Re: The map of typological features

John Atkinson wrote:
"Darkstar" <darkstar100@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149104042.851444.175500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
John Atkinson wrote:
"Darkstar" <darkstar100@xxxxxxxx> wrote ...

John Atkinson wrote:

"Darkstar" <darkstar100@xxxxxxxx> wrote...

John Atkinson wrote:

(4) Noun classes and measure words don't occur in most Austronesian
languages.
Classifiers are used in many Austronesian languages (Indochina,
Sumatra, southern and central Sulawesi, east Indonesia, Micronesia,
etc).

But not, I think, in the numerical majority of Austronesian languages.
(I
could easily be wrong, many Oceanic languages do have them).

OTOH, only one branch of AN has any classifier languages at all. The
other
10 or so branches (the ones in Taiwan) don't. So, odds are the
proto-language didn't.

Anyway, there's still a considerable incidence of classifiers at least
in Malay, Javanese, some Polynesian languages (Kiribati, Samoan,

Samoan? Classifiers aren't used with numerals in Samoan, at least not in
any Samoan I've ever read. Of course, Samoan, like all other Polynesian
languages, has the o/a "relational" classifiers used to denote control or
lack of it in a possessor.

etc),
Kilivila (east of Papua New Guinea, classifiers highly developed), and
especially in Micronesian.

Yes, right.

[...]

As to the extensive use of numeral classifiers in Micronesian, well,
Micronesia is just a large island group closest to Taiwan that had
probably been completely uninhabited until the arrival of
Proto-Austronesians who apparently spread by utilizing kontiki-type
ships with sails

Don't know about giant rafts, but where the languages of Micronesia came
from is pretty clear. The languages of Palau and the Marianas are
Western
Malayo-Polynesian, like those of the Phillipines. Yapese and perhaps
Nauruan seem to be related to the languages of the Admiralty Islands, off
the coast of New Guinea (Oceanic, but not Western Oceanic like the others
of
NG and the western Solomons).

Yes, Kilivila language from that area is the one to have most
classifiers. Maybe the argument could be settled by finding out whether
Papuan languages have them.

Kiribati, Nukuoro and Kapingamarangi are
Central Pacific (Polynesian in fact). The rest of the Carolimes and
Marshall Islands speak Nuclear Micronesian languages, which are related
most closely to the Oceanic languages of the SE Solomons and northern
Vanuatu.

Maybe in these cases they spread *from* Micronesia (?)

No. See below.

Thus, except in the far west, it seems that Micronesia was settled from
the
south, from Melanesia, though not, if the archeology is to be believed,
by
Lapitans. Certainly the first Micronesians didn't sail directly from
Taiwan
or thereabouts!

The southern Philipines or the Moluccas are the nearest place. I
believe in the "the nearest, the likeliest" theory.

That sort of theory can't be based on simple distances, but on prevailing
winds and other navigational considerations. "Distance" on the open ocean
isn't measured in kilometers! As well as sailing time, voyagers into the
unknown need to be bloody certain that they can get home if they don't find
what they're looking for. (That's why the proto-polynesians headed east,
using the occasional periods of westerly winds, knowing that the prevailing
SE trades would be back before long for the return run.)

That's fairly interesting but I think that winter winds blow from the
north or northeast in West Melanesia and Micronesia (according to my
climatological map), so this doesn't help us much.

There could have
been at least 2 waves of migration, judging from the fact that the
"languages of Palau and the Marianas are Western Malayo-Polynesian,
like those of the Phillipines", as you say.

Quite so. The languages (and the archeology, perhaps) suggest four "waves".
See below [Take this stuff cautiously. It's based on the sources I have
here, and is about 20 years out of date. There's been a hell of a lot of
work done in Pacific archeology in the last 20 years!]

The Marianas date back to 1000 BC. The earliest pottery found on Saipan,
Tiniam, and Guam (so-called "Marianas Red") is remarkably close to that
found on Batungan Cave in the central Phillipines of the same date.

Or at least 1500-1700 BC (see below). But that just means that north
Micronesia was occupied very early by the settlers from the
Phillipines. Seems perfect.

So far, no dates on Palau and Yap have been found much older than 0 AD, even
though they're nearer to island SE Asia than the Marianas are.

Just out of curiousity, I've searched the net, and there are many
recent data suggesting that human settlements in western Micronesia
date back to 2500-1000 BC. (I didn't do search for the central
Carolines, though)

"In this paper we will suggest that there is now good reason to
challenge Spoehr’s date. Based on recently obtained
palaeoenvironmental evidence, we believe that human colonization
occurred about 4,300 years ago, 800 years earlier than Spoehr’s date"

"The significance here is, first, that the initial settlement of
western Micronesia, presumably by Austronesians, occurred about 1,000
years before the advent of the Lapita cultural complex in Melanesia
(around 3,500–3,400 cal. B.P.—see
Bellwood, 1991, Kirch, 2000: 91–93). Second, it was apparently tied
to the early, possibly initial, period of Austronesian ethno-linguistic
expansion in island southeast Asia. The Philippines and Sulawesi often
have been referred to as likely points of origin for the initial
Austronesian settlers of the Mariana Islands (e.g., Bellwood, 1979:
282–286, Kirch, 2000: 171–173)."

("Holocene Vegetation, Savanna Origins
and Human Settlement of Guam", 2004)

Another source:

"Dr. Richard Knecht, acting staff archaeologist, said the recent
findings suggest that sites 5,000 years or older existed on
Saipan.(=north of Guam)" (2003)

"The earliest sites in the CNMI are Saipan's Unai Achugao site from
1,800 B.C. and Tinian's Unai Chulu site dating to 1,500 B.C." (idem)

And another article:

"Recent discoveries from Yap (Intoh 1997:28; Dodson & Intoh 1999) and
extensive
archaeological data recovered as part of the Compact Road project on
the large volcanic island of Babeldaob in Palau have pushed the date of
settlement of these islands back to 3300-3400 BP, but the evidence is
admittedly sparse (Liston et al. 1998a, 1998c; Wickler et al. 1998).
Paleoenvironmental evidence collected by Athens and Ward (1999)
provides a proxy indicator of an even earlier human presence in Palau
around 4500 BP although this has not been firmly established due to a
dearth of archaeological evidence and reliable radiocarbon
chronologies.
During the summer of 2000, twenty-six burials were discovered in
deposits over a metre deep at the Chelechol ra Orrak site in Palau. A
suite of 19 radiocarbon dates from the site provides archaeological
evidence for human occupation c.3000 years ago, and perhaps
earlier.This makes these burials the earliest evidence of a human
presence in the limestone islands of the archipelago, and the oldest
skeletal assemblage known thus far in the Pacific Islands outside of
Melanesia."

The high islands of the Carolines atolls appear to have been settled 0-500
AD, though there's suggestions of somewhat earlier dates. Most of the
Carolines are atolls and probably only emerged from the sea and became
habitable even more recently. Carolines pottery seems to resemble (more or
less) the late Lapitan of eastern Melanesia.

In theory, both Melanesia and Micronesia could have been settled at the
same time (c. 2000--1500 BC) by the travelers from the same region --
Halmahera and the nearby islands. This explains the resemblance of
pottery and languages (Micronesian and that of SE Solomons).

Bikini has a date of 1500 BC, which may or may not mean something, taking
into account the radioactive contamination there.

The Polynesian outlyers in Micronesia (Nukuoro and Kapingamarangi ) date
back only 900 years, unlike the 3000 in Tikopia and other outliers to the
south in Melanesia.

That figures. They were just off the main road, so they weren't
discovered until recently by Polynesians. But, if the SE Solomons
people had been moving northeast from the Solomon archipelago, they
would have definitely run into these islands.

The Lapitans (presumed speakers of proto-Eastern Oceanic) settled eastern
Melanesia around 1500 BC. Other people, without pottery, may have preceded
them, though probably not by more than a few centuries.

Most Melanesian languages differ considerably from Micro- and
Polynesian. For instance, the system of numerals above 5 did not even
preserve in the former. Only SE Solomons languages are suffficently
close to Micro-. And, both Micro- and SE Solomons groups are more or
less close to languages of the Moluccas. The possible reason: the SE
Solomons were at the far end and offshore of the Meganesian continent,
and were never occupied by the Papuans, thus preserving many typical,
ancient features.

Western Melanesia (Solomons etc) was settled around 30 000 BP by
non-Austronesians.

Just the western Solomons, I suppose.

All in all, there can be little doubt from the dates that Nuclear Micronesia
was first settled from Melanesia, not the other way around.

This is all very good, but what evidence do we have for western or
central Malayo-Polynesian groups being older?

"Older"? All languages are the same age

They settled at diiferent times there, so they can't all be equal. Even
Malagasy looks more archaic to me than some classical languages of
Indonesia and the Phillippines.

[Please copy to Notepad if lines get confused]

Paiwan (Taiwan)
ita dusa celu sepac lima unem picu alu siva ta-puluq

Puluwat (central Micronesian)
yй-йt r'ъъw yййl fббn liim woon fъъs waal ttiw hee-yik

Meoswar (Geelvink Bay -- not sure where that is, somewhere near S
Halmahera)
yoser suru kior fak rim wonem fik war siu sanfur

Arosi (SE Solomons)
eta rua oru hai rima ono biu waru siwa langahuru

Papitalai (Manus Island, St Admiralty)
ti ruah talah hahu limah wonoh do-talah do-ruah do-ti songul

Malagasy
irбy rуa tйlo йfatra dнmy йnina fнto vбlo sнvy fуlo

Old Javanese
tunggul rwa telu pat lima nem pitu uwalu sanga sapuluh

Tagalog
isб dalawб tatlу бpat limб бnim pitу walу siyбm sampы

This short comparison shows that
1) West Melanesian languages as typified by Manus group stand aside
because of the loss of numerals from 6 to 10. They must have been
extensively influenced and contaminated by the Papuan substratum.
2) Interestingly, Malagasy is no less close to Micronesian as to
Javanese and other Indonesian languages (cf numbers for "one",
especially) which shows the considerable archaism of the Micronesian
group.
3) The SE Solomon group is not *too* close to Micronesian; their
distinction is not particularly recent.

It's not that I call for a reevaluation of any of these groups, I'm
just trying to figure out which one looks most archaic. Actually, the
SE Solomons groop seems to be geographically close to the Proto-Oceanic
Urheimat located somewhere near Vanuatu *and* at the same time far
enough from the contaminating influence of Papuan groups. Therefore I
believe Micronesian and SE Solomon languages *could* preserve some
ancient features. For this reason, I wonder if SE Solomons and some
archaic West/East Santo languages from Vanuatu have any classifiers
remaining. They must.

And finally, classifiers are found in all major groups -- Indonesian
(at least, in the most well-studied languages), Micronesian (highly
developed), "West Melanesian" (highly developed in Kilivila) and partly
in Polynesian. Hence, it is just possible they were an integral part of
the PAN grammar.

My guess is still that
offshore languages (esp. with no substratum) should preserve older
features.

It's a plausible guess, but I don't know that there's any evidence, one way
or the other, that this happens on average elsewhere in the world.

Icelandic is a good example.

And what about relational classifiers? I have an article saying they
may go back to Proto-Oceanic, which could have not just two but many of
them.

There's four I think in Fijian (closest sister of proto-Polynesian), so
that's plausible.

So far, so good.

I can't comment though, I've read none of this
literature. Others in sci.lang are experts on Oceanic though.
[...]

, and many have SVO
(!), not VSO), so they are supposed to be more archaic than Indonesian
groups which probably ran into Indo-Pacific substratum

The Oceanics _certainly_ ran into a "Papuan" substratum in northern NG
and
the western Solomons. What sort of languages existed in western
Indonesia
before Austronesian got there is unknowable.

Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't Indo-Pacific, since there's no such
thing.

The Andaman group and some remote hunter/gatherer languages are
sometimes related to Papuan, hence the term.

No reputable linguist today believes in Greenberg's putative genetic family
"Indo-Pacific". What's more, Papuan isn't a genetic family, so it's
meaningless to speak of any other language being related to it.

AFAIK, no one has plausiblt related the Andaman languages to any language
anywhere else.

All the languages of "remote hunter-gathers" of Sumatra, Borneo, and the
Phillipines are Austronesian. Those of Malaya are Mon-Khmer, where they're
not Malay dialects.

Semang/Senoic, to be precise.

Generally, I meant Papuan groups of the Melanesian islands.
Possibly, Kumunda in Tibet, too. They are all arguably related to each
other by not being related to anything else. I know that none of those
long-range theories have ever been generally accepted, but still.
Also note that some ancient groups survived *antropologically* not
linguistically. Cf the Aeta of the Phillipines that are black and of
non-Austronesian genetic stock (Tagalog and Sambal speaking), the the
Toala of Sulawesi (prbly similar to the Veddah of Sri-Lanka), the
Indonesian hunters/gatheres of central Kalimantan, etc. The idea, of
course, is that they all belong to the non-Austronesian and
non-Austro-Asiatic substratum, thus represeting the most ancient
demographic strata in the area (from the 30 000 BC that you've
mentioned). Nothing new, just clarifying my point.

FWIW, the vast majority of non-Austronesian (= Papuan) languages of eastern
Indonesia and further east are verb-final. Definitely not VSO. The
Austronesian languages of SE New Guinea are SOV, which is often ascribed to
a Papuan substratum.

John..

I know that Papuan languages do use classifiers in some cases but not
too often. And yes, generally, Papuan languages are not at all like
Type B (complex verbal systems, well-developed consonantism, suffixion
more widespread than prefixion, incorporation of S or O into V,
ergativity, SOV).

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The map of typological features
    ... north or northeast in West Melanesia and Micronesia (according to my ... winds from the SE Solomon Islands or northern Vanuatu. ... No, languages of the east Carolines, Marshals and Kiribati are very ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The map of typological features
    ... Classifiers are used in many Austronesian languages (Indochina, ... Sumatra, southern and central Sulawesi, east Indonesia, Micronesia, ... But not, I think, in the numerical majority of Austronesian languages. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The map of typological features
    ... Classifiers are used in many Austronesian languages (Indochina, ... Sumatra, southern and central Sulawesi, east Indonesia, Micronesia, ... But not, I think, in the numerical majority of Austronesian languages. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The map of typological features
    ... north or northeast in West Melanesia and Micronesia (according to my ... winds from the SE Solomon Islands or northern Vanuatu. ... "languages of Palau and the Marianas are Western Malayo-Polynesian, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: The map of typological features
    ... Classifiers are used in many Austronesian languages (Indochina, ... Sumatra, southern and central Sulawesi, east Indonesia, Micronesia, ... But not, I think, in the numerical majority of Austronesian languages. ...
    (sci.lang)