David Kamholz SHWNG: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative

David Kamholz (UC Berkeley) linguistics.berkeley.edu/~kamholz kamholz@berkeley.edu

South Halmahera–West New Guinea: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative1 Introduction• Questions

– How do languages diversify and spread?– What methods allow us to best establish this history?

• South Halmahera–West New Guinea (SHWNG) as a test case– discrete subgroup of a much larger family (Austronesian) with substantial historical work– important role in the eastward spread of Austronesian prior to the formation of Proto-Oceanic– time depth of 3–4 thousand years– in contact with many non-Austronesian languages during this time– little previous work

• Methodology– comparative method– top-down: assume validity of Proto-SHWNG– bottom-up: each language counts as an independent data point for subgrouping– subgroups are defined by shared innovations inherited from a common proto-language– distinctiveness of shared innovations is essential– focus on phonological and morphological change

• Sources (see Appendix for complete list)– published descriptions dating back to the mid-19th century– archival sources– fieldwork on four languages (Moor, Umar, Yaur, Yerisiam)– Facebook (?!)

2 SHWNG and Austronesian• Proto-Austronesian (PAn)

– spoken c. 5000 years ago on Taiwan– well-reconstructed

• Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (PMP)– ancestor of all Austronesian languages outside Taiwan– defined by a substantial bundle of shared innovations– very well-reconstructed

• Proto-Central Eastern Malayo-Polynesian (PCEMP) and Proto-Eastern Malayo-Polynesian (PEMP)– defined mainly by lexical innovations and sporadic phonological changes– less well defined than PAn or PMP, less consensus over their validity– small number of lexical reconstructions, no grammatical reconstruction

• Proto-SHWNG– established by Blust (1978); little comparative work since then– no lexical reconstructions; preliminary reconstruction of possessive paradigms, but assumes geographicalsubgrouping (van den Berg 2009)

– 1 – LSA Minneapolis 2014

David Kamholz SHWNG: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative

Proto-Austronesian

Formosan Proto-Malayo-Polynesian

Western Malayo-Polynesian Proto-Central-EasternMalayo-Polynesian

Central Malayo-Polynesian Proto-EasternMalayo-Polynesian

Proto-South Halmahera–WestNew Guinea

Proto-Oceanic

Figure 1: The higher nodes of the Austronesian family tree, after Blust (2009: 724–39). Nodes in italics are notproto-languages, but rather are cover terms for multiple primary branches.

terra australis 26

22

Oceanic Explorations: Lapita and Western Pacific Settlement

The Oceanic branch stems from a movement of EMP speakers from the Cenderawasih Bay area of western New Guinea east to the Bismarck Archipelago. The considerable number of innovations defining Oceanic suggests that a significant period of time, probably a few centuries, elapsed between (a) the separation of this branch from the SHWNG subgroup and (b) the breakup of Proto Oceanic (POc).

Given that the closest relatives of Oceanic lie around the neck of the Birds’ Head, one might reasonably expect that speakers of pre Oceanic (the phase between Proto SHWNG and Proto Oceanic) at one time lived along the coast of north New Guinea or its offshore islands west of the Bismarcks. But there are no linguistic survivors of such settlements, only tantalising traces in the form of loanwords to Papuan languages of Madang Province (Ross 1988:21). All the Oceanic languages of the north coast of New Guinea are relatively recent “backwash” from the Bismarcks.

The centre of genetic diversity within Oceanic, and the most likely primary dispersal centre for the surviving Oceanic languages, is in the Bismarck Archipelago, where three groups are found that have claims to be first-order subgroups: Admiralties (Blust 1978b, 1996; Ross 1988), Western Oceanic (Ross 1988) and St Matthias (Mussau) (Blust 1984; Ross 1988).

Proto Western Oceanic appears to have been a network of dialects spoken over parts of New Britain, the French Island (Bali-Vitu) and New Ireland (or its offshore eastern islands). It broke up into (a) a Meso-Melanesian dialect complex, initially occupying much the same area as Proto Western Oceanic but later spreading into the northwest Solomons, (b) a North New Guinea dialect complex, extending from the Huon Gulf to Jayapura, and including parts of New Britain, and (c) a Papuan Tip branch, consisting of the Oceanic languages of the Northern Milne Bay and Central Provinces of Papua (Ross 1988).

There is less agreement about the high-order relationships of the Oceanic languages spoken in the eastern half of the main Solomons group and in Remote Oceania. A conservative view is that the following groups may be first-order branches: Southeast Solomonic (Guadalcanal, Gela, Malaita and Makira) (Pawley 1972), Te Motu (the non-Polynesian languages of Te Motu Province, in the eastern Solomons) (Ross and Naess 2007), Yapese (Ross 1996a), Micronesian (Bender 1971; Bender and Wang 1985; Jackson 1983, 1986), North-Central Vanuatu, Southern Vanuatu (Lynch 2001), New Caledonia-Loyalties (Haurdricourt 1971), and Central

Figure 2: Map of the Austronesian family and major language groupings (Pawley 2007: 22).

– 2 – LSA Minneapolis 2014

DavidKamholzSHW

NG:ThehistoryofOceanic’sclosestrelative

Figure 3: Map of the SHWNG region, with South Halmahera languages marked. The Raja Ampat language As, also marked, is spoken on the mainland justeast of the Raja Ampat archipelago.

–3–LSA

Minneapolis2014

DavidKamholzSHW

NG:ThehistoryofOceanic’sclosestrelativeFigure 4: Map of Cenderawasih Bay and Mamberamo languages, adapted from an unpublished SIL Papua map.

–4–LSA

Minneapolis2014

David Kamholz SHWNG: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative

• Proto-SHWNG shared innovations proposed by Blust:1. PMP penultimate syllable *ə became o2. PMP final syllable *ə merged with *a as a or e3. PMP *c, *s, and *-j- merged as s4. PMP *q and *h were lost5. PMP *-k- was lost6. PMP *d, *D, *z, *l, and *r merged as l or r7. lexically-specific syncope

• SHWNG contains 38 languages, listed below according to geographic location (ISO 639-3 codes in brackets):– South Halmahera (6 languages): Buli [bzq], Gane [gzn], Maba [mqa], Patani [ptn], Sawai [szw], Taba [mky]– Raja Ampat (8 languages): Ambel [wgo], As [asz], Bata, Biga [bhc], Gebe [gei], Maden [xmx] (dialect:Fiawat), Matbat [xmt], Maˈya [slz] (dialects: Kawe [kgb], Laganyan [lcc], Misool, Salawati, Wauyai [wuy])

– West New Guinea (24 languages):* Cenderawasih Bay: Biak [bhw], Dusner [dsn], Meoswar [mvx], Moor [mhz], Roon [rnn], Tandia [tni],Umar [gop], Wandamen [wad], Waropen [wrp], Yaur [jau], Yerisiam [ire]· Yapen Island: Ambai [amk], Ansus [and], Busami [bsm], Kurudu [kjr], Marau [mvr], Munggui[mth], Papuma [ppm], Pom [pmo], Serui-Laut [seu], Wabo [wbb], Wooi [wbw]

* Mamberamo: Warembori [wsa], Yoke [yki]• Well-established subgroups

– Central-Eastern South Halmahera (Blust 1978): Buli, Maba, Patani, Sawai– Southern South Halmahera (Blust 1978): Gane, Taba– Biakic (Anceaux 1961): Biak, Dusner, Meoswar, Roon– Western Yapen (Silzer 1983): all Yapen languages except Kurudu and Wabo, plus Wandamen

3 SHWNG historical phonology• Methodology

– database was compiled containing most available lexical material from SHWNG languages (online athttp://lexifier.lautgesetz.com)

– PAn, PMP, PCEMP, and PEMP reconstructions were incorporated from Blust (2013) and other sources– 1280 SHWNG cognate sets coded, 375 containing Austronesian etymologies– sound changes were identified from these cognate sets, with attention paid to phonetic naturalness

• Shared innovations with subgrouping value:1. *z> dʒ initially and *z>∅ medially in Umar, Yaur, and Yerisiam2. irregular *u> i in PMP *punti in Umar, Yaur, and Yerisiam3. *ŋ>∅ in Yaur and Yerisiam4. *u, *i, *ə> e ~ ə in Biak and Dusner, in final closed syllables of polysyllabic words5. *R>∅ in South Halmahera and Raja Ampat

• Supported subgroups:– Proto-Southwest Cenderawasih Bay (1 and 2)– Proto-Yaur-Yerisiam (3)– Proto-Biakic (4)– Proto-RASH (5)

– 5 – LSA Minneapolis 2014

David Kamholz SHWNG: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative

• Examples of innovations lacking subgrouping value:– *t > k in Biak, Moor, Waropen, Yerisiam– *b> p in South Halmahera and (variably) Raja Ampat– *k>∅ in most SHWNG languages– *ə> adjacent vowel in Raja Ampat– tonogenesis: at least five SHWNG languages have contrastive tone (Maˈya, Matbat, Moor, Yaur, Yerisiam),but no shared innovations!

• Phonological change is not very probative for subgrouping overall in SHWNG

4 SHWNG historical morphology• SHWNG languages have two salient morphological paradigms: subject marking on verbs, and inalienablepossessive marking on a subset of nouns• Paradigms were not inherited from PMP, PCEMP, or PEMP, but most CEMP languages contain such paradigms

– areal tendency, most likely catalyzed by non-Austronesian (“Papuan”) contact– remains to be seen whether Proto-SHWNG paradigms can be reconstructed

• Methodology– paradigms were identified for most SHWNG languages, sometimes on the basis of limited descriptions(summarized in Appendix)

– individual forms were compared with reconstructed PMP pronouns, their most likely precursors– forms that could not be straightforwardly derived from PMP pronouns were identified as innovations

• Shared innovations with subgrouping value (S = subject marking, I = inalienable possessive marking):1. S: 2pl prefix f- in all South Halmahera languages and Gebe2. I: 1pl.in -r/-d in the Central-Eastern South Halmahera languages and Gebe3. I: paradigmatic innovation in the Central-Eastern South Halmahera languages4. I: loss of inalienable possessive marking in Gane and Taba5. S: 1sg and 2sg infix ‹y› in Patani and all Raja Ampat languages except Matbat6. I: 1pl.in -n in Kawe, Matbat, and Maˈya7. I: plural -ni/-no in Ambel and Biga8. S: 2sg infix ‹u› and 3sg infix ‹i› in all Cenderawasih Bay languages except Moor, Tandia, and Waropen9. S: 3sg vocalic conjugation prefix d- and similiar in all Cenderawasih Bay languages except Moor, Umar,Waropen, and Yaur (no data for Tandia)

10. S and I: paradigmatic innovations in the Biakic languages (Biak, Dusner, Meoswar, and Roon)11. S: 2sg vocalic conjugation prefix b(u)- in Ambai, Ansus, Kurudu, Wabo, Wandamen, and Wooi12. I: 3sg -mpai, 3sg -na/-ni, and plural -mi/-mu in the Western Yapen languages13. S: plural vocalic conjugation linking consonant -t- in Ambai, Serui-Laut, and Wandamen (insufficientdata for Papuma, Pom, and Wooi)

• Subject marker infixation is an areal tendency (also present in CMP languages); significance of innovations istied to the precise form and distribution of infixes• Supported subgroups:

– Proto-South Halmahera (1, 2): includes Gebe– Proto-Central-Eastern South Halmahera (3): includes Gebe– Proto-Southern South Halmahera (4)– Proto-RASH (5): infix lost in Matbat and most South Halmahera languages– Proto-Matbat-Maˈya (6) (?)

– 6 – LSA Minneapolis 2014

David Kamholz SHWNG: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative

– Proto-Ambel-Biga (7)– Proto-Cenderawasih Bay (8, 9): all Cenderawasih Bay languages except Moor, Tandia, Waropen– Proto-Biakic (10)– Proto-Yapen (11)– Proto-Western Yapen (12, 13)

• Minor details of this subgrouping are disputable (e.g., the validity of Proto-Matbat-Maˈya), but the overallpicture is convincing

5 Conclusion• New proposed subgrouping of SHWNG languages based on shared morphological innovations (Figure 5)• Phonological evidence mainly points toward diffusion and independent innovation• Morphological evidence shows much clearer evidence for family-tree-like splits• Babel et al. (2013) likewise found that phonological innovations were more likely than morphological inno-vations to diffuse, and therefore less probative for subgrouping• The role of contact

– non-Austronesian (“Papuan”) contact most likely responsible for contrastive tone, development of mor-phological subject marking and inalienable possessive marking

– however, most forms have Austronesian etymologies– contact-induced phonological change is arguably more common than borrowing of morphological forms:if so, this is another reason to discount phonological innovations for the purposes of subgrouping

• A ‘subgrouping scale’: features least likely to diffuse or arise independently– paradigmatic morphological innovation > individual morphological innovation > sporadic phonologi-cal change > regular phonological change > lexical innovation

– not a stability scale, since it focuses on innovations rather than retentions– not quite the reverse of Thomason and Kaufman (1988)’s borrowing scale, since it incorporates thelikelihood of independent innovation

• Shared phonological changes have often been used for subgrouping, in both traditional and computationalphylogenetic approaches

– sometimes this is effective, i.e., the results correlate with other evidence– are there varying situations in which phonological change is more and less reliable for subgrouping?– what might distinguish these situations?– what about Proto-SHWNG?

– 7 – LSA Minneapolis 2014

DavidKamholzSHW

NG:ThehistoryofOceanic’sclosestrelative

Proto-SHWNG

Proto-RASH

Proto-South

Halmahera

Proto-Central-

Eastern South

Halmahera

Proto-Southern

South Halmahera

Proto-Ambel-

Biga

Proto-Matbat-

Ma’ya

Fiawat As

Tandia Moor Waropen Warembori Yoke Proto-Cenderawasih Bay

Proto-Biakic Proto-Yapen

Proto-Western

Yapen

Kurudu Wabo

Proto-Southwest

Cenderawasih

Bay

Proto-Yaur-

Yerisiam

Umar

Figure 5: New proposed subgrouping of SHWNG languages.

–8–LSA

Minneapolis2014

David Kamholz SHWNG: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative

6 Appendix

6.1 PMP pronouns

1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl.in 1pl.ex 2pl 3plneut i-aku ikahu siya i-kita, ita i-kami i-kamu, i-ka-ihu,

kamu-ihu—

nom1 aku (i)kahu iya kita, i-ta kami kamu, ka-ihu sidanom2 =(h)aku =ka(hu) =∅, =ya =ta =kami =kamu, =ka-ihu,

=kamu-ihu=da

gen1 =ku =mu =ya =ta =mi =ihu, -mu-ihu =dagen2 =n(a)ku =nihu =niya — =mami, =nami =nihu =nidapsr [y]akən imu, ihu — [y]atən [y]amən ihu, ini-hu,

imu-ihu—

Table 1: PMP pronouns reconstructed by Ross (2006).

6.2 Subject marking

1sg 2sg 3sgV C V C V C

Buli ik- i- m- m- n- n-Gane [ek-]k- ek- [em-]m- em- [en-]n- en-Maba k- k- m- m- n- n-Patani y-, k- ‹i›, y(i)-, ki- m(y)- m-(‹i›) n- n-Sawai k- k- m- m- ∅ ∅Taba k= k= m= m= n= n=Ambel y- ‹y› ny-; m- n-‹y› n- n-As ‹y› (i-)‹y› m-‹y› m-‹y› n- n-Biga y- ya- m- ma- n- na-Fiawat y- ye-‹y› m- ? n- ?Gebe y- ‹y› my- m-‹y› n- n-Kawe y- ‹y› my- m-‹y› ny- n-‹y›Matbat k- k- m- m- n- n-Maˈya y- ‹y›, ya- my- m-‹y›, ma- ny- n-(‹y›), na-

Table 2: South Halmahera and Raja Ampat singular subject markers, divided into vocalic and consonantal conjuga-tions.

– 9 – LSA Minneapolis 2014

David Kamholz SHWNG: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative

1sg 2sg 3sgV C V C V C

Ambai i- i- bu- ‹u› di- ‹i›Ansus ya- e- bu- ‹u› d- ‹i›Biak y- ya- w- wa-, ‹w› d- i-, ‹y›Busami ya- ya- w- ? s- ‹i›Dusner y- ya-, ∅ w- wa-, ‹w› nd-, ndi- i-, ‹i›Kurudu ay- a(y)- b- ‹u› d- ‹i›Meoswar y- a- w- ‹u› d- ‹i›Moor í=gw- í= á=(gw-) á= j- ∅Munggui y- e- w- ‹u› ty- ‹y›Papuma y- e- w- ‹u› t- ‹i›Pom y- i- w- ‹u› dy- ‹i›Roon y- ya-, i- w- wa- t- i-Serui-Laut ya- y- w- ‹u› d- ‹i›Tandia ? ya- ? a(m)- ? i-Umar e- e- a(w)- a-‹u› j- i-‹i›Wabo ai- a- b- o- d- ‹i›Wandamen y- i- bu- ‹u› di- ‹i›Waropen r-, y- ra-, ya- agh-, a(u)- a- i(y)- ∅, i-Wooi y- i- bu- ‹u› ty- ‹y›Yaur igw- i- agw-‹u› a-‹u› ‹i› ‹i›Yerisiam ne-j- ne- a-gu- a-‹u› i-di- i-‹i›Warembori ∅ i-, e-, ya- w- (w)a- y- i-, ya-, ∅

Table 3: Cenderawasih Bay and Mamberamo singular subject markers, divided into vocalic and consonantal conju-gations.

1pl.in 1pl.ex 2pl 3plBuli t- k- f- d-Gane et- am- ef- i-Maba t- k- f- d-Patani t- k- f- r-Sawai t- k- f- r-Taba t= a= h= l=Ambel t- | ∅ am- m- | mem- l- | la-As t- am- m- l- | si-Biga t- m- m- l-Gebe t- k- f- d-Fiawat t- l- m- l- | ∅Kawe t- w- m- w- | ∅Matbat t- n- m- n-Maˈya t-, ta- m-, ma- m-, ma- w- | ∅; wa-

Table 4: South Halmahera and Raja Ampat plural subject markers. Markers differing in vocalic and consonantalconjugations are listed as vocalic | consonantal.

– 10 – LSA Minneapolis 2014

David Kamholz SHWNG: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative

1pl.in 1pl.ex 2pl 3pl 3pl.nhumAmbai tat- | ta- amet- | ame- met- | me- et- | e-Biak kw- | ko- nkw- | nko- mkw- | mko- s- | s(i)- n- | n(a)-Dusner t- | to- nd- | ndo- mt- | mto- s(i)- | s(i)-, so- n- | na-Kurudu t- nam- mi- | min- si-Meoswar k- | ko- ingg- | inggo- mk- | mko- s- | sko-Moor ∅ n- | ∅ n- | ∅ tí=n-, tí=j- | tí= tí=j- | tí=Papuma ta- anta- minta- e-Pom ta- anta- minta- ti-Roon k- | ko- ngg- | nggo- mak- | moko- s- | si-, se- n- | na-, ne-Serui-Laut tat- | ta- amet- | ame- met- | me- et- | e-Tandia ite- ami- mu(m)- si-Umar t- em- am-‹u› ih-‹i›Wandamen tat- | ta- amat- | ama- met- | me- set- | se- si-Waropen (i)k- | ∅, i- angg- | a- m[ingg]- | mi- ki-Wooi ? ma- me- he-Yaur o’- om- am-‹u› oh-‹i› h-‹i›Yerisiam ne-k- ne-m- a-mu- | a-m-‹u› i-hi- hi-Warembori k- | kV- am- | amV- m- | mV- t- | tV-

Table 5: Cenderawasih Bay and Mamberamo plural subject markers. Markers differing in vocalic and consonantalconjugations are listed as vocalic | consonantal.

6.3 Inalienable possessive marking

1sg 2sg 3sgBuli ya-…-k a-…-m i-Maba a-…-g a-…-m i-Patani a-…-g a-…-m i-Sawai [a-]…-g, [ya-]…-g [a-]…-m [i-]Ambel -k -m ∅As an- am- ni-Biga -g -m -oGebe -k -m ∅Kawe -k, -g | -Vk, -Vg -m | -Vm ∅ | -VMatbat -ŋ -m ∅Maˈya -k | -Vk -m | -Vm ∅

Table 6: South Halmahera and Raja Ampat inalienable possessive marking (singular forms). If there is a differencewith vowel- and consonant-initial or final roots, the markers are listed as vocalic | consonantal.

– 11 – LSA Minneapolis 2014

David Kamholz SHWNG: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative

1sg 2sg 3sgAmbai -ku -mu -n, -naAnsus -u -mpi ne-…-mpaiBiak -ri; -si -m-ri; -m-si; -mi -ri; -siDusner ? -meria; -mi -riKurudu ai- me- ne-Meoswar -ri; -na -mri; -mna; -mi -ri; -naMoor -’a -ma -raPapuma -u -mu -[ne]mpaePom -ni -mu -naniRoon -ri; -na; -etia -meri; -mena; -mi -ri; -naSerui-Laut -u -mu ∅, ne-, -ne[mpoi]Umar -vie -vua -vreWandamen -ne[i] -mu[i] -pai; -niWaropen ra- a- ∅Yaur igw- | i- agw- | a- ∅Yerisiam ne-ni- | ne- a-ni- | a- i-ni- | i-Warembori e- a- i-

Table 7: Cenderawasih Bay and Mamberamo inalienable possessive marking (singular forms). If there is a differencewith vowel- and consonant-initial or final roots, the markers are listed as vocalic | consonantal.

1pl.in 1pl.ex 2pl 3plBuli ite-…-r ame-…-mam meu-…-meu si[le]-…-riMaba ite-…-r a-…-am meu-…-meu si-…-riPatani ite-…-r ama-…-mam me-…-me si-…-reSawai [ite-]…-r [a-]…-mam [me-]…-mi [si-]…-riAmbel -ni am-…-ni mem-…-ni -niAs ti(N)- ami(N)- mi(N)- si(N)-Biga -no -no -no -noGebe -d -man -mo -ri[si]Kawe -n | -Vn -m | -Vm -m | -Vm -n | -VnMatbat -n -m -m ∅Maˈya -n | -Vn -m | -Vm -m | -Vm -n | -Vn

Table 8: South Halmahera and Raja Ampat inalienable possessive marking (plural forms). If there is a differencewith vowel- and consonant-initial or final roots, the markers are listed as vocalic | consonantal.

– 12 – LSA Minneapolis 2014

David Kamholz SHWNG: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative

1pl.in 1pl.ex 2pl 3plAmbai ta-…-mi ame-…-mi me-…-mi e-…-miAnsus ta(N)-…-minekuira ama-…-mine me(N)-…-

mipakuirae(N)-…-miwanekuira

Biak ko-…-s-na nko-…-s-na mko-…-s-na si-…-s-naDusner to-…-sesia ? mto-…-sesia si-…-sesiaKurudu ta- na- mi- si-Meoswar ko-…-sna;

ko-…-sriinggo-…-sna;inggo-…-sri

mko-…-sna;mko-…-sri

sko-…-sna;sko-…-sri

Moor -ta -ma -mu, -ma -taPapuma tas-…-mu antas-…-mu mintas-…-mu es-…-muPom ta(N)-…-mi -n minda(N)-…-mi ti(N)-…-miRoon ko-…-sena;

-kesianggo-…-sena;-nggetia

moko-…-sena;-meketia

si-…-sena;-setia

Serui-Laut ta-…-mi ame-…-mi me-…-mi e-…-miUmar -vte -viemi -vuamu -hienWandamen ta(N)-…-mi ama(N)-…-mi me(N)-…-mi se(N)-…-miWaropen ∅ a(N)- mi(N)- ki-Yaur o’- om- am- oh-Yerisiam nek- nem- am- ih-Warembori ki-, ke- ami √ mi-, me- ti-, te-

Table 9: Cenderawasih Bay and Mamberamo inalienable possessive marking (plural forms).

– 13 – LSA Minneapolis 2014

David Kamholz SHWNG: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative

6.4 Sources

Language Works consultedSH Buli Blust (2013); Greenhill et al. (2008); Maan (1951); van den Berg (2009)

Gane Greenhill et al. (2008); Hamim Al Fatih (p.c., 2013)Maba Adriani and Kruyt (1914)Patani Legaya Jumahir Jamulia (p.c., 2013)Sawai Whisler and Whisler (1995); van den Berg (2009)Taba Bowden (2001); Greenhill et al. (2008)

RA Ambel Remijsen (2001)As Greenhill et al. (2008); Grace (1955–6)Biga Greenhill et al. (2008); Remijsen (2001); Grace (1955–6)Fiawat Remijsen (2001)Gebe Greenhill et al. (2008); Grace (1955–6)Kawe Remijsen (2001); Grace (1955–6)Laganyan Remijsen (2001)Matbat Remijsen (2001, 2010); van den Berg (2009)Maˈya Blust (2013); Remijsen (2001); van der Leeden (n.d.)Wauyai Remijsen (2001)

CB Ambai Blust (2013); Greenhill et al. (2008); Silzer (1983); van den Berg (2009)Ansus Blust (2013); Price and Donohue (2009); Anceaux (1961)Biak Blust (2013); Greenhill et al. (2008); van Hasselt and van Hasselt (1947); van den Heuvel

(2006); van den Berg (2009)Dusner Dalrymple and Mofu (2011); Kijne (n.d.[b])Kurudu Blust (2013); Silzer (1983); Anceaux (1961)Meoswar Anceaux (n.d.); Smits and Voorhoeve (1992)Moor own field notesMunggui Blust (2013); Silzer (1983); Anceaux (1961)Papuma Silzer (1983); Anceaux (1961)Pom Blust (2013); Silzer (1983); Anceaux (1961)Roon Blust (2013); Gil (2008); Kijne (n.d.[b])Serui-Laut Blust (2013); Slump (1924–38)Tandia Kijne (n.d.[a])Umar own field notesWabo Silzer (1983); Anceaux (1961)Wandamen Blust (2013); Gasser (2013); Greenhill et al. (2008); Henning (1991); Silzer (1983); Kamma

(n.d.)Waropen Blust (2013); Greenhill et al. (2008); Held (1942); van den Berg (2009)Wooi Blust (2013); Silzer (1983); Anceaux (1961)Yaur own field notesYerisiam own field notes

M Warembori Donohue (1999)

ReferencesAdriani, N., and Alb. C. Kruyt. 1914. De Bare’e-sprekende Toradjas van midden-Celebes. Batavia: Landsdrukkerij.Anceaux, J. C. 1961. The linguistic situation in the islands of Yapen, Kurudu, Nau and Miosnum, New Guinea. Verhandelingen van

het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 35. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.. n.d. [Notebook containing grammatical notes on Umar, Roon, Yaur, Moor, Windesi, Dusner, Kuri, Meoswar, Yerisiam,and Tarunggare]. Archived at KITLV (Leiden), aanvraagnummer D Or. 615, inventarisnummer 326.

Babel, Molly, Andrew Garrett, Michael J. Houser, and Maziar Toosarvandani. 2013. Descent and diffusion in language diversi-fication: a study of Western Numic dialectology. International Journal of American Linguistics 79 (4): 445–489.

Berg, René van den. 2009. Possession in South Halmahera–West New Guinea: typology and reconstruction. In Austronesianhistorical linguistics and culture history: a festschrift for Robert Blust, ed. by K. Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley, 217–247. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

Blust, Robert A. 1978. Eastern Malayo-Polynesian: a subgrouping argument. In Second international conference on Austronesianlinguistics: proceedings, ed. by S. A. Wurm and Lois Carrington, 1:181–234. Pacific Linguistics. Canberra: Australian NationalUniversity.

– 14 – LSA Minneapolis 2014

David Kamholz SHWNG: The history of Oceanic’s closest relative

Blust, Robert A. 2009. The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.. 2013. Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. Accessed April 13, 2013. http://www.trussel2.com/ACD/.

Bowden, John. 2001. Taba: description of a South Halmahera language. Canberra: The Australian National University.Dalrymple, Mary, and Suriel Mofu. 2011. Dusner dictionary. Accessed April 17, 2013. http://dusner.clp.ox.ac.uk/.Donohue, Mark. 1999. Warembori. München: Lincom Europa.Gasser, Emily. 2013. Wamesa dictionary. Unpublished Toolbox lexicon.Gil, David. 2008. Some aspects of the grammar of Roon. Handout presented at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary An-

thropology, Leipzig.Grace, George. 1955–6. Field notebooks. http://digicoll.manoa.hawaii.edu/grace/Pages/PDFlist.html.Greenhill, Simon J., Robert Blust, and Russell D. Gray. 2008. The Austronesian basic vocabulary database: From bioinformatics

to lexomics. Evolutionary Bioinformatics 4:271–283. http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/austronesian/.Hasselt, J. L. van, and F. J. F. van Hasselt. 1947. Noemfoorsche woordenboek. Amsterdam: N.V. Drukkerij en Uitgeverij J.H. de

Bussy.Held, Gerrit Jan. 1942. Woordenlijst van het Waropensch (Nederlansch Noord Nieuw-Guinea). Bandoeng: A. C. Nix.Henning, Jean C. 1991.Wandamen vocabulary / perbendaharaan kata bahasa Wandamen / sane pai ve kavavo nana kavo Wondama.

Irian Jaya: UnCen-SIL.Heuvel, Wilco van den. 2006. Biak: description of an Austronesian language of Papua. Utrecht: LOT.Kamma, Freerk Christiaans. n.d. Enkele aanwijzingen voor het Wandammen. Het Utrechts Archief, nummer toegang 6737,

inventarisnummer 1102-2.Kijne, Isaac Samuel. n.d.(a). [Notebook containing Umar wordlist and Tandia grammatical notes]. Archived at KITLV (Leiden),

aanvraagnummer D Or. 421, inventarisnummer 33.. n.d.(b). [Notebook containing Waropen, Roon, and Dusner wordlist and grammatical notes]. Archived at KITLV (Leiden),aanvraagnummer D Or. 421, inventarisnummer 13.

Leeden, A. C. van der. n.d. [Maˈya dictionary, morphology, and syntax]. Unfinished ms.Maan, G. 1951. Proeve van een Bulische spraakkunst. ’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.Pawley, Andrew. 2007. The origins of early Lapita culture: the testimony of historical linguistics. In Oceanic explorations: Lapita

and western Pacific settlement, ed. by Christophe Sand and Sean P. Connaughton, 17–49. Canberra: Australian NationalUniversity.

Price, David S., and Mark Donohue. 2009. Report on the Ansus survey, West Yapen island, Papua, Indonesia. SIL Electronic SurveyReport 2009-001. SIL International. http://www-01.sil.org/SILESR/2009/silesr2009-001.pdf.

Remijsen, Bert. 2001. Word-prosodic systems of Raja Ampat languages. LOT Dissertation Series 49. Universiteit Leiden.. 2010. Nouns and verbs in Magey Matbat. In Typological and areal analyses: Contributions from East Nusantara, 281–311.Pacific Linguistics 618. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Ross, Malcolm. 2006. Reconstructing the case-marking and personal pronoun systems of Proto Austronesian. In Streams converginginto an ocean: festschrift in honor of Professor Paul Jen-kuei Li on his 70th birthday, ed. by Henry Y. Chang, Lilliam M. Huang,and Dah-an Ho, 521–563. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academica Sinica.

Silzer, Peter James. 1983. Ambai: an Austronesian language of Irian Jaya, Indonesia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, AustralianNational University.

Slump, F. 1924–38. Grammatica en woordenlijst van de Seroei-Laut taal. Het Utrechts Archief, nummer toegang 2274, inven-tarisnummer 1102-1.

Smits, L., and C. L. Voorhoeve, eds. 1992. The J. C. Anceaux collection of wordlists of Irian Jaya: Austronesian languages (part II).Irian Jaya source materials 5. Leiden and Jakarta: DSALCUL/IRIS.

Thomason, Sarah G., and Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Whisler, R., and J. Whisler. 1995. Sawai introduction and wordlist. In Comparative Austronesian dictionary: an introduction toAustronesian studies, ed. by Darrell T. Tryon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

AcknowledgmentsAndrew Garrett, Larry Hyman, Lev Michael, Robert Blust, Malcolm Ross, Mark Donohue, and Antoinette Schapperhave provided many helpful comments and feedback. Special thanks to my numerous language consultants, withoutwhom this research would not have been possible.This work was supported by an Individual Graduate Scholarship from the Endangered Languages DocumentationProgramme (‘Documentation of Moor, an Austronesian language of Cenderawasih Bay, Indonesia’, 2010–13).

– 15 – LSA Minneapolis 2014