líːpərɛ book

tə link

céːn. pn

4.3 Negation The constructions of negative sentences in the AA languages are very diverse, so that hardly any feature can be found that may be claimed as general AA. There may be a tendency for preverbal negation, but for too many languages no or only little data is available, so that a valid conclusion is not possible. There is no negator that is reconstructible to the protolanguage, though a number of negators or words used as negators are found

108

Jenny, weber and weymuth

in languages from different branches. A negator found in Mlabri (kɔbɔ), Danau (kɔʔ), and a number of Munda languages (Ho, Mundari ka) contains the initial k-. In Old Mon, the verb kaḥ is a negative copula, which may be related. Another negator that originates in a verb is AA *ʔət ‘lack, be finished, exhausted’, which is found as negative marker in Car (ʔət) and Munda languages (Gorum or-, Juang ar-). 4.3.1 Statements Austroasiatic main negators may be particles, negative auxiliaries, pronominalized negators or negative copulas. Preverbal negators usually have narrow scope over the following verb, while negative copulas and clause final negators may have wide scope over the clause. The main negator in most AA languages is a preverbal particle, as seen in in Vietnamese and Dara’ang. (420) Vietnamese thảo không làm ở khoa. pn neg work reside faculty ‘Thảo does not work at the faculty.’ (421) Dara’ang sanaɁ mɨ tu gun tcl neg ‘Gun, (I) don’t have.’

mə́h have

In many Munda languages, the negator is a negative auxiliary that gets the person marking from the main verb, like in Santali. (422) Santali (Neukom 2001: 149) ba-ko baḍae-a. neg-3pl know-ind ‘They don’t know.’

Muöt (Nancowry) has three negative particles and additionally also a set of pronominalized negators. These are probably the result of a contraction of the personal pronouns with the negative particle nit (Rajasingh 2013: 56). Example (423) contains the first person singular pronominalized negator. (423) Muöt (Rajasingh 2013: 56) cit juaŋsisɛ ʔitcaccə 1sg.neg prog read ‘I am not reading this book.’

nɛʔ leːpəɹɛ. prox.vis book

109

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

The principal negator in Danau is the postverbal negative copula kɔʔ. The prefix lə-, attached to the main verb, is optional in colloquial speech. (424) Danau ō (lǝ-)kɨ̂ lɔn 1sg (neg-)go accompany ‘I won’t go with you.’

kɔʔ neg.cop

mǝ̀ 2sg

Postverbal negation is also found in Rumai (unlike other Palaung varieties) and Chong, in the latter case interchangeably with a preverbal negator. (425) Chong cʰăn ceːw wə̤t mɛʔ tɛ̀ː mɛʔ 1sg go meet grandmother but grandmother ‘I went to meet my mother but she was not there.’

kɨj stay

ʔih neg

(426) Rumai ʔɐwː mʌk mă tho. 1sg like neg bean ‘I do not like beans.’

A negative copula may also be used to negate nonverbal predicates like in Pacoh. (427) Pacoh ʔrviət ʔn.nɛh ʔih pen prox neg.cop ‘This is not your pen.’

ʔm.maj 2sg.poss

Nonverbal predicates in Mon are negated by the postposed form hùʔ siəŋ ‘it is not (the case that)’, with hùʔ, the general negator in Mon, and siəŋ ‘be so’. (428) Mon həkaoʔ nɔʔ kɔ̀ h ʔəca kəsao body prox medl teacher nml.write ‘She (knew that she) was no writer.’

lɛ add

hùʔ neg

siəŋ. be.so

In addition to the main negators, there are several features like emphasising negative particles, negative verb forms and negators for other purposes. Mon has a final negative particle pùh that reinforces the negation. In colloquial speech, pùh sometimes occurs without the main negator hùʔ.

110

Jenny, weber and weymuth

Additionally, there are some frequent verbs with a labial infix as negation marker, like in kwɤ̀ʔ (kɤ̀ʔ ‘get’). Both features are shown in example (429). (429) Mon pèh ʔa kwɤ̀ʔ 2 go neg.get ‘You cannot go.’

pùh neg

A clause-final negator also occurs in Khmer. In colloquial informal speech, it is used either alone or, with a certain emphatic effect, together with a preverbal negator. (430) Khmer mdaːj mɯ̀ n thvɤ̀ː mhoːp mother neg make meal ‘Mother is not making the meal.’

(tèː). neg

In Dara’ang (Ruching) and in the other varieties of Palaung, Shwe and Rumai, there is a preverbal negator ɲ̥am ‘not yet’, the origin of which is unknown. There may be a connection with the homonymous verb with the meaning ‘be dilatory; be stiff’. (431) Dara’ang ɲ̊ am hɔc r̥aɲ. kaŋ house not.yet finish do ‘The house has not finished (being built) yet.’

4.3.2 Interrogative Sentences Mlabri simple negative sentences are built by inserting a preverbal negative particle, the same also counts for interrogative sentences. (432) Mlabri mɛh kɔbɔ ɟak 2sg neg go ‘Aren’t you going?’

lɛh. q

In Rumai, there are two different question particles used, namely lʌh for positive (433) and mɯ for negative (434) questions.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview (433) Rumai maj haːw lʌh pa 2sg go q loc ‘Do you go to work?’

111

jɯːŋ. work

(434) Rumai maj haːw mă mɯ 2sg go neg q ‘Do you not go to work?’

pa loc

jɯːŋ. work

4.3.3 Prohibitive A number of AA languages use a special marker for prohibitive expressions, which is different from the general negation marker. The negative imperative is often expressed by a clause initial prohibitive particle like in Chong, Khmer, and Khasi. (435) Chong cʰaː kʰɔ̄ ːŋ puk ma̰ːj proh eat thing rotten ‘Do not eat the rotten food!’

lɔː. disc

(436) Khmer (Huffman 1970: 174) kom dak mtèːh craən pèːk proh put chili much too.much ‘Don’t put too much chili on it.’

nɤh. excl

(437) Khasi wat leʲt proh go ‘Don’t go!’

In Semelai the prohibitive particle bɔy is used clause initially, but there is a difference between intransitive (438) and transitive (439) negative imperative clauses in that transitive verbs, unlike intransitive ones, host the irrealis marker ma= (Kruspe 2004: 337). (438) Semelai (Kruspe 2004: 336) bɔy ʔyotǃ proh return ‘Don’t go backǃ’

112

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(439) Semelai (Kruspe 2004: 337) ʔəɲǃ bɔy ma=kɔŋ proh irr=hit 1f ‘Don’t hit meǃ’

Kơho has a prohibitive marker, which co-occurs with the imperative marker.7 (440) Kơho baɲ ɲim taj ɲɔʔ tɛʔ proh cry more laugh imp ‘Don’t cry any more, laugh!

Negative imperatives in Danau include the default negative prefix lɐ- and an additional prohibitive suffix -nɐʔ on the verb. (441) Danau lɐ-kɨ̂-nɐʔ! neg-go-proh ‘Don’t go!’

There are also languages that use an overt second person pronoun subject. In Kammu this pronoun is optional. (442) Kammu tá (mè) 2sg.m proh ‘Don’t bite me!’

pók bite

ʔòʔ 1sg

4.3.4 Symmetry Many Austroasiatic languages have symmetric structures of positive and negative sentences such that, except the insertion of the negator, there is no difference between the positive sentence and its negative counterpart. This feature occurs also in Mon.

7  This is common in other AA languages as well, such as Khmer and Vietnamese (Franklin Huffman p.c.).

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview (443) Mon nɔʔ ʔuə ʔəpat hətaʔ week in.front prox 1sg ‘Next week I will go to Yangon.’

ʔa go

(444) Mon ʔəpat hətaʔ nɔʔ ʔuə hùʔ week in.front prox 1sg neg ‘Next week I will not go to Yangon.’

113

ʔəkɤ̀ŋ. Yangon

ʔa go

ʔəkɤ̀ŋ. Yangon

As already mentioned, in many Munda languages the negator gets the person marking from the main verb (see also (422)). This leads to an asymmetry like in Kharia, where the negative marker is um. (445) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 335) juŋ=oʔ=may. ask=act.pst=3pl ‘They asked.’ (446) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 335) umay8 juŋ=oʔ. neg.3pl ask=act.pst ‘They didn’t ask.’

8

In Rumai symmetric structures are very common. However, the future marker nɐŋ cannot occur in negative sentences. (447) Rumai ʔɐwː nɐŋ dih caʔuʔ 1sg fut read book ‘I will read this book.’

niːn. prox

(448) Rumai ʔɐwː (*nɐŋ) dih mă 1sg fut read neg ‘I will not read this book.’

caʔuʔ book

8  from *um=may ‘neg=3pl’ (Peterson 2011: 335).

niːn. prox

114

Jenny, weber and weymuth

4.4 Demonstratives The demonstrative systems found in AA languages vary from simple twoway distinctions to elaborated multi-dimensional systems. Car has only two degrees of distance, proximal and distal, but different forms are used according to animacy and number. In the case of dual animate, no difference seems to be made between proximal and distal, and some of he distal forms look like derivates of the corresponding proximal demonstratives. (449) Car Proximal ŋɔ́ h sg.anim véː pl.anim náː du.anim ŋíh sg.inan nɛ̃ ́ pl.inan

Distal ŋamɔ́ h mɛ̃ː́ ná\ː ŋamúh minɛ̃ː́

sg.anim pl.anim du.anim sg.inan pl.inan

Three grades of distance are found for example in Sedang, Mon, and Kharia. They include proximal (near the speaker), medial (near the hearer or medium distance from both the speaker or hearer, depending on the language), and distal (away from both hearer and speaker, may be visible or invisible, often non-specific). (450) Sedang ko̰ prox mɛ medl ta̰ dist (451) Mon nɔʔ prox kɔ̀ h medl tɤʔ dist (452) Kharia (Peterson 2011: 183) u prox ho medl hin, han dist

In Kui, the three degrees of distance indicate proximal, distal-visible, and distal-invisible.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

115

(453) Kui niː prox to̤ ʔ dist tɨh nvis

While many languages use the demonstratives exophorically and anaphorically, Kui has a special set of anaphoric demonstratives. (454) Kui nɛŋ ana.prox ʔɛŋ ana.dist ʔɛɲ ana.emph

Kơho makes a five-way distinction, with two medial demonstratives and the distinction between visible and non-visible. The non-visible demonstrative also serves as anaphoric. Similarly Semaq Beri distinguishes five degrees of remoteness, with three distal demonstratives, including one for remote places, usually on a vertical axis, and one for invisible referents. The medial demonstrative in Semaq Beri also serves as anaphoric. (455) Kơho dɔ nɛ dɛn/gɛn daʔ həʔ

‘this’ (closer to speaker; the first of a pair of objects being compared or contrasted) ‘that’ (object not proximate but equidistant from speaker and addressee) ‘that’ (closer to addressee, not speaker) ‘that’ (the second of a pair of objects being compared or contrasted) ‘that’ (not visible, spatially or temporally; anaphoric, indicating old information)

(456) Semaq Beri9 nɔ̃ ʔ prox təʔ medl ʔin dist.vis ʔɛn dist.vert hnɛ̃ʔ nvis 9  The Semaq Beri demonstrative system is not fully understood yet and the labels used here are tentative.

116

Jenny, weber and weymuth

In Kammu the demonstratives differentiate four degrees of closeness in relation to the speaker and listener, as well as a height dimension indicating a location higher or lower than the speaker or speech situation. (457) Kammu kì prox nìʔ medl nàːj dist1 hóʔ dist2 ɗɨ́ŋ dist.up súʔ dist.down

close to speaker close to listener away from speaker and listener far away higher than speaker lower than speaker

Similar systems are found in Khasi, which has six degrees of remoteness and displacement on the vertical axis. In Khasi, the demonstratives are combined with the noun class markers or prepositions to form different kinds of demonstrative expressions. (458) Khasi ne prox to medl taj dist ta nvis tej dist.up tʰie dist.down

Closely related Pnar does not seem to make a distinction on the vertical axis, but differentiates five degrees of remoteness from the deictic center. (459) Pnar ni te tu taj tɛ

prox medl dist1 dist2 dist3

within reach of speaker just out of reach, visible slightly farther away than te quite far away, possibly out of sight, but known to speaker and hearer out of sight, potentially unknown to speaker and hearer

Pacoh makes an eight-way distinction, including fore/higher, aft/lower and beside for medial and distal demonstratives. In the proximal degree, these distinctions are neutralized for obvious semantic reasons. The first medial

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

117

degree, which is also neutralized in terms of the vertical and horizontal axis, is presumably used also in anaphoric function. It it noteworthy that the second medial and distal degrees are distinguished iconically by vowel length alone.10 (460) Pacoh Distance prox medl1 medl2 dist

Neutral ʔnnɛh / nɛh ʔŋkoh / koh

Fore/Higher

Aft/Lower

Beside

ʔntih ʔntiːh

ʔnto̰ h ʔnto̰ ːh

ʔntrah ʔntraːh

4.5 Pronominal Systems 4.5.1 Personal Pronouns The systems of personal pronouns in AA languages fall broadly into two types. On the one hand, there are languages with minimal grammatical distinctions in their systems but elaborate honorific distinctions. Real personal pronouns are often avoided in these languages and replaced by kinship or professional terms, or terms designating a social status or function. In many cases these terms are semantically bleached and have come to be generally used like real pronouns, though the original lexical meaning is usually still present. One case in point is the polite Khmer first person pronoun khɲom, which originates in the homonymous noun meaning ‘slave, servant’. On the other hand, there are languages with purely grammatical sets of pronouns, often distinguishing singular and plural, in many cases also dual, and inclusive vs. exclusive in the nonsingular first person prounouns. A number of languages have reduced sets of pronouns, with number distinction only in the first person. A more detailed overview and historical study of AA personal pronouns is given in Pinnow (1965). Examples of the first (honorific) type of pronominal system, if they may be called this, are Khmer and Vietnamese.

10  A similar phenomenon is sporadically encountered in other AA languages, e.g. in Mon, where a remote distal is formed by lengthening the vowel of the distal, that is, tɤʔ ‘that’ becomes tɤːʔ ‘that far away’. There is no way to indicate this distinction in Mon orthography, and the form is not generally accepted as ‘correct’.

118

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(461) Khmer 1st sg: khɲom ʔaɲ ʔaːtmaː tùːl-bɔŋkùm 1st pl: jɤ̀ːŋ 2nd: nɛːək nɛək-srɤj ʔaeŋ lòːk lòːk-srɤj chan 3rd: kɔ̀ ət vɪ̀ːə kèː prɛəh-ʔɔŋ

speaker is acting humble or polite speaker is arrogant or on intimate terms with addressee speaker is a monk speaker addressing royalty neutral addressee is younger or of lower status addressee is a woman of middle class addressee is of much lower status addressee is older or of higher status addressee is a married female of higher status speaker and addressee are both monks referent is respected other referent is disrespected other referent may be any other referent is royalty or clergy

Grammatical pronominal systems may include as few as four basic forms, as seen in Mon, where only the first person distinguishes between singular and plural. In the second and third persons a secondary distinction of politeness is found. (462) Mon 1sg 1pl 2 3

11

ʔuə poj pèh ɗɛh

(informal ɓɛ̀ʔ;11 formal mənɛ̀h) (honorific ɲèh)

In other languages, all persons distinguish singular and plural. This is seen for example in Danau. (463) Danau sg 1 ō 2 mə̀ 3 ɐn

pl ē pɯ̄ khɯ̀

11  The intimate form ɓɛ̀ʔ is a special use of the referential marker/dummy nominal head. It is considered rude by most educated speakers.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

119

Mlabri distinguishes three numbers in the first and second persons. The plural forms are built from the dual by adding tʰɤŋ ‘five’, which is also used as a plural marker. (464) Mlabri sg 1 ʔoh 2 mɛh 3 mɔj

du ʔ ah ba h mɔj

pl ʔah thɤŋ bah thɤŋ mɔj

One frequently found pronominal system in AA languages makes a three-way number distinction and have different forms for inclusive vs. exclusive first person non-singular. This is exemplified by Dara’ang, Sedang, the Northern Aslian Ceq Wong, and Mundari. Note that in Sedang dual and plural are neutralized in the second person. (465) Sedang 1excl 1incl 2 3 (466) Dara’ang

sg ʔa̰

du ma̰ pa̰ ʔɛh pɔ̰ ga̰ prḛj

mε ʔăn

du j aj Ɂaj baj ɡaj

pl je Ɂe be ɡe

(467) Ceq Wong sg 1excl ʔiŋ 1incl 2 mɨʔ̃ 3 ʔuh

du jah h ay juh teʔ

pl jaʔ ( jaʔ paʔ) hɛʔ jin gən

1excl 1incl 2 3

sg Ɂo

pl ŋin pin pɔ̰ w aj

120

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(468) Mundari (Osada 2008: 109) sg du pl 1excl añ aliŋ ale 1incl alaŋ abu 2 am aben ape 3 aeʔ akin ako

A number of languages make further distinction of masculine vs. feminine in the second and or third person. One example is the Northern Aslian Menriq, which neutralizes number distinctions in the second person. (469) Menriq 1excl 1incl 2m 2f 3

sg ʔəɲ

kɛ

pl yɛ hɛ

heʔ ja

gi

Kammu makes a gender distinction in the second and third person, but does not have the inclusive vs. exclusive distinction. In the second person dual and plural the gender distinction is neutralized, as is the number distinction in the third person masculine. (470) Kammu sg 1 ʔòʔ 2m mè 2f pà 3m kə̀ 3f nà

du ʔàʔ s.pá s.pá kə̀ s.ná

pl ʔìʔ pɔ̀ pɔ̀ kə̀ nɔ̀

Standard Khasi distinguishes three genders (masculine, feminine, neuter/ diminutive) only in the third person singular, while Pnar makes the distinction in second and third person singular. The basic personal pronouns of the third person are identical to the noun class markers. The second person in Khasi does not have a number distinction.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview (471) Khasi 1 2 3m 3f 3n (472) Pnar

1 2m 2f 3m 3f 3n

sg ŋa pʰi u ka i

121

pl ŋi ki ki ki 12

Topic/oblique sg pl ŋa i me phi pha phi o12 ki ka ki i ki

Default/post-verbal sg pl ɔ i mi phi phɔ phi u ki kɔ ki i ki

The most complex set of personal pronouns is probably found in the Nicobarese languages, as exemplified here by Car. In Car, there are different forms of pronouns for different syntactic functions, including subordination and interrogatives, and the pronouns can be contracted with subordinators and other grammatical markers, such as negators and modals. The following list only shows the non-past forms of the pronouns of Car. A fuller discussion can be found in the chapter on Car in this publication. (473) Car 1sg 1du.excl 1du.incl 1pl.excl 1pl.incl 2sg 2du 2pl

sbj cin(i) ʔan ʔan ʔin ʔin man(a) nan jin(a)

inter ʔəcu ʔajə ʔəjah ʔəjih, ʔihə ʔəjiʔə ʔəmɛh ʔanah ʔəj

sub ʔəc ʔəʔaj ʔəj ʔəj ʔəm ʔan ʔəj

obl cu ʔaj haːʔ ʔih hiːʔ mɛh naːn jiːʔ

12  The third person singular forms masculine o and feminine kɔ are used with animate referents. Inanimate referents take the regular forms u and ka.

122

Jenny, weber and weymuth

3sg.hum 3sg.nhum 3dl 3pl.hum 3pl.nhum

sbj.vis ʔan(a) ʔən nan jin(a) nun

sbj.nvis ʔap, ʔəp nup nap jip nup

inter.vis ʔaŋ, ʔaŋah ʔən ʔac, naːn ʔac(a) ʔənuh

inter.nvis ʔap(a) ʔap(a) na p jip(a) nup(a)

sub ʔɔ ʔɛ nə nə nə

obl ʔɔ ʔɛ ca ca ʔu

4.5.2 Reflexives and Logophorics Besides reflexive morphology, as found in Nicobarese and Munda languages, a number of AA languages have special reflexive pronouns that are used to refer to the subject of the same clause. They appear in different functions, including object and possessive, as seen in the examples from Kammu and Mon, where the noun həkaoʔ ‘body’ takes the function of a reflexive pronoun. This use is already attested in Old Mon. (474) Kammu kə̀ lə̀ tòk k.sés róːŋ tè 3sg.m then caus fall mouth.harp refl ‘He then dropped his mouth harp (by mistake).’ (475) Old Mon (Shorto 1971: 123) mirmas guṇ ma smiṅ ʔiñcim jirku. remember favour rel king sustain body ‘He remembered the favors with which the king had sustained him.’ (476) Mon ɲèh thiəŋ.həjaʔ kɛ̀h rɔ̀ ə həkaoʔ 3h think say friend body ‘He thought that his friend was dead.’

khjɒt die

ʔa go

jaʔ. nsit

Besides non-subject functions, these reflexives can also have the role of the subject if they have the same referent as the main clause or a preceding clause. The subject does not have to overtly expressed. This function is known as logophoric or long distance anaphora (see Huang 2000). In Kammu, this function is available for all persons, while in Mon it is restricted to the second and, more commonly, third persons. (477) Kammu tè cə̀ pə́ pɨ̀an pə̀ʔ màh mɨ̀ jàːm jʌ̀ cry ins refl irr neg get eat rice day ‘[I] am crying because I will not be able to eat anything today.’

s.kí today

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

123

(478) Mon kɔ̀ h. kɤ̀ʔ tɛ̀h ɓɛ̀ʔ kon ŋèə həkaoʔ klàj get hit ref offspring frog body seek medl ‘He got the little frog he was looking for (by coincidence).’

Palaung (Shwe) has a pronoun de, which is probably related to the Kammu reflexive tè. This pronoun is used in the second and third persons, both in subject and non-subject function. When the subject of a clause is repeated, it is usually expressed by de if it is second or third person. (479) Palaung (Milne 1921: 19) pɛ hɲʌm bʌp 2sg not.yet necessary ‘You don’t have to go yet.’

de refl

(480) Palaung (Milne 1921: 37) ge ʔɤ bɛ de 3pl prox able refl ‘They can work.’

rɤr. do

lɔh. go

The form and function of the Palaung and Kammu forms are similar, but not identical, to the Old Mon third person pronoun ḍeḥ, which, according to Shorto (1971: 137f) is used “usually resuming or referring to subj. of statement, of first of series of statements, or head cl. of statement”. In modern Mon, the reflex of Old Mon ḍeḥ, that is, ɗɛh, is the normal form of the general third person pronoun. 4.6 Classifiers Jones (1970) argues that classifier systems in AA languages are not native to the family but borrowed from neighboring languages such as Thai, Burmese, and Chinese. Adams (1989; 1991) elaborates on Jones’s claims and identifies possible sources of a number of classifier constructions in the eastern groups of Austroasiatic. She concludes that “classifiers have been in AA languages long enough for them to possess many features which are not derivative but are unique to the language family” (Adams 1991: 75). Though classifiers may be part of the genetic inheritance of AA languages, the individual languages show a variety of structures, some arguably influenced by neighboring languages, and a number of AA languages do not make regular use of classifiers at all. In the case of Khasian, there is a typologically rare interplay of classifier and gender or noun class systems.

124

Jenny, weber and weymuth

Vietnamese shows the structure num-clf-n, as in example (481). (481) Vietnamese Uyên mổ ba con gà pn cut.open three clf chicken ‘Uyên kills three chickens in the sink.’

trong inside

la.va.bô. sink

The same structure is found in Sedang, Pacoh and Bunong, with demonstratives following the quantifier phrase. (482) Sedang rəta̰m pṵn ŋḛ four clf young.man ‘four young men’ (483) Pacoh bar lam ʔakaj nɛh three clf child prox ‘These three children.’ (484) Bunong (Vogel 2006: 26) pa̤ːr po̤ ːk rəwɛh two clf elephant ‘two elephants’

Car uses a small number of classifiers, including taka ‘people’, manɨ́k ‘children’, máːʔ ‘plants or trees’, nɔŋ ‘animals; long, slender objects’, and kaŋɛ́n ‘kind, type’, among others. The word order here also is num-clf-n. (485) Car héŋ tahɔ́ ːl kúk one pair coconut ‘One pair of coconuts.’ (486) Car héŋ taka ək misíːʔ tafísi tə one person 3sg.pst pst widow rel ‘Once there was a widow who had four children.’

fɛ́ːn four

manɨ́k clf

kúːn child

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

125

In Khasi, the word order in the quantifier phrase is identical, but the demonstrative determiner precedes the quantifier phrase. Unlike other classifier languages, Khasi uses only two numeral classifiers, one for animate and one for inanimate nouns. Their use is obligatory when counting from ‘two’ onwards, although they are optional with spaʔ ‘100’ and haʤaːr ‘1000’ and not used with lak ‘100,000’ or ʤur ‘pair’. In addition, Khasi employs a three-way noun class system, which is neutralized in the plural. (487) Khasi ki-ne laːj pl-prox three ‘these three girls’

ŋut clf

(488) Khasi ki-ne saːw tɨlli pl-prox four clf ‘these four villages’

ki=kɨnthej pl=female

ki=ʃnoŋ pl=village

In other languages, including Kammu and Mlabri, the order of elements in quantifier phrases is n-num-clf. (489) Kammu cḿ.rɔ̀ ʔ pàːr man two ‘two men’

kòn clf

(490) Mlabri chɯ cəbut bɛr buy pig two ‘buy two pigs’

klɔʔ clf

The same order is also found in Old and modern Khmer, Kơho, and Kui. Demon­ stratives follow the quantifier phrase. In modern Khmer, the use of numeral classifiers is not obligatory, at least not in all cases, as will be shown below. (491) Old Khmer kantai pi woman three ‘three women’

s9at being

126 (492) Khmer baːrɤj pɪ̀ː cigarette two ‘two cigarettes’

Jenny, weber and weymuth daəm clf

(493) Kơho caw baːr naɁ two clf person ‘two women’

Ɂuːr woman

(494) Kui cuəh baːr naʔ man two person ‘those two men’

ʔɛŋ ana.dist

Old Khmer has the alternative order n-clf-num, as in example (495). (495) Old Khmer ’aṃc9as ’na elder person ‘four elders’

pvan four

In Bugan, when the quantity of the noun is one, it can be directly modified by bɔ̱⁵⁵ ‘one, classifier’, which is a fusion of num + clf. In other cases, the word order is n-num-clf. The head noun may be separated from the quantifier expression by a verb, as seen in (498). (496) Bugan wɔ̱³³ bɔ̱⁵⁵ stone clf ‘one stone’ (497) Bugan piau¹³⁽³⁵⁾ bi³¹ pau³¹ person two clf ‘two persons’ (498) Bugan li⁵⁵ ka̠i³³ mi³³ biə³³ ox have five clf ‘There are five oxen.’

127

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

In Kammu, the quantifier phrase may be separated from the head noun by verbal and adverbial constituents and appear at the end of the clause. (499) Kammu kə̀ píɲ k.néʔ háːn tà 3sg.m shoot rat die loc ‘He shot one rat to death in my house.’

kàːŋ house

ʔòʔ 1sg

mòːj one

tó clf

A number of AA languages do not make obligatory use of numeral classifiers. This is common in Chong and Kammu, among others. Kruspe (2004: 206) states that the “set of classifiers in Semelai is small and rigid, and their use is not obligatory. The small inventory does not result in many entities employing the same classifier, but rather that many entities are simply not associated with a classifier.” (500) Chong j9aːŋlōp pʰa̰ːj eraser two ‘two erasers’ (501) Chong pʰa̰ːj cʰɔ̄ ː two dog ‘two dogs’ (502) Kammu túːt crìʔ mòːj tree banyan one ‘one big banyan tree’

(túːt) clf

nám big

Mon uses classifiers only very sparingly. The only case where the use of a classifier is quasi-obligatory is in counting monks, in which case the noun həkaoʔ ‘body’ is used as a classifier. With other nouns, no classifier usually occurs, but the word order is different for common nouns (n-num) and measures (num-n). In some AA languages the classifier can be the repetition of the head noun, as seen in Kammu, or a derivate form thereof, as in Old Khmer.

128 (503) Kammu t.lɔ̀ ŋ nám log big ‘one big log’

Jenny, weber and weymuth

mòːj one

t.lɔ̀ ŋ log

(504) Old Khmer sre moy sanre field one field ‘one rice field’

4.7 Case and Аdpositions 4.7.1 Case Мarking and Аdpositions Most AA languages do not distinguish cases morphologically, but grammatical and semantic relations are indicated by free markers, usually preposistions, verbal and nominal semantics, as well as word order. An exception are the Munda languages with their extensive agglutinating morphology, which uses prefixes and suffixes to express case relations (see Anderson (this publication) for an overview). In Nicobarese, prefixes and free forms are used to indicate semantic relations (Car i ‘loc’, ɛl/ɛl- ‘loc’, tə/tə- ‘general linker, oblique’). Like other aspects of Nicobarese grammar, the functioning of the prefixes and prepositions is still poorly understood. In Khasi, arguments are marked as accusative, locative/dative, instrumental, or other by means of prepositions, as seen in the following examples. The prepositions occur before the noun class markers, which are cliticized to the noun. (505) Khasi ŋa pʰaʔ ja ki=kʰuːn 1sg send acc pl=child ‘I send the children to school.’

ʃa all

(506) Khasi ŋi-n aːj ja ka=kot 1pl-fut give acc f=book ‘We will give the book to you.’

ka=skul. f=school

ha loc

pʰi. 2

The instrumental is also used with verbs to achieve temporal (simultaneous) expressions. In this case the instrumental preposition intervenes between the tense marker and the verb.

129

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview (507) Khasi da tʰjaʔ katba u la while m pst ins sleep ‘while he slept they went there.’

ki pl

la pst

leʲt go

haŋtaj. there

In Semaq Beri, the locative preposition can be combined with nouns and pronouns. It is also used to express recipients, addressees, and direct objects with some verbs. (508) Semaq Beri ʔəɲ gaʔ dəm haʔ bri 
1 sg imm sleep loc forest
 ‘(I’m) going to sleep outside.’ (509) Semaq Beri ʔəɲ knal 1sg know ‘I know you.’

haʔ loc

ja 2sg.f

Other prepositions in Semaq Beri indicate a goal (gaʔ ‘allative’) or source (tən ‘ablative’). Relator nouns may also be used instead of prepositions to express more specific relations, as in the following example. (510) Semaq Beri kɛ kʰom kloc bri 3sg sit inside forest ‘He stayed inside the forest.’

General locative preposistions, covering allative and locative (including more specific notions like inessive, adessive, superessive, etc.) are frequently found in AA languages. (511) Mon paʔ mùʔ~mùʔ rao, ɗɔə càt kɔ̀ h. do what~red q loc performance medl ‘What do you do in this theater?’ (512) Kơho dilah gəs jət naʔ caw tɑːm rəndɛh, gɛn hat if exist ten clf people loc vehicle then crowded ‘If there are ten people in the car, then it is very crowded.’

ŋan very

130

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(513) Mlabri ŋ̊ uh (ni/ti) sit loc/loc ‘be at home’

gɛŋ house

(514) Pnar ha ka=ʧi-snɛm, ʧi-sen ʧi-snɛm ʤoʔ laj pʰi nɛ m̩ loc f=one-year one-time one-year same go 2pl tag neg ɛm nɛ, mɔ have tag q ‘once a year also, you go or not?’

In Kơho and Kammu, the instrumental is expressed by a preposition, which in Kơho is also used to mark the agent in passive constructions. The preposition glossed instrumental in Kammu is also used to indicate the recipient in ditransitive expressions and is probably a general oblique marker. (515) Kơho mpoːŋ gə-paːʔ mə caːl. door pass-open ins wind ‘The door was opened by the wind.’ (516) Kammu ʔòʔ ʔùːn k.múːl jʌ̀ 1sg give money ins ‘I handed money to him.’

kə̀ 3sg.m

Danau has a general oblique marker mɛʔ, which combines with more specific locative expessions (relator nouns), or with prefixed role markers to form complex prepositions. (517) Danau mə̀ tʰɯ̄ mɛʔ kɔŋ 2sg sit obl inside ‘He is sitting in the house.’

ɲɐ̄ house

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

131

(518) Danau kʰæ̃ ̂ wæ̃ ̂ sɐʔouʔ hō hɔʔ (kʰɐũ ̂) ō æ̃ ̂ kɨ̂ mɛʔ tǝ-sʰɐĩ purp buy book exist cop (because) 1sg fut go obl all-shop ‘I will go to the shop in order to buy a book.’ [‘. . . because there is a need to buy a book.’]

The oblique marker is also used with adverbial expressions. (519) Danau ɐn tin ljɐk mɛʔ lonì kô 3sg sleep arrive obl now newinf ‘He’s still asleep!’ [lit. ‘He is sleeping till now!’]

Similar to Danau, Mlabri combines general prepositions with specific relator nouns to form complex adpositions with concrete or more specialized meaning. Interestingly, in Mlabri the relator noun follows the lexical noun rather than preceding it. The result is bipartite adpositions with parts before and after the noun. (520) Mlabri ʔac ŋ̊ uh ni toʔ bird sit loc table ‘The bird is on the table.’

lətɤŋ top

Mon also uses complex prepositions, but in this case the general oblique marker follows rather than precedes the specific preposition. Prepositions in Mon can be used with nouns and pronouns as well as clauses. (521) Mon ɗɛh klɤŋ nù kɒ phɛ̀ə. 3 come abl obl monastery ‘He is coming from school.’ (522) Mon ʔe ɗɔə kɒ ɗɛh həpak ceh kɔ̀ h ʔaŋkəlòc kəpɒc eh loc obl 3 stab descend medl English dash phjeh na kɔ̀ h khjɒt ʔɒt.tah. caus.descend caus.go medl die completely ‘Now when [the airplane] came crashing down, the English struck it down, they died all.’

132

Jenny, weber and weymuth

In Kơho, postpositions are used as in addition to prepositions. This is the case for dative and possessive relations, as illustrated in the following examples. (523) Kơho kʰaj ʔaj tərnɑːm rəpu ʔin. 3sg give rice.wine buffalo dat ‘S/he gave rice wine to the water buffalo.’ (524) Kơho koɲ ʔaɲ sen.gar ʔəsɛh caw pɑː uncle 1sg take.care.of horse people chief ‘My uncle takes care of the village chief’s horse.’

ɓɔn village

ʔin. dat

(525) Kơho sraʔ kɔn de book child poss ‘the child’s book’ (526) Kơho sraʔ ʔaɲ ɟe book 1sg poss ‘my book’

As postpositions are unexpected in verb-medial Kơho, which also uses regular prepositions, the occurrence of these needs an explanation. Sidwell (2000: 87) reconstructs a form *ʔin to proto-South Bahnaric as an ‘auxiliary particle’, with the function of ‘demonstrative, benefactive particle’, but he does not list the Kơho form. Semantically a postposed demonstrative as source of a benefactive marker would not be impossible. No source for the possessive marker can be established at the present state of research. 4.7.2 Directive (Goal) Marker and Linker A number of AA languages belonging to groups far apart have a grammatical marker that shows striking similarity in shape and function. It can be used as preposition, usually indicating a goal, or conjunction, or a general linker between connected elements. The phonological shape is a dental stop followed by a vowel. It is possible (or even likely) that these markers in different languages have unrelated origins, but the general meaning is very similar across the groups and could be compared to the range of functions of English ‘to’. In the individual grammars the respective morphemes are variously glossed as

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

133

linker, marker of goal, dative, locative, allative or general oblique. In Old Khmer here are two distinct forms, ta ‘general relator’ and ti ‘directional preposition, benefactive, purposive marker’, which may be unrelated to each other but share at least some of their functions. In Old Mon, the preposition ta marks benefactive and directional relations (Shorto 1971: 138). (527) Old Khmer vraḥ kñuṃ ’aṃnoy kur9ak hv9ar ta slave given kurāk pn link divinity ‘slaves given by the kurāk of Hvār to the divinity’ (528) Old Khmer nau ta yokk neḥ ta roḥ neḥ ti pre k9ap thpvaṅ top link take prox link manner prox link order chop head ‘Of those who take these aforesaid—[the executioner] shall be ordered to cut off [their] heads.’

A marker dɨ is found in Dara’ang, which covers a wide range of functions, including marking of the recipient and as connector between two verbs in multi-verb predicates. Similarly, Mlabri uses di to connect verbs in multi-verb predicates, sometimes with purposive reading. In Mlabri, the same marker is also used to indicate possessive relations. (529) Dara’ang daraɁaŋ ɲɨm tauh boŋ Ɂakja kɨn~kɨn dɨ pən dɨ pn believe tell make merit lot~red goal get goal houɁ məŋdεŋ ascend heaven ‘Dara’ang people believe (that) making lots of merit will make them be able to go to heaven.’ (530) Dara’ang Ɂăw pən dɨ kauɁ Ɂăn neg get goal bite 3sg ‘[The bear] was not able to bite him.’

134

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(531) Mlabri [β] (Rischel 1995: 193) kibi bi:ʔ, boŋ di chɛʔ neg satisfied eat link much ‘If you aren’t full yet, eat some more!’

Car has a general ‘relator’ morpheme, which is used as subordinator and oblique preposition. It’s form and function is similar to the Jahai relative marker t-, but the latter attaches only to word-level units, not to clauses or phrases (Burenhult 2005: 124). (532) Car vɛ́ːɲə náŋ cɔ́ ːn tə́ cu tell ear John link 1sg.poss ‘Tell John that I will be there.’ (533) Car mɨ́kka ən ŋíh look 3sg.prox prox.sg.inan ‘This book is looked after by Jane.’

min fut

líːpərɛ book

ŋ ac finish

tə link

umúh loc.dist

céːn pn

Munda languages like Mundari and Kharia have oblique or instrumental postpositions or suffixes of the shape -te, which is attached to nominal or verbal elements. In Danau, the prefix (or proclitic?) tə- indicates an allative relation, and in the languages further east there are similar markers for locative relations, in some cases including allative. Palaung (Shwe) has the allative preposition ta, besides the general linker (and future marker) di. (534) Danau kʰæ̃ ̂ wæ̃ ̂ sɐʔouʔ hō hɔʔ (kʰɐũ ̂) ō æ̃ ̂ kɨ̂ mɛʔ tǝ-sʰɐĩ purp buy book exist cop (because) 1sg fut go obl all-shop ‘I will go to the shop in order to buy a book.’ [‘. . . because there is a need to buy a book.’] (535) Pacoh nam ʔarbaŋ bɔː kɨː ləjʔ if weather rain 1sg neg ‘If it’s raining, I can’t go home.’

boːn get

cho̰ ː return

tuː to

duŋ home

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

135

(536) Kơho kʰaj cəm luʔ te/de sɔ. 3sg throw rock loc/loc dog ‘He throws rock at the dog.’ (537) Kơho ʔaɲ ʔəm te/de 1sg be.at loc/loc ‘I am in the doorway.’

bər mouth

mpoːŋ door

(538) Kammu ta ̀ nɔ̀ jèt réʔ. 3pl stay loc field ‘They were staying in the field.’

Much remains to be explored in regard to the directive markers or general linkers, and a more in-depth analysis must be based on text usage of the respective elements in the languages where they appear. Possibly there was a linker morpheme in proto-AA which developed in different directions in the individual languages, surfacing in a variety of similar but different forms and functions. 4.8 Clause and Sentence Particles Sentence particles are an important part of the make-up of any AA language. These particles fulfill a wide range of functions, which are in most cases not easily describable. The main functions of sentence particles are to convey speakers attitude towards the event described or the interlocutors, express illocutionary force, and structure the information flow. Mon and Semelai have sentence or utterance final particles indicating that the sentence is reported speech, without the original speaker obligatorily mentioned. In Mon the particle kɛ̀h from an all but obsolete verb kɛ̀h ‘say’ is used in this function, which also rarely occurs as complementizer with verbs of saying, hoping, and cognition. Unlike Mon kɛ̀h, Semelai kʰləŋ can be used with or without overt speaker. A similarly functioning particle is found in Danau, which, like Mon, is exposed to Burmese influence. The origin of both the Mon and Danau reportative markers may be a replication of the corresponding Burmese sentence final reportative tɛ́ ‘it is said, they say’.

136

Jenny, weber and weymuth

(539) Semelai (Kruspe 2004: 406) ʔnɔʔnɔʔ, kʰləŋ. sak tah, kʰləŋ, bɔs peel q quot sugar.cane prox quot ‘Aren’t you going to peel, (he) asked, this sugar cane? (he) asked.’ (540) Mon pɤŋ hwaʔ tom lɔ̀ swak mənìh plàj cooked.rice curry cook deposit for human young.man pɔn kɔ̀ h lɛ cut lɔ̀ kjìʔ noŋ kɛ̀h. four medl add put deposit poison asrt say ‘She had put poison in the rice and curry for the four young men, it is said.’ (541) Danau frɐ̄ hɔ̄ pɯ̄ t sənə̀ nɛ̀ holy preach come like.this rep ‘The Buddha has been preaching thus (I am told).’

Other sentence final particles are hard to classify at the present state of research. As their function is in most cases pragmatic and directly discourse related, more extensive and better annotated text material of the respective languages would be needed. In most cases the translations and descriptions available do not allow a more detailed description or analysis, and frequently the particles are glossed merely as such. The following examples are given to illustrate different uses of sentence final particles found in the available material. (542) Bugan ʑau³¹ ɣau³¹.sau⁵⁵ ʦu³¹ mə⁵⁵ go read cont one ‘He has gone to school for one year.’ (543) Chong jɔʔ cʰ9an waj ʔih 1sg able neg disc ‘I’m not able [to do this].’ (544) Chong kaːn taː-lan kʰimaŋ work addr-pn disc ‘It might be Mr. Lan’s work.’

nam⁵⁵ year

ʔa³³ asrt

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview (545) Danau nì=nǝ thɪn prox=top belong ‘Isn’t this yours?’

mǝ̀ 2sg

137

dē tag

(546) Danau bēj bɪn rɐ̀ khɯ̀ zɛ̄ others get afraid 3pl newinf ‘Everyone was afraid of them.’ [new information] (547) Danau ʤǝpæ̃ ɛ̆ cwɐn pʰū mɛ̀ Japanese meet exp asrt ‘(Of course) I have met the Japanese!’ (548) Danau frɐttǝrɐ̂ kʰɯ̀ =kɐ̄ ɐ̄cjɐ̀ damn 3pl=top strength ‘Damn, they were strong!’

ŋ̄ kò plenty

bjɯ̄ emot

5 Conclusion We have seen that the AA languages exhibit a great diversity in their structures, which is not surprising, given the geographic distribution and the known histories of the AA speaking peoples. As historical documents of some time depth are available for only a small number of AA languages (Khmer, Mon, Vietnamese), we have only synchronic language material to work with in most cases. The AA languages of Southeast Asia (including Khasic, but excluding Vietnamese) share a number of phonological features, such as sesquisyllabic words (also present in Gtaʔ), large vowel inventories (often including large numbers of diphthongs), and—to a lesser extent—register distinctions. The consonant inventories of these languages are more diverse but typically include two or three stop series (one of which is often an implosive series) and four nasals. The Munda languages resemble their South Asian neighbors in having retroflex consonants, full first syllables (i.e. no sesquisyllabicity) and smaller vowel inventories. Vietnamese, under Sinitic influence, has developed a complex tone system and monosyllabicity.

138

Jenny, weber and weymuth

There is not much that can be conclusively said about the morphosyntactic structure of the proto-language, unlike its vocabulary, which can be reconstructed with considerable certainty, at least in part. The three superficially distinct typological groups Munda (verb-final), Nicobarese (verb-initial) and the eastern languages (verb-medial) are not confirmed by other isoglosses and hardly constitute major divisions in the family. If we take the word order of the majority of AA languages, namely AVP, as the original order of the proto-language, the deviant word orders of the other two groups have to be explained. A change in word order can indeed be claimed to have occurred in Munda under areal influence, with all surrounding languages exhibiting consistent verb-final order. A number of Munda constructions suggest an earlier verbmedial (or possibly verb-initial) order. The same is the case in Nicobarese, where the order AVP is found in subordinate clauses. On the other hand, most or all eastern AA languages with verb-medial word order are located in areas with dominant verb-medial structure, so that it might as well be the eastern languages that have changed an original verb-initial (or verb-final) order under areal pressure. Yet, with little evidence of earlier non-verb-medial structures in the eastern languages, and firm evidence of verb-medial order in Munda and Nicobarese, it may be safe to take AVP as the original order of AA, with the possibility of pragmatic changes, including fronting of topical and focal elements, post-verbal subjects in certain information-structural contexts, and free omission of contextually retrievable arguments. Multiple clauses forming complex sentences, included embedded clauses, are in many AA languages juxtaposed asyndetically, as is not uncommon in nonliterary languages. The conjunctions that are found in the individual languages are frequently loans from neighboring dominant languages or transparently derived from lexical verbs or nouns. One general linker may be reconstructed, at least in its function, to the proto-language. This linker, which appears in many languages, covers a wide range of functions, which can be subsumed under the notion ‘directive, goal oriented, A relates to B’ or similar. This linker also functions as a preposition indicating locative or allative relations, or as a general oblique marker linking nouns to verbs, nouns, or clauses. Other relations are usually expressed by grammaticalized lexical verbs or nouns. The pronominal systems found in the AA languages suggest a three-way distinction in number (singular, dual, and plural), at least in the first and second person, and an inclusive vs. exclusive distinction in the non-singular first person pronouns. Demonstratives most frequently show three degrees of distance, though it is not clear whether this was true for the proto-language. The question whether proto-AA made use of classifiers is undecided. Classifiers occur in all branches of the family, including Munda and Nicobarese,

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

139

but the systems exhibit great variation and are in some cases clearly borrowed from (or at least influenced by) neighboring languages. In most cases classifiers play a marginal role in the grammatical make-up of the AA languages In terms of morphology, a number of derivational affixes can be firmly reconstructed to proto-AA, and it is evident that the language had a rich system of prefixes and infixes. Among the most widespread affixes are the causative labial prefix p-, pə-, the instrumental nominalizing infix -n-/-rn-, and the nominalizing prefix ʔi-/ʔə-. Suffixes occur only in a few AA languages and are probably of a more recent date. Inflectional morphology, such as person and tense marking as found in the Munda languages, seem to be more recent innovations. The picture that emerges of proto-AA is far from clear in most respects, and only more in-depth study of the individual languages, based on more extensive text material and better descriptive grammars that are available for most languages at the present, together with a better understanding of the history of the individual languages and the contact scenarios they entered into during their history, will shed more light on the structural development. 6 References Adams, Karen L. 1989. Systems of numeral classification in the Mon-Khmer, Nicobarese, and Aslian subfamilies of Austroasiatic. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. ———. 1991. The influence of non-Austroasiatic languages on numeral classification in Austroasiatic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 111.1: 62–81. Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2004. Advances in Proto-Munda reconstruction. Mon-Khmer Studies 34: 159–184. ———. 2007. The Munda verb. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ———. 2013. The velar nasal. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), chapter 9. http://wals.info/chapter/9. ——— (ed.). 2008. The Munda languages. London & New York: Routledge. Anderson, Gregory D.S. & K. David Harrison. 2008. Remo (Bonda). In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 557–632. Banker, John, Elizabeth Banker, & Mơ. 1979. Bahnar dictionary: Plei Bong—Mang Yang dialect. Huntington Beach, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Bequette, Rebecca. 2008. Participant reference, deixis, and anaphora in Bunong narra­tive discourse (MA thesis). Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics, Duncanville, TX. Benedict, Paul K. 1972. Sino-Tibetan: A conspectus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bennett, Fraser J. 1994. Iambicity in Thai. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24.1: 39–57.

140

Jenny, weber and weymuth

Bhattacharya, Sudhibhushan. 1975. Studies in comparative Munda linguistics. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study. Bisang, Walter. 1992. Das Verb im Chinesischen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und Khmer. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Bishop, Nancy. 1996. A preliminary description of Kensiw (Maniq) phonology. MonKhmer Studies 25: 227–254. Blust, Robert. 1988. Austronesian root theory: An essay on the limits of morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Brunelle, Marc. 2009a. Diglossia and monosyllabization in Eastern Cham: A sociolinguistic study. In James Stanford & Dennis Preston (eds.), Variation in indigenous minority languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 47–75. ———. 2009b. Tone perception in Northern and Southern Vietnamese. Journal of Phonetics 37: 79–96. Burenhult, Niclas. 2005. A grammar of Jahai. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Chantrupanth, Dhanan, & Chatchai Phromjakgarin. 1978. Khmer (Surin)–Thai–English Dictionary. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Language Institute. Comrie, Bernard. 2007. Areal typology of Mainland Southeast Asia: What we learn from the Wals maps. Manusya 13: 18–47. Costello, Nancy A. 1971. Ngữ-vựng Katu: Katu Vocabulary. Saigon: Department of Education. Dempwolff, Otto. 1934. Vergleichende Lautlehre des austronesischen Wortschatzes. Band I. Induktiver Aufbau einer indonesischen Ursprache. Berlin: Reimer. DiCanio, Christian T. 2009. The phonetics of register in Thakhian Thong Chong. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 39.2: 162–188. Diffloth, Gérard. 1980. The Wa languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 5.2: 1–182. ———. 1984. Dvaravati Old Mon language and Nyah Kur. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. Dryer, Matthew & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info Donegan, Patricia J. 1993. Rhythm and vocalic drift in Munda and Mon-Khmer. Linguistics in the Tibeto-Burman Area 16.1: 1–43. Donegan, Patricia & David Stampe. 2004. Rhythm and the synthetic drift of Munda. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. New Delhi: Thousand Oaks, 3–36. Enfield, N.J. 2003. Linguistic epidemiology. Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London & New York: RoutledgeCurzon. Enfield, N.J. & Gérard Diffloth. 2009. Phononogy and sketch grammar of Kri, a Vietic language of Laos. Cahiers de Linguistique—Asie Orientale 38.1: 3–69.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

141

Ferlus, Michel. 1997. Le maleng brô et le vietnamien. Mon Khmer Studies 27: 55–66. Ghosh, Arun. 2008. Santali. In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 11–98. Green, Anthony Dubach. 2005. Word, foot, and syllable structure in Burmese. In Justin Watkins (ed.), Studies in Burmese linguistics. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 1–25. Haiman, John. 2011. Cambodian. Khmer. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Handel, Zev. 1998. The medial systems of Old Chinese and Proto-Sino-Tibetan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Henderson, Eugénie. 1989–1990. Khasi clusters and Greenberg’s universals. Mon-Khmer Studies 18–19: 61–66. Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora. A cross-linguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huffman, Franklin E. 1967. An outline of Cambodian grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. ———. 1970. Modern Spoken Cambodian. New Haven: Yale University Press. ———. 1972. The boundary between the monosyllable and the disyllable in Cambodian. Lingua 29.1: 54–66. Jacob, Judith M. 1968. Introduction to Cambodian. London: Oxford University Press. Jenny, Mathias. 2003. New infixes in Spoken Mon. In Mon-Khmer Studies 33: 183–94. Jones, Robert B. 1970. Classifier constructions in Southeast Asia. Journal of the American Oriental Society 90.1: 1–12. Karlsson, Fred. 2009. Origin and maintenance of clausal embedding complexity. In Geoffrey Sampson, David Gil & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 192–202. Kruspe, Nicole. 2004. A grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell. LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. In Graham Thurgood & Randy J. La Polla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages. London: Routledge, 22–42. Maddieson, Ian. 2013a. Consonant inventories. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), chapter 1. http://wals.info/chapter/1. ———. 2013b. Front rounded vowels. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), chapter 11. http://wals.info/chapter/11. ———. 2013c. Glottalized consonants. In Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), chapter 7. http://wals.info/chapter/7. Matisoff, James A. 1973. Tonogenesis in Southeast Asia. In Larry M. Hyman (ed.), Consonant types and tone. Los Angeles: UCLA, 71–95. ———. 2001. Genetic versus contact relationship: prosodic diffusability in South-East Asian languages. In Alexandra Aikhenvald & R.M.W. Dixon (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 291–325. ———. 2003. Aslian: Mon-Khmer of the Malay Peninsula. Mon-Khmer Studies 33: 1–58.

142

Jenny, weber and weymuth

Michaud, Alexis. 2012. Monosyllabization: Patterns of evolution in Asian languages. In Nicole Nau, Thomas Stolz & Cornelia Stroh (eds.), Monosyllables: From phonology to typology. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 115–130. Milne, Leslie. 1921. An elementary Palaung grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Neukom, Lukas. 2001. Santali. München: Lincom Europa. Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 283–310. Osada, Toshiki. 2008. Mundari. In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 99–164. Ostapirat, Weera. 2005. Kra-Dai and Austronesian: Notes on phonological correspondences and vocabulary distribution. In Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and Alicia Sanchez-Mazas (eds.), The peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 107–131. Peterson, John. 2011. A grammar of Kharia. A South Munda language. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Phillips, Richard. 1973. A Mnong pegagogical grammar: The verb phrase and constructions with two or more verbs. Mon-Khmer Studies 4: 129–138. Pinnow, H.J. 1965. Personal pronouns in the Austroasiatic languages: a historical study. (Translated by H. L. Shorto). Lingua 14: 3–42. Rajasingh V.R. 2013. Negators in Muöt. Mon-Khmer Studies 41: 46–59. Ratliff, Martha. 2006. Prefix variation and reconstruction. In Thomas D. Cravens (ed.), Variation and reconstruction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 165–178. Reid, Lawrence A. 1994. Morphological evidence for Austric. Oceanic Linguistics 33.2: 323–344. Rischel, Jørgen. 1995. Minor Mlabri: A hunter-gatherer language of northern Indochina. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Schebesta, Paul. 1928. Grammatical sketch of the Jahai dialect, spoken by a Negrito tribe of Ulu Perak and Ulu Kelantan, Malay Peninsula (translated by C.O. Bladgen). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 4.4: 803–826. Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel & Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2010. The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46: 657–709. Shorto, Harry L. 1963. The structural patterns of Northern Mon-Khmer languages. In Harry L. Shorto (ed.), Linguistic comparison in South East Asia and the Pacific. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 45–61. ———. 1971. A dictionary of the Mon inscriptions from the sixth to the sixteenth centuries. London: Oxford University Press. ———. 2006. A Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Sidwell, Paul J. 2000. Proto South Bahnaric. A reconstruction of a Mon-Khmer language of Indo-China. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

The Austroasiatic Languages: A Typological Overview

143

Solnit, David B. 1988. The position of Lakkia within Kadai. In Jerold A. Edmondson & David B. Solnit (eds.), Comparative Kadai: Linguistic studies beyond Tai. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington, 219–238. Steven, M., N. Kruspe & J. Hajek. 2006. Register in Mah Meri: A preliminary phonetic analysis. In R. Hoffmann & H. Mixdorff (eds.), Speech Prosody. 3rd International Conference Dresden, May 2–5, 2006. 269–272. Vogel, Sylvain. 2006. Introduction à la langue et aux dits traditionnels des Phnong de Mondulkiri. Phnom Penh: Éditions Funan. Vương Hừu Lễ. 1999. A new interpretation of the Bru Vân Kiêu vowel system. MonKhmer Studies 29: 97–106. Weidert, Alfons. 1975. I Tkong Amwi: Deskriptive Analyse eines Waridialektes des Khasi. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Wnuk, Ewelina & Niclas Burenhult. Forthcoming. The sound system of Maniq, an understudied Aslian outlier of Isthmian Thailand. Wolff, John U. 2010. Proto-Austronesian phonology with glossary. Ithaca, NY: Cornell South Asia Program Publications. Zide, Norman H. 2000. Three Munda scripts. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 22: 199–232. ——— 2008. Korku. In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 256–298.

chapter 3

Austroasiatic Classification Paul Sidwell 1 Introduction The Austroasiatic (AA) phylum spans a vast although discontinuous area of mainland South and Southeast Asia, from central India to Malysia and southern China, plus a small community on the Nicobar Islands of the Andaman Sea. 171 named languages are listed at Ethnologue.com (2013 edition), although on linguistic grounds a more modest number, perhaps around 130 distinct languages should be recognised.1 The languages fall out into more than a dozen branches, although how the branches coordinate into a nested tree is controversial, and discussion of that question is the main topic of part 2 of this chapter. North Munda

South Munda

Khasian

Mangic

Palaungic

Vietic Khmuic

Bahnaric

Katuic Monic

Pearic Khmer

Vietic

Nicobarese Aslian

Map 3.1

Branches of the Austroasiatic Phylum.

1  Much AA classificatory work has been done in the lexicostatistical framework, and in the absence of intelligibility survey data, it is realistic to assign provisional language membership

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283572_004

Austroasiatic Classification

145

General discussions of the disposition and/or classification of AA languages are relatively few in number. A listing of notable works in English published in the last three decades that provide an overview, either primarily or as part of a wider discussion of the linguistic area, would include: Adams (1989), Parkin (1991), Diffloth & Zide (1992), Peiros (1998), Chazée (1999), van Driem (2001), Sidwell (2009), Nagaraja (2011). The general situation, as it was characterised in the 1980s, still prevails to this day: The disagreements among these linguists revolve around the alignment of these languages into subfamilies and into branches of subfamilies. The question of whether certain languages belong to the Austroasiatic group now concerns only a few poorly known languages. Adams 1989: 26

A generation of remarkable progress transpired in AA studies from the late 1950s to late 1970s, in which scholarly efforts coalesced into a coherent field— complete with conferences, canonical texts and a journal—and many fundamental problems were solved and/or clearly delineated. However, progress faltered in the 1980s as key projects (such as publication the SICAL2 papers, and Shorto’s Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary) were abandoned and key figures (such as Harry Shorto, Franklin Huffman) retired from academia without their places being taken by sufficiently dynamic and resourceful individuals. Consequently the rate of progress was reduced to fits and starts, and almost halted on the question of classification, such that overt expressions of exasperation ultimately began to flow from the keystrokes of concerned scholars: However, the relationships between these families within Austro-Asiatic is debated; in addition to the traditional classification, two recent proposals are given, neither of which accept traditional Mon-Khmer as a valid unit.

on the bases of lexicostatistical scores of 80% or more of shared basic vocabulary to identify a language. For example, in Miller & Miller’s (1996) comparison of 50 Katuic wordlists the threshold of 80% correlates well with uncontroversial language identifications. Consequently, the 171 AA language names assigned ISO codes are reduced to 129 in the Appendix to this chapter. To see the problem in more general terms, Xia et al. (2010) attempted to reconcile all ISO 639–3 language codes and the complete list of named languages in Ethnologue, and their analysis characterised 2,625 language names as ambiguous. 2  Second International Conference of Austroasiatic Linguistics, held in Mysore (India) December 19–21, 1978; copies of papers and handouts from the meeting are held at Cambridge University Library and CIIL Mysore Library.

146

Sidwell

It should be noted that little of the data used for competing classifications has ever been published, and therefore cannot be evaluated by peer review. Nagaraja 2010: 15

Austroasiatic languages are the most poorly researched of all those under discussion. Many are not documented at all and some recently discovered in China are effectively not classified. The genetics of Austroasiatic speakers are almost unresearched. Austroasiatic is conventionally divided into two families, Mon-Khmer (in SE Asia) and Muṇḍā (in India). Diffloth (2005, 79) now considers Austroasiatic to have three primary branches but no evidence for these realignments has been published. Indeed Austroasiatic classification has been dogged by a failure to publish data, making any evaluation of competing hypotheses by outsiders a merely speculative exercise. Blench 2008, 117–118

Thus, in to the second decade of the 21st century, and well into the second century of AA studies, we find ourselves without a clear classificatory consensus, and consequently floundering when it comes to addressing issues of prehistoric culture and population diversification, contacts and movements in Mainland Southeast Asia. AA is clearly an old phylum, probably the oldest in mainland Southeast Asia, as is clearly evident from its geographical distribution. The branches are distributed largely discontinuously (a tendency that is much greater outside of Indo-China), with speaker communities divided by other linguistic families known to be intrusive to the region (Tibeto-Burman, Kra-Tai, Austronesian, Hmong-Mien). AA is also typologically diverse, which is indicative of both great time depth and a history of contact with diverse external influences. The proto AA lexicon, according to our current state of knowledge (e.g. Diffloth 2005, Shorto 2006, Blench & Sidwell 2011) shows a variety of terms linked to the cultivation and consumption of rice, yet there are few if any apparently ancient terms related to metals or metal tools. There is also abundant lexicon for tropical wildlife, plus some domesticated species. Additonally, there are indications of ancient loans, especially of animal terms, between AA and neighbouring phyla such as Sino-Tibetan and Austronesian. This would seem to indicate a periodization of cultural development that may be tested by correlation with archaeological and genetic data. These are the kinds of considerations that Nagaraja has in mind when he writes:

147

Austroasiatic Classification

Regarding the homeland of Munda people, more research needs to be undertaken on a multi-disciplinary axis as no single disciplinary approach will bear any fruit. Nagaraja 2011: 14

Obviously real progress in the area of AA phylogenetic classification holds great promise for advancing our understanding of human history in Southeast Asia, which only has a written historical record that begins patchily in the mid first Millennium with inscriptional Mon and later Khmer. A reliable reconstruction of language history that demonstrates the branching structure of the phylum will have much to say about the migration and settlement history of the speaker communities, with implications for both absolute and relative chronologies of diversification events. One of the first problems is to determine the general shape of the family tree, since on general grounds we expect that a deeply nested tree structure will correlate with a very old language history, while a flatter or less structured tree would indicate a younger family whose initial diversification was a more rapid or punctuated event. The principle is indicated diagrammatically by Bellwood (2005) in the figure below. SPACE 1

1‒4 = Proto-languages

1

2

1‒5 = Proto-languages 3 4 5

TIME

2 3

4

A

subgroups

B

subgroups

DIRECTION OF GEOGRAPHIC EXPANSION OF FOUNDER COMMUNTIES Figure 3.1 Strong vs. weak nesting of branching relations within family trees (Bellwood 2005: 187).

148

Sidwell

The idea is that in a family with well-defined nested sub-branching distinguished by innovations at the nodes, substantial periods of time and/ or geographical separation must have occurred, and done so in an ordered chronology. On the other hand, a relatively rapid dispersal will see nodes only weakly differentiated, with less opportunity for nested groupings to arise, yielding a simple rake-like or radial structure (depending on how the tree is drawn). Proposals of both kinds have been made in respect of AA, and it is on this question that scholars have had the most difficulty reconciling their views. There are presently two main tendencies; one reflected by Diffloth (2005) divides AA into three families with substantial nested subgroupings; the other tendency (e.g. Sidwell & Blench 2011) proposes a more rake-like tree, reflecting a later and more rapid dispersal of the phylum. Various proposals for nested relations among branches will be discussed below; and solutions to these questions potentially hold the key to providing answers to the most promising and problematic issues facing the field, such as:

• • • • •

Does AA form an old deeply nested phylogeny or a flatter/rake-like tree? Is there a primary divide between Munda and Mon-Khmer, with one structurally archaic and the other innovative? Is the AA homeland in Inda, SEAsia, China, or elsewhere? How can the geographical dispersal of AA languages be reconciled with linguistic phylogeny? What is the chronology of linguistic expansions/dispersals, and how do these correlate with historical and archeological facts (e.g. rice agriculture, metal smelting, seafaring etc.)? How have linguistic contacts conditioned language change/restructuring over time?

•

There is, however, substantial consensus on the number and compostion of individual branches in the phylum. The general view at present acknowledges some thirteen AA branches, listed in alphabetical order here: Table 3.1

Austroasiatic branches

Branch

Main regions where spoken

Aslian Bahnaric Katuic Khasian

Malay Peninsula Central Indo-China Central Indo-China Meghalaya State of India

Austroasiatic Classification Branch

Main regions where spoken

Khmer Khmuic Mangic/Pakanic Monic Munda Nicobarese Palaungic Pearic Vietic

Cambodia and neighboring areas Northern Laos Southern China and Vietnam Southern Myanmar and central Thailand Eastern and Central India Nicobar Islands of India Shan State of Myanmar Cambodia and Thailand Vietnam and Central Laos

149

There is extraordinary variation in the number of languages and internal sub-groups within branches. At one extreme Khmer is represented by a single language, Monic by two and, both Nicobarese and Mangic/Pakanic each with three (although this is not entirely clear). At the other extreme the largest branch is probably Bahnaric, with at least 30 distinct languages and extensive internal typological diversity, indicating that it has been diversifying for several thousands of years. In addition to the list above, there are recent proposals that other AA branches existed and have left traces in various languages today (Sidwell 2005, Blench 2011, Blench & Sidwell 2009), but these are not dealt with here. 2

A Short History of AA Classification Proposals

A range of proposals emerged around the middle of the 19th century that recognised a substantial language family that we would today identify with AA or a subset of AA, and until the 1950s there were ongoing disputes over the membership and the limits of the phylum. In particular there were deep divisions over questions of whether languages as typologically divergent as Vietnamese and Mundari could even be related to each other, which were only resolved with progress in comparative studies. The period since the 1950s and continuing to the present is very different in character; debate over the extent of the phylum settled down after the publication of various landmark studies, and a coherent field began to emerge, complete with international meetings, a journal, and canonical reference publications. A new era dawned in which field workers generated extensive new data written in modern linguistic frameworks, and this in turn facilitated a growth in comparative and other analytical

150

Sidwell

work, especially branch-level comparative reconstruction and classification. Rapid progress followed through the late 1960s and into the 1970s as many problems of the “low hanging fruit” kind were solved, followed by a relatively quiet phase through the 1980–90s in which no dedicated conferences were held and several important projects were abandoned or otherwise delayed. The pace of work picked up again in the late 1990s, in part due to the new emphasis on language documentation as a field, and later improved application of computational methods and data sharing provided a much needed boost to comparative work. International conferences finally resumed in 2007 with ICAAL3 being held in Pune (India). Very recently new computational phylogenetic studies are being conducted with AA data and beginning to yield new and interesting results. The first recognition of some kind of AA language relationships come in a footnote on page 345 of Vol. IV (1850) of The Journal of the Indian Archipelago: I was first led, some years ago, to recognise the peculiar connection of Anam with the Indo-Asianesian races on finding, when amongst the Basisi of Bukit Panchür in Malacca, that several of their non-Malayu words were Anamese. Logan 1850: 345

Logan’s otherwise uninformative remark was followed in 1854 by Mason who provided—in his grammar of Mon (Talaing)—a list of Mon and Kol (the Munda languge also known as Ho) lexical comparisons that provided strong indications of a genetic relationship. Within a generation there was wide recognition of the “Mon-Anam” family, although diffusionists would remain sceptical well into the 20th century. For example, while Cust (1878) laid out a recognisable characterisation of the family: The Group is composed of twenty Languages—1. The Mon or Peguan. 2. the Kambojan. 3. The Annamite. 4. The Paloung. 5–20. The Languages of the sixteen Wild Tribes inhabiting the upper basin of the River Mekong. Cust 1878, 124

Keane on the other hand offered outright dismissal: Here no place is given to a so-called “Mon-Annam” linguistic family, of which a good deal has recently been heard, and which is supposed to embrace the Annamese, . . . Keane 1880, 286

Austroasiatic Classification

151

And as late as 1942, Sebeok was pointing to the various structural differences between, for example, Munda, Vietic and Aslian languages, offering only incredulity at the prospect that they could be related. Perhaps the most influential scholar suspicious of the genetic hypothesis was Charles Otto Blagden, who served for many years as Reader in Malay Studies in the University of London and made great contributions to Aslian linguistics and Mon and Burmese epigraphy. An enthusiastic diffusionist, Blagden saw waves of linguistic influence where others would see a genetic family. He imagined multiple phases of MonAnnam influence working their way into the aboriginal cultures of the Malay peninsula throughout the first millennium, especially citing lexical differences as evidence. Despite the strong diffusionist tendency, the neogrammarians would eventually prevail. Through the late 1800s more and more data came in from French Indochina, and from the turn of the century the great Linguistic Survey of India (or LSI, published in multiple volumes from 1903 to 1928, edited by George Grierson) provided a mass of well organised data of AA languages in what are today India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and the Nicobar Islands. Although on structural grounds Grierson separated Munda and Mon-Khmer—a scheme that would echo down to the present—the LSI helped to provide a solid basis for comparative AA linguistics, from the beginning of the 20th century until well into the 1960s. Using materials obtained through Blagden, Grierson and French sources, Wilhelm Schmidt produced a series of monograph length papers:

• 1901: analysed the Aslian group (“Sakai und Semang auf Malacca”) in relation to Mon-Khmer (published in English 1903);  • 1904: analysed Khasi and Palaungic (“Palaung-Wa-, und Riang-Sprachen” or Salwin Group) 1905: • often refered to simply as the Grundzüge (‘Foundations’), is a comparative analysis of Mon, Khmer, Bahnar and Stieng, compiling more than 900 etymologies; 1906: outlines the case for an Austric super-phylum (published in French in 1907).

•

Schmidt’s work put comparative AA studies on a strong footing, even though he was unable to solve many problems with the limited data at hand. For example, the problem of proto-vocalism so frustrated him that he expressed doubts that regular correspondences even existed, and the problem bedevils the field to some extent even today. Schmidt (1906) suggested an internal classification of Austroasiatic, based upon various lexical and morphological isoglosses, arriving at a classification

152

Sidwell

that he considered “einleuchtender und gesicherter” (reasonable and secure), as follows: Table 3.2 Austroasiatic classification by Schmidt (1906)

I. II.

III.

a) b) a) b) c) a) b) c)

Semang Senoi (Sakei, Tembe); als Michungen mit Bersisi, siehe IIIc. Khasi Nikobar Wa, Palong, Riang; nach Mon-Khmer neigend, siehe IIIa. Mon-Khmer (mit Bahnar, Stieng usw., siehe oben S. 18.) Muṇḍā-Spachen Tscham, Rade usw., s,ob.18; Mischungen mit austronesischen Sprachen

Schmidt’s Mon-Khmer group included languages that are today classified into six distinct branches: Monic, Khmer, Bahnaric, Pearic, Katuic, and Khmuic. Altogether it is evident that 11 Austroasiatic branches are represented in Schmidt’s work, with only Vietic and Mangic/Pakanic absent. The minor Vietic languages, which are typologically much more like other ‘Mon-Khmer’ than the highly monosyllabic and tonal Vietnamese, were unknown, so it is understandable that Vietamese was put aside as an oddity. On the other hand, Mangic/Pakanic would not even be known to scholars until the later part of the century. Finck (1909) followed Schmidt (1906) closely, and showing more confidence explicitly maintained Vietnamese (his Annamitisch) within Austroasiatic. The classification, explained in the text rather than explicitly tabled, plays out as follows: Table 3.3 Austroasiatic classification by Finck (1909)

Austroasiatische 1– Kurku-Annamitisch or Munda und die Mon-Khmer Gruppe 2– Khassi-Nikobarisch 3– Proto-Malakkisch

153

Austroasiatic Classification

Finck placed Vietnamese within his Kurku-Annamitisch group, explaining that it had “received a new and peculiar imprint” due to Chinese influence. The Khassi-Nikobarisch corresponds to Schmidt’s group II, and the third (Semangische and Senoische, today’s Aslian) is equivalent to Schmidt’s group I. Within francophone linguistics a strong tendency resisted the classification of Vietnamese within AA. Maspero in 1912 (translated into English by Haudricourt 1966) treated Vietnamese as a Tai language, asserting that the tonal system must have been so inherited; so profound was Maspero’s influence that he was still being cited as authoritative decades later by westeners (e.g. Sebeok 1942) and until recently still enjoyed significant support by Chinese and other Asian scholars. And some other Europeans had their own original ideas, of particular note von Hevesy (1928; 1930; 1932; 1934) repeatedly ridiculed the Munda-MK connection, instead suggesting a genetic relation between Munda and the Finno-Ugric languages. Przyłuski (1924) offered a classification in his chapters “Les langues austroasiatiques”, “Les langues mon-khmer” and “L’annamite” in an edition of Meillet and Cohen’s Les langues du monde. He championed the AA hypothesis whilst being scathing of the bolder Austric hypothesis “La construction est grandiose; elle est encore assez fragile.” (The construction is magnificent, it is still quite fragile) (p. 25). Przyłuski divided AA into three families: Munda, MonKhmer and Annamite (Vietic), and offered lexical and structural evidence, such as the following set of numeral comparisons: Table 3.4 Austroasiatic numeral comparisons by Przyłuski (1924: 386)

‘un’ ‘deux ‘trois’ ‘quatre’

Santali (Munda)

Mon

Muong (Vietic)

mit bar pä pōn

mwai b9a pi pan

môt hal pa pôn

Sebeok (1942) offered a wide ranging and sceptical review of Schmidt’s Austric hypothesis, critiquing his comparisons on lexical, phonological and structural grounds. He found reasons to doubt not only Austric but also the main pillars of AA. Consequently, while Sebeok accepted a core Mon-Khmer family

154

Sidwell

(which included Chamic), he rejected any genetic connection to Munda or Vietnamese. A key flaw in Sebeok’s argument was his ironic acceptance of one of Schmidt’s real errors; the insistence that Mon-Khmer languages have exclusively monosyllabic roots. Sebeok pointed to the real risk of “statistical convergence” in comparison of monosyllables (see Ringe 1999 for a more recent discussion of the problem) and was thus able to cast doubt generally on the lexical comparisons upon which AA is based. However, this criticism is relevant only in respect of particular faulty comparisons, and cannot be held generally against the hypothesis; later work (especially Donegan & Stampe 1983, 2004 etc.) has built a coherent theory reconciling Munda and non-Munda AA roots, moving beyond a dogmatic insistence on historical CVC structure. In a very positive aspect of the paper, Sebeok opens with a detailed AA classification. “[. . .] as complete and as accurate as a comparison of the sources permits [. . .] because, scattered over many places, it is nowhere available in such a unified form.” (fn. 1942: 206). The list is reproduced here as a useful indication of the state of knowledge at the time. Table 3.5 Austroasiatic classification by Sebeok (1942)

Austroasiatic 1. Mon-Khmer 1.1. Mon-Khmer proper 1.101. Mon (or Talaing) 1.102. Khmer (or Cambodian) 1.103. Bahnar 1.104. Stieng 1.105. Rangao 1.106. Moi 1.107. Kha 1.108. Kuoi (about 4 dialects) 1.109. Chong 1.110. Pear 1.111. Penong 1.2. Eastern 1.21. Cham 1.211. Cambodian 1.212. Bình Thuân 1.22. Jarai

1.32208. Senoi of Ulu Pahang 1.32209. Chendariang 1.32210. Tapah 1.32211. Ulu Gedang 1.32212. Sungkai 1.32213. Slim 1.32214. Orang Tanjong of Ulu Langat 1.323. Southern 1.3231. Southwestern (5 dialects) 1.3232. Southeastern (4 or more dialects) 1.324. Eastern 1.3241. Inner Group (about 5 dialects) 1.3242. Outer Group (about 2 dialects) 1.4. Nicobarese 1.41. Kar Nicobar-Chowra 1.42. Teressa-Bompoka 1.43. Kamorta—Nankawri—Trinkat Kachal 1.44. Little and Great Nicobarese 1.45. Minor dialects

155

Austroasiatic Classification 1.221. Haban 1.222. Hedroŋ 1.223. Arap 1.224. Chur 1.225. Kruŋ 1.23. Radé 1.231. Kpa 1.232. Atham 1.233. Dle-rue 1.234. Ktul 1.235. Kaduŋ 1.24. Sedang 1.3. Malay Peninsula 1.31. Semang 1.311. Group One 1.3111. Kedah (3 dialects) 1.3112. Ulu Selama 1.3113. Ijok 1.3114. Jarum 1.3115. Plus and Jehrhr 1.3116. Pangan (12 dialects) 1.3117. Hill Semang 1.312. Group Two 1.3121. Juru 1.3122. Begbie’s Semang 1.3123. Newbold’s Semang 1.3124. Swamp Semang 1.3125. Unclassified dialects 1.32. Sakai 1.321. Northern 1.3211. Kenderong 1.3212. Grik 1.3213. Kenering 1.3214. Sungai Piah 1.3215. Po-Kloh 1.3216. Plus Korbu 1.3217. Ulu Kinta 1.3218. Tanjong Rambutan 1.3219. Tembe’ 1.322. Central

1.5. Salowen Basin 1.51. Palaung 1.52. Wa 1.53. Riang 1.54. Khamûk (or Khmu) 1.55. Le-Met 1.6. Khasi 2. Muṇḍa 2.1. Himalayan 2.101. Patan 2.102. Rangōi 2.103. Kanāshī 2.104. Kanāwri 2.105. Rangkas (or Sankiyā) 2.106. Dārūtiyā 2.107. Byāngsī 2.108. Chandāngsī 2.109. Vāyu 2.110. Khambu 2.111. Yākhā 2.112. Limbu 2.113. Thāmi 2.114. Dhimāl 2.2. Chota-Nagpur 2.21. Western 2.211. Kūrkū 2.212. Khariā 2.213. Juāng 2.22. Kherwārī 2.221. Santālī 2.222. Muṇḍārī 2.223. Bhumij 2.224. Bīrhar 2.225. Kōḍā 2.226. Ho 2.227. Tūrī 2.228. Asurī 2.229. Korwā 2.23. Two questionable groups 2.231. Savara

156

Sidwell

(cont.)

1.32201. Blanja (Lengkuas) 1.32202. Sungai Raya 1.32203. Ulu Bertang 1.32204. Ulu Kampar 1.32205. Mt. Berumban 1.32206. Jelai 1.32207. Serau

2.232. Gadabs 3. Annam-Muong 3.1. Annamese 3.11. Tonkinese 3.12. Upper Annamese 3.13. Cochinchinese 3.2. Muong (many dialects)

Sebeok’s scheme recognises three numbered divisions, 1 Mon-Khmer, 2 Munda, 3 Annam-Muong (Vietic), reflecting his concerns over demonstrating genetic relationship. The listing does include some languages that are well known these days as belonging to phyla other than AA. These include the Chamic (Austronesian) languages Cham, Jarai, Radé, mistakenly included in AA by Schmidt, plus a column of Tibeto-Burman languages misclassified as Himalayan Munda (continuing Schmidt’s earlier typolologically based classification). More than a third of the total list offered by Sebeok is a listing of Semang and Sakai (Aslian) languages, which is directly from the compilation of Blagden (1906). Generally the impression is of little progress in the three decades up to the 1940s. The 1950s saw a radical improvement in the field as the twin problems of the status of Vietnamese and Munda were independently and successfully tackled. Haudricourt (1953, 1954) brilliantly demonstrated that Vietnamese tones originated natively within the resources of the AA vocabulary, so there could no longer be reasonable doubt of its affiliation. Pinnow (1954, 1959) systematised lexical and phonological correspondences within Munda and between Munda and other AA languages, providing the first substantial addition to Schmidt’s work of half a century earlier. Like Schmidt before him, Pinnow’s work also took some minor dead ends; he mistakenly included Nahali in his Munda group when it should be regarded as an isolate (see Shafer 1940; Kuipers 1962, Zide 1996); and there are many unsafe comparisons in his data. Although it was the 1950s, Pinnow was working substantially with LSI sourced data, and was strongly influenced by Grierson’s views, so we can afford to be generous is assessing Pinnow’s substantial achievement. The classification he presented in 1959 is presented at Table 3.6.

Austroasiatic Classification

157

Table 3.6 Austroasiatic languages by Pinnow (1959: 3–6)

A. West-Northwest: Nahali B. Nordwest: Munda a) Ost: Kherwari b) West: Kurku c) Zentral: Khaɽia-Ɉuaŋ d) Süd: Sora-Gadaba C. Mon-Khmer: a) Mon b) Kambodja (e.g. Khmer, Pear, Stieng) c) Chəma (e.g. Ma, Chrau) d) Mnong e) Bahnar f) Sedang g) Brao h) Jəru (e.g. Boloven, Nhaheun) i) Kuoy j) Suoy (e.g. Kaseng, Alak, Laveh) D. Nordost: Palaung-Wa or Salwen Group a) West (e.g. Riang, Palaung, Wa etc.) b) Ost (e.g. Khmu, Lameet etc.) E. Nord: Khasi F. Südwest: Nikobar G. Səmang a) Seəmang-Pangan b) Tiefland-Semang H. Sakai a) Nord b) Zentral c) Süd d) Ost I. Ɉaku’d (Ɉakud’n, Ɉakun)

Examining the classification, we note that Pinnow treats Munda as one among nine coordinate banches. This is understandable as his thesis primarily concerns Kharia within Munda, and the wider AA lexical comparisons he offers

158

Sidwell

are unstructured, merely providing suggestive witness of AA etymology. So the groupings are being given in a flat list without presupposing any particular nested structure. A little later Pinnow (1960 in German, 1963 in English) followed up with a paper directly addressing the classification issue. The impact of Pinnow’s argument is explained well in the following extract: According to recent investigation the extensive subordination and the extremely synthetic structure of the Munda languages are of a secondary nature, just as the analytic structure and general co-ordination in the east are not original but are probably the result of secondary development and, in part, of the influence of the Thai and other languages. The complicated Munda conjugation, if pursued back to its origins in older Proto-Munda, shrinks to a fraction of its present size; thus in ProtoMunda no pronouns as indicators of either subject or object were incorporated into the verb. The decisive question here is whether the analytic simplification developed independently in the individual eastern groups or whether it began in a period before the formation of these groups, as was the case with the increased structuralization in the later period of Proto-Munda. If the latter supposition is correct, the Khmer-Nicobar languages form just such an historical unified group as the Munda languages do. It is unfortunately not yet possible to give a reliable answer to this question. (Pinnow 1963: 145)

So he tentively divides AA into coordinate Western and Eastern families, as tabled below: Table 3.7 Austroasiatic languages by Pinnow (1963: 278)

Western group (Nahali-Munda) (A) West: Nahali (?) (B) East: Munda (a) North Kherwari (Santali, Mundari, Korwa, etc.) Kurku (b) South 1. Central: Khari, Juang 2. South-East: Sora, Pareng, Gutob, Remo

Austroasiatic Classification

159

Eastern group (Khmer-Nicobar) (A) West: Nicobarese (Nancowry, Car, etc.) (B) East: Palaung-Khmer (a) West: Khasi (b) North: Palaung-Wa (Palaung, Wa, Riang, Lawa, etc.) (c) East: Mon-Khmer (Mon, Khmer, Bahnar, Sre, etc.) (d) South: Malacca 1. Sakai 2. Jakud 3. Semang

Missing from consideration was Vietic, explaining that: “Vietnamese, Müöng [. . . .] are clearly mixed languages” with an Austroasiatic substratum so small “that we may unhesitatingly regard Vietnamese and Müöng as Thai languages” (pp. 140–1) citing Maspero (1912) as the authority for this claim. Thus, at the beginning of the 1960s AA comparative studies were solidly grounded in neogrammarian studies, but quite behind the times; in effect hypotheses developed in the 1850s–80s had been fleshed out and partially proven using data that was mostly circa the first decade of the 20th century. The times they were a-changing, and the 1960s saw the field of AA studies make a serious play at fast catch-up. In addition to substantial francophone research activity, the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and allied (mainly American) researchers in Indo-China systematically collected survey word lists and other descriptive data, and keenly applied new methodologies such as lexicostatistics (Swadesh 1952, 1955 etc.) and new structuralist analytical frameworks. Out of initiatives taken on several continents an international movement came to life. At SOAS in London in July 1961 a group of scholars met and their papers were published in 1963 as Linguistic Comparison in South East Asia and the Pacific. Also at SOAS Harry Shorto had taken up a chair in Austroasiatic Languages, and in 1962 his A Dictionary of Modern Spoken Mon was published, and shortly followed by Bibliographies of Mon-Khmer and Tai Linguistics (Shorto, Jacob & Simmonds 1963). In 1964 the journal Mon-Khmer Studies was launched in Saigon, with the first issue including A Survey of Austroasiatic and Mon-Khmer Comparative Studies (Thomas 1964). In Chicago Norma Zide was particularly active, in 1966 editing Studies in Comparative Austroasiatic Linguistics and taking steps that ultimately led to the very successful first International Conference

160

Sidwell

in Austroasiatic Linguistics (ICAAL) held at the University of Hawaii in 1973 (and proceedings published in two volumes as Austroasiatic Lingusitics in 1976, Jenner et al. eds). A watershed advance in the classification of AA languages was reached with Thomas’ (1966) Mon-Khmer Subgroupings in Vietnam and a follow-on study coauthored with Headley (1970) More on Mon-Khmer subgroupings, both relying on lexicostatistical methods (and the willingness of colleagues to share their data, a practice that is not universal in this field). The papers were transformative, such that their results have successfully framed discussions of AA classification ever since, with several of their novel results withstanding the test of time well. The principal achievement of Thomas and Headley was to sort out the confusion regarding eastern AA groupings. As one may note in the classifications of Schmidt, Pinnow, and others, there was a strong tendency to group all of the AA languages of Indo-China and immediately neighbouring areas into a vague Mon-Khmer group, as if the many languages of the Indo-China Cordillera and Mekong Valley were one great dialect chain, with Mon and Khmer at one end and Khmu at the other. Thomas and Headley introduced structure into this linguistic diversity, clearly established Pearic, Katuic and Bahnaric as distinct branches, their tabling of cognate counts producing: . . . . fairly neat clustering of percentages, showing the distinctions between intra-branch comparisons and inter-branch comparisons; intra-branch figures run from about 40% up, inter-branch figures about 20–30%, inter-family figures 8–15%. (Below 6–8% genetic relationship becomes indistinguishable from chance similarity.) Thomas & Headley 1970: 409

Yet their data was still quite limited, and they followed earlier writers in treating Munda, Nicobar and Aslian (Malaccan) as coordinate families along with the newly internally delineated Mon-Khmer. The latter they classified as follows: Table 3.8 Mon-Khmer sub-groupings by Thomas & Headley (1970)

I. Pearic II. Khmer III. Bahnaric A. North Bahnaric B. West Bahnaric C. South Bahnaric

Austroasiatic Classification

161

IV. Katuic V. Khmuic VI. Monic VII. Palaungic VIII. Khasi IX. Viet-Muong

Thomas & Headley’s classification substantially informed the widely cited 1974 Encyclopædia Britannica article by Diffloth, who acknowledged that, “The main lines of the following classification have been established by the glotto­ chronological method, which involves the statistical comparison of similarities.” (Diffloth 1974: 481)3 The problem of classification became an important theme of the 1973 International Conference on Austroasiatic Languages (ICAAL) meeting in Hawai’i, with proceeding published in 1976 in two volumes under the title Austroasiatic Studies. Lexicostatistical studies included: Benjamin (delineating the internal structure of Aslian); Gregerson et al. (analysing the position of Bahnar in Bahnaric); Headley (examining the place of Khmer); Huffman (discussing specific issues arising in applying lexicostatistics to Mon-Khmer languages). Further lexicostatistical studies followed, including: Smith (1981), Migliazza (1992), Miller & Miller (1996), Peiros (1998, 2004), and various unpublished studies by Shorto (discussed in Sidwell 2009). All these studies follow similar methodologies, of the type that originated with Swadesh (1952 etc.) and (with the exception of Peiros) they did not include their complete wordlists and cognate assignments with their results. The lexicostatistical method has been widely criticized, especially for unreliability at greater time depths due to problems with the assumption of constant rate of change inherent in the method (see e.g. Bergsland & Vogt 1962, Rea 1973, Blust 2000). More recently Bayesian approaches to computational phylogenetics, adapted to linguistics from other fields such as genetics, are being adopted and have essentially displaced lexicostatistics. From the 1970s onwards Diffloth developed a model of AA classification, apparently based on clades of lexical and other innovations, although the justification has not been published. Early versions divide AA into Munda and 3  Diffloth himself does not practice lexicostatistics, and oddly his encyclopedia article does not credit Thomas and Headley, although the bibliography does mention Mon-Khmer Studies, characterising it as “collections of short technical articles mostly on the montagnard languages of South Vietnam.”

162

Sidwell

Mon-Khmer familes (following Pinnow 1959), and Mon-Khmer into three subfamilies (Northern, Eastern, Southern). A version is presented by Diffloth and Zide (1992): Table 3.9 Mon-Khmer sub-groupings by Diffloth & Zide (1992)

Northern Mon-Khmer Khasi Palaungic Khmuic Eastern Mon-Khmer Vietic Katuic Bahnaric Khmer Southern Mon-Khmer Monic Aslian Nicobarese

In 2005 Diffloth further revised his classification, elevating his Northern MonKhmer to a coordinate family, and collapsing the eastern and southern groups, giving us an AA phylum composed of three families: Munda, Khasi-Khmuic, and Mon-Khmer. The paper does not defend or demonstrate the classification but rather offers it as “the most recent form of a possible AA tree” (2005: 81). Some verbal explanation was offered by Diffloth at the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS) meeting (May 21–21, 2008, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia), along the lines that it is based on analysis of lexical innovations. Although the facts behind these lexical arguments have not been published, their existence is asserted by others, e.g.: Gerard Diffloth (2005) provides a somewhat changed picture. Here rather than counting cognates, Diffloth compares reconstructions of various clades, and attempts to classify them based on shared innovations. Nagaraja 2011: 17

Of course, one must acknowledge that Diffloth has presented some phonological arguments from time to time—and these are discussed below—but serious

163

Austroasiatic Classification ad 1,000 ad 0

1,000 bc 2,000 bc 3,000 bc 4,000 bc 5,000 bc

Korku Kherwarian Kharia-Juang

Munda

Koraput Khasian Pakanic

Khasi Khmuic

Eastern Palaungic Western Palaungic Khmuic Vietic Eastern Katuic

Vieto-Katuic

Western Katuic

Khmero-Vietic

Western Bahnaric Northwestern Bahnaric Northern Bahnaric Central Bahnaric

Khmero-Bahnaric

Southern Bahnaric Khmeric Monic Northern Asli Senoic

Asli-Monic Nico-Monic

Southern Asli Nicobarese

Figure 3.2 Austroasiatic classification by Diffloth (2005).

detailed discussion of AA classification has been remarkably lacking since the heyday of AA studies in the 1970s. Through to the early 2000s discussions continued to be dominated by lexicostatistical analyses and this has not helped in terms of having the field taken seriously; the lexicostatistical method (as classically formulated) is widely held to be discredited and in practice has generated wildly varying results in respect of AA over 40 years of efforts. Consequently, in the first decade of the 21st century, the state of AA classification was in a very unsatisfactory state. The general picture was of multiple conflicting published claims, and a lack of access to the data upon which those claims were made. Furthermore, claims based on differing methods (i.e. morphosyntactic typology vs. sound change vs. lexicon etc.) had not produced convergent results. However, it is recognised that studies conducted so far have not always had access to sufficiently representative or comprehensive data (often due to lack of data sharing rather than an absolute lack of data collection) and individual researchers have faced difficulties dealing with large data sets.

164

Sidwell

Better use of software and information technology over the last decade has seen a dramatic improvement in data aggregation and sharing. Additionally, computational phylogenetics generally has begun to demonstrate results which are convergent with those derived from more traditional comparative methods (see Greenhill & Gray 2009 for discussion). Thus the propects for moving the field forward have improved both qualitatively and quantitatively (although it remains for academic culture to catch up to the possibilities created by new technology). Responding to the challenge of Diffloth’s classifications, this writer has taken a multi-pronged approach, pursuing systematic bottom-up reconstruction of the phonology and lexicon of AA branches plus the use of computational phylogenetic methods (the latter conducted in cooperation with Russel Grey of the University of Auckland and Simon Greenhill of the Australian National University4).5 The ongoing result of this work is an emerging synthesis that is summarised immediately below and discussed in more details in sections following that deal with individual branches. The computational phylogenetic project began with an analysis based on a data set of Swadesh 100 list items for 30 AA languages, the results of which were discussed at the 4th ICAAL meeting in 2009 and in print by Sidwell & Blench (2011). The limitations of that study were such that Mangic/Pakanic was not represented, and most branches were only represented by two or three languages. The result was a strongly branching tree with roughly equidistant “spokes” suggesting a rather flat or rake-like structure. Support was found for sub-branching of Katuic with Bahnaric, and also a northern group comprised of Palaungic, Khmuic and Khasian, but with no clear indication that these should be interpreted as genetic or areal constructs. A second trial was conducted in 2010, and the results posted on a website for the purposes of discussion/cooperation (people.anu.edu.au/~u9907217/ lexico/AAclassification). The dataset was expanded to 54 languages, including the addition of Mangic/Pakanic. The results were consistent with the previous study, this time broadly indicating 13 sub-groups in a strongly branching tree, 4  At the time the cooperation began, in 2009, Greenhill was at the University of Auckland, and late took up a fellowship at the ANU, Canberra). 5  It should be noted that this writer continues to be strongly criticised, mostly in anonymous referee reports on grant applications, for not pursuing an approach focused on seeking innovations in morphology and syntax as the basis of classification, citing the importance of this method for Indo-European studies. Meanwhile, in the real world, no scholar has proposed morphological or syntactic innovations that might plausibly link two or more AA branches, and this is not for lack of effort in searching for this kind of evidence.

165

IC

ur KS C_

_K

hm

er

B BA AHN HN A AR RIC BAH NAR IC_St _Sre IC_T ien BAHN g a ARIC mpuan _ BAHNARIC Bahnar _Sedang BAHNARIC_Halang a BAHNARIC_Cu u IC_ Jrn R A N BAH yaheu IC_N NAR BAH

KA KA TUI TU C_ IC Bru MO _K ui NIC MO _Nya NIC h_K _Mo ur n MAN GIC_ Man g MANGIC _Boylu MANGIC_Bugan

uAD ge Kat IC_N coh TU Pa KA IC_ TU KA

hm

_K

C UI

g

an

u uC

l Ma ri KM IC_ lab U M M _ K UIC KM lai eme i N_S A I Sema ASL ASLIAN_ emiar ASLIAN_T ASLIAN_Jahai ASLIAN_Kensiw NICOB ARIC_C NICO AR BAR IC_N MU anco ND wri A MU MUN _ Juan g ND DA A_ _Ko Mu rku M UN nd ari DA _S or a

m ru Go A_ ND o MU ngS avu _Th TIC VIE alieng c _M Ru ese TIC TIC_ VIE VIE TIC_Vietnam VIE VIETIC_MuongHB

KAT

KHASIAN_WarLamin nar KHASIAN_P hasi IAN_K KHAS

IC AR

ER

I ER

M

_ UIC

H ong _Ch ng RIC _Kaso PT PEA RIC PearK _ PEA in

PE M KH

KH

PALAUNGIC_U PA PAL LAUNGIC_ Lamet AU PAL NGIC_ Wa AU NG PA IC_ LA KM Pal UN aun UI G IC_ g C_ D Ks a na inm w ul

Austroasiatic Classification

Figure 3.3 Neighbour Net of 50 Austroasiatic languages by Sidwell & Greenhill (2014).

again with weak support for Katuic-Bahnaric and Palaungic-Khmuic-Khasian (with Khasian falling closer to Palaungic). In early 2014 a third trial was conducted on an expanded data set and the data and results put online (sites.google.com/site/austroasiaticlanguages). The lists were extended to 192 lexical items for each language (an edited version of the Matisoff CALMSEA6 list), while the number of languages was reduced to 50 as several were not represented by sufficiently rich sources. A Neighbour Net of the 50 languages (created by Greenhill using SplitsTree4 software) is reproduced here. Again the results are strongly in line with previous trials, which (in the context of the much expanded and repeatedly reviewed dataset) provides 6  Culturally Appropriate List for Mainland Southeast Asia, see Matisoff 1978. Some items were edited from the list due to their consistent lack of representation in the sources.

166

Sidwell

substantial comfort that the methodology is delivering useful results. One other Neighbour Net analysis of AA relations is published, being a detailed treatment of Aslian internal relation by Dunn et al. (2013) and also reproduced in Benjamin (2011). It is noted that, consistent with the results of my 50 languages trial, Dunn et al. also find three branchings that include Kensiw and Jahai, Temiar and Semai, and Semelai respectively. This most recent AA Neighbor Net continues to indicate a strongly branching, largely flat tree, with weak support for Katuic-Bahnaric and PalaungicKhmuic-Khasian sub-families, plus it reveals important information about internal relations within the more divers branches (such as Bahnaric, Palaungic, etc.), which is discussed further below. Interesing aspects of the Neighbor Net include:

•

The Munda branch is coherent, and shows as a coordinate branch at the same level as others, so there is no support for treating it as a sister family of a greater Mon-Khmer family. Pearic and Khmeric are grouped in the Neighbor Net, but this is apparently due to borrowings, predominantly from Khmer into Pearic. There are no serious proposals to sub-group these; in fact at the 2013 SEALS meeting (Argay, France) Diffloth suggested a Northern Mon-Khmer affiliation for Pearic, citing Khasi isoglosses. Palaungic and Khasian are subgrouped, consistent with a postion that I arrived at by comparative reconstruction (see discussion below), but there is only much weaker indication of a link to Khmuic. The putative Mangic branch is indicated, consistent with Peiros’ (2004) lexicostatistics, while earlier suggestions of a connection to Palaungic (Thomas & Headley 1970, Loi et al. 2008) are not supported. A Katuic-Bahnaric sub-family is strongly indicated. Calculations suggest that there are in the order of approximately 30 unique isoglosses in the 194 word list, which suggests either a coordinate sub-family, or a coherent local sprachbund, or both. There is weak support for a southern grouping of Nicobar-Aslian, but these do not group with Mon, as Diffloth (2005) suggests.

• • • • •

Below, we will briefly review the evidence for several sub-grouping proposals, before concluding with an examination of the internal structure of the consensus branches.

Austroasiatic Classification

3

167

Proposals for AA Families & Sub-Families

3.1 Munda vs. Mon-Khmer It is quite striking that Schmidt’s (1906) classification grouped Munda with the eastern Mon-Khmer languages, reflecting particular lexical agreements which are found in basic vocabulary, pronouns and lower numerals. A half century later, especially following Pinnow’s work (1959, 1960, 1963) which gave priority to typological differences, a view would emerge and become widely accepted that AA consists of a two coordinate families, Munda and Mon-Khmer (or Khmer-Nicobar in Pinnow’s formulation). Benjamin describes the present situation neatly: It has been widely assumed that the two branches constitute genetically well-founded sub-families, but the view currently being proposed is that all the Austroasiatic groups are of more equal status and that the high-level division between ‘Mon-Khmer’ and ‘Munda’ should therefore be regarded as arbitrary (Sidwell 2010, Sidwell & Blench 2011). While this ‘flat’ view may turn out to be true, linguistic research continues in practice to treat the Munda and Mon-Khmer branches separately. Benjamin 2012: 137fn

However, statements such as the above obscure the fact that there is a history of fluidity and competing hypotheses. Even Pinnow expressed the reservation that his classification may, “. . . . have only structural and geographical justification.” (1963: 150) Consequently the problem was never simply put aside, and in particular through the 1970s and 1980s both Diffloth and Shorto independently considered the idea that AA actually has two coordinate families, Northern and Southern, with the former consisting of Munda, Khasian, Palaungic and Khmuic, and the remainder making up the latter. In an unpublished draft by Diffloth held in the Cornell Library manuscript collection he muses: I have in mind in particular a dendrogram which would place Munda within, or as a coordinate of, the Northern branch of Mon-Khmer. This idea is supported by historical innovations (FN . . .)7 and is therefore superior to other classifications which are based mostly on typological considerations. But the question remains entirely open, . . . . 7  Although an explanatory footnote was intended, it does not occur in the manscript.

168

Sidwell

The note is accompanied by a handout from a conference presentation Diffloth gave in Moscow in 19898 on the question of AA classification, which presents details on two etymologies (for ‘daylight’ and ‘stone’) that suggest a regular correspondence of *s-:*t- in minor syllable position, with Munda, Khasian, Palaungic and Khmuic reflecting *s- and the rest of the phylum reflecting *t-. The same question had been considerd by Shorto; one of the important changes that had been made in his Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary between the first draft in the late 1960s and the second draft a decade later, was the reconstruction of a *t2 proto-phoneme to account for the same correspondence that was to trouble Diffloth. Shorto, writing about the supposition of a Northern MK family, remarked: The whole of this group is characterized by a shift of *t in initial position in structures *CCVC (in some cases) to a sibilant, prima facie via an affricate stage. This minor shift is interesting because it apparently extends to Munda. Its incidence may be conditioned by the lost (in Mon-Khmer) V1 of Proto-Austroasiatic *CVCVC, or it may entail reconstructing an additional proto-phoneme (*t1,) *t2. Shorto (2006: x–xi)

Shorto (2006) proposed 14 etymologies in support of his preconsonantal *t₂-; on close examination I find that only 5 are sustainable, yet these still need explaining, and it is not clear that we have a definitive solution. Presently, this writer (Sidwell) proposes that since all the reasonably secure examples involve s:t before a sonorant, they may reflect lenition of an original stop following juncturally conditioned aspiration, similar that that which occurs in Cambodian. This is at least as reasonable as Shorto’s proposal of assimilation to a pre-pAA *i vowel, yet both solutions still hint at the proposed Northern-AA family. Harking back to Schmidt, it is surely significant that Munda languages retain important AA lexical items that have otherwise been replaced or restricted in Khasian, Palaungic and Khmuic. Most significant among these are the lower numerals; prima facie we can reconstruct numeral forms one to nine for pAA, based on cognate forms retained in Bahnaric, Vietic, Mangic, Monic, Aslian and Munda. Elsewhere only forms one to four or five are generally retained, and forms five to nine are replaced by a diversity of roots which are difficult to etymologise. In a different pattern again, a pAA form *gaːl ‘ten’ is apparently reconstructable based on reflexes in Vietic, Mangic, Khmuic, Palaungic, and 8  Linguistic Reconstruction and the Ancient History of the East, Institute for Oriental Studies, Moscow, May 28–June 2, 1989. Presentation: “Sub- and supra-classification of Mon-Khmer”.

Austroasiatic Classification

169

Munda. It would appear that in this respect Munda is broadly conservative, while the other supposedly Northern languages show more losses/innovation in their numerals. Consistent with the numerals evidence, it is also apparent that Munda languages do not share supposed Northern lexical innovations (see next sub-section for details and discussion) but retain more ancient forms in common with languages on the eastern periphery of AA. The typological argument also needs to be dealt with. It has been noted in several studies that Munda languages are typologically very different from the rest of the phylum, especially in their having highly synthetic morphosyntax, including extensive suffixation and polysyllabic words with rather simple syllable structure and phoneme inventories (see e.g. Pinnow 1959, Donegan & Stampe 1983, 2004). By itself this typological contrast does not require positing a phylogenetic opposition between Munda and the rest of AA as a single coordinating family. Donegan & Stampe have provided a proposal for how Munda typology could have evolved out of the eastern AA isolating iambic type, and no scholar has proposed any innovation or other factor that would require the recognition of all the non-Munda AA languages as a single phylogenetic unit. The closest we have come the latter is the highly problematic s:t correspondence that seems to link Munda with Khasian, Palaungic and Khmuic, and yet which is contradicted by the failure of Munda to show any lexical or other structural innovations that might link it to this putative group. Consequently, we can say that there is no basis for a single Munda-MK split underlying the AA family tree; on examination it seems to have been a misreading of Pinnow’s (1960/1963) typological classification. 3.2 Northern Mon-Khmer? A number of significant references mention or discuss a putative Northern Mon-Khmer family (e.g. Ferlus 1974, Diffloth 1979, Diffloth & Zide 1992 and others), and it remains an important feature of the influential (2005) classification proposal of Diffloth, under the rubric Khasi-Khmuic. Thomas & Headley’s (1970) lexicostatistics weakly suggested a northern vs. southern division, and the authors cautioned that, “this would be hard to sustain in the face of the rest of the figures”. More confidently, they grouped Khmuic and Palaungic sharing between 25% and 30% cognates, plus Mang (only recently identified at the time) was found to be closer to Palaungic. Diffloth (1979) explicitly identifies a north-south division in his map of AA languages, with Khasian, Palaungic, Khmuic, Mang and Vietic in the north, although without explicit justification. Diffloth & Zide (1992: 137) straightforwardly state: “The Northern division of MK contains three branches: Khmuic, Palaungic, and Khasian. [. . .] To this North MK division may be added the very small Mang language located on the border of Vietnam and China.” Diffloth’s (2005) scheme has Khasian branching

170

Sidwell

from the highest node, sitting above a sub-family in which Khmuic coordinates with Palaungic-Pakanic, Mang is not mentioned but it may be that Diffloth’s Pakanic includes Mang. Other lexicostatistical studies also provided weak indications of a northern family; for example, Peiros (1998) grouped Palaungic and Khmuic sharing 26% cognates, coincidentally the same percentage counted for Palaungic-Khmuic as found by Huffman (1978). However, these results seem to be an artefact of the selection of languages for comparison; in my lexicostatistical trials comparing five Palaungic languages with four Khmuic, the range of percentages of cognates varied from 10% between Danau and Mal, to 27% between Rumai and Khmu Cuang, and this indicates that the lexicostatistical bases for Northern Mon-Khmer are at best ambiguous. Additionally, some lexical innovations have been suggested in support of a northern family. In the following table of examples from basic vocabulary, innovations shared by two or more branches are shaded: Table 3.10 Select Northern AA isoglosses Khasian

‘blood’ ‘water’ ‘two’ ‘hair’ ‘fingernail’ ‘rain’ ‘eye’

War

pPalaungic Danau

Lameet

snaːm ʔum ʔaːr ʃɲuʔ trsim slap kmat

rnʊə ʔam ʔũ/ʔʊ͂ ə sʊʔ (kǝcar) slɛ/sla mat

*snaːm *ʔoːm *-ʔaːr *suk *rnsiːm *səlɛʔ *ŋaːj

kənɑn⁴ ʔun⁴ ʔɑn⁴ ɲok¹  (kəleəŋ⁴) kəlɪ¹ ŋɑj²

naːm ʔoːm ʔlaːr khuk lmhiːm səlɛʔ ŋaːj

Mang

Mangic Bugan

Bolyu

ham¹ ʑum¹ ʑɨəj⁴ hɔk⁷ — ma² mat⁷

sa³³ da³⁵ biɔ³¹ sak⁵⁵ mi³³ kʰou³⁵ mɛ³³

saːm⁵³ nde⁵³ mbi⁵⁵ suk⁵³ maːi¹³ qɔ⁵⁵ mat⁵³

Khmu

‘blood’ ‘water’ ‘two’ ‘hair’ ‘fingernail’ ‘rain’ ‘eye’

Palaungic

Khasi

Khmuic Mlabri

maːm ʔom, ʔɔːk baːr gləʔ tmʰmɔːŋ kmaʔ mat

mɛːm ɟrʌːk bɛːr thmbʌc chŋkɛr mɛːʔ mat

Austroasiatic Classification

171

The isoglosses given above seem to contradict the notion of a close PalaungicKhmuic relation in favour of Khasi-Palaung; and this is also the consistent result of the computational phylogenetic analyses of Sidwell and Greenhill. The etymology of ‘blood’ terms is problematic, although significant light was thrown onto the question by Ferlus (2008). A problem is that there are two main and apparently related groups of forms. One group is based on a root *saːm ‘to bleed’, which underlies the nominalised stem *snaːm, which is unambiguously represented in Khasian and Palaungic. Additionally there are forms with a mainsyllable -haːm and either a palatal or a bilabial presyllable (e.g. Khmer chiəm, Mon chim, Bahnar phaːm, Semalai maham etc.) which suggest pAA *ɟhaːm or *bhaːm/*mhaːm. Diffloth (1977) and Shorto (2006) both proposed to explain the diversity of forms by positing a nasal infix in an original pAA *ɟhaːm > *ɟnhaːm > *ɟmhaːm, but the identification of the ‘to bleed’ root by Ferlus (continued in Vietnamese as tươm ‘to ooze’) seriously undermines Diffloth’s and Shorto’s ad hoc reconstruction. Consequently, is appears that there are historically two roots, perhaps phonological variants in prepAA. In contrast to Khasian and Palaungic, Khmuic forms reflect pre-pKhmuic *mhaːm with regular loss of medial *h (hence, e.g. Khmu maːm) presenting a serious objection to the Khmuic-Palaungic model. The Mangic languages also present forms that are not infixed, but still pose problems of analysis: Mang reflects both pAA *s and *h as /h/, and so is ambiguous, while the Bugan and Bolyu reflexes both suggest *saːm, although they could also reflect the clustered onset *ɟh reduced to /s/, but this is not indicated by Mang, so probably all three reflect *saːm, which is elsewhere only found in Vietic. Particularly intriguing is the distribution of terms for ‘water’. Most AA branches reflect *ɗaːk ‘water’ (including Munda) while Khasian, Palaungic, and a subset of Khmuic language reflect *ʔoːm, which is clearly an innovation (apparently from a root meaning ‘to wash’). Strikingly, within Khmuic there is a profusion of ‘water’ terms, e.g.: Mlabri ɟrʌːk, Mal phuaj, Phong paʔaŋ, TaiHat paj; Khmu dialects show ʔom as the general term for ‘water’, ʔɔːk for ‘drinking water’, and may reflect pAA *ɗaːk in daʔ ‘spring (water)’. The apparent Khmu homeland area is in the northwest of Laos, in immediate proximity to Palaungic speakers, so this writer is suggesting that the Palaungic word for ‘water’ was borrowed into Khmu at some point before Khmu expanded out over its present range. Within Mangic, we note that *ɗaːk is reflected in Bugan da³⁵ and Bolyu nde⁵³, while Mang shows ʑum1. The Mang form is curious; it can be compared to Waic (Palaungic) *rʔom ‘water’, which is superficially attractive, but this is not unambiguously supported by historical phonology. All the examples of Mang words with initial /ʑ/ that this writer has been able to reliably etymologise reflect forms with original clusters *kr-, *kj-, e.g. ‘wind’

172

Sidwell

ʑiː4 < *kjaːl, ‘road’ ʑaː¹ < *kraʔ. These suggest a preMang ‘water’ *krum or *kjum, neither of which support the comparison with Waic. A similar conundrum prevails over the numeral ‘two’. Khmuic and Bugan/ Bolyu clearly reflect pAA *ɓaːr, while Khasian and Palaungic reflect a variant *ʔaːr, with a lateral preffixed to Palaungic forms (therefore *lʔaːr). Mang. ʑɨəj4 may be compared to Palaungic, but again it is not clear that the correspondences are viable, and the form remains problematic. Very striking is the apparent isogloss for ‘hair’ between Danau (Palaungic) and Standard Khasi, in which both show an infixed palatal nasal, which is not a regular formation. Both groups also have the regular AA root with the nasal, so it appears that either we have an astonishing coincidence, or a common inheritance of a one-off innovation. Not listed above, as it falls outside of the Swadesh list, there is another morphological doublet in words for ‘porcupine’. Khasi has the form dŋkʰɛːt with a front vowel while War has ʃkɔt with a back vowel; the forms are similar but the correspondences do not appear to be regular. Within Palaungic, most languages show a back vowel, such as Riang rəŋkɔs¹, while Danau has a front vowel: tɔŋ² kiɛt¹ˈ³. Reflexes further afield, in Aslian and Katuic also show back vowels, so the marked forms are in Danau and Khasi. Thus we appear to have two examples of non-trivial morphological doublets between Khasian and Palaungic. Additionally, Khasian and Palaungic share an innovated form for ‘fingernail’, and what looks suspiciously like a common innovation replacing the AA root for ‘rain’ (while Khmuic and Mang reflect the more archaic pAA *gmaʔ ‘rain’). The final /p/ of the Khasi reflex is problematic, as it may be original and War may have dropped it, in which case the similarity to Palaungic is irregular. On the other hand, the final /p/ could be due to consonant sandhi, in a phrasal construction with the Khasian verb *pat ‘to fall’, and the connection to Palaungic is strengthened. Finally, the last row in the table above lists forms for ‘eye’. Most AA languages reflect pAA *mat with minimal or no change, whereas Palaugic languages show reflexes of *ŋaːj, apparently from a root meaning ‘pupil’. On balance, it seems reasonable to suggest that the immediate proximity of Khmuic and Palaungic occasioned inter-branch borrowings, and these may be sufficient to explain the similarities that have been noted between these languages. At the same time, the unambiguous geographical separation between Khasian and Palaungic means that it is more difficult to invoke borrowing to explain the isoglosses between these two. Also, except the two questionable Mang words, there is a lack of evidence connecting Mangic/Pakanic with any supposed Northern Mon-Khmer sub-family. Consequently, the most parsimonious analysis groups Khasian and Palaungic in a sub-family, while treating Khmuic and Mangic/Pakanic as independent AA branches.

Austroasiatic Classification

173

3.3 Katuic-Bahnaric? While a major finding of Thomas (1966) was that the Katuic and Bahnaric branches should be delineated within AA, subsequent lexicostatistical studies suggested that these two groups might form a sub-family. Arguments for this have been exclusively lexical, as no common phonological or other structural innovations have been proposed, nor are other indications evident to this writer after nearly two decades of looking at the question. Of particular influence was Huffman’s presentation to the second ICAAL meeting (Mysore, 1978) which although unpublished, was widely circulated and acknowledged. Huffman found very high cognate percentages between Katuic and Bahnaric. He wrote, “It became obvious that the cognate percentages between the Katuic and Bahnaric branches were sufficiently high (52–55) and sufficiently similar to be considered a single branch at the interbranch level of comparison . . .” (1978: 3) Huffman’s figures were also remarkable because he found that all AA branches tend to share higher cognate percentages with Katuic-Bahnaric than than they do with each other, with the effect broadly correlating with geographical proximity to Katuic-Bahnaric. This was interpreted as suggesting that that region of Indo-China was the original centre of expansion of Austroasiatic. Subsequent studies still found a higher percentage of shared cognates between Katuic and Bahnaric, but in ranges much lower than found by Huffman. For example, Smith (1981) found between 24% and 39% of cognates between Katuic and Bahnaric, while Peiros (1998) counted 40%.9 This writer’s (2010) lexicosatistical trial found a range of 23% to 36% between Katuic and Bahnaric, which is essentially consistent with Smith’s findings. It appears that Huffman’s cognate counts were skewed upward by a combination of factors, including the selection of languages and a failure to screen out borrowings. Sidwell & Jacq (2003) identified a substantial stratum of Katuic loans into Bahnaric, especially West Bahnaric, and this sub-branch is overly represented in Huffman’s lexicostatistics as he collected his Bahnaric data from speakers taking refuge in Thailand during the Indo-China war. The recent computational phylogenetic analyses by Sidwell and Greenhill, including Neighbour Net and Covarian tree (relaxed-clock) found strong indications of Katuic-Bahnaric branching from a single node, the Covarian analysis grouping Katuic and Bahnaric in 97 out of every 100 possible trees, which indicates a significant number of isoglosses underlying the computational results. Examining the lexicons used for the phylogenetic analyses, it is not 9  It is significant that Peiros only use Kui to represent Katuic, and this language has a disproportionately higher rate of loans from Khmer.

174

Sidwell

Table 3.11 Katuic-Bahnaric proto-branch basic lexicon isoglosses Gloss

pKatuic

pBahnaric

‘bark of tree’ ‘claw/nail’ ‘skin’ ‘to stand up’ ‘tree/wood’ ‘crossbow’ ‘horn’ ‘palm, sole’ ‘salt’ ‘to steal’ ‘ten’

*ʔnɗɔh *knrias *ʔŋkar *dɨk *ʔalɔːŋ *pnaɲ *ʔakiː *trpaːŋ *bɔːh *toŋ *ɟit

*kɗuh *krʔniəh *ʔəkaːr *dɨk *ʔlɔːŋ *pnaɲ *ʔəkɛː *-paːŋ *bɔh *toŋ *cit

Notes

cf. Khmer kiəh ‘to scratch’ may be borrowed from Chamic cf. pKhmuic *cʔɔːŋ cf. OldMon pnaɲ ‘army’

difficult to identify apparent isoglosses, and a compilation of examples that seem to be reconstructable to both branches (rather than later loans) in the list used for the computational phylogenetic analyses is given above. Eleven proto-language isoglosses are found in the list, and it is not clear whether such should be treated as common innovations or early borrowings. Generally it is evident that there has been extensive borrowing between Katuic and Bahnaric; in the course of compiling etymologies for this writer’s 2011 pBahnaric reconstruction, out of an initial compilation of 1912 Bahnaric comparisons, 335 were identified as loans from Katuic, or about 1/6th of the total. Even if a substantial proportion of these are misidentified as loans from Bahnaric into Katuic, or as common loans from a third source (such as Chamic or Khmer) this strongly suggests a language contact area. All indications are that Katuic is a younger and less lexically diverse group than Bahnaric, and Katuic is also lexically well-defined with numerous distinctive lexical innovations well represented across the language and reconstructable to pKatuic (see discussion of the Katuic branch below). These innovations are across a range of semantic fields, including significantly the numerals from five to nine. By contrast, Bahnaric is not well defined lexicaly, in fact only some three lexical innovations have been identified as uniquely defining the branch. These facts suggest that each branch has had a very different deep history, along the following lines:

Austroasiatic Classification

175

• •

Bahnaric is an older group with its root quite close to pAA, and commensurately has a deeply nested internal branching structure; Katuic is a relatively younger branch which diversified much later and more rapidly from a single rather lexically innovative proto-language, and came into contact with Bahnaric (and Chamic) forming a language area.10 It is very telling that within Bahnaric, Chamic loans are extensive in Central, Northern and Eastern sub-branches, but almost absent from West Bahnaric (see Sidwell & Jacq 2003 for discussion and examples), strongly indicating that Bahnaric diversification preceded the arrival of the Chams in Indo-China in the first Millennium BC. By contrast, there are some Chamic loans that are found right across Katuic (e.g.: *jaːŋ ‘spirit’, *kəw ‘I’, *tdɨa ‘chest’, *rpuːʔ ‘storm’, *cuah ‘sand’ and others) correlating with a later date for Katuic diversification. We may see a hint of the nature of pKatuic society in the recent life of the Katu: their language is phonologically conservative yet lexically innovative, Chazee (1999: 87) remarks on their culture, and the: “independent and autarchic attitude of this population, who negotiate its acculturation harshly.” Consequently, this writer’s analysis is that the extent of Katuic-Bahnaric borrowing is so great that it has been difficult to control for in comparative studies. Detailed analysis with the benefit of extensive databases reveals that lexical isoglosses between these two branches are most likely due to contact loans after each had followed very different early trajectories after independently emerging from pAA. 3.4 Vieto-Katuic? Diffloth (1991b) suggested a sub-family of Vietic and Katuic, and this features consistently in his subsequent published classifications; additionally Diffloth (1989) remarked in the typological parallel of Vietic and Katuic languages having similar creaky phonation contrasts, although was not able to demonstrate a common etymological origin of the feature. Nguyễn (1995) also remarked upon the tendency of both Vietic and Katuic languages to add minor-syllables to AA monosyllabic roots, such as in animal names, in a manner that appears strikingly parallel. Alves (2005) provided an examination of the hypothesis with reference to 100 lexical comparisons. However, all of the viable comparisons provided by Alves have wider AA etymologies, and so there are no immediate consequences for the sub-grouping argument. 10  One may speculate that contact with Chamic may be related to the spread of Katuic.

176

Sidwell

The most important evidence is the small set of lexical comparisons proposed by Diffloth (1991) illustrating the proposed correspondence of pAA *ʔ- to Katuic *h- to Vietic *s-. The data is partly extracted (all etymologies are represented, not all languages) and tabled here: Table 3.12 Katuic-Vietic isoglosses from Diffloth (1991) Thavung Maleng Tum

Pacoh

‘centipede’ kasḭːp

kasḭːp

liːp-siːp kahḛːp

‘bone’

—

səːŋ

siəŋ

‘to cough’

—

—

—

‘to fart’

—

—

somʔ

‘to breath’ pəsʌ̰ːmʔ pəsʌːmʔ — ‘blood’

—

ʔasaːmʔ —

Kui

Katu

Other AA

kahɛ̰ːp kahip

Bahnar kəʔɛːp, Khmer kʔaɛp ŋha̰ ːŋ ŋha̰ ːŋ ŋhaːŋ Khmer cʔəŋ, Khmu cʔaːŋ kahɔ̰ːʔ ŋho̰ ʔ — Khmer kʔoːʔ, Brao kʔɔk — — — Bahnar phoːm, Khmu puːm palho̤ ːm pəhɒ̰ ːm — Khmer ɗɑŋhaəm, Car ʔuhɔːm ʔaha̰ ːm ŋha̰ ːm ʔahaːm Bahnar phaːm, Khmu maːm

The examples presented by Diffloth (1991) establish that in at least two etyma there is a Vietic /s/ corresponding to /h/ in Katuic and /ʔ/ elsewhere, plus one example of Katuic /h/ lacking Vietic cognate; additionally there is a correspondence of Vietic /s/ to /h/ in Katuic and elsewhere, supported by three examples. This is a curious problem, since it suggests an unusual direction of phonetic change (i.e.: ʔ > h > s), and in the absence of any apparent motivation such as a fronting environment. This suggests something grammatical and/ or analogical underlying these. What does not appear to have been suggested is that there is a possible semantic link in the above items; firstly, discounting the ‘blood’ etymology, which is discussed above already, the terms ‘cough’, ‘fart’, ‘breath’ all involve release of gas from the body and are susceptible to sound symbolism with sibilants. This does not immediately explain the ‘bone’ and ‘centipede’ cases, although these may have been restructured secondarily through alliterative rhyming or similar word play. Whatever the explanations,

Austroasiatic Classification

177

the correspondence is real, if sparcely represented, so it hints at either a close contact situation between Vietic and Katuic, or common inheritance. In the same paper Diffloth also asserted that the lexical evidence favours his Vieto-Katuic, writing: It also agrees with the general impression one gathers from inspecting the lexicon of Vietic languages like Thavung, Maleng and Tum, namely, that there are many unique and remarkable agreements between them and the Katuic languages. These agreements do not seem to favor one sub-branch of Katuic or another, but are distributed throughout the branch. There are also cases of unique lexical agreements between Muong and the Katuic languages, and occasionally even of Vietnamese agreeing alone with the Katuic branch. Arguments about lexical replacement require ample space and time to be presented convincingly, which I hope to be able to do on another occasion. Diffloth 1991b: 136

It is a matter of regret that a convenient occasion has not arisen in the past quarter century to present the lexical agreements that are apparently so readily identified, despite the efforts of Alves and this writer. On balance it would appear that the Vieto-Katuic hypothesis has only ambiguous support; the branches are in close proximity and have experienced historical contact, although even the evidence presented for this is not extensive. Despite unsubstantiated claims of significant lexical isoglosses, there are no indications of these in lexicostatistics or computational phylogenetic studies, and the small number of etyma showing non-trivial phonological correspondences is not well enough understood to inform a sub-grouping argument. Additionally, there are also similar problems of the sort encounterd in assessing the KatuicBahnaric hypothesis; in this case, it is evident that both Vietic and Katuic diversified internally a significant time after they split from pAA, and later both came under Chamic influence (e.g.: see Gregerson 1991 for a discussion of Austronesian lexicon in Vietnamese, and note that southern Vietic groups even refer to themselves by the Chamic word for mountain chưt). Consequently it is this writer’s assessment tha the Vieto-Katuic hypothesis is not sufficiently supported. 3.5 Nico-Monic? A consistent feature of Diffloth’s AA family trees is the identification of a Southern Mon-Khmer or Nico-Monic sub-family; the scheme has a binary split

178

Sidwell

between Nicobarese and an Aslian-Mon sub-grouping. So far as this writer is aware, two pieces of evidence have been presented for this hypothesis by Diffloth:

•

there is a non-trivial correspondence between Aslian and Nicobarese diphthongs (mentioned by Diffloth 1991, and supported with some examples in a conference handout distributed at the 18th SEALS meeting, May 21–21, 2008, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia); it was suggested at the 4th ICAAL meeting (Oct. 29–30, 2009, Mahidol University Thailand) that the etymology Old Mon kandar, pNyahKur *kəmta̤ r ‘wife’ (reflecting pAA *ua > pMonic *a sound change) has regular reflexes in Aslian such as Semai kərdɔːr, etc.

•

To the above, we can add also the following taken from the core vocabulary: Table 3.13 Southern-AA proto-branch basic lexicon isoglosses

Gloss

Monic Old Mon pNyahKur

Aslian Nicobarese Kensiw Cewong Jah-Hut Semelai Semai Car Nancowry

‘night’ ‘nail/claw’ ‘to die’ ‘head’

bərtɔm (sənlem) (kcøt) (kɗøp)

— ca s gabis kuj

*pəta̱ m (*khənli̱am) (*kəce̱t) (*khdə̱p)

bətom — — —

ptɔm cərwɛs cros kəbɨs kəbəs — khoj

tɯp — — kuj

hataːm sɔh k a pa h kuj

daːm kisoah fah kɔj

The rather scant isogloss data suggests that while there are at least a couple of basic vocabulary isoglosses potentially supporting Diffloth’s Nico-Monic hypothesis, the isoglosses identified here, and the diphthong evidence adduced by Diffloth, would tend to support a closer relation between Nicobarese and Aslian within any such alignment. Additionally it is worth considering the evidence of Shom Pen, the enigmatic language of Great Nicobar Island for which only somewhat problematic sources are presently available. Blench & Sidwell (2011) reviewed the most extensive published source (Chattopadhyay & Mukhopadhyay 2003, henseforth C&W), and found that Shom Pen is most likely an innovative Nicobarese language, or less likely, a sister of Nicobarese and Aslian within an AsliNicobar sub-family. Our analysis of C&W’s Shompen lexicon found 47 unique

Austroasiatic Classification

179

isoglosses with Nicobarese, and 31 unique isoglosses with Aslian languages. Additionally, we identified AA etymologies for some 65 Shom Pen items, but no unique Shompen-Mon isoglosses; those isoglosses with Mon we were able to find are all in the context of wider AA etymologies. It is our contention that the Shom Pen analysis is strongly consistent with there being a closer relationship between Nicobarese and Aslian than between either of these and Monic. The above facts are also consistent with Sidwell & Green’s computational phylogenetic analyses which weakly groups Nicobarese and Aslian yet indicates no support for a special connection with Monic. In terms of reconciling language histories, one may suggest that ancient contacts could explain apparent Monic-Aslian isoglosses; Briggs’ (1950) analysis of Chinese historical sources indicates Khmer and/or Mon presence on the Malay Peninsula for several hundred years during the first millennium CE. However, in respect of the ‘night’ etymology, the phonological changes are regular, indicating a very old form rather than a borrowing, and Shorto (2006) reconstructs pAA *btɔm on the basis of reflexes in all three groups, treating it as a retention. Weighing the above evidence, this writer rejects the Nico-Monic hypothesis as insufficiently supported, and instead proposes a Nico-Aslian subfamily, which has both phonological and lexical indications. 3.6 Provisional AA Classification Having regard to the discussion above, representing a summary of our best efforts to reconcile lexical, lexicostatistical, computational phylogenetic, and phonological studies, the following provisional AA classification is offered (characterised as ‘provisional’ as any hypothesis is open to revision in the light of evidence and analysis): Austroasiatic

Munda

Khasian

Palaungic Mangic Katuic Bahnaric Monic Nicobarese Khmuic Vietic Khmeric Pearic Aslian

The AA tree is characterised as strongly branching, with 11 primary nodes, potentially indicating that there was a phase of rapid differentiation at some point in the history of the phylum. This is broadly consistent with the findings of Sidwell & Blench (2011) and contrasts with the more deeply nested tree model of Diffloth (2005). In terms of modelling language history, the challenge

180

Sidwell

is to reconcile the world represented by the proto-language and its apparent time depth. On one hand, terms connected with rice agriculture and domesticated species seem to be clearly reconstructable for pAA (Diffloth 2005, Sidwell & Blench 2011 etc.) yet at the same time Diffloth (2005) suggests localising pAA older than 5,000 BP, and similarly old dates are suggested by calibrated computational analyses. This is problematic because archaeology (e.g.: Higham 2002, Chi & Hung 2009) tells us that the earliest agriculture in Mainland Southeast Asia appears only around 2000~2500 BP, and significantly older dates for agriculture require localisation either much further north into China or westward into South Asia, which would arguably be even more problematic for modelling the linguistic history. The suggestion made here is that pAA is very old, and was relatively stable over millennia in a dialect chain or “linkage” that underlies the present division into branches. The culture was at home along the Mekong and surrounding uplands, perhaps as far afield as the Red River valley; it was characterised by foraging, hunting, fishery and tuberculture. The combination of dry and wet rice cultivation was adopted circa 4000 BP, and increased the adaptability and vitality of AA communities, who then quickly radiated southward and westward over a range roughly corresponding to what we recognise today. 4

Internal Phylogeny of Austroasiatic Branches

4.1 Aslian Aslian is the most southerly branch of the Mon-Khmer family; located in the interior of the Malay Peninsula while the coastal lowlands came to be dominated by (mostly) Malays. They are spoken by relatively small tribal groups, totalling only a few tens of thousands. Being geographically isolated from other mainland linguistic groups, they never came under strong influence from morphologically isolating and tonal languages like Chinese or Thai, and thus have escaped many of the changes that spread through other Austroasiatic languages. For excellent survey articles about the Aslian branch, see Benjamin (1976) and Matisoff (2003). The internal classification of the languages is essentially now a settled question, particularly in the light of the computational phylogenetic studies of Dunn et al. (2011) (also discussed in Burenhult et al. 2011) and the pAslian reconstruction of Philips (2013). The Aslian languages fall into distinct Northern, Central, and Southern groups, plus one language—Jah Hut—occupies an ambiguous position between Northern and Central branches and may represent a fourth branch. This is seen in the following family tree from Dunn et al. (2011):

181

Austroasiatic Classification

Ten’en Palian Ten’en Paborn 97 Kensiw Perak Kensiw Kedah 61 Kintaq 100 Menriq Rual 99 Jahai Rual 81 Jahai Banun 29 Batek Teh Taku 47 45 Menriq Lah Batek Teh Lebir Batek Teq 82 53 100 Batek Deq Terengganu Batek Deq Koh Ceq Wong 39

Mon

64

Figure 3.4 Aslian family tree, rooted on Mon ( from Dunn et al.). This is a Maximum Clade Consistency tree with branch length equal to the median length of all congruent branches found in the sample. Numbers on the branches indicate percentage of the tree sample supporting each bifurcation.

The results of computational phylogenetics map very neatly on to the patterns of sound change identified by Philips (2013) in his reconstruction of Aslian historical phonology, especially in the vocalism. For example:

• •

Central Aslian preserves long-short vowel distinctions lost to mergers in other branches; PAslian diphthongs *ua, *uə are retained (and distinguished) in Jah Hut (as wɔ~wa~wɛ and wo~o repectively) while they are reflected as low and front monopthongs in North Aslian and mostly as back monophthongs in Central and South Aslian; North Aslian has central vowel reflexes of various front and back pAslian vowels.

•

Southern

92 66

Lanoh Kertei 95 Semnam Malau 100 Semnam Bal 98 Temiar Perak 77 Temiar Kelantan Semai Ringlet 100 Semai Kampar Semaq Beri Berua Semaq Beri Pergam Semelai Mah Meri 89

Central

100

Jah Hut

?

100

Northern Menraq-Batek

35

Maniq

100

100

182

Sidwell

Generally the consonants in Aslian language are well preserved, except for the complete loss of pAA implosion, such that original *ɓ, *ɗ merged with *b, *d in pAslian, and the most common pattern now is for a simple voiced-voiceless contrast in the stop system. From the areal perspective, this is consistent with being in a region of Malayic influence, with convergence on the western Austronesian pattern of multisyllabic words of CVC syllables and less frequent diphthongisation and/or vowel quantity distinctions. In terms of innovations that clearly define the Aslian branch, this is problematic, as no specific proposals have been made for common Aslian innovations either lexical or phonological (beyond the loss of implosion). Consequently, the justification for Aslian remains primarily lexicostatistical, with various studies indicating higher rates of cognates between Aslian sub-branches than with other AA groups; additionally recent computational phylogenetic trials also indicate that the Aslian branch is real. However, even this evidence is not unambiguous: The landmark lexicostatistical study by Benjamin (1976) found cognacy rates as low as 15% with Aslian (e.g. between Kensiw and Temoq) although averaging around 25% between South and North Aslian, and later studies are consistent with these findings. Beyond Aslian these are cognacy rates more typical of the distinction between branches; in the lexicostatistical trial conducted by Sidwell in 2010 various relatively high cognate counts between Aslian and other languages were found, especially with Katuic (e.g. Semelai sharing 26% with Katu, 27% with Kui, and 30% with Bru). These figures indicate a very variable rate of lexical change within Aslian, suggesting conservatism in the south and more rapid lexical change in the north, and this was idependently noted as being indicated by the anlysis of Dunn et al. (2011). 4.2 Bahnaric The Bahnaric family is one of the more diverse AA branches, spoken by hundreds of thousands of mostly hill-tribes (montagnards), living in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. While there is significant typological diversity within Bahnaric, comparative reconstruction indicates that pBahanric was very conservative, closely approaching pAA phonologically. Yet there are a couple of somewhat odd lexical innovations that seem to characterise the branch. In particular, there is a form for ‘fire’ with a final nasal, when we would otherwise expect to see a final fricative, since the initial and vowel appear to correspond to the general pAA term. The word for ‘bone’ has a high vowel and a pre-vocalic alveolar (s or t) that leave it looking suspiciously like an adaptation from Vietic (cf. Vietnamese xương ‘bone’). Also, the word for ‘tongue’ is a uniquely infixed derivative of *liət ‘lick’. If one finds two of these forms in a language it is clearly Bahnaric:

183

Austroasiatic Classification Table 3.14 Bahnaric lexical innovations Gloss

Laven (West)

Sedang (North)

Stieng (Central)

pBahnaric

pAA

‘bone’ ‘fire’ ‘tongue’

ktɨəŋ ʔuɲ hapiat

kəsiəŋ ʔuɲ rəpiɩ

ntiːŋ ʔoɲ lpiat

*kʦɨːŋ *ʔuɲ *lpiət

*cʔaːŋ *ʔus *lntaːk

These apparent lexical innovations are not entirely unproblematic; with two languages showing exceptions. Srê (in the extreme south of the Bahnaric range) shows ʔos ‘fire’, while Cua (in the extreme north-east) has ʔolh ‘fire’ (with -lh the regular reflex of *-s). Perhaps the best explanation is that there were competing *ʔus,*ʔuɲ forms in pBahnaric, and *ʔuɲ simply won out in most cases. In addition to the above lexical innovations, there is a striking pattern of selective retention of pAA final glottal stop. In other AA branches the pattern is that word final glottal stop is either generally retained or lost, but in Bahnaric there is split in which the glottal is retained in about half the relevant vocabulary and lost in the other half (e.g. Bahnar buː ‘who’, sɔː ‘dog’ but baʔ ‘father’, tɔʔ ‘hot’). This pattern is found throughout the branch, except in South Bahnaric where all orginal final glottal stops have been lost. The internal classification was extremely problematic until recent times as scholars did not have access to sufficiently representative data (for example, researchers working with data obtained in Vietnam missed entire subbranches and thus could not successfully configure the nesting of nodes in the tree). Thomas (1966) and Thomas & Headley (1970) correctly managed to separate the then Stiengan and Bahnaran groups from the mass of eastern Mon-Khmer languages and group and relabeled them as South Bahnaric and North Bahanric respectively. Then Smith (1972), Gregerson et al. (1976) and others noted that Bahnar is structurally more like South Bahnaric than the other North Bahnaric languages (which are marked by having contrastive phonation types) and a compromise proposal of a Central Bahnaric sub-branch was advanced (to accommodate Bahnar, and also Tampuon of Cambodia and Alak from Laos). Thomas & Headly (1970) also identified a West Bahnaric group in Laos, although it was studies such as Ferlus (1974) that really confirmed its status as another sub-branch. Smith (1973) also questioned the status of Cua and Katua, proposing a North-East goup, although lately Sidwell (2009) clarified

184

Sidwell

this problem, showing that Katua is North Bahnaric and Cua belongs in a separate East Bahnaric branch. Sidwell (2002, 2009, 2010) comprehensively reviewed and revised the internal classification of Bahnaric based on phonological innovations, yielding the following schema of four coordinate sub-branches: Table 3.15 Bahnaric classification by Sidwell (2010) West Bahnaric

Central Bahnaric

Jru’ (Laven), Juk, Su’ Taliang (Kasseng) Nyaheun Alak Oi, The, Sok, Sapuan, Cheng Central South Brao, Laveh, Krưng, Kravet Tampuon Bahnar South Bahnaric Chrau Sre Stieng Mnong

North Bahnaric

East Bahnaric

Halang, Kayong Cua (Kor) Jeh Kotau Tadrah, Modrah Sedang Hrê Mơnơm (Bơnâm) Rengao Kaco’, Ramam

The classification based on historical phonology is largly consistent with later computational phylogenetic trials, including the Neighbour Net discussed above, the Bahnaric section of which is extracted and enlarged here. BA BAH HNAR NAR I IC C_Sr BAHN ARIC _Stieng e _Tam pu BAHNAR IC_Bahn an ar BAHNARIC_Sedang ng ala _H BAHNARIC a RIC_Cu ru BAHNA C I _J NAR un BAH Nyahe _ RIC NA H A B

Figure 3.5 Bahnaric section of AA Neighbour net (Sidwell & Greenhill).

185

Austroasiatic Classification

The Neighbor Net analysis correctly pairs up Jru and Nyaheun (West Bahnaric), Sedang and Halang (North Bahnaric) and Sre and Stieng (South Bahnaric); it isolates Cua (East Bahnaric), and perhaps most strikingly places Bahnar and Tampuon together, even though lexicostatistical analyses consistently group it within North Bahanric, apparently due to undetected lexical borrowings (this is still indicated by the proximity of Bahnar to Sedang and Halang in the Neighbour net). 4.3 Katuic Katuic is a branch of about 15 distinct languages (with significant dialectal diversity) spoken by communities in Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. The current edition of ethnologue lists 19 languages, but this erroneously included Bahnaric languages (Kasseng, Tareng) and multiple ISO codes are allocated to dialects of Bru and Kui. The majority of speakers use dialects of the West Katuic or Kui-Bru sub-branch, living mostly in eastern Thailand and Cambodia (although there are significant Bru communities in Laos and Vietnam), while the greatest diversity of Katuic languages lies among a patchwork of small communities the Salavan and Sekong provinces of Laos and adjacent border areas of Vietnam. For a recent bibliography and quite full discussion of the disposition of Katuic languages see Choo (2012). Katuic was recognised in print as a branch by Thomas (1966), who mentions that suggestions were made in earlier unpublished work, naming a Phillips but without giving a clear reference. A listing of 18 putative Katuic languages appeared in Thomas & Headley (1970) but erroneously included three Bahnaric languages, and is the source of the Ethnologue error mentioned above. Katuic is readily identified by numerous lexical innovations in core vocabulary and lower numerals, and some of these innovations have diffused into West Bahnaric and some Central Bahnaric languages, which contributed to earlier confusion over classification. Some examples of Katuic lexical innovations that replaced AA roots: Table 3.16 Select Katuic isogloss Gloss

pAA

Katu

Pacoh

Bru

‘wife’ ‘year’ ‘cobra’

*kdɔːr *cnam *ɟaːt

kadiel kamaː tuːr

(kapaj) kumɔː tur

kandɛːl kumɑː tṳːr

186

Sidwell

(cont.) Gloss

pAA

Katu

Pacoh

Bru

‘mushroom’ ‘bone’ ‘six’ ‘eight’

*psit *cʔaːŋ *tpraw *thaːm

triː ŋhaːŋ sapat takɔːl

triə ŋhaːŋ tupat tikɔːl

tri̤aʔ ŋhaːŋ tapa̤t tikṳal

Once Katuic was identified, progress in classification followed. Ferlus (1974) delineated West and East Katuic groups, correctly putting Kui, Bru, So and their dialects together in the West and lumped the remaining languages in the East. Several lexicostatistical studies followed (e.g. Smith (1981), Migliazza (1992), Miller and Miller (1996), Peiros (1996)), with varying results. Both Smith (1981) and Peiros (1996) suggested a primary split between Katu and the rest of the branch, and this was also followed by L-Thongkhum (2001). The analysis by this writer (Sidwell 2005) divides Katuic into four equidistant sub-branches, based on the patterns of independent and overlapping sound changes. Three sub-branches have undergone devoicing of stops and show phonation contrasts in their phonologies, while a fourth, Katu (with several dialects), is conservative and preserves a phonological system that resembles pAA. Superficially this is consistent with the proposals of Smith (1981) and Peiros (1996) but close analysis demonstrates that the devoicing of stop series and phonologisation of phonation occurred independently multiple times in the history of Katuic, so it is not appropriate to use these features to recognise larger nested groupings. The following classification is reported by Sidwell (2005): Katuic

West Katuic: Kui, Souei Bru, Sô Ta’oih: Ta’oih, Katang, Talan/Ong/Ir/Inh Kriang/Ngeq Chatong

Austroasiatic Classification

187

Katu: Kantu, Katu, Phuong, Triw, Dakkang Pacoh: Pacoh Figure 3.6 Katuic classification by Sidwell (2005).

The Neighbour Net analysis of Sidwell & Greenhill included five Katuic languages, and yielded a result consistent with the lexicostatistics of Smith (1981) and Peiros (1996), placing Katu on a node above the rest of the branch. Further studies are clearly indicated to investigate the real lexical diversity within the Katu dialect chain, as it is quite possible that the Katu AnDiem dialect used by Sidwell & Greenhill and used by the lexicostatistical studies mentioned above (all sourced from Costello 1971) is not sufficiently representative. KATU

IC_Ka

tuAD KATUIC_Nge KATUIC_Pacoh ru KATUIC_B i IC_Ku U T A K

Figure 3.7 Katuic section of AA Neighbour net (Sidwell & Greenhill).

There is presently an active research effort on Katuic centered at Payap University in Thailand, and consequently our understanding of the branch is rapidly improving to the point where unresolved issues over its internal classification should become quite tractable. 4.4 Khasian The Khasian (also Khasic, or more lately Meghalayan) languages are spoken in the Meghalaya State of India and neighbouring parts of Bangladesh. In India the variety known as Khasi has official status and a very healthy literature, including dictionaries, grammars and popular texts. Since the 19th century (e.g. Roberts 1875, 1891 especially) the tendency has been to treat Khasi as a single language with various dialects, the latter often characterised as unprestigious and consequently neglected as objects of study or language development. The most important early survey work is the Linguistic Survey of India (or LSI, Grierson 1903), which identifies four languages: Standard (Khasi), Lyngngam,

188

Sidwell

Synteng or Pnar, and War, and although latter work has documented a plethora of named local varieties (see Daladier 2002) it appears that Grierson’s four categories are fundamentally sound. The Khasian branch is readily identified by both sound changes and lexical innovations. All the languages share a distinctive phonological change in which pre-vocalic voiceless stops became aspirated, leaving only a small number of words with /p, t, k/ in that position (probably from a variety of sources). This change is discussed by Haudricourt (1965) who characterised it as a Germanic shift; it is notable that similar shifts are uncommon elsewhere in AA, and are not a typical feature of the linguistic area. Also the old Austroasiatic implosives merged with the plain voiced stops, so that the dominant stop phonation contrast is between voiced and aspirated, which is somewhat odd typologically. Some indicative examples of the Germanic shift in Khasian follow: Table 3.17 Khasian Germanic shift examples Gloss

Khasi

War

pAA

‘tiger’ ‘fish’ ‘crab’ ‘to weave’

kʰlaː kʰaː tʰaːm tʰaːɲ

kʰli hi tʰə tʰin

*klaʔ *kaʔ *ktaːm *taːɲ

It is also apparent that pAA word final *-s and *-h became *-t in pKhasian, which is an extremely marked change, and particularly indicative of membership of the branch. E.g.: Table 3.18 Khasian sound change *-s, *-h > *-t Gloss

Khasi

War

pAA

‘fungus’ ‘to swell’ ‘deer’ ‘bellows’

tit ʔ at kʰiat prsut

tet ʔat — pərsʊ͂ t

*ptis *ʔas *kiəh ‘mountain goat’ *cuh ‘to kindle’

189

Austroasiatic Classification

Internally the phylogeny is straightforward; Khasi and Pnar are unambiguously close, with only minor differences in lexicon and phonology. The next highest node is Lyngngam—spoken by just a few thousand speakers in the west of the Khasi hills—it is more lexically divergent but phonologically similar to KhasiPnar. War branches from the highest node; spoken in the south of the hills and also into Bangladesh, and some communities in the north, apparently due to migrations. War is not only lexically more different, it is radically restructured phonologically: stops are devoiced, final nasals are frequently lost, low vowels are raised and/or diphthongised in many contexts, vowel quantity contrasts are lost completely, and other changes (see Sidwell 2011 for more on the historical phonology). In recent years several lexicostatistical and computational phylogenetic studies were carried out: Nagaraja (2004), Brighthill et al. (2007), Sidwell (2009), Nagaraja et al. (2013). The results of these analyses are consistent with the phonological indications that Khasi-Pnar-Lyngngam fall closer together while War branches form the highest node within the tree. The last of the studies list above is the most rigorous; Nagaraja’s 2004 data was revised and extended, and Palaung was added to root the tree and test overall coherence of Khasian. A Bayesian Phylogenetic analysis was run by Greenhill using BEAST v1.7.4. The tree is constrained to indicate a time depth of 500 years BP for the KhasiPnar split; having regard to the fact that the Buranji chronicles of the Ahom kingdom (see Gait 1906) reference the Pnar kingdom at Jaintia from around 500 BP, which suggests a floor under the separation of Khasi and Pnar. The Bayesian analysis places the War branching at around 1350 years (95% HPD = 1028–1737 years), while the glottochronological calculation reported in the same paper places it at 2054 years BP, probably the true figure lies somewhere between these.

1

PnarJaintia Khasi

1

Lyngngam

1

WarLamin

1

Palaung 3000.0

2500.0

2000.0

1500.0

1000.0

500.0

Figure 3.8 Khasian computational phylogenetic tree (Nagaraga et al. 2013).

0.0

190

Sidwell

Further work is required to fully map the diversity of Khasian languages, but it appears that the outlines of the phylogenetic structure of the branch are now reasonably securely understood and provide a solid basis for ongoing comparative studies. 4.5 Khmer Khmer is the national language of Cambodia, with a written tradition going back at least 1400 years. We can speak of a Khmeric branch which consists of a single language with several very closely related dialects. Several dialects are conventionally distinguished (disregarding the continuum of rural speech varieties):

• • • •



Standard Khmer: used in cities such a Phnom Penh and Siem Reap Surin or Northern Khmer: spoken in northeastern Thailand Cardamon or Western Khmer: spoken in the south-west of Cambodia Khmer Krom of the Mekong Delta

It is apparent that all of these dialects diverged during the Middle Khmer period (roughly between 1400 and 1800 CE) after unifying influence of the Angkorian state collapsed. Khmer shows no particular affinity to any other AA branch, although Diffloth (2005 and elsewhere) has consistently grouped it with Bahnaric, explaining verbally that this is on the basis that they share a metathesized reflex of the word for ‘mushroom’ (e.g. Khmer psət, Sre bəsit, Laven pseːt, pAA *ptis) although this writer suspects borrowing into Bahnaric from Khmer, which is also attested with Bahnar bəməw and Tampuon ma̤ w ‘mushroom’ being borrowed from Chamic. Headley (1976) applied multiple methodologies to the problem of the place of Khmer within AA, and found only ambiguous results, so it appears that we must treat the language as forming a coordinate branch within the phylum. 4.6 Khmuic The Khmuic branch is dominated by Khmu (also Kmhmu, Kmhmu’, Kamu etc.), being a large dialect chain spoken through Northern Laos and adjacent areas of Thailand, Vietnam and Yunnan. Additionally there are some minor Khmuic languages spoken by small communities on the western and eastern peripheries of the Khmu speaking area. These geographical groupings are:

191

Austroasiatic Classification

• • •

Khmu dialects (Cuang, Khuen, Rok, Yuan etc.) Western: Mlabri/Yumbri, Mal-Pray/Tinic (Lua’, Pray, Phay, Mal, T’in/Htin) Eastern: Ksingmul, Pramic (Puoc, Phong, Tai Hat, Kaniang, Then, Ơdu) Studies and reference literature on Khmuic classification have been sparce and ambiguous; a typical pattern, such followed by Filbeck (1978) and Proschan (1996) is to simply give an unstructured list of Khmuic languages. The most developed comparative studies have been Filbeck (1978) and Rischel (2007) on pTinic, with the latter also giving special attention to Mlabri, the position of which he considers to be ambiguous (being either a sister of Tinic or an independent AA branch with a Tinic statum). This writer (Sidwell) takes the view that Khmuic (including Mlabri) is a coherent coordinate AA branch, and is working actively on the reconstruction of pKhmuic (a recent version of the reconstruction was released online in 2013 at http://sealang.net/monkhmer and updates will follow). The branch is readily distinguished by a unique sound change within AA, being the loss of medial *h, e.g.: Table 3.19 Khmuic loss of medial *h Gloss

Khmu Cuang

Mlabri

Mal

Other AA

‘full/sated’ ‘blood’ ‘to fart’

biʔ maːm puːm

biːʔ mɛːm —

piʔ miam —

Laven phɛʔ, Chong phəː Stieng mhaːm, Chong məhaːm Laven phoːm, Chong phuːˀm

However, it must be acknowledged that lexically Khmuic is not especially coherent; in this writer’s lexicostatical trials (such as reported in Sidwell 2010a) cognate scores between sub-branchs typically fall below 40% and as low as 21% (between Mlabri and Ksingmul). Consistent with this, our Neighbour net analysis (Khmuic fragment below) also shows the languages branching close to the root and relatively equidistantly. This writer has recently proposed an internal classification based on sequencing phonological changes within Khmuic (discussed at the 5th ICAAL meeting held in Canberra September 4–5th 2013). The proposal is that pKhmuic *aː

192

Sidwell l Ksinmu KMUIC_ KMUIC_KhmuCuang KMUIC_Mal KMUIC _Mlabri

Figure 3.9 Khmuic Neighbour Net

remained unchanged in Khmu but regularly fronted and raised elsewhere in the branch along a cline: *aː> *ɛː > *iə > *iː. Somewhat problematically for the historical phonology, there was a secondary expansion of Khmu, accompanied by a substantial phase of dialect borrowing of forms retaining *aː (and other conservative features) from Khmu into the other languages, creating multiple correspondence patterns. Taking care to remove the loan correspondences, we find that, broadly, Mlabri reflects pKhmuic *aː as /ɛː/, the Tinic group show /iə/, and Pramic reflexes are /iː/. This allows us to construct a tree as follows: Table 3.20 Khnuic classification

/aː/ Khmu (Cuang, Khuen, Rok, Yuan etc.) Proto-Khmuic *aː

/ɛː/ Mlabri /iə/ Khsingmul, Mal-Pray/Tinic /iː/ Pramic

4.7 Mangic/Pakanic The status of several minor languages only described in recent decades, namely: ‘Mang (spoken in Northern Vietnam and nearby in China), Bolyu/ Paliu/Lai (in Yunnan and Guangxi) and Bugan/Pakan (in Yunnan)’ poses an intriguing problem. It appears that these form a sub-group, variously called Mangic (favoured by this writer) or Pakanic (favoured by Diffloth). Mang first came to the attention of scholars in the 1960s, apparently with the report of Vương Hoang Tuyên (1963), providing some data collected Lai Châu Province. A useful lexicon and description of the tone system later

193

Austroasiatic Classification

appeared as Nguyễn Văn Lợi et al. (2008). There is some documentation on Mang in Chinese but it has not been consulted as part of this study. Bolyu first came to the wider attention of scholars with the account of Liang Min (1984). Benedict (1990) followed up with a discussion of the classification of Bolyu, arguing that it represents a distinct branch of Mon-Khmer. Edmondson (1996) provides a lexicon of Bolyu, and Edmondson & Gregerson (1996) analysed the Bolyu tone system, making typological and etymological comparison to Vietic. Their data was collected at Longlin Various Nationalities Autonomous County in western Guangxi. A little later Li Xulian (1999) also provided a lexicon of Bolyu (in Chinese), and recently Qin & Li (2012) reported on the status of Bolyu (counting the population at only 1,030 in 2006). Bugan was documented by Li Jinfang (1996) with a brief sketch that also includes comparisons with Bolyu, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Lawa, Khmu’ and Old Mon. Additionally there is an unpublished lexicon of Bugan by Li Jinfang (recorded at Guangnan County, Eastern Yunnan) of about a thousand items circulating privately. Discussion of the classification of these languages begins with Thomas & Headley (1970). Their brief note is as follows: Mang (Mang U’) in North Vietnam near the China border (Tuyên 1963), which we expected from its geographical location to be Khmuic, shows highest cognateness with Palaungic, next highest with Viet-Mương. Though the data is sketchy, we are tentatively classifying Mang with Palaungic. Thomas & Headley 1970: 403

More recently Nguyen Van Loi (2008) provided lexical arguments for classifying Mang with Palaungic, perhaps within the Samtau sub-group, on the basis of the forms for ‘water’ and ‘two’. This view is apparently reflected in Diffloth (2005) classification, see fragment reproduced at Figure 3.10. Khasian Khasi-Khmuic

Pakanic Eastern Palaungic Western Palaungic Khmuic Figure 3.10

Pakanic classified with Palaungic by Diffloth (2005).

194

Sidwell

Peiros’ (2004) lexicostatistics unambiguously grouped Mangic, Bolyu and Bugan into a single branch (coordinating with Vietic and Palaungic-Khmuic in his tree). Similarly this writer’s (2010) lexicostatistical study clearly groups the three languages, scoring Bolyu-Bugan at 47% cognate, Mang-Bolyu at 29%, and Mang-Bugan 25%, figures which are comparable to what we find within, for example, Khmuic. The highest inter-branch count is 22% between Mang and Khmu, and all other pairwise comparisons across AA have yielded cognate counts no higher than 20%. Comparative analysis for Mangic is not highly developed. All three languages are tonal, and heavily restructured phonologically (reduction in clusters, extensive vowel shifts, etc.), and this also hinders identification of cognates, so in all likelihood the group is probably a little more lexically coherent than the figures above suggest. The compilation and analysis so far done by this writer remains largely inconclusive; no lexical or phonological innovations have been identified that unambiguously unify the branch. The vocabulary that has been etymologised is almost entirely general AA vocabulary with no marked tendency to resemble another branch, except for the lower numerals which are closest to Vietic (discussed by Edmondson 1996). Consequently, the identification of Mangic currently relies primarily on statistical justification, in the absence of compelling evidence of another type. 4.8 Monic The Monic branch consists of two languages, Mon and Nyah Kur, spoken today by minorities in Myanmar and Thailand. These languages are apparently descendents of the vernacular speech of the inhabitants of the Old Mon civilisation of Dvāravatī that flourished in central and northeastern Thailand from the 6th to the 10th centuries. Dvāravatī society disappeared from history as the Khmer and Siamese absorbed much of the Old Mon culture over time. Using the inscriptional materials, comparison of written and Modern spoken Mon, Nyah Kur, and the evidence of borrowings from and into neighbouring languages, Ferlus (1983) and Diffloth (1984) reconstructed Old Mon or Proto Monic (as the comparative reconstruction is more properly called), and the results show a language which is very similar to proto-Austroasiatic, preserving all three stop series and a variety or other archaic features. Contemporary Monic languages have changed so substantially that, like Old and Modern English, they are almost unrecognisable. 4.9 Munda The Munda branch consists of 11 languages spoken in eastern and central India, ranging from large languages such as Santali (ca. 6 million speakers) and Mundari (ca. 1.5 million speakers) with considerable dialectal diversity down

Austroasiatic Classification

195

to very small members such as Gtaʔ ( k Mixed southeastern group *q > zero.

Pinnow (1959), in his extensive comparative treatment of Munda languages, divided them into four coordinate sub-branches: a) b) c) d)

East: Kherwari (Santali, Mundari including seven named dialects) West: Kurku Central: Kharia, Juang South: Sora-Gadaba (Sora, Pareng/Gadaba, Gutob, Remo)

Pinnow then revised his classification to reflect a basic North-South split, explaining: Recent investigation has shown that the verbal inflection of all Munda languages is traceable to a Proto-Munda inflectional system, which was later expanded in the north and considerably reduced in the south. From this evidence and on the basis of lexical differences the Munda languages may be divided into a Northern group with the sub-groups Kurku and Kherwari (Santali, Mundari, Korwa, etc., belong to the latter branch), and a Southern group, which is further subdivided into a Central group (including Kharia and Juang), and a South-Eastern group (including Sora, Pareng, Gutob, and Remo). Pinnow 1963: 141

196

Sidwell

There subsequently emerged an essentially consensus classification, which was generally received for the next four decades, reproduced here from Anderson (2006): Proto-Munda North Munda Kherwarian

Korku

Santali Mundari etc.

South Munda Kharia-Juang

Koraput Munda

Kharia Juang Gutob-Remo-Gtaʔ Sora-Gorum Gutob-Remo Proto-Gtaʔ Sora Gorum Gutob-Remo Plains-Gtaʔ Hill Gtaʔ

Figure 3.11

Traditional family tree of Munda (Anderson 2006: 2).

Several Munda scholars, especially Anderson (2001, 2004, 2007, 2008 etc.), have emphasised verb morphology as the principal legitimate criteria for classifying the languages, claiming that lexical and phonological features are more easily borrowed and thus less reliable indicators of phylogeny. Anderson and Zide in particular have argued that, “the Proto-Munda language was indeed morphologically complex, and it is far from the case that all such morphological features are attributable to South Asian areal diffusion.” (Anderson & Zide 2001: 24) And subsequently Anderson suggested a revision of the South-Munda part of the family tree to reflect his reconstruction of morphological changes: Proto-South Munda Proto-Sora- Gorum Proto-Juang

Sora-Juray Gorum Figure 3.12

←→ Proto-Gtaʔ ←→ Proto-Kharia ←→ Proto-Gutob-Remo Juang

Kharia

Gutob

Remo Plains Gtaʔ Hill Gtaʔ

Revised south-Munda tree (Anderson 2007: 4) with ←→ indicating sharing of innovative isoglosses.

197

Austroasiatic Classification uang DA_ J MUN orku MUNDA_K MUNDA_Mundari

MUNDA_Sora MUND A_Gor um

Figure 3.13

Munda section of AA Neighbor Net (Sidwell & Greenhill 2014).

Views on Munda classification continue to evolve, and scholars including David Stampe and Felix Rau, have begun to suggest that the North-South division is not real, and that North Munda may be better regarded as coordinating along-side the South-Munda sub-branches, but we await concrete proposals. In this regard, it is notable that the Munda section of our recent Neighbour Net, reproduced above, firmly places the putative Northern languages Kurku and Mundari, between Sora-Gorum and Juang. Consequently the present indications are that the internal structure of Munda is rather flatter than earlier proposals had it, with perhaps six coordinate sub-branches as follows: Munda

Figure 3.14

North Munda: Korku Santali, Mundari Sora-Gorum Juang Kharia Gutob-Remo Gtaʔ

Revised Munda classification.

4.10 Nicobarese (Nicobaric) Remarkably, the Nicobarese are the only Austroasiatic-speaking community who do not live on the Mainland, but on a small chain of idyllic tropical islands. This is not to say that the Nicobarese are, or have been, especially isolated; their islands have always been on an important trade route since classical times. In the atlas of Claudius Ptolemy (ca. 150 CE) the Nicobars are apparently identified as Bazacata Insula, where we are told the natives always go naked. And we are given the following remarkable account of the multilingualism of the natives observed in the 19th century:

198

Sidwell

The oldest men yet speak the corrupted Portuguese that still lingers in the East. Middle aged men speak very often a little bad sailor-English; the young men, especially South and East, speak Burmese; the boys a little Hindustani: all talk Malay and their own language. At Car Nicobar they talk English pretty well. de Röepstorff 1875: 14

The above should put to rest any Rousseauian fanatasy that the conditions of the Nicobarese or their language are the result of great isolation; the great difficulty that scholars have found accessing the islands and speakers in the last century have more to do with the restrictions of colonial and Indian administrations, and more recently the circumstances occasioned by the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami. The above being said, we know something about the languages, especially the two main languages thanks to the PhD theses by Brain (1970) on Car, and by Radhakrishnan (1981) on Nancowry (also lately called Müot). Additionally there are extensive dictionaries and some grammars from the colonial period (e.g. de Röepstorff 1975, 1884, Man 1889, Temple 1902, Whitehead 1925). Whitehead (1925) listed six languages as follows: 1) Car 2) Chowra 3) Teresa/Bompoka 4) Central (Camorta, Nancowry, Trinkat, Katcall) 5) Southern (Great and Little Nicobar, Pulo Milo, Kondul) 6) Shom Pen However, the above list is geographical rather than based on linguistic criteria, and without access to good data on more than Car and Nancowry it is difficult to offer useful conclusions. None the less, the position is not hopeless, as in fact Radhakrishnan did circulate a basic word list of 68 items in seven languages at the SICAL meeting in 1978, and a copy of this was made available to this writer by David Stampe. The languages are: Nancowry, Katcall, Pulo Milo, Kondul, Camorta, Teresa, Car. It is immediately evident that all of the languages except for Car are lexically very close, with only minor phonetic differences between them for most etyma. In terms of the apparent percentage cognates between the lists, compared to Nancowry (as the presumptive reference dialect for the putative Central Nicobarese), we can construct a tree,

199

Austroasiatic Classification

additionally interpolating the position of Shom Pen on the basis of Blench and Sidwell (2011): Nancowry Katcall Camorta Kondul Pulo Milo Teressa Car Shom Pen Figure 3.15

100% 100% 100% 83% 76% 70% 38% ?

Central Nicobar Dialect Chain Proto-Nicobarese

Proposed Nicobarese family tree.

This proposed Nicobarese family tree identifies three primary branches: a Central Nicobarese dialect chain, plus two substantially distinct languages, Car and Shom Pen, respectively at the northern and southern extremes of the island chain. Thus we could characterise Nicobarese as having North, Central and South sub-branches. 4.11 Palaungic Palaungic (or Palaung-Wa in older sources) is an internally diverse branch, with about two dozen languages11 (and numerous named dialects) spread over a wide area that overlaps Thailand, Myanmar, China and Laos. They are generally distributed in small discontiguous pockets surrounded by other ethnic groups, mostly Tai, Meo and Tibeto-Burmans who repeatedly colonised the upper Mekong and Salween valleys over the last couple millennia. Perhaps because of this disparate distribution and intense language contact (or inspite of it?), Palaungic sub-groups have undergone some rather dramatic phonological changes, frequently involving tonogenesis by diverse mechanisms (such as devoicing initials, merging codas, reanalysing vowel length, etc; see Diffloth 1980 on tonogenesis in Waic, Svantesson 1988, 1991 on tonogenesis in Angkuic). The first properly coherent Palaungic classification was presented by Mitani in 1978 (SICAL meeting, Mysore, India) based on lexicostatistics, reproduced here at Figure 3.16: 11  23 ISO 693–3 language codes listed in the 2013 Ethnologue.

200

Sidwell Danau Riang Palaung Wa Angku

Figure 3.16

Palaungic classification by Mitani (1978).

Lamet

C_U UNGI PALA AUNGIC_Lamet PAL PALAUNGIC_Wa PALAUNGIC _Palaung PALAU NGIC_ Danaw

Figure 3.17

Palaungic fragment of AA Neighbor Net (Sidwell & Greenhill 2014).

Mitani’s scheme recognises a primary split between Danau (a single language spoken in the Shan State, see Luce 1965) and the rest of the branch, the latter divided into Eastern (Palaung-Riang) and Western (Wa-Angku-Lameet) sub-brances. Strikingly, this scheme agrees neatly with our recent Neighbor Net analysis at Figure 3.17. Diffloth (1977) proposed a somewhat different tree, based on analysis of sound changes affecting palatals and sibilants, and tonogenesis. This classification still puts Danau at the highest node, as it retains distinct reflexes of pPalaungic *ɟ, *c, *s, *h while there are several distinct patterns of mergers among these reflected in other Palaungic sub-groups. The main difference in Diffloth’s scheme is that Angkuic is placed at a higher node, coordinating with Palaung-Riang. Diffloth (1980) followed up with a reconstruction of Waic lexicon and phonology, including more than 500 lexical reconstructions, and a detailed classification of some 28 dialects within Waic. Paulsen (1989–90) followed with a similarly extensive reconstruction for the Samtau/Plang/Bulang sub-group within Waic. That paper substantially expands and improves classification within Waic, classifying the 28 named sources used in the text into a Waic subbranch with coordinate Wa-Lawa and Samtau nodes. The Santau group, also known as Plang in some sources, and is the subject of a phonological reconstruction by Paulsen (1989–90).

201

Austroasiatic Classification

-*ḉ → *s-

Danaw

Angku

Riang (Black) Lamet

North Wa (e.g., Tung Va)

South Wa

-*š- → sh-, s-*j- → c-*š- → sh-, s- (merger with *h-) Palaung (Milne)

-*c- → ¢ -

register → tone

-register affects vowel quality

Lawa (Bo Luang) -register disappears Lawa (Ban Phae)

-register disappears -breathiness becomes aspiration Lawa (Umphai)

-*j- → *c- + breathy-low vowel Riang (White Striped)

-*s- → ɵ-*j- → *dƷ- → ḉ-*s- → *š-

Proto-Wa

Figure 3.18

Proto-Palaungic

Proto-Palaung-Lawa

Palaungic family tree by phonological innovations (Diffloth 1977:49).

In 1982 Diffloth circulated a classification at the 15th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Language and Linguistics (Beijing, China) (repoduced in Kasisopa 2003, and Deepadung 2007) in which Danau is tenatively demoted to a sister of Palaung Riang-(indicated with a dotted line in his diagram), and Angkuic demoted back to being a sister of Waic and Lameet within East Palaungic. The basis of this reclassification has not been explained. In 2010 this writer compiled a Palaungic comparative lexicon, and proposed a phonological and lexical reconstruction, posting more than 1300 reconstructions and etymologies online at sealang.net/monkhmer. Additionally the analysis was discussed at the May 2010 Southeast Asian Linguistics Society meeting in Bangkok, and a recent computational phyologenetic analysis presented at the May 2014 Southeast Asian Linguistics Society meeting in Yangon. The results are consistent with Mitani’s (1978) proposal, solidly placing Danau at the highest branching node of Palanguic, below which East and West Palaungic sub-branches are recognised, see Figure 3.19. This work still leaves unresolved the status of a couple of languages, Khabit (e.g. Kingsada & Kosada 1999) spoken in Northern Laos, Kháng/Bumang (e.g. Mikami 2003, Edmondson 2010) spoken in Vietnam and nearby in China, which

202

Sidwell Lameet Lua U Muak Lawa Wa Palaungic

Figure 3.19

Rumai Palaung Riang Danau

Proposed Palaungic family tree (Sidwell).

are erroneously listed as Khmuic in the 2013 Ethnologue. Diffloth (1982) tentatively grouped Khabit with Lameet, and Edmondson (2010) compared Kháng with several Khmuic languages. However, this writer argues that while both these languages share some lexical isoglosses with Khmuic, this can be readily explained by contact. On the other hand, both share isoglosses for ‘eye’ and ‘blood’ which are strongly diagnostic for Palaungic: Kháng ŋaj² ‘face’, nɯm² ‘blood’, Khabit pəŋaːj ‘eye’, sənuə̆m ‘blood’, regularly reflect pPalaungic *ŋaːj ‘eye’ and *snaːm ‘blood’, which are very difficult to explain unless these languages are geographically displaced Palaungic varieties. Examination of the published lexcions leads this writer to the conclusion that Diffloth (1982) was on the right track, and both of these group with Lameet within Palaungic. 4.12 Pearic The Pearic branch is a small, highly endangered group of languages spoken mainly in Southwest Cambodia and Trat Province of Thailand, and small pockets elsewhere including some communities to the east of Siam Reap. Suffering an extremely endangered status, much good work has been done recently by Thailand based researchers in language documentation and revitalization (see Malone Premsrirat 2005). The most extensive documentation of Pearic in Cambodia was done in the 1930s by Baradat (1941a,b) and Ferlus (2011) provides an exhaustive list of sources of published Pearic data up to 2009, as well as a recent phonological reconstruction. The languages are noted for having four voice registers, such that any stressed syllable can be plain, breathy, creaky, or breathy-creaky. This in itself distinguishes the Pearic from the rest of Austroasiatic, although there are also numerous lexical innovations that are worth noting, and a selection are noted here (a more extensive list is provided at Headley 1985: 463–465):

203

Austroasiatic Classification Table 3.21 Select Pearic lexical innovations Gloss

pAA

Kasong

Chong of Trat

Pear of Kompong Thom

‘fish’ ‘fire’ ‘bone’ ‘chicken’

*kaʔ *ʔus *cʔaːŋ *ʔiər

mê̤ːw ple̤ːw klɔːŋ lɛ́ːk

meːl pleːw klaːŋ lɛːk

miəl pʰlou klâŋ lêk

Early lexicostatistical studies of Pearic (Thomas & Headley 1970, Martin 1974) revealed a pattern that confirmed by later comparative studies (Headley 1985, Ostapirat 2009, Ferlus 2011): the branch is characterised by a binary split between Pear of Kompong Thom (Eastern Pearic) and a diversity of Chong dialects (Western Pearic) which are apparently highly mutually intelligible. While Headley (1985: 464) provides an isogloss map delineating some 9 phonological features, it is sufficient to note here that Western Pearic is distinguished by having both plain and aspirated reflexes of prevocalic pAA plain voiceless stops, while Eastern Pearic shows only non-aspirated reflexes. Following Sidwell (2009) the languages/dialects can be classified as follows: Pearic

Figure 3.20

Eastern Pearic: Pear of Kompong Thom Western Pearic: Chong Southern Chong: Suoi, Saoch, Chung Western Chong: Chong of Chantaburi Central Chong: Samre, Kasong, Chong of Trat Northern Chong: Somray, Somre of Siam Reap (extinct) Proposed Pearic classification.

4.13 Vietic The Vietic languages consist of Vietnamese and the closely related Mương languages, together recognized as Viet-Muong, plus a handful of very small languages spoken in the Vietnam-Lao borderlands (generally refered to as Chứt in Vietnamese sources); for informative general introductions see Parkin (1991), Hayes (1992), Ferlus (1996). Into the 1980s it was normal to refer to this branch as Viet-Muong, and to treat all non-Vietnamese members as Mương languages or dialects. Among all researchers concerned with Vietic, Ferlus was ahead of his time when in 1979 he proposed the following family tree for Viet-Muong at Figure 3.21.

204

Sidwell Vietnamien Nguôn Muong (nord) Muong (centre et sud)

Viet-Muong

Muong (Uý-1ô) Pong, toum Langues chứt Pakatan, phôn-soung Thavung

Figure 3.21

Vietic (‘Viet-Muong’) family tree by Ferlus (1979).

Though the 1980s it became increasingly clear that Vietnamese and Mương are not especially representative of the branch, especially as better data on the languages of the Lao-Vietnam borderlands revealed them to be quite distinctive, especially in phonology. For example, while Vietnamese and Mương varieties have variously five or six tones depending on dialect, the Arem variety described by Ferlus (1997, 2001) and Kri of Enfield & Diffloth (2009) are toneless, but have a breathy phonation contrast, and plain versus glottalised finals. These and other closely related dialects were recognised as reflecting an archaic sub-group, and recognised as such by Ferlus in his (1989–90) classification: Vietic

Figure 3.22

1.1 Eastern archaic: Mãliềng, Arem, Chứt 1.2 Western archaic: Thavung, Pakatan 2. Pong-Toum group 3. Mương 4. Vietnamese

Vietic sub-groups after Ferlus (1989–90).

Austroasiatic Classification

205

Hayes (1992) proposed to rename the branch Vietic, and treat Viet-Muong as the designation for the apparent sub-grouping of Vietnamese and Mương varieties. He reviewed Vietic classification on the basis of lexicostatistics and phonological innovations, and proposed three coordinate sub-branches as follows: Vietic

Figure 3.23

West Vietic: Thavung, Tong Luông, Bô, Phọng and others Central Vietic: Ɖan Lai, Hung, Toum, Cọi, Cuôi and others East Vietic: 1) Chứt (Arem, Mãliềng, Mày, Rục, Sách, Mụ Già) 2) Mương-Nguồn, Vietnamese (various dialects)

Vietic classification after Hayes (1992).

However, based on the comparative work of Ferlus (e.g.: 1982, 1992, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001 etc.) it is evident that Hayes erred in sub-grouping Chứt and VietMuong. Probably Vietnamese and Mương form a sub-group which coordinates alongside several other Vietic sub-groups. It also needs to be recognised that recently Phan (2012) presented evidence that Mương is a paraphyletic taxon, i.e. does not uniquely share a common ancestor, but does so with Vietnamese, such that the latter is just a divergent Mương language. This effectively leads us back to the scheme proposed by Ferlus (1979) which can be revised as follows (calling Ferlus’ Archaic group Chut to follow Ethnologue): Vietic

Viet-Muong: Vietnamese (various dialects), Mương Muốt, Mương Nàbái, Mương Chỏi etc. Pong-Toum: Phong, Ɖan Lai, Hung, Toum and others Chut: East: Mãliềng, Maleng, Arem, Kri, Chứt (Mày, Rục, Sách, Mụ Già) West: Thavung, Pakatan Figure 3.24 Vietic classification synthesizing the present state of knowledge.

5 Appendix: AA Language Names, ISO 639–3 Codes and Summary Classification The following list reconciles AA languages names and ISO 639–3 codes (at 2013 Ethnologue.com) with the classifications advanced in this chapter. There are diverse variant forms and spellings of language and dialect names in the literature, and these are covered extensively in the Ethnologue. Also, there are languages which are lacking distinct ISO codes—not listed here—so the following list should not be treated as

206

Sidwell

exhaustive. Multiple items listed together on a single line are regarded as dialects or name variants of one language (for example: there are three codes for Bru reflecting the fact that is spoken in three countries). The 171 ISO coded language names of the Ethnologue are consolidated into 129 on linguistic grounds. Austroasiatic Munda North Munda Korku (kfq) Santali-Mundari Santhali (sat), Mahali (mjx), Turi (trd) Mundari (unr, unx), Asuri (asr), Birhor (biy), Ho (hoc), Koda (cdz), Kol (ekl), Korwa (kfp), Kodaku (ksz), Bijori (bix), Agariya (agi) Sora-Gorum Sora (srb), Juray (juy) Gorum (pcj) Juang (jun) Kharia (khr) Gutob-Remo Remo (bfw) Gutob (gbj) Gtaʔ (gaq) Khasi-Palaung Khasian Khasi-Pnar Khasi (kha) Pnar (pbv) War (aml) Lyngngam (lyg) Palaungic East Palaungic Danau (dnu) West Palaungic Palaung-Riang Palaung (pce, pll) Rumai (rbb) Riang (ril), Yinchia (yin)

Austroasiatic Classification Lametic Lameet (lbn) Khabit (bgk), Buxinhua (bxt) Kháng (kjm), Khao (xao) Angkuic U (uuu) Hu (huo) Mok (mqt) Man Met [mml], Kemiehua (kfj) Tai Loi (tlq) Kiorr (xko), Con (cno), Kon Keu (kkn) Waic Samtau Blang (blr) Bumang (bvp) Samtao (stu) Lawa Lawa (lwo, lcp) Phalok (lwl) Wa Wa (vbm) Parauk (prk) Awa (vwa) Khmuic Khmu Khmu’ (kjg), Khuen (khf), Kuanhua (xnh) Pray-Pram Mlabri (mra) Mal-Pray Mal (mlf) Prai (prt), Pray (pry) Lua’ (prb) Khsingmul (puo) Pramic Phong-Kniang (pnx) Ơdu (tyh)

207

208 Mangic Mang (zng) Pakanic Bugan (bgh), Bogan (bbh) Bolyu (ply) Vietic Viet-Muong Vietnamese (vie) Mương (mtq) Bo (bgl) Nguon (nuo) Pong-Toum Pong (hnu) Cuối (tou) Chut East Chut Arem (aem) Maleng (pkt) Chứt (scb) West Chut Thavung (thm) Katuic West Katuic Bru (bru, brv, xhv) Sô (sss) Kuy (kdt) Nyeu (nyl) Ta’oih Ir (irr), Ong (oog) Ta’oih (tto, tth) Kataang (kgd) Ngeq (ngt), Khlor (llo) Pacoh (pac) Katu Eastern Katu (ktv) Western Katu (kuf) Phuong (phg)

Sidwell

Austroasiatic Classification Khmeric Central Khmer (khm) Northern Khmer (kxm) Bahnaric North Bahnaric Halang (hal), Doan (hld) Jeh (jeh) Kayong (kxy) Takua (tkz) Katua (kta) Hre (hre) Sedang (sed) Todrah (tdr) Monom (moo) Rengao (ren) Kaco’ (xkk), Romam (rmx), Lamam (lmm) East Bahnaric Cua (cua) West Bahnaric Brao-Kravet Kavet (krv), Krưng (krr), Lave (brb) Laven Jru’ (lbo), Sou (sqq) Oi-The Oy (oyb), Sapuan (spu), Sok (skk), The (thx), Jeng (jeg) Nyaheun (nev) Central Bahnaric Alak (alk) Trieng (stg), Talieng (sdf), Kasseng (kgc) South-Central Bahnaric Tampuon (tpu) Bahnar (bdq) South Bahnaric Stieng (sti), Budeh Stieng (stt) Chrau (crw) Sre (kpm) Maa (cma) Mnong

209

210

Sidwell Eastern Mnong (mng) Central Mnong (cmo), Kraol (rka) Southern Mnong (mnn)

Pearic Pear (pcb) Chong Chong (cog) Sa’och (scq) Samre (sxm) Somray (smu) Suoy (syo) Monic Mon (mnw) Nyah Kur (cbn) Asli-Nicobar Aslian North Aslian Batek (btq) Chewong (cwg) Jehai (jhi) Kensiw (kns) Kintaq (knq) Mendriq (mnq) Mintil (mzt) Tonga (tnz) Jah Hut (jah) Central Aslian Lanoh (lnh) Sabum (sbo) Semai (sea) Semnam (ssm) Temiar (tea) South Aslian Mah Meri (mhe) Semaq Beri (szc) Semelai (sza) Temoq (tmo)

Austroasiatic Classification

211

Nicobarese North-Nicobarese Car (caq) Central-Nicobarese Nancowry, Katchal, Camorta (ncb) Kondul (nik) Pulo-Milo (nik) Teressa (tef), Chowra (crv) South-Nicobarese Shom Pen (sii)

6 References Adams, Karen Lee. 1989. Systems of numeral classification in the Mon-Khmer, Nicobarese and Aslian subfamilies of Austroasiatic. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Alves 2005. The Vieto-Katuic hypothesis: lexical evidence. In Paul Sidwell (ed.), SEALS XV Papers from the 15th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 2005. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 169–176. Anderson, Gregory D.S. (ed.). 2008. The Munda Languages. London & New York: Routledge. ———. 2001. Recent Advances in Proto-Munda and Proto-Austroasiatic Reconstruction. Paper presented at the 3rd Harvard Round Table on the Prehistory of Central and South Asia, Cambridge, MA, May, 2001. ———. 2004. Advances in Proto-Munda reconstruction. Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 34: 159–184. ———. 2007. The Munda Verb. Typological Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 174). Anderson, Gregory D.S. & Norman H. Zide. 2001. Recent Advances in the Reconstruc­ tion of the Proto-Munda Verb. In Laurel Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 13–30. Baradat, R. 1941a. Les Samrê ou Pear, population primitive de l’Ouest du Cambodge. BEFEO 4.1: 1–150. ———. 1941b. Les dialectes des tribus samre. Manuscript held at l’Ecole Francaise d’Extreme-Orient, Paris. 267p. Bellwood, Peter 2005. First farmers: The origins of agricultural societies. Oxford: Blackwell. Benedict, Paul K. 1990. How to Tell Lai: An Exercise in Classification. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 13.2: 1–26.

212

Sidwell

Benjamin, Geoffrey. 1976. Austroasiatic Subgroupings and Prehistory in the Malay Peninsula. In Philip N. Jenner et al. (eds), 37–128. ———. 2012. The Aslian languages of Malaysia and Thailand: an assessment. Language Documentation and Description 11: 136–230. Bergsland, Knut & Hans Vogt. 1962. On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology 3: 115–153. Blagden, Charles Otto. 1906. Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula Vol. 2, edited by W.W. Skeat and C.O. Blagden. London: Macmillan. Blench, Roger and Paula Sidwell. 2011. Is Shom Pen a Distinct Branch of Austroasiatic? In Sophana Srichampa et al. (eds.), 90–101. Blench, Roger. 2008. Stratification in the peopling of China: how far does the linguistic evidence match genetics and archaeology? In Alicia Sanchez-Mazas, Roger M. Blench, M.D. Ross, Ilia Peiros & Marie Lin (eds.), Human migrations in continental East Asia and Taiwan. Matching archaeology, linguistics and genetics. London: Routledge, 105–132. ———. 2011. Was there an Austroasiatic presence in island SE Asia prior to the Austro­ nesian expansion? Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 30: 133–144. Blust, Robert. 2000. Why lexicostatistics doesn’t work. The ‘universal constant’ hypothesis and the Austronesian languages. In Colin Renfrew, April McMahon, & L. Trask (eds.), Time depth in historical linguistics. Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. 311–331. Braine, Jean (Critchfield). Nicobarese Grammar (Car Dialect). Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Briggs, Lawrence Palmer. 1950. The Khmer Empire and the Malay Peninsula. The Far Eastern Quarterly 9.3: 256–305. Brightbill, Jeremy, Amy Kim, and Seung Kim. 2007. The War-Jaintia in Bangladesh: a sociolinguistic survey. SIL Electronic Survey Reports. Chattopadhyay, Subhash Chandra & Asok Kumar Mukhopadhyay. 2003. The language of the Shompen of Great Nicobar: a preliminary appraisal. Kolkata: Anthropological Survey of India. Chazée, Laurent. 1999. The peoples of Laos: Rural and Ethnic Diversities. Bangkok: White Lotus. Chi, Zhang and Hsiao-chun Hung. 2009. The emergence of agriculture in southern China. Antiquity 84: 11–25. Choo, Marcus. 2012. The Status of Katuic. Chiang Mai, Survey Unit Linguistics Institute Payap University (Research Project SU15). Costello, Nancy A. 1971. Ngữ-vựng Katu: Katu vocabulary. Vietnam Montagnard Language Series 5. Saigon: Department of Education. Cust, R.N. 1878. A sketch of the modern languages of the East Indies. London: Trübner.

Austroasiatic Classification

213

Daladier, Anne. 2002. Khasi. In Encyclopédie des sciences du langage, Dictionnaire des langues. Paris: PUF. Davidson, Jeremy (ed.). 1991. Austroasiatic Languages: Essays in honor of H.L. Shorto. London: SOAS. de Röepstorff, F. Adolph. 1884. Dictionary of the Nancowry Dialect of the Nicobarese language. Calcutta. ———. 1875. Vocabulary of dialects spoken in the Nicobar and Andaman Isles: Calcutta. Diffloth, Gérard, and Norman H. Zide. 1992. Austro-Asiatic languages. In William Bright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press, Vol. I: 137–142. Diffloth, Gérard. 1974. Austro-Asiatic Languages. In Encyclopaedia Britannica: Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. ———. 1977. Mon-Khmer Initial Palatals and “substratumized” Austro-Thai. MonKhmer Studies 6: 39–57. ———. 1979. Aslian languages and Southeast Asian prehistory. Federation Museums Journal 24ns: 3–16. ———. 1980. The Wa languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 5.2: 1–182. ———. 1982. Registres, dévoisement, timbres vocaliques: leur histoire en Katouique. Mon-Khmer Studies 11: 47–82. ———. 1982b. Subclassification of Palaungic and notes on ‘P’uman’. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Language and Linguistics, August 1982. Beijing, China. ———. 1984. The Dvāravatī-Old Mon Language and Nyah Kur, Monic Language Studies. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Printing House. ———. 1989. Proto-Austroasiatic Creaky Voice. Mon-Khmer Studies 15: 139–154. ———. 1991a. Palaungic vowels in Mon-Khmer perspective. In J.H.C.S. Davison (ed.), Austroasiatic Languages, essays in honour of H.L. Shorto. London: SOAS, 13–28. ———. 1991b. Vietnamese as a Mon-Khmer language. In Martha Ratliff & Eric Schiller (eds.), Papers from the First Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, 125–139. ———. 2005. The contribution of linguistic palaeontology to the homeland of Austroasiatic. In Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench and A. Sanchez-Mazas (eds.), The peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics London: RoutledgeCurzon, 77–80. Donegan, Patricia J. & David Stampe. 1983. Rhythm and the holistic organization of linguistic structure. Chicago Linguistic Society 19.2: 337–353. ———. 2004. Rhythm and the synthetic drift of Munda. In R. Singh (ed.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 3–36.

214

Sidwell

Dunn, Micheal, Nicole Kruspe, and Niclas Burenhult. 2013. Time and place in the prehistory of the Aslian languages. Human Biology 85: 383–399. Dunn, Michael, Niclas Burenhult, Nicole Kruspe, Sylvia Tufesson, and Neele Becker. 2011. Aslian linguistics prehistory: a case study in comoutational phylogenetics. Diachronica 28.3: 291–323. Edmondson, Jerold & Kenneth Gregerson. 1996. Bolyu tone in Vietic perspective. MonKhmer Studies 26: 117–133. ———. 1996. English-Bolyu Glossary. Mon-Khmer Studies 24: 133–159. ———. 2010. The Khang language of Vietnam in comparison to Ksingmul (Xinh-mun). In Kenneth A. McElhanon & Ger Reesnik (eds), A mosaic of languages and cultures: studies celebrating the career of Karl J. Franklin. SIL e-Books 19. SIL International: http://www.sil.org/silpubs. Enfield, Nicholas J. and Gérard Diffloth. 2009. Phonology and sketch grammar of Kri, a Vietic language of Laos. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 38.1: 3–69. Ferlus, Michel. 1979. Lexique thavung-français. Cahiers de Linguistique, Asie Orientale 5:71–94. ———. 1974. Les langues du groupe austroasiatiques-nord. Asie du Sud-Est et Monde Insulindien 5.1: 39–68. ———. 1982. Spirantisation des obstruantes médiales et formation du systèm consonantique du vietnamien. Cahiers de Linguistique, Asie Orientale 11.1: 83–106. ———. 1983. Essai de phonétique historique de môn. Mon-Khmer Studies 12: 1–90. ———. 1989–1990. Sur l’origine des langues Việt-Mường, Mon-Khmer Studies 18–19: 52–59. ———. 1996. Langues et peuples viet-muong. Mon-Khmer Studies 26: 7–28. ———. 1997. Problèmes de la formation du systèm vocalique du vietnamien. Cahiers de Linguistique, Asie Orientale 26.1, 37–51. ———. 1998. Les systèmes de tons dans les langues viet-muong. Diachronica 15.1: 1–27. ———. 2001. The origin of tones in Viet-Muong. Paper presented at the XI meeting of the Southeast Asia Linguistics Society, Mahidol University, Bangkok, May 16–18 2001. ———. 2004. The origin of tones in Viet-Muong. In S. Burusphat (ed.), Papers from the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University, 297–313. ———. 2008. Le mot ‘sang’ en austroasiatique. Mon-Khmer Studies 38: 25–39. ———. 2011. Toward Proto-Pearic: Problems and Historical Implications. In Sophana Srichampa et al. (eds.), 38–51. Filbeck, David. 1978. T’in: a historical study. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Finck, Franz Nikolaus. 1909. Die Sprachstämme des Erdkreises. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Gait, E.A. 1906. A History of Assam. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co. Greenhill, Simon J. & R.D. Gray. 2009. Austronesian language phylogenies: Myths and misconceptions about Bayesian computational methods. In A. Adelaar & A. Pawley

Austroasiatic Classification

215

(eds.), Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history: a festschrift for Robert Blust. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 375–397. Gregerson, Kenneth J., Kenneth D. Smith, and David D. Thomas. 1976. The place of Bahnar within Bahnaric. In P.N. Jenner et al. (eds.), 323–369. Gregerson, Kenneth. 1991. On Austronesian Lexicon in Vietnamese. In Jeremy Davidson (ed.), 81–94. Grierson, George Abraham. 1903. Languages of India: being a reprint of the chapter on languages contributed to the Report on the census of India 1901, together with the census statistics of language. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing India. ———. 1904. Mon-Khmer and Siamese-Chinese Families. Vol. II, Linguistic Survey of India. Delhi: Banarashidaas. ———. 1906. Munda and Dravidian Families. Vol. IV, Linguistic Survey of India. Delhi: Banarashidaas. Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1953. La place du viêtnamien dans les langues austroasiatiques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 49.1: 122–128. ———. 1954. De l’origine des tons en viêtnamien. Journal Asiatique 242: 69–82. ———. 1965. Mutation consonantique en Mon-Khmer. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 60: 160–72. Hayes, La Vaughn H. 1992. Vietic and Viet-Muong: a new subgrouping in Mon-Khmer. Mon-Khmer Studies 21: 211–228. Headley, Robert K., Jr. 1976. Some Considerations On the Classification of Khmer. In Philip N. Jenner et al. (eds.), 431–451. Higham, Charles 2002. Language and farming dispersals: Austroasiatic language and rice cultivation. In Peter Bellwood & Colin Renfrew (eds.), Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 223–232. Huffman, Franklin E. 1976. The Relevance of Lexicostatistics to Mon-Khmer Languages. In Philip N. Jenner et al. (eds.), 539–574. ———. 1978. On the centrality of Katuic-Bahnaric to Austroasiatic. Presentation at 2nd International Confernece on Austroasiatic, Mysore (India) December 18–21, 1978. Proceedings of the International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, 10.2: 78–79. Kasisopa, B. 2003. Phonological study and genetic classification of Dara-ang (Palaung) spoken at Nawlae village, Fang district, Chiang Mai province. MA thesis, Chulalongkorn University. (In Thai) Keane, Augustus Henry. 1880. On the relations of the Indo-Chinese and Indo-Oceanic races and languages. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 9: 254–289. Kingsada, Thongphet and Ryuichi Kosaka. 1999. Khabit. In Thongphet Kingsada & Tadahiko Shintani (eds.), Basic vocabularies of the languages spoken in Phongxaly,

216

Sidwell

Lao P.D.R. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 297–317 Kuiper, F.B.J. 1962. Nahali: A Comparative Study. Amsterdam: N.V. Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij (Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen: Afd. Letterkunde; N.R. 25,5) Li Jinfang. 1996. Bugan—a new Mon-Khmer language of Yunnan Province, China. Mon-Khmer Studies 26: 135–160. Li Xulian. 1999. Laiyu yanjiu. Beijing: Zhongyang minzu daxue chubanshe. Liang, Min. 1984. A brief description of the Lai language. Minzu Yuwen 1984.4 Logan, J.R. 1850. On the Leading Charactersitics of the Papuan, Australian, and MalayuPolynesian Nations. The Journal of the Indian Archipelago 4: 344–478. Lợi, Nguyễn Văn. 2008. Tiếng Mảng (Mang Language) Hanoi, Nhả xuất bản Khoa học Xã hội. Luce, Gordon H. 1965. Danaw, a dying Austroasiatic language. Lingua 14: 98–129. Malone, Dennis L. and Suwilai Premsrirat. 2005. Language development and language revitalization in Asia. Mon-Khmer Studies 35: 101–120. Man, Edward Horace. 1889. Dictionary of the Central Nicobarese language (EnglishNicobarese and Nicobarese-English), with appendices containing a comparison of synonymous words in the remaining Nicobarese forms and other matters, preceded by notes on the grammar of the Central form. London: W.H. Allen and Co. Reprinted in 1975 by Sanskaran Prakashak, Delhi. Mason, Francis. 1854. The Talaing Language. Journal of American Oriental Society 4: 277–288. Maspero, Henri. 1912. Etude sur le phonétique de le langue annamite. Les initials.  . Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême Orient 12.1: 1–127. Matisoff, James A. 2003. Aslian: Mon-Khmer of the Malay Peninsula. The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal 33: 1–58. ———. 1978. Variational Semantics in Tibeto-Burman: the ‘organic’ approach to linguistic comparison. Occasional Papers of the Wolfenden Society on Tibeto-Burman Linguistics, Volume VI. Publication of the Institute for the Study of Human Issues (ISHI), Philadelphia. Migliazza, Brian. 1992. Lexicostatistic Analysis of some Katuic Languages. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Language and Linguistics. Volume III: Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Printing House. Mikami, Naomitsu. 2003. A Khang Phonology and Wordlist. In Hiromi Ueda (ed.), Reports on Minority Languages in Mainland Southeast Asia. Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim, Faculty of Informatics, Osaka Gakuin University, 1–42. Miller, John & Carolyn Miller. 1996. Lexical comparison of Katuic Mon-Khmer languages with special focus on So-Bru groups in northeast Thailand. Mon-Khmer Studies 2.6: 255–290.

Austroasiatic Classification

217

Mitani, Yasuyuki. 1978. Problems in the classification of Palaungic. Paper presented at 2nd International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics, 19–21 December 1978. Mysore, India. Nagaraja, K.S. 2011. Austroasiatic Languages—an introduction. In K.S. Nagaraja (ed.), Austro-Asiatic Linguistics: In memory of R. Elangaiyan, Mysore: CIIL (India), 1–32. Nagaraja, K.S., Paul Sidwell and Simon Greenhill. 2012. A Lexicostatistical Study of the Khasian Languages: Khasi, Pnar, Lyngngam, and War. Mon-Khmer Studies 42: 1–11. Nguyễn, Tài Cẩn. 1995. Gíao trình lịch sử ngữ âm tiếng Việt (Textbook of Vietnamese historical phonology). Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Gíao Dục. Ostapirat, Weera. 2009. Early and Modern Pearic Registers/Tones. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics, Mahidol University, Oct. 29–30 2009. Parkin, Robert. 1991. A guide to Austroasiatic speakers and their languages. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications No.23. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Paulsen, Debbie. 1989–1990. A Phonological Reconstruction of Proto-Plang. MonKhmer Studies 18–19: 160–222. Peiros, Ilia. 1998. Comparative linguistics in Southeast Asia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. ———. 2004. Geneticeskaja klassifikacija avstroaziatskix jazykov: Moskva: Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj gumanitarnyj universitet (doktorskaja dissertacija). Phan, John. 2012. Mường is not a subgroup: Phonological evidence for a paraphyletic taxon in the Viet-Muong sub-family. Mon-Khmer Studies 42:1–18. Phillips, Timothy C. 2013. Proto-Aslian: towards an understanding of its historical linguistic systems, principles and processes. Ph.D. thesis, Institut Alam Dan Tamadun Melayu Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Pinnow, Heinz-Jürgen. 1954. Grundzüge einer Phonetik der Kharia Sprache. Unpublished Manuscript, Berlin. ———. 1959. Versuch einer historischen Lautlehre der Kharia-Sprache: Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. ———. 1960. Uber der Ursprung der voneinander abweichenden strukturen der Munda- und Khmer-Nikobar-Sprachen. Indo-Iranian Journal 4: 81–103. ———. 1963. The position of the Munda languages within the Austroasiatic language family. In H.L. Shorto (eds.), Linguistic comparison in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. London: SOAS, 140–152. Premsrirat, Suwilai. 2002. Thesaurus of Khmu Dialects in Southeast Asia. Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development Mahidol University Thailand. Proschan, Frank. 1996. A Survey of Khmuic and Palaungic Languages in Laos and Vietnam. Pan-Asiatic Linguistics 3: 895–919. Przyłuski, Jean. 1924. Les langues austroasiatiques. In Les Langues du Monde (Collection linguistique publiée par la société de linguistique de Paris) 16, edited by A. Meillet and M. Cohen: Paris Librarie Ancienne Edouard Champion.

218

Sidwell

Qin, Xiaohang and Fanglan Li. 2012. The status quo and trend of language use by Lai people. Mon-Khmer Studies 40: 107–115. Radhakrishnan, R. 1981. The Nancowry word: phonology, affixual morphology and roots of a Nicobarese language. Current inquiry into language and linguistics, 37, Edmonton, Alberta, Linguistic Research Inc. Rea, John A. 1973. The romance data of pilot studies for glottochronology. In Henry Max Hoenigswald & Robert H. Langacre (eds.), Diachronic, areal and typological linguistics.. The Hague: Mouton, 355–367. Ringe, Don. 1999. How hard is it to match CVC-roots? Transactions of the Philological Society 97.2: 213–244. Rischel, Jørgen. 2007. Mlabri and Mon-Khmer. Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser 99, Copenhagen. Roberts, H. 1875. Anglo-Khasi Dictionary of the use of schools and colleges. Calcutta. [Revised ed., 1878, Calcutta] ———. 1891. A grammar of the Khassi language. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and Co. Schmidt, Pater Wilhelm. 1906. Die Mon-Khmer-Völker, ein Bindeglied zwischen Völkern Zentralasiens und Austronesiens. Archiv für Anthropologie 5: 59–109. Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1901. Die Sprachen der Sakai und Semang auf Malacca und ihr Verhältnis zu den Mon-Khmer-Sprachen. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, 52: 399–583. ———. 1904. Grundzüge einer Lautlehreder Khasi-Sprache in ihren Beziehungen zu derjenigen der Mon-Khmer-Sprachen. Mit einem Anhang: die Palaung-Wa-, und Riang-Sprachen des mittleren Salwin. Abh. Bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaft, 1.22.3: 677–810. ———. 1905. Grundzüge einer Lautlehre der Mon-Khmer-Sprachen. Denkschrift der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 5.1: 1–233. ———. 1906. Die Mon-Khmer-Völker, ein Bindeglied zwischen Völkern Zentralasiens und Austronesiens. Archiv für Anthropologie, Braunschweig, 5: 59–109. Sebeok, Thomas A. 1942. An examination of the Austro-Asiatic Language family. Language 1.8: 206–217. Shafer, Robert. 1940. Nahali, a linguistic study in Paleo-Ethnography. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 5: 346–71. Shorto, Harry L. 1962. A dictionary of Modern Spoken Mon. London: Oxford University Press. ———. 2006. A Mon-Khmer comparative dictionary: Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Shorto, Harry L., Judith M. Jacob, and E.H.S. Simmonds. 1963. Bibliographies of MonKhmer and Tai linguistics. London Oriental bibliographies 12. London: Oxford University Press. Sidwell, Paul & Pascale Jacq 2003. A Handbook of Comparative Bahnaric: Volume 1, West Bahnaric. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Austroasiatic Classification

219

Sidwell, Paul and Roger Blench. 2011. The Austroasiatic Urheimat: the Southeastern Riverine Hypothesis. In Nicholas Enfield (ed.), Dynamics of human diversity. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 315–344. Sidwell, Paul. 2005. The Katuic languages: classification, reconstruction and comparative lexicon: Munich: Lincom Europa. ———. 2006. Preface to Shorto, Harry L. 2006. A Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary: Canberra Pacific Linguistics, vi–xxv. ———. 2009. http://people.anu.edu.au/~u9907217/lexico/AAclassification.html ———. 2010. The Austroasiatic central riverine hypothesis. Вопросы языкового родства/Journal of Language Relationship 4: 117–134. ———. 2011. Katuic-Bahnaric: Austroasiatic sub-family or convergence area? In Sophana Srichampa et al. (eds.), 100–111. ———. 2011. Proto-Khasian and Khasi-Palaungic. Journal of the Southeast Asian Lingistics Society 4.1: 144–168. Smith, Kenneth, D. 1981. A Lexico-statistical study of 45 Mon-Khmer languages. In Andre Gonzalez and David Thomas (eds), Linguistics across continents. Manila: SIL, 180–205. Srichampa, Sophana, Paul Sidwell & Kenneth Gregerson (eds.). 2009. Austroasiatic Studies: papers from the ICAAL4: Mon-Khmer Studies Journal Special Issue No. 3. Dallas: SIL International; Canberra, Pacific Linguistics; Salaya: Mahidol University. Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 1988. U. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 11.1: 64–133. ———. 1991. Hu—a language with unorthodox tonogenesis. In Jeremy Davidson (ed.), 67–80. Swadesh, Morris. 1952. Lexico-statistical dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts: With special reference to North American Indians and Eskimos. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 9.6: 452–463. ———. 1955. Toward greater accuracy in lexicostatistical dating. International Journal of American Linguistics 2.1: 121–37. Temple, R.C. 1902. A grammar of the Nicobarese language. Chapter IV, Part II, The Census Report on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Port Blair: Superintendent’s Press. Thomas, David. 1964. A survey of Austro-asiatic and Mon-Khmer comparative studies. Mon-Khmer Studies 1: 49–163. ———. 1966. Mon-Khmer subgroupings in Vietnam. In Norman H. Zide (ed.), Studies in comparative Austroasiatic linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 194–202. Thomas, David, and Robert K. Headley, Jr. 1970. More on Mon-Khmer subgroupings. Lingua 2 (5):398–418. Tuyên, Vương Hoàng. 1963. Các dân tộc nguồn gốc Nam Á ở Tây Bắc Việt Nam. Nxb Giáo dục, Hà Nội. van Driem, George 2001. Languages of the Himalayas: An Ethnolinguistic Handbook of the Greater Himalayan Region: Containing an Introduction to the Symbiotic Theory of Language. Leiden: Brill.

220

Sidwell

von Hevesy, Wilhelm. 1928. Munda-Magyar-Maori: An Indian link between the antipodes; new tracks of Hungarian origins. London: Luzac. ———. 1930. On Wilhelm Schmidt’s Munda—Mon-Khmer comparisons (Does an “Austric” family of languages exist?). Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 6.1: 187–200. ———. 1932. Finnish-Ugrische aus Indien: Es gibt keine austische Sprach-familie— das vorarische Indien reilweise finnish-ugrisch. Wein: Manzsche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung. ———. 1934. A false linguistic family “The Austro-Asiatic”, Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society 20.3–4: 251–259. Vương Hoàng Tuyên. 1963. Các dân tộc nguồn gốc Nam Á ở Tây Bắc Việt Nam (The people of South Asian origin in North Vietnam). Nxb Giáo dục, Hà Nội. Whitehead, George. 1925. Dictionary of the Car-Nicobarese language. Rangoon: American Baptist Mission Press. Zide, Norman H. 1996. On Nihali. Mother Tongue 2: 93–100.

chapter 4

Austroasiatic Comparative-Historical Reconstruction: An Overview Paul Sidwell and Felix Rau1 1 Introduction At the time of writing (early 2014) more than a century and a half has passed since the first recognisable characterisation of the Austroasiatic phylum (Logan 1854) appeared in print, and almost 110 years since Schmidt’s (1905) Grundzüge einer Lautlehre der Mon-Khmer-Sprachen (Outlines of a phonology of MonKhmer languages) made the first substantial presentation of cognate vocabulary and sound correspondences across multiple branches of the phylum. Since that promising start, progress in comparative Austroasiatic (AA) reconstruction has proceeded in fits and starts, largely the work of motivated individuals rather than any coordinated efforts, and significantly undermined by a reluctance to publish provisional results. As it stands, the most comprehensive published work on the subject is Shorto’s (2006) A Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary, which itself is a posthumous and incomplete editing of drafts produced between three and four decades ago, and was compiled without the benefit of substantial field data collected at around the same time. This is not to suggest that little has been happening in comparative AA studies— something that I hope is made clear in my recent survey paper (Sidwell 2011c)—but the activity has been largely focussed at branch level, and a provisional phylum-wide synthesis has been lacking. Adopting the working principle (credited to Voltaire) that, “Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien” (The best is the enemy of the good) I take the opportunity presented by the compilation of this volume, to offer an integrated synthesis, a provisional working model of AA 1  Section 3.12 (Proto Munda) of this chapter is jointed written by Felix Rau and Paul Sidwell. Sidwell’s work on this chapter was made possible by generous financial support from the Australian Research Council (project ID: FT120100241), and also builds on earlier work supported by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (Washington, Grants PM5001207, PW5038009). Any views, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent those of the Australian Research Council or National Endowment for the Humanities.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283572_005

222

sidwell and rau

historical phonology, word-formation and lexicon, while also briefly touching upon syntax. Limited by word count and general pressures of academic work, I am sure that what follows will variously inform and frustrate (if not enrage), but most importantly my hope is that it will move matters forward by stimulating critical response. Before diving into the technicalities, it ought to be asked, just what is at stake in pursuing the reconstruction proto-AA? There are many benefits to investigating the history of a language family beyond merely improving our typology of language change. These lie in extending and/or complementing what may be gained from allied disciplines such as history, archaeology, anthropology etc. In this case the recent prehistory of Southeast Asia, and extending into South Asia, is somewhat obscure beyond the reach of the inscriptional record back to the middle of the first Millennium. The third and fourth millennia before present were evidently important periods of human migration, cultural interaction and innovation, marked especially by the extensive development of rice agriculture, and in the later pre-historic period the spread of Hinduism and Buddhism and the emergence of important regional states. Not only were Austroasiatic speakers at the heart of these developments, but many traces of these transformations remain, directly and indirectly, encoded in their languages. Regions such as the Annamite Cordillera, the Upper Salween, and the Isthmus of Kra, and others, were important prehistoric crossroads of cultures, and their ancient AA -speaking inhabitants have descendents either still living there or relatively nearby. All other language groups of the region (with the exception perhaps of Andamanese) were apparently borne by incoming populations; their early interactions left fingerprints in the lexicon, the phonology, and the other linguistic sub-systems that are revealed by comparative reconstruction. Thus one can argue that protoAustroasiatic occupies something of a priority position in unlocking the human history of greater Mainland Southeast Asia. It must be acknowledged from the start that our knowledge of the AA phylum is somewhat incomplete, such that scholars are still unearthing new languages/dialects, and many AA languages that have been quite well known to scholarship for decades still lack adequate published descriptions. That being said, there are more or less extensive lexical recourses available for around three quarters of the perhaps 150 AA languages, including coverage of all recognised branches, and branch level studies for various branches are well developed. Furthermore, one is able to say that many fundamental problems—especially of the ‘low hanging fruit’ kind—were solved, partly or wholly, by scholarly work of the early to mid-twentieth century, and it is notable that subsequent work has built upon, rather than overturned, these accomplishments. The great pioneers who preceded us (such as Blagden, Schmidt, Haudricourt, Pinnow,

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

223

Shorto) were able, in the period from the end of the 19th century up to the late 1970s, to lay a foundation that has truly stood the test of time. With the tools of their day—the ledger card, the pencil, the shoebox,2 and the limits inherent in these—they fleshed out hundreds of etymologies, established sound correspondences, proposed various morphological analyses and recognised many of the genealogical groupings that are taken for granted today. Furthermore, and playing no less a role, our understanding of linguistic typology, especially typology of change in linguistic sub-systems such as phonology, has been revolutionised since the mid 1900s and this contributes greatly to the present task. Given the above, the present level of progress is quite sufficient to allow one to flesh out an informative and useful working model, being a crucial programmatic step at this juncture in the history of the field. It is to the shame of latter-day scholarship, spoiled with powerful information technology, telecommunications, cheap travel, and a century of hindsight, that the period from the late 1970s to the beginning of the 21st century saw a broad lack of progress or cooperation, with no dedicated international meetings, few compilations or substantial reference works;3 in short an utter failure of leadership (the “period of relative decline” as van Driem has called it).4 This is not to discount the real efforts of individual researchers that continued through the lean years, filling the pages of Mon-Khmer Studies and manifesting the occasional dissertation or survey work, but the efforts were atomised, uncoordinated rather than cooperative. But the inflorescence of AA studies that emerged in the 1990s—and which pleasingly continues to build momentum—has produced substantial new knowledge and progress, and it is appropriate to tie together the historical threads with the more recent insights to flesh out a programmatic basis for moving forward with the reconstruction. 2

Reconstruction of protoAustroasiatic (pAA)

2.1 Preliminary Remarks Linguistic reconstruction, relying on both comparative and internal methods (as we do in the present case), necessarily entails constructing an edifice that is hypothetical and potentially difficult to test. I take the view that the 2  The actual box for shoes, not the popular software from SIL International, now superceded by Toolbox. 3  Astonishingly the procedings of the Second International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics (held in Mysore in 1978) reached a high state of editorial readiness before being abandoned by its editors in 1983. 4  See: http://www.himalayanlanguages.org/icaal.

224

sidwell and rau

activity is legitimately scientific—in the sense that such hypotheses are clearly falsifiable—although the deeper in time we reconstruct the less likely that objective confirmations will be found and we are forced to rely on principles such as economy and typological plausibility to justify our preferred analyses. The reconstruction of pAA is a clear case in point; it is evident that pAA speakers did not leave written traces of their language, nor were numerous pAA loan words somehow preserved in contemporary languages which may be preserved in writing. Although there have been claims from time to time (e.g. Schuessler 2006 and others) that old AA words can be found lurking, for example, in Chinese, we are not able to follow the example of Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1995) who test their ‘glottalic’ theory of proto-Indo-European in part by reference to apparent loans in Semitic. Instead, we are locked into a reconstruction based upon numerous attested spoken daughter languages plus a small number of older written languages. The latter (Old Mon and Old Khmer) for which there are inscriptional corpora going back to the middle of the first millennium, usefully deliver us back to a time before much of the invasion of SEAsia by rival language phyla, and crucially before the formation of the SEAsian Linguistic Area (see Enfield 2005 for overview) with its extensive phonological and syntactic restructuring. The earliest attempts at historical analysis of AA relied heavily upon reference to these written languages, and understandably so. When westerners came to Southeast Asia in the early and middle modern periods, they encountered Mon and Khmer as living written languages and subsequently linguists came to appreciate that the evident discrepancies between the writing systems of Indic origin and their modern phonetic readings could be used to infer phonological information correlating to older stages of the languages. Other AA languages—purely vernacular tongues such as Bahnar, Pear, Nicobarese, etc.—were also recognised and taken into account, but with the poor development of language documentation before the mid-20th century, nothing rivalled the extent and reliability of phonological information accessible in the inscriptional and epigraphic record of Mon and Khmer. Consequently, there arose a methodological tradition5 that broadly privileged inscriptional and epigraphic data for phonological reconstruction, while invoking evidence from diverse AA languages to support lexical reconstruction. This is not without precedent, and we do well to recall that comparative Indo-European studies had a similar genesis with initial reliance on Sanskrit, Greek, Latin etc. in the neo-grammarian period. From the mid 1960s another 5  First elaborated by Schmidt (e.g. 1904, 1905) and carried through to quite recent times culminating in the comparative work of Shorto (2006).

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

225

tendency emerged that worked bottom-up, reconstructing branchs and subbranchs, primarily using field data. A partial listing includes: Kherwarian (Munda 1968), Sora-Juray-Gorum (Zide 1982), North Bahnaric (Smith 1972), Mnong (Blood 1966), Katuic (Thomas 1967; Diffloth 1982; Sidwell 2005), VietMương (Barker 1963; Barker & Barker 1970; Ferlus 1992a; 1998; 2005), JehHalang (Thomas & Smith 1967), Semai (Diffloth 1977), Bahnaric (Sidwell 1998; L-Thongkum 2001), Aslian (Phillips 2005; 2012); see Sidwell (2011c) for a more extensive survey. But the bottom-up approach has yet to consolidate into a comprehensive pAA comparative dictionary and reconstruction. The closest thing to this that has appeared in print is the work of Shorto (2006) edited posthumously by myself (and Christian Bauer and Doug Cooper). Shorto relied primarily on the textual evidence of two criterion languages, Mon and Khmer, with etymologies fleshed out further with reference to available wordlists and previous published comparisons, concentrating on 20 main sources that covered nine branches (although with a disproportionate emphasis on Bahnaric that reflected a heavy reliance on Schmidt (1905)). Some adjustments to the reconstructions based narrowly on the criterion languages were made to account for details turning up in the non-criterion languages, but frequently these were presented as alternate reconstructions, so that the primacy of (Old)Mon and/or Khmer evidence was not undermined. The result represents an interim step (criticised as such by Diffloth in his review of 2008) in the broader programmatic imperative: a vital documentation of the state of knowledge four decades ago and framework for extending and refining etymologies and reconstructions. It is also well known that Gerard Diffloth and Ilia Peiros have independently pursued their own consolidated pAA reconstructions and comparative lexicons for several decades, although neither of these have been subject to editorial scrutiny. Peiros (1998: 111) reports that in the 1980s he compiled some 1500 AA etymologies using Khmer, Mon, Chrau, Vietnamese and Wa and devised a preliminary historical phonology.6 He later made an extended compilation accessible online via The Tower of Babel project at http://starling.rinet.ru/, apparently last updated in 2005. Unfortunately this work remains somewhat obscure; the online interface only permits searching by individual etymologies and no documentation supporting the underlying analyses is made available. Diffloth has similarly since the 1980s been reporting that he has a substantial AA compilation of more than 2000 etymologies supported by a phonological reconstruction, and has cited a modest number of provisional proto-forms in 6  In fact Peiros described the process of his compilation and analysis to me in detail in the mid 1990s when he was my graduate superviser at the University of Melbourne.

226

sidwell and rau

various papers (e.g. Diffloth (2005) cites some 20 of his pAA forms for rice terminology and fauna), but again supporting documentation has not been made available. Consequently the only elaborate published reconstruction which we can effectively discuss is that of Shorto (1976; 2006), plus various shorter works that deal with specific aspects of pAA (e.g. works by Patricia Donegan and David Stampe (1983; 2004), and independently Gregory Anderson (2004) to be mentioned below, that offer suggestions concerning the shape of the phonological word and such). As an editor of Shorto (2006), I reviewed the phonological and lexical reconstruction in my PREFACE to the volume. In summary, I arrived at several significant general findings:

· ·

Shorto’s pMK is effectively a pAA reconstruction, although skewed and incomplete in various respects; the historical phonology is heavily skewed towards Old Mon, with the additional factor that Khmer was relied upon for reconstruction of proto-diphthongs; the lexicon was heavily skewed by reliance on Bahnaric, and by the author’s wrong-headed acceptance of the Austric hypothesis (genetic relation to Austronesian), which was further skewed by the history of long term Austronesian (Malay and Chamic) contact with Bahnaric and Khmer; Shorto’s theory of vocalic ‘alternances’—which lead to an inelegant proliferation of alternate reconstructions—is wrong, and arose in part as an attempt to deal with the consequences of relying upon too few criterion languages.

· ·

Notwithstanding the above points, Shorto’s achievement was substantial, although regretfully not made available in the late 1970s when the second draft typescript was completed. The analytical shortcomings mentioned above would have been noted and discussed by scholars, and substantial progress facilitated with several decades’ head start over the situation in which we now find ourselves. Yet it is the nature of things that science progresses in fits and starts, and a generation further on we are in a good position to take stock and map out a basis for moving forward. In the sections that follow I outline my provisional reconstruction of Austroasiatic linguistic history, with particular reference to segmental phonology, phonotactics and lexicon. The chapter ends with a Swadesh list of pAA reconstructions and selected daughter reflexes. Additionally, the question of classification of the languages necessarily arises, although it is dealt with in detail in a separate chapter in this volume. The approach taken here is that

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

227

AA is treated as effectively consisting of a dozen coordinate branches, and the presence of a feature in at least two non-geographically adjacent branches is required to justify reconstruction to pAA. Insofar as multiple branches may constitute sub-families within a nested tree structure—a possibility which remains controversial—this does appear to materially affect the reconstruction. This is because while supposed AA sub-families remain controversial, geography is straightforward, and proximity of branches would suggest both the possibility of borrowing and special genealogical relations, so controlling for geographical proximity is relied upon to deal with both issues. 2.2 pAA Phonological Word The reconstruction of pAA must begin with a phonotactically reasonable model of root structure and phonological word, which subsequently constrains the segmental reconstruction, helping us to avoid positing unnecessarily complex structures or redundant entities. At the same time one ought to avoid forcing optimally economical or symmetrical analyses that are not supported by typology or otherwise seem phonetically unnatural. We begin here discussing Shorto’s (2006)7 proto-word and phonotactics, and then make reference to apparently conservative structures found in eastern AA language, and the general principles that were first laid out by Stampe in his 1978 presentation “The Austroasiatic Word” delivered at the Second International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics (Mysore, India). The reconstruction of Shorto is fairly simple; he posited monosyllables with or without initial clusters (*CVC, *CCVC), including forms that would be characterised as sesquisyllabic8 in contemporary terms, and a modest number of 7  Shorto characterised his reconstruction as Proto Mon-Khmer, as it only obliquely included Munda data, and the prevailing view held that Austroasiatic consists of two coordinate families, Mon-Khmer and Munda. This view is no longer tenable as it has become clear that Munda is simply one of many coordinate AA branches (see the chapter on Classification in this volume) and consequently Shorto’s reconstruction is effectively pAA. 8  Some discussion is needed concerning the term “sesquisyllable” which is much over-used in discussion of AA phonology and about which views differ somewhat. Coined by Matisoff (1973) the term means ‘a syllable and a half’ and was intended to characterise the situation in which a prevocalic consonant is preceded by a ‘pre-initial’ consonant, such as in Khmer psa: ‘market’ or kŋaok ‘peacock’. The areal tendency is to articulate such sequences with a short weak vowel, creating an unstressed minor syllable. The vowel, or from another perspective the syllabicity of this structure, carries no phonological weight, but may have significant downstream consequences for reanalysis and restructuring. Various studies (e.g. Thomas 1992, Thurgood 1999 and others) have identified unstressed penultimate syllables with contrastive vowels (i.e. having phonological weight, although with strong restrictions)

228

sidwell and rau

disyllables that, being iambs, can also be treated as sesquisyllabic. Shorto’s proto-V is long or short and the syllable is always closed (no zero codas, counting finals *h and *ʔ among final consonants). Shorto briefly explains his CCVC forms as follows: *CCVC forms comprise both simplexes containing *CCVC roots, and affixed forms of *CVC ones whether prefixed (*C-CVC) or infixed (*C/C/ VC). [. . . . .] All the consonants listed in the table on p.2.1 may occur at C₂ in structures *CCVC. Glottalized consonants, semivowels and *h do not occur at C₁. Of the nasal series we reconstruct a nasal homorganic with the following consonant (schematically *N), and *m; these two terms are distinctive only before liquids. Shorto 2006: 51

In other words, there are both CVC and CCVC roots, additionally some CCVC forms are prefixed or infixed CVC roots. Also, although their analysis it is not discussed by Shorto, an examination of the CCCVC forms reconstructed shows that in such cases the C₂ is a sonorant, suggesting an infixed CCVC. There are some aspects to this reconstruction that require further discussion. In the first place Shorto mentions that there are some restrictions to C₁ in CC onsets, namely the lack of glottalized consonants (implosives), semivowels and /h/. But this can be turned around and characterized somewhat differently, permitting us to posit two distinct kinds of CC onsets (where C is any consonant and D any plosive stop (oral, glottal or nasal) or /s/), namely: 1. 2.

DR, where are R is an approximant, including /h/; and DD and DĐ, where Đ is an implosive

Type 1 DR are unambiguous monosyllables that conform to the sonority sequencing principle (SSP, see Sievers 1881, Jespersen 1904, Selkirk 1984) and should arguably be grouped with the CVC roots. Potentially various DR onsets where R was /r/ or /l/ could reflect infixed forms, but their contribution appears to have been fairly marginal.

as a kind of sesquisyllable, treating sesquisyllables as a kind of disyllable rather than just a kind of monosyllable that permits initial clusters. The common factor in both definitions is that words are iambic, and have more than one consonant preceding the stressed (or main syllable) vowel, so here the term is used to indicate just these specific features.

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

229

Type 2 DĐ present a significant structural asymmetry which applies throughout Austroasiatic where implosives are attested; they are always prevocalic. Where the history of the languages are known or reconstructed with confidence, and their implosives are not direct reflexes of the pAA series (such as in Khmer, Vietnamese, Wa), they have always arisen from earlier pre-vocalic voiceless stops. This suggests an internal reconstruction of pre-pAA in which implosives are derived from plosives (see also Sidwell (2008) for speculation of a common origin of implosives and nasal infixes). The point here is that both DD and DĐ onsets reflect one historical phonological category with an internal asymmetry that is both reasonable and potentially explainable. The type 2 onsets include sequences with plateaued or falling sonority (e.g. *pp-, *gc-, *ds-, *rt-, *nr- etc.) and following characteristic areal typology we can expect that these were articulated with a short excrescent vowel (voiced or voiceless, as in Khmer for example; see Huffman et al. 1970:43, and symbolized with the superscript ǝ here), yielding sesquisyllables. As mentioned above, Shorto’s *CCC onsets all have either /r, l, n/ in C₂ position,9 and these would have created phonetically unstressed minor syllables (with or without vowel excrescence due to the sonority of the sonorant), so structurally they can be grouped with the DD/DĐ onsets. Consequently, Shorto’s *CC- onsets can be divided into two types; between monosyllabic and larger structures that do not conform to the SSP and can reasonably be expected to have surfaced as sesquisyllables or disyllables. The *CCVC monosyllables are better analysed as bearing a medial at C₂, as this permits us to identify a single main syllable initial slot (Ci) which further allows any C followed by a vowel in a CVC, or any D followed by a medial (Cm). Thus we have two distinct phonological templates which constitute a provisional pAA word template: pAA phonological word templates: monosyllables sesquisyllables/disyllables *Ci(Cm)VCf *(Cp(n/r/l))CiVCf

How does the above reconstruction square with the result of others? Diffloth has not (to this writer’s knowledge) explained his pAA reconstruction in print, but we can make some observations based on the provisional proto-forms he has presented. Diffloth (2005) discussed 20 proto-forms reflecting rice and faunal terms:

9  To these we might want to add *m, which would also go some way to explaining labial infixes in Khmer and Mon, but examples indicating wider distribution in AA are presently lacking.

230

sidwell and rau

Diffloth (2005) rice and faunal terms, provision pAA reconstructions: Rice terms: Faunal terms: ‘rice plant’ #(kə)ɓaːʔ ‘land/tree monitor’ ‘rice grain’ #rəŋkoːʔ ‘ant-eater’ ‘rice outer husk’ #cəŋkaːm ‘buffalo’ ‘rice inner husk’ #kəndək ‘bear-cat’ ‘rice bran’ #pheːʔ ‘mountain goat’ ‘mortar’ #təmpal ‘asian elephant’ ‘pestle’ #ɟənreʔ ‘peacock’ ‘winnowing tray’ #ɟəmpiər ‘rhinoceros’ ‘to winnow’ #guːm ‘bamboo-rat’ ‘dibbling-stick’ #ɟərmuəl ‘rice-complement’ #kəntuːʔ

#tərkuət #(bən-)ɟoːl, #ɟ(ərm)oːl #tənriak #tənjuːʔ #kiaɕ #kaciaŋ #mraːk #rəmaːs #dəkan

It is immediately clear that Diffloth’s reconstructions are structurally consistent with the templates elaborated from Shorto’s reconstruction; there is only the notational discrepancy that Diffloth insists on syllabifying forms with initial clusters that violate sonority sequencing with a predictable schwa (the /a/ vowel of ‘asian elephant’ appears to be a typo in the original). By contrast, the reconstructions of Peiros reflect a fundamentally different approach. Again, there is no published explanation (as far as I am aware) but Peiros did explain the principles to me verbally several times in the 1990s. Below I table Peiros pAA forms that have equivalents in the Diffloth set above. Peiros (2005) rice and faunal terms, provisional pAA reconstructions (paralleling Diffloth (2005)): Rice terms: Faunal terms: ‘rice plant’ *bʔa ‘land/tree monitor’ *kɔ:t ‘rice grain’ *kɔw ‘pangolin’ *[j]ual ‘rice outer husk’ *kaːm ‘buffalo’ *ra:k ‘rice inner husk’ *dʔǝk ‘mountain goat’ *kɛh ‘mortar’ *tal ‘asian elephant’ *cieŋ ‘pestle’ *rǝj / *rɛj ‘peacock’ *raːk ‘winnowing basket’ *pVr ‘rhinoceros’ *ma:jh ‘to winnow’ *gu:m / *ʔu:m ‘to dibbling’ *mu:l / *mɔ:l

The above proto-forms, and others presented on the website, reveal that Periros adheres strictly to Schmidt’s hypothesis that CVC monosyllables underlie all

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

231

pAA roots, with affixation accounting for more complex forms. Strikingly, implosives are generally explained as coming from clusters with glottal stops (a device that Shorto resorted to for just a couple of etyma), the final *-s of Shorto and Diffloth is explained as an –h suffix following yod (consistent with Peiros’ 1996 pKatuic, and Schmidt’s 1906 suggestion of Austric suffixes), and zero finals are permitted. Given the lack of textual explanation, and the evident lack of serious development beyond the ideas of Schmidt a century ago, further discussion of Peiros’ reconstruction is is not pursued here. There is additional theoretical and typological support for our model of AA word and root structure in the work of Patrica Donegan and David Stampe (e.g. Stampe 1978; Donegan & Stampe 1983, 2004; Donegan 1993). Beginning with a presentation to the 2nd International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics by Stampe in 1978 and a series of further papers, Donegan and Stampe (D&S) have elaborated a theory of the relation between speech rhythm, accent and syllable, which although somewhat controversial, is directly relevant this discussion. D&S demonstrate that the analytical syntax of non-Munda Austroasiatic languages such as Khmer corresponds neatly to the order of bound morphemes imbedded in Munda (e.g. Sora) verbs. The non-Munda Austroasiatic languages show sesquisyllabism, head-dependent ordered analytical syntax and extensive suffixing.10 In a typological mirror to this, Munda languages build words by concatenating phonologically simple syllables, employing dependent-head highly synthetic syntax, with extensive suffixing. And while Munda disyllabic roots are mostly stressed on the rightward syllable, the presence of suffixes means that stress is not on the ultima, delivering trochaic, rather than iambic rhythm. The explanation offered by D&S suggests that languages such as Khmer transmit the pAA pattern of head-dependent SVO (SV/AVP) syntax, while in Munda various originally free morphemes indexing subject, object etc. have grammaticalised into bound morphemes. This supposes a “synthetic drift” in Munda (and by extension independently in Nicobarese as well). However, the field is strongly divided on these questions. A tendency reflected by Pinnow (1959; 1960; 1963), Anderson and Zide (2001) etc. reconstructs elaborate verbal inflection for pMunda and sees apparent traces of historical inflection in various non-Munda languages. . . . They criticize Donegan and Stampe (1983) for the view that the Munda morphology must be seen as in large part due to the independent synthetic drift of the daughter languages rather than due to the breakdown 10  The Nicobarese languages are more Munda-like in this respect; see Critchfield-Brain (1970), Radhakrishnan (1981) for descriptions.

232

sidwell and rau

of a fully formed verbal system in proto-Munda. [. . .] To reconstruct synthetic morphology for proto-Austroasiatic implies that the vast majority of eastern languages lost verbal inflection and morphology and became analytic. But that would entail that in most Mon-Khmer languages that former affixes—elements characteristically faded in pronunciation, grammatical autonomy, and meaning—have been restored to full lexical specificity and function. It is far more likely that Munda and the few eastern languages that show signs of synthesis have innovated it. Dongegan and Stampe 2004: 8

I concur with D&S in this argument, adding phonological considerations. It is more parsimonious in both syllable structure and segmental phonology to reconstruct pAA as morphosyntactically more similar to Khmer than to Sora. Broadly speaking, Munda languages tend to build words by stringing together simple (C)V(C) syllables that lack distinctions of quantity, tone, or diphthongs (notwithstanding local secondary developments). One Munda language, Gta’, shows significant sesquisyllabism, and Anderson (2008a) argues that this is historically secondary. Munda languages also lack contrastive implosion, typically showing a single voiced stop series unmarked for +/– plosive (corresponding to a historical merger of pAA plosive and implosive voiced stops). Having recourse to Munda data alone, it is simply not possible to reliably predict whether cognate forms elsewhere in AA have imploded or plain voiced initials, long or short or diphthongal vowels. On the other hand, recourse to non-Munda forms provides high predictability of Munda cognates, and this is seen in the selected examples below. The ten etymologies below illustrate reflexes of various pAA monosyllables, with and without medials, mostly yielding disyllables in Munda, and several important patterns are evident. Firstly, one can see that Munda disyllables are created from monosyllables with echo vowels. Apparently when the etymological main syllable vowel was *i or *u, it is fully realised in the new syllable; while when it was *a, as in the ‘air, wind’, ‘road, way’ examples below, the quality of the echo vowel is affected by the initial (e.g. > [o] /k_). An exhaustive analysis is yet to be conducted, but the broad outline of the patterning is clear. We also see that the pAA diphthong *iə is consistently realised as a monophthong in Munda (similar for *uə but it is difficult to isolate unambiguous examples). And the last three examples also illustrate the merger of plain and implosive voiced stops in Munda. Finally, there is apparently no basis for predicting the length of the pAA vowel with recourse to Munda data. For the reasons discussed above, it seems reasonable to suggest that the special typological characteristics of Munda are the result of independent shift within that branch, and not inheritances from a Munda-like pAA.

233

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction Non-Munda Munda gloss: ‘thigh’, Shorto (2006) *bluːʔ Khmer: phlɤ̀u Sora: buluBahnar: bluː Kharia: bhulu Palaung: blu Mundari: bulu Temiar: bəloʔ Ho: bulu Nicobarese: pulɔː Kurku: bulu

gloss: ‘dirty’, Shorto (2006) *kmuːʔ Khmer: khmau Mundari: humu Kuy: kmau Ho: homu Palaung: kəmu Kurku: kumu gloss: ‘forest’, Shorto (2006) *briːʔ Bahnar: briː Kharia: biru Praok: praj Mundari: bir Jah Hut: bəriʔ Bhumji: bir Old Khmer: βrai Ho: bir gloss: ‘long’, Shorto (2006) *ɟliːŋ Old Mon: ɟliŋ Mundari: ɟiliŋ Lawa: ʔleiɲ Bhumji: ɟiliŋ Nicobarese: cəliŋ gloss: ‘air, wind’, Shorto (2006) *kjaːl Old Mon: kjal Kharia: kɔjɔ Bahnar: kjaːl Juang: kojo Khmer: khjɔl Santali: hɔe Kuy: kjaːl Mundari: hɔjɔ gloss: ‘road, way’, Shorto (2006) *kraʔ Kuy: knaː Mundari: hora Praok: kra Bhumji: hora Mương: khá Kurku: kora gloss: ‘hail’, Shorto (2006) *priəl Bahnar: prɛl Palaung: preər Khasi: phria

Gutob: Mundari: Gorum:

bireːl, breːl aril areːl

234

sidwell and rau

gloss: ‘two’, Shorto (2006) *ɓaːr Bahnar: ɓaːr Old Khmer: ber Old Mon: ɓar

Kharia: Mundari: Kurku:

ubar bar bari

gloss: ‘spread a mat’, Shorto (2006) *b(e)l Stieng: biːl Palaung: per Riang: pɛl¹

Santali: Sora: Kurku:

bel belbindil

Santali: Sora:

ɟɛmbɛˀd bed-

gloss: ‘suck in mouth’, Shorto (2006) *[ɟ]ɓiət Bahnar:11 biəːt Khasi:12 biat Mon: həbet

Affixation On the basis of what has been discussed so far, we have more or less settled upon a model of pAA that permits mono- and sesquisyllabic word forms, with the acknowledgment that in addition to simple roots there were prefixed and infixed derivatives. Suffixing was unlikely to be a feature of pAA, as there is a lack of direct comparative evidence for this, and it would be inconsistent with the typological indications for a largely isolating iambic language, nonetheless, there is yet to be unanimity on this point among scholars. Pinnow was quite insistent on the antiquity of suffixing: It may be regarded as certain that a large number of both prefixes and suffixes were employed in the Austroasiatic languages at an earlier period. In fact once again neither Munda nor Nicobarese lost their suffixformations but rather extended the use of such formations through the erection of various new suffixes is evidence not for an actual common development but rather for a common tendency. Pinnow 1963: 144–5

The above assertion is both bold and unsupported, and contains within itself an important contradiction. The suffixing that is evident in Munda and Nicobarese is not cognate; and as Pinnow acknowledges, both groups have a tendency for “the erection of various new suffixes”. This is consistent with a

11  ‘to purse (lips) in token of disapproval’ 12  ‘to eat (pulses) a little at a time’

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

235

hypothetical shift away from pAA iambic rhythm in which more and more head-dependent constructions emerged and grammaticalised to clitics and suffixes. There is a plethora of evidence for the direction of change from analytic to synthetic, while examples of change in the other direction (e.g. such as loss of morphology in, say, Vietnamese) simply has no bearing on the issue. The general picture of word formation outside of Munda and Nicobar is quite clear: infixing is derivational, largely deriving nouns from verbs, and prefixing deals with valence changing and other verbal operations, and more marginally there is prefixing of nouns for deictic distinctions and case-marking (see Alves (2014) for a survey). Beyond that there is varying use of compounding and reduplication, but that is beyond the scope of the reconstruction discussed here. The following pAA affixes were reconstructed by Sidwell (2008): Prefixes causative *p-/*pCreciprocal *t-/*tNstative *h-/*hNInfixes nominalising nominalising iterative nominalising instrumental

*-n*-r-/-l*-p-

And there were certainly others, including the high likelihood of vowel affixes *-ə-, *i- (analysed as allomorphs of consonantal *-ʔ-, *j- by Shorto (1963) in his discussion of affixation in northern MK languages). Prefixes are either single consonants or consonants with sonorous increments (nasal, rhotic or a neutral vowel) that may have been additional infixes and/or played a phonotactic role of creating rhymes for unstressed syllables. Infixes are always inserted to the right of the most leftward consonant, regardless of the length of the word. Given typical restrictions on word length, and rhythmic structure, infixes may also be regarded as prefixes that attach directly to the prosodic head (such as the stance Kruspe (2004: 65–6) takes in her analysis of Semelai). Both forms of affixation lead to resyllabification, creating licit unstressed syllables. In Aslian and Nicobarese, and apparently vestigial in Khmuic, a process of “coda-copying” creates fully-formed unstressed syllables. Also cheekily referred to as ‘incopyfixation’ by Matisoff (2003, see same for a general discussion of the topic), coda-copying may have been a regular feature of pAA. In Aslian the process occurs when infixation of sesquisyllabic stems is accompanied by reduplication of the main syllable coda; a couple of examples from Jahai (Aslian, taken from Burenhult (2005)) follow:

236

sidwell and rau

stem

-n- infixation

tbɔh ‘to beat’

tbɔh

bdɛl ‘to shoot’

bdɛl

assimilation by local rule

mdɛl

coda copying

surface form

tnhbɔh

[tənahˈbɔh] ‘the act of beating’ [məlˈdɛl] ‘shot’

mldɛl

And some apparently fossil forms from Khmu Cuang (from Premsrirat 2001), typically fixed in adverbial expressions: kʰras smglim ‘laugh (smile on the lips all the time)’ klɔːk slkuəl ‘shade of white’ mat rpjeːp ‘wink quickly’

In Nicobarese languages there are no sesquisyllables, so the phonology is somewhat different. In Nancowry the rule is that prefixes of the form CV– when attached to CVC stems with final stops (oral or nasal)—get copy codas, while stems with other codas do not. Some examples (from Radhakrishnan (1970), who incidentally does not discuss the functions for the prefixes, just the phonology): - prefix + prefix vs. hiák ‘smooth’ ʔukhiák ‘broom’ káp ‘bite’ ʔupkáp ‘to bite’

- prefix téha ‘to cut smth.’ jál ‘pour, descend’

+ prefix ʔutéh ‘to cut, harvest’ ʔujálcaŋ ‘to irrigate’

If coda copying were simply restricted to Aslian and Nicobarese one could make an argument that it was a southern Austroasiatic areal development (in spite of the fact that the forms and rules are quite different), but the traces in Khumic are so strikingly similar to Aslian as to suggest a pAA feature. Unfortunately, comparisons that would indict specific pAA reconstructions with coda-copied forms are lacking, but it should be kept in mind as a real possibility. If we are to reconstruct pAA coda-copying, an immediate effect is the possible need to extend our phonological templates of the proto-word to accept sequences of at least four consonants preceding the stressed vowel, and we enter a territory that includes unambiguously disyllabic words. This would also be the case if multiple affixes were permitted to accrue on to mono- and

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

237

sesquisyllabic stems. This is apparently the situation seen in Katu, as described by Costello: In Katu there are many affixes, occurring mainly on verb roots but also on adjective, adverb and noun roots, and on numerals and locatives. Combinations of prefixes can occur in Katu, which is fairly rare in MonKhmer languages. Each of the main prefixes—causative, reciprocal, adjectivizer and involuntary—is able to occur in combination with the causative prefix. The combination of prefixes occur most extensively on verb roots, but are also able to occur on adjective and noun roots. A word in Katu has a maximum of four syllables, made possible when two prefixes are added to a two syllable root. [. . .] saruum13 ‘to fall’ pajuak ‘to persuade’ karauq ‘to hurt’

tapasaruum ‘to cause each other to fall’ tapajuak ‘to persuade each other’ pakaruaq ‘to cause to hurt’

Costello 1966: 63–4

However, as Costello remarks, such multiple affixation is “fairly rare” and like coda-copying, we lack direct comparisons across between branches that would suggest specific pAA forms with such polysyllabic forms. The comparative evidence we have (such as compiled by Shorto 2006) consistently suggest maximal proto-forms which conform to our *Ci(Cm)VCf and *(Cp(n/r/l)) CiVCf templates. 2.3 Segmental Phonology The first serious step toward a pAA phonology is in Schmidt’s Grundzüge (1905), the core of which is a comparison of written Mon and Khmer with contemporary sources for the Bahnaric languages Bahnar and Stieng. Schmidt’s analysis was confused by his interpretation of the retroflex and voiced aspirate signs adapted to Mon and Khmer from their Indic source, but these issues were more or less sorted out by Otto Blagden.14 A contemporary of Schmidt, Blagden deciphered Old Mon and compiled an enormous Aslian comparative lexicon (Skeat & Blagden 1905). Over four decades, until his death in 1948, he 13  Original notation is preserved for these examples. 14  Blagden's files are presumed lost after the passing of Harry Shorto, although there is a slim possibility that they may still be found (unlabeled or mislabeled) at the SOAS Library in London.

238

sidwell and rau

compiled some 5000 ledger cards (now lost) towards an etymological dictionary of Old Mon. Shorto used Blagden’s compilations and insights in the course of his reconstruction, as well as making liberal use of lexical comparisons and analyses of contemporaries (such as Gordon Luce, H.J. Pinnow and André Haudricourt). Shorto pAA segmental phonology is quite problematic in relation to vocalism, while his proto-consonant inventory is typologically quite typical for eastern AA languages, and appears to be mostly consistent with the model apparently reconstructed (without published explanation) by Diffloth, and it is adopted with only slight modification in the present discussion. 2.3.1 pAA *Ci Consonants In this section we discuss the reconstruction of the segments that occupy the *Ci slots in our *Ci(Cm)VCf and *(Cp(n/r/l))CiVCf pAA word templates. A major insight that our predecessors achieved in respect of this question is the recognition that the system reflected in the inventory of Old Mon consonants more or less directly reflects the pAA inventory unchanged. Later in the Middle Mon period the language underwent extensive phonological restructuring that introduced gross discrepancies between the written and spoken forms of the language, see the introduction to Shorto (1971) for an overview. Various field researchers have also revealed living languages that are of this “unrestructured type” (to use the terminology of Huffman (1985a)) such as Katu (Costello 1971, Costello & Sulavan 1996) and Bahnar (Banker et al. 1979; Guilleminet & Alberty 1959–63) and as will be seen below, various AA branch level reconstructions also indicate similar inventories. Consequently we can reconstruct pAA *Ci inventory as follows: pAA inventory of Ci segments * p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g ɓ ɗ (ʄ?) m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j s h

There remains a question of whether a palatal implosive *ʄ should be reconstructed. The contrast is apparent in Katuic (see Sidwell 2005) but not in other branches. Strict application of the logic of the comparative method would demand extending this to pAA, but I am ambivalent on this at present; refer forward to the section on Katuic below.

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

239

It is notable that the three series of oral stops (including the incomplete implosive series—an evident example of “velar gap”, see Maddieson 2005) have variously restructured into two series in most branches and ultimately in most present day languages. The general tendency is either to merge the voiced and voiceless plosives into one series or to merge the voiced plosive and voiced implosives into one series. This parallels somewhat the well-known Indo-European Centum-Satum problem that forces the reconstruction of three PIE guttural series. Consider the following table of comparanda of language data from eight branches, including Munda (Sora): ‘drunk’ ‘two’ ‘shoots’ ‘thick’ ‘obtain’

Old Mon Khmer Bahnar Katu Khmu Cuang bəlɓul pùl¹ bəɲul² ɓal — ɓar pìː ɓaːr ɓəːr baːr tɓaŋ tùmpɛ̀əŋ təɓaŋ ʔabaŋ (təpáŋ)3 — — həɓəl (kəbən)4 həmpɯl) — — — ɓoːn bɨan

Palaung Khasi Sora — buː ʔaːc buʔul — — bagu bəŋ — tabəŋ pu rbɛn — bɯn — —

¹ ‘vegetable poison’, ² ‘toadstool’, 3 Kammu Yuan,

It is evident from the above table that the implosive bilabial *ɓ survives in Old Mon, Bahnar and Katu, whereas it has variously merged with the equivalent plain voiced and plain voiceless stop elsewhere. The reflexes of pAA apical *ɗ follow a similar pattern: ‘bamboo ‘water’ ‘span’ ‘cover/hide’ ‘ripe’

Old Mon Khmer Bahnar Katu Khmu Cuang Palaung kɗɯŋ¹ — ɗiːŋ — (Mlabri ɗoŋ) diŋ ɗaik tɨk ɗaːk ɗəək — — cɗaʔ² — səɗaː cadaː sndaʔ (chətháʔ)3 kɗøp tùp kədəp paɗʌp dap dəp — tum ɗuːm ɗam hnduum4 kəndum5

Khasi Kharia tɨndɔŋ — — ɖaʔ sda — — ɖaˀb — —

¹ Middle Mon ‘areca-nut container’; ² Middle Mon; ³ Lamet; ⁴ ‘to ripen’; 5 ‘bud’

Aside from these stop series, the other *Ci correspondences (sonorants, approximants) are trivially similar and present no special problems of interpretation. A summary tabling of the correspondences at proto-branch level follows:

240

sidwell and rau

pPearic

Old Mon

pAslian

pNicobarese

pBahnaric

pKatuic

pVietic

*f*p*p*t*t*dr*h*-h*s-/h*s*c*k*k*m*n*ɲ*ŋ*w*ɽ*l*j-

pKhmuic

*p*b*b*t*d*d*h*-h*s*c*ɟ*k*g*m*n*ɲ*ŋ*w*r*l*j-

pPalaungic

*p*b*ɓ*t*d*ɗ*h*-h*s*c*ɟ*k*g*m*n*ɲ*ŋ*w*r*l*j-

pKhasian

*p*b*b*t*d*d*h*-h*s*c*ɟ*k*g*m*n*ɲ*ŋ*w*r*l*j-

pMunda

*p*p- *pʰ-/*p- *p- *p- *p*p*p*p*b*b*b*b- *b- *b*b*b*b*ɓ*b*b*ɓ- *b- *ɓ*ɓ- *ɓ-/*b- *b*t*t*tʰ-/*t- *t- *t- *t*t*t*t*d*d*d*d- *d- *d*d*d*d*ɗ*d*d*ɗ- *d- *ɗ*ɗ- *ɗ-/*d- *d*h- *Ø*h*h- *h- *h*h*h*h*-h- *-Ø*-h*-h- -Ø- *-h- *-h*-h*-h*s*s*s*s- *s- *s*s*s*s*c*s*c-/s- *c- *c- *c*c*c*c*ɟ*ɟ*ɟ-/*j- *ɟ- *ɟ- *ɟ- *ɟ-/*ʄ*ɟ*ɟ*k*k*kʰ*k- *k- *k*k*k*k*g*g*k*g- *g- *g*g*g*g*m- *m*m*m- *m- *m- *m*m*m*n*n*n*n- *n- *n*n*n*n*ɲ*ɲ*ɲ*ɲ- *ɲ- *ɲ*ɲ*ɲ*ɲ*ŋ- *ŋ-/*ɲ*ŋ*ŋ- *ŋ- *ŋ*ŋ*ŋ*ŋ*w- *w*w*w- *w- *w- *w*w*w*r*r*r*r- *r- *r*r*r*r*l*l*l*l- *l- *l*l*l*l*j*j*j*j- *j- *j*j*j*j-

pAA

pKhmer

AA summary proto-branch level Ci correspondences

2.3.1.1 Speculation Concerning Infixes The reconstruction of pAA consonants for each structural slot reveals an intriguing asymmetry: we observe that while nasal infixes are quite common, initial nasals in monosyllabic roots are relatively infrequent (about 5% of total), and often transparently secondary (e.g. West Bahnaric *niəm ‘good’ < pBahnaric *liəm ‘good’). By contrast, nasal codas are strongly preferred word finally, the proportion typically exceeding 25% of the lexicon. These tendencies suggest that during a specific historical stage nasals were not preferred as leading onsets. It is also curious that the implosives only occur prevocalically

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

241

in pAA, even though there are no articulatory reasons why they should not occur preconsonantally (as they do in Bahnar for example, see Banker et al. 1979). Thus we can say that the following were close to being in complementary distribution in pAA:

· ·

(C)ɗ/ɓV(C): permitted where the implosive is the etymological Ci (C)n/mV(C): permitted where the nasal is an infix or otherwise as second member of a cluster or secondary (by assimilation etc.) Consequently, it may be tentatively suggested that the nasal infixes may have originated as implosives, perhaps (speculatively) as metathesized prefixes. 2.3.2 pAA *Cf Consonants It is generally acknowledged that a characteristic typological trait among conservative AA languages is that the set of Cf segments is equivalent to the Ci set minus any distinction of voice onset timing or phonation. On this basis we hypothesize that pAA follows the same pattern, which can be illustrated with reference to a language such as Katu. Compare below the sets of initials and finals of Katu as described in works such as Costello (1971), Costello & Sulavan (1993), L-Thongkhum (2001) (with notation adjusted to IPA as appropriate, also note that Costello & Sulavan (1993) list complex finals /jʔ/ and /wʔ/ although these are explained as decomposed *c and a long back vowel before *-ʔ respectively): Katu: Ci consonants Cf consonants pʰ tʰ kʰ p t c k ʔ p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g ɓ ɗ ʄ m n ɲ ŋ m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j w r, l j s h s h

Additionally, there are various language specific differences—typically smaller inventories due to losses and/or mergers. In some cases mergers or losses among Cf segments are associated with the emergence of tones or phonation types (e.g.: loss of *-h, *-s is associated with hỏi and ngã tones in Vietnamese), or vowel changes (e.g.: fronting of vowels before palatals that may/may not have later depalatalized), or apparent voicing of codas associated with long

242

sidwell and rau

stressed vowels (e.g. in Khasi). To a great extent, changes in Cf segments leave traces which permit secure reconstructon of proto-values on internal grounds, confirming the pattern described above. Consequently, this typological argument leads us to reconstruct the following pAA Cf inventory: pAA Cf consonants * p t c k ʔ m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j s h

There are also strong indications that point to the absence of open (vowel final) stressed syllables in pAA, and this is a feature of Shorto’s reconstruction. This state of affairs persists in various AA languages, such as in Khmuic (e.g. Khmu Chuang, Mlabri), in North and Central Aslian, and in Old Mon, where words with vowel final main syllables are restricted to loans and a few monosyllabic grammatical morphemes. This is consistent with pAA being iambic in structure, as Donegan relates: Shorto (1960) described the word in the Mon-Khmer language Palaung as consisting of a heavy ‘major’ syllable preceded by an optional light ‘minor’ syllable. The major syllable is heavy, so its two moras fit into the accent: the rising accent is word-final. Donegan 1993: 6

With the stressed syllable necessarily heavy, the rhyme has at least two morae, and especially a short syllable must have a coda. This connects with the idea of a “bimoraic constraint” in AA, which has been offered by Anderson (e.g. 2004) to explain, among other things, the resyllabification and/or reduplication of monosyllabic free form nouns in Munda languages. It is also important to note that AA oral stop codas are typically unreleased and tense, accompanied by glottal restriction that halts the airflow through the larynx such that voicing ceases more or less simultaneously with oral closure. Consequently, there is no audible voicing that would occur if the airflow continued until equalisation of sub- and supra-glottal air pressure. From this perspective it may be more appropriate to notate/reconstruct the proto-oral stop codas as follows: * pˀ tˀ cˀ kˀ Øˀ

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

243

It is also worth making some points about word final /s/. It may be that this fricative coda is best reconstructed as a laminal [ɕ] or similar as many daughter languages do actually reflect this final as post-alveolar, or showing a wide allophonic range between alveolar and palatal. This is often noted in sources with a digraph notation ih, yh or similar, indicating a voiceless palatal fricative with noticeable vowel transition approximating a brief non-syllabic [i], [ɪ] or [e] (or also commonly misanalysed as a cluster). The indicative IPA notation for such a sound should be [ç] or [j̊], but these are rarely encountered in the relevant language documentation (an exception of note is the use of ẙ by Diffloth (1984) for this coda in Nyah Kur, with the non-IPA use of y for the palatal). This hints at another issue in AA linguistics which has not attracted much attention, namely that in terms of oral place of articulation, it is apparent that active articulator rather than passive articulator place of contact/ approximation is often primary in the articulatory phonology. However, this is not captured nicely in IPA notation (ɕ, ȶ, ȵ etc. commonly used by Sinologists for laminals are not IPA, which instead requires the rather inelegant “square below” diacritic) and it is the historical tendency in the field that phonetics is taught with a bias to classifying articulations primarily in terms of place of passive articulator contact/approximation. The upshot is that the use of the s glyph for this coda is for consistency with the equivalent onset consonant, rather than faithful phonetic characterisation. In any case, the fricative space is clearly wide open and a dynamic range of allophones is normal. While various languages have retained the set of proto-finals mostly unchanged, many also show a reduction in the number if distinctions, often quite drastically. Common changes include:

· · · ·

loss of final glottal stop, this happened generally in various branches, and partially in Bahnaric; loss of orals stop articulations with merger to glottal stop, especially /k, ʔ/ > /ʔ/; merger of palatals and velars (or less commonly palatals and apicals) leading to an absence of final palatal stops; mergers or total loss of finals /r, l/, or even merger with /n/ (e.g. in Khasi). On the geographical periphery of the AA speaking areas there are striking secondary phonetic developments among the Cf that do not necessary change the phonological oppositions, but do reflect interesting areal and internal typological restructuring issues, as well as occasionally leading to terminological and notational confusions.

244

sidwell and rau

An innovation common to the Munda languages was a reanalysis of the final stops as voiced, presumably when the languages became suffixing and, once in a medial position (rather than final position), these stops—unmarked for phonation—became associated/analogised with the voiced (less marked series of) initials. The glottal constriction remains part of their articulation and is much more acoustically salient since there is an audible interruption to voicing within the phonological word. The glottal constriction is commonly written with a raised comma before the stop by Mundarists (e.g. Kharia mɔ’ɖ, Mundari mɛ’d ‘eye’ etc.), reflecting the phonetic fact that the glottal stop is released and voicing resumes during oral closure. Word finally in free forms, the stop coda can be voiceless leading to a voicing alternation (e.g. Sora [pətoˀt] vs. [pətod-ən] ‘hole’, see Donegan and Stampe (2004: 22) for discussion). Within Aslian there is a phenomenon of denasalisation of nasal stop codas that can lead to complete merger of oral and nasal stops. We defer to Matisoff’s description of the problem: Even the earliest collectors of vocabulary from Aslian languages were struck by peculiar complex final nasal sounds whose onset was the homorganic stop: -pm, -tn, -cɲ, kŋ, Phonetically, sometimes the nasal component seemed to predominate, but sometimes the occlusive portion was more salient and the collector wrote the stop on the line and the nasal as a superscript: -pm, -tn, -cɲ, kŋ. Blagden aptly named these sounds ‘disintegrated nasals’ since they represent a breakdown of ordinary ‘nasal stops’ (where the oral occlusion and the lowering of the velum are simultaneous) into separate buccal and nasal phases (the velum is not raised until the oral occlusion has been phonated). Blagden deplored this ‘careless, slovenly articulation’ and observed that the dirty habit was by no means confined to the aboriginal tribes of the Peninsula but was shared by such insular Austronesian groups as the Dayaks of West Borneo. Matisoff 2003: 18–19

The patterning varies across Aslian and is one of the principle facts justifying the internal classification of the languages. The process is related to historical vowel length; as Matisoff relates in the case of Sabum, denasalisation is complete after short vowels yielding voiceless stops, while the original stop codas have become voiced. This yields the typologically unusual situation of contrasting voicing in stop codas (see discussion of Aslian further below). Finally, there have been suggestions from time to time that a larger series of finals is indicated for pAA. Diffloth (1976) tentatively proposed a *-s, *-ś

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

245

distinction on the basis of some correspondences, and Shorto (2006) reconstucted suffixes *-h, *-s (on the model of Benedict’s (1972) proposals for protoSino-Tibetan) to explain similarly anomalous apparent correspondences. However, such proposals are lacking typological and/or morphological justification, such that the correspondences underlying them are probably better regarded as epiphenomena rather than real. 2.3.3 pAA Creaky Voice? A marginal feature of Shorto’s (2006) reconstruction are 55 proto-forms with a post final glottal stop (e.g. §497 *kaːŋʔ ‘chin, jaw’, §1444 *kuːjʔ ‘to bend, nod, drowse’, etc.). The function of this glottal in the reconstruction is to account for Vietnamese forms with sonorant codas that have sắc and nặng tones which were otherwise explained by Haudricourt (1954) as reflecting stopped codas. This appears to be an ad hoc solution to a problem that is far more extensive than Shorto anticipated. Diffloth (1989) draws attention to the fact that several AA branches show languages with a contrast of creaky voice and/or preor post-glottalisation of finals that effectively constitute a register distinction (analogous to the tense/lax systems found in various language due to devoicing of initial stops but apparently unrelated to them). Throughout Vietic languages there is a regular contrast of plain versus post stopped continuants, even in non-tonal Vietic languages such as Arem. In Katuic languages Ong, Talan, Katang (depending on the description), a similar situation prevails, although with complications; tense register final nasals are post-stopped in short syllables and pre-stopped in long syllables, while etymological oral stop codas in tense syllables surface as post-stopped nasals. In Pearic, the Chong dialects have a three- or four-way contrast that variously combines modal, breathy and creaky phonation. The conventional explanation for voice registers in Austroasiatic languages relates breathy phonation of voiced onsets (see Ferlus (1980) for a wide ranging discussion, Huffman (1985a) for a schematic account, and Thurgood (2002) for a detailed articulatory analysis), but this does not explain the cases of creaky voice since—as Diffloth shows—there is no correlation between these distributions of this “creak” and the historical phonation of initials. To confuse matters further; Diffloth also demonstrates that the creak does not pattern across cognate vocabulary items, which appears to argue against a straightforward inheritance explanation. Nonetheless, Diffloth favours descent from pAA: A long interim period evidently separates Proto-Austroasiatic: from each of the proto-branch levels. I have mentioned a few systematic distributional differences between the creakiness of Proto-Katuic, Proto-Pearic

246

sidwell and rau

and Proto-Vietic; these differences are probably the result of distinct innovations which occurred during intermediate periods. If we can discover more of these early innovations, and identify inter-branch borrowings, we may be able to explain the inconclusive etymological evidence shown above and reconstruct creakiness at the PAA level; for the moment, it is just a presumption. Diffloth 1989: 150

In addition to the tree branches discussed by Diffloth, Zide (1965; 1987) suggests reconstructing a glottal prosody to explain certain phonological changes in Munda, and Shintani (2008) documents four southern Palaung dialects which show a similar contrast of pre-stopped nasals versus plain oral and nasal stops (in this case the pre-stopped nasals appear to reflect decomposed oral stops). Thus there are five AA branches with indications of some kind of glottal prosody, although phonetically diverse and not showing regular correspondences in cognate vocabulary. Furthermore, aside from the Munda examples in this case (which have a different explanation, see section on Munda below), the other examples all have an important historical-typological feature in common: restructuring of their onset stop series, with devoicing of voiced stops and/or aspiration of voiceless stops, changes that can be characterised as a general tensing of the phonological system. For the time being, this suggests to me that the origins of this feature lie in linguistic tendencies linked to sesquisyllabism and iambicity, quite liable to arise independently, consistent with the failure to pattern regularly across cognate vocabulary. Ferlus (2011) has suggested that the glottal stricture prosody in Pearic, Katuic and Vietic languages is linked to a combination of the more tense articulation of words with sesquisyllables (as opposed to simple monosyllables) plus contact influence from Middle Chinese. This relies on the observation that during the period from the 3rd to 8th Centuries there was an active overland trade route from Vietnam, over the mountains and though Cambodia to the Gulf of Thailand, so that contact between Chinese and local AA speakers would have occurred. This is clearly a speculative hypothesis, since it supposes a significant linguistic change without evidence of extensive Chinese lexical borrowing. Also it would not appear to explain the Palaungic examples, although it would be premature to deny any merit in Ferlus’ proposal. The bulk of the people traversing the overland trade route may well have been Vietic speakers working for/with the Chinese, so some kind of linguistic area is possible. And if the underlying driver of this restructuring lies within the shared typology of the languages it may not have taken too much of a push to head down a common path.

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

247

Considering all of the above, it would be premature to reconstruct creak or glottalisation as a feature of pAA or to posit it for specific etyma, and we withhold judgement for now. 2.3.4 pAA Cp Consonants The challenge of reconstructing pAA Cp segments by direct comparison and analysis of segmental correspondences, etymology by etymology, is quite significant. As Anderson (2004) remarks: One of the outstanding problems in comparative Austroasiatic linguistics is the at times frustrating lack of direct correspondences of full forms of nouns both within individual Austroasiatic subgroups as well as across these groups. For example in Munda, it is often easy to isolate a monosyllabic root in nouns, but free forms are unrecoverable for the protolanguage. Anderson 2004: 163

It is my assessment that Anderson is too pessimistic about regular correspondences, for example he made an unfortunate choice relying on Peiros’ (1996) Katuic compilation and reconstruction to test for regularity of correspondence, but he makes a good point. Given sesquisyllabism and iambicity, it is inherently more likely that Cp segments will be lost, replaced, reanalysed or analogised, therefore direct correspondences will be less frequent than for other segments. For the present, I provisionally accept and report the solution provided by Shorto (2006) in broad terms, though we may differ in relation to analysis of specific etyma. According to my reading of Shorto (2006), there were apparently only a few important constraints on the possible consonant sequences within initial clusters; namely /j, w, h, ɓ, ɗ/ did not occur as Cp. The main problem is to resolve the voice quality of stops in the preconsonantal position, since a strong tendency across AA is for many languages to permit no, or only limited, voicing contrast in this position. Shorto’s solution was to infer voice quality by reference to the phonation types associated with the registers of Mon and Khmer, proposing the following relations: pMK (pAA) voiceless + voiceless voiceless + voiced voiced + voiceless voiced + voiced

Mon head register chest register head register chest register

Khmer head register head register chest register chest register

248

sidwell and rau

The underlying principle is that Mon registers consistently reflect the voice quality of the prevocalic consonant, while Khmer registers regularly reflect the voice quality of the preceding consonant. The formulation appears—so far as I can tell—to hold up fairly robustly, although it requires more comparative work to show its reliability; for the present it is accepted as a working model for predicting voice quality of Cp segments. The typology of pAA initial clusters predicted by the model finds a very close parallel in contemporary Khasi (and other AA languages of Meghalaya). At this point it is worth quoting Henderson on Khasi: One of the most striking features of Khasi is the astonishing richness of its word-initial clustering possibilities. This great variety of initial clustering patterns is a typological feature of other Austroasiatic languages, as for example Khmer and Old Mon, and contrasts sharply with neighbouring Sino-Tibetan languages in which permitted initial clusters are relatively few in number and restricted almost exclusively to plosives plus following liquids or semi-vowels (l, r, y, w). Rabel, who describes the variety of Khasi initial clusters as “absolutely phantastic” (Rabel 1973),15 lists 127 two-consonant clusters with examples of the occurrences with each of twelve final consonants (Rabel 1961: 21–29). Henderson 1976: 523

Henderson’s paper draws attention several important points:

· · ·

the Khasi initial clusters are not unique, as similar typology is found in various AA branches; the clustering possibilities are very rich, including many that violate the general linguistic tendency to prefer rising sonority syllable initially; the clustering of initials is robustly distributed, regardless of adjacent main syllable vowels or codas. Henderson’s work points out that the more typologically unusual clusters are associated with expressive/iconic vocabulary. This is interesting, and maybe significant for our reconstruction; expressive/iconic vocabulary is generally a strong feature of AA languages and it is appropriate to reconstruct a similar situation in the proto-language. The usefulness of Henderson’s analysis for 15  It is not clear to which paper Henderson is referring here, as it is not listed in the References, but the year suggests a draft paper circulated at the 1973 ICAAL meeting in Hawaii.

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

249

phonological reconstruction—I suggest—lies in the consideration that if one is faced with ambiguous indications in phonology, the semantics of the etymology in question may influence our proto-phoneme assignment. Based on the above considerations we propose the following pAA Cp inventory: * p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g m N r, l, s

The *N represents a nasal that assimilates to the place of the following consonant, while *m appears to retain its phonological independence. 2.3.5 pAA Vowels The reconstruction of pAA vocalism is recognised as profoundly difficult. Thomas (1964) in his overview of comparative studies remarks: Still another difficulty, one that besets all Mon-Khmer comparativists, is the complexity of the vowel shifting that has taken place in Mon-Khmer, making it very difficult to establish regular patterns. Schmidt, after a careful survey of the situation, had to content himself with just statements about possible general trends, establishing no sound-laws. Other comparativists have stated flatly that regular sound-laws simply do not exist in Mon-Khmer vowels, and, indeed, no one has yet succeeded (in print, anyway) in establishing a regular pattern in Mon-Khmer vowel comparisons. I feel that the solution, however, lies in starting at the very lowest level of comparison, working on adjacent languages to establish protoforms at that level, then using these reconstructions as the basis for comparison on the next level. Only in this way, I feel, will the Mon-Khmer vowels be able to be solved. Thomas 1964: 160–1

Thomas was writing half a century ago, not long after Pinnow’s Versuch had appeared and low level reconstruction had not been attempted on a wide scale, largely a function of insufficient reliable data. Since that time, scores of comparative analyses, some quite short and others quite substantial in coverage, have appeared, and tremendous progress has been achieved more or less directly in the manner that Thomas suggested, albeit organically in an uncoordinated effort rather than by an overt program.

250

sidwell and rau

In parallel to the broad scale bottom-up approach, Shorto devised a kind of a shortcut, using just two languages (Mon and Khmer) to make a first approximation of the proto-vocalism. He explains: The new approach I propose here depends on the assumption that a number of types of vowel variation or gradation existed in the proto-language. Before setting out the data, it is desirable to examine the consequences of this assumption. The basic vowel system will be reflected in a series of “regular” correspondences from which those due to variants have to be distinguished. Given that the incidence of vowel variation is limited, and that variant forms are distributed more or less randomly in the modern dialects, it follows that the wider the extension of a cognate set the greater the chance of its including one or more vowel variant forms. A comparison which embraces the largest possible number of languages will elicit a very large number of over-lapping, partly similar correspondences. On the other hand, in a comparison restricted to two languages we could expect a relatively high number of regularly related cognates and a smaller number of “irregular” ones attributable to variation. Shorto 1976: 1041–2

Applying this method, Shorto (1976) proposed the following inventory, with one additional tentative member added to a later (2006) version of the reconstruction: */ i u iː uː e ə o eː əː oː a ɔ aː ɔː iə (ɯə) uə ai / pMK(AA) vowel inventory proposed by Shorto (2006)

This is the “proto-Mon-Khmer” vocalism used in his comparative dictionary, and it does have some merit, although the tolerance for multiple correspondences and variant forms is untidy, frustrating and frankly unrealistic. Shorto was not unreasonable to posit some kind of vowel variation or gradation in the proto-language, as variation does occur, especially in expressive or descriptive vocabulary, right across AA. For example, Nagaraja (1985) gives the following illustration from Khasi:

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

251

ap dŋaŋ ‘wait for- to get something’ ap dŋeŋ ‘wait for- an opportunity’ ap dŋoŋ ‘wait for- lest anything happens’

hap ‘open’ (the mouth) (small) hep ‘open’ (the mouth) (big) hop ‘open’ (the mouth) (small) hup ‘open’ (the mouth) (very large or big)

The problem is that while this kind of iconic vocalism, in which degrees of openness and backness broadly correlate with diminution/augmentation etc., varies tremendously across the phylum and direct comparisons simply multiply the correspondences, much as Shorto anticipated. I take the view that it is appropriate to devise a method that initially yields a “core” system of correspondences which can later be refined by more detailed work, but I suggest that this is best done by extending the range of languages in the comparison while excluding initially etyma showing variation that multiplies the correspondences in a problematic manner. The result insofar as Shorto’s reconstruction is concerned, is that while he has reconstructed a vowel inventory that is probably quite close to the real pAA values, we are often at a loss to know which particular vowel has priority for a given eytmon. In the most extreme example, §1058 ‘to pull hard on, pull up, out, reap’ there are 11 variant proto-forms, all with the shape *rVt or *rVc employing 11 different vowels. Similarly, §1669 ‘to go round, to turn round’ has eight variants with the shape *wVr. One can accept that such monosyllabic verbs are eminently liable for expressive elaboration or deformation, but the method employed by Shorto does not lend itself to discovering any constraints or other specific properties of the supposed system of gradation, and instead manufactures a monstrous proto-vocabulary. Shorto neglected to consider other sources of vowel variation, especially phonological change associated with inherent tendencies in the syllable structure, which only came to be reasonably well understood a decade or so after Shorto presented his proto-vocalism. AA languages often have very large vowel inventories, perhaps the largest in the world (e.g. 42 vowel phonemes claimed for Bru in the analysis of Vương Hừu Lễ (1999)), but we are in the happy position that the diachronic typology of AA vowel restructuring, including vowel splitting, raising, diphthongisation, and register-genesis, is quite well understood. Huffman (1985a) lays out a neat summary of the restructuring processes that frequently give rise to diphthongal vowels and phonation contrasts in Austroasiatic, frequently associated with consonant phonation:

252

1. 2.

sidwell and rau Proto-language

Conservative

Transitional

Register

Restructured

Tonal

*/kaː/ */gaː/

/kaː/ /gaː/

/kaː/ /kʰaː/

/kaː/ /kàː/

/kaː/ /kia/

/káː/ /kàː/

Huffman (1985a:141) idealized scheme of phonological restructuring in Austroasiatic

The basic parameters are that voiceless onsets are associated with tense or 1st register vocalism, and voiced onsets with lax or 2nd register vocalism. The effect, which is most marked among long vowels, is for more raised vowel onsets in second register and/or lowered onsets in the 1st. This potentially leads to extensive diphthongisation, such as Huffman diagrammed for Bru and Katang, both Katuic languages: Register

2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st

Bru (Ubol)

Katang (Salavan)

iː ↓ eiː

ɨː ↓ ɤɨː

uː ↓ ouː

iː ↓ ɪː

ɨː ↓ ɤː

uː ↓ ʊː

eː ↓ ɛeː

ɤː ↓ əɤː

oː ↓ ɔoː

iːe ↑ eː

ɨː ↑ əː

uːo ↑ oː

(ɛː) ↓ aɛː

iːa ↑ aː

uːa ↑ ɔː

ɛː

ɨːa ↑ aː

uːa ↑ ɔː

Huffman (1985a: 142–3) scheme of vocalic restructuring in Bru and Katang.

A strong tendency is for high lax vowels and low tense vowels to remain stable, while mid vowels can go either way—note how Bru and Katang contrast in this respect. More broadly, it should be obvious that, even though Huffman is discussing languages that have more or less neatly phonologised register contrasts, the underlying tendencies are latently inherent in any system of syllables with differing degrees of tension in their onsets, and one would reasonably expect to see various examples of raising, lowering and diphthongisation

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

253

right across AA, resulting in an awkward proliferation of vowel correspondences. The theory thus laid out by Huffman gives us a ready framework to make sense of numerous restructured vowel systems found among AA daughter languages, and on that basis greatly reduce the number of problem vowel correspondences that plagued Shorto and earlier investigators. Reviewing Shorto’s correspondences, and integrating with newer branch level reconstructions, I propose the revised proto-vocalism below, which has several additional members, including two tentative additional diphthongs): */ i u iː uː e ə o eː əː oː ɛ a ɔ ɛː aː ɔː (ie) (uo) iə uə / pAA vowel inventory proposed by Sidwell

The pAA diphthongs are somewhat problematic; two are securely reconstructed, another two only tentatively. *iə, *uə are reasonably indicated, although it is likely that many of Shorto’s *iə, *uə forms are better reconstructed with *ɛː, *ɔː (see Sidwell 2009). On the other hand, Shorto’s *ɯə and *ai are not required, as the etyma in question can be explained variously by recourse to *aː, *ɛː and *iː. Strikingly some branches are reconstructed without diphthongs at all (e.g.: Vietic: Ferlus 1998; Headley 1985; Munda 1968; Pinnow 1959), and a couple with just one (*iə; Palaungic: Sidwell 2010; Khasian: Sidwell 2012, Pearic: Sidwell ms.). At the same time, it is apparently necessary for other branches to reconstruct three (Aslian: Phillips 2012), four (Nicobarese: Diffloth 1991) or even six (Katuic: Sidwell 2005) contrasting diphthongs. Yet it is difficult to establish regular correspondences between, in particular, the Nicobarese, Aslian and Katuic diphthongs, so the suggestion of *ie and *uo remains tentative. The remainder of this chapter briefly profiles the phonological reconstruction of each AA branch, except for Mangic, for which comparative analyses are yet not sufficiently developed. The chapter concludes with a Swadesh 100 list of branch-level proto lexicon (without Mangic, and with Nancowry forms standing in for pNicobarese), pAA forms from Shorto (2006), and revised pAA reconstructions by Sidwell.

254 3

sidwell and rau

Austroasiatic Branches

3.1 Aslian 3.1.1 Introduction The Aslian branch consists of perhaps ten or a dozen distinct languages in three or four sub-branches, with some showing considerable dialectal diversity. The total population of Aslian speakers is small, perhaps around 50,000, with some individual languages having hundreds or, in some cases, only dozens of speakers.16 Contemporary scholarship recognizes three subdivisions, North, Central and South Aslian (or Jehaic, Senoic and Semelaic, respectively), while the position of one language—Jah Hut—is ambiguous. For informative surveys see Benjamin (1976; 2011) and Matisoff (2003). Aslian languages are known for several typological quirks which are generally taken to be secondary within the branch. These include:

· · ·

a tendency for pre-stopping or post-stopping of final nasals, including complete mergers with the Cf stop series: a tendency to lose vowel length distinctions; the absence of implosive stops and a general tendency against tones or phonation contrasts (with an apparent exception of Mah Meri/Besisi, see Stevens et al. (2006)). Additionally, Aslian languages are known for the morphological phenomenon of coda-copying, also called ‘incopyfixation’ (Matisoff 2003), and they may be an especially important witness for the study of Austroasiatic morphology. It is a curious situation that there has been something of a reluctance to pursue comparative Aslian studies, despite the fact that they were among the first AA languages known to science, and substantial data compilations have been accessible for over a century. Nonetheless, there was early interest in the history of the branch; Schmidt (1901) offered a first substantial attempt at historical analysis, and Blagden (1906) presented a huge comparative Aslian vocabulary with etymological commentary. But there have always been substantial obstacles to progress with comparative studies. Benjamin spells out the situation:

16  Matisoff (2003, 10) compares population figures from various sources, and Benjamin (2011) gives some detailed recent figures. It would appear that Aslian populations have always been rather modest.

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

255

There are grounds for thinking that northern Peninsular Malaysia and the Isthmian regions of Thailand have witnessed not one, but three, layers of Mon-Khmer-speaking presence. The hundreds of place-names in the Aslian languages that are well-formed phonologically as Mon-Khmer words but which have no meaning in the present-day languages, suggests that there may have been a Mon-Khmer presence prior to the advent of Aslian. And there is evidence that Mon was present as the language of lowland civilisation in the Isthmian tracts and as far south as Perak and Kelantan until around 1200 CE. Khmer too seems to have left some traces in the same region, and even further south. In addition to their basic character as Mon-Khmer languages, the Aslian languages also contain lexical evidence of secondary contact with both the Mon and the Khmer languages specifically (Benjamin 1997: 105–112; Bauer 1992). Moreover, the Aslian languages also contain many words in their lexicon that are clearly of Austronesian, but not Malay, provenance (Benjamin 2009a). (There are many Malay loanwords too, of course.) Benjamin 2011: 14–15

Blagden, a dominating figure in the field during the first half of the 20th century, was especially scathing of the idea that the Aslian languages formed a family or were even directly Austroasiatic, despite having compiled an enormous comparative vocabulary incorporating many wider AA comparisons. Until recently, the most important contribution was Diffloth’s (1977) reconstruction of protoSemai, a Central Aslian dialect chain, presenting 284 etymologies/reconstructions. The author also mentions having collected an Aslian lexicon in excess of 26,000 items; it is regrettable that this resource remains unpublished/inaccessible. The tide of comparative Aslian studies only turned very recently with the PhD thesis of Timothy Phillips (2012) which presents a phonological and lexical reconstruction of pAslian, and the discussion that follows summarises and comments on Phillip’s results. 3.1.2 pAslian Reconstruction Phillips (2012, henceforth simply Phillips) posits the following syllable/word template for pAslian: monosyllabic: CV(C) sesquisyllabic: C(ə).CV(C) disyllabic: CV(C).CV(C)

256

sidwell and rau

Rather curiously, Phillips does not accept monosyllables with medial approximants, and generally posits a schwa vowel between a stop and an approximant without exception. This seems rather forced; although I did apply the same to proto-South Bahnaric (Sidwell 2000) under the influence of Ilia Peiros, I now consider this to have been a serious error. Phillips’ disyllables include the possibility of a phonemic vowel, and it is worth taking note of his discussion at this point: Furthermore, in the same paper Diffloth demonstrates that many of the non-schwa vowels in the penult cannot be traced to either a conditioning environment or to an inserted morpheme (productive or frozen). Therefore it is presumed that Aslian languages preserve some rather ancient phonemic vowels in the penult. These phonemic, pre-ultimate syllable vowels are /a, i, u/, with /a/ being the most frequent. [. . . .]. If these phonemic penultimate vowels existed in PMK, as seems likely, then iambic and monosyllabic pressures appear to have essentially eliminated them in most MK languages in due course. Iambic pressures have probably reduced many presyllable vowels to schwa even in Aslian over time. Phillips 2012: 36

A significant problem with this analysis is that the forms in which these /a, i, u/ occur do not have evident AA etymologies, except for a modest number of etyma with /a/, which appears to be harmonising with a long /aː/ in the stressed syllable (e.g. pAslian *mahaːm ‘blood’ etc.). Thus I suggest that it is more likely that the Aslian prefinal syllable vowel distinctions are secondary features, innovative to Aslian. Notwithstanding the above quibbles, Phillips’ pAslian syllable/word template is readily reconciled with our provisional pAA template, presenting no fundamental difficulties. The following pAslian segmental inventories are reconstructed by Phillips (2012): Main syllable onset consonants * p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j s h

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

257

Main syllable coda consonants * p t c k ʔ m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j s h Minor syllable onset consonants * p t s c k ʔ b d ɟ g r, l h Cm Consonants * w r, l j

h

Main syllable vowels * i ɨ u ə ɛ a ɔ

iː ɨː ɯː uː iɛ uə eː oː ua ɛː aː ɔː

Minor syllable vowels * i u ə a

Several important phonological features are evident:

· · · ·

The pAA pattern of not permitting open syllables is continued in pAslian. Among the voiced stops, only the palatal takes the r/N rhyme (where N is the unmarked nasal that assimilates to the place of the next segment). The ʔN minor syllable occurs before oral stops, while occurs ʔ(ə) elsewhere. The frequency of voiced stops in minor syllables is increased by a general tendency to dissimilate voicing (i.e. become voiced before a voiceless consonant, e.g. ‘bone’ *ɟəʔaːŋ < pAA *cʔaːŋ). Generally the consonant correspondences are quite trivial and the reconstruction is straightforward. The group is generally marked by loss of implosion in stops (having merged with the plain voiced series without registrogenesis or tonogenesis) so there are only two stop series, and changes among sonorants are

258

sidwell and rau

minimal, aside from the pre-/post-stopping of final nasals (see Matisoff 2003) which is entirely secondary and poses no difficulties for the reconstruction. The pAslian vocalism, on the other hand, is not a trivial problem, and may prove to be very important for pAA. Diffloth (1991: 15), somewhat obscurely in a paper about Palaungic vocalism, remarked that four diphthongs could be reconstructed for pAslian, in parallel with Nicobarese, although gave no details. Phillips appears to have done a very thorough job of investigating pAslian vocalism, although his analysis is distributed through the text over many tables, making it difficult to follow. I have taken the liberty of consolidating his vowel correspondences into a single table, which is presented below. First of all it is important to note that the subscripted correspondences do not indicate additional phonemes, but multiple correspondences supporting individual proto-phonemes; the specific environments/distributions are discussed by Phillips. Note that the correspondences are divided into blocks corresponding to received sub-branches, and this matches the phonological patterns neatly. The Central Aslian tongues preserve the long/short distinction, mostly reflecting the pAslian diphthongs as long monophthongs. Jah Hut, which appears to stand apart from the three sub-branches, has very distinctive reflexes of the diphthongs, and appears to be important for confirming their reconstruction on internal grounds. Strikingly, the reconstruction is asymmetrical, positing two back diphthongs but only one front diphthong, apparently disconfirming Diffloth’s earlier speculation. Northern

Jah Hut

i i ə ɛ ɛ ə ɨ u a

iː iː eː eː ɛː ɛː ɨː ɤː aː

iː iː eː eː ɛː ɛː ɨː ? aː

iː iː eː eː ɛː ɛː ɨː ? aː

iː iː eː eː ɛː ɛː ɨː ? aː

Mah Meri

Chewong

i ɨ ə ɛ? ɛ/a o ɨ ɨ a

Temoq

Kensiw/Kintaq

i ɨ ɨ i ɛ o ɨ ɨ a

Semelai

Tonga-Mos

i ɨ ɨ i ɛ o ɨ ɨ a

Semaq Beri

Mintil

i ɨ ɨ i ɛ o ɨ ɨ a

Semnam

Minriq

i ɨ ɨ i ɛ o ɨ ɨ a

Lanoh

Jahai

i ɨ ɨ i ɛ o ɨ ɨ a

Temiar

Batek

i ɨ ɨ i ɛ o ɨ ɨ a

Southern

Semai

PAslian

*iː₁ *iː₂ *eː₁ *eː₂ *ɛː₁ *ɛː₂ *ɨː *ɯː *aː₁

Central

i/e i/e i/e i/e ? ? ? ? e e e e ɛ? ɛ? ɛ? ɛ? ɛ ɛ ɛ ɛ ɛ ɛ ɛ ɛ ɨ ɨ o ɨ u u u u a a a a

259

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction Northern

Jah Hut

Central

Southern

Minriq

Mintil

Tonga-Mos

Kensiw/Kintaq

Chewong

Semai

Temiar

Lanoh

Semnam

Semaq Beri

i/e ? u o ɔ ɨ ɔ ɔ

i/e ? u o ɔ ɨ ɔ ɔ

i/e ? u o ɔ ɨ ɔ ɔ

i/e ? u o ɔ ɨ ɔ ɔ

e ? u o ɔ ɨ ɔ ɔ

a a? o/ɔ o ɔ o ɔ ɔ

aː aː uː uː oː oː ɔː ɔː

aː aː uː uː oː oː ɔː ɔː

aː aː uː uː oː oː ɔː ɔː

aː aː uː uː oː oː ɔː ɔː

a ə o o? u u ɔ u

a a a ə ə ə o o o o? o? o? u u u u u u ɔ ɔ ɔ u u u

*i *ɛ *ɨ *ə *a₁ *a₂ *a3 *u *ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a ɛ ? u ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a ɛ ? u ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a ɛ ? u ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a ɛ ? u ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a ɛ ? u ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a ɛ ? u ɔ

i ɛ/a ɨ ə a ɛ ? u ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə ? a/ɛ? a? o/ɔ ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a a a u ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a a a u ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a a a u ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a a a u ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a a/ɒ ə ɔ ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a ɒ ə ɔ ɔ

i ɛ o ɔ a ɒ ə ɔ ɔ

i ɛ ɨ ə a ɛ ə ɔ ɔ

*iɛ

ɛ

ɛ

?

iɛ

iɛ

ɛ

ɛ/iɛ

iɛː

?

ɛ

ɛ

ɛ

e

*ua

a

a

a

a

a

a

ɔː

ɔː

ieː/ ɛː ɔː

o

o

o

o

wɔː wɔː

? ?

oː oː

ɔ ɔ

ɔ ɔ

ɔ ɔ

ɔ ɔ

*uə a/e? *uəN ɛ

ə ɛ

a

wɔ / wa oː / wɛ a/e? a/e? a/e? a/e? ia? wo oː ɛ ɛ ɛ iɛ iɛ o? oː

Also significant are the high vowels *ɨ, *ɨː and *ɯː, which appear to be well supported. It is striking that the etyma reconstructed with these long high central vowels typically have high rounded back vowel reflexes elsewhere among AA languages. The following examples are compared with Shorto (2006) reconstructions:

Mah Meri

Jahai

i/e ? u o ɔ ɨ ɔ ɔ

Temoq

Batek

i/e ? u o ɔ ɨ ɔ ɔ

Semelai

PAslian

*aː₂ *aː₃ *uː₁ *uː₂ *oː₁ *oː₂ *ɔː₁ *ɔː₂

260

sidwell and rau

Shorto (2006)

pAslian

Bahnar

Mon

Khmu

Katu

Palaung

*phoːm ‘to fart’ (#1433) *ɓu(ː)l ‘drunk’ (#1765) *ɗuŋ ‘house’ (#492) *ɗu(ː)m ‘ripe’ (#1362) *su(ː)c ‘to sting’ (#873) *puːt ‘to blow’ (#1023)

*pəhɨːm

phoːm

—

puːm

—

–

*bɯːl

—

həbu —

ɓɑl

–

*dɯːŋ — *ʔəndɯːm ɗuːm

— —

— —

ɗɔŋ ɗɑm

*sɯːc

soːc

—

huːc

ʔasɑc

– kəndum (‘bud’) –

*pɨːt

–

–

poːt – (Ksingmul)

put

The lack of central vowel reflexes elsewhere in AA is suggestive of an Aslian innovation of pAA *uː > pAslian *ɯː/*ɨː, and thus is a potential candidate as a common Aslian innovation. Alternately it may be reasonable evidence for a pAA high central vowel. Additionally, the pAslian morphological system was quite rich, and Phillips reconstructs several affixes, all of which are consistent with our pAA reconstruction:

· · · ·

nominalizer *(-)n agentive nominalizer *(-)m causative *pər iterative *(–)l– Plus coda-copying, already discussed under §2.1. A Swadesh 100 list of Phillips pAsian lexical reconstruction (adjusted to IPA notational conventions) is included at the end of this chapter. 3.2 Nicobarese 3.2.1 Introduction The Nicobarese branch is very small; with just a few thousands of speakers on an island chain in the Andaman Sea (the true speaker population is unknown since the Boxing Day Tsunami). Although geographically isolated from the Asian mainland, the islands may never have been effectively socially isolated as they lie on the sea route between India and China, and their mention in Ptolemy’s atlas (c. 150 A.D.) means that they have been known to Europe since

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

261

classical times. In the introduction to de Röepstroff (1875), the islanders are described as having extensive trade relations with the outside world and many were familiar with numerous outside languages, and a high degree of intelligibility between islands is mentioned. It is later in British colonial times and under Indian rule that Nicobar islands served as a penal settlement and became inaccessible to outsiders. Consequently the most important published linguistic descriptive and analytic work has been done with speakers on the Indian mainland. The most extensive sources for the present investigation of Nicobarese are the colonial era dictionaries and grammars such as Man (1889), de Röepstroff (1884), Temple (1902), Whitehead (1925), plus a couple of later studies: Crichfield-Braine (1970), Radhakrishnan (1981) and Das (1977) which are written in modern linguistic frameworks, although even the latter present special difficulties of interpretation. These and other available sources only give extensive data for two varieties, Car and Nancowry. However, there are good reasons to proceed with an attempt at a reconstruction based on these two languages; the documentation is extensive and quite useful, and the languages appear to represent geographical extremes of what is clearly a dialect chain. A comparative word list of 68 items for seven Nicobar dialects presented by Radhakrishnan at the 1978 International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics (Mysore) suggests only minor phonological and lexical differences across the chain, so with the exception of Shompen, for which there are no useful extensive sources, Car and Nancowry together seem to reasonably present as criterion languages for a comparative reconstruction. There are some sources for the enigmatic Shompen language (e.g. Rizvi 1990; Elangaiyan et al. 1995; Chattopadhyay & Mukhopadhyay 2003), spoken by a small population on the island of Great Nicobar, but these are very difficult to work with. Having looked exhaustively through the available Shompen materials (see Blench & Sidwell 2011), I can say that it certainly contains substantial Nicobarese lexicon, although it also shows some Aslian and Austroasiatic isoglosses that have not been found elsewhere in Nicobarese. The significance of these facts is not clear, and for the moment the assumption is maintained that Shom Pen is a heavily restructured Nicobarese language, but its data is not used to support the reconstruction. The reconstruction of pNicobar is also made somewhat problematic by a low rate of cognates between Nicobarese and other AA languages (commonly ascribed to word tabooing), averaging around 10% on the 100 word list by my counts. This can make it difficult to test the provisional historical phonology by external comparison—a vital part of the method. There is also large cohort of loans from many sources (including English, Portuguese, and Malay) which can be difficult to distinguish.

262

sidwell and rau

In respect of previous comparative-historical work, there is an eight page draft pNicobar reconstruction by Norman Zide and D.P.S. Dwarikesh (1962, copy obtained directly from Zide), and Harry Shorto made some notes on Nicobarese historical phonology (also unpublished). In 2003 I prepared notes for a lecture series at the Australian National University, and these were subsequently extended in 2012 to make a list of 150+ Nicobarese etymologies. On the basis of these notes I present the beginnings of a Nicobarese historical phonology. pNicobar phonology Generally the Nicobarese languages restructured phonologically, eliminating all consonant clusters within syllables, and developing suffixing, in addition to making extensive use of prefixes and infixes. This phonology also involves much more extensive morphophonemic changes/alternations that are commonly found among AA languages, but we will not dwell upon these here. We will focus instead on indentifying the reflexes of AA roots and their segmental phonology. Similarly, the languages are now characterised by verb-initial syntax, but this is not developed here. Rather, a basic framework for phonological reconstruction is briefly sketched. Based on the common structure of the witness languages, pNicobar lexical roots can be:

· ·

monosyllabic CV(C) (always with onsets assuming that glottal stop is phonemic), or disyllabic CV(n).CV(C), where -n- is apparently not a productive infix, although both -n- and -m- appear in that slot as infixes in derivatives. The segmental phonology as described for Nancowry (Radhakrishnan 1981) and Car (Crichfield-Braine 1970) is straightforward enough, except for the diphthongs. Nancowry is described as having stress (typically on the second syllable in a disyllabic root/stem) and stressed vowels are always long while unstressed vowels are always short, with the former always marked with an acute diacritic by Radhakrishnan. Five diphthongs are described: ía [iːə], úa [uːə], iá [iaː], uá [uaː], and ɯ́ a [ɯːa] and these frequently correspond to diphthongs elsewhere in AA, except for ɯ́ a, which regularly corresponds to a back monophthong in Car and other AA languages. On the other hand, Car is described as having phonemic long and short vowels, although the contrast is restricted to the stressed syllable of lexical roots (with suffixing the stressed syllables may be penultimate or antepentultimate

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

263

in the phonological word). Crichfield-Braine describes three diphthongs ɛ́ɔ [ɛɔ], ɛɔ́ [ɛɔː], and ɛá [ɛaː], although these are infrequent, tending to appear in descriptive vocabulary. Otherwise, long monophthongs in Car tend to correspond to diphthongs in Nancowry. Consequently, it appears that Car examples must be relied upon to reconstruct pNicobararese vowel length, while Nancowry is necessary to establish the proto-diphthongs. Aside from these considerations, syllable structure is common to both, and other segmental differences are minor. The most significant non-trivial patterns of correspondences are among palatals, rhotic and apicals. The following pNicobar consonant inventories can be reconstructed for stressed syllables: Ci Consonants * p t c k ʔ b dr ɟ g m n ɲ ŋ w l ɽ j f s h Cf Consonants * p t c k ʔ m n ɲ ŋ w l j s h

The first thing is to note about the consonants is the relative equivalence between the Ci and Cf inventories. This is consistent with the reduction in syllable structure and loss of iambicity at word level; as the asymmetry in the syllable was lost, so was the asymmetry in the segmental inventory. The initials of unstressed syllables present the same range of possibilities as stressed syllables, although there are differences in frequency/distribution that are yet to be fully worked through. AA voiced Ci oral stops were devoiced in pNicobar, except for *ɗ, which surfaces as [dr-] in Car (Crichfield-Braine’s 1970 r̃, described as pre-stopped), and in Nancowry as a segment that is variously written r and/or d in the sources, strongly suggesting a segment directly comparable to [dr-], so *dr is reconstructed for pNicobar (e.g. riák ‘water’ < *draːk < pAA *ɗaːk). The pAA Ci *r became [j] in Nancowry, while in Car it is reflected as a retroflex [ɽ] (written as a typescript r by Crichfield-Braine), reconstructed as pNicobar *ɽ and reflected in etymologies such as:

264

sidwell and rau

gloss

pAA (Shorto #)

Nancowry

Car

‘deep’ ‘fly’ ‘to overflow

*ɟruːʔ (#172) *ru(ə)j (#1504) *ruəc (#843 ‘drip’)

cijaːw juaːj juaːc-ŋa

ʔaɽuːʔ inɽuːj taɽeːc-i

Additionally, pAA *p became pNicobar *f while pAA *b, *ɓ, *d, *ɟ and *g simply became their plain voiceless stop equivalents. pAA *c became pNicobar *s, while pAA *s became pNicobar *h. Consequently, the pattern of mergers is different at each place of articulation rather than simply according to natural classes. Selected examples follow: gloss

pAA (Shorto #)

Nancowry

Car

‘four’ ‘to tie, bind’ ‘to carry on back’ ‘breast’ ‘wall’ ‘water’ ‘to perch, alight’ ‘sour’ ‘child’

*puən (#1166) *bək (#357) *ɓɔʔ (#121) *tɔh (#1999) *bdaŋ (#580) *ɗaːk (#274) *ɗ(uː)n (#1158) *ɟuʔ (#50) *ku(ə)n (#1127)

fuːən poːk pɯːəʔ tuaːh taːŋ riːək rɯːən pacaːw kuaːn/koːn

feːn pɔk ka-poː-tə (‘carried away’) tɛh tanaŋ waːk (doubtful cognate) drɔːn kuːən

Finally a remark about affixation: Nicobarese languages also show an important morphological alternation in the causative prefix/infix. It is realised with two allomorphs, prefix ha- with monosyllabic stems, and infix -um- in disyllabic stems. Examples:

Nancowry

Car

ŋok ‘to eat’ / haŋok ‘to feed’ cim ‘to cry’ / hacim ‘to make someone cry’ lapəʔ ‘pretty’ / lumpəʔ ‘to make someone pretty’ karuʔ ‘large’ / kumdruʔ ‘to enlarge’

ɲaː ‘to eat’ / haɲaː ‘to feed’ pɯɲ ‘to cry’ / hapɯɲ-ɲɔː ‘to make cry’ kucik ‘be palatable’ / kumcik ‘to taste’ kale ‘brave’ / kumle ‘bravery’

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

265

The initial /h/ is the regular outcome of pAA *p in Ci in unstressed syllables. However, it is not clear whether ha-/-um- originates in conditioned reflexes of one morpheme, or a merger of two different but similar morphemes. If the former, it may hold a clue to the problem of the possible relationship between nasal infixes and implosive stops in AA mentioned under §2.3.1.1. The pNicobar vocalism is more problematic and still requires detailed working-out. Without having a full set of regular correspondences compiled and analysed, but relying on the apparent cognates and taking into account typological considerations, it seems appropriate to posit the following pNicobar vowel inventory as a provisional model: Vowels * i u e ə o ɛ a ɔ

iː ɯː uː iːə (ɯːə) uːə eː əː oː iaː uaː ɛː aː ɔː

At the 18th Southeast Asian Linguistics Society meeting (Bangi Melasia, May 22nd 2008) Gerard Diffloth presented a handout listing seven etymologies indicating regular correspondences between the Nancowry /uːə, uaː/ diphthongs and pAslian /*uə, *uɔ/ respectively, equivalent to Phillips (2012) pAslian /*uə, *ua/. Thus there would seem to be external support for pNicobar *uːə, *uaː and by analogy *iːə, *iaː, but pNicobar *ɯːə is more doubtful and is left in parentheses for now. Regretfully, a list of pNicobar is not included in the comparative 100 word lexicon at the end of this chapter. 3.3 Monic 3.3.1 Introduction The Monic Branch effectively consists of two languages, Mon and Nyah Kur, which are readily reconstructable as descendents of pMonic; apparently spoken in central Thailand in the First Millennium CE, and probably the vernacular language of the Dvaravati civilization that preceded the Siamese in that region between the 6th and 13th centuries.17 Today the Mon centre of gravity is in Myanmar, where perhaps ¾ of a million speakers still use the language, and there is also a sizable population of Mons in Thailand (the Ethnologue cites a speaker population of 851,000 for both countries at 2004). By contrast 17

We may speculate that Dvaratvati (and the predecessor of Angkor, Chen La) emerged from the break-up of Funan, a presumably ethnically diverse polity, which according to Chinese sources unified an area that spread from the Mekong Delta to the Malay Peninsula (Wheatley 1961, Vickery 2003).

266

sidwell and rau

Nyah Kur is a critically endangered language spoken in central Thailand in the hills of the Mekong and Menam Chao Phraya watershed (the Ethnologue cites 1,500 speakers and decreasing at 2006). Despite the lack of overall diversity within the branch, Mon has a long written history that dates back some 1500 years, with the oldest layer (Old Mon) indicating retention of important AA phonological features. Old Mon has received much attention from philological/epigraphic studies, and played an important role in Schmidt’s foundational work (1905; 1906 etc.) and later AA comparative studies. After much pioneering work on Mon inscriptions by figures such as Otto Blagden, George Coedes and Gordon Luce, a combination of comparative and philological studies in the period of the 1960s to 1980s filled out a reconstruction of Monic linguistic history that is reflected substantially in the following works:

·

Shorto (1971): this dictionary of the Mon inscriptions remains the principle consolidated source for Old Mon (although its coverage could be extended significantly with contemporary data) and includes extensive etymological commentary (it is really the foundation upon which Shorto 2006 was build). Ferlus (1983): this 90-page paper uses both comparative and philological methods to reconstruct the phonetic history of Mon and offers a phonological reconstruction of pMonic (proto môn in his terminology). Diffloth (1984): this monograph-length study relies mostly on fieldwork data to assemble some 680 etymologies, and reconstruct pMonic and intermediate forms for pMon, pNyah Kur. Huffman (1990): although strictly a synchronic comparison, the phonological systems and lexicons of Burmese and Thai Mon and Nyah Kur are compared, including a well organised 800+ item comparative lexicon

· · ·

Below we discuss the reconstruction of pMonic, as revealed by Ferlus and Diffloth, emphasizing the commonalities in their results, and a slightly revised pMonic reconstruction is proposed. 3.3.2 pMonic Reconstruction Broadly speaking, pMonic phonology poses no serious difficulties. Although Modern spoken Mon is substantially restructured and has lost many older phonological distinctions (including loss of consonant voicing, vowel length contrast, dropping medial sonorants in many places, and an almost complete merger of minor syllables to /h/), Old and Literary Mon forms preceded most of these changes and largely confirm the comparative reconstruction. Nyah

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

267

Kur, although also restructured, preserves the word final and minor syllable consonants more faithfully and still contrasts vowel length. Thus direct comparison of the two languages yields a reliable pMonic reconstruction, and this is confirmed by the fact that two independent historical reconstructions conducted at about the same time (Ferlus 1983; Diffloth 1984) yielded results that are not drastically discordant.18 Ferlus and Diffloth are in accord in reconstructing the following pMonic word structure: monosyllables disyllables *Ci(Cm)VCf *(Cp(Cson))CiVCf

Note that there are no vowel final lexical words. Ferlus identifies the monosyllables formed with medials (Cm) as quasi-monosyllables, although this seems an unnecessary distinction. Diffloth’s taxonomy divides words into one, two and three consonant onsets; and reflecting his concern for phonetic reality, he suggests that three consonant onsets—having a sonorant in the second position—may have been syllabified with an epenthetic schwa. The main difference between the Ferlus and Diffloth models is in the protovocalism, and both their proto-vowel inventories are given below, followed by discussion. Ci consonants * p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g ɓ ɗ ɟ g m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j s h Cm consonants * w r l j h

18  This level of concord in AA branch level reconstruction is not as frequent as one might hope. For example, in respect of pKatuic, the recontructions of Thomas (1967), Efimov (1983) and Peiros (1996) while broadly consistent with each other, are utterly discordant with the works produced by, for example, Diffloth (1982), L-Thongkhum (2001), Sidwell (2005).

268

sidwell and rau

Cp consonants * p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g l s Cson Consonants * m N r l Cf consonants * p t c k ʔ m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j s h Vowels (Ferlus) * i ɨ u e/ɛ ə o a ɔ Vowels (Diffloth) * i ɯ u e ə ɛ a ɔ

iː ɨː uː uo ɛː/ia aː ɔː/ua

iː ɯː uː eː əː oː ɛː aː ɔː iə

The differences in proto-vocalism are readily reconciled: Ferlus’s *uo and Diffloth’s *oː are the same phoneme; for the reconstruction Diffloth prefers the model of the Nyah Kur reflex, while Ferlus points out that Old Mon reflexes are written with the ū glyph. Diffloth distinguishes mid and low front vowels and *iə, making five distinctions amongst these, while Ferlus does not posit a contrast between short /e/ and /ɛ/, or between long /ɛː/ and diphthong /ia/, and does not reconstruct a long *eː. Ferlus’ ambiguous pairs *e/ɛ and *ɛː/ia reflect a lack of contrasting environments:

· ·

*e occurs before palatals and *w, ɛ elsewhere, although both are infrequent; and *ɛː occurs before glottal stop and *w, while *ia occurs elsewhere.

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

269

Diffloth only reconstructs five examples of *eː, two of these correspond to Ferlus’ *iː, while the others are ambiguous or appear to belong to the same correspondence as Ferlus’ *iː. Ferlus’ *o is probably unsafe; all but one of his examples corresponds to Diffloth’s *ə before *w, and the remainder is one root *poh ‘to propel, flick’ (Old Mon poh ‘to shoot with pellet bow’) for which Shorto (2006, entry #2024) suggests a long proto-vowel. Paralleling the front diphthong, Ferlus does not contrast *ɔː/ua; while he generally posits *ua in proto-forms, he allows for the phonetic difference at pMonic. While the loss of long/short contrast in Mon creates multiple correspondences, the broad pattern in Nyah Kur is that monophthong reflexes are found before velars and glottals while diphthonged reflexes occur elsewhere, and this complementary distribution prevailed in pMonic. In this case, Diffloth takes the phonemic approach and reconstructs a monophthong *ɔː for all cases of this correspondence, while Ferlus favours *ua. Some examples illustrate the vowel reconstructions discussed above: Gloss ‘river’ ‘rope’ ‘to sew’ ‘spicy’ ‘nest’ ‘hair’ ‘varan’ ‘firewood’ ‘to return’ ‘hand’ ‘tooth’ ‘that’

Ferlus Diffloth. OM *kruoŋ *kroːŋ kruṅ *ɟuok *ɟoːk juk *ɟiːŋ *ɟeːŋ jiṅ *riːŋ *reːŋ riṅ* *kmpuaj *cmpɔːj sapoy* *suak *sɔːk sok *tkuat *trkɔːt darkot *ʔuas *ʔɔːs ʼoh *cow *cəw caw *tej *təj tey *ŋiak *ŋiək ṅek *tɛːʔ *tɛːʔ te’

MonRao NKCentral krə́ŋ króːŋ cə̀k chòːk còiŋ chìːŋ ròiŋ rìːŋ həpúa mpúaj sók chɔ́ ːk həkót trkúat ʔúh ʔúaj̊ cáo cɔ́w tóa tɛ́j ŋɛ̀ak ŋìak téʔ tɛ́ːʔ

* Literary Mon

Considering the above, we can offer a moderately revised pMonic vocalism as follows: Revised pMonic vowels * i ɨ u iː ɨː ə əː ɛ a ɔ ɛː/ia aː

uː oː ɔː/ua

270

sidwell and rau

The short vowels *e and *o are not required, as they can generally be explained as conditioned reflexes of *ə. Ferlus’ *uo is merged with Diffloth’s *oː, while Diffloth’s *eː generally reflects *iː. Diphthongs *ia and *ua are in complementary distribution with *ɛː and *ɔː respectively, and I suggest that monophthong and diphthong allophones can be reconstructed to provide a more phonetically realistic proto-phonology. On this basis, we have compiled the Swadesh 100 list of pMonic lexicon at the end of this chapter. The forms are taken directly from Diffloth’s (1984) reconstruction, with vocalism adjusted to reflect the revision proposed above. While both Diffloth and Ferlus reconstruct the same consonant inventories, Diffloth reconstructs specific consonant values that account for more diverse reflex forms, based mainly on his use of extensive Nyah Kur field data. 3.4 Khmeric 3.4.1 Introduction The Khmeric branch is represented by a single language, Khmer (Cambodian), which shows three main dialects: Standard Khmer, Northern or Surin Khmer, and Western or Cardamom Khmer. The written standard has been used extensively in comparative works, especially since Schmidt, and like Mon, the older inscriptional record (which goes back to the 7th century CE) gives important clues as to the historical phonology. Through the Middle Khmer period (14th to 19th centuries CE) the language underwent extensive phonological restructuring, so that today there is a gross disparity between written and spoken Khmer. The contemporary language has also been elaborated with extensive borrowings, and new formations including hypercorrections and pseudo-archaisms, so one needs to apply special care when invoking Khmer data in comparative reconstruction. It is apparent that all the known dialects derive from Khmer of the Angkorian period (9th to 14th centuries CE) or later, and are younger than the oldest written sources, which is known as preAngkorian Old Khmer (7th and 8th centuries CE). However, preAngkorian is known only from a few hundred (mostly brief) inscriptions, and appears to show a rather special register—an administrative or court language—which is very specialised in lexicon and restricted in syntax,19 so it is only partly representative of vernacular speech of the preAngkorian populace. Furthermore, there is a degree of standardisation in the preAngkorian corpus that strongly suggests the language had already been written for some time, and this further implies that the vernacular base 19  For example, there are no second person pronouns attested at all in the entire Old Khmer corpus.

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

271

of preAngkorian, what we would call pKhmeric, was a living language for some time previously, around 500 AD. To address these issues and reconstruct pKhmeric therefore requires a combination of epigraphic analysis, comparative reconstruction, and consideration of the phonology and semantics of many loan words that entered the language at various stages, evidently from Mon, Tai and other sources. This is the approach taken by Ferlus (1992b), whose reconstruction of pKhmeric (proto khmer in his terminology) is outlined here. The phonology of Old Khmer, and its correspondence with written forms, is discussed briefly in dictionaries of Old Khmer, such as Long Seam (2000), Pou (1992, revised 2004), and Jenner (1980–86; 2009). There is a recent grammar of Old Khmer (Jenner and Sidwell 2010) and an internal reconstruction of Khmer morphology (Jenner and Pou 1980–81). The development of Khmer phonology from Old Khmer to the present is discussed in various works, including: Jenner (1974), Jacob (1976), Huffman (1978), Ferlus (1979; 1992c), Pinnow (1979) and others. 3.4.2 pKhmeric Reconstruction The syllable and word structure of pKhmeric is assumed to be the same as apparent for Old Khmer (in fact quite similar to Modern Khmer) and the latter is discussed in various works, such as Jacob (1960; 1993), Jenner (2009a,b), and Jenner & Sidwell (2010). Words of the native lexicon are conventionally analysed as either monosyllables, disyllables, or sub-disyllables (a term approximating ‘sesquisyllables’), as follows: monosyllables sub-disyllables *Ci(Cm)V(Cf) *Cp(ə/h)Ci(Cm)V(Cf)

disyllables *CpəN.Ci(Cm)V(Cf) *Cprə.Ci(Cm)V(Cf)

Words are iambic, and (sub-)disyllabic words are frequently and transparently formed by affixation. Syllabification can be accompanied with a schwa juncture or aspiration, consequently phonetically aspirated sequences could arise by juncture/affixation, but there was no distinct aspirated series as such. In the transition from pAA to pre-pKhmeric several consonant changes took place:

· ·

there was a general loss of final glottal stops, allowing words to be vowel final; the pAA implosives merged with the voiced stop series, creating a single voiced series.

272

sidwell and rau

Later, apparently during the Angkorian period, there were further consonant changes:

· · ·

prevocalic labial and apical voiceless stops became implosive, reconstituting an implosive series; final /s/ and /h/ began merging to /h/ (this may actually have occurred later); there was a period of confusion between /b/ and /ʋ/, possibly realised as a [β] allophone. The inventory of short vowels is strikingly small, as a number of mergers occurred in pre-pKhmeric, including reduction of some long vowels; at the same time there is evidence for four distinct diphthongs, based on epigraphic and loan word interpretation. The following pKhmer segmental inventories are reconstructed: Ci consonants * p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g m n ɲ ŋ ʋ r, l j s h Cm consonants * w r l j Cp consonants * p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g r, l s Cf consonants * p t c k ʔ m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j s h Vowels * i ɨ u ə a ɔ

iː ɨː uː ie ɨə uo eː əː oː ɛː aː ɔː ia ua

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

273

Some examples illustrating the sound changes discussed above are provided: Gloss pKhmeric preAngkorian Angkorian Mod Khmer reduction of ‘water’ *dɨk dik dik tɨk long vowels: ‘wind’ *kjəl kyol~kyel khyal kʰjal ‘bone’ *cʔəŋ - - c ǝʔɤŋ

pAA (Shorto#) *ɗaːk #274 *kjaːl #1782 *cʔaːŋ #488

reduction of ‘two’ *bier ver~ber vyar~ piː, pɨl diphthongs: byar~bir ‘oil’ *prieŋ pareṅ paryyaṅ~ preːŋ pareṅ ‘candle’ *dian den dy:an~dyan tiːən ‘to learn’ *rian ren ryyan~ riːən ryy:an~ry:an ‘boat’ *duok dok~dvak dvak tuːk ‘to offer’ *ɟuon jon~jvan jvan cuːn ‘four’ *puan pon pvan~pv:an ɓuːən ‘group’ *buak - vvak~ puːək vok~bok

*ɓaːr #1562

final glottal loss:

‘hand’ ‘day’

*taj *tŋaj

tai tai ɗaj tṅai~tṅaiy - tʰŋaj

Loss of ‘sugarcane’ *ʔmbaw - ʼaṃvau ʔampɤw implosion: ‘to cover’ *dap - dap tʊp

*pri(ə)ŋ #702 *riən #1192 *ɗuːk #336 *ɟuːn #1148 *puən[] #1166 *buək #362

*tiːʔ #66 *tŋiːʔ #31 *(t)ɓuːʔ #125 *ɗəp #1261

Note: preAngkorian and Angkorian inscriptional forms in bold-italic.

A Swadesh 100 list of pKhmeric lexical reconstruction is included at the end of this chapter. Note that they are not taken directly from Ferlus (1992c) but assembled by Sidwell on the basis of the sound laws that Ferlus has reconstructed.

274

sidwell and rau

3.5 Bahnaric 3.5.1 Introduction The Bahnaric is one of the more extensive and diverse branches of AA, with more than 30 distinct languages spread over five coordinate sub-branches; it is spoken by communities spread over substantial areas of central and southern Vietnam and neighbouring areas of Laos and Cambodia. As a witness to the reconstruction of pAA, Bahnaric is crucial as it includes various languages with unrestructured vocalism and minimal changes to consonants, in addition to various highly innovative languages. It is also important that Bahnaric subgroups fall over different historical language contact areas (variously in contact with Chamic, Khmer, Katuic etc.) and this provides insight into which lexical items and structural features are variously archaic or more recently acquired. French colonial officials and missionaries began working with and documenting the languages of Bahnaric-speaking peoples from the 1860s. A century later American researchers, especially individuals associated with SIL, began documentation and comparative work, and by the 1970s various important studies had appeared in print. From the late 1980s other scholars joined the effort, building eventually to a very useful body of scholarly work. These include:

· · · · · · · ·

Blood (1966) “A Reconstruction of Proto-Mnong (Including Tentative Reconstruction of Proto-South-Bahnaric” (MA thesis), Thomas & Smith (1967) “Proto-Jeh-Halang”, Smith (1967) “A Phonological Reconstruction of Proto Central North Bahnaric”, Efimov (1990) “Istoricheskaja Fonologija Juzhnobaxnaricheskix Jazykov” (Historical phonology of South Bahnaric languages), Sidwell (2000) “Proto-South-Bahnaric: a reconstruction of a Mon-Khmer language of Indo-China”, Jacq & Sidwell (2000) “A Comparative West Bahnaric Dictionary”, Theraphan L-Thongkum (2001) “Languages of the Tribes in Xekong Province Southern Laos”, Sidwell & Jacq (2003) “A Handbook of Comparative Bahnaric: Volume 1, West Bahnaric”. An annotated bibliography of Bahnaric linguistics was recently published (Cheeseman et al. 2013). Not published is Sidwell’s PhD thesis “A Reconstruction of Proto-Bahnaric” completed in 1998, and an updated version of my pBahnaric reconstruction (2011a) has been made available online at

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

275

sealang.net/monkhmer. The latter consolidates various data sources and subbranch level reconstructions done since 1998, and posits 1011 pBahnaric forms, plus sub-branch reconstructions that adds approximately 800 etymologies. The text that follows summarizes the findings of this reconstruction. 3.5.2 pBahnaric Phonology The pBahnaric syllable and word templates are reconstructed as being almost the same as posited pAA, with the addition of several extra members within minor syllable rhymes: monosyllables sesquisyllables/disyllables *Ci(Cm)VCf *(Cp(N/m/r/l/h/ə))CiVCf

The inventory of sounds is somewhat richer than pAA, including preglottalized sonorants (originating with old cluster reductions), plus an apical affricate that is assumed to originate as an old loan phoneme (paralleled in Vietic, although both may be borrowed from a third unknown source). The pBahnaric segmental inventories are as follows: Ci Consonants * p t ʦ c k ʔ b d ɟ g ɓ ɗ ʄ m n ɲ ŋ ʔm ʔn ʔɲ ʔŋ w r l j ʔw ʔl ʔj s h Cf Consonants * p t m n w r, l s

c k ʔ ɲ ŋ j h

Cp Consonants * p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g s h

276

sidwell and rau

Cm Consonants * w r l j h Main syllable vowels * i ɨ u iː ɨː uː iə uə e ə o eː əː oː ɛ a ɔ ɛː aː ɔː

Phonotactic notes:

· · · ·

Diphthongs are restricted to occurring in closed syllables, and only with heterorganic finals (*iə not with palatals, *uə not with labials or velars). Minor syllable *ʔ was vocalized to [ʔə]. A phonemic schwa could occur in disyllables before an approximant Ci. There was no length contrast in syllables with final *ʔ or *h and the vowels in such syllables are treated as short. Open main syllables are all long. The preglottalized sonorants (ʔm, etc.) are treated as unitary segments for the purposes of syllable structure despite the digraph notation. They are mostly reconstructed on the basis of reflexes in North Bahnaric. 3.5.3 pBahnaric Phonological Innovations For pBahnaric I reconstruct short and long high-central vowels *ɨ, *ɨː; these are mostly raised reflexes of pAA *a, *aː; e.g.: pBahnaric *ʔmɨː ‘rain’ *ɲɨːm ‘weep’ *prɨːt ‘banana’ *-mɨt ‘gall, bile’ *bnɨm ‘mountain’

cf. Khmu Cuang kmaʔ cf. Old Mon yam cf. Old Mon brat cf. Vietnamese mật cf. Old Khmer vnaṁ

A similar raising of central vowels also happened later within West Bahnaric (the conditioning is not clear, but seems to involve preceding approximants), e.g.: pBahnaric *kjaːl ‘wind, air’ *hraːj ‘maggot’ *klaː ‘tiger’

pWBahnaric Laven Bahnar *kəjɨːl kəjɨəl kjaːl *srɨːj srɨəj hraːj *klɨː klɨə klaː

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

277

Also, an affricate *ʦ reconstructed to account for a curious correspondence of /s ~ ʦ/ in North Bahnaric to /t/ elsewhere in the branch. The origin of *ʦ is obscure—Shorto (2006) mistakenly (in my view) included it in his *t2 correspondence set. Ferlus (2007) reconstructs doublets such as *ɟaːŋ / *tʃɨəŋ ‘bone’ for pVietic, which is at least suggestive of an old borrowed stratum into pBahnaric. Some examples: pBahnaric *-ʦaŋ ‘bitter’ *-ʦoːɲ ‘fern’ *pʦul ‘anthill’ *kʦɨːŋ ‘bone’

Bahnar Rengao Sedang taŋ ʦaŋ sa̰ ŋ ‘salty’ kasún - kətɔːɲ pətɔl bəʦṳl pətɔl kətiːŋ kəʦe̤ːŋ kəsiəŋ

The pBahnaric implosives *ɓ, *ɗ are reconstructed on their witness in Bahnar; it seems remarkable, but so far as I can tell only Bahnar preserves a contrast between these implosives and plain voiced stops; elsewhere they have merged with the plain voiced stops, or their subsequent voiceless reflexes where devoicing has occurred. Strikingly, implosives are recorded for Bahnar in most but not all etyma for which they would be expected on the basis of occurrences in, for example, Old Mon or Katu. However, Bahnar has experienced substantial contact and borrowing from North Bahnaric languages such as Rengao and Sedang, and so some irregularity in correspondences is understandable. Implosives, although lost elsewhere in the branch, have re-emerged in South Bahnaric languages such as in Sre, apparently from hardening of glottal-nasal sequences. At the sub-branch level, North Bahnaric stands out as phonologically innovative, developing tense/lax registers; for example see Smith’s (1972) comparative North Bahnaric reconstruction. Oddly, there was no general devoicing in North Bahnaric, and the registers do not correlate with historical voice quality of the initial stops. Instead, the explanation seems to be related to a reorganisation of vowel timbre differences, similar to what also seems to have occurred in the Katuic language Pacoh (see Diffloth 1982). The other Bahnaric subbranches are mostly unrestructured, generally just showing some mergers in their segmental inventories, although some individual languages have undergone their own restructuring. For example, within West Bahnaric, Nyaheun restructured all sesquisyllables into *Ci(Cm)VCf type monosyllables, and Lawi went through conventional stop devoicing and vowel splitting (see Sidwell and Jacq 2003). A Swadesh 100 list of pBahnaric lexical reconstruction is included at the end of this chapter.

278

sidwell and rau

3.6 Katuic 3.6.1 Introduction The Katuic languages are among the best documented and most thoroughly analysed from the perspective of comparative AA studies. These studies reveal a typologically diverse group that includes a range of historical outcomes, from perhaps the most conservative AA of all (Katu) to highly innovative tongues that include among the most complex vowel systems in the world. The more innovative Katuic languages (Bru and Kui) are spoken by communities distributed over a large area of NE Thailand, NE Cambodia, southern Laos and border-lands of Vietnam; at the same time the greatest diversity of Katuic languages lies in a relatively small region about the Salavan and Sekong provinces of Laos and adjacent areas of Vietnam. From a comparativehistorical point of view, Katuic gives us insights into ancient AA features plus an important understanding of the typology of phonological changes that have occurred in AA. We can now say that the history of the group is quite well understood, and the proto-lexicon is extensively documented. The most important works are:

· ·

Thomas (1967/1976): The first attempt at a Katuic comparative reconstruction. Diffloth (1982): An excellent analytical essay of the problems of Katuic historical phonology, focuses on the different paths of register development vis-à-vis West Katuic and Pacoh; offers a summary reconstruction with 138 etymologies. Efimov (1983): Extends and revises Thomas (1967), although some Khmuic data is mistakenly included as Katuic. Gainey (1985): a comparative phonology of Kui, Bru and So. Shorto (nd., ms.): in the early 1980s Shorto compared Bru, Kui, Pacoh and Katu, creating a total of 794 Katuic etymologies and reconstructions.20 Peiros (1996): offers a comparative lexicon of 1241 cognate sets, based on a modified version of Thomas’ (1967) historical phonology. Theraphan L-Thongkum (2001): extends our knowledge of the Katuic family with a substantial comparative lexicon for Kantu, Ta’Oi, Kriang, Chatong, Triw and Dakkang. There are 1406 comparisons, reflecting more than 1300 distinct etymologies, although the historical phonological analysis is somewhat unsystematic.

· · · · ·

20  The ms. is held by Sidwell, copies available on request.

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

279

·

Sidwell (2005): is a reconstruction based on 1395 Katuic etymologies, largely consistent with Diffloth (1982), but with a different analysis of the diphthongs. Special attention should go to Diffloth (1982), which really solved most of the important questions concerning the phonological history of Katuic. With reference to hardly more than 140 etymologies, Diffloth showed the secondary nature of the Bru and Kui register systems and restructured vowels, and the typologically divergent register system of Pacoh. Although some of the correspondences and sound laws he proposed are incomplete or subject to dispute, especially due to the brevity of the treatment, the analysis corrected significant earlier errors made by Thomas (1967/76), errors which were unfortunately retained and magnified in by Efimov (1983) and Peiros (1996). I fully acknowledge the analytical debt of gratitude to Diffloth, having taken on board most of his analysis in my later work. Subsequently, the discussion that follows is based largely on Sidwell (2005), which includes commentary and analysis of the works listed immediately above, except for the notes of Shorto, which were not known to the author at the time. 3.6.2 pKatuic Phonology The pKatuic sound system was quite similar to pAA, in terms of both phonotactics and available phonemes. The main differences lay in the presence of some additional members. The syllable and word templates are reconstructed as follows: monosyllables sesquisyllables/disyllables *Ci(Cm)VCf *(Cp(r/l/n/a))CiVCf

The rhymes of unstressed syllables included a phonemic vowel, symbolised here as *a, but the quality may have been variable or more like a schwa. Some languages, such as Pacoh, have developed contrastive vowel quality in minor syllables, and uses cliticised pronouns as case markers (see Alves 2006, but there is no indication that this is an old feature). The preconsonantal nasal generally assimilated to the place of the following segment, and when a nasal took the Cp position, it added an initial glottal stop to create a minor syllable with stop onset (e.g. *ʔɲcəj ‘head louse’, *ʔmpəw ‘dream’ etc.).

280

sidwell and rau

I reconstruct the following pKatuic segmental inventories: Ci Consonants * p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g ɓ ɗ ʄ m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j s h Cf Consonants * p t m n w r, l s

c k ʔ ɲ ŋ j h

Cp Consonants * p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g r, l, s h Cm Consonants * w r, l j h Main syllable vowels * i ɨ u iː ɨː uː e ə o eː əː oː ɛ a ɔ ɛː aː ɔː

iə ɨə uə ia ɨa ua

3.6.3 pKatuic Phonological Innovations The reconstruction largely models the Katu dialects as most closely reflecting the proto-language phonologically. However, it is not completely clear whether certain key facts reflect pKatuic innovations or archaisms: the pKatuic *ʄ, multiple levels of proto-diphthongs, and creaky voice/stopped finals that are found especially in some dialects of the Ta’oi group. A failing of my (2005) reconstruction of pKatuic was the inadequate treatment of the creaky voice problem, already mentioned at §2.3.3. The approach I took in 2005 was to effectively ignore the problem, assuming that it was a

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

281

local innovation of the Ta’oi sub-branch within Katuic. This assumption may well be correct, but is undemonstrated. My confidence that it is a secondary issue lies in the fact that there are no strong indications of reflexes of a pKatuic creaky voice across the Katuic branch generally, and the consideration that those languages which do reflect the feature (such as Ong, Talan, Katang and some others, although sources are somewhat confused) have all undergone a general devoicing of stops, which may be connected with the formation of creak (see Ferlus 1974; 1980). The other two aspects of the reconstruction that deserve further attention are less problematic, and will be discussed with special reference to the phonology of Katu, which is interpreted as being especially conservative. Costello’s (1971) multi-dialectal dictionary of Katu provides the following inventory of segments (adjusted to IPA notation following the author’s description): Katu consonants * pʰ tʰ kʰ p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g ɓ ɗ ʔj m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j s h Katu vowels * i ɨ u iː ɨː uː e ə o eː əː oː ɛ ʌ ɔ ɛː ʌ ː ɔː ɛ a ɑ aː ɑː

iə ɨə uə

The aspirated stops reflect sequences of stop + /h/, plus some cases of dialectal variants of the plain stop series; taking this into account the consonant inventory generally corresponds to pAA values, having not undergone a devoicing or other restructuring. The sound given as /ʔj/ by Costello is described by Wallace (1969: 65) as a “preglottalized voiced alveopalatal affricate”, which suggests phonetically [ʔʥ] or an underlying /ʄ/. If we table correspondences across Katuic for palatal stops the following patterning is found:

282

sidwell and rau

pKatuic Kui Bru Ta’oi Kriang Pacoh Katu *c c c c c c c *ɟ c~ch c c c c ɟ *ʄ ɟ~ʥ j ʔj~ɟ ʔj ʔj ʔj

This patterning closely parallels that for the labial and apical stops: pKatuic Kui Bru Ta’oi Kriang Pacoh Katu *p p p p p p p *b p~ph p p p p b *ɓ b b b b b ɓ~b *t t t t t t t *d t~th t t t t d *ɗ d d d d d ɗ~d

The correspondences make it clear that Katu is not actually needed to distinguish the implosive series in Katuic, since it is faithfully reflected by voiced stops generally, but Katu does indicate the reconstruction of the pKatuic plain voiced series, which merged with the voiceless series outside of Katu. The parallelism between the palatal and the labial and apical correspondences is compelling, and thus underlies the reconstruction of *ʄ. At a deeper level however both *ɟ and *ʄ regularly correspond to *ɟ in other AA branches. On the face of it this suggests a pAA distinction, but it does seem somewhat odd to just be represented in one branch. The Katuic diphthongs are more problematic; the reconstruction relies substantially, although not entirely, on distinctions present in Pacoh. The language has a tense/lax phonation contrast that is phonemic among the mid-level vowels, such that from another perspective, Pacoh has an extra degree of vowel aperture, as opposed to the three degrees typical across Katuic. Incidentally, Katu also has four degrees of vowel aperture, but it is a different problem, and is discussed further below. For Katu, Costello uses the notation ie/ia, ươ/ưa, uo/ua but these are just notational variants of iə, ɨə, uə based on Vietnamese orthographic practices. Correspondences for the pKatuic diphthongs, plus the high long monophthongs, are tabled below; note that Kui and Bru registers are not marked as they do not affect the pattern. Also the correspondences are consolidated rather than separated according to conditioning finals, so they are more systematic than they may appear here:

283

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction pKatuic Kui Bru *ɨː ɨː/əː ɨː *ɨə ua/ɔa ɨa *ɨa iː/ia ia

Ta’oi ɨː ɨa iː

Kriang Pacoh ɨː ɨː ɨa əː iː/eː/ɨː/ɨa uː

Katu uː ɨə ɨə/iː

*iː *ie *ia

iː/aj/eː iː/ej/ia iː/eː iː eː/iː/ia ia/iː iː iː iː/æː ɛː/ia ɛː/ia ia

iː/ia/ɛa əj/ie/i eː i uː ia

*uː *uo *ua

uː/oː uː/uə uː/oː uː/oː uː/oː uː/uə/ɔː uː uː uː/ua/ɔː ua ua ua

uː oː ua/ɔa

uː/ua/u/ɔ/ɨ/ɑ uː/u uə

As can be seen to some extent in the tabled correspondences, in some environments Katu long vowels have become short, and this has led to a crowding of the short vowel space, and a modest restructuring resulting in an additional degree of aperture. The Katu long /eː, oː/ are infrequent and tend to occur in loans. Consequently, we can be reasonably confident that the proposed pKatuic vowel inventory explain the daughter inventories well without any significant unresolved difficulties. A Swadesh 100 list of pKatuic lexical reconstruction is included at the end of this chapter. 3.7 Khasian (Meghalayan) 3.7.1 Introduction The Khasian languages (I would prefer the more neutral term Meghalayan) are spoken by a substantial population in Meghalaya State of North East India; although the group itself is extremely asymmetrical, dominated socially by Standard Khasi (henceforth simply Khasi) while several other closely related languages and transitional dialects can be quite small. Perhaps the most important for reconstruction, Lyngngam, has only some thousands of speakers. Comparative-historical analyses of Khasian have been lacking in the literature; since the work of Schmidt (1904) the usual practice of scholars has been to cite Khasi forms as representative of the branch and pay scant attention to other Khasian languages. Still, Standard Khasi is important for comparative purposes; it shows a rich inventory of consonant clusters and vestiges of morphology. Also, being isolated geographically from SEAsia the branch has not been under the same areal pressures to restructure phonologically as many other AA groups.

284

sidwell and rau

Recently, more extensive sources of lexical and other data for Khasian languages have become available (e.g. Nagaraja 1996, Choudhary 2004, Bareh 2010, Ring 2012, Baker 2013 and others) and these have permitted the compilation of a progressively larger comparative Khasian lexicon, and an emerging pKhasian reconstruction. Details of the emerging reconstruction were discussed in Sidwell (2011b), and in early 2012, a working version of the lexical compilation and reconstruction was posted online at sealang.net/monkhmer. The following discussion reports the emerging results of this work. 3.7.2 pKhasian Phonology The pKhasian sound system is reconstructed with reference to four principal languages, Khasi, Pnar, War and Lyngngam. All four show aspirated stops at Ci corresponding to plain voiceless stops in many other AA tongues, indicating a sound change characterised by Haudricourt (1965) as a Germanic shift. A similar change has occurred in some individual languages/sub-branches elsewhere in AA, but only in Khasian has it affected a whole branch, and is therefore reconstructable to the pKhasian level. Additionally, there was a merger of pAA implosives and plain voiced stops yielding a single voiced series. A moderate number of etyma retain initial voiceless stops without the Germanic shift, for reasons that are unclear; also there are apparent lexical innovations at pKhasian that include voiced, voiceless and aspirated Ci stops. The pKhasian syllable and word templates are reconstructed as follows: monosyllables sesquisyllables/disyllables *Ci(Cm)VCf *(Cp(r/n))CiVCf

Consonant clusters/sesquisyllables are extensive, and have been the subject of discussion, including consideration of whether they violate some of Greenberg’s (1965) phonological universals (e.g. Henderson 1976; 1989–90). In summary, initial stop sequences show few restrictions, and clusters of voiced + voiceless stops (plain and aspirated) and stop + fricative are common. Such sequences are typically written orthographically with an intervening letter y, reflecting a tendency to vocalise the transition between stops with a short [ɨ̆]. Comparing Khasi to Greenberg’s universals, Henderson remarks: Underlying this generalization would seem to be the idea that there is a tendency to have the voiced consonants of a cluster closest to the vowel, i.e. adjacent to the voiced nucleus of the syllable. This may indeed be a tendency, but it is not a universal. Khasi has initial clusters bt-, bth-, bs-,

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

285

bsh- [bʃ], dk, dkh-, dp-. In fact, there seems in Khasi to be a deliberate dissimilation of voicing in initial clusters, especially when the cluster is of two stops. Thus, alongside bt-, dk- and dp-, we can have tb-, kd- and pd-, but pt- and tk- are reserved for a few onomatopoeic and what one might call ‘expressive’ words only. The general word stock prefers voice dissimilation. Henderson 1989–90: 62

Traces of nasal and rhotic infixation, apparently now unproductive, are frequent, and infixes can be assimilated to a following sonorant producing a long segment (cf. Khasi ʃɔŋ ‘to sit’ and nominalisation ʃɨ̆nɔŋ ‘village’; Khasi pɨ̆llac ‘set free’ shows an assimilated nasal, while the cognate in Pnar, pnlac ‘to cause’, retains an unassimilated nasal). In terms of vocalism, Khasian languages variously show either no length contrast, or an incomplete or asymmetrical length contrast among the main syllable vowels. The comparative reconstruction indicates an inventory which is strikingly similar to the inventory indicated for pPalaungic, including the presence of a single *ia diphthong (in place of ɛː); their diphthongs are secondary. The pKhasian phonemes are tabled as follows: Ci Consonants * pʰ tʰ kʰ p t c k ʔ b d ɟ m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j s h Cf Consonants * p t c k ʔ m n ɲ ŋ w r j h Cp Consonants * pʰ tʰ kʰ p t c k b d ɟ r, s h

286

sidwell and rau

Cm Consonants * w r l j h Main syllable vowels * i u iː uː e ə o eː əː oː ɛ a ɔ iə aː ɔː

The proto-vocalism is presently reconstructed on the assumption that Standard Khasi is reasonably conservative, although not without some changes. Most Khasian varieties have lost the AA vowel length contrast, with some concomitant restructuring, but length remains in the standard dialect, and Pnar (closely subgrouped to Khasi) also seems to have retained some old values not well represented in Khasi orthography. Together these varieties provide a strong basis of pKhasian vowel reconstruction. 3.7.3 pKhasian Phonological Innovations In addition to the Germanic shift mentioned above, there are a number of striking indentifying phonological innovations mong the Cf segments; all Khasian languages reflect the following changes: Change *-l > -n /[apical, stop]_ *-l > zero elsewhere *-s > t *-h > t *-ʔ > zero

pAA (Shorto#) pKhasian *ɗiəl (#1745a) > *deːn ‘tracks’ *priəl (#1791) > *pʰria ‘hail’ *kiəl (#1710) > *kʰia ‘cucumber’ *nɔːs (#1912) > *nɔːt ‘heart/liver’ *ʔas (#1871) > *ʔat ‘to swell’ *kpaːs (#1915) > *kmpaːt ‘cotton’ *kiəh (#1967) > *kʰiat ‘deer’ *cuh (#1984) > *prsut ‘bellows’ *caʔ (#8) > *bsa ‘to feed’ *kaʔ (#16) > *kʰa ‘fish’

While the changes among the Cf segments listed above are shared by all Khasian languages, there are also significant phonological changes within Khasian languages. Three specific developments are illustrated below.

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

287

1) Rhymes with zero/glide finals pattern distinctly according to sub-groups: proto-rhymes *aːj *aːw *əw *əj *uː *iː

Lyngngam Khasi (orth.) Pnar War pKhasian forms aj ái e ɛ/aj *laːj ‘3’, *kʰnaːj ‘rat’ aw áw o ia *-maːw ‘stone’, *saːw ‘red’ u ew aw ia *ksəw ‘dog’, *ɟəw ‘sour’ i ái aj ua *rwəj ‘sing’, *bnəj ‘moon’ u iew u əw/ow *cʰruː ‘taro’, *tʰluː ‘hole’ ɛj/i i i ɛ/i *sŋiː ‘sun’, *ʔiː ‘we’

2) In the War sub-group, which includes Mnar and Amwi, there is a raising of *a, *aː, often to [ə] and [i]; compare the following: pKhasian *kʰlaː ‘tiger’ *kʰaː ‘fish’ *snaːm ‘blood’ *ʔaːr ‘two’ *ksəw ‘dog’ *bnəj ‘moon’

Lyngngam Khasi(orth.) Pnar Mnar Amwi kʰla khla kʰla kʰli kʰli əkʰa ’kha dəkʰa - hi snam snam snam cʰim rnə ʔaːr ar ʔar iːr Ɂə̃ r ksi ksew ksaw ksou ksia bni bn§ai bnaj pni pnua

3) Among initial palatals and *s there is a four-way correspondence that indicates a partial lenition/frication of *c: pAA *ɟ *c /C_ (?) *c elsew. *s

pK Lyngngam *ɟ ɟ *s s *c c *s s

Khasi (orth.) j s sh s

Pnar ɟ s ʧ⁽ʰ⁾ s

War pKhasian forms c *ɟaː ‘rice’, *ɟəw ‘sour’ s *ksəw ‘dog’, *prsaː ‘nephew’ ʃ/cʰ *cɔŋ ‘to sit’, *cʔeːŋ ‘bone’ s/r *sim ‘bird’, *snaːm ‘blood’

Consequently, it would appear that the main problems of Khasian historical phonology are readily tackled, with the main challenge being to sort out finer details of the vowel correspondences, and to flesh out the comparative vocabulary. A Swadesh 100 list of pKatuic lexical reconstruction is included at the end of this chapter.

288

sidwell and rau

3.8 Khmuic 3.8.1 Introduction The Khmuic branch is primarily represented by the vast Khmu’ dialect chain that spreads across Northern Laos and into neighbouring countries, and another ten or so member languages located around the periphery of the Khmu’ area, and into Thailand, China and Vietnam. Khmuic is internally very diverse, with massive lexical change reducing the amount of cognate basic vocabulary between languages to below 30%; this makes it especially difficult to find sufficient cognates to satisfactorily fill out phonological correspondences. Nonetheless, there is sufficient material to prepare a useful and informative reconstruction. The lexicon of the Khmu’ dialects is richly represented in published sources (e.g. Lindell 1974, Premsrirat 2002), and although published lexicons for other Khmuic languages are fairly mixed, quite useful vocabularies are accessible (a bibliography of Khmuic studies is given by Proschan (1996)). Due to the lack of good published resources for the minor Khmuic languages, historical studies have either focused on sub-groups (such as Filbeck’s (1978) T’inic reconstruction) or invoked Khmu’ reflexes in discussion of wider AA issues (such as Haudricourt (1953, 1954) using Khmu’ cognates to solve the origin of Vietnamese tones). Significant comparative studies include:

·

Filbeck (1978): a reconstruction of proto T’inic based on Mal and Pray dialects, the text includes discussion of old loans from Thai and tables of lexical comparisons with Khmu’, Palaungic, Khmer and Mon. Lindell et al. (1980): laids out the framework for comparative analysis of Khmu’/Kammu with extensive well organized data for seven dialects. Egerod (1984): a paper presented to the 17th International Conference of Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, present brief comparative study of Mlabri with phonological correspondences with Kammu, Lamet, Mal, Proto-Palaung, Proto-Waic and Mương. Unchalee Singnoi (1988): this unpublished MA thesis develops much of the work in Filbeck (1978), including presentation of an extensive Mal-Pray lexicon (approx. 1250 entries). Suwilai Premsrirat (2001, 2004): two papers discuss tonogenisis/registrogenisis in Khmu’ dialects. Rischel (2007): analyses the history of Mlabri in terms of an elaborated pTinic reconstruction. Rischel indentifies various irregular or otherwise unexplained correspondences and sets up numerous numbered variants of proto-phonemes.

· · · · ·

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

289

In 2011 I compiled a comparative Khmuic lexicon and reconstruction, which is posted online at sealang.net/monkhmer, and details were presented in a talk given at the 5th International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics at Canberra in September 2013. The discussion below follows that analysis. 3.8.2 pKhmuic Phonology The pKhmuic sound system is complicated by several factors; it is apparent that in pre-history pKhumic spread from a homeland in the far northwest of Laos to cover more or less the northern half of the country. During this initial dispersal the speaker community separated into dialects that underlie the current linguistic diversity of the branch. Some time there was another expansion out of the north west, possibly associated with the establishment of a kingdom localised across an area roughly from Luang Prabang to Xieng Khouang (speculatively associated with the Plain of Jars culture). The second expansion accounts for the present distribution of Khmu’ dialects, and saw substantial inter-dialectal borrowings which shows up as multiple phonological correspondences between Khmu’ and the other languages. In more recent centuries, Khmu’ social dominance waned in favour of Lao, Northern Tai and Vietnamese, leading to substantial linguistic influence—including phonological restructuring—especially in the geographically peripheral languages. pKhmuic is characterised as unrestructured, although the pAA implosives are merged with the voiced stops. The vocalism is very conservative, and appears to provide good witness to pAA values, including retention of pAA length contrast and syllable final glottal stops. The comparative reconstruction relies heavily on Khmu’ Cuang which is a phonologically conservative dialect (Premsrirat 2002), and Kammu Yuan which is restructured and tonal (Lindell et al. 1980, Svantesson et al. 2002, Premsrirat 2001; 2004). In addition to these Khmu’ dialects, there are extensive lexicons for Mal/Pray (Filbeck 1978; 2009) and Mlabri (Rischel 1995; 2007), both spoken in the western periphery and into Thailand (where most field work was done). Mal/Pray is a dialect chain that shows a Germanic shift (aspiration of voiceless stops) while Mlabri is an enigmatic language that is lexically diverse but apparently phonologically conservative. On the eastern periphery, extending into Vietnam, are languages of the Pramic sub-group, plus Ksing-Mul (which which author suspects may be an aberrant Mal/Pray dialect); the published sources for these languages are not as thorough as one would like but are nonetheless useful.

290

sidwell and rau

The pKhmuic syllable and word templates are reconstructed as follows: monosyllables sesquisyllables/disyllables *Ci(Cm)VCf *(Cp(r/N/m/l))CiVCf

The minor syllable rhyme segments r/N/m/l are typically infixes, plus we should probably reconstruct coda-copying in expressive vocabulary to account for forms such as as Khmu’ Cuang klɔːk slkuəl ‘shade of white’, mat rpjeːp ‘wink quickly’ etc., but the lack of direct comparisons in other Khmuic languages means that no specific etymologies with copied codas have been identified in this study. There are also some marginal cases that suggest a phonemic minor syllable vowel before an approximant Ci but the evidence is not strong. The pKhmuic phonemes are reconstructed as follows: Ci Consonants * p t c k ʔ b d ɟ m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j s h Cf Consonants * p t c k ʔ m n ɲ ŋ w r j h Cp Consonants * p t c k (b) (d) ɟ g r, l s h Cm Consonants * w r l j Main syllable vowels * i u iː uː iə uə e ə o eː əː oː ɛ a ɔ ɛː aː ɔː

291

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

Phonotactic notes: The pAA pattern of not permitting open syllables is continued in pKhmuic. The Cp inventory presently reconstructed is quite small, including only two voiced oral stop members: *ɟ, *g, but one would expect also *b and *d on typolgical grounds, especially in infixed forms. Interestingly, Cp *ɟ is reconstructed for forms such as *ɟʔaː₁ŋ ‘bone’ which has a voiceless initial in Khmu’ Cuang /cʔaːŋ/, and we might have suggested that voiced reflexes (such as Mlabri /ɟiʔɛːŋ/) are due to voicing dissimilation much as we see in Aslian. However, we would expect *c to lenite to /s/ in Cuang, which has not happened, so the palatal stop in assumed to reflect *ɟ. Cm *h is not reconstructed, as pre-pKhmuic is marked by the regular loss of medial /h/. Later borrowing of aspirates, affixation and sound changes reintroduced medial /h/. The proto-vocalism presents some problematic correspondences that are provisionally dealt with by positing numbered variants. These are cases where there are apparently two distinct correspondences that continue a single pKhmuic vowel. The pattern appears to be that conservative forms, probably diffused from Khmu’, have replaced forms that would be expected to have undergone regular sound changes. Examples: pAA (Shorto#)

gloss

pKhmuic K-Cuang K-Yuan

Mlabri Mal

Ksing-Mul Pong

*ɟhaːm (#1430) *cʔaːŋ (#488) *sra(ː)ŋ (#709) *taːɲ (#898) *haːn (#1216) *smaːl (#1779) *par (#1633 ‘fly’) *cnam (#1368) *[t]ɓəl (#1768) *tmiʔ (#144) * piʔ (#257) *kləjʔ (#1519) *klmiəʔ (#137)

‘blood’ ‘bone’ ‘tooth’ ‘to weave’ ‘goose’ ‘soul’ ‘wing’ ‘year’ ‘thick’ ‘new’ ‘three’ ‘husband’ ‘sugarcane’

*maː₁m *ɟʔaː₁ŋ *sraː₁ŋ *taːɲ *haːn *-maːl *pna₁r *-na₁m *-ba₁l *-meʔ *peʔ *gle₁ʔ *klme₁ʔ

mɛːm ɟiʔɛːŋ thrɛːŋ taːɲ – hmaːl hnʌr hnʌm ɓʌn hmɛʔ pɛʔ – gilmɛʔ

miəm – həgiəŋ taːɲ – həlmaːl phəlnal – – həmeː – ʔəliː –

maːm cʔaːŋ ʰraːŋ taːɲ – hmmaːl pnɨr nɨm hmbɨl hmmeʔ peʔ gleʔ klmeʔ

màːm cəʔáːŋ raːŋ taːɲ háːn hərmàːl pənɯ́ ːr nɯ̀ m həmpɯl həmmeʔ péʔ klèʔ kəlmèʔ

miam ʔiaŋ siaŋ thaːɲ haːn maːl panəɰ – mpal mɛʔ phɛʔ – –

miːm sɁiːŋ hriːŋ taːɲ haːn maːl ʔannaːr – – trməːj – – kəlmiː

292

sidwell and rau

Each item has a strong AA etymology, so we can be rather confident that the phonetic values approximate what has been reconstructed. The correspondences with subscripts show expected or regular correspondences based on consideration of patterns across the wider data set, while the unmarked correspondences show trivially similar or unchanged vowel values. 3.8.3 pKhmuic Phonological Innovations There are two important phonological changes that belong to pKhmuic: 1. 2.

The loss of implosion and merger of pAA implosives and plain voiced stops. The loss of pAA Cm *h.

The loss of implosion is not an uncommon change, but it is important that it is reconstructable to the pKhmuic level. Implosives /ɓ, ɗ/ are recorded for Mlabri, sometimes in older Tai loans, but also in some AA etyma, but the Mlabri lexicon is so mixed in origins it is unsafe to reconstruct a pKhmuic contrast on that basis (see also Rischel 2007 for discussion). The loss of medial h is strikingly unique to Khmuic and produces distinctive reflexes, e.g. pAA (Shorto#)

pKhmuic

Khmu Cuang

Mlabri

Mal

Ksing-Mul

Pong

*ɟhaːm ‘blood’ (#1430) *bhiːʔ ‘to be sated’ (#259) *khəjˀ ‘moon’ (#1542) *phoːm ‘to fart’ (#1433)

*maː₁m *biʔ *kiʔ *poːm

maːm biʔ – puːm

mɛːm biʔ kiʔ –

miam piʔ – –

miəm – – poːm

miːm – kiː pom

A Swadesh 100 list of pKhmuic lexical reconstructions is included at the end of this chapter. 3.9 Palaungic 3.9.1 Introduction The Palaungic (or Palaung-Wa) branch is spoken by numerous scattered communities in the Shan state of Myanmar and neighbouring parts of Yunnan, Thailand, and Laos. Diffloth (1980) expresses the importance of Palaungic for AA reconstruction:

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

293

Among the fourteen or so extant branches of the Mon-Khmer family, only three or four have developed and preserved enough differentiation today to yield proto-branch reconstructions of great antiquity. They are: the Bahnaric, the Aslian, the Palaungic and probably the Viet-Mương branches. It is mostly from these reconstructions that we will be able some day to cast a glance at Proto-Mon-Khmer and beyond. Diffloth 1980: 3

Various sub-groups have been subject to comparative-historical studies, including an early important treatment by Schmidt (1904). Proschan (1996) and Gordon (2013) provide select bibliographies of Palaungic studies. Works immediately relevant to the comparative reconstruction include:

·

Shafer (1952): sets forth over a hundred comparisons for 11 Palaungic tongues, establishing regular correspondences for the consonants and vowels, proposing some 88 Proto-Palaungic items. Shorto (1963): provides an important phonological and morphological analysis of Palaungic word structure, including prefixation, crucially informing the reconstruction. Luce (1965): provides 245 lexical comparisons between Mon, Danau, Riang, Palaung and Wa, plus an appendix of wider comparisons, in addition to a rare Danau lexicon. Mitani (1977): compiles phonological correspondences for consonants and vowels based on 283 comparisons for languages of the Palaung-Riang sub-group. Mitani (1979): follows-up Mitani (1977) by working Riang into the analysis. Diffloth (1977): sketches important aspects of a Palaungic reconstruction, outlining a classification based on phonological innovations. Diffloth (1980): a monograph-length comparative study of the Waic subbranch, proposing 544 etymologies and reconstructions. Svantesson (1988): the most important analytical source on the Angkuic sub-branch, going into great detail analyzing the remarkable phonetic history of U, with extensive comparisons to other Palaungic data (especially with Hu and Lamet). Paulsen (1989/1991): effectively a reconstruction of the Samtao sub-branch of Waic, which lacks a distinct reconstruction in Diffloth’s treatment. The results include an etymological lexicon of 556 entries and reconstructions, comparing Plang, Shinman and Pangloh, drawn from the author’s own field data.

· · · · · · · ·

294

sidwell and rau

· ·

Diffloth (1991): a short follow-up to Diffloth (1980) that discusses data from the Bulang sub-branch of Waic and offers a partial vowel reconstruction. Shorto (2013): is an extensive Palaung lexicon with numerous etymological and comparative notes (facsimile publication of ms. dated 1957). In 2010 I compiled some 1250 comparisons and reconstructions based on Danau, Riang, Rumai, Palaung, Hu, U, Lamet and Diffloth’s pWaic lexicon, and this was made available online at sealang.net/monkhmer. The commentary that follows largely reflect those results. 3.9.2 pPalaungic Phonology Compared to pAA, the pPalaungic sound system shows various mergers that simplified the vocalism, and some consonant changes that resulted in preglottalized and preaspirated sonorants in monosyllables, otherwise the system is quite conservative, retaining the three pAA stop series. Subsequently pPalaungic dispersed into at least five sub-groups, each with a distinct phonological history. How these sub-branches coordinate is an open question (see discussion in the separate chapter on classification); but for the present purposes the reconstruction is not dependent on any particular model of philogeny and the sub-branches are treated as equally coordinate. Phonologically the sub-branches have the following secondary characteristics:

·

Danau: spoken in just a few villages west of Inle Lake (Shan State), Danau has been restructured by contact with Shan and Burmese, leading to loss of vowel length contrast, devoicing of stops, a four tone system, and the merger of final labials with apicals (*-p, *-m > /-t, -n/). Palaung-Riang: a large dialect chain the Shan State; while some dialects are innovative and somewhat restructured, the Palaung recorded by Shorto and used in his (2006) reconstruction is quite conservative and is an important witness to the reconstruction. Waic: A large number of Wa dialects are spoken in Thailand, Shan State and Yunnan; Diffloth (1980) reconstructed pWaic. Although various Waic dialects are restructured, the results indicate that pWaic distinguished voicing in stops although lacked any vowel length contrast. Lameet: Several Lameet dialects are spoken in Northern Laos near the Myanmar border. While at least one dialect has devoiced stops and structured to yield a two tone system, vowel length contrasts are retained consistently.

· · ·

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

295

·

Angkuic: a minor group in the east of the Shan State, Angkuic languages have uniquely developed tones out of vowel length contrasts. The group also underwent devoicing of stops and a Germanic consonant shift, but unconnected to the tonogenisis. Other languages identified as Palaungic by this author, Khabit and Khang, spoken in Laos and Vietnam respectively, are known only by very limited published materials and are not used in the reconstruction. The syllable and word templates are reconstructed as follows: monosyllables sesquisyllables/disyllables *Ci(Cm)VCf *(Cp(r/l/N))CiVCf *Ci[+son., -voice]VCf *Ci[+son., +preglttal]VCf

All stressed syllables are closed. I reconstruct the following segmental inventories: Ci Consonants * p t ʦ c k ʔ b d ɟ g ɓ ɗ m n ɲ ŋ m̥ n̥ ɲ̊ ŋ̊ ˀm ˀn ˀŋ w l, r j w̥ l̥, r̥ ˀw ˀl ˀj s h Cf Consonants * p t m n w r, l s

c k ʔ ɲ ŋ j h

Cp Consonants * p t c k ʔ b d ɟ g s h

296

sidwell and rau

Cm Consonants * w r l j h Main syllable vowels * i u (eʔ/h) ə o ɛ a ɔ

iː uː eː əː oː iə aː ɔː

In terms of Phonological structure, pPalaungic was not drastically different from pAA; especially if we threat the devoiced and preglottalised initial sonorants as clustered onsets (reflecting their likely origins). However, the subsequent history of Palaungic sub-groups was dominated by consonant devoicing and syllable reduction, and vowel systems simplified by loss of length distinctions, and in some cases the emergence of contour tones and phonation contrasts. It is clear that this complex history has been largely conditioned by language contact; Palaungic communities are dispersed and intermingled with numerous other ethnic groups over diverse upland plateau and river valley environments. The largely Tai and Tibeto-Burman languages of the area have dramatically different phonologies to the Austroasiatic prototype, and multilingualism is a social inevitability. Consolidated Ci and main syllable vowel correspondences are presented here: Palaungic C1 Consonant correspondences: *Ci

Palaung-Riang Danau Riang Rumai Palaung pWaic

Angkuic Lameet Hu U

tone series

*p *t *k *c *s *h *ʔ

p t k ʦ θ h ʔ

p t k s h h ʔ

p t k s h h ʔ

p t k s h h ʔ

*p *t *k *s *h *h *ʔ

p t k s h h ʔ

ph th kh s/ch s h ʔ

high high high high high high high

*ɓ *ɗ

b~ɓ d~ɗ

b~ɓ d~ɗ

b d

b d

*b (Low) p *d/nd (Low) t/nt

p p t/nt/th t/nt

high high

ph th kh s θ h ʔ

297

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction *Ci

Palaung-Riang Danau Riang Rumai Palaung

pWaic

Angkuic Lameet Hu U

tone series

*b *d *ɟ *g

– t ts k

p – c k

b – ɟ g

b – ɟ g

*b *d *ɟ *g

– t c k

p – c k

– t/nth c/k k

low low low low

*m *n *ɲ *ŋ *w *l *r *j

m n ɲ ŋ w ~ vw l r j (~ ɲ)

m n ɲ ŋ w ~ vw l r j (~ ɲ)

m n ɲ ŋ w l ɹ j

m n ɲ ŋ v l r j

*m *n *ɲ *ŋ *w *l *r *j

m n ɲ ŋ w l r/ɣ j

m n ɲ ŋ v l ʁ j

m n ɲ ŋ v/f l χ j

low low low low low low low low

*m̥ *n̥ *ɲ̊ *ŋ̊ *l̥ *r̥ *w̥

m – – – l r ~ ʰr w

m n ɲ ŋ l r w

m̥ – ɲ̊ – l̥ hʲ w̥

hm hn – hŋ hl hr hv

*hm – *hɲ *hŋ *hl *hr *hw

– – – – l r –

– – – – l θ –

– – – – l χ –

high high high high high high high

*ˀj *ˀl *ˀm *ˀn *ˀŋ *ˀw

– – – – ŋ –

c – m – ŋ w

ɟ ɗ~d m – – –

j – m – – –

*ʔj *l *ʔm *ʔn *ʔŋ –

j – ʔm~m – ŋ –

– – m – – –

– – (m)m n ŋ ʔaw

high high high high high high

The reconstruction of the implosive-plain contrast, and the preglottalized and preaspirated sonorants, are dependent on correlation with tonal series in Waic and Riang reflexes, and preaspiration recorded in Palaung (Shorto 2006 and 2013) and Riang (Luce 1964). Plain sonorant initials are associated with low series tone, while preglottals and preaspirates are associated with high series;

298

sidwell and rau

various cases of incomplete etymologies mean that we have no direct segmental indications whether preglottalisation or preaspiration accounts for the high tone. Voiced stops are associated with low tones, while implosives correlate with high tones. Implosion is not well represented in the daughter languages; Luce (1964) vacillates in writing b ~ ɓ and d ~ ɗ for Danau and Riang, so tone series seems to be a better indication of original phonation type. Unfortunately the number of relevant low series stops in the comparisons is very moderate (note gaps in the table of correspondences) but typologically the reconstruction of implosives is on solid ground; the indications are that pPalaungic implosives outnumber the plain voiced stops by three to one or more, similar to the results obtained for pKatuic and by Shorto (2006) for his PMK. Main vowel syllable correspondences: pPalaungic

Danau

Rumai

Riang

Palaung

pWaic

Lamet

Hu

U

*iː *i *eː *e /_ʔ,h *iə *ɛ *əː *ə

ɪ/i/iə/əi/ə ɪ/i/ə ɪ ɪ iː/iɛ/iə/jæ ɪ/æ a/ə/iɛ/ji a/ə

iː/ʲaj iː/ɒː ɒː ɑ/e/ɔ/aj jɜ/jo/ɛ a/ɛ/æ/ɜ/ɑ ɑ/ə/a/ɜ/æ æ/ɜ/a/ɨ/ɒ/ɔ/o

i(ː) i/e ɛ/e e/æ ia ɛ/æ ə/ɔ/e/u ə

i i/e e e/ɛ iə/eə ɛ ɯ/ə i/ɯ/ə

e *i *i *i/*e *e/*ɛ *ɛ *o *ɤ

iː i iː/eː e/ɛ ɛː ɛ eː ɨ/ə/e/i

i e e/i i/e i/e e/ɛ/a e/o/ə ɨ/ə/ɛ/e

*aː *a *uː *u *oː *o *ɔː *ɔ

ɑ/a ɑ/a/ʊ/i V[-front] V[-front] o/u/ɤ/ə o/u V[-front] ɔ/o/ə

aː ɑ/a uː/ɛw ɨ o/u/æ/aw o/ɒw/aw ɔ/ɑ/o/æ/ɨ ɔ/o

ɑ/a a u(ː) u o/u o ua ɔ/o

a ə/a u u o o uə/ɔ ɔ

*a *ɒ *ɨ/*ɤ *ɨ *o *ɔ *ɔ

aː a u(ː) u oː o ɔː ɔ/o

a a u/o u o/u – ɔ ɔ

i i i i/e ɛ/e/i e/ɛ eː e/ɛ/ ə/o a a u u o/u – ɔ ɔ

The vowel reconstruction is largely consistent with the proto-Palaung-Rumai inventory proposed by Diffloth (1991):

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

299

Diffloth (1991: 25) proto-Palaung-Rumai vowels * i u ə eː əː oː a ɛː aː ɔː

Diffloth’s reconstruction is limited to syllables with final velar nasals, in which the full set of oppositions is substantially reduced. The point is made that the system is apparently transitional between a fully elaborated AA vocalism and a more Northern Tai-like system. Extending the comparative analysis to include five sub-branches and all coda consonant environments adds additional contrasts, yielding a more balanced system further illustrating how the vocalic distinctions have gradually collapsed over time in Palaungic. Of particular note, I reconstruct a pPalaungic diphthong *iə, corresponding to Diffloth’s *ɛː, and no corresponding back diphthong. Diphthongs /ua ~ uə/ do occur in Palaung and Riang, but they correspond to /ɔ(ː)/ elsewhere in Palaungic, and within Palaung [uə] and [ɔː] are in complementary distribution, with [ɔː] before velars and labials. However, diphthongal reflexes of *iə are found generally in the Palaung-Riang group and in Danau, and have diphthongal cognates externally (e.g. ‘hailstone’: Palaung /preər/, Pnar (Khasian) / pʰria/, Laven (Bahnaric) /prial/, Katu (Katuic) /priel/ etc.). It would be irrational to posit a reversing chain shift iə >ɛː > iə when a unidirectional iə > iə/ɛː will provide a general account. A Swadesh 100 list of pPalaungic lexical reconstructions is included at the end of this chapter. 3.10 Pearic 3.10.1 Introduction The Pearic branch is a small, highly endangered group of languages spoken mainly in western Cambodia, the Trat Province of Thailand, and small pockets to the east of Siam Reap. While a number of Pearic speech varieties are distinguished in the linguistic literature, it is evident that they effectively represent only a couple of distinct languages: Pear of Kompong Thom (KPT) in the north-east of the Pearic range, plus a Chong dialect chain that extends discontinuously across the south-west of Cambodia and into Thailand (Baradat (1941) and Choosi (2007) report high intelligibility across the whole chain). The group is generally known to linguistics as Pearic, based on the somewhat derogatory Khmer term, so one might suggest “Chongic” as an alternative based on the autonym /cʰɔ̤ ːˀŋ/, although Pearic is used here. Ferlus (2011) provides an extensive bibliography of lexical and comparative sources.

300

sidwell and rau

Heavily influenced by Khmer and Thai, and terminally endangered, Pearic languages have a remarkable 4-way register/phonation system that is typologically unusual and arguably significant for pAA, although views differ on this (see Huffman 1985b for a desciptionof the system in Chong, and Diffloth 1989 for comparative perspective). The group is so small and lacking in internal diversity that it probably reflects a single language that diversified into several dialects since the Angkor period. Additionally, major phonological restructuring, such as devoicing of stops, emergence of breathy phonation and associated vowel changes, probably occurred in circumstances of contact with Khmer and Siamese during relatively recent times (Ferlus (2011) dates the devoicing in Khmer and Siamese as occurring in the second half of the 17th Century; Headley (1998) confirms this with reference to Chamic loan word phonology). Consequently pPearic is probably less than 1000 years old, and this affects its usefulness as a witness language for pAA. Comparative-historical work on Pearic really begins with Headley’s (1985) preliminary pPearic reconstruction, which treated around four hundred etymologies, but did not discuss the register question. The issue was advanced considerably at the 2009 ICAAL meeting in Thailand with presentations by Michel Ferlus and Weera Ostapirat, with Ferlus’ analysis being published in 2011. Building on those works, I have compiled of a comparative Pearic vocabulary and a working model of historical phonology; it is this synthesis that informs the following discussion. 3.10.2 pPearic Phonology The syllable and word templates are reconstructed as follows: monosyllables sesquisyllables/disyllables *Ci(Cm)VCf *(Cp(r/l/N))CiVCf

All stressed syllables are closed. I reconstruct the following segmental inventories: Ci Consonants * p t ʦ c k ʔ b d ɟ g m n ɲ ŋ m̥ n̥ ɲ̊ w l, r j (w̥ ) r̥, l̥ j̊ s h

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction Cf Consonants * p t m n w r, l s

301

c k Ø ɲ ŋ j h

Cp Consonants * p t c k b d ɟ g m r Cm Consonants * w r l j h Main syllable vowels * i ɨ u iː ɨː uː iə e o eː oː ɛ a ɔ ɛː aː ɔː ± v̰ (creak)

The pAA word final glottal stop was lost (as in Khmer, Katuic, and partially in Bahnaric) apparently at a pre-pPearic stage, in connection with the emergence of creaky register (the origin of the later remains obscure). The Ci consonants show no implosive series, as these merged with the regular voiced stops in the pre-pPearic stage, paralleling a similar development in pre-Khmer. Voiceless sonorants are reconstructed to account for a modest number of high register words with sonorant initials, although these may also reflect diverse origins, such as clusters with voiceless initials that have not survived but may be recoverable with more evidence. The Cp inventory shown here is quite small, being an artefact of the limited reconstruction done so far; I expect that there was more complexity in pPearic initials and initial sequences than indicated here. The pPearic vowel system appears to show a single front diphthong *iə, which can be reconstructed on the basis of reflexes in western Chong dialects. Diphthongs are generally common in Pearic, but mostly they can be shown to originate with historical monophthongs, or in loanword vocabulary. Nonetheless, I have found at least seven etymologies which support an *iə reconstruction, all of which correspond to a similar diphthong elsewhere in AA. Strikingly, this asymmetry in diphthongs is paralleled in Palaungic and Khasian.

302

sidwell and rau

The vocalism is also notable for the lack of a mid-central vowel, although I do reconstruct high centrals *ɨ/ɨː; frequently these reflect raised reflexes of a pAA schwa in addition to conditioned reflexes of other proto-vowels. Proto Pearic is also reconstructed as having a creaky register, which is assumed to have arisen in pre-pPearic—I am sympathetic to the view of Ferlus (2011) that creak emerged in connection with initial clusters in pre-pPearic, but that subsequent changes have obscured much of the recoverable details. Breathy register, which exists alongside creak in modern Pearic (creating the unusual four-way register contrast), is taken to be a later development associated with devoicing of stops in late pPearic, and is assumed to have occurred in the context of contact with Khmer, which devoiced stops during the Middle Khmer period. A fundamental problem of Pearic reconstruction is how to account for the presence of both plain and aspirated stops in high register vocabulary in Chong dialects, while Pear of Kompong Thom (KPT) generally shows plain voiceless stops without aspiration. Headley (1985) reconstructed two series of stops for this double correspondence, giving them underspecified values (*p, *t, *c, *k versus *P, *T, *C, *K). Both Ferlus (2011) and Ostapirat (2009) reject the idea of two high series in pPearic. The emerging consensus is that there was a general shift to aspiration in the Chong high series stops, while no such shift occurred in KPT, and voiceless unaspirated stops were mostly reintroduced into Chong by lexical borrowing. Perhaps a third of relevant high series Chong vocabulary shows unaspriated voiceless stops. A number of Khmer and Siamese loans can explain these, but there remains a residue of distinctive Pearic vocabulary represented in the problematic lexicon. The working hypothesis is that dialect mixing reintroduced unaspirated Pearic forms into Chong, at a time when Pear speakers were more numerous and widespread than at present. Additional circumstantial support for the hypothesis of a once-larger Pear speaker community can be found in analysis of loanwords among neighbouring AA groups. For example, the distinctly Pearic etyma *tuːs ‘head’ and *kic ‘small’ were borrowed into West Bahnaric languages (see Sidwell & Jacq 2003). The presence of Pearic loans in neighbouring groups strongly suggests a much more extensive Pearic presence north east of Tonle Sap in past times. The other significant problem for Pearic historical reconstruction is the register system, which in its most elaborated form presents four distinctions, divided into low and high series, as Siripen (2001) characterizes for Chong:

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction Table 4.1

303

Chong registers

high series

R1 [CVC] clear-modal R3 [CV̤ C] breathy

low series

R2 [CVˀC] clear-creaky R4 [CV̤ ˀC] breathy-creaky

The breathy registers straightforwardly arose in association with pPearic voiced intials, much as also happened in Khmer and other languages of the region. The following table of examples helps to illustrate the restructuring of voiced, voiceless and implosive onsets (and other changes discussed in this section). Gloss

pPearic

Chong (Huffman 1985b)

Chung (Choosri 2009)

Samre (Pornsawan 2001)

KPT Pear (Baradat 1941)

‘water’ ‘forest’ ‘two’ ‘resin’ ‘foot’

*daːk *briː *ɟar *ɟar *ɟɨŋ

tʰa̤ ːk pri̤ː paːˀj – –

tɤ̤ ːk pri̤ː pɤ̤ aːˀ – cɯŋ

tâːk prìː pâːr sàr sìɲ

teak [tiek] prî [priː] pierrl [piər] char [car] –

‘thorn’ ‘to weave’ ‘louse’ ‘rat’ ‘hand’ ‘to go’ ‘to bark’

*ɟrlaʔ *taːɲ *ciː *kɔːˀn *tiː *ceːw *ker

(kala̤ ʔ) tʰaːɲ cʰiː kʰɑːˀn tiː cɛːw kɛːw

crlɯ̤ ːˀ tʰaːɲ cʰej kʰɔːˀn tej ceːw kaj

salâː – cʰiː kʰûən tiː ciːw kir

pAA (Shorto#):

*ɗaːk (#274) *briːʔ (#181) *ɓaːr (#1562) *ɟar (#1601) *ɟiŋ/*ɟəŋ (#538I) chrâléa [crəlie] *ɟlaʔ (#205) tanh [taːɲ] *taːɲ (#898) chei [cej] *ciʔ (#39) – *kuən (#1127) ktei [ktej] *tiʔ (#66) – *cəw (#1821) kier [kiər] *(c)kiːl (#1709)

It remains difficult to explain the emergence of creak in Pearic, as it is apparently unconnected to membership of either high or low series. The explanation offered by Ferlus (2011) is that the creaky series arises quite early, due to the effect of initial clusters/sesquisyllables conditioning a more tense

304

sidwell and rau

articulation. More speculatively, he also suggests that this was reinforced by influence from Middle Chinese, which is thought to have gone through an analogous phonological change. This makes some sense in the context of the trans-Indo-China trade route that operated during the First Millennium, passing through Pearic territory near the Gulf of Thailand (so called “Han Trail”). Ferlus’ proposal is difficult to assess and it is possible that another internal explanation will yet emerge. Either way, creak appears to be old in Pearic, and we are forced to reconstruct it as a feature of pPearic, and that is where the matter rests for now. 3.10.3 pPearic Innovations In addition to the distinct phonological history discussed above, lexical innovations unique to Pearic are readily identified and compiled. A selection follows: Gloss

Kasong (Noppawan 2003)

Samre (Pornsawan 2001)

Chong (Huffman 1985)

KPT Pear (Baradat 1941)

items replaced (Shorto#):

‘fish’ ‘moon’ ‘water leech’ ‘chicken’ ‘fire’

mê̤ːw kaːŋ pîː lɛ́ːk ple̤ːw

miːr kaːŋ pîr liək pliːw

me̤ːˀw kaːŋ piːˀw lɛːk pli̤ːw

miel [miəl] kang [kaːŋ] pair [pəir] lék [leːk] phlou [pʰlow]

*kaʔ (#16) *khəjʔ (#1542) *gləw (#1858) *( )ʔiər (#1552) *( )ʔu(ː)s (#1872)

A Swadesh 100 list of pPearic lexical reconstructions is included at the end of this chapter. The list is extracted from the working reconstruction compiled by Sidwell. 3.11 Vietic (Mương-Viet) 3.11.1 Introduction The Vietic branch is extremely asymmetrical in its distribution, reflecting the political development of Vietnam over the past Millennium. The branch consists of Vietnamese with over 80 million speakers, the very closely related Mương dialects (often written simply as Muong) with over a million speakers, plus maybe a dozen very small languages spoken mainly by communities living in the vicinity of the Viet–Lao borderlands. Documentation of the smaller

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

305

more isolated members is still a pressing matter, but on balance the study of the branch is quite well advanced; for a somewhat dated but useful bibliography see Barker (1993). The Vietic languages have been the subject of significant comparative studies over the past six decades, one can now say that the history of the group is quite well understood, and the proto-lexicon is extensively documented. The most important works include:

·

Haudricourt (1953; 1954): produced ground-breaking papers establishing the AA ancestry of Vietnamese, and framed the reconstruction of Vietic linguistic history since. Barker (1966): presents some 600 Viet-Mương lexical comparisons, illustrating the tonal correspondences between Vietnamese and Mương. Barker & Barker (1970): reconstructs Proto-Viet-Mương finals and vowels on the basis of 210 illustrative comparisons between Vietnamese and Mương. Thompson (1976): attempts to reconstruct Proto-Viet-Mương supported by a consolidated comparative vocabulary of approximately 700 entries with Vietnamese and three Mương dialects. Huffman (1977): provides 100 lexical comparisons between Vietnamese and 18 other AA languages, organized according to phonological/tonogenetic contexts. Sokolovskaia (1978): presents a reconstruction of Proto-Vietic utilizing 27 different sources, creating a comparative lexicon of approximately 650 entries. Ferlus (1975; 1982; 1991; 1992a,b; 1996; 1997; 1998; 2001; 2005): is a series of papers Ferlus has developed a reconstruction of Vietic history. Since 1991 this has included circulating a consolidated Proto-Vietic lexicon in progressively refined drafts.

· · · · · ·

The pVietic reconstruction of Ferlus is the most authoritative work to date, and the text that follows is a synthesis of his results. 3.11.2 pVietic Phonology Broadly speaking, Vietnamese and the Mương dialects are the most innovative Vietic languages, having restructured the pVietic sesquisyllables into tonal CV(C) monosyllables. But the minor languages, especially Sac, Ruc and Arem (the latter non-tonal) are very conservative, and provide fairly complete and reliable witness to pVietic.

306

sidwell and rau

The pVietic syllable and word templates are reconstructed by Ferlus as follows: monosyllables sesquisyllables *CiCmV(Cf)/(ˀ) *Cp-CiV(Cf)/(ˀ)

Additionally, there are various infixed forms reconstructed, such as *t-rn-neːʔ ‘urine’, and some multi-segmental pre-syllables, such as *tr-kɔːt ‘monitor’, *km-ɓoːr ‘pangolin’ etc. which are not readily analysed as multi-morphemic. Ferlus uses the dash symbol (-) notation to generally separate initial clusters, without regard to whether they are mono- or bi-morphemic (or assuming that CV(C) roots are basic); in other words he assumes that any initial clusters may have been analysed as sesquisyllables. I would counter that—ignoring infixed derivatives—voiced stops and *ʧ only occur before vowels and approximants /r, l, w, j/, and they do not appear to be grammatical prefixes. Consequently I would treat most pVietic forms with onsets consisting of stop + approximant as monomorphemic monosyllables, rather than sesquisyllables. The following pVietic segmental inventories are reconstructed by Ferlus: Ci Consonants * (pʰ) (tʰ) s (kʰ) h p t c ʧ k ʔ b d ɟ (ʤ) g ɓ ɗ ʄ m n ɲ ŋ w l, r j Cm Consonants * w Cp Consonants * p t c ʧ k ʔ b ɟ g m r, l s Cf Consonants * p t c k m n ɲ ŋ w r, l j s h

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

307

Vowels * i u iː uː ə eː (əː) oː a ɛː aː ɔː (ia) (ɨa) (ua)

Aspirates *pʰ, *tʰ, *kʰ are infrequent and generally come from clusters of stop + /h/ and ancient loans. The initial *ʧ (Viet. x) is uncommon but welldocumented in the northern (Viet-Mương) sub-branch. The corresponding sound *ʤ is rare. The vowels given in parentheses appear only in borrowings which are limited to sub-branches. Borrowings give the misleading impression that these vowels may belong to pVietic. 3.11.3 Vietic Tonogenesis and Stopped Finals Perhaps the aspect of Vietic phonology which has attracted most attention is the tone system of Vietnamese and cognate tone systems in the branch, which superficially resemble Thai or Cantonese typologically. So striking is this feature, and so inconsistent with most AA languages, that for half of the 20th century in Europe (and until recently in Vietnam and China) the view dominated that Vietnamese is a Tai or Sinitic language with an AA loan stratum. This view was particularly advocated by Maspéro (1912) and Sebeok (1942), and was only convincingly overturned with the demonstration by Haudricourt (1953; 1954) that the tones emerged from AA features (particularly with reference to Khmu’ data). The six tones of Vietnamese were recognised as emerging from two distinct aspects of syllable structure: a high/low series correlating with onset voicing, analogous to registrogenesis in Mon, Khmer etc., and three further divisions depending on whether the syllable codas are sonorant, stopped or fricative. Somewhat later, scholars noted that this explanation is not quite complete (e.g. Gage 1985); in particular some words with sonorant codas have stopped (sắc and nặng) tones when this is not otherwise expected by syllable structure or external correspondence. Shorto was cognisant of this in the 1960s and 1970s while compiling his PMK reconstruction and posited various proto-forms with post-final glottal stops to account for such etyma (e.g. §1166 *punʔ ‘four’, §1813 *ʔaːwʔ ‘upper garment’ etc.). Coincidentally, it was also noted in the 1980s and onward that the various minor Vietic languages, such as Arem, Ruc, Sac etc. show corresponding glottilized continuant codas (c.f Arem *puənˀ ‘four’, *ʔɛːwˀ ‘upper garment’). These observations have lead to the current synthesis, reflected in, for example, Ferlus (1998) and Thurgood (2002) etc., which recognises a fourth category of finals in Vietic (those with glottal constriction) and forces the reconstruction of the glottalisation feature for pVietic.

308

sidwell and rau

3.11.4 Vietnamese Consonant Restructuring Typologically the Vietnamese consonant system is somewhat asymmetrical, showing a very thorough restructuring of the various consonant series. Unlike most AA languages, which typically continue many pAA sounds with little or no apparent change, the majority of Vietnamese segments have undergone significant reorganisation of phonetic features. Notable aspects of the standard dialect include:

· · · ·



eight fricatives, including a voicing distinction; voiceless bilabial stop present only in loans; no palatal or rhotic approximants; several retroflexes

The inventory of onset consonants, with orthographic symbols in parenthesis, is tabled as follows: (p) ɓ (b) m (m) f (ph) w (v,u)

tʰ (th) t (t) ʈ (tr) c (ch, tr) k (c,k,q) ʔ (Ø) ɗ (d) n (n) ɲ (nh) ŋ (ng, ngh) s (s/x), ʂ (s) x (kʰ) h (h) z (d, gi, r) ʓ (r) ɣ (g, gh) l (l)

The Vietnamese nasals /m, n/ include direct reflexes of the pAA implosives, having merged unconditionally. After the nasalisation of the old implosives, the voiceless stops *p, *t became implosive, somewhat paralleling a similar shift affecting prevocalic stops in Old Khmer. Additionally, the bilabial and velar aspirates became fricatives, as did various initial clusters, although the etymological fricative *s hardened to a stop /t/. The eventual almost complete elimination of initial clusters (Cw onsets are still tolerated) also delivered the retroflex segments. The palatal and rhotic approximants merged to a voiced fricative, although this did not happen in all dialects. Examples of these changes are illustrated in the following table:

309

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction pAA (Shorto#)

gloss

pVietic

*rk[aw]ʔ (#1820) *mp[ɔ]ʔ (#105) *taːɲ (#898) *ɗaːk (#264) *punʔ (#1166) *tɓaŋ (#636) *luən (#1201a) *suk (#467) *kraʔ (#162)

‘husked rice’ *r-koːˀ ‘dream’ *s-poːˀ ‘to weave’ *taːɲ ‘water’ *ɗaːk ‘four’ *poːnˀ ‘shoots’ *-maːl ‘round’ *g-lɔːn ‘hair’ *-suk ‘road, way’ *k-raːˀ

Vietnamese

Mương HoaBinh

Thavung

Sac

Arem

ɣaw²¹

kaːw⁴ paw¹ taːɲ¹ dia⁵ poːn³ vaŋ¹ klɔːn² tʰak⁷ tʰaː³

akoː³

təkoː³ poː³ taːɲ¹ daːk⁷ təɓaŋ¹ tlɔːn² suk⁷ -

ŋkɔːˀ mpɔː taːɲ dæːk puənˀ aɓaŋ tloːn utʰʊk uræːˀ

ɓaw³³ ɗan³³ ‘knit’ nɯək⁴⁵ ɓon⁴⁵ mÏaŋ³⁵ ʈɔn⁴² tɔk͡p⁴⁵ sa²⁴

(tam) daːk⁷ poːn³ baŋ¹ sɔk⁷ kʰəlaː³

A Swadesh 100 list of pVietic lexical reconstructions is included at the end of this chapter. 3.12 Munda by Felix Rau and Paul Sidwell 3.12.1 Introduction The Munda branch consists of about 20 languages, located in eastern and central India and adjacent areas of Nepal and Bangladesh, and is fairly well known to linguistics, with a significant history of dictionaries and grammars being published over the past century and a half, including some very recent modern linguistic grammars such as Nagaraja 1999, Neukom 2001, Peterson 2011 as well as the sketches in Anderson 2008a. Khewarian is the largest subgroup of Munda, both in regard to the number of speakers as well as to the number of languages. The main languages of this group are Santali, Mundari, and Ho, furthermore there are several smaller languages, such as Asuri, Birhor, Korwa, and Turi, all closely related to the three bigger Khewarian languages. Santali and Mundari are probably the best documented Munda languages with Bodding (1929a, 1929b, 1929–1936) as well as Neukom (2001) for Santali and Hoffmann (1903, 1930–1978) as well as Osada (1991) for Mundari. Korku is the most western AA language and is geographically separated from the other Munda languages. Korku is very important from a comparative point

310

sidwell and rau

of view as Zide (1960, 1965, 2008) reports tone for Korku and his low tone seems to reflect crucial phonological properties of pMunda. Unfortunately, tone could not be verified by Nagaraja (1999). Korku and Khewarian are generally thought to form the North Munda branch of Munda. Kharia is a one of the larger Munda languages and is spoken in close proximity to Khewarian, but differs significantly from these languages. It is well described by Pinnow (1959) and Peterson (2008, 2011a, 2011b). Juang is one of the less well documented Munda languages, even though it has received some attention: Matson (1964) and Patnaik (2008). It is often grouped with Kharia as Central Munda, but a lot of evidence contradicts this grouping and Anderson (2001) argues against this subgrouping. Gutob-Remo are two very closely related languages—Gutob (also known as Gadaba) and Remo—spoken in close proximity to Gorum and Gtaʔ. Remo is reasonably well known through Bhattacharya (1968) and Fernandez (1968) while Gutob has received proper attention only in recent years by Griffiths (2008). Sora-Gorum is a subgroup consisting of two geographically separated languages. Sora has been well documented since Ramamurti (1931), Biligiri (1965) and Starosta (1967, 1976, 1992), while Gorum has received less attention: Aze (1973), Zide (1982), Anderson and Rau (2008) as well as Rau (2011a). The virtually unknown, Juray also belongs to this subgrouping. The data in Zide (1982) suggest that it is very similar to Sora. Gtaʔ is the southermost Munda language and differs significantly from other Munda languages in its prosodic structure. Even though it has been studied by Mahapatra (1976), Ghosh (2003) and Anderson (2008b), fairly little is known about this language. Gtaʔ has been grouped traditionally with Gutob and Remo, but there is hardly any data supporting this subgrouping, beyond mere geographical proximity. The Munda branch of AA restructured significantly on phonological, morphological, and syntactic levels in its development after emerging as a distinct branch. Proto-Munda restructured phonologically, eliminating consonant clusters within syllables, losing phonemic vowel quantity, most diphthongs, the glottal phonemes, and the distinct implosive series of pAA. Today, Munda

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

311

languages differ radically from the eastern AA languages on almost every level of grammar from prosody to syntax. The typological divide is so striking that Donegan and Stampe (2004) characterise it as the extreme of a typological polarity in AA. Being spoken in South Asia, the Munda languages have enjoyed a long history of areal context that is radically different to the rest of the family and this contact situation has often been used to explain the typological differences. However, as Donegan and Stampe (2004) point out, hardly any feature distinguishing the Munda branch from other branches of AA can be explained by contact in a straightforward manner. As one can note from Anderson’s overview in this volume, Munda is marked by extensive verbal morphology, especially suffixing, and rather simple segmental inventories and syllable structure. The process as well as the sequence of changes that led from pAA and pMunda to the current situation is not understood in its entirety, but we believe that crucial parts are reasonably well understood and systematic comparative Munda studies have been neglected in recent years without good reason. Comparative Munda studies were put on a strong foundation by Pinnow (1959), offering a comparative-historical phonological analysis, oriented especially towards Kharia, based on more than 500 etymologies. Pinnow’s results are preliminary and marred by irregularities and unsolved questions, and regrettably Pinnow did not follow through with more in-depth historical Munda studies. Subsequent historical work on Munda by other scholars has discussed aspects of phonological and lexical reconstruction, but on balance has really focussed on verbal morphology. Furthermore, Munda specialists, intensely interested in understanding the origins of verbal morphology, have consistently emphasised bottom-up reconstruction methodology, and this has arguably left them trying to account for such a diversity of data and analytical problems that they have not succeeded in producing a coherent consensus account. Consequently, in the second decade of the 21st century, we are yet to see a published consolidated pMunda lexicon or comprehensive comparative phonology explicitly explaining Munda derived from pAA prototypes. Researchers are reduced to extracting isolated ad hoc and provisional pMunda forms from a selection of papers over 5 decades, while Pinnow’s (1959) tables of phonological correspondences remain the principal reference of its type. There has been, to our minds, a lack of boldness, coupled with an unreasonable fear of premature publication, that have held back the field and retarded possibilities for fruitful cooperation across the field of comparative AA studies. The present writers take a different position. It is our contention that it is reasonable to make the following claims:

312

sidwell and rau

· ·

pMunda lexical root and syllable structure are reasonably well understood and present no serious problems of analysis; pMunda consonantism is very well understood; the correspondences are straightforward and are readily explained by recourse to various simple mergers post-pAA; pMunda glottal phonology has been described with unnecessary complexity; pMunda vocalism is a complex and unsolved problem, principally because length and diphthongisation contrasts were lost generally, followed by further reduction to five-vowel systems in various, although not all, Munda languages. The changes to vocalism created chaotic correspondences, such that purely bottom-up reconstruction has proven to be non-viable. However, we contend that with well supported top-down analyses, many root vowels can be reconstructed with high confidence, and simple notational devices can be employed to deal provisionally with problematic cases.

· ·

Given the above, it is a viable exercise to present a reconstruction of pMunda lexical roots with apparent AA etymologies, and we present here our provisional reconstruction on these principles. Consequently, we discuss below our reconstruction, and include (an incomplete) Swadesh 100 list of pMunda forms in the table at the end of this chapter. 3.12.2 pMunda Phonology PMunda restructured phonologically, eliminating consonant clusters within syllables, generally by shifting syllable boundaries and often without deleting segments. Thus the complex onsets of pAA gave way to a simple pattern of lone or repeated (Ci)V(Cf) syllables making up the phonological word. Consequently, with syllable internal asymmetries largely eliminated, pressure for further segmental restructuring eased and the consonants of pAA are reflected fairly faithfully. An important aspect of the reduction in asymmetry within the syllable is that the pAA ± implosive contrast was lost, reducing the phonation contrast in stops to just two series. A different change, this one apparently areally conditioned, is that initial velar nasals, an otherwise common segment, became dispreferred, and consequently there are many cases of unconditioned palatalization. Strikingly, the oral stop codas in all Munda languages are realised as pre-glottalized, unreleased, or maybe imploded stops. The glottal series of pAA—*ʔ and *h—were lost, but glottals subsequently reemerged (direct correspondneces suggest *h in a moderate number of etyma not inherited from pAA). Consequently, we propose the following pMunda consonant phonemes (the pMunda reconstructions are marked with

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

313

double ** to indicate their provisional status, with its substantial reliance on ‘top-down’ reasoning): Ci Consonants ** p t c k b d ɟ g m n ɲ ŋ w l, r j s h Cf Consonants ** ˀp ˀt ˀc ˀk m n ɲ ŋ w l j

There is an areal tendency to disfavour the velar nasals, so that there are various non-velar reflexes here and there, or it can be decomposed into a prenasalised voiced velar stop, but the diversity of reflexes argues for straightforwardly reconstructing **ŋ to pMunda. Thus we reconstruct pMunda **siŋi(iˀ) ‘sun’ reflecting pAA *t2ŋiːʔ21 (with apparently regular shift from t2 > s) based on Mundari siŋgi, Santali siɲ, Remo siŋi, Gtaʔ sni. Also, there is a general preference to shift to retroflexion for the voiced apical stops (see ‘water’ etymon below) but again the variation in reflexes suggests simply **d at pMunda. The role of glottal stops in modern Munda and pMunda is has been the source of some problems in the reconstruction of pMunda, but we believe that it is a solved issue. In the first place, we assume a pre-Munda merger in which final glottals—both *ʔ and *h—became phonological zeroes. Etymological *k became [ʔ] in coda position, although in some languages such as Santali, the glottal character of syllable final /k/, represented as k’ in Neukom (2001) is less clear. In some Munda languages such as Kharia, [ʔ] is still a transparent allophone of /g/ in syllable final position. Peterson (2011) orthographically distinguishes from even though he explicitly treats it as an allophone. Thus we find oʔ ‘house’ but og=aʔ ‘house=gen’ and ɲoʔ=te ‘eat=act.prs’ but ɲog=e ‘eat= act.irr’. In other languages such as Gorum, /ʔ/ is a now a separate phoneme that is still mostly in complementary distribution to /g/. To represent the velar character which is still preserved in Santali or Kharia, we represent pAA *k in pMunda as **ˀk. There is another source for glottals in present day 21  PAA reconstructions cited in this section are Shorto (2006) forms.

314

sidwell and rau

Munda languages and this has led to some confusion in the reconstruction of pMunda. We will come back to this below when we are discussing syllable weight and related issues. Another sound change is the loss of pAA *s in coda position. Current evidence suggests that it is lost in all Munda languages and thus is best assumed to have been lost to pMunda already. Evidence for the loss are for example pMunda **rOOˀ ‘elephant’ reflecting pAA *r[]uəs based on Gutob roʔ, Sora rʔa(ː), and Gorum raʔ as well as as **(gə)rE ‘heart, liver’ reflecting pAA *ris based on Kharia gore, Remo gire, Sora əgare, Gorum gare, and Gtaʔ grire. The vowel system is much more problematic, and we acknowledge that what we offer here is both provisional and somewhat at odds with views of other authors. As already mentioned above, it is apparent that quantity and diphthongisation contrasts were lost in the transition to pMunda. However, pAA length left traces in pMunda in regard to syllable weight and a contrast in the conditioning of resyllabification of Munda lexical roots. This does not require us to reconstruct long and short vowels as such for pMunda, as we take the resyllabification as already completed by that stage. However, we do need to distinguish light and heavy syllables in the nominal vocabulary, for which we use a second vowel sign followed by a raised glottal stop **Vˀ. Through this we intend to indicate that the vowels were mostly derived from phonologically long vowels (pAA Vː), but also that vowel length was lost later in all Munda languages and a glottal feature—either a glottal stop or creaky voice—became the default realisation of heaviness in these cases. Typologically, it would appear that Sora is an important—although admittedly indirect—witness to the pMunda vowel inventory. While other Munda languages, consistent with local areal tendency, have reduced their vowel inventories to as few as five members, one is obliged to treat Sora as having nine vowel phonemes: Sora vowels i ɨ u e ə o ɛ a ɔ

Of course, even these nine vowels are not sufficient to account for the complexity of vowel correspondences that one finds in Munda, even within unambiguous Munda sub-groups. But, we can neither throw our hands in the air in resignation nor mindlessly posit a typologically unrealistic proto-vowel inventory that tries to account for every correspondence. Rather, we take the view that the possible pMunda inventory should be modelled in a way that

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

315

approximates what appears to be the most conservative vocalism attested in the branch. In this context, our best estimation is that there was no quantity or length distinction, and applying this mechanically to the pAA inventory would yield a set of eight monophthongs, only one short of the contemporary Sora inventory. Furthermore, given the areal tendency to reduce vowel contrasts, it would be a reasonable starting point to treat the Sora inventory as the exception which has not undergone significant reductions since pMunda. However, close inspection does indicate that various splits and mergers have occurred in the history of Sora vocalism, so one would not immediately want to posit contemporary Sora values as directly reflecting pMunda vowels without clear external evidence, otherwise underdetermined values must be reconstructed. As it stands, there are many etymologies which appear to be unproblematic, and for which there should be no hesitation in accepting proto-vowel reconstructions offered here. for example, Munda reflexes of pAA *blu:ʔ ‘thigh’ unambiguously indicate pMunda *buluuˀ, although we would be delighted to receive any counter-argument. On the other hand, there are also plenty of ambiguous cases, although even amongst those it is often apparent that, for example, a central vowel is indicated rather than a front or back vowel vowel. For the present we propose a notational solution of using capital letters to represent underdetermined vowel reconstructions, as in the table below. One can also note that we presently adopt **E and **O for all non-high front and back vowels due to the difficulty of distinguishing between mid and low members. Also we presently do not propose a high-central pMunda vowel, as so far it seems that contemporary occurrences of ɨ or similar in Munda are usually readily identified as conditioned variants of other vowels. Consequently we propose the following provisional pMunda vowel inventory, with the caveat that the symbols should be read as representing a set of at least eight phonemic monophthongs. pMunda Vowels ** i/I u/U E ə/Ə O a/A

Proto-Munda also deviated in several significant ways from pAA on the prosodic level. The most apparent change is the reduction of the pAA syllable template to a maximal pMunda syllable CV(Vˀ)C. This and the resulting elimination of consonant clusters is a defining feature of pMunda. Initial clusters preceding an etymologically long vowel are resyllabified and a short copy of the original long vowel is inserted between the two consonants, so that pAA

316

sidwell and rau

C1C2Vː becomes C1V1C2V1V1ˀ in pMunda. This is demonstrated by the correspondences for *bluːʔ ‘thigh’. Note again that the final *ʔ is lost pre-pMunda and that Vˀ indicates syllable weight in our reconstruction of pMunda. This results in the following forms: gloss ‘thigh’

pAA pMunda Santali Korku Kharia Remo Sora Gtaʔ *bluːʔ **buluuˀ bulu bulù bhulu buli bulu bulu

Clusters preceding a short vowel are eliminated by having another vowel insterted between the two consonants. We assume this to be the mid-central vowel.This means that pAA C1C2V becomes C1əC2V in pMunda as can be seen in the reflexes of pAA *d2raŋ ‘horn’: gloss pAA pMunda Santali Kharia Remo Sora Gorum Gtaʔ ‘horn’ *d2raŋ **dəraŋ dereɲ ɖereŋ ɖeruŋ ɖeraŋ/ɖereŋ ɖeraŋ ɖiraŋ

The reflexes of pAA vowel length are most apparent in pMunda in this resyllabification of initial clusters. However, there is an aspect of languages of the Munda branch that requires us to retain a representation of pAA long vowels in pMunda: The minimal free noun in most Munda languages is a heavy monosyllabic word such as such as Kharia tiʔ ‘hand’ or a bisyllabic word of any syllable structure such as Sora bulu ‘thigh’. This phonological restriction on Munda nouns has been called the “bimoraic constraint” by Anderson & Zide (2001 and elsewhere). A direct effect of this restriction on minimal free nouns is seen today in the ways that various Munda languages maintain a distinction between free forms which resyllabify with mechanisms such as reduplication and epenthetic glottal stops versus morphologically bound forms that happily tolerate a light (C)V(N) nominal. In other languages such as Santali, the constraint is not active and Santali allows for CV nouns such as ti ‘hand’. As mentioned before, the loss of vowel length seems to have happened in pMunda already, but syllable weight resulting from long vowels was preserved in several environments in some Munda languages. We represent etymologically long vowels as VVˀ, since we assume that proper vowel length (*Vː) was lost in pMunda, but the heaviness—the second mora if you like—was preserved in some environments. In most languages heaviness is realised by adding a glottal stop, however Gorum shows creaky voice or glottal stop in these environments and Korku low tone. According to our view on pMunda, pAA *tiːʔ ‘hand’ remained a heavy syllable even after the loss of *ʔ and vowel length in pMunda and thus we represent the resulting form as **tiiˀ.

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

317

For a reconstruction of pMunda and in fact also for understanding modern Munda languages it is crucial to realise that there are two historical sources for glottals in most Munda languages. One set of glottal stops derive from pAA *k via pMunda **ˀk. The glottal stops representing pAA *k and pMunda **ˀk can be seen in the reflexes of pMunda **daaˀk ‘water’ from pAA *ɗaːk. gloss pAA pMunda Santali Kharia Gutob Remo Gorum Sora Gtaʔ ‘water’ *ɗaːk **daaˀk daˀk ɖaʔ ɖaʔ ɖaʔ ɖaʔ ɖaʔ (n)ɖiaʔ

Modern Munda languages possess another set of glottals that cannot be explained by pAA *k. These glottals, their source and even place in the grammar is at the very heart of many problems of the phonological and morphological reconstruction of pMunda. The phenomena involved are Zide’s nominalizing infix -ʔ- (e.g. mentioned in Zide 1966), Korku low tone (Zide 1966), Gorum creaky voice (Aze 1974, Rau 2011b), Zide’s laryngeal X (Zide 1978) as well as probably Pinnows vowel length (Pinnow 1959) and maybe Zide’s glottalised vowels of Gutob-Remo (Zide 1965). As this lists already suggests, the issue has been interpreted as vowel quality, phonation or register, or as a segmental phoneme, as well as a morpheme realised by the phoneme /ʔ/. The issue is far too complex to argue here in full. Suffice it to say that we treat all these instances as reflexes of syllable weight in pMunda represented as **Vˀ in our reconstruction. These go back to pAA *Vː in instances in which they are etymologically connected to the pAA level. The distinction between etymological /ʔ/ deriving from *k via **ˀk and glottals deriving from pAA Vː via pMunda **Vˀ or even from post-pMunda prosodic requirements is highly relevant in some languages and crucial for a successful reconstruction of pMunda. In Gorum, creaky voice is always a reflex of **Vˀ and never of **ˀk, while Gorum /ʔ/ can be a reflex of either. The difference between etymological ʔ ) *kɔ(ː)k ‘neck’ #505 *tk(ɔː)ŋ’ (nape of) neck’ #744 *t1luŋ; *t1luːŋ; *t1luəŋ ‘throat’ #144 *t1miʔ ‘new’ #264 *m[h][ɯə]ʔ; *m[h][ɯə]h ‘evening, night’ #1328 *[c][ɯə]m ‘night’ #1352 *btɔm ‘night’ #2045 *muh; *muːh; *muːs ‘nose’ #943 *ʔət; *ʔəːt; *[ʔ]it ‘used up, finished, lacking’ #1118 *ʔɔn ‘ small in quantity’ #1297 *ʔam ‘not’ #86 *ɗiːʔ; *ɗiːs; *ɗuːʔ; *ɗuːl ‘one’ #1495 *muːj; *muəj; *muːɲ ‘one’

*kɔʔ ‘neck’ *-kɔːŋ ‘nape’ *-lɔːŋ ‘throat’

*tmiːʔ ‘new’ *cəːm ‘night’ *-tam ‘night’

*mɔːh, *muːh, *muːs ‘nose’ *ʔət ‘used up, lacking’ *ʔam ‘not’

*diʔ ‘one’ *muəj, *moːj ‘one’

354

sidwell and rau

(cont.) pMunda

pKhasian pPalaungic pKhmuic

pVietic

pKatuic

pKhmeric

64.

person/ human

**kOrOˀ

*bruː

*ɓiʔ, *ʔiʔ, *ʔuʔ

*k-muʔ, *kmraʔ

*-riː, *ɗeː

*bnuːs, *kuːj

*ʔnak

65.

rain

**gəma

*slap

*sǝlɛʔ, *ɟuŋ

*kmaʔ

*k-maː

*maː, *tɨŋ, *ɓɔː

*pliəŋ

66.

red

**ɟəŋAˀt

*saːw

*roːŋ

*-rVɲ, *thuəɲ

*tɔh, *koːl

*broːŋ, *ksəw

*krhɔːm

67.

road, path

**kOrA

*lntiː

*kraʔ, *ɗeːŋ

*gruəŋ

*k-raːˀ

*krnaː

*gnlɔːŋ

68.

root (of a tree) round (object)

**rEˀt

*traːj, *tʰəːt *pnlun

*riəs

*riəs

*k-riɛs

*rias

*ris

*ʔmər

–

–

–

*wiel, *rwiəl, *rwɔŋ

69.

–

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

355

pPearic

pBahnaric pMonic

pAslian

Nancowry #Shorto (2006) pMK

Sidwell (ms.) pAA

*kɟɨm

*bŋaːj

*mnus

*səmaːʔ

pajuh

*ʔiːʔ ‘person’ *mraʔ ‘person’

*gmaːˀ

*ʔmɨː

*brəj

*ləsəm

mih

*ŋar

*ɓroːŋ

(OM bərket)

–

ʔak

*kraː

*truːŋ, *trɔːŋ

*trəw, *glɔːŋ

*noːŋ

kaji

*reːs

*riəh

*ris

jiah

*moːl

*(t)wil, *pɔːm

–

*rʔiɛs ~ ʔriɛs –

tual

#2 *ʔiːʔ ‘person’ #60 *ɲaʔ; *ɲah ‘person’ #139 *k[n]muʔ ‘person, human being’ #183 *mraʔ ‘person’ #1455 *[m]ŋaːj ‘person, human being’ #127 *miʔ; *mih; *miːw ‘rain, to rain’ #141 *gmaʔ ‘rain’ #180 *briːʔ ‘sky, rain’ #539 *juːŋ ‘rain, to rain’ #688 *[ɟ]rɔːŋ ‘red’ #788 *[t]huːŋ; *thuːɲ’ red’ #1977a *guːh ‘red’ #1865 *ks[aw]ʔ ‘red’ #162 *kraʔ ‘road, way’ #590 *rɗiŋ; *rɗiəŋ ‘road, track’ #698 *truːŋ; *truəŋ ‘path, road’ #736 *glɔːŋ ‘path, road’ #1927 *ris; *riəs; *rəs; *rʔiəs ‘root’ #1201a *luːn; *luən ‘round, to roll’ #1653 *m[ ]uːr; *m[ ] ər ‘to roll up’ #1794 *wil; *wiːl; *wiəl(ʔ); *wəl; *wal; *wail ‘to turn’

*gmaʔ ‘rain’ *briːʔ ‘sky, rain’

*-saw ‘red’

*kraʔ ‘road, way’ *ɗeːŋ, *ɗiəŋ ‘road, way’ *truːŋ,*trɔːŋ ‘road, way’ *glɔːŋ ‘road, way’ *riəs ‘root’ *wi(ə)l ‘round’

356

sidwell and rau

(cont.) pMunda

pKhasian pPalaungic pKhmuic

pVietic

pKatuic

pKhmeric

70.

sand

**kEˀt

*cʔiap

*smaːc

*kaːc

*t-kaːc, *-rɛh

*skaɲ, *cuah

*ksac

71.

see

**(n)El

*pɛc, *Ɂjiː

*jɔ(ː)t, *jəːʔ

–

*ɗaːm

*taloːj

*jɔl, *ghəːɲ

73.

sit

**kO

*cɔŋ, *skəw

*moːk, *ɗeʔ

*jəːm

*ŋuːj

*tkuː

guj

74.

skin

**usal

*sneːʔ

*n̥ aːm, *huːr

*-puːr

*-taː, *k-roːt

*ʔŋkar

*spɛːk

75.

sleep

**gətiˀc

*tʰiaʔ

*ʔiət

*cih

–

*ɓic

*tiːk

76.

small

–

*-dit, *rit

*knɗiət, *ɓac

*ɲɛʔ

*ɗiːt

*kɛ(ː)t

*tic, *cmaːr

77.

smoke (n.)

**mOˀk

*tdɛm

*təːʔ

*ptoʔ

78.

to speak, say

**sun, **gam, **kaj

*ʔɔŋ, *krɛn

– *law, *rʔ(m)aːh, *ŋɛʔ

*ɗuːp, *k-hɔːjˀ *coːlˀ

*g(rn/ə) (?*psɛːɲ) jɨək *paːj *srtiː

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

pPearic

pBahnaric pMonic

pAslian

Nancowry #Shorto (2006) pMK

*(g)laːŋ

*braːs

*p-m-tɯl

–

jaja

*daŋ

*saw, *ʦaw

*maj

*daŋ

hew

*kɨl

*ʔwaj

–

–

kɯ̃ ʔ

*-loːˀ

*ʔəkaːr

*cnaːm

*kətɯːʔ

ʔok

*bic

*kuj, *ɓic

*cŋkuj, *dəm,

*tiɛk

tiak

*kic

*-dɛʔ

–

*kanɛ(ː)t

ric, pẽc

*kmaː⁽ˀ⁾s *ʔɲuːj

*jak

–

fus

*ɲaːj

(OM gah)

*ca(ː)l

ʔujola

*-nɔh

357

Sidwell (ms.) pAA

*ksa(ː)c ‘sand’ #874 *ksac; *ksaːc ‘sand’ #1737 *bnt1iːl ‘sand’ #158 *[s]jəːʔ; *[s]ʔəːj *jɔl ‘to see’ ‘to see’ #1696 *jɔl, *ʔɔl ‘to see’ *ŋgu(ː)j ‘to sit #283 *[ ]guk ‘to sit, down’ remain, dwell’ *-kuːʔ ‘to sit, stay’ #1448 *ŋguj ‘to sit down’ #1818 *tkaw[ʔ] ‘to sit, stay’ #1370 *cn1aːm ‘skin’ *huːr ‘skin’ #1568 *cnkuər; *[c] nka[a]r ‘integument’ #1687 *huːr ‘skin’ #1825 *kt(aw]ʔ ‘skin’ #305 *tiːk; *tiək ‘to lie *tiək ‘to lie down, sleep’ down, sleep’ #797 *ɓic; *ɓiəc to lie *ɓic ‘to lie down, sleep’ down, sleep’ *dit, *kɗi(ə)t #59 *ɲ(eː)ʔ ‘small’ ‘small’ #1016 *kɗit; *kɗiːt; *kɗiət ‘small’ #1828 *pt1(əw)ʔ *ptoʔ ‘smoke’ #1425 *hom ‘to speak’ *ŋaːj ‘to speak’ #1457 *(s)ŋəːj ‘to speak’ #1964 *rʔah ‘to say, speak’

358

sidwell and rau

(cont.) pMunda

pKhasian pPalaungic pKhmuic

pVietic

pKatuic

pKhmeric

*ɟhɔːr

79.

to stand

**tənaŋ, **tƏŋgə

*jəŋ

*ɟəːŋ

*dək

*təŋˀ

*tʄɨŋ, *tjɨŋ, *juor

80.

star

–

stone sun to swim

*k-raːw, *k-ɓeː *l-taːˀ, *b-ruːˀ – –

*bntuor, *pkaːj *smaɲ *tməw *tmɔː

82. 83.

**bərƏl, **sərEŋ **siŋi(iˀ) –

*sʔməɲ, *krlaːŋ *cmoʔ, *rʔaːŋ *sŋiːʔ *l̥oːj *ŋɔj

*sməɲ

81.

*smaɲ, *kʰloːr *smaːw

84.

tail

**pata

*tdɔŋ, *-tʰaː

*-taʔ

*hntaʔ, *dɔːŋ

*d/tɔːj

*sɔːj

–

85.

that (dist.)

**han

*taj

*ʔeʔ, *tVj

*niʔ

–

*kiː, *ʔntih

*nɔh

86.

this (prox.) **En

*niː

*gəːʔ, *niʔ, *ʔǝ(h)

*giː, *ʔeːʔ

*-niː

*neʔ, *neː

*nih

87.

thou/you

**(n)Am

*meː

*miːʔ

*ʔmɔː

*miː

*maj

–

88.

tongue

**laːˀŋ

*tnleːc

*-taːk

*hntaːk, *lat

*laːs

*ʔntaːk

*ʔntaːt

*sŋiː *ɟnpaː, *ɟŋiː

*glaː₁ŋ *cŋi/eʔ *luːj

*ʔmɓaːŋ *tŋaj *loːj, *hɛːl(?) *poh

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

pPearic

pBahnaric pMonic

*taːl

*-jɔːŋ, *-juːŋ, *taːw, *dɨk

*ksɨm

*s(n)lɔŋ, *smaɲ *tməw

359

pAslian

Nancowry #Shorto (2006) pMK

Sidwell (ms.) pAA

*taːw

–

siak

*dək ‘to stand up’ *ɟə(ː)ŋ, *ɟuːŋ ‘to stand’ *taːw ‘to stand’

*s( )maɲ

–

maleca

#332 *(ɗ)ək ‘to stand up, to go up’ #538(Iː) *ɟəŋ; *ɟiŋ; *ɟiːŋ; *ɟuːŋ ‘to stand’ #1824 *taːw ‘to stand’ #888 *smʔaɲ ‘star’

*tmɔːʔ

*təmɔʔ

maŋɛʔ

#146 *t2mɔʔ ‘stone’

*tmɔʔ

*(t/s)ŋiːˀ *mat-tŋaj *tŋaj *heːl *rɛː *ɓiːŋ

– –

hɛŋ kical

*tŋiːʔ ‘sun, day’ *loːj ‘to swim, wade’

*paːs

*tiəŋ

*prtaːʔ

*sə[n]taːʔ ret

*dan

*tɔʔ, *tɔː

*tɛːʔ

–

ʔane

*ʔan

*nɛʔ, *nɛː

*-nɔːʔ

–

ne, nine

#31 *t2ŋiːʔ ‘sun, day’ #1456 *(l)ŋuj ‘to swim’ #1516 *lujʔ; *luːj[ ]; *luəj[ ]; *ləːj[ ] ‘to wade, to swim’ #73 *bt1aʔ; *st1aʔ ‘tail’ #542 *t1iə(ŋ) ‘tail’ #585 *t1ɗɔːŋ ‘stalk, tail’ #65 *t1iʔ; *t1iːʔ; *t1iəʔ ‘that yonder’ #66a *tɔʔ ‘that, there’ #1466 *t1uːj; *t1uəj; *t1aːj ‘that (yonder)’ #26 *ge(ː)ʔ ‘deictic & 3 pronoun’ #91 *niʔ; *nih ‘this’ #92 *nɔʔ; *nɔh ‘this’

*boː

*maj, *ʔih, *ʔaj *lpiət

*beh

*heːʔ

me

#128 *mi(ː)ʔ; *miːh ‘you (sing.)’

*klntaːk

*ləntaːk

kalitak

#320 *nt1aːk, *l(n) t1aːk ‘tongue’

*tmoːˀ

*ktaːˀk

*s(ʔ)maɲ ‘star’

*sntaʔ ‘tail’ *-dɔːŋ ‘stalk, tail’

*tiːʔ ‘that (dist.)’ *tɔʔ ‘that (med.)’

*gi(ː)ʔ ‘3rd person’ *niʔ; * neʔ ‘this (prox.)’ *nɔ(ː)ʔ ‘this; here’ *miːʔ ‘you (sing.)’

*lntaːk ‘tongue’

360

sidwell and rau

(cont.) pMunda

pKhasian pPalaungic pKhmuic

pVietic

pKatuic

pKhmeric

89.

tooth

**gənE

*lmɛɲ

*r̥aːŋ, *kaɲ, *piəŋ

*sraː₁ŋ

*k-saŋ

*knɛːŋ

–

90.

tree

**ɟiːˀ

*dɛːŋ

*khoʔ, *kseʔ

*cʔɔːŋ

*gawˀ, *g/kəl, *k-caːŋˀ

*ʔalɔːŋ

*ɟhəː

91. 92.

two to walk, go

**baːˀr **sEn

*ʔaːr *diʔ

*lʔaːr *həl, *leh

*baːr –

*haːr *d/tiː

*ɓaːr *bier *snɗaːw, *təːr *cɗɨaw

93.

warm/hot

–

*sɁaːc, *cit

*cʔəm, *kVc

*waːr, *pɔːk

*p-ruŋˀ, *ʔatoʔ, *p-ɗ/ruŋˀ *s(a/ŋ) ʔam

*ktaw

94.

water

**daːˀk

*ʔum

*ʔoːm

*ʔom

*ɗaːk

*tɨk

95.

we (excl.)

–

*ʔiː

*ʔjeʔ

*jiʔ

–

*ɗaːk, *ɗəːk –

96.

what?

–

–

–

–

*ʔaməh

–

97.

white

–

*leːʔ

*məh, *mVʔ *blɔːk, *kraːʔ, *-koʔ

*klɔːk

*baːk, *t-lɔːk

*ɓɔːk

*skuː *sɔː

–

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

361

pPearic

pBahnaric pMonic

pAslian

Nancowry #Shorto (2006) pMK

Sidwell (ms.) pAA

*koːj

*p(ɨ/ə)ŋ

*ŋiak

*ləmoːɲ

kanap

*lmVɲ ‘tooth’ *sraŋ ‘tooth’ *p(i)əŋ ‘tooth’

*neːˀm

*ʔlɔːŋ

*chuːʔ

*ɟəhuːʔ

ʔuɲiha

*baːˀr *ceːw

*ɓaːr *ceː₃w

*ɓaːr *ʔa(ː)r

*ciːp

ʔã soŋ

*tuːˀ

*toʔ

*k-m-taw

*bɨt

taɲ haʔuaj

*daːk

*ɗaːk

*ɗaːk

*b[ə]teːw riak

*hɛːŋ

(*ʔjɨː ?)

*pəj/ *pw(ə)j

*ɟeːʔ

he

*cmpiːˀj

–

*(ɟ-)moːʔ

–

*broːŋ, *pruːs

*(ɓ/b)ɔːk

(OM bətaiŋ)

*bəj[oː]k

cin, cja, ka tĩah

#597 *gnaiŋ; *gniəŋ ‘tusk, eye-tooth’ #709 *sraŋ; *sra[a]ŋ ‘tooth, sharp projection’ #254 *ɟhoːʔ; *ɟhəːʔ; *ɟheːʔ ‘tree, wood’ #491 *t2ʔɔːŋ ‘tree, wood’ #1343 *t2əm; *t2əːm; *t2am ‘plant, to grow; to begin’ #1562 *ɓaːr ‘two’ #462 *swa(ː)k ‘to walk, travel’ #1202 *luən; *lən ‘to go, proceed’ #1821 *cəw ‘to come, go, to return’ #70 *ktuːʔ ‘hot. #897 *t1aɲ ‘hot’ #1307 *(s)ʔəm; *(s) ʔəːm; *(s)ʔuːm; *(s) ʔuəm; *[ ]həm ‘warm’ #274 *ɗaːk ‘water’ #1298 *ʔ(o)m ‘water’ #1 *ʔiʔ; *hiʔ ‘we’ #150 *j(eː)ʔ ‘we’

*ɟhuːʔ, *ɟhiːʔ ‘tree, wood’ *tnəːm ‘trunk, stem, tree’

*ɓaːr ‘two’

*toʔ ‘hot’ *taɲ ‘hot’ *(s)ʔ(a/ə)m ‘warm’ *ɗaːk ‘water’

*ʔiːʔ ‘we (incl.) *ʔjeːʔ ‘we (excl.)’ (*ʄeːʔ ?) #136 *m(o)ʔ; *m(o)h *məh ‘what’ ‘what’ *ɓɔːk ‘white’ 116 *kboːʔ ‘white’ 369a *kɓɔːk ‘white, *-lɔːk ‘white’ grey’ 436 *kl(uə)k ‘white’

362

sidwell and rau

(cont.) pMunda

98.

who?

99.

woman/ wife

100. yellow

pKhasian pPalaungic pKhmuic

pVietic

pKatuic

pKhmeric

–

*m̥ ɛh

*-moh

*ʔeː

*ŋaːj

–

**selA, **kəni

*kntʰaj

*-pən, *knjaʔ

*ka₁n

*muːˀ, *p-keːˀ, *-bəːˀ

*knsaj, *kan, *kntaj *ʔnɗil, *kɗial, *k(m)paj

**saŋsaŋ

*lmit, *stɛm

*rmiːt

*ɟŋaːr

*-ʔɛːlˀ

*raːk

–

austroasiatic comparative-historical reconstruction

363

pPearic

pBahnaric pMonic

pAslian

Nancowry #Shorto (2006) pMK

Sidwell (ms.) pAA

*ʔmih

*buː

(OM mə)

–

ci

*mVh ‘who’

*kɨn

*ʔəkan

*braw (OM *kndɔr ‘wife’)

*kəndah (Semelai kdor ‘female’)

kan

*joːˀs

*dreː₂ŋ

-

-

ŋə

110 *bu(ː)ʔ ‘individual’ 1126 *kan; *kaːn ‘woman, female’ 1163 *pən ‘female’ 1628 *kdɔːr, *kdar ‘woman, wife’ 1052 *rmit; *rmiːt; *rmiət ‘Curcuma species; yellow’

*kan ‘woman, female’ *k(-)duər ‘wife’

*-ŋaːr ‘yellow’

chapter 5

Overview of the Munda Languages Gregory D.S. Anderson 1 Introduction The Munda languages are a group of Austroasiatic languages spoken across portions of central and eastern India by perhaps as many as ten million people total. The Munda peoples are generally believed to represent autochthonous populations over much of their current areas of inhabitation. This is codified in one of the common terms used locally to describe them, adivasi or ‘aboriginal’.

Approximate Distribution of Munda languages

N E P A L

UTTAR PRADESH

N

AR SG TTI

SHTRA

CHHA

ARA MAH

Remo

0 Miles

Santali

BIHAR

D Koda HAN J H A R K Santali Koraku Asuri5 Turi KorwaAsuri WEST 4 2 2 3 1 BENGAL 3 Santali1 4 5 Bhumij 2 3 5 Kharia 1 3 1 Korwa

H

Korku

Agariya

A

ANDHRA PRADESH

150

Gta

Juang ORISSA Gorum

Mahali

So ra

1. Birhor 2. Ho 3. Kharia 4. Mundari 5. Turi

Gutob

INDIAN OCEAN

0 Km 150

Map 5.1

ESH

MADHYA PRADESH

I

GLAD

Agariya

D

BA N

I

Mundari

Location of the Munda languages in India.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283572_006

overview of the munda languages

365

Originally, Munda-speaking peoples probably extended over a somewhat larger area before being marginalized into the relatively remote hill country and (formerly) forested areas primarily in the states of Odisha and Jharkhand; significant Munda-speaking groups are also to be found in Madhya Pradesh, and throughout remote areas of Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra, and through migration to virtually all areas of India, especially in tea-producing regions like Assam. Of course much of the original Munda-speaking territory was subsequently settled or colonized by Indo-Aryan-speakers and Dravidian-speakers. 1.1 On the Prehistory of the Munda-Speaking Peoples The pre-history of the Munda languages remains obscure. Munda languages constitute the westernmost representatives of the far-flung Austroasiatic linguistic phylum. Two other Austroasiatic groups are found in the presentday territory of India, the Khasian-speaking groups of Meghalaya and the Nicobarese-speaking groups of the Nicobar Islands. The other subgroups of Austroasiatic are all found outside of India, and it is generally believed that the Austroasiatic ancestral language was not to be found in India but rather further to the east. Thus, at some point the ancestors of the Munda-speaking peoples must have migrated westward into the Subcontinent. When, how, and by what path they entered India remains a subject of considerable debate. Indeed, it is not even clear that there was a single migration of pre-Munda speakers, but there may even have been two or more such movements. 1.2 Internal Ρelationships among Languages of the Munda Family Concensus has not yet been reached on the internal relationships of the Munda languages, but several subgroups have been proposed and some of these appear to be sound. It is hoped that further work in comparative Munda grammar and lexicon may shed light on this issue. The northern-, eastern- and westernmost groups of Munda languages are clearly related and appear to fall into two broad groupings. The first of these is the westernmost Munda language Korku which appears to be a sister to the remainder of this subgroup, the large and complex Kherwarian dialect/language chain, the better known varieties of which are Santali, Mundari and Ho. Kherwarian also includes a number of minor varieties as well, e.g. Turi, Asuri, Birhor, Bhumij, Korwa, etc. Korku and Kherwarian together are conventionally known as North Munda. The remaining Munda languages are almost only found in the state of Odisha, which appears to be the epi-center of diversity of the family, although some Kharia speakers are found in Jharkhand, West Bengal and Chhattisgarh as well and some of the southernmost groups like the Gtaʔ or the Gorum

366

anderson

are found in pockets across the border in northern Andhra Pradesh. How each of these non-North Munda languages or subgroups (logically known as South Munda in contrast to North Munda) are related to each other remains a topic of considerable debate. Some languages clearly form subgroups, such as Sora with Gorum/Parenga, or Gutob with Remo/Bonda. The classification of the remaining three languages (Kharia, Juang and Gtaʔ/Didayi) remains an open question (Anderson 2001). I synopsize some of the approaches that have appeared in print below. Although a small number of characteristic features of various higher order taxa within Munda have been offered, how exactly to subgroup the languages in the family and which higher order taxa can be justified remain open questions, and await adequate public demonstration. It is thus best to remain cautious at present. Just to give a sample of the different proposals that have been seriously offered by scholars in the last half century, we can compare those of Pinnow, Zide, Bhattacharya and Anderson.

Approximate Distribution of Munda languages of Orissa 100

G

A

R

Kharia Mundari Kharia Santali Mundari Bhumij Turi Ho Santali Birhor M u n d a r i Ho Kharia Birhor Ho

H

Juang

A

T

T

IS

0 Miles 0 Km 100

WEST BENGAL

JHARKHAND

CH

H

ORISSA

Mahali

Juang

Bhubaneshwar

Birhor Sora

I N D I A Sora Gta? Gutob Remo H Gorum ES D Gta? A PR A R DH AN Map 5.2

Munda languages of Odisha.

S ora

INDIAN OCEAN

Map Area

367

overview of the munda languages

The approaches differ in many details. Both Bhattacharya and Zide unite the three southernmost languages into a single genetic group. Bhattacharya’s approach is based mainly on the typology of the verb, and Lower Munda represents the single most salient and important split in the family as a result. Zide on the other hand, based largely on lexical data, unites this group with the other southern group within the Munda family, viz. Sora-Gorum into an intermediate node (Koraput Munda), echoing the classification of Pinnow (1959). Pinnow (1959) was specifically designed to create comparative lexica and infer previous phonological states of Kharia. It convincingly established Munda as a coherent family and a constituent family of the Austroasiatic phylum as some well-known scholars had relatively recently publicly disputed (e.g., Sebeok 1942). It proposed four coordinate branches of Munda: Kherwarian, Korku, Koraput and Kharia-Juang, see Figure 5.1. Given the obvious areality of these groups and the reliance on purely phonological and lexical materials to model the internal subgrouping or classification on, it comes as no surprise that i) these groups would be inferred by this method and ii) that a careful comparison of the languages as systems might reveal other, equally valid patterning that have to be considered when hypothesizing about the prehistory of the Munda languages. A team of scholars led by Norman Zide in the 1960s collected many materials on the Munda languages, and released a slightly different classification of them, uniting Korku and Kherwarian in a North Munda node; all other languages were considered South Munda, with the same two subgroups. To the South Munda group was added the then newly identified Gtaʔ (Didey) which was placed in the western branch of Koraput Munda (now rechristened GutobRemo-Gtaʔ contrasting with the eastern Sora-Gorum subgroup), see Figure 5.2. Bhattacharya (1975) on the other hand, found that there was a meaningful distinction in the verbal structure of the Gutob-Remo-Gtaʔ group such that their lack of object marking in the verb was such a fundamentally important fact that it must represent the primary split within the family, and this group Kherwarian Munda

Korku Koraput Kharia-Juang

Figure 5.1 Classification of Munda by Pinnow (1959).

368

anderson North Munda

Korku Kherwarian

Munda South Munda

Kharia-Juang Koraput

Gutob-Remo-Gtaʔ Sora-Gorum

Figure 5.2 Classification of Munda by Zide (1969).

Upper Munda Munda

Kherwari-Korku Sora-Parengi Kharia-Juang

Lower Munda Gadaba, Bonda, Didey Figure 5.3 Classification of Munda by Bhattacharya (1975).

was thus postulated to constitute the Lower Munda branch coordinate with the Upper Munda branch consisting of Korku, Kherwarian, Sora-Gorum and Kharia-Juang (Figure 5.3). Apart from more or less ignoring lexical and phonological developments, it also does not correctly split apart the languages of the family according to this one typological parameter, as Kharia shares this feature with the Lower Munda languages but is called Upper Munda by Bhattacharya. Another problem with this is that Gtaʔ has certain archaic features not found in Gutob-Remo (or Kharia), but found in Juang, such as prefixal subject marking (see below). Anderson’s (2001) approach combines lexical data and comparative morphological data, and proposes that of the standard groups, only three appear to be valid both morphologically and lexically: North Munda, Gutob-Remo and Sora-Gorum, and that in the remaining languages one is most likely dealing with a linkage rather than a genetic taxon, since we get different histories of shared innovations when looking at lexical vs. morphological data. Specifically, in terms of verbal morphology, neither Kharia should be united with Juang, nor Didey/Gtaʔ with Bonda (Remo)-Gadaba (Gutob). Thus there may in fact be no support for Lower Munda nor Koraput Munda nor possibly even South Munda per se as usually conceived, or at least the lexical and morphological histories do not appear to be co-terminous.

369

overview of the munda languages Proto North Munda

Korku

Proto-Munda linkage

Later Proto-Munda linkage

Kherwarian

Proto-Sora-Gorum Proto-Juang

Proto-Kharia Proto-Gutob-Remo Later southern Munda linkage Proto-Gtaʔ Figure 5.4 Classification of the Munda languages by Anderson (2001).

1.3 Noteworthy Features of Munda Languages Among the most interesting of linguistic phenomena to be found in Munda languages may be included the highly elaborated systems of demonstratives found in many of them, for example Santali or Gorum. Munda vowel and consonant systems can be quite complex, with different register and secondary articulatory features, many of which are still now in need of description. Another topic of considerable interest are the elaborate and intersecting systems of voice/valence/transitivity, person-marking and tense/aspect that characterize Kherwarian verbal systems. Further, the highly elaborated system of noun incorporation found in Sora push the limits of our understanding of such constructions from a theoretical perspective. The highly developed system of reduplication and expressive formation that characterize most Munda languages also bear mention here. Finally, the interaction of tense/aspect marking and negative operators in negative formations in South Munda Gutob stand out among the most complex of such systems known. Almost all aspects of every Munda language require more analysis before we have an adequate consensus understanding of even their basic features, in particular, syntactic issues and phonetic analysis are in desperate need of further systematic investigation. Studies on topics in the semantics and discourse of Munda languages are practically non-existent. Comprehensive comparative study has not been really possible up to this point either on the lexicon or the grammar, so a more thorough and comprehensive investigation into most historical linguistic issues in Munda also remains a goal for the future. 1.4 Estimated Number of Speakers of Some Modern Munda Languages Far and away the largest Munda language is Santali, which now stands among the official languages of India. The next two largest Munda languages and the only other two with more than a million speakers are also Kherwarian

370

anderson

languages, viz., Mundari and Ho. Only three other Munda languages have more than 100,000 speakers and these are, in order of total number of speakers, Korku, Sora and Kharia. Gutob and Juang both have somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 speakers, but are locally endangered and thus this number will dwindle in coming decades. Gorum, Remo and Gtaʔ are all endangered languages and have fewer than 10,000 speakers each, indeed Gorum and Gtaʔ have fewer than 5,000. Some of the minor Kherwarian languages are even smaller. (1) Santali 5–7,000,000 Mundari 1–2,000,000 Ho 1,000,000+ Korku 3–400,000 Sora ca. 300,000 Kharia 2–300,000 Gutob < 30,000 Juang < 30,000 Gorum < 5,000 Remo < 6,000 Gtaʔ < 4,000

1.5 Munda in the Austroasiatic Language Family Ever since Pater Schmidt established the relation of the Munda and so-called ‘Mon-Khmer’ languages at the beginning of the last century (1906), researchers of comparative Austroasiatic have been troubled by the apparent typological distance between the majority of the modern Austroasiatic languages on the one hand, and the Munda languages on the other. Some consider the Munda languages to have acquired their often quite complicated structure along with SOV constituent order as the result of diffusion from neighboring non-Munda languages of South Asia, i.e. local Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages (cf. Donegan 1993; Donegan and Stampe 1983, 2004), in many cases, presumably, independently in the individual Munda languages or sub-groups.1 Others, e.g. Pinnow (1959, 1963), suggest that Proto-Austroasiatic was more like Munda, with rather extensive morphological complexity. There is little doubt that Munda belongs in Austroasiatic despite these caveats. Pinnow (1959) secured the lexical correspondences to anchor Munda languages within Austroasiatic, echoing Logan (1859), Cust (1878), Schmidt 1  Indeed, as Donegan and Stampe (1983, 2004) and Donegan (1993) put it, the morphemic complexity of Munda has resulted from a shift in the ‘rhythmic holism’ of the languages from the Austroasiatic/Southeast Asian type to the South Asian type. However, they admit (1983: 341) that “in fact, the Munda languages are far more agglutinative and polysynthetic than is typical of India”. This is not the space to critique the details of their presentation, which merits a full-length study in its own right, but the prosodic differences between Munda and the eastern Austroasiatic languages has been overplayed, and there is considerable evidence to show that despite obvious differences in the construction of morphosyntactic words in Munda than in most other Austroasiatic languages, there are phono-prosodic word templates or phonological words that are much more consistent with other Austroasiatic subgroups, so that Munda languages are not as aberrant as Donegan and Stampe would have us believe. For some data relating to this, see section 2.

371

overview of the munda languages

(1905, 1906) and Przyluski (1924). Sidwell (2009) is an excellent synopsis of the history of the Austroasiatic language family, and Sidwell (2010) and Sidwell and Blench (2011) offer some new hypotheses. To summarize the debate: does Munda constitute a separate branch at a taxonomic level coordinate with one, with more than one, or with all other recognizable Austroasiatic constituent families? One theory assumes a primacy to the Munda split from the rest of the family, conventionally called Mon-Khmer. This is the approach of Zide (1969) and Diffloth (1989). This theory of a primary bifurcation of Austroasiatic into Munda vs. non-Munda/Mon-Khmer was based mainly on rough global assessments of the overall typology of Munda vs. the other Austroasiatic constituent families (e.g. Diffloth & Zide 1992): Munda being considered synthetic-agglutinative, but the eastern Austroasiatic languages isolating. The coherence of the individual family-level taxa within Austroasiatic are almost never questioned.2 What is debated is how the recognizable taxa may or may not form higher intermediate taxa; this has been approached differently by virtually every researcher who has ever attempted a comprehensive classification of the Austroasiatic languages. A closer inspection of the data reveals the similarities and differences to be both overplayed and obscured by layers of erosion and other ‘Sinospheric’ influences on the eastern Austroasiatic languages and ‘Indospheric’ (and earlier ‘Himalayospheric’) influences on Munda.3 More recent classifications have questioned whether Munda really is that different lexically from other Austroasiatic branches, e.g. Peiros (1998) using a lexicostatistic method. Diffloth (2005) revised his classification to consider Munda to be as Austroasiatic as any group from a lexical perspective. The most recent assessment is that of Sidwell (2009/2010), who situates Munda roundly or at least as an equal constituent within the Austroasiatic complex.

Aslian

Nicobarese

Munda

Khmuic

Bahnaric

Palaung-Waic Khasian

Mangic

Khmeric

Monic

Pearic

Katuic Vietic

Figure 5.5 Sidwell (2009) model of Austroasiatic. 2  Except Nihali once thought to be Austroasiatic is now recognized as an isolate language. 3  Note in this regard that various Nicobarese and Aslian languages which are outside this area are significantly more morphologically-rich than is typical of ‘Mon-Khmer’ languages in Southeast Asia proper.

372

anderson

Nominal morphology in various vestigial forms may be found throughout the AA family. Various components of the Proto-AA nominal system have been inferred, e.g. an infixed nominalizer in *–n-, prefixed syllabic nasals, a prefixal formative in *k(V)-, a prefixed pronominal case formant/augment in *a-, etc. Characteristics of the Proto-Munda verb not of South Asian origin are of particular interest in the reconstruction of the heretofore elusive ProtoAustroasiatic verbal system due to the overall paucity of (especially inflectional) verbal morphology in many Austroasiatic languages, or even basic descriptions of many of the languages. To be sure, verbs in Munda languages can be quite complex morphologically (2): (2) i. Juang ii. Remo ɖi-mi-ɲ-ɛ-pɛ-kia o-sum-oʔ-ki-niŋ give-3.fut-give-fut.ii-2pl-dl caus-eat- past.ii- perf-1 ‘they-2 will give it to you all’ ‘I had caused (s.o.) to eat’ (Pinnow 1960-ms: 131) (Fernandez 1968: 57) iii. Mundari iv. Santali senoʔ-dʒa-n-a-ko dal-e-’t-me-tahɛ̃kan-a-e go.intr-asp-intr-fin-pl beat-asp-tr-2-ipfv-fin-3 ‘they just got down by themselves’ ‘he was beating you’

While the extreme morphemic complexity typical of modern Kherwarian might or might not be attributable to Proto-Munda, and it is generally not characteristic of the remainder of the languages of the Austroasiatic family, it is far from the case that morphemic complexity is entirely alien to the eastern Austroasiatic languages. In a variety of languages, there are forms which consist of stems in combination with two or even three additional morphemes. (3) i. Katu ii. Katu ta-pa-têêŋ ta-pa-gluh recp-caus-work recp-caus-go.outside ‘make each other work’ ‘make each other go outside’ (Costello 1965: 41) (Costello 1965: 41)

[Katuic]

iii. Bahnar iv. Bahnar dʒo-po-lôtʃ dʒo-to-jaih perf-caus-die perf-pass-untied ‘to have killed’ ‘to have been untied’ (Banker 1964: 113) (Banker 1964: 113)

[Bahnaric]

373

overview of the munda languages v. Khasi ja-pɨn-sam-thjaʔ recp-caus-inclin-feel.sleepy ‘together make (others) feel sleepy’ (Nagaraja 1985: 27)

[Khasian]

vi. Nancowry Nicobarese pa-m-um-huaʔ be.afraid-agt-caus-be.afraid ‘one who frightens’ (Radakrishnan 1981: 58)

[Nicobarese]

vii. Kentakbong maʔ-pi-jin-ʔam des-caus-neg-suckle ‘(she) wants to wean (the baby)’ (Haji Omar 1976: 955)

[Aslian]

1.6 Munda Languages in the South Asia Areal Context The Munda languages have without question been profoundly influenced by the other languages of India: for example, the developed system of complex predicates seen throughout the Munda family (Anderson 2007), as well as the shift to subject-object-verb word order both reflect influences of the South Asian Sprachbund, in particular influence from Dravidian (Anderson 2003) and at a later period, Indo-Aryan as well. Nevertheless, a careful comparison of the Munda languages, starting with recent studies by Zide and Anderson (1999, 2001), Anderson and Zide (2001) and Anderson (1999, 2001, 2004), has revealed a considerable amount of old, morphologically realized categories that must be reconstructed all the way back to the Proto-Munda ancestor language. These include, but are not limited to, such categories as causative, reciprocal, negative, a transitive (or ‘active’) and intransitive (or ‘middle’) past, a non-past, a reduplicated habitual, an intransitive imperative, at least one participial construction, as well as a set of subject proclitics and object suffixes. Among other features which are not soundly reconstructible, but nevertheless may still be old in the Munda family, is a limited system of verb-noun stem compounding, that is, a type of noun-incorporation—found in South Munda languages which is lacking in modern North Munda languages, but may be found in archaic ritual language in Ho (cf. Deeney 1979) and also appears to have parallels in other Austroasiatic languages (e.g. Nicobarese or Khasi), see 3 below.

374

anderson

A phonological feature of modern Munda languages that is worth noting here is the near complete lack of word-initial ŋ-, a feature common to many of its sister Austroasiatic languages, but one which is highly marked in the South Asian areal context. While Proto-Munda may well have possessed word-initial ŋ-, it is found only in a small number of words in certain South Munda languages. In Sora, there is at least one lexical item with word-initial ŋ-, while in Remo and Gtaʔ it occurs relatively more frequently, but here preceding a velar stop, and frequently functioning as a syllable nucleus, not an onset (i.e. it is a syllabic nasal). (4)

Sora ŋorəŋ ‘have hairs standing erect, be thrilled’ (Zide 1968: 76)

(5) i. Remo ii. Gtaʔ ŋkuj ŋkui ‘water pot’ ‘water pot’ (Bhattacharya 1975b: 47)

As this last point suggests, Munda languages also differ from many of the surrounding languages of South Asia in possessing initial syllabic nasals, and as described for Santali (Anderson 2000), pre-nasalized stops as well, see above. 2

Overview of the Phonology of Munda Languages

Phonologically speaking Munda languages reflect certain areal norms, but in other ways show features not overly characteristic of South Asian languages. In some ways indeed, Munda languages are reminiscent of their sister languages to the east, despite what has become to believed as a result of the claims of Donegan and Stampe mentioned above. 2.1 Phonemic Inventory of Santali Santali (Ghosh 2008) has a relatively small number of total phonemes, but nevertheless some interesting phonological (and phonetic) phenomena are encountered. The minimal vocalic inventory is as in (6). There are nasalized variants of all the vowels as well. In addition to the basic inventory, there is an allophone of /a/ or phoneme of limited distribution [ə] in both Northern and Southern Santali dialects.

375

overview of the munda languages (6) Santali Vowels i u e ə o ɛ ɔ a

According to Zide (2000: 9), there is a degree of laryngeal tension (phonation type) associated with certain Santali vowels. This gives Santali its characteristic sound. A detailed phonetic study of laryngeal tension in Santali has not yet been done. Santali also has a set of phomemic nasalized vowels. Thus one finds minimal pairs of the following type, contrasting õ and ɔ̃ : (7) Santali arõʈ arɔ̃ ʈ ‘dense’ ‘unsympathetic, filthy’ (Bhattacharya 1975b: 49)

A wide range of diphthongs and triphthongs can be found in Santali. These include ae, eo, ao, ɛo, ɛi, ɛɔ, əi, əu, iu, oe, ɔe ɔi, ui, ea, iə, oa, uə, iəu, eae, oao, etc. (8) Santali iu dʒiu ‘spirit’ (Ghosh 2008: iə niə ‘this very’ 24–25) ĩu nĩuri ‘forest tree’ uə ruə ‘fever’ ea barea ‘two’ oa noa ‘this’ əi ləi ‘to tell’ ɛo hɛo ‘to carry on heap’ əu hiləu ‘to shake’ ae beɽhae ‘round about’ oi moiɖoŋ ‘bald’ oe hoe ‘to be eo heoa ‘to accustom’ ɔe kɔe ‘to ask for’ ui turui ‘six’

tiək’ ‘lead’

iəte ‘because’

ruəɽ ‘to return’ reaɽ ‘cold’ toa ‘milk’ dəi ‘elder sister’ nɛota ‘to invite’ biɖəu ‘to test’ maedʒiu ‘woman’ ɖoi ‘wooden spoon’ hoeo ‘to shave’ eoɽa ‘to wind thread round the spindle’ hɔedak’ ‘thunder  shower’ muiguc’ ‘dirty’

uihar ‘fond remembrance’

Large vowel sequences can also be encountered in Santali, e.g. kɔeaeae ‘he will ask for him’, with six consecutive vowels! Many Munda languages show similar systems of vocalism to that in Santali, albeit not permitting the variety of vowel sequences that Santali allows; see Table 5.1.

376

anderson

Table 5.1

Munda vocalism

Santali Mundari Keraʔ Ho Korku Juang Kharia Sora Gorum Remo Gutob Gtaʔ

a a a a a a a a a a a a

i i i i i i i i i i i i

u u u u u u u u u u u u

o o o o o o o o

o o

e e e e e e e e e e e e

ɔ

ɔ ɔ

ɔ ɔ ɔ

ɛ

ã ã ã ɛ ã ? ã ? ? ã ã ? æ/ɛ ã

ə

aː aː aː

aʔ

aː ? ?

aʔ ? ? aʔ aʔ

ə

ṅ

ɨ

ɨ

? a̰

?

nD

à ? ? ?

ʊ ṅ

nD

ṅ

nD

ɪ

Some varieties Contrastive in Expressives only Marginal in system Loanwords May not be phonemic ṅ = syllabic nasal

Vowel harmony in Santali is morphologically triggered. Some affixes show variants dependent on the nature of the vowel(s) in the stem, while others do not. Harmonic (‘weak’) affixes include the locative –rɛ (oɽak’-re vs. hɔr-rɛ) and allative case -tɛ (oɽak’-te vs. hɔr-tɛ) markers (Bodding 1923: 29), or the third singular agreement marker when found enclitic to the word preceding the verb (9). Non-harmonic (‘strong’) affixes include the transitive aorist marker –ke (10). (9) i. Santali ii. Santali iii. Santali ɛɽɛ=jɛ rɔɽ-a səri=je rɔɽ-a ba=e rɔɽa lie=3 speak-fin truth=3 speak-fin neg=3 speak-fin ‘he tells lies’ ‘he tells the truth’ ‘he won’t speak’ (10) Santali

hə̃ɽũ=i dəɽ-ke-t’-a hanuman=3 run.away-aor-tr-fin ‘the hanuman monkey ran away’ (Bodding 1923: 29)

The consonantal system of Santali recognizes five places of articulation, labial, dental, alveolar-retroflex, palatal, and velar (11). Stops are found at all places, both voiceless and voiced/checked series; phonemic nasals are found only at

377

overview of the munda languages

four (ɳ occurs only as an allophone of n before –ɖ). There is no word-initial **ŋ- or **ɽ- in Santali, though these may be initial in word-medial syllables (see below). (11) Santali Consonants p t ʈ tʃ k b d m n s r, l

ɖ dʒ g ɲ ŋ h ɽ j

Many Munda languages use similar consonantal inventories: Table 5.2 Munda consonantism

Santali Mundari Keraʔ Ho Korku Juang Kharia Sora Gorum Remo

Gutob Gtaʔ

p p p p p p p p p p

b b b b b b b b b b

t t t t t t t t t t

d d d d d d d d

tʃ tʃ tʃ tʃ tʃ tʃ tʃ tʃ s d tʃ, ts, s p b t tʃ, ts p b t ʔ tʃ

dʒ dʒ dʒ dʒ dʒ dʒ dʒ dʒ z z, dz

ʈ ʈ ʈ ʈ ʈ ʈ ʈ

ɖ ɖ ɖ ɖ ɖ ɖ ɖ

k k k k k k k k ʈ ɖ k ʈ ɖ k

g g g g g g g g g g

dz, dʒ dʒ

ʈ? ɖ k g m n ɲ

ŋ r ? l dʒ?

ʈ ɖ k g m n

ŋ r ɽ l j?

Red font = in loan words only (?) Green font = different than in other languages

m m m m m m m m m m

n n n n n n n n n n

ɲ ɲ ɲ [ɲ] ɲ ɲ ɲ ɲ ɲ

ɳ ŋ r ɽ ɳ ŋ r ɽ ? ŋ r ɽ ŋ r ɽ? ɳ ŋ r ɽ ɳ ŋ r ɭ ŋ r ɽ ŋ r ɽ ŋ r ɽ ɳ ŋ r ɽ?

l l l l l l l l l l

j j j? j j j j j j j

? w w? w v, w

h h h h h

s s s s s s w h ? s s w,v s

? w

ʔ √ ʔ ʔ ʔ ʔ √ ʔ ʔ √ ʔ ʔ ʔ

c ʔ

h s ʔ Ch

Blue font = being lost in some speakers Violet font = may be vowel/nucleus feature, not segmental one

The northernmost Munda languages have a characteristic preglottalization or ‘checking’ of some obstruents in word- or morpheme-final coda position. Thus Osada (2008) describes Mundari /b/ and /d/ as [ʔb̥ m], [ʔd̥ n]. Phonetically this entails the following articulatory features: the glottis is closed and the

378

anderson

tongue/the lips simultaneously form oral closure, and when the glottal closure is released, this is optionally followed by nasal release and voicing. Note that in Mundari nasal release occurs only in monosyllabic words: /ub/ ‘hair’ [uʔb̥ m] but /udub/ ‘to tell’ [uduʔb̥ ]; /rid/ ‘to grind’ [riʔd̥ n] but /birid/ ‘to stand up’ [biriʔd̥ ]. Kharia, although taxonomically not North Munda, has been influenced significantly by Kherwarian, in particular Mundari. Thus, Peterson (2008) described plosives in coda position as pre-glottalized. Further, the contrasts between [±voiced] and [±aspirated] are neutralized, likewise the oppositions between dental and retroflex plosives have been neutralized in coda position. Thus one finds /ʔb/ [ʔb˺m], /ʔɖ/ [ʔɖ˺ɳ] and /ʔdʒ/ [ʔɟ˺ɲ] in Kharia. Coda-position /g/ becomes [ʔ], except in recent loanwords. Phonetically Peterson describes these sounds in Kharia as follows: the flow of air is suppressed for production of the plosive, the glottis contracts, producing a glottal stop and before the plosive is released, the glottal stop is released, and air flows through the nasal cavity, producing a homorganic nasal. 2.2 Aspects of Munda Phonology in an Austroasiatic Perspective Among the salient characteristics of the Austroasiatic language phylum is what appears to be the recurrent use of prefixes in nouns, realized as fossilized or historical relics, and often within the curious and characteristic ‘minor syllables’ that typify the languages of this phylum. This sesquisyllabic or weakstrong prosodic word structure is a hallmark of eastern Austroasiatic languages but is usually said to be lacking in the Munda languages. A closer inspection of Munda phonology in particular reveals that there appear to be different types of phonological and morphological word patterns existing in parallel that are found with different attendant types of word and phrasal prosody. Indeed, one such pattern is in fact a pronounced weak-strong phonological word prosody found across Munda that is exactly parallel to the word prosody of many other Austroasiatic groups. This is so strong that one must speak of contrasting phonological and morpho-lexical templates or types of words in Munda languages. Note that this older Austroasiatic pattern carries over to lexically unanalyzable and unitary stems with four syllables in Mundari (Osada 2008: 104), which therefore constitute one morpho-lexical word but two phonological word(s) (or word units) simultaneously. Indeed most Munda languages reflect this distinction between phonological and morphological word prosodies.4 The 4  Note that this is not the same as the obvious mismatch between phonological and morphological words attested in Kherwarian languages with respect to the placement of the subject clitics. As exemplified in section 4 below, the subject clitics of Kherwarian either appear at the end of the verb or preferentially enclitic to the word immediately preceding

overview of the munda languages

379

sequence of weak+strong (or minor+major) syllables in many cases define the phonological word prosody of many Austroasiatic languages, e.g. Khasi (12), and is often referred to as a sesquisyllabic structure. (12) Khasi (minor + major) [Rabel-Heymann 1976: 971) W minor- major

LH

This has its analog in Munda languages as well, e.g. in Kharia (Peterson 2008), who describes a low-high prosodic pattern that defines the phonological word in Kharia, which begisns with a low-tone pitch that gradually rises throughout word. If the word is monosyllabic in Kharia, then we find a rising contour: (13) Kharia rotʃhoʔb ‘side’ [ɾɔ̀.tʃhɔ́ ʔb˺m] laŋ ‘tongue’ [lǎŋ]

Sometimes this contrast appears to have been rephonologized in terms of stress assignment. For example, in Santali (Ghosh 2008), stress is always on the second syllable of a word unless it is monosyllabic, irrespective of whether it is an open or a closed syllable. At almost the furthest point away from Santali in the family, we find Plains Remo (Anderson and Harrison 2008), where stress is always on the second syllable. That is, it is in final position in disyllable words, and otherwise second syllables get primary stress, and every subsequent even numbered syllable gets secondary stress. These tendencies reflect the integrity of this old phono-prosodic word template in the history of Munda languages Further, the endurance of the phono-prosodic word template appears to be have been sufficiently strong and pervasive to act to reconstitute a quasisesqui-syllabic word-structure in certain Gtaʔ (Didey) varieties. Thus, there is evidence in Munda that phonological word domains do not overlap or match up entirely with morphosyntactic words. This mismatch may well reflect a historic periodization or layering within Munda, such that phonological words the verb. This type of mismatch is transparent and restricted to languages of the Kherwarian subgroup, lacking for example in the only non-Kherwarian North Munda language Korku. The type of phonological vs. morphosyntactic mismatch under consideration in this section here is found across the languages of the family.

380

anderson

are more consistent with the Austroasiatic model, and reflect a word-level prosodic structure while morphosyntactic words reflect a phrase-level prosody that brings Munda words more in line with the more morphemically developed languages of South Asia.5 Certain other features of individual Munda languages are reminsicent but as of yet not directly tied diachronically to similar features found in other Austroasiatic languages. Such features would include creaky voice in Gorum (Anderson and Rau 2008), glottalized vowels in Sora, or the development of tone in Korku (Zide 2008). 2.3 Dravidian Influence on Munda Phonology As briefly mentioned above, Dravidian languages have had a profound influence on the Munda languages at multiple levels of analysis. This includes, also, in part, phonological influence. The synchronic system of Santali presents an opposition between voiced and voiceless pairs of retroflex stops (e.g. ʈ:t and ɖ:d). It may be that retroflex ʈ in Munda languages in fact reflects Dravidian (and/or later Indo-Aryan) contact influence or was re-inforced by this, even though there are a very small number of stems that are cognate between various individual Munda languages possessing correspondences of retroflex ʈ. However, these are extremely limited (14): (14) i. NM ‘neck’ *hoʈo’g ii. Gorum kaʈi ‘rat sp.’ Ho kaʈia ‘big house rat’ (Bhattacharya 1975a: 84)

Other retroflex sounds are also relatively infrequent in the Munda languages, and are not thought to be part of the phonemic system of the Proto-Munda language. Thus, ɭ is quite rare, ɽ often appears as an intervocalic variant of -ɖ-, and ɳ is also not particularly common. However, like ʈ, there are correspondences of ɳ in the various modern Munda languages in cognate vocabulary items in certain lexical elements that appear to have a Munda origin, and others that do not. Again, the presence of retroflex liquids and nasals may ultimately reflect Dravidian influence in the Munda languages.

5  Thus Donegan and Stampe seem to be focusing on the level of morphological or phrasal prosody and not word-internal or phonological prosody in their studies. One consequence of this is that there is no rhythmic holism that affects all levels of the language as they assume, but rather there are competing levels of rhythm or prosody and different sub-systems related to these.

overview of the munda languages

3

381

Munda Nominal Morphology

The highly important discussion on whether Munda languages recognize distinct parts of speech notwithstanding (see Bhat 1997, Evans and Osada 2005 for an overview of the issues), it is descriptionally convenient to recognize nominal and verbal subsystems morphosyntactically in Munda, and this presentation operates under this assumption. The nominal systems of the various Munda languages present a historically complicated picture. The inflectional and derivational categories realized in the nominal system include animacy, number, case, and a range of denominal and deverbal formants. In addition, Munda languages reflect to varying degrees an archaic and complex system of deriving free-standing forms of nouns from corresponding roots. 3.1 Animate and Inanimate Noun Classes In many Munda languages there is at least a covert distinction between animate and inanimate nouns, primarily reflecting a natural gender classification, that is living entities are animate and almost everything else belongs to the inanimate group. However, as is typical of languages with an animate/ inanimate distinction, there are a small number of culturally important or significant inanimate entities (e.g. Santali ɲindatʃãdo ‘moon’, ipil ‘star’, dʒənum ‘thorn’, ɛ̃rgɔt’ ‘ear-wax’, putul ‘doll’) which belong to the animate class (Ghosh 1994: 40–41). The animate/inanimate distinction in Santali is not marked on non-derived (i.e. root) nouns at all, but rather this is marked morphosyntactically through such means as the differing genitive case forms for animate and inanimate nouns, the lack of locative and allative case forms for animate nouns, or the triggering (or not) of particular types of verb agreement. 3.2 Infixation Santali, like many Munda languages, makes use of a range of derivational infixes to form both deverbal and less commonly denominal nouns as well. Thus, in various stems one finds such derivational infixes as -tV-, -nV-, -mV-, -pV-, and -ɽV-. The infixed formant –tV- (with –V- representing a copy of the root vowel), is a relatively common means of marking abstract deverbal nouns. Note that with polysyllabic stems, the copied stem vowel can either be the vowel of the first vowel or the second vowel of the stem. Compare the forms meaning ‘beginning’ and ‘excess’ below, with the second and first vowel copied, respectively.

382 (15) Santali

anderson i. bɔr ‘fear (v)’ > bɔtɔr ‘fear (n)’ ii. rɔk’ ‘sew’ > rɔtɔk’ ‘seam’ iii. ɲum ‘name (v)’ > ɲutum ‘name (n)’ iv. ɛhɔp’ ‘begin’ > ɛtɔhɔp’ ‘beginning’ v. sarɛtʃ’ ‘exceed’ > satarɛtʃ’ ‘excess’

The pan-Munda derivational infix in –nV- is found in a number of forms, generally with an instrumental type meaning. (16) Santali

i. dʒɔk’ ‘sweep’ > dʒɔnɔk’ ‘broom’ ii. rakap’ ‘rise, ascend’ > ranakap’ ‘up, development’ iii. gotʃ˙’ ‘kill’ > gonotʃ˙’ ‘killing’ iv. dapal ‘cover’ > danapal ‘lid’

South Munda languages also frequently use the instrumental infix in –n-. (17) Sora (Ramamurti 1931)

dʒoʔ ‘sweep’ > dʒənoʔ ‘broom’

The –n- infix is an extremely old feature in the family, found, for example, in virtually every subgroup of Austroasiatic. (18) Khasi (Henderson 1976: 517–8) shong ‘sit, dwell’ > shnong ‘village’ her ‘fly’ > sner ‘feather, wing’ (19) Bahnar (Banker 1964)

pǎr ‘fly’

> pənǎr ‘wing’

(20) Khmer (Huffman 1970: 315)

cuəl ‘rent v.’ siət ‘insert’

> cnuəl ‘rent n.’ > sniət ‘wedge’

(21) Mon (Nai Pan Hla 1976: 906) cù ‘rest’ - hənù ‘resting place’

sāl ‘spread’ > snāl ‘mat’

3.3 Case Prefixes Most Munda languages also make use of nominal case to mark a range of categories. Grammatical object[ive] case was originally only with pronouns, and marked by a prefix in Munda. This state of affairs is reflected in such South Munda languages as Gorum, Gutob, Gtaʔ. In others, this has been extended to include all nouns, for example in Remo or Sora.

overview of the munda languages

383

(22) Gorum maŋ e-niŋ mo-dʒel-l-in you obj-I 2-tell-pst-1 ‘you told (to) me’ (Bhattacharya 1975a: 161) (23)

Gutob o-nom o-maj əbsois-o-niŋ obj-you obj-he show-tr.pst-1 ‘I showed him to you’ (Bhattacharya 1975a: 164)

(24) Gtaʔ me a-niŋ bug-ke he obj-1 beat-pst ‘he beat me’ (Bhattacharya 1975a: 166) (25) Sora kuni a-tarbaɲ-dʒi a-manɖra tija those obj-flower-pl obj-man give.imp ‘give those flowers to the man’ (Bhattacharya 1975a: 162) (26)

Remo a-joŋ-ɖeŋ sun-oʔ obj-mother-refl tell-tr.pst ‘he told his mother’ (Bhattacharya 1975a: 165)

A cognate case prefix (marking dative of pronouns) is found in various other Austroasiatic languages as well, e.g. Pacoh (Bahnaric). (27) Pacoh ʔa-maj ʔa-ɲaŋ dat-2sg dat-1du ‘to you’ ‘to us two’ (Alves 2006: 31)

Note that North Munda languages generally use suffixes in objective/grammatical (and local/directional/instrumental, see below) case functions, as is typical

384

anderson

of South Asian languages. Indeed, in Ho the optional object-marking element –ke appears to be an Indo-Aryan loan (Anderson et al. 2008; Pucilowski 2013). Similar borrowing of an objective case suffix in -ke is also found in certain Gtaʔ varieties (Anderson 2008a). 3.4 Case Suffixes/Enclitics A suffixal or enclitic case element commonly occurring in various Munda languages is a locative or directional element in –bo(ʔ). This is found primarily in South Munda languages, but in various disparate branches. (28) Remo gari-bo road-loc ‘on the road’ (29) i. Gutob aspatal-boʔ ui-gi-nin ɖu-gu hospital-loc go-intr.pst-1 aux-intr.pst ‘I had gone to the hospital’ (Hook 1991: 186) ii. Gutob biroŋ-bo(ʔ) ui-na jungle-loc go-cond ‘if you go to the jungle’ (Bhattacharya 1975a)

Note that in Juang, in addition to directional and locational, semantics, with certain nouns, -bo has acquired instrumental semantics as well. (30) i. Juang ii. Juang bilɔ-bo nui-bo paddy.field-loc river-loc in the paddy field’ ‘to the river’ (Bhattacharya 1975a)

iii. Juang semɔr-bo knife-loc ‘with a knife’

3.5 Santali Demonstratives Santali has a complicated demonstrative system (Zide 1972). Its basic three-way system is a straightforward proximal, distal, remote system coming in animate (-i/kin/ko) and inanimate forms (-a/-akin/-ako) [singular, dual, and plural].

overview of the munda languages

385

(31) Proximal Distal Remote sg dl pl sg dl pl sg dl pl anim nui nukin noko/nuku uni unkin onko/unku hani hankin hanko inan noa noakin noako ona onakin onako hana hanakin hanako ‘this’ ‘these 2’ ‘these’ ‘that’ ‘those 2’ ‘those’ ‘that/those (2) yonder’ ‘these’  

Alongside of these are intensive forms (32) (marked by infixation of –k’-), exclusive or identificational focus or ‘just’ forms (33) (marked by a shift of (o/ u>)-i-), as well as perceptual forms which add connotations of ‘things seen’ and ‘things heard’ (34). (32) Intensives nuk’ui ‘this very one’ nik’i ‘just this very one’ nɔk’ɔdʒ ‘this very thing’ (33) anim inan

‘Just’ ‘Just’ Proximal Distal sg dl pl sg dl pl nii nikin neko/niku ini inkin enko/inku nia niakin niako ina inakin inako ‘just this’ ‘just these 2’ ‘just these’ ‘just that’ ‘just those (2)’

(34) ‘Seen’ ‘Seen’ ‘Heard’ Distal Remote Distal sg dl pl sg dl pl sg dl pl ɔnɛ ɔnɛkin ɔnɛko hanɛ hanɛkin hanɛko ɔtɛ ɔtɛkin ɔtɛko ‘that seen’ ‘those (2) ‘that yonder ‘those (2) yonder ‘that heard’ ‘those (2) heard’  seen’  

3.6 Munda Numerals Zide (1978) has written about the various sub-systems of numerals in the Munda languages, so little will be offered here. Higher numbers are generally loans, predominantly from local Indo-Aryan varieties, and lower numbers may be loans as well in individual languages. A representative set of numerals from various Santali and Gtaʔ (both archaic in this regard) is offered here.

386

anderson

(35) Santali Gtaʔ ‘1’ mit’ m-mwiŋ ‘2’ bar(ea) mbar ‘3’ pɛ(a) ndʒi ‘4’ pon(ea) ɔ̃ ‘5’ mɔ̃ ɽɛ̃ malwe ‘6’ turui tur ‘7’ eae gu ‘8’ iral tma ‘9’ arɛ/e sɔ̃ tiŋ ‘10’ gɛl gwa

Most Munda languages have a base-10 or combined base-10/base-20 numeral system. Sora has a curious base-12/base-20 system. Thus, in Sora ‘twelve’ is migel (which includes the root for ‘ten’ within it), while ‘thirteen’ is migelboj literally [12-1], ‘fifteen’ is migeljagi [12-3], etc. ‘Twenty’ is bokuri literally [1-20] and 32 is literally [(1-20)-12] or bokuri migel and ‘thirty-three’ is bokuri migelboj [(1-20)-12-1], ‘sixty-five’ is jakuri migeljagi [(3-20)-12-3] and so on. 4

Overview of Munda Verbal Systems

The verbal systems of the Munda languages represent the most complicated and diverse grammatical sub-system. A wide range of categories are realized in the verbal form of the attested Munda languages and the various reconstructed proto-languages. These include such categories as voice, valence, tense, aspect, and mood, subject and object, negation, and affectedness. In addition, a wide range of complex predicate structures are found in the various modern Munda languages. 4.1 TAM, Voice and Valence Categories in Munda The tense-aspect systems of the attested Munda languages present a historically complicated picture. As is the case with many languages from across the globe, the categories of tense and aspect are often intimately connected in the Munda languages; frequently elements are grammaticalized first in a particular aspectual meaning and then shift to more generalized tense functions. In the vast majority of the Munda languages, there is some formal opposition or contrast between two inflectional series, conventionally referred to as transitive/active and intransitive/middle markers. This contrast may be

overview of the munda languages

387

achieved through either separate transitive and intransitive series of tense markers as in the majority of South Munda languages or through a single tense/aspect marker augmented by a consistent marker of (in)transitivity in the North Munda languages. To be sure, the history of tense/aspect markers is one of the most vexing, complex, and outstanding problems in the diachrony of the verbal systems of the Munda language family. See Anderson (2007, Chapter 4) for more details. In North Munda languages the intransitive marker is *-n-. It occupies the same position in the verb template as does the transitivity marker in *-d-, that is, it immediately follows the (tense/)aspect markers. (36) i. Bhumij dʒom-ke-n-a-iŋ eat-asp-intr-fin-1 ‘I was eating’, ‘I ate’ ii. Mundari suku-le-n-a-ko happy-asp-intr-fin-pl ‘they had been happy’

iii. Mundari diku=ɲ itu-a-n-a Hindi=1 teach-ben-intr-fin ‘I have been taught Hindi’

The North Munda intransitive marker in *-n- similarly has reflexes in southern Munda languages, in particular in Sora and Gorum (i.e. in Proto-Sora-Gorum), and differently in Juang. Here, as in the North Munda languages, it is used in a wide range of constructions marking not only intransitive, as well as various types of detransitive categories (passive, middle, reflexive). Note, for example, the varied uses of -n- in the following Sora forms: (37) i. Sora ii. Sora ab-uma-dəm-te-n-a:i tid-dəm-te-n caus-wash-refl-npst-intr-1 beat-refl-npst-intr ‘I’ll get myself washed’ ‘he beats himself’ (Ramamurti 1931: 29) (Ramamurti 1931: 26) iii. Sora so:-te-n-a:i ‘hide-npst-intr-1 ‘I’ll hide myself’ (Ramamurti 1931: 26)

388

anderson

(38) i. Sora ii. Sora bɔndi-lɛ-n-dʒi-a-tiki ran-n-e:ten lock.up-pst-intr-pl-attr-after’ crush-intr-3.pst ‘after he was locked up’ ‘it was crushed’ (Starosta 1967: 228) (Ramamurti 1931: 39) (39) i. Sora ii. Sora al-kaɲ-te-n-dʒi al-ber-te-n-dʒi recp-abuse-npst-intr-pl recp-talk-npst-intr-pl ‘they are abusing each other’ ‘they are conversing with each other’ (Pinnow 1966: 114) (Ramamurti 1931: 61)

Note that as in North Munda languages, the passive often carries a potential meaning as well in Sora, that is, ‘can be Xed’. (40) Sora mo:-te-n swallow-npst-intr ‘it can be swallowed’ (Ramamurti 1931: 26)

The Sora intransitive/detransitive marker (-n-) may even mark actions that are slow, difficult to accomplish, or even progressive or on-going; in other words, categories which cluster around a notion of ‘low transitivity’ (Hopper and Thompson 1980). (41) i. Sora ii. Sora bəru-n ber-te-n ‘hill.field-intr talk-npst-intr ‘cultivate/make a hill-field’ ‘he talks’ (Starosta 1967: 152) (Ramamurti 1931: 26) iii. Sora anin dolba-tɛ vs. he clear.field-npst ‘he will clear the field’ (Starosta 1967: 152)

iv. Sora anin dolba-te-n he clear.field-npst-intr ‘he is clearing the field’ (Starosta 1967: 152)

overview of the munda languages

389

In Juang, the intransitive or class-II past tense/aspect marker is –an, which historically includes the *-n marker: (42) Juang arɔki uru-nɔm-an-ki they red:drink-prog-pst.ii-pl ‘they were drinking’ (Matson 1964)

The transitive/past element is also found in North Munda and in Juang. In Kherwarian languages, the etymological transitive past form has mainly lost its past tense meaning, and now functions primarily as a marker of transitivity, except in Jhanrkhandi Ho as described by Pucilowski (2013), where the original past tense meaning is maintained in certain forms (e.g., those marked by the applicative). (43)

Ho ĩjel aparob-ko=ɲ em-a-ɖ-me-ja feather wing-pl=1 give-appl-tr-2-fin ‘I gave you feathers and wings’ (Pucilowski 2013: 160) {NB: orthography slightly altered from original where j = y}

(44) Santali əgu hɔ’t-ke-’t-ko-a=e bring aux-aor-tr-pl-fin=3 ‘he brought them quickly’ (Bodding 1929: 277)

Several southern Munda languages (Juang, Remo, Kharia, Gutob) have a cognate element functioning as the transitive or class-I/active past form, as in the following Gutob form: (45) Gutob niŋ biɽ-oʔ-niŋ I sow-pst.ii-1 ‘I sowed (it, i.e., the field)’ (Field Notes)

390

anderson

That these two elements are most likely etymologically connected can be seen in such correspondences as the word meaning ‘eye’ in Gutob and Santali. (46) Gutob mɔʔ

Santali mɛ’t

‘eye’

4.2 Subject and Object Encoding Both a set of subject proclitics and object suffixes need to be reconstructed for Proto-Munda, for first and second person. Third person dual/plural forms were invariably marked by suffixes, if at all;6 third singular is always unmarked in southern Munda but marked in Kherwarian. Korku lacks subject marking on verbs, being found only in the locative copula formation with third person non-singular subjects (Zide 2008). For Proto-South-Munda, both subject prefixes and object suffixes may be reconstructed relatively straightforwardly, based on correspondences between Juang and Gorum. (47) i. Juang ii. Juang iii. Juang mɛ-dʒɔ-ki-ɲ ni-kib-tan ba-ama-gito-ke 2-see-pres.tr-1 1pl-do-cond 1dl-neg-sing-pres.tr ‘you see me’ ‘if we do (it)’ ‘we two don’t sing’ (Matson 1964: 35) (Matson 1964: 35) (Matson 1964: 53) (48) i. Gorum ii. Gorum mo-taʔj-iŋ ne-aʔj-t-om 2-give-1 1-splash-npst-2 ‘you gave me’ ‘I will splash you’ (Aze 1973: 249) (Aze 1973: 250)

The North Munda languages present a slightly different and more complicated picture. Object marking is found in all the attested North Munda languages, and presumably was characteristic of Proto-North Munda as well. (49)

Korku kul-kiɲ-bà send-3dl- fin ‘sends them 2’ (N. Zide, field notes)

6  Note that the object suffixes themselves in pre-Proto-Munda may have originally been possessive markers.

391

overview of the munda languages (50) i. Santali Kumbɽəbad-te=ko əgu-ke-‘t-le-a pn-loc=3pl bring-asp-tr-1pl-fin ‘they brought us to Kumbraba’ (Bodding 1929: 208)

ii. Santali iii. Santali laga-ɲ-kan-a=e kɔe-e-a=e drive.away-1-prog-fin=3 ask-3-fin=3 ‘he is driving me away’ ‘he will ask him’ (Bodding 1923: 25) (Bodding 1923: 18)

The correspondences between Proto-South Munda and Proto-North-Munda object suffixes suggest that these should be reconstructed all the way back to the Proto-Munda ancestor language (Anderson 2007). The history of subject marking in the Munda languages is slightly trickier to explicate. One of the noteworthy aspects of subject marking in the Kherwarian languages (and Proto-Kherwarian and perhaps Proto-North-Munda as well) is that the subject markers are preferentially attached to the word immediately preceding the verb; see examples in (51–3). (51) i. Mundari (52) i. Santali hola Ranchi-te=ŋ sen-ke-n-a hɛ̃ iɲ=iɲ tʃala’k-a yesterday pn-all=1 go-asp-intr-fin yes I=1 go-fin ‘yesterday I went to Ranchi’ ‘yes I will go’ (Cook 1965: 228) (Bodding 1929: 58) ii. Mundari ii. Santali ka=ko dʒom-ke-d-a alo=m ləi-a-e-a neg=3pl eat-asp-tr-fin prohb-2 tell-ben-3-fin ‘they didn’t eat (it)’ ‘don’t tell him’ (Osada 1992: 39) (Bodding 1929: 81) (53) Mayurbhanj Ho okonde=m dʒonom-le-n-a where=2 born-tam-intr-fin ‘where were you born?’ (Field Notes [KCN])

Note that this is not a mere Wackernagel second position clitic, as it is always on the word immediately preceding the verb that the subject is indexed on, regardless of that word’s position in the clause. Most striking in this regard is the fact that the immediately pre-verbal subject agreement markers will even appear on an overt subject pronoun, if that happens to be the word in the appropriate position (52i). If there is no preceding word, and optionally in as yet to be determined conditions when there are preceding words, the subject marker may appear enclitic to the verb itself

392

anderson

(54) Mayurbhanj Ho mandi dʒom-ke-ɖ-a=m rice eat-tam-tr-fin-2 ‘you ate rice’ (Field Notes [CMH]) (55) i. Santali ii. Santali ir-ke-t’-ta-e-a=ko sɛn-otʃo-daɽe-a-e-a=ɲ cut-asp-tr-poss-3-fin=3pl go-caus-abil-ben-3-fin=1 ‘they have cut his (paddy)’ ‘I let/made him come’ (Bodding 1929: 182–183)

In emphatic discourse, both strategies may be employed simultaneously, as in the following Ho example: (56) Mayurbhanj Ho abu hotel-te=bu senoʔ-tan-a=bu we hotel-abl=1pl go-prog-fin=1pl ‘we are going to/from the hotel’ [CMH]

However, unlike the indicative where subject was marked prefixally and object suffixally, the order was probably Verb-obj-subj in the Proto-Munda transitive imperative, as this pattern is found in both Sora and Ho for example. (57) Sora (58) i. Ho ii. Ho ti’-iɲ-ba eto-ɲ-me dʒom-e-ben give-1–2pl teach-1–2 eat-inan-2dl ‘give (it) to me (you-pl)’ ‘teach me!’ ‘eat it you-2!’ (Ramamurti 1931: 141) (Deeney 1979: 18) (Deeney 1979: 14)

4.3 Negation in Munda Verbal Morphology Negative in Kherwarian is generally expressed by a preverbal negative particle which serves as host for the subject clitics. (59) i. Santali ii. Santali ba=ko sap’-le-d-e-a alo=m ləi-a-e-a neg=3pl catch-asp-tr-3-fin proh=2 tell- appl-3-fin ‘they did not catch him’ ‘don’t tell him’ (Bodding 1929: 212) (Bodding 1929: 81)

There are two negative prefixes or particles that are commonly found in the South Munda verb systems, namely *a(r)- and *əm-. Both negative markers are

393

overview of the munda languages

used in Gorum and Juang, while phonological changes make it impossible to determine which (i.e., either or both) or whether (i.e., neither) of these are found in Gtaʔ. Gutob and Juang also both show stem reduplication plus a negative copula in the negative present (habitual, durative) or at least in some forms anyway of this. (60) i. Gorum ii. Gorum buboŋ-di or-orʔiŋ-tuʔ or-alam baby-foc neg-walk-npst neg-touch ‘the baby can’t walk’ ‘don’t touch’ (Aze 1973) (Aze 1973) (61) i. Juang aɲ koŋ~koŋ I red~know ‘I don’t know’ (Mahapatra & Matson 1962-ms)

iii. Gorum ambu alam proh touch ‘don’t touch’ (Aze 1973)

ii. Juang dʒena ba-ama-gito-ke dʒena neg.cop 1dl-neg-sing-pres.tr neg.cop ‘we 2 don’t know’ (Matson 1964)

iii. Juang ar-aitog-ki-ki dʒena neg-scratch-pres.tr-pl neg.cop ‘they aren’t/won’t be scratching’ (Pinnow 1960-ms.) (62) i. Gtaʔ ii. Gtaʔ n-ár-aʔtʃoŋ-ke n-á-tʃoŋ 1-neg-feed-pst 1-neg-eat ‘I didn’t feed (s.o.)’ ‘I won’t/wouldn’t eat’ (Mahapatra et al. 1989) (Mahapatra et al. 1989) (63)

iii. Gtaʔ tʃ~tʃoŋ n-á-ɖiŋ red~eat 1-neg-aux ‘I won’t be eating’ (Mahapatra et al. 1989)

Gutob se~ser uraʔ/orodʒ red~sing neg.cop ‘doesn’t sing’ (N. Zide field notes; Griffiths 2008)

Some unexpected quirks in the interaction of negative encoding in various TAM forms are encountered in the southernmost Munda languages. Thus, the prohibitive in Gutob and Remo–and, marked in a formally different manner, in Gtaʔ–consists of the negative prefix combined with the use of a past tense morpheme, e.g. *ar-Verb-gɨ or *ar-Verb-ɔʔ. In addition, the negative forms of

394

anderson

past tenses in Gutob-Remo seems to have used the negative prefix in combination with non-past suffixes, e.g. *ar-Verb-tV. This *ar-Verb-tV is realized as Gutob ar-Verb-to. (64) i. Gutob ii. Gutob iii. Gutob iv. Gutob ar-ser-gu se~ser ar-ɖu-gu ar-ser-a ar-ser-to neg-sing-past.intr red-sing neg-aux-pst.intr neg-sing-neg.fut neg-sing-neg.pst ‘don’t sing’ ‘don’t be singing’ ‘won’t sing’ ‘didn’t sing’ (N. Zide field notes) (N. Zide field notes) (N. Zide field notes) (N. Zide field notes)

4.4 Munda Complex Predicate Structures Complex predicates are pervasive in Munda clause structure, as they are throughout the languages of South Asia. The inflectional and syntactic structure of complex predicates in Munda languages generally show the typical SOV clausal constituent order found in almost all language groups of the region. As such, it is not surprising that most complex predicates in Munda consist of two verbal elements, verb one of which generally has a lexical function and verb two of which usually contributes functional or grammatical semantics to the formation. Such a Verb1+Verb2 formation where one element is lexical and the other functional has been called an auxiliary verb construction [AVC] (Anderson 2006, 2011). The standard pattern found in many Munda languages consists of a construction-specific non-finite dependent form of the verb followed by a finite fully inflected form of the auxiliary verb, and this pattern is found across all of the major language families of the region. The specific form that the lexical verb appears in includes a range of nominalized or adverbial dependent forms called, depending on the language, tradition and construction, infinitive, participle, converb, nominal, supine, etc. (65) Lexical Verb Auxiliary Verb

Munda languages show several characteristic patterns within the aux-headed sub-type of AVC marked by a dependent or non-finite form of the lexical verb. In the Gutob-Remo subgroup (Anderson 2001), some AVCs require the lexical verb to be in a past participle form (that looks like a partially inflected past tense form). (66) Lexical verb Auxiliary Verb

overview of the munda languages

395

This comes in two morphs, differentiated for the two verbal classes found in these languages which are variously described as encoding a middle vs. active or intransitive vs. transitive distinction or more neutrally as class-I vs. class-II, as seen in the following forms from Remo and Gutob. (67) Remo Gutob baɖ-oʔ suŋ-oʔ -niŋ golgolte gai-gi ui-to slap-pst.ii.prtcpl aux-pst.ii-1 smoothly enter-pst.ptcp aux-hab ‘I finished slapping’ ‘smoothly it goes in.’ (Hook 1991: 185) (Fernandez 1983) (69)

Kharia kol-ob-ɲoʔ-ɖom-dhab-na laʔ-ki-kijar recp-caus-eat-pass-quickly-inf ipfv-pst:intr-3dl ‘they two were being fed by each other quickly’ (Malhotra 1982: 357)

In such Munda languages as Gtaʔ and Remo, there is another participle or converb form that serves as a dependent or non-finite form of the lexical verb in other formally distinct aux-headed AVCs in these languages. This non-finite form is marked by C1- reduplication (copy of only the initial consonant) in Gtaʔ (71) and in C1ə-/C1V1- reduplication in Remo (72). (70) Lexical verb AuxiliaryVerb (71)

Gtaʔ tʃ~tʃoŋ n-ɖiŋ-e red~eat 1-perf-fut ‘I will eat’ (Mahapatra et al. 1989)

(72) Remo niŋ nsuɽaʔ su~sum ɖen-t-iŋ I banana red~eat aux-npst-1 ‘I am eating a banana’ [Field Notes; SDM]

Note that there is a cognate auxiliary verb involved in these formations that require the lexical verb to appear in this reduplicated non-finite form in these two Munda languages, despite the fact that the meaning of the AVCs that they are grammaticalized within differs across the two languages, encoding future in Gtaʔ, but progressive in Remo.

396

anderson

Stucturally similar complex verb forms deriving from the fusing of an auxheaded AVC can be found in Juang (74) as well, where the original lexical verb stem appears in the non-finite reduplicated form required by the original AVC. (73) redupl-Verb-tam i -tam j (-subj) < *redupl-Lexical Verb+Auxiliary Verb-tam j -(subj) (74) Juang aiɲ dʒɛ’g~dʒɛ’g-nɔm-an I red~cry-prog-pst.intr ‘I was weeping’ (Pinnow 1960-ms: 122)

Morphologically complex verb forms deriving from AVCs in which the lexical verb appeared in a reduplicated form can be found in Sora and Kharia with a formally but not functionally cognate element, encoding frequentative in Sora, and continuous in Kharia. (75)

Sora (76) gu~gu-lo:-te-n red~call-freq-npst-intr ‘he calls (me) frequently’ (Ramamurti 1931: 28)

Kharia gam~gam-loʔ-ki-maj red~talk-cont-pst.i-pl ‘they kept in talking’ (Malhotra 1982: 145)

Another aux-headed AVC pattern that is a family-level characteristic found in the Munda languages is one in which the construction-specific form of the lexical verb is an unmarked or Ø-marked bare stem form, followed by an inflected auxiliary. Such an AVC is found across the Munda language family, including Gtaʔ or Santali. (77) Lexical Verb Auxiliary Verb (78) i. Gtaʔ tʃoŋ n-læʔ-ge eat-1-prog-pst.i ‘I was eating’ (Mahapatra et al. 1989)

ii. Gtaʔ iii. Gtaʔ tʃoŋ n-á-læʔ-ke knweʔ-ɽæ gweʔ we-ge eat 1-neg-aux-pst wife-3 die aux-pst.i ‘I hadn’t eaten’ ‘his wife had died’ (Mahapatra/Zide tx 2;  Hook 1991: 184)

397

overview of the munda languages (79) i. Santali dʒɔm =baɽa-ke-t’-a-ko eat =aux-aor-tr-fin-pl ‘they are done eating’ (Bodding 1929: 277)

ii. Santali əgu =hɔt’-ke-t’-ko-a-e bring =aux-aor-tr-pl-fin-3 ‘he brought them quickly’

In Kherwarian languages, one entire series of inflections, called Series-II by Anderson (2007), likely reflects this kind of pattern historically, where the original lexical verb appeared in an unmarked form (as in the Santali forms above), and the original auxiliary was fully inflected. Such is the case for example in the following forms from Mayurbhanj Ho: (80) i. Mayurbhanj Ho okonde=m dʒonom-le-n-a where=2 born-tam-intr-fin ‘where were you born?’ (Field Notes [KCN])

ii. Mayurbhanj Ho mandi dʒom-ke-ɖ-a=m rice eat-tam-tr-fin=2 ‘you ate rice’ (Field Notes [CMH])

One last Munda complex predicate structure needs to be mentioned here. In Gorum (81) (and Gutob) there are formations where both the auxiliary verb and the lexical verb are found in fully finite forms. (81) i. Gorum (Parengi) miŋ ne-gaʔ-ru ne-laʔ-ru I 1-eat-pst 1-aux-pst ‘I ate vigorously’ (Aze 1973: 279)

ii. Gorum (Parengi) miŋ ne-adaʔ-ruʔ ne-k-ruʔ I 1-thirst-pst:aff 1-aux-pst:aff ‘I was thirsty’ (Aze 1973: 296)

Note that while aux-headed formations are more common than doubled inflection in Gutob, Gorum stands out among the Munda languages for its preference for doubly inflected AVCs of this type. As such formations are found in the South-Central and Central Dravidian languages spoken in this same region where Gorum and Gutob are found (82), in the case of Gutob in the same villages, and originally not in the Munda languages probably, it is likely that this doubled inflectional pattern in AVCs is the result of diffusion or borrowing from Dravidian into Munda (Anderson 2003). (82) Muria Gondi punno-n ata-n know:neg-1 aux:pfv-1 ‘I didn’t know’ (Steever 1997: 290–1)

398

anderson

Indeed, complex predicate structure in Munda languages in general is one domain in which these languages likely do reflect convergence with South Asian areal norms. In addition to the aux-headed pattern with reduplicated or bare stem forms of the lexical verb found in the Munda languages mentioned above and the doubled pattern just exemplified, one other inflectional patterns found in South Asian languages should be mentioned here, which represents one of the two cross-linguistically common types of inflectional splits found in AVCs (Anderson 2006). The first pattern has a structure where negative is marked exclusively on the lexical verb and subject exclusively on the auxiliary. Such a formation is found in Remo (84) but is especially common in Kiranti Tibeto-Burman languages like Camling (83) of Nepal. (83)

Camling mi-tim ŋas-i-e neg-meet aux-1pl-npst ‘we have not met’ (Ebert 2003b: 541)

(84) Remo a-sap ɖen-gi-t-iŋ neg-come prog-pst.ptcp-npst-1 ‘I have not been coming’ (Fernandez 1983)

One type of complex predicate structure found in individual Munda languages that does have analogs in other Austroasiatic languages are the deictic serial verb constructions of the following type found in Gtaʔ, where sequences of two or three verbs concatenated in a nuclear serial structure are common in discourse. Often one verb is ‘go’ which indeed appears in both its full form [we-] and a clipped serial form [e-] in these constructions: (85) i. Gtaʔ t~tar-tʃe mmwiŋ slaʔ alo we-tʃe e-rsiŋ-har-ke red~come.out-ss one tree under go-ss go-assemble-pl-pst ‘they came out and then went under a tree and assembled’ ii. Gtaʔ sela-Mboeʔ huŋ-ɖæ-ke bæ-ke “ɖe bobo muta girl=f child-3.refl-obj` send-pst voc child water.jug e-dʒog-raŋ-la ldʒo læʔ-ke ɖaktʃe basoŋ-ke go-pick-bring-imp field cop-pst quot say-tam ‘he sent his daughter, saying “go, my child, and get the jug and bring it back; it got left back at the fields”’

For more on these formations in Gtaʔ see Anderson (2007, 2008a).

399

overview of the munda languages

4.5 Nominal Combining Forms in Sora Noun incorporation is a characteristic feature of several southern Munda languages, especially Sora. Noun incorporation in Munda usually is a stemforming process uniting a semantically ‘verbal’ or predicative element with a semantically ‘nominal’ argument element into an inflectable verb stem, in the order V+N. The form of the noun that is incorporated is the so-called ‘combining form’, usually the CV(C) root. The actual free-standing form of the noun is derived from this root or ‘combining form’ by one of several different means, including prefixation, compounding, infixation, or reduplication. Each of these are exemplified in the table below (Table 5.3): Table 5.3 Derivational Relationships in Combining Forms and Free-Forms in Sora Full Form

Combining Form

Gloss

Means of Derivation

əleb əsoŋ kinsod kəmbud ontid usal gorzaŋ saŋsaŋ tudʒtudʒ dʒeʔeŋ raʔa

-əleb -soŋ -sod -bud -tid -sal -zaŋ -saŋ -tudʒ -dʒeŋ -ra

‘wild-goat’ ‘dung’ ‘dog’ ‘bear’ ‘bird’ ‘skin’ ‘village’ ‘turmeric’ ‘star’ ‘leg’ ‘elephant’

-ə < *N-(n -ə < *N*kVn*kVn*on*u*gor+ RED RED -ʔ-ʔ-

(Starosta 1992: 85–86; Ramamurti 1931: 69ff.)

For some examples of verbs with combining forms incorporated in Sora and other Munda languages, see below. 5

Overview of Munda Syntax

All of the modern Munda languages show a fairly rigid verb-final order. The comparative method suggests then that APV order should be reconstructed to the Proto-Munda ancestral tongue.

400

anderson

(86) Korku iɲdʒ dukana:-ʈen sa:kar sa~sa:-bà I store-abl sugar red~bring-fin ‘I will bring sugar from the shop’ (Nagaraja 1999: 71)

Indirect/Primary Objects usually precede direct objects or themes in most of the Munda languages: (87)

Remo a-niŋ ɖaʔtɔr a-beʔ-tɔ-nɔ-ki obj-I milk neg-give-fut.ii-2-q ‘will you give me milk or not’ (Bhattacharya 1968)

Despite the dominance of SV/APV order in the modern Munda languages, the question arises as to whether pre-Proto-Munda was in fact AVP ~ VAP as is found in most of its sister language families. This is a result of both external/ comparative and internal evidence. The external evidence comes from the fact that the cognate Austroasiatic languages, like Khasi, Khmer, or Bahnar primarily show AVP order, with VAP order found in other Austroasiatic languages, especially in Nicobarese and some other languages, if these languages have syntactically determined order at all. The internal evidence for possible non-APV order in earlier stages of the Munda language family comes from noun incorporation. Here we find the order of elements VN (88), not NV as might be expected in an original APV language. Noun incorporation is an old feature in Munda, with cognates in other languages, e.g. Nicobarese, where the combining forms of the nouns are cognate (but not the free-forms), and these likewise appear in a VN configuration (89). (88)

Remo Gtaʔ Sora guiti (næŋ) mbæʔsiaʔ gweʔ-ti-ke le:m-si-t-am wash.hand I left wash-hand-pst bow-hand-npst-2 ‘wash hand’ ‘I washed my left hand’ ‘I bow to your hands’

Kharia Juang gutʃte gutʃti wash.hand wash.hand ‘wash hand’ ‘wash hands’ (Anderson 2007)

overview of the munda languages

401

cf. (89) Nicobarese təŋ ‘reach; up to’ təŋtataj ‘reach for’ (cf. təŋ/nta ‘reach at’) (Radhakrishnan 1981: 106)

5.1 Switch Reference in Gtaʔ Gtaʔ has grammaticalized the use of switch reference in its complex clause structure. In addition, Gtaʔ narrative style reflects the areally typical use of head-to-tail linkage, with copying of the finite verb of a preceding clause in a non-finite form at the beginning of the following clause. Both of these systems interact in Gtaʔ (Anderson 2007, 2008a, Anderson and Boyle 2002). In Gtaʔ, the same subject marker is –tʃe(ʔ)7 and the different subject marker –la. Examine their use in the following examples (from Mahapatra and Zide, no date). (90) Gtaʔ Same subject ɖukri hoʔ-ru=hoʔ-ria-tʃe swa e-r’~ro-raŋ-tʃe old.woman weep=echo-ss fire go-red~carry-bring-ss hanɖa-Nɖæ-ne moɽ-ke tʃwar-tʃe aʔ-nswar-bo-ke husband-3.refl-poss corpse-obl dry-ss caus-dry-keep-pst ‘the old woman wept a lot and then made a fire, dried up her husband’s corpse and preserved it’ ŋku gnag-hwaʔ toʔ-tʃe ga-ge tiger door-rope open-ss enter-past ‘the tiger opened the door(-rope) and entered’ (91) Gtaʔ Different subject hɽiŋ oʔɽi=mwa sgwa we-la ɖokra gweʔ=we-ge later.on how.much=year like go-ds old.man die=aux-pst ‘later on, after like several years passed, the man died’ a-mane-la bar.mmwiŋ ŋgir=boeʔ huŋ-ɖæ-ke bæ-ke neg-agree-ds another male child-3.refl-obl send-pst ‘she did not agree and he sent another male child’ 7  The allomorph with a final glottal stop occurs in the texts generally only preceding the enclitic =ka meaning either ‘only’ or simply adding emphasis. The glottal stop allormorph in the cognate element in Remo may also possibly (at least originally) be phonologically conditioned by the presence of a following clitic, as appears to be the case in Gtaʔ. Again, it is hoped that better data and further analysis will clarify this issue.

402

anderson

The combination of switch reference and head-to-tail linkage can be seen in the following examples, taken from five consecutive lines in a single text: (92) Gtaʔ ɖæt ɖak-tʃe knweʔ hanɖa wiŋ.haʔ-har-ke like.that say-ss wife husband quarrel-pl-pst ‘speaking like that, the wife and husband quarreled’ (93) Gtaʔ wiŋ=haʔ-la meʔ-swa-ne knweʔ-ɽæ ɖiɖile hliʔ samboʔ we-ke quarrel-ds one-day-def wife-3 ptcp shoot plant go-pst ‘they quarreled and one day the wife went to the bamboo-plant place’ (94) Gtaʔ hliʔ samboʔ shoot plant

we-tʃe poga ɖiɖile hliʔ-nnia tʃu-biʔ-la go-ss tobacco ptcp shoot-near smear-aux-ds

tæn hliʔ-ke tʃu-biʔ-tʃe wig-ke that shoot-obl smear-aux-ss go-pst ‘she went to the bamboo-plant place, smeared tobacco on the shoots and returned home’ (95) Gtaʔ wig-la hɽiŋ hanɖaN-ɖe pag=liʔ we-ke go-ds afterwards husband-refl break=shoots go-past she went and afterwards, the husband went for bamboo shoots’ (96) Gtaʔ hliʔ pag-tʃe tʃoŋke-la poga sgwa bsæʔ læʔ-ke shoot break-ss taste-ds tobacco like bitter aux-past ‘he broke the shoots and tasted them, they were bitter like tobacco’

6

Munda Lexicon

The reconstructed lexicon of the Munda languages remains a subject of ongoing research. With respect to the lexical makeup of the Munda languages, the core or basic vocabulary shares much in common with other Austroasiatic languages, and this is the foundation for the Austroasiatic language family, already established by Schmidt (1906), and codified by Pinnow (1959). Not surprisingly,

overview of the munda languages

403

there is a siginificant layer of Indo-Aryan loans of relatively shallow time depth but in some languages is so pervasive as to alter core vocabulary, e.g. kin terms. In some languages Dravidian loans are evident, while a very small number of lexical items seem to be shared between Munda and Tibeto-Burman languages, probably reflecting a previous contact period. A preliminary attempt at comparative Munda phonology on a pan-Munda and pan-Austroasiatic scale may be found in Pinnow (1959). However, a careful periodization of Munda loan strata and the developments within Munda itself remains a goal for the future. One of the most characteristic and difficult aspects of, and vexing facts about the Munda comparative lexicon is the tendency for cognate forms of nominal elements to show cognacy only in the root/stem portion, but not in the whole free-standing form of the word. This is true both within and across sub-groups of Munda and of Austroasiatic more generally (Anderson and Zide 2002). Combining forms, e.g. as in (97) for ‘hand’ (which repeats (88) above) are usually the roots from which the semi-cognate free-standing forms are derived, and it is these that are cognate across the languages, while the free forms are not (98). (97) PSM *-ti ‘hand’ i. Remo ii. Gtaʔ iii. Sora gui-ti (næŋ) mbæʔsiaʔ gweʔ-ti-ke le:m-si-t-am wash-hand I left wash-hand-pst.b bow-hand-npst-2 ‘wash hand’ ‘I washed my left hand’ ‘I bow to your hands’ iv. Kharia v. Juang gutʃte gutʃti wash-hand wash-hand ‘wash hands’ ‘wash hands’ (98) free-standing forms for ‘hand’ (< PM *X-ti) Language Sora Gorum Juang Kharia Gutob Remo Gtaʔ

‘hand’ siʔi siʔi iti tiʔ titi titi tti

< *Form < *=ti + *-ʔ< *=ti + *-ʔ< *N=ti < *=ti + *-ʔ< *Redpl-=ti < *Redpl-=ti < *Redpl-=ti

404

anderson

Across the entire Austroasiatic phylum as a whole, including within specific subgroups of Munda, it is often not possible to reconstruct a full, syntactically free-standing form of a noun, but rather only the root that is found in the word (usually *CVC in shape), and further, that root may occur in semantically related families of forms, in compounding structures and as the form that serves for noun incorporation with verbs, and moreover is the element that is typically cognate with other Austroasiatic subgroups. The free-standing form on the other hand is created from the root by some derivational process such as prefixation, infixation, suffixation, or reduplication. This helps the freestanding form of the noun meet a minimal word constraint that the underlying root form fails to meet; see Figure-5.6. W[ord]

µ µ µ

µ

(µ)



V

ʔ]w

w [C-C..]

Figure 5.6 Bimoraic Word Constaint in Proto-Munda and Proto-Austroasiatic.

One attempt at situating the Munda data on the free-forms of nouns within their broader comparative Austroasiatic perspective is Anderson and Zide (2002). Anderson and Zide (2001) approached the topic of verb morphology from the same perspective. Both studies were subsequently combined and later expanded as Anderson (2004) and summarized here. The reflexes of the older prefix system and the minimal word constraint is best preserved when looking at the more southern Munda languages. Kherwarian languages have lost most traces of the prefixation system (some a- initial forms likely reflect a syllabic nasal prefix like Santali alaŋ, and all of the Munda languages appear to have lexicalized prefixes in specific lexemes, for example, *lV- in the word for ‘ear’), however, and many old Munda roots in Kherwarian nouns now appear only in a monomoraic root form (e.g., Ho ti ‘hand’). Some derivational processes are common across the Munda language family such that both the root and the word form can be relatively safely inferred and Proto-Munda forms securely reconstructed (‘turmeric’ and ‘broom’ below for example), but there is often no general agreement in the means of creating the word from the root across the Munda languages. What does emerge are

405

overview of the munda languages

various kinds of patterns that not infrequently correspond as specific traits for the recognizable low-level sub-groups, and thus proto-forms can be proposed, for example, for Proto-Gutob-Remo or Proto-Sora-Gorum. Table 5.4 offers a set of noun correspondences across the Munda language family which can be seen as typical of such correspondence sets. The patterns of word formation that yield the bimoraic free-standing forms of these nouns are abstracted in Table 5.5. The main methods are reduplication (rdpl), n-infixation (-n-), prefixation of a syllabic nasal (N-) or what was a syllabic nasal historically (*N-), one of two *k-initial prefix forms, glottal stop infixation (-ʔ-) or suffixation (-ʔ), or suffixation of –a/-e/-ai/-ae. The forms for ‘turmeric’ (> ‘yellow’) and ‘broom’ are some of the few panMunda etymologies where all subgroups show the same pattern of word formation from the same *CVC root. Note that Gtaʔ is quite distinct in its noun formation processes from Gutob and Remo, and variant forms that coincide with Remo (as in ‘hand’) are some of the most obvious examples of borrowing that Gtaʔ shows from Remo; doublets of this type where one variant matches Remo (and the other usually has a syllabic nasal prefix) are common in Gtaʔ. Further, Kharia and Juang agree in this set mainly in pan-Munda etymologies (‘bear’ is one exception). Further while lexemes or alternate stems not infrequently correspond across North Munda languages, even across different Kherwarian varieties one can find unexpected distribution of the older stems in the modern languages, such as the presence of the otherwise South Munda-looking form leʔe for ‘tongue’ in Ho (or le in Mundari), and the presence of corresponding Table 5.4 Selected Munda noun correspondences Gutob

Remo

Gtaʔ

Kharia

titi susuŋ mɔd, mɔʔ gikil, kilɔ gubɔn sasaŋ sunog

titi tiksuŋ mɔd

tti, nti tiʔ nco *-dʒuŋ m-mwaʔ moɖ

kilɔ gibɛ saŋsaŋ sunug

ŋku gbɛ ssia cnoʔ

Juang

Sora

iti idʒiɲ/ŋ ɔmɔr/d

sʔi dʒʔeŋ mʔɔd, amad kiɽo(g) kiɭɔg kɨna bane/ai banae kəmbud saŋsaŋ sa(ɽa)ŋsaŋ saŋsaŋ dʒonoʔ dʒenɔk dʒənoʔ

*Kharia preserves the old stem in gudʒuŋ ‘wash someone’s feet’

Gorum Kherw

gloss

siʔi dʒiʔiŋ mad

ti ~ tii dʒaŋga mɛt/ɖ

‘hand’ ‘foot’ ‘eye’

kul(a) kibud saŋsaŋ dʒɔnɔ

kul[a] (Mu) bana sasaŋ dʒɔnɔ[k’]

‘tiger’ ‘bear’ ‘turmeric’ ‘broom’

406

anderson

Table 5.5 Word formation processes in Table 5.4 Gutob

Remo

Rdpl Rdpl Rdpl-√ tik-√ Ø Ø

Gtaʔ

Kharia Juang

Rdpl, N- -ʔ N— NØ

*N*N*N-

Sora

Gorum

Kherwari gloss

-ʔ-ʔØ

Ø, ˘ -a Ø

Ø/-ʔ[-] *kV-√1

Ø N*kV-√2 *kV-√2

Ø Ø √1-e/-ai √1-ae

-ʔ-ʔ-ʔ-, a- < *NØ *kən-√3

red

red

red

red

red

red

Ø Ø *kən- √1-a √3/ *kV-√3 red red

-n-

-n-

-n-

-n-

-n-

-n-

-n-

-n-

‘hand’ ‘foot’ ‘eye’ ‘water’ ‘bear’

‘turmeric’ ‘broom’

otherwise North Munda looking alaŋ for ‘tongue’ in Sora; the Remo form appears to have both roots combined. Note that the forms for ‘dog’ show the typical North Munda stem form with –e- vocalism, a lack of prefixes and the suffix –a, as well as characteristic prefixes in Sora (kin-), Remo (gu-), and Gtaʔ (g-) and their characteristic stem reflexes with rounded vowels. The colorcoding here reflects the varied root-allomorphs and derivational processes used to derived the free-forms Table 5.6 ‘dog’ and ‘tongue’ in six Munda languages Ho

Bhumij

Santali

Sora

Remo

Gtaʔ

gloss

seta

seta

seta

kinsor

gusoʔ

gswi/gsui

leʔe

alaŋ

alaŋ

alaŋ

leʔa[ŋ]

nle

‘dog’ < *s√ ʔɖ, *səʔɖ ‘tongue’ < *le[ʔ], *laŋ

To summarize, lexical and phonological data are tied inextricably with word formation processes in Munda. To ignore all three kinds of information, as well as excluding contact between different Munda languages as a viable explana-

overview of the munda languages

407

tion for a given observed homology can only yield partially valid results. At times it can seem like there are almost as many patterns of correspondences as there are correspondence sets themselves. What does become clear is that the obvious subgroups emerge (e.g., Kherwarian or Gutob-Remo). In order to rectify this situation, the only apparent current solution is to get an adequately large data sample and begin anew the comparisons in a step-wise systematic fashion. To be sure, Munda is not alone among subgroups of Austroasiatic in showing regular correspondences across the roots in nouns, but not in the freestanding forms of the nouns themselves with different individual languages utilizing different word-building processes in the creation of the syntactically free-standing noun forms from their associated underlying roots (or possibly reflecting different morphologically related sets of words derived from a common root historically speaking). Virtually all other Austroasiatic subgroups exhibit this kind of partial correspondences when looking at individual lexemes. Thus, the various Nicobarese languages all show the same cognate root for ‘hand’ but embedded within different word-formation templates: (99) Nicobarese words for ‘hand’ (or ‘palm’) (Man 1975 [1888–9]) Central Car Shom Pen Teressa gloss kane-tai el-tiː noai-tiː mɔh-tiː ‘hand’

In Car Nicobarese (Pu), the tiː element occurs with different initial segments, forming a set or family of related words all based on the same basic root: (100) Car Nicobarese (Das 1977: 32) ɛltiː ‘palm of hand’ uktiː ‘back of hand’ kuntiː ‘finger’

How does one explain this seemingly paradoxical situation, where roots are clearly cognate, but it is often difficult to determine how and why full forms derived from such roots will be differentiated in individual languages or subgroups. The roots often appear preceded by a small set of what thus appear to be prefixes, as in the Kensiw forms in (101) or the Bolyu forms in (102). (101) Kensiw (Bishop and Peterson 1994: 176, 178, 185) tə-, ma-, -kɔʔ təkɔʔ ‘pus, sputum’ makɔʔ ‘egg’ (102) Bolyu mɔldʒǎŋ mɔti mɔmau mɔƒǔn cf. ɣəmti ‘eagle’ ‘finger ‘finger’ ‘bamboo’ ‘arm’ (Edmondson 1995: 139–141) mɔ-, ɣəm-, -ti, -mau, -ƒǔn, -ldʒǎŋ

408

anderson

In some cases, one may be dealing with both prefixes and compounds stems, as the root element seems to be able to appear in either position in a prefix-√ structure or in a putative √-√ structure as well, as the following sets of related forms in Bolyu in (103) suggest, specifically the distribution of mat-/-mat and dʒɔŋ-/-dʒɔŋ. (103) Bolyu ɬaimat ‘eye’

mbɔŋmat ɬaimbu ɬaitən mɔtən lɔŋmi lɔŋʔi ‘eyelid’ ‘louse’ ‘melon’ ‘melon seed’ ‘nose’ ‘anus’

matdʒɔŋ dʒɔŋɬəŋ ‘ankle joint’ ‘leg’ (Edmondson 1995: 144–154) ɬai-, mɔ-, lɔŋ-; -mbu, -tən, -mi, -ʔi; mat-, -mat, dʒɔŋ-, -dʒɔŋ; mbɔŋ-, -ɬəŋ

All this together leads one to ask whether there was a system of prefixes/ proclitics that was semantically rich in PAA, perhaps later reinterpreted as opaque, co-lexicalized phonological material used to meet a minimal word constraint in individual subgroups. Although stripped of their semantic bases, the derivational processes were still necessary phonologically for the nouns, even if no longer semantically connectable or predictable. So the irregular correspondences witnessed above may either have once reflected a meaningful semantic contrast in the forms, now lost, and/or simultaneously in specific cases represent later individual, lexeme- and language-/dialect-specific means of resolving a minimal word constraint. At least this is what appears to have happened in the history of Munda, and the varied correspondences presented above suggest it may have been true in other Austroasiatic subgroups as well, which in turn suggests we look to deeper history for an explanation of the observed phenomena. A look through the lexicon of a wide range of Austroasiatic languages reveals recurrent elements that may have reflected a once active system of semantic prefixation or noun classes.8 Thus, ɛl occurs in a number of body parts in Car Nicobarese (104). Other prefixes don’t correlate exactly with obvious semantic classes like this, but nevertheless are common enough in the lexicon of the language, e.g. li-, ta-, ha-, etc. (105). (104) Car Nicobarese (Das 1977: 17) [ɛl]mɛh ‘nose’ ɛlmat ‘color’ ɛlkui ‘brain’ ɛlti ‘palm of hand’ ɛlŋoh ‘chest’ ɛlran ‘sole, hoof’

ɛlwaŋ ‘mouth’

8  Note that similar phenomena are also found in Tibeto-Burman subgroups.

409

overview of the munda languages (105) Car Nicobarese (Das 1977: 31–32, 41, 42) tarul ‘cloud’ tatʃam ‘dew’ tahɯi ‘today’ taaː ‘day after tomorrow’ takɯn ‘thigh’ haniːŋ ‘axe’ hataːm ‘night’ har̃ap ‘evening’ litak ‘tongue’ likɯn ‘nape’ kilap ~ likap ‘gullet’

Bugan is an only recently identified tonal Austroasiatic language of southern China that appears to belong in the Mangic family, with six tones (55, 33, 35, 13, 31, + 0 w/prefixes)) described for the language in the analysis of Li (1996), although this really seems more like a two level tone and three contour tone system of five tones, with the set of elements which are toneless representing putatively archaic prefixes. It is likely that better data on Mangic languages will help shed light on the still opaque semantics that might (have) be(en) associated with these elements. (106) Bugan (Li 1996: 137–139, 141, 144) pə55bop31/pə55bou31 ‘head’ pə55tsɛ35 ‘ear’ pə55tsə ‘placenta’ pə55lai33 ‘tongue’ pə55nuk31 ‘heart’ pə0mã31 ‘nose’ mə0kua31 ‘folk song’ mə33tsa31 ‘hand straw cutter’ tə0qou35 ‘palm of hand’ tə0kɔ33 ‘tiger’ te55taŋ55 ‘moss’

pə55mai35 ‘pupil of eye’ pə0kui55 ‘craftsman’ mə33dou33 ‘firewood knife’ te55kuk31 ‘frost’

Some prefixal elements are semantically clear in Bugan. How widespread such elements are remain a subject for future research to resolve (107). Formally there are two types of such elements, tone bearing ones like pu55-, mu33-, or ɲa33-, and toneless ones like tse0- (108). Whether this represents two diachronic layers of grammaticalization of these elements is unknown at present. (107) Bugan pu- > male animals pu55laŋ31 ‘stallion’ pu55li55 ‘ox’ mu- > plants and mu33paŋ31 mu33tsau33 ‘bitch’ mu33laŋ31 ‘mare’  female animals  ‘peach tree’ mu33li55 ‘cow’ > mu33xi31laŋ31  mu33xi31li55  ‘small mare’  ‘small cow’ ɲa33 > diminutives ɲa33tsaŋ55 ‘mouse’ ɲa33li55 ‘calf’ ɲa33pu55li55  ‘small ox’ (108) Bugan tse- > birds tse0qa35 ‘duck’ tse0ŋaŋ35 ‘goose’

410

anderson

7 Summary Munda languages are clearly Austroasiatic in origin and retain many features that reflect this history. However, they also clearly reflect an extensive network of areal contacts and developments at various stages in their history. Because of the great age of the Austroasiatic phylum, and the inferrable history of the Munda languages, it is certain that ongoing investigations into periodicizing the stages in the historical development of the Munda languages will yield considerable insight into still vexing problems in the ancient ethnolinguistic history of the entire South Asian and Southeast Asian regions, in both of which the Munda languages appear to have played significant roles. 8 References Alves, M. 2006. A grammar of Pacoh. Canberra: ANU. Anderson, Gregory D.S. 1999. A new classification of the Munda languages: Evidence from comparative verb morphology. Paper presented at 209th meeting of the American Oriental Society, Baltimore. ———. 2000. Santali. In Encyclopedia of the World’s Major Languages. In Jane Garry and Carl Rubino (eds.). New York & Dublin: H.W. Wilson Press, 623–628. ———. 2001. A new classfication of Munda: Evidence from comparative verb morphology. Indian Linguistics 62: 27–42. ———. 2002. Issues in proto-Munda and proto-Austroasiatic nominal derivation: The Bimoraic Constraint. In Marlys A. Macken (ed.), Papers from the 10th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University, South East Asian Studies Program, Monograph Series Press, 55–74. ———. 2003. Dravidian influence on Munda. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 32.1: 27–48. ———. 2004. Advances in proto-Munda reconstruction. Mon-Khmer Studies 34: 159–184. ———. 2006. Auxiliary verb constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2007. The Munda verb. Typological perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ———. 2008a. Gtaʔ. In Gregory. D.S. Anderson (ed.), 682–763. ———. 2008b. Remo (Bonda). In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 557–632. ———. 2011. Auxiliary verb constructions and other complex predicate types: A functional-constructional approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 5.11: 795–828. ———. (ed.). 2008. The Munda Languages. Routledge Language Family Series. Abingdon & Oxford: Routledge. Anderson, Gregory & John P. Boyle. 2002. Switch-reference in South Munda. In Marlys A. Macken (ed.), Papers from the 10th Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian

overview of the munda languages

411

Linguistics Society. Tempe: Arizona State University, South East Asian Studies Program, Monograph Series Press, 39–54. Anderson, Gregory D.S. & K. David Harrison. 2008. Sora. In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 299–380. Anderson, Gregory D.S., Toshiki Osada and K. David Harrison. 2008. Ho and the other Kherwarian languages. In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 195–255. Anderson, Gregory D.S. & Felix Rau. 2008. Gorum. In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 381–433. Anderson, Gregory D.S. & Norman H. Zide 2001. Recent advances in the reconstruction of the Proto-Munda (Austroasiatic) verb. In Laurel J. Brinton (ed.) Historical Linguistics 1999. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 13–30. Aze, Richard. 1973. Clause patterns in Parengi-Gorum. In Ronald L. Traill (ed.), Patterns in clause, sentence, discourse in selected languages of India and Nepal, Vol. 1. Norman, Okla: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 235–312. Banker, Elizabeth M. 1964. Bahnar affixation. Mon-Khmer Studies 1: 99–118. Bhat, D.N.S. 1997. Noun-verb distinction in Munda languages. In Anvita Abbi (ed.), Languages of tribal and indigenous peoples of India: The Ethnic Space. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 227–251. Bhattacharya, Sudhibhushan. 1968. A Bonda dictionary. Poona: Deccan College. ———. 1975a. Linguistic convergence in the Dravido-Munda culture area. In International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 4, 199–214. ———. 1975b. Studies in Comparative Munda Linguistics. Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study. Bishop, Nancy & M.M. Peterson. 1994. Kensiw glossary. Mon-Khmer Studies 23: 163–196. Bodding, Paul O. 1923. Materials for a Santal Grammar, Phonetic. Dumka: Santal Mission of N. Churches. ———. 1929. Materials for a Santali Grammar, II. Dumka: Santal Mission. Cook, Walter. 1965. A descriptive grammar of Mundari. Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgetown University. Costello, Nancy. 1965. Affixes in Katu. Mon-Khmer Studies 2: 63–86. Das, A.R. 1977. A study on the Nicobarese language. Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India. Deeney, John. 1979. Ho Grammar and Vocabulary. Chaibasa: Xavier Ho Publications. Diffloth, Gérard. 1989. Proto-Austroasiatic Creaky Voice. Mon-Khmer Studies 15: 139–54. ———. 2005. The contribution of linguistic palaeontology and Austro-Asiatic. In Laurent Sagart, Roger Blench & Alicia Sanchez-Mazas (eds), The Peopling of East Asia: Putting together archaeology, linguistics and genetics. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 77–80. Diffloth, Gérard and Norman Zide. 1992. Austro-Asiatic languages. In William Bright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Volume 1. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 137–142.

412

anderson

Donegan, Patricia J. 1993 Rhythm and Vocalic Drift in Munda and Mon-Khmer. Linguistics in the Tibeto-Burman Area 16.1: 1–43. Donegan, Patricia J. & David Stampe. 1983. Rhythm and the holistic organization of language structure. In The Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 337–353. ———. 2004. Rhythm and synthetic drift of Munda. In R. Singh (ed.), Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2004, 3–36. Edmondson, Jerold. 1995. English-Bolyu Glossary. Mon-Khmer Studies 24: 133–160. Evans, Nicholas, and Toshiki Osada. 2005. Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes. Linguistic Typology 9.3: 351–390. Fernandez, Frank. 1968. A grammatical sketch of Remo: A Munda language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina. Ghosh, Arun. 1994. Santali: A Look Into Santali Morphology. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House. ———. 2008. Santali. In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 11–98. Griffiths, Arlo. 2008. Gutob. In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 633–681. Haji Omar, Asmah. 1976. The verb in Kentakbong. In Philip Jenner et al. (eds.), 951–970. Hayes, La Vaughn H. 1992. On the track of Austric: part I. Mon-Khmer Studies 21, 143–78. Henderson, Eugénie J.A. 1976. Vestiges of Morphology in Modern Standard Khasi. In Philip Jenner et al. (eds.), 477–522. Hoffmann, Johan. 1950. (1930–1950) Encyclopedia Mundarica, Patna: Government Superintendent Printing. 15 volumes. Hook, Peter. E. 1991. The Compound Verb in Munda: An Areal Overview. Language Sciences 13.2: 181–195. Huffman, Franklin E. 1970. Modern spoken Cambodian. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Jenner, Philip N., Laurence Thompson and Stanley Starosta (eds.). 1976. Austoasiatic Studies II. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Li, Jinfang. 1996. Bugan-a new Mon-Khmer language of Yunnan Province, China. MonKhmer Studies 26: 135–160. Mahapatra, Bijoy & Daniel Matson. 1962. Brief Description of Juang. Unpublished-ms. Puri. Mahapatra, Kageshwar. (with Dobek Pujari and P.K. Panda). 1989. ɖiɖayi (In Oriya). Bhubaneshwar: Academy of Tribal Dialects and Culture, Government of Odisha. Mahapatra, Kageshwar & Norman H. Zide. No date. Gtaʔ Texts. Unpublished manuscript. Malhotra, Veena. 1982. The structure of Kharia: A study of linguistic typology and language change. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru Univeristy, New Delhi.

overview of the munda languages

413

Man, E.H. 1975. [1888–9]. A Dictionary of the Central Nicobarese Language. Delhi: Sanskaran Prakashak. Matson, Daniel. 1964. A grammatical sketch of Juang. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Nagaraja. K.S. 1985. Khasi: A descriptive analysis. Pune: Deccan College. ———. 1999. Korku grammar with texts. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Nai Pan Hla. 1976. A comparative study of Old Mon Epigraphy and Modern Mon. In Philip Jenner et al. (eds.), 891–918. Osada, Toshiki. 1992. A reference grammar of Mundari. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. ———. 2008. Mundari. In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 99–164. Peiros, Ilia. 1998. Comparative linguistics in Southeast Asia. Pacific Linguistics C-142. Canberra: ANU. Peterson, John. 2008. Kharia. In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 434–507. Pinnow, Heinz-Jürgen. 1959. Versuch einer historischen Lautlehre der Kharia-Sprache. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. ———. 1960. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Juang-Sprache. Unpublished manuscript. ———. 1963. The position of the Munda languages within the Austroasiatic language family. In H. Shorto (ed.), Linguistic comparison in South East Asia and the Pacific, 140–152. London: SOAS. ———. 1966. A comparative study of the verb in the Munda languages. In Norman Zide (ed.), Studies in comparative Austroasiatic linguistics. (Indo-Iranian Monographs v. 5) The Hague: Mouton, 96–193. Pinnow, Heinz-Jürgen, J. Kullu & P. Kerketta. 1965. Der Wertiger und andere Geschichte in Kharia. Indo-Iranian Journal 9.1: 32–68. Radhakrishnan, R. 1981. The Nancowry Word. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc. Ramamurti, G.V. 1931. A Manual of the So:ra: (or Savara) Language, Madras: Government Press. Schmidt, Pater P.W. (1906) Die Mon-Khmer Völker: Ein Bindeglied zwischen Völkern Zentralsiens und Austronesiens. Archiv der Anthropologie, Braunschweiger 33 [n.s. 5]: 59–109. Shorto, H.L. 2005. A Mon-Khmer comparative dictionary. Canberra: ANU. Starosta, Stanley. 1967. Sora syntax: A generative approach to a Munda language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin. ———. 1992. Sora Combining Forms and Pseudo-Compounding. Mon-Khmer Studies 18–19: 78–105. Zide, Arlene R.K. 1968. A comparative lexicon of Sora and Gorum. Unpublished manuscript. Zide, Norman. H. 1972. A Munda demonstrative system: Santali. In J. Barrau, et al. (eds.) Langues et techniques, nature et société. vol. I Approche linguistique. Paris: Klincksieck, 267–274.

414

anderson

———. 1978. Studies in the Munda numerals. Mysore: CIIL. ———. 2000. Three Munda Scripts. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 22: 199–232. ———. 2008. Korku. In Gregory D.S. Anderson (ed.), 256–298. ———. 2001. The Proto-Munda Verb: Some Connections with Mon-Khmer. In K.V. Subbarao and Peri Bhaskararao (eds.), Yearbook of South-Asian Languages and Linguistics-2001. Delhi: Sage Publications, 517–40. Zide, Norman. H. & Gregory D.S. Anderson 1999. The Proto-Munda Verb and Some Connections with Mon-Khmer. In Peri Bhaskararao (ed.), Working Papers: International Symposium on South Asian Languages: Contact, Convergence and Typology. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 400–419.

part 2 Grammar Sketches

∵

Map 1.1

Location of languages represented in the grammar sketches.

Car

Danau

Pnar

Khasi

Mon

Kui

Semaq Beri

Koho Bunong

Sedang

Pacoh

Vietnamese

Northern Aslian

Khmer

Chong

Mlabri

Kammu Dara’ang

Bugan

Section 1 Aslian

․․

chapter 1

Northern Aslian Nicole Kruspe, Niclas Burenhult and Ewelina Wnuk This chapter provides a typological profile of Northern Aslian, a subbranch of the Aslian branch of Austroasiatic comprising a number of closely related language varieties spoken in southern Thailand and northern Peninsular Malaysia. It builds on the authors’ ongoing field research, as well as available sources. The profile is based on data from most known varieties of Northern Aslian, but draws in particular on the Ceq Wong (cwg), Jahai (jhi) and Maniq (tnz) languages, in accordance with the current research focus of each author. 1 Background Northern Aslian is one of the four clades of the Aslian branch of Austroasiatic, as evidenced by historical phonology (Diffloth 1975), conventional lexicostatistics (Benjamin 1976a), and recent phylogenetic studies (Dunn et al. 2011, 2013; Burenhult et al. 2011). The clade encompasses some 8 to 10 speech varieties spoken by minority groups in northern and central Peninsular Malaysia and southern Isthmian Thailand. It is divided into two main branches: (1) Ceq Wong, a geographical isolate in western Pahang state, Peninsular Malaysia; and (2) Maniq/Menraq-Batek (MMB), a group of closely related varieties forming a dialectal continuum from southern Thailand down into northern Pahang. The latter group can be tentatively subdivided into two subgroups, one comprising northerly varieties like Maniq, Kensiw, and Kentaq (which share the term mniʔ or maniʔ for ‘human being’), spoken in southern Thailand and adjacent areas across the border to Malaysia, and one comprising the varieties Jahai, Menriq, and Batek, strung out from the border area to northern Pahang. Jahai and Menriq share a term for human being, mnraʔ, whereas Batek uses the eponymous term batɛk. Table 1.1 provides an overview of the Northern branch of Aslian. Historically, the two subbranches likely separated soon after proto-Northern Aslian branched off from the rest of Aslian, possibly around 1500–2000 BP, and the secondary separation of the Maniq subgroup from Menraq-Batek took place a few centuries later (Dunn et al. 2013:393). All MMB varieties are closely associated with the ethnographic category Semang, mobile subsistence © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004283572_007

420 Table 1.1

Ethnolinguistic group

Kruspe, Burenhult and Wnuk Overview of Northern Aslian. Thailand data is based on Phaiboon (2006) and Wnuk (2009 2006; Pahang and Terengganu information draws on Lye (1997, 2004, personal communicaBatek are from 2003 and were obtained from the website of the Center for Orang Asli Subgroup Branch

Maniq

Kensiw

Location

Thung Wa, Langu, Manang, and Khuan Don districts of Satun province, Palian district of Trang province, Kong Ra, Tamot and Pa Bon districts of Phatthalung province, and reportedly Khuan Kalong of Satun and Rattaphum district of Songkhla province, Thailand Thanto district of Yala province, Thailand; Baling district of Kedah state, Malaysia

Maniq

Kentaq

Hulu Perak district of Perak state, Malaysia

Tea-de

Weang and Srisakorn districts of Narathiwat province, Thailand Maniq/ MenraqBatek

Jahai

Menriq

MenraqBatek

Batek

Ceq Wong

Hulu Perak district of Perak state and Jeli district of Kelantan state, Malaysia; Srisakorn district of Narathiwat province and Betong district of Yala province, Thailand Gua Musang, Jeli and Kuala Krai districts of Kelantan state, Malaysia

Gua Musang district of Kelantan state, Lipis and Jerantut districts of Pahang state, and Hulu Terengganu and Besut districts of Terengganu state, Malaysia

Ceq Wong

Temerloh and Raub Districts, Pahang state, Malaysia

Northern Aslian

421

field notes); Malaysia data from Kedah, Perak and Kelantan is from a survey conducted by Burenhult 2004tion) and Kruspe (2002; 2008 field notes); Malaysian total population figures for Kensiw, Kentaq, Jahai, and Concerns (http://www.coac.org.my). Sociolinguistic situation

Several nomadic, semi-nomadic, and settled groups living within Thai villages or in their own permanent settlements. The largest group of 54 (as of 2009) is settled in Baan Khlong Tong in Trang. Total number of speakers is above 240 (Wnuk 2009 fieldnotes)—most likely about 300.

Thailand group settled in one village, number of speakers is unknown; Malaysian group settled in one village and numbers 232 speakers; occasional speakers in semi-nomadic mixed Kensiw-Jahai groups along the border. Settled in one village, 157 speakers; close contacts with Kensiw, which is very closely related. Situation unknown; groups possibly still largely nomadic; may be identical to a group referred to by the Jahai as Jdɛk, in which case Tea-de is in contact with Kelantan Jahai. Several settled, semi-nomadic and nomadic groups, with particular concentrations around Lake Temengor in Perak and Sungai Rual in Kelantan; while the Thailand figure is unknown, the number of speakers in Malaysia is 1,843; in Perak largely co-settled with Temiar, and in Kelantan with Menriq. Settled in three villages along the middle portion of the Kelantan river and one village in Jeli district; only in two of these locations do speakers refer to themselves as Menriq; in the other two they refer to themselves as Batek Təh; total number of speakers can be estimated at 250–300; one group is co-settled with Batek Deq, another with Jahai. Several settled, semi-nomadic and nomadic groups, divided into five distinct dialects (Batek Deq, Batek Teq, Batek Nong, and Batek Tanum); the number of speakers is 1,255, although this figure is likely to include some 100 speakers of Menriq who nevertheless refer to themselves as Batek; co-settled with Menriq in one location in Kelantan. A group of Batek Deq live in a resettlement village with the Semaq Beri in Terengganu; c. 26 Batek Teq live in a small resettlement village in Besut, Terengganu. The Batek Tanum are sometimes referred to as Mintil by other Batek. There is no information for Batek Nong. The Eastern group live in one village, with several small family groups living in scattered locations in the Krau Game reserve. Total number of speakers less than 200. The Western Ceq Wong are resident in several mixed villages along with Semai and Temuan (Aboriginal Malay) speakers. The Eastern Ceq Wong report dialectal differences between the two groups. They do not maintain contact with them. Population figure is unknown.

422

Kruspe, Burenhult and Wnuk

foragers and traders. For the most part they form a closely knit network of contact and intermarriage, and they make up a distinct sociolinguistic niche (Benjamin 1985a; Burenhult et al. 2011). Ceq Wong, on the other hand, does not form part of the Semang societal sphere and does not partake in the pattern of contact characteristic of the rest of Northern Aslian. The Ceq Wong practise a ‘mixed’ economic adaptation of foraging with semi-sedentary residence like that of swidden horticulturalists. Our current understanding of linguistic structure in Northern Aslian relies primarily on Burenhult’s 2005 grammar of Jahai, as well as ongoing descriptive work on Ceq Wong and Batek by Kruspe (in progress), Maniq1 by Wnuk (in progress), and Menriq by Burenhult (and more recently by Yager, in progress). Additional materials include an early grammatical sketch of Jahai by Schebesta (1928), an Honor’s Thesis on Kentaq by Asmah (1963), as well as a number of shorter works on Kensiw by Bishop and Peterson (see especially Bishop 1996, and Peterson 1997), and a description of Maniq phonology by Wnuk & Burenhult (in press). Furthermore, various aspects of lexical semantics have been explored in Jahai by Burenhult (2003, 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2011, 2012), Burenhult & Majid (2011), Levinson & Burenhult (2009), and Majid and Burenhult (2014). Loanwords in Ceq Wong are described in Kruspe (2009a&b). Much of the authors’ own descriptive work has taken place within the framework of major modern language documentation initiatives, especially the Volkswagen Foundation’s DOBES program and the Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project.2 2

Phonetics and Phonology

2.1 Word and Syllable Structure Northern Aslian languages display word structure typical of the Aslian family. Most words (underived lexemes) tend to be mono-, sesqui- or disyllabic, as in

1  In this chapter ‘Maniq’ refers only to the language spoken by the Maniq in the Banthad mountain range, see Table 1.1. 2  Kruspe’s research was supported by the Research Centre for Linguistic Typology at La Trobe University, the Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Program, and the Volkswagen Foundation (DOBES), Burenhult’s research was supported by the Swedish Research Council (421-2007-1281), the Volkswagen Foundation (DOBES), and the European Research Council (the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme, Grant agreement n° 263512), and Wnuk’s is supported by Max Planck Gesellschaft.

Northern Aslian

423

Batek Deq toʔ ‘elder sibling’, ploʔ ‘fruit’, and pacɛ̃w ‘Water monitor (Varanus salvator)’. Longer trisyllabic word forms also occur, like Batek Deq tlabas ‘Malayan Sun bear’ and Jahai kmalbɔp ‘a type of vegetable’, however in many cases they appear to bear traces of morphological complexity, probably the result of fossilized processes. The minimal word in Northern Aslian is CV(C), while the maximal word, attested in Jahai, is the derived tetrasyllabic form /C.C.C(V)C.CVC/ as in t-b-tadɔʔ (rel-prog-wait) ‘waiting’, e.g. tmkal t-b-tadɔʔ ‘the waiting man’. There is a preference in Northern Aslian for words to have a closed final syllable. In Jahai and one variety of Menriq final syllables are always closed, but several languages including Ceq Wong, Batek, Menriq and Maniq allow words with an open final syllable. Such words are generally less numerous than those with closed syllables, but they are often high-frequency items, as in Ceq Wong sɑ ‘a little’, and galə ‘cassava’ from Malay ubi benggala ‘potato’ and Maniq wa ‘to go’, ce ‘to dig’, and kabi ‘to be new’. In Northern Aslian languages, the minimal syllable is [CV], and the maximal syllable is usually [CVC], or [CCVC] for Ceq Wong and Maniq. Syllabification proceeds from right to left, and is maximally exhaustive. In Jahai, for example a string CCCVC will be parsed as /CC.CVC/. Sequences of consonants are articulated with the assistance of an epenthetic vowel, so /CC.CVC/ is [CVC.CVC]. The default realisation of the epenthetic vowel is schwa [ə]. There are two variants [i] and [u], conditioned by the segmental features of onset of the syllable to the right. A palatal segment produces [i] as in Ceq Wong sy�ʔ [ɕiyɑʔ] ‘to look around’; and a bilabial, labio-velar or velar segment may result in [u], e.g., lwəc [lu.wəc] ‘to ascend’ and skoʔ [ɕu.koʔ] ‘nail, claw’ (cwg). When the onset of the final syllable is a glottal segment, /h/ or /ʔ/, the epenthetic vowel may be a copy of the final syllable vowel, as thun [tu.hun] ‘year; season’ (cwg). Stress placement is invariably on the final syllable. 2.2 Phoneme Inventory and Phonotactics Northern Aslian languages have rather typical Austroasiatic consonant systems. There is a core set of distinctive places and manners of articulation, shared by all Northern Aslian (and other Aslian) languages described to date and adding up to approximately 20 phonemes. Thus, the points of articulation include bilabial, alveolar, palatal, velar, and glottal. Voiceless stops occur in all of these (/p/, /t/, /c/, /k/, /ʔ/), and voiced stops and nasals in all but the glottal position (/b/, /d/, /ɟ/, /g/ and /m/, /n/, /ɲ/, /ŋ/). Voiceless fricatives occur in alveolar (or palatal) and glottal position (/s/, /h/); approximants in bilabial and palatal position (/w/, /j/). All languages also have a lateral liquid /l/, and most of them have a rhotic /r/, which is realised in a multitude of ways. All

424

Kruspe, Burenhult and Wnuk

Table 1.2

Northern Aslian consonant phonemes (Consonants in parentheses do not occur in all varieties)

p b (pʰ) m

(ɸ)

t d (tʰ) n r l w

c ɟ ɲ

s (z)

j3

k g (kʰ) ŋ

ʔ

h

Northern Aslian languages except Ceq Wong add to this core set a voiceless bilabial fricative /ɸ/ (see e.g. Bishop 1996; Burenhult 2005; Phaiboon 2006). Some varieties also have a voiced alveolar or palatal fricative /z/ (Benjamin 1985b). Voiceless post-aspirated stop initials occur marginally in Kensiw and Maniq, the two northernmost languages of the group (Bishop 1996; Wnuk & Burenhult, in press). The phenomenon appears to be restricted to loanwords of Thai and Malay origin. Most Northern Aslian varieties have a system of contrastive vowel qualities that contains three degrees of height and three degrees of front-to-back. Ceq Wong departs from this typical three-by-three system and replaces central /a/ with an additional height to the front and back series, with /æ/ and /ɑ/, as in /læh/ ‘hort’ and /lɑh/ ‘sibling-in-law’.4 Furthermore, Bishop (1996) proposes for Kensiw a system with five degrees of height for front and central vowels, and four for the back vowels. This highly deviant system displays a level of quality variation that is hardly observed even at the phonetic level in other Northern Aslian languages, and Benjamin (2012) cautiously questions the analysis. Ceq Wong, Kensiw and Maniq supplement their systems with between 2 and 7 diphthongs. In all of Northern Aslian, oral realisations contrast with 3  The Northern Aslian phonemes in Tables 1.2 and 1.3 are represented in accordance with IPA standard. However, throughout this chapter, language examples are represented in the practical orthographies developed for the individual languages in accordance with much Aslian (and Southeast Asian) descriptive tradition. While these orthographies largely adhere to IPA notation, they depart from it in that the voiced palatal stop /ɟ/ is represented as j and the palatal glide /j/ is represented as y. Furthermore, epenthetic vowels are consistently left out. 4 The Ceq Wong vowel /æ/ is represented orthographically as ‘a’.

425

Northern Aslian

a slightly reduced set of nasal counterparts. Like Southern Aslian, but unlike most Austroasiatic languages, Northern Aslian does not have distinctive vowel length. Thus, its systems of contrastive vowel nuclei are comparatively small, the number of vowel phonemes in each language typically ranging between 15 and 20. Table 1.3

i e ɛ (æ)

Northern Aslian oral vowel phonemes (Vowels in parentheses do not occur in all varieties)

ɨ ə

( a)

u o ɔ (a)

2.2.1 Phonotactics In the final syllable, all consonant phonemes are attested in the onset, apart from the bilabial fricative /ɸ/ (Maniq is an exception here, /ɸ/ occurs in the onset realized as [ph]). The coda displays reduced possibilities with voiced stops never occurring in this position. In word final position following an oral vowel, the nasals are preploded [bm, dn, ᶡɲ, gŋ], e.g., [cɕadn] can ‘foot’, [həɲjaɟɲ] həɲyaɲ ‘to stand’, [kajeɡŋ] kayeŋ ‘to hear, to listen’ (tnz). Restrictional possibilities disallow the simultaneous co-occurrence of the rhotic /r/ in both onset and coda position, and nasal vowels are uncommon following a voiced stop. Consonant distribution is further reduced in the onset of non-final syllables, where the bilabial fricative and glides do not occur, and the palatal and velar nasals are also uncommon. The coda in the penultimate syllable is typically either a liquid, or nasal homorganic with the final syllable onset, e.g., tuŋkal ‘male’ (cwg). In some instances it is a nonhomorganic nasal, possibly an archaic infix, e.g. tmkal ‘male’, attested in Maniq, Jahai and Batek. All other phonemes can only occur in the penultimate coda if they are a copy of the final syllable coda (see §3.2). In trisyllabic words, the onset of the penultimate syllable is most often a nasal or sonorant phoneme, while that of the prepenultimate syllable may be a voiced or voiceless stop, or fricative. The prepenultimate syllable is always open. All phonemic vowels occur as the nucleus in the final syllable, with the distributional possibilities reduced in the penultimate syllable, e.g., phonemically nasal vowels are not found in this position. In prepenultimate syllables

426

Kruspe, Burenhult and Wnuk

non-phonemic epenthetic vowels replace phonemic ones, with the occasional exception, as in Ceq Wong kararow ‘sound of walking through forest litter’. The epenthetic vowel is typically [ə], see §2.1. 2.3 Suprasegmentals Northern Aslian languages typically do not make use of suprasegmental phenomena for contrastive purposes. However, there are brief reports of marginal tonal contrast in Jahai (Schebesta 1928) and Kensiw (Bishop 1996), and Hajek (2003) concludes that there is limited tonal activity in these languages. The evidence cited by Hajek is questioned by Wnuk & Burenhult (in press). 3

Word Formation

3.1 Compounding Most compounds are nominal, consisting of two nouns, or a noun and verb, of which the initial is the head. Compounds are usually compositional. Noncompositional compounds, where the meaning cannot be derived, at least synchronically, from the sum of the two parts, are less frequent, e.g., t�m tyəg (liquid banana) ‘final stage of post-partum bleeding’ (Ceq Wong). Compounds are frequent in the names of plants, animals, topographic features and body parts, e.g., Jahai kdek bapaŋ (rodent ?) ‘Prevost’s squirrel’, tɔm bɨʔ (water mother) ‘big stream’, jʔeŋ blɨʔ (bone thigh) ‘femur’, Maniq wac ʔɔs (Beautiful.tree.squirrel fire) ‘Plantain squirrel (Callosciurus notatus)’, sɔk ʔaŋkɛʔ (hair chin) ‘beard’. In Ceq Wong these classifying compounds can elide the head once they are established in discourse. This is not possible with other compounds. In Maniq, it is only possible to elide the head, if the remaining modifier does not have another meaning on its own, e.g. (wac) kukɛh ‘Pallas’s’ squirrel (Callosciurus erythraeus)’ but not *(wac) ʔɔs (ʔɔs ‘fire’). The associative construction is a syntactic construction that produces compound-like constructions with a range of semantic relations, from possessive to benefactive, see §4.4. 3.2 Derivational Morphology The main function of derivational morphology is to transfer words from one form class to another, either between word classes, e.g. nominalisation (§3.2.1), or within them between subclasses, e.g., Aktionsart (§3.2.2). The only valency increasing operation is causativisation; there is little evidence for valency decreasing operations. This appears to conform to the general low relevance of transitivity that characterises the grammar of these Northern Aslian languages.

Northern Aslian

427

Aslian derivational morphology is typically non-linear, although morphology borrowed from Malay tends to be exclusively prefixal. A single derivational process will potentially have a range of phonologically determined allomorphs in order to accommodate the prosodic constraints that determine the shape of the output. The constraints produce a complex interplay between faithfulness to the form of the affix, the prosodic structure of the output, and the general phonotactic constraints of the language. In the most extreme cases, the identity of the original root may be lost, as in the case of Ceq Wong causative. The competition of a fully prespecified prefix pi- ‘caus’ and a constraint requiring a maximally disyllabic output results in the deletion of the nonfinal syllable of disyllabic roots producing a monosyllabic stem, e.g., harən ‘to know’ → pi-rən ‘to make known’. Affixation is described in terms of three criteria: 1) the domain of attachment; 2) the prosodic structure of the output, and 3) the structure of affixes in terms of the degree of phonological prespecification. The criteria apply in parallel operations, and the order of presentation here is not indicative of an ordered series of operations. The domain of attachment is defined as the prosodic unit to which a morphological process applies. The domain is language specific, for instance in Maniq it is always located in the penultimate syllable, as illustrated in (a–c) below, whereas in Jahai there is marginal attachment also to prefinal syllables, as in (d). Ceq Wong patterns like Maniq for indigenous processes, but there is some marginal evidence of attachment to prefinal syllables with borrowed processes. a) Prefixation: kap ‘to bite’ → n-kap (nml-bite) ‘biting’ (cwg);  wa ‘to go’ → ʔam-wa (incep-go) ‘to head off’ (tnz) b) Stem modification: haʔũt ‘to stink’ → nahũt (nml.stink) ‘stinking’ (cwg); həɲyaɲ ‘to stand’ → piyaɲ ‘to stand (of objects)’ (caus.stand) (tnz) c) Infixation: pset ‘to be spicy’ → pset (be.spicy) ‘spiciness’ (cwg); cilɔ ‘to hide’ → cilɔ ‘to be hiding’ (hide) (tnz) d) Prefixation: hgik ‘to be afraid’ → p-hgik (caus-be.afraid) ‘to frighten’ (jhi); saʔot → l-saʔot (iter-call.out) ‘to call out repeatedly’ (jhi)

Processes are governed by constraints on the prosodic structure of the output, which must conform to the prosodic well-formedness constraints that operate within the language (§2). These constraints are language specific. Furthermore, different processes may be subject to different output constraints. For instance in Jahai, derivations of disyllabic roots or bases are systematically trisyllabic, whereas in Ceq Wong, the maximal derived form is almost always disyllabic, reflecting a general phonotactic preference for disyllabic structures over

428

Kruspe, Burenhult and Wnuk

trisyllabic ones. Further, the output must conform to the prosodic well-formedness constraints that operate within the language (§§2.1–2.2). Given these constraints, processes of affixation may involve either the creation of a new syllable, or the restructuring of an existing syllable. In some cases, the penultimate syllable is replaced. The creation of a new syllable is demonstrated in a) above, where the creation of a new syllable expands a monosyllabic base to a disyllabic form. Affixation may also result in the restructuring of an existing syllable, for instance through the addition of new material creating a heavy syllable CVC from a light syllable CV as in the Ceq Wong example in c) above. Given that word stress is always fixed on the final syllable it is never affected by affixation. Manipulation of the base to accommodate constraints on syllable structure sometimes results in the violation of prosodic well-formedness. Epenthesis operates to repair this. The epenthetic vowel is usually [ə], e.g., Ceq Wong dias ‘to follow’ → n‑dias [nə‑dias] (nml-follow) ‘following’. Reduplicated bilabial and labio-velar codas may cause the epenthetic vowel to be realised as the high back rounded vowel [u], palatal consonants result in the high front unrounded vowel [i], and (in Jahai) copied glottal codas condition vowel realization as [a]; in Ceq Wong the onset may also cause conditioning, e.g., jok ‘to move residence’ → jk‑jok [ jik‑jok] ‘be moving residence’. Recursive derivation is richly attested in Jahai, where, for example, imperfective forms feed further derivational morphology in the form of progressives, iteratives, continuatives, and nominalisation (Burenhult 2005: 96). However, in Ceq Wong it is generally rare and restricted mainly to the causative stems. Causative stems feed the progressive, and nominalisation processes as shown in the following data: ŋɔ̃ ɲ ‘to be alight’ → c-ŋɔ̃ ɲ (caus‑be.alight) ‘to light’ → ɲi-ŋɔ̃ ɲ (nml.caus-be.alight) ‘lighting’. Affixes also vary as to the degree of phonological prespecification. There are three basic types. The first are fully prespecified, where both the syllabic structure and the phonological content of the affix are fully specified. These prefixes generally have the form of a syllable, like pi- ‘caus’. The second are partly prespecified, where only part of the affix is phonologically prespecified, the remainder consists of empty phonological slots, e.g., nominalising +n+ ‘nml’, which may manifest as either an onset, or coda depending on the prosodic structure of the base. Third, is underspecified affixation, which is essentially reduplication. The affix, or ‘reduplicant’ consists of a series of empty C and V positions conforming to a permissible syllable type, and phonological content is ‘copied’ from the final syllable of the base to which the affix attaches. These 3 types represent the basic building blocks of Aslian morphology. In addition it is possible to have combinations of these, for example, combining a partly prespecified affix, and copying, as in the affix p– ‘be X number’

429

Northern Aslian

where n�̃ y ‘one’ → py-n�̃ y ‘single, each one’. Whatever the permutations and combinations of the units, the output is always constrained in accordance with the phonotactic rules of the specific language. Full reduplication of lexemes is generally rather rare in Aslian. Some examples from Ceq Wong with numerals are n�̃ y n�̃ y (one~red) ‘all together’, limãʔ limãʔ (five~red) ‘in a group of five’, and with a stative verb deriving an adverb, as in ktaʔ ktaʔ (be.loud~red) ‘loudly’. In Jahai nouns may be reduplicated to express plurality or variety. 3.2.1 Deriving Nouns Processes of nominalisation derive verbal nouns that denote a state or manner, e.g., Jahai ʔnay ‘to bathe’ → ʔnay, ‘act of bathing’, unitized nouns from nominal roots, e.g., ktɔʔ ‘day’ → ktɔʔ ‘[unit of] day’, and to a lesser extent, nouns denoting physical entities, e.g., instruments, objects, or location, e.g., cɔm ‘to burn’ → nm-cɔm ‘swidden’. All of these are attested in Jahai and Ceq Wong (Table 1.4); in Maniq the physical entity type is more frequent than state or manner, while unitization is not attested, making the Maniq nominalisation less productive than in other Northern Aslian languages, see Table 1.5. The nominalising affix +N+ ‘nml’ is a partly specified segmental affix whose realisation depends on the structure of the base, and in some languages cooccurs with Coda Copy, the reduplication of the coda. The various realisations in Ceq Wong and Maniq are presented in the tables below. Table 1.4

Nominalisation in Ceq Wong n-

CVC

+

Cr/lVC

+

(C)C.CVC CV. CVC (n.)

CV.CVC (v.) CC.CVC (n.)

Nasal mutation N:

jəʔ ‘to heat’ → n-jəʔ ‘heating’ +

krit ‘to grate’→ n-krit ‘grating’

+

btow ‘be flooded’ → btow ‘flooding’ hlɔt ‘to faint’ → slɔt ‘fainting’ blwəɲ ‘be grue’ → blwəɲ ‘grue’ taləs ‘taro’ → taləs ‘a taro’ +

patuʔ ‘to try’ → m-atuʔ ‘trying’ pryok ‘cooking pot’ → p-n-yok ‘potful’

430 Table 1.5

CV(C)

CV.CV(C)

Kruspe, Burenhult and Wnuk Nominalisation in Maniq n-

nC-

+

+

+

dda (*da) ‘to move across’ → n-da ‘lateral direction’ lɛn ‘to tie a waistband’ → n-lɛn ‘waistband’ kɔŋ ‘to sieve’ → nŋ-kɔŋ ‘sieve’ kɨc ‘to grind tubers’ → kɨc ‘grinding stick’

+

kapa ‘to carry a child’ → kapa ‘cloth used as child carrier’ paʔɛ̃c ‘to rise (of sun)’ → paʔɛ̃c ‘the east’

Each language also has some minor nominalisations. In Maniq there is the marginal presence of a nominalising +m+, e.g. haluh ‘to blowpipe’ → haluh ‘bamboo sp. used for blowpipes’ (bamboo). In Ceq Wong there is a prefix ni- ‘qnml’ that derives measure nouns from a disparate range of word classes including stative verbs, quantity nominals, a locational noun and an aspectual adverb, e.g., jəsɨŋ ‘be long’ → ni-sɨŋ (qnmlbe.long) ‘length’. The habitual agent nominalization ‘anml’ combines a specified segment pn- and nominalisation +N+ of the onset. Monosyllabic roots prefix pn-, as in cɨp ‘to walk’ → pn‑cɨp [pə.nə.cɨp] ‘a wanderer’; disyllabic roots undergo nasal mutation pN-, as in kn�̃ m ‘to urinate’ → p-ŋən�̃ m ‘a perpetual urinator’. This affix is rare, and has not been attested with all root types. The prefix na- ‘incl’ derives a collective numeral ‘all X[num]’ from the indigenous numerals e.g., p�n ‘four’ → na-p�n (incl-four) ‘all four’; while ka- ‘ord’ derives ordinal numbers from both indigenous and Malay loans, e.g., ka-ber (ord-two) ‘second’ . 3.2.2 Deriving Verbs All Northern Aslian languages have productive verbal derivations including the causative, and various aspectual and Aktionsart derivations. Less prevalent

Northern Aslian

431

are processes to derive verbs from nouns. Most of the languages have a means of deriving verbal forms from numerals, and Maniq derives a small class of orientation / body posture verbs from body part terms. 3.2.2.1 Deriving Verbs from Nouns Noun-to-verb derivation is fairly marginal. Jahai derives intransitive property verbs from nouns by means of a borrowed Malay prefix b-, e.g. b-tɔm ‘to have/ use/contain water’ from tɔm ‘water’. In Maniq a different kind of noun-toverb derivation is carried out with the causative morpheme . The process applies to a small group of body part terms to derive orientation / body posture verbs, i.e. hadɛp ‘front side’ → hdɛp ‘to turn the front to s.o.’, kaʔɔʔ ‘back side’ → kyɔʔ ‘to turn the back to s.o.’, khkieh ‘side’ → khkieh ‘to turn the side to s.o.’, katoŋ ‘knee’ → ktoŋ ‘to bend knees’. Ceq Wong, Jahai and Maniq all exhibit processes of deriving verbs from numeral roots. Both Jahai and Maniq derive a verb from the numeral ‘one’ with the causative affix pi- ‘caus’, as in pi-nɛy ‘one by one’, and pi-nay ‘to make s.o./s.th. be on its own’, respectively. In Ceq Wong a prefix p- comprising a prespecified onset in conjunction with, coda copy derives a verb ‘a group of X num’ from the set of four indigenous numerals, e.g., ber ‘two’ → p‑ber ‘be in a group of two’. In Ceq Wong there is some limited zero derivation of verbs from a small subset of meteorological nouns, e.g., kəs ‘afternoon’ → ʔu=kəs ‘be(come) late afternoon’, and some stative verbs that can have a defined endpoint. 3.2.2.2 Deriving Verbs from Verbs Causative All Northern Aslian languages have a productive causative derivation, with pi- ‘caus’ common to all languages, see below, and Asmah 1976: 954–55 for Kentaq Bong. Ceq Wong lacks a productive causative infix unlike Jahai (Burenhult 2005: 108–109), and Maniq, and other Aslian languages (Benjamin 1976b and Semaq Beri, this volume). Instead it patterns like its neighbour, the Aslian isolate Jah-Hut (Diffloth 1976a). Most of the languages exhibit several causative forms, e.g., Batek Teq’s p-, pi- and (Kruspe field notes 2008), but in general one morpheme is more productive than the others. For example of the five Ceq Wong causative prefixes, pi-, p-, c-, s- and ki- ‘caus’, pi- is the only one that is productive. There is a suggestion of a semantic difference between the prefixes, e.g., pi-ʔam ‘to lay down’ compared to p-ʔam ‘to marry’, and pi-bɨt ‘to threaten to burn (s.o.)’ and p-bɨt ‘to heat (s.th.)’. A rare lexicalized form is p-bɨt ‘to reheat (s.th.)’ with an infix as in Batek.

432 Table 1.6

Kruspe, Burenhult and Wnuk Imperfective in Maniq / Progressive in Ceq Wong Prefix CC-

CVC

Infix

+

yek ‘to return’ → yk-yek ‘to be returning’ (tnz) dias ‘to follow’ → ds-dias ‘to be following’ (cwg)

C.CVC

+

slɔk ‘to wear’ → slɔk ‘to be wearing’ (cwg)

CV.CVC

+

bakɛ̃ɲ ‘to be bald’ → bakɛ̃ɲ ‘to be bald’ (tnz) lipat ‘to fold’ → lipat ‘to be folding’ (cwg)

Aspectual/Aktionsart Derivations Imperfective/Progressive Ceq Wong, Jahai and Maniq, and possibly all Northern Aslian varieties, have verbal derivations that invoke partial reduplication, where depending on the root structure, either the root coda, or onset and coda are copied and affixed to the root. This derives an aspectual distinction, like the Imperfective in Jahai (Burenhult 2005: 94) and Maniq, or the Progressive in Ceq Wong, see Table 1.6 below. In both Maniq and Ceq Wong, roots with complex onsets may behave like monosyllables. Maniq, monosyllabic CCVC roots with a complex onset copy the root onset (and coda) into the prefix, e.g., hyɛ̃ɸ ‘to whistle shrilly’ → hyɸhyɛ̃ɸ (ipfv-whistle) ‘be whistling shrilly’. In Ceq Wong roots with a /Cr/ or homorganic nasal plus stop onset pattern with monosyllabic bases, e.g., krit ‘to grate (cassava)’ → kt-krit (prog-grate) ‘be grating’. Curiously, disyllabic Ceq Wong roots with phonemic /a/ in the penultimate syllable lose the /a/ in the progressive derivation. This applies to both indigenous and borrowed roots as in kajəw ‘to take flight’ → kjəw [kuʷ.ˈɟəw] (take.off) ‘to be taking off’, and ʔageh ‘to share out’ → ʔgeh [ʔəh.ˈɡeh] (share.out) ‘to be sharing out’, respectively. In Jahai, imperfectives frequently feed further derivation by means of the borrowed Malay prefix /b-/ to produce progressives (Burenhult 2005: 96–99). A progressive category is also attested in Maniq: here the progressive /mV/ is a partly prespecified affix consisting of m followed by an underspecified vowel. It surfaces as a prefix in monosyllabic bases and as an infix in disyllabic bases. In disyllabic bases, the vowel is a copy of the initial-syllable vowel. In most occurrences, the progressive is accompanied by the imperfective affix (a copy of the final coda), e.g. bas ‘to run’ → ma-bas ‘to be running’ (prog-run), bikãt ‘to cry’ → bikãt ‘to be crying’ (cry). Progressive

Northern Aslian

433

derivation of h-initial disyllabic verbs almost always results in the suppression of the vowel in the initial syllable, although its copy in the form of an epenthetic vowel does surface directly to the right of , e.g. hipɛk ‘to fix, to secure’ → hipɛk [hmipɛk] ‘to be fixing, to be securing’. The progressive applies not only to dynamic, but also auto-causative-derived stative verbs, e.g. ɡəbaʔ ‘to be angry’ → ɡbaʔ ‘to be making oneself angry’ (be.angry ). Iterative Some varieties derive iteratives from dynamic verbs, in all attested cases by means of an affix involving the phoneme /l/. For Jahai, see Burenhult 2005:99–100. The Maniq iterative /l/ is a fully prespecified affix, prefixed to monosyllabic and infixed in disyllabic bases, e.g. wa ‘to walk’ → l-wa ‘to walk repeatedly’ (iter-walk), piŋɔk ‘to sit s.o.’ → pi-ŋɔk ‘to sit s.o. repeatedly’ (caus-sit). Like the progressive, it is frequently accompanied by the imperfective, e.g. cɔk ‘to pierce’ → l-cɔk ‘to pierce repeatedly’ (iter-pierce), ɲup ‘to be soft’ → l‑