User talk:Womtelo

Archives

2006–2019

Hi,

Welcome to my Talk page.

— Womtelo

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	I never thought to use {{Abbr}} in glosses, but your edits at Araki language showed how useful it can be. A brilliant idea! Hopefully I can make more use of that template in our linguistics articles. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wug·a·po·des! — Womtelo (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I posted it on [c]'s page it got removed telling ir was ʈ Oigolue (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bones tardes,
I just moved Asturian [cç] to the page Voiceless palatal affricate.
Ta llueu — Womtelo (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, thanks, and what about [cj]? Oigolue (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Is [mucjɛɾ] really different from just [mucɛɾ]? You could have it on a footnote on the same page, with a link to Voiceless palatal stop; just like [ɟ͡ʝ] should link to Voiced palatal affricate. — Womtelo (talk).

Hey, I see that you have written some articles at the Bislama Wikipedia. Could you please help out there? I have been trying to create articles there but my level is very basic. --Caro de Segeda (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tru, mi save tok mo raet lo bislama – be hemia nomo se mi nogat taem tumas blo raetem plante stori lo wikipedia. Samsamtaem mi kontribyut finis, be naoia mi gat tumas wok, sore :/ Be gudlak lo yu blo projek ia! – Womtelo (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I was looking for place names of all the islands and communities and realized that most of them form cognate sets and therfore share some Proto-Torres-Banks root which may had some meaning attached. For example, the island name Ureparapara (Mota) is reflected as Noypeypay (Lehali), Orbarbar (Vures), etc., Vanua Lava (Mota) is reflected as Vonolav (Vures), Apnolap (Mwotlap), etc.

Is there a comprehensive list for the Torres-Banks placenames in each of the 17 indigenous languages (alongside a PTB reconstruction for cognate sets)? Kwékwlos (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi Kʷékʷlos, great point! Indeed, the regular sound correspondences between Torres-Banks languages are usually well reflected in the place names. While the correspondences themselves have been published (as far as I know, mostly in François 2005 and 2016), I can't see many placenames being reconstructed. The only place I know of are entries in the online dictionary of Mwotlap, e.g. Agō [aɣʊ] ‘Gaua’ is said to reflect *ˌa-ɣa'ua, Alkon [alkɔn] ‘Gaua’ (again) < *ˌa-la'ᵑgona, Am̄sēn [aŋ​͡mʷsɪn] ‘Mwesen’ < *ˌa-ŋ​͡mʷo'sina, Apnōlap [apnʊlap] ‘Vanua Lava’ < *ˌa-βaˈnua-ˈlaβa, Aqke [ak​͡pʷkɛ] ‘Qakea’ < *ˌa-ᵑg͡bʷa'ᵑgea, Ayō [ajʊ] ‘Rowa’ < *ˌa-ro'ua, Aya [aja] ‘Ra’ < *a-'rao, etc. Not all placenames are cited (yet), as the dictionary is apparently work in progress; but this is the closest one gets to a list of actual reconstructions in Proto Torres-Banks. But I agree, it would be cool to get all these reconstructions together into a single list — either here on wikipedia, or in a publication… Would you like to start it? — best, Womtelo (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

---

Yes. Preliminarily, these are: 1. Hiw [Hiw], from PTB *siwo < POc *sipo "down".

2. Lō, Toga, and Tegua, all three with no reconstructible PTB etymon,

3. Ureparapara [Mota] = Noypēypay [Lehali] = Ōrbarbar [Vurës] = Nōybaybay [Mwotlap], PTB *Ureᵐbaraᵐbara with likely meaning "full of slopes", other names Aö [Löyöp], likely PTB *a-rowa as Tryon 1972 mentioned about Löyöp originally being the native language of Rowa, migrating after a tsunami struck in 1930. Löyöp itself corresponds to Lehalurup [Lehali?] meaning Divers' Bay whose PTB source is not clear yet. Lehali is probably a Mota form with Loli being another term; a PTB etymon is not reconstructed yet.

4. Vet Tagde [Mwotlap] = Vot Tade [Löyöp] = Vat Ganai [Mota], PTB *βatu + "frigatebird" as the names mean "rock of frigatebirds".

5. Rowa [Mota] = Ayō [Mwotlap] = Aö "Ureparapara" [Löyöp]. PTB *Rowa of unknown meaning, but the Löyöp form may reflect *a-rowa like Mwotlap.

6. Motalava [Mota] = M̄otlap [Mwotlap] = M̄otlav [Vurës], PTB *Mʷota Lava, meaning "big Mota". Valuwa in Mota is cognate with Aplow in Mwotlap and Volow in Volow itself, all from PTB *βaluwa of unknown meaning. Ra in Mota is cognate with Aya in Mwotlap and both come from PTB *Rao of unknown meaning.

7. Mota [Mota] = Am̄ot [Mwotlap] = M̄ot [Vurës], PTB *Mʷota of unknown meaning.

8. Vanua Lava [Mota] = Vōnōlav [Vurës] = Venielave [Lo-Toga] = Apnōlap [Mwotlap], PTB *βanua Lava, meaning "big land". The volcano named Suretamate [Mota] = Sürétimiat [Vurës?] = Sere'ama [Vera'a] suggest a PTB etymon *Sura-i-tamate whose meaning probably relates to "soul, spirit". Vatrata [Mota] = Vatrat [Mwotlap] = Vera'a [Vera'a] = Vetrat [Vurës] can come from PTB *βat(i,u)rata containing the word for "rock" or "four". Vureas [Mota and Mwotlap] = Vurës [Vurës] can come from PTB *βureas[i,u]. Qakea [Mota] = Aqke [Mwotlap] is from PTB *ᵑG͡bʷaᵑgea of unknown meaning. Mosina [Mota] = Am̄sēn [Mwotlap] = M̄ēsēn [Vurës and Mwesen] come from PTB *Mʷosina of unknown meaning.

9. Gaua [Mota] = Agō [Mwotlap] = Gō [Vurës], PTB *ɣaua of unknown meaning. Lakona [Mota] = Lakon [Lakon] = Alkon [Mwotlap] = Lokon [Vurës] come from PTB *Laᵑgona of unknown meaning. For other language names, Olrat, Koro, Dorig, and Nume have no known etymons yet. 10. Merelava [Mota] = M̄erlap [Mwerlap] = M̄eylap [Mwotlap] = M̄erlap [Vurës] comes from PTB *Mʷera-[i] Lava "big child", while Merig [Mota or Mwerlap] = M̄ēyig [Mwotlap] comes from PTB *Mʷera-[i] Riɣi "small child" via haplology to *Mʷeriɣi.

Please let me know if any details are to be added. Kwékwlos (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to include Mwotlap names for Vurës and Vera'a. Kwékwlos (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

hi Kʷékʷle (if I may use the vocative),

Many thanks for these proposals: it's quite a good start already! Let me add a few notes, though:

1) on Hiw: correct.

2) South Torres: In fact, the geographical names Toga and Tegua are conservative forms, borrowed from Mota; they are not the form used locally:

- LTG Toge [ˈtɔɣə] “Toga” < PTB *toɣa, perhaps from POc *toŋa 'southeast trade wind' (?);

- LTG Tugue [tʉˈɣʉə] “Tegua” < PTB *teɣua (of unknown origin)

For Lō, I don't know; is there a Mota form?

3a) *ure-ᵐbaraᵐbara is OK. In fact, *ure seems to have also been an etymon meaning “island” (cf. Araki ure “island”), hence “island of slopes” (?). Alternative interpretation, “island of axes” (since PTB *ᵐbaraᵐbara also means “an axe”); if so, may refer to Ureparapara as a source for volcanic obsidian? (I'm speculating here)

3b) Aö < *Rowa? hm no, impossible (see below for Rowa) This island name Aö is opaque, but surely not from Rowa.

3c) Löyöp [løjøp] reconstructs to PTB *loróβi, of unknown meaning. Perhaps includes locative preposition *lo.

"Lehalurup": ignore it, I have no source (other than Tryon) that it's actually a real form.
"Lehali" is actually known as Loli [lɒli]. Possible etymology: *lo lia “inside a cave” (cf. MTP entry lē).

4) Vet Tagde, Vat Ganai etc: I see a possible reconstruction *βatu 'stone, rock' + *(ta) ɣaⁿdai (with *ɣaⁿdai > MTA ɣanai, *taɣaⁿdai > MTP taɣⁿdɛ / LYP taⁿdɛ, all regularly). One would assume that *ɣaⁿdai means frigatebird.

5) actually there's no such form as Rowa; this form only exists in Bislama or English. The correct reconstruction is actually *roúa (3 syllables). [note that I avoid using capital letters in reconstructions; also because, in this case, capital *R would refer to a different phoneme]. The change is regular, from *à-roúa to MTP Ayō [ajʊ]. Incidentally, LYP has the very same reflex Ayō [ajʊ] (<*à-roúa) for one of the Reef islands (see s5 in this text), even though they designate the Reef archipelago with a different name altogether (namely, Enwut).

6) OK.

7) OK. I presume PTB *mʷota is an irregular doublet of PTB *mʷotu “islet” (<POc *motu “island”).

8a) Vanua Lava: OK.

8b) Sere'ama etc: < *sara-i [a]tamate, liter. “Dancing place of the Dead”. The reconstruction is discussed by François (2013:226).
That said, one could also propose a slightly different etymology *[a]sura-i [a]tamate lit. “Entrance cave of the Dead”: this would involve the etymon *[a]sura “abode of the dead, located under a volcano”, reconstructed in that same paper (p.227). The choice of the proper reconstruction really depends on whether the correct form in Vurës is really Suretimiat (with ü), or Seretimiat. Malau's 2021 Vurës dictionary has seretimiat “area associated with the spirits of the dead, on the top of a hill”, clearly favouring *sara; the form with u might be an error by cartographers?

8c) Vatrata < *βatu rata “flat stone”

8d) the Mwotlap form for Vurës is actually Vuyes [βujɛs], see entry. All forms point to *βureás[i,u], of unknown origin; probably a link with PTB *βuro “volcano”. If *βureasu, then possibly a link with POc *qasu “smoke”! Hence Vureas would be “smoking volcano”

9a) *ɣaúa & *laᵑgóna, correct.

9b) Ōlrat: I once saw a Mota name Ulrata in Codrington; so probably PTB **ulurata ?? (perhaps same *rata as in *βatu-rata ??)

9c) DRG Dōrig [ⁿdʊriɣ] is to Dōlav [ⁿdʊlaɸ] what M̄erig is to M̄erlav, i.e. “small dō” vs. “big dō” – though I don't know what dō is. (DRG Dōlav = LKN Jōlap [ʧʊlap]= main village on west coast of Gaua)

Now, what shall we do with all these forms? Alas Wikipedia doesn't want “original research”…
By the way, there's no entry for “PTB” yet; would you like to create one? (so that mentions of PTB in entries can link back to it).
— best, Womtelo (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Additional comments:

2. Lō < *loa < PTB *aloa "sun"? This is my guess at least. Codrington only notes it as "Loh". I have never heard of its name in Mota; probably this is an endonym. Regardless of the etymology, is *aloa connected to POc *qaco in some way (perhaps an old borrowing since PTB *aso is expected here)?

3a. Per Codrington's The Melanesians: Studies in their Anthropology and Folklore, the Mota name Ureparapara is given as "full of slopes" (intended meaning "island/place of slopes"), so this is the most plausible semantic derivation.

3b. No further comments on the name Aö, but why do the Löyöp speakers not use a cognate of the word "Ureparapara"? Is it possible that the name Aö referred to some place in Ureparapara, or was it somewhere in Rowa that was transferred to Ureparapara?

3c. Nice. Mota doesn't have the expected *lorov [loroβ]. Is the initial *lo- related to *aloa "sun"?

4. Given the similarity in form and meaning a PTB form *βatu (ta) ɣaⁿdai is certain.

5. Oops. PTB doesn't distinguish POc *r and *R. But capital R may confuse readers.

7. Given the island name Motalava and the speakers' preference for Mota, instead of *Motarig, it is atleast a plausible conclusion for *mʷota to mean "islet" seeing as Mota speakers knew they were living on a small island compared to the neighboring islands which are larger.

8b. It must be likely that the two forms coexisted. One possibility is that both of these terms existed in PTB.

8d. Caught wind of this. In the Mwotlap story "The two enemies and the origin of mosquitoes" a speaker uses the word Vureas instead of Vuyës. Likely he is using the Mota form here. It is likely we have instead a PTB βuro-i-asu with contraction of *oi > *e.

9b. Likely.

9c. Possibly we have *ⁿdau-riɣi "small leaf" > *ⁿdo-riɣi.

One thing the TB languages have is their striking regularity in correspondences. Therefore among the 17 languages present in the area they must have a name for the other islands that are cognate (but not all of them). Do you have any data for these names? Also, we may want to delve in the names of villages of each island, starting from Hiw down to Merelava.

You could in fact publish an online draft of the historical phonology of these placenames from PTB to their reflexes (in languages that preserve the word). It would help understand how TB speakers came to settle the islands and what languages they may have replaced. Kwékwlos (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

hi Kʷékʷle,

2. “Lō < *loa < PTB *aloa "sun"?” → Hm, perhaps??

FWIW, LTG does have a reflex of *aloa, namely ēlō [elo] 'sun', showing the same vowel as in the island name.

That said, I've never seen 'sun' be the source of a toponym in the Pacific. You're probably thinking of its use in cardinal directions (e.g. an island being called 'place of rising sun'…?, cf. 日本) but this would be unheard of in Oceanic.

Codrington only notes it as "Loh". → That /h/ has no reason to be there, it's a mistake by Codrington (or by his helpers).

PTB *aloa corresponds to PNCV *yalo (e.g. Araki alo 'sun'). Link with *qaco is uncertain; if so, definitely irregular.

Perhaps Lō has a link to *lua / *lue “out, away”? [cf. Mwotlap lō 'out'].

Or better: POc *lua(ŋ) 'hole, pit, cave' -- a very likely toponym.

3a. “Per Codrington's The Melanesians: Studies in their Anthropology and Folklore, the Mota name Ureparapara is given as "full of slopes" (intended meaning "island/place of slopes"), so this is the most plausible semantic derivation.”

→ well, Codrington can be wrong! he may be a missionary, but he's not the gospel

• phonetically, "full" is ura in Mota (not ure) < PTB *βura < POc *puRa; and the former suffix *-i (that could have explained **-a > -e) is not used on adjectives;

• semantically, “full of slopes” sounds odd in north Vanuatu languages - since usually *βura 'full of' is used with mass nouns. “island of slopes” sounds equally likely, especially knowing that *ure means “island” in other NCV languages.

3b. I see no reason to link Aö to the Reef islands; since it's used to refer to the island of Ureparapara itself, it must refer to a place there. Surely with prefix *a-, by the way (cf. Ayō 'Roua', etc.)

3c. The initial *lo- cannot be related to *aloa "sun"; *lo is just the ordinary locative preposition in NCV languages (le- in Mwotlap, lo in Araki or in Mota, etc.). Surely related to POc *ralom~*lalom 'inside'.

9c. Possibly *ⁿdau-riɣi "small leaf" → hm ok, but why would villages be called 'small leaf' & 'big leaf'? the evidence is slim. Besides, we would have to posit irregular sound correspondences to accept such a link (FWIW, the reflex of *ⁿdau- in DRG is dā- [ⁿdaː-]).

>> (…) among the 17 languages present in the area they must have a name for the other islands that are cognate (but not all of them). Do you have any data for these names?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean the other islands of Vanuatu, further south? BTW, do you have any data yourself, on other Vanuatu languages? That would be interesting.

>> (…) understand how TB speakers came to settle the islands and what languages they may have replaced

→ “replace”? why would you think TB languages replaced earlier lgs? I've never heard that theory, and I'm not aware of any archaeological or linguistic evidence in that direction.

I wish I had time to publish something like this (assuming anyone would be interested). What would be a suitable outlet? (an academic journal would take ages, it's discouraging…) Anyway, it's been a cool conversation

— Womtelo (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi there *Wo mata-i loa!

3a. Codrington's derivation is almost certainly wrong.

About the placenames: no, I am only concerning about the TB languages only. Sure, I am aiming to find the names of each of the Torres-Banks islands in every TB language. From what I could pull I only have information from Mota, Mwotlap and Vurës and even these are not complete in their descriptions. Like, what is the name of Ureparapara in Lakon or Mwerlap? I will try to delve in some narrative stories perhaps.

Hm, then. Probably the Torres-Banks languages arrived with the Lapita. If we take the replacement theory the language replaced was probably another Oceanic language.

Thanks for the information. I would suggest Google Docs since it can be updated. Still a lot of mysteries to be solved here. Kwékwlos (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Χαῖρε,

Interesting question. I remember seeing somewhere that Ureparapara is Ōlpaapaa [ʊlpaːpaː] in Lakon, but I can't find anything online; I must have been reading a photocopy or something. I vividly remember the form, though, because it was an interesting blend of regular correspondences (LKN [paːpaː] < *ᵐbaraᵐbara, [ʊ]<*u_e) and irregular (dissimilation *r→[l]).

A Google docs could be useful, espec. if it can lead to some form of publication (even a short one). It can't be my top priority at the moment alas, but eventually [2022?], why not?

*ᵐboŋi wia. — Womtelo (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

---

Great idea. Though the document should simply be a name of each of the Torres-Banks islands into the 17 native languages along with possible PTB reconstruction and etymology details. Kwékwlos (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out on the etymology of Mota: a PTB *mʷota, with *mʷ, traces back to POC *mʷ. But PPN *motu continues initial *m, where a POC *mʷ would result in PCP *ŋʷ > PPN *ŋ. Example, POC *mʷata "snake" > PTB *mʷata and PPN *ŋata. Kwékwlos (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. In PTB, bilabial consonants become regularly labiovelarized before round vowels: e.g. MTP m̄ēt [ŋ​͡mʷɪt] < *motu 'broken'; MTP m̄ēl [ŋ​͡mʷɪl] < *moli 'Citrus'; MTP qoy [k​͡pʷɔj] < *bore 'dream'; MTP qōn̄ [k​͡pʷoŋ] < *boŋi 'night', etc. Mota reflects these words also with labiovelars (m̄ot, m̄ol, qore, qon̄, etc.). This is very regular. So, *mʷota < *motu is not problematic; except for the final vowel. — Cheers, Womtelo (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Okay then. Have we started the Google Docs page yet? Kwékwlos (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"We" have too much work, I'm afraid. Also, working at a document will really make sense if there is a publication plan (so it can be later cited and corrected), and I can't think (yet) of a suitable venue; hence the low priority, sorry. So many things to do! — Womtelo (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

According to https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00524988/document the PTB form can be reconstructed as *mʷeli, *mʷale, *mʷelo, or ʷmʷelu. Are they all valid? Kwékwlos (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi, In principle, only two of these forms can apply, depending on the form in Hiw: if it's /ŋʷɪj/, this would point to *mʷel(i,u); if /ŋʷej/ then the ancestral form is either *mʷale or *mʷelo. Right now I can't find the Hiw form, so we won't know. But does it really matter? And more importantly: should this be explained on Wikipedia? Frankly I'm not sure.

The entry Ngwel refers to an uninhabited islet, and I'm not convinced that such an entry should include a discussion of what vowels can or can't be reconstructed for the name in PTB. Other than you and me, who cares? This is an insanely specialized issue, which is not of general interest. For this reason, I don't believe there should be detailed discussion of protoforms in all those geographical WP entries, unless we can reconstruct an interesting meaning. I think this should be our eligibility criterion. For example, this edit to Merig is interesting to a broad audience, because a meaning is reconstructed; but this edit on Linua (by myself apparently!) is superfluous and uninteresting: nobody cares that the islet of Linua reconstructs as *linua in some obscure proto-language, if no interesting meaning can be proposed. For such entries, I might even propose that my edit could be deleted (as per Wikipedia:Too much detail & Wikipedia:Relevance of content).

For the same reason, I won't encourage you to say anything about the proto-form of Ngwel, because it would add nothing of substance to the entry. (not to mention the other problem, namely that such edits could be seen as O.R.).

best, Womtelo (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I won't. It could be done, but not on Wikipedia. But rather, instead of reconstructing a protoform, atleast the language where the name comes from and its equivalent in other languages would still make a good point, such as, for example, where the word "Ngwel" or "Metoma" came from what language. For example, it should be clarified that "Ngwel" was borrowed from Lo-Toga, and that "Ureparapara" was borrowed from Mota. Kwékwlos (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Have a good day, -- Womtelo (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

(from p.223 of this paper): What do we know of this language? Does it retain final vowels only found in Mota? Is it identical to what we now call as PTB (Proto-Torres-Banks)? From what modern TB language is closest to the old language and where was it spoken? Kwékwlos (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi Kʷékʷle, Great questions! The mention in that paper is indeed frustratingly short; I'm afraid we'll need to encourage the author to write a fuller paper on this, one day. That said, I do remember gleaning some info about this language from a couple places. First, there are samples of that poetic language in François' archived materials, sometimes with a translation (e.g. A titi poem: Volcano, or the song of WW2; you can also search the Mwotlap corpus page for the strings "titi" or "chant", when it comes along an 'xml' icon). Judging from these samples, that poetic lg doesn't sound anything like Mota or PTB: the metaphony and vowel apocope evidently have taken place already.

The language of songs is briefly presented in the liner notes of the CD Music of Vanuatu, pp.90-91 – but more from an ethnographic & aesthetic angle than purely linguistic.

Finally, I believe François gave the most detailed presentation of that language not in writing, but in a few talks; one of these was apparently recorded: see this video, where the song language is presented more specifically in the second half (27'48" → 44'40"). This might not answer all your questions, but at least it says the essential. The author says specifically that it's not a language that was ever spoken [34'33" + 37'10"] — so it probably cannot be equated to PTB (as we guessed already from the vowel thing!). The poetic language is apparently more like a blend of different modern languages [39'30"] – which is there compared to Homer's multidialectal poetry. Quite a fascinating (and strange) sort of linguistic object! I wish we could know more about it… — Best, Womtelo (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hm, yes. Doesn't sound too archaic when it comes to the general trend of vowel loss. But it mentions some "archaic" sounds that are now gone in the present TB languages. Are there any archaisms in the song language with regards to the modern languages and PTB? For example, Mwotlap has y < *r and q /kpw/ < *mbw, but would the song language still preserve some unshifted consonants? Does it have variations in other islands? Kwékwlos (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Womtelo,

		The Vanuatu Barnstar of National Merit
		Here is a long belated barnstar for your excellent work on Vanuatu articles, particularly on little-known and recently documented languages. Keep up the great work - your expertise is strongly needed on Wikipedia. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you will continue to stay here and keep contributing to Wikipedia! — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 06:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Sagotreespirit: !! I'm honoured. — Womtelo (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

What else can I say than that I fully agree with Sago's praise: it's a great thing to see scholars who are among the foremost experts in their field devoting time to this encyclopedia and sharing their knowledge here!

Actually, I have found my way here to answer this question: Shouldn't more protolanguage children be listed (albeit redlinks)? I think the idea with |child= was to have some kind of navigation space for existing articles or at least redirects to sections of articles which cover descendant proto-languages. But redlinks I guess should be unproblematic as long as there is potential for such articles because of published reconstructions of the sound system, lexicon and/or morphology of the proto-language; in such cases, redlinks serve their best purpose, viz. to motivate creating new articles that should be here, but aren't (yet). So Proto-Micronesian is obviously good, but e.g. – citing a random example which comes to my mind – Proto-Northwest Sumatra–Barrier Islands (where we only have a handful of promising comparanda and two diagnostic sound changes) would be out of question at the current state of research. –Austronesier (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Austronesier:! We are in agreement: I did try to choose the more important proto-languages (partly due to embarrassment to see PTB listed there, even though it's a very minor language within the Oceanic family). -- Womtelo (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Austronesier: I would also support including more red links, since they encourage additional Wikipedia articles and redirects to be created. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 05:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just gave this a little tweak. Happy New Year too! — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 12:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sago'. Happy New Year to you too! — Womtelo (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

So, let's move from the Torres-Banks languages and into the "aberrant" Temotu languages of the eastern Solomons. At a certain point in recent history scholars doubted the Austronesian affiliation of the RSC languages, until M. Ross proved the Oceanic affiliation of these languages.

Now I was concerned about the progress of reconstructing the various Temotu proto-languages in order to clarify the sound changes that made these languages aberrant. Let's start with, say, the more recognizable words, such as Lovono Alavana and Teanu Lovono for the northwest village of Banie.

I recently read your 2009 paper on the three languages, yet there was no mention of reconstructed Proto-Vanikoro words. How should we start then, in light of Ross's reconstructions of Proto-Temotu, Proto-Utupua-Vanikoro, and Proto-RSC? Kwékwlos (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Kwékwlos, Thanks for your question. Here are some answers:

- my 2009 paper did include some Proto-VNK reconstructions;

- Ross never reconstructed Proto Temotu; rather he claimed that the 10 Temotu lgs are Oceanic + he hypothesized that they must have descended from a Proto Temotu, for which however he never provided solid evidence or reconstruction. In light of the extreme diversity among so-called "Temotu" languages, I am not even convinced that there was ever a Proto Temotu.

- a recent paper on those issues is Lackey & Boerger (2021), doi:10.1353/ol.2021.0020;

- alas I am way too busy to write anything on Wikipedia about Vanikoro languages, or on their history, the way I did for Proto-TB;

- all my data on Teanu, Lovono & Tanema are published now, in my online dictionary;

- reconstructing Proto Temotu, or even Proto Vanikoro, would be nothing like reconstructing Proto-TB.

Best, Womtelo (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Any way to read this: [doi:10.1353/ol.2021.0020]

I'd hate to be behind some paywall... including the editions of Pacific Linguistics that concern Proto-Oceanic.

Thanks. Kwékwlos (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a copy — Womtelo (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Womtelo, I am currently trying to look for a good source to use for the Sungwadaga language (Central Maewo) that explains the phonological information. The best that I could find is Tryon, Darrell T. (1976); New Hebrides Languages: An Internal Classification. It's information is displayed in Section 2.2 The Sound Correspondences (to Proto-Oceanic) on pgs. 11-50. Would you recommend using this as a good source for the information regarding the sounds?

Thanks. Fdom5997 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Fdom5997,

Yes, I guess Tryon 1976 is the only published source on Sungwadaga (though glottolog also cites Ivens 1940). I personally know a linguist who's collected firsthand data on the language, but those data have not been published anywhere yet. By the way, I believe S'dga's phonology is a simple one, much like Sungwadia. ‒ Womtelo (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

So is that a yes? And also, what does the phonology of Sungwadia look like? What are your recommendations? Fdom5997 (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes" was the first word of my reply S'dia's phonology is also very simple (5 vowels, etc), compared to other lgs of Vanuatu. For this language we actually have a comprehensive description: Agnès Henri's grammar of Sun̄wadia (in open access); see pp.35-57 for the chapter on phonology.

I believe S'dga has essentially the same phoneme inventory (but don't take my word for it). -- Womtelo (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Well thanks a lot for your feedback, and thank you very much for providing me with a source for the phonology of Sungwadia! I've been actively trying to look for a source for one of the Maewo languages! And on page 48 of Henri (2011), it even shows a side by side comparison of both the consonant sounds of Sungwadia and Sungwadaga! Fdom5997 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool! Hitting two birds with one stone. Thanks for your edits. -- Womtelo (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, do you have anything regarding the full list of all possible Torres-Banks innovations? I would love to see it based on this information here: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00874726v1/document. BTW, *qenop > *eno > *one > MTA one is found in Codrington's dictionary with the meaning "to lie wide and open".

Thanks! Kwékwlos (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kwékwle, Thanks for your request. I'm afraid there is no such list that has been published or is accessible. The data is dispersed in various publications + various unpublished files; there's nothing ready to be sent around.

MTA one : you're right, it's a reflex of *qenop; but for the sense 'lie down' it's been replaced by /rsa/. It was a simple example of how to use blank cells in the methodology, even though in this case we do have a way to check the presence of the innovation. - Womtelo (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rsa (< risa) looks like someone mashed three keys randomly :). But anyways, I'd wonder where the sources (especially unpublished) pertain to specifically. Perhaps a folder would be useful here. Kwékwlos (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adetokunbo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Close-mid front rounded vowel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Digraph and Ligature.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched the web and found nothing that contains a readable version of Ross's 1996 article about the classification of Yapese within Austronesian. Have you, by any chance, found the article? Kwékwlos (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Kwéklos:, I've looked around, and unfortunately I cannot find that paper, neither in my paper files nor my Pdfs — sorry. Best — Womtelo (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

It was published under "Reconstruction, classification, description: Festschrift in honor of Isidore Dyen", so if there's a copy out there, there's a good chance it contains this article. Kwékwlos (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwéklos: Still looking for it? I have a print copy of the festschrift and can scan the pages for you. Actually, I even had an easier-to-scan pre-publication manuscript version of it that Ross shared with me back then, but I can't find it in the chaos of my old paper files :) –Austronesier (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need them still. Kwékwlos (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier Hello! Kwékwlos (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwékwlos: Please be patient, I have to scan it carefully with an app on my mobile, since I don't have a book scanner. @Womtelo: Do you need a copy, too? –Austronesier (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll wait. Kwékwlos (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Thanks for your proposal; I don't need a copy, as I'm working on other projects at the moment. And thanks for helping out Kwékwlos! hoping you do have enough time for that operation at the moment. -- Womtelo (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Womtelo! I've noticed that the primary example in Linkage_(linguistics)#Examples is CMP. Now, few of us believe that CMP is anything more than just a typological area, since most innovations proposed by Blust do not even have a linkage-like distribution. I wonder if we can replace it with a better example, ideally an "iconic" one with lots of chaining and yet low subgroupiness? Austronesier (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi Austronesier, That's a great question! I'm not in the right condition to write a lengthy passage on WP now, but I guess we could pick one or two areas which have been already described in the literature, as forming a linkage (whether or not that term was used). e.g. I'm thinking of Toulmin's 2009 analysis of the Kamta languages in NE India & Bangladesh; perhaps other cases would fit too. Other good examples would be Germanic or PIE itself, but these are reconstructed systems, so I wouldn't pick those as a primary example, for rhetorical reasons.

--Womtelo (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

...whether or not that term was used: well, it that case, I would probably add Balto-Slavic, which has prototypical linkage characteristics. It would solve much of the historical debate about Balto-Slavic. But in order not to fall into the OR-trap, I'd prefer cases which have been explicitly discussed in the linkage framework. A hint will suffice; not that have much time for lengthy edits due to other urgent writing (I have promised a deadline to B. Palmer that I'm hardly able to keep LOL), but I can do the necessary changes to the article.

Btw, we need a better eye on Melanesia and Melanesians. Some people tend to confuse the anthropological and (especially typological) linguistic links between Melanesia and Wallacea with the established geographical definition. –Austronesier (talk) 09:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, good points. Keep up the great work. Merry Christmas ! -- Womtelo (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Womtelo, do you know of any linguistics sources that mention terms for intersex pigs in Vanuatu? If you have any linguistic information related to Narave pigs, please don't hesitate to update the article. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 03:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sago,

Well -- I've seen the notion mentioned in a few dictionaries (an example here in Araki), but that's the only sort of "linguistic source" I can think of. Not sure how useful that is. -- Best, -- Womtelo (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Just updated at Narave pig#Etymology, with lots of reflexes from Clark (2009). Thanks for the link to the Araki dictionary! — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 13:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's cool, thanks! Womtelo (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Womtelo, A couple questions I have. Is using the Pangloss website a reliable source for phonology of Oceanic Languages? Did François himself provide the information and research for the languages? I’d like to know. Thanks Fdom5997 (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello Fdom. Well, apparently the entries on Pangloss are written by the linguist responsible for the corpus. At least that must be the case for detailed entries like Lakon -- also judging from the author's name in the citation (just before the list of resources). You are right, that ideally it would be better to cite a publication; but as far as those north Vanuatu languages are concerned, those short online presentations are often the only source for consonant charts, as far as I know (except when a language was the object of a specific published paper). -- Womtelo (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Well I mean if it’s written by the actual linguist, then it probably is still a reliable and useful source. Am I correct in saying that too? Fdom5997 (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi Fdom, (1) yes, I believe those intro texts on Pangloss are written by the actual linguist [at least in this case]; and (2) yes, as a result, I consider them to constitute a reliable source; also because the website's editor is CNRS (not just an informal blog or something). In fact, based on that same reasoning, I had added references to such texts on the pages of other languages of the area (Hiw, Lehali, Löyöp, Dorig, Olrat...). Thanks to you, the Lakon page has its consonantal chart, and its reference too. (Next on my list would be Lemerig based on this page, but right now I am too busy to do it myself.) -- Womtelo (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Great! Thank you, for your input here! Fdom5997 (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome ;) -- Womtelo (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Womtelo, So I have just created a phonology section for the Uripiv-Atchin (Northeast Malakula) langauge, and I had used Lynch (2020) as a source. However, it does not look like he gives a good explanation of what the actual sounds for /v/ and /j/ are in the Uripiv language. I assume that they are /β/ and /tʃ/ (or ᶮdʒ) as heard among other speakers of Vanuatu (Malakula) languages but I'm not sure. I've also tried to look for Ross Mckerras' sources regarding the phonology for the Uripiv language, but I haven't had any luck. I don't know if you have access to any sources on the language, but if there is something you could do, please let me know. Thanks. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Fdom5997:, Thanks for your question. Took me some time, but I found another reference, namely Duhamel (2010). On page 16, she explains that the phoneme /ts/ is realized [t​͡s] or [t​͡ʃ], in free variation. There is no question of any voicing, or voiced counterpart. What I understand is that |j|, in spite of usage in European languages, transcribes an affricate that remains voiceless. It's a bit like in Bislama in fact, where kalja “culture” is always pronounced [kalʧa], never *[kaldʒa]. So, unless you have a solid source, I suggest you remove the sentence “/tʃ/ may also be heard as [ᶮdʒ] among speakers” from the language's page, because it is not confirmed by the sources I've found. Sorry, I don't have any access to McKerras, nor any other source. Good luck! -- Womtelo (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kanak people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malcolm Ross.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the PDF for some reason, due to Service Temporarily Unavailable (503). Do you have another PDF link outside of that site? Kwékwlos (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi Kwékwlos,

The official page is now working again. -- Womtelo (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please stop adding failed verification content to articles. You need to provide quotes from the sources when verifiability is questioned. (t · c) buidhe 21:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Cognate sets are fine for a proposed family, as we have at Indo-European and many others. A set of recontructions with reflexes in various languages of the family would be great. But these are just random collections of words. They can be added to Wiktionary, but per NOTADICT they don't belong here. Also, presenting sets of words as if they're supposed to tell the reader something about the family is misleading. People will reasonably expect them to be cognates, but they're not. Even if they were, we shouldn't expect the reader to do the work of reconstructing the family. That's not what an encyclopedia is for, so yes, this section is unencyclopedic. It borders on OR, as it suggests a meaning that it doesn't have, as if the writer were trying to prove something with raw data that they couldn't prove with sources. — kwami (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, as you say, lots of language articles have vocab lists, though anything other than basic vocab is moved to Wikt as unencyclopedic. But those words are for that particular language. In this case that language would be proto-East Papuan according to whichever source posits such a language. — kwami (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with Kwamikagami. These sets of words are encyclopedic and do not turn Wikipedia articles into dictionaries. Please see the discussion at User talk:Kwamikagami#Vocabulary comparisons. Womtelo's tables are useful and encyclopedic, and I'd prefer to restore them if possible. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 22:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Literature of Vanuatu, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Reg. Central Solomons, if vocab is borrowed from another language or languages, it is by definition not cognate. — kwami (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, OK I see. I think I've seen the term "cognate" used in such cases, but I understand the difference you're making. I've changed the example, found a simpler one. -- Womtelo (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, I learned the word as meaning simply 'related', but technically it means common descent from a protolanguage.

But given that "Dunn and Terrill (2012) argue that the lexical evidence vanishes when Oceanic loanwords are excluded", and that Ross (2005) and Pedrós (2015) accept a connection based on grammatical rather than lexical forms, can we know that the words for 'road' are cognate?

If the evidence were that straightforward (and the languages that transparently related), I wouldn't think there would be any debate over whether they formed a family. — kwami (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I find the evidence of the family's unity very weak indeed. -- Womtelo (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

How can we claim that those words are cognate then? Or are they presented as cognate in our sources? — kwami (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I've fixed the prose. -- Womtelo (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. — kwami (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the section headings for the Papuan vocabulary tables. They may or may not be cognates, but they certainly aren't all non-cognates. I'm considering copying the tables to Wiktionary and/or other Wikipedias (Spanish, Bahasa Indonesia, Tok Pisin, Bislama, others) so that they won't be messed up from all this back-and-forth editing. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 02:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi Sago, That sounds like a great idea: currently tables keep disappearing for no justified reason, and that's a loss of valuable information for the English-WP community. At least other communities should be able to benefit from all the data, it's still better than having it all disappear due to a single person's whim. Good luck with that work! -- Womtelo (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you! The archived tables are listed at User:Sagotreespirit/Tables. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 01:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thx. I hope you find a way to make these tables public in some way in the future. But at least it's useful to have them salvaged there. Best, Womtelo (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]