A Comprehensive Comparison of Lexemes in the ... - SIL International
A Comprehensive Comparison of Lexemes in the ... - SIL International
A Comprehensive Comparison of Lexemes in the ... - SIL International
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
11<br />
hyphens refer to word-<strong>in</strong>itial, word-medial, and word-f<strong>in</strong>al position respectively,<br />
and paren<strong>the</strong>ses <strong>in</strong>dicate that <strong>the</strong> form is restricted to certa<strong>in</strong> environments.<br />
Table 2.2. Vowel correspondence (after Lynch 2001:203).<br />
PSV Kwamera Lenakel N Tanna SW Tanna Vaha Whitesands<br />
*i i i i i i i<br />
*e i i, (ə) i, (ə) i, (ə) i, (ə) i, (ə)<br />
*a a, (ə), (o) a, (ə), a, (ə), a, (ə), (o) a, (ə), (o) a, (ə), (o)<br />
(o) (o)<br />
*(e) e e e e e e<br />
*ə ɨ-ɨ-a ɨ ɨ ɨ-ɨ-a ɨ-ɨ-a ɨ<br />
*o e-e-a, u, ɨ ə, u, ɨ ə, u, ɨ ə-ə-a, u, ɨ ə-ə-a, u, ɨ ə, u, ɨ<br />
*u u, (e), (i),<br />
(o)<br />
u, (o) u, (o) u, (e), (i),<br />
(o)<br />
u, (e), (i),<br />
(o)<br />
u, (o)<br />
If <strong>the</strong> lexemes for two languages are identical, or if <strong>the</strong>ir vowel values<br />
follow regular sound correspondences to PSV, <strong>the</strong>y are considered cognates. For<br />
example, <strong>the</strong> SW Tanna and Whitesands lexemes for ‘bicker; argue’ <strong>in</strong> example (7)<br />
are considered cognates, s<strong>in</strong>ce PSV *a is represented as ei<strong>the</strong>r /ə/ or /o/ <strong>in</strong><br />
modern Tanna languages. The vowel /ɨ/ is epen<strong>the</strong>tic and <strong>the</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al /u/ <strong>in</strong> SW<br />
Tanna is dropped, as SW Tanna drops f<strong>in</strong>al vowels.<br />
(7) bicker; argue V/TR<br />
SW Tanna: ətgoh<br />
Whitesands: orɨgəhu<br />
If two lexemes differ <strong>in</strong> any way not described by <strong>the</strong> above phonological<br />
shifts from PSV to modern Tannese languages, <strong>the</strong>y are considered dissimilar <strong>in</strong><br />
this study. Speakers <strong>of</strong> one language may recognize such lexemes <strong>in</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
language—and <strong>the</strong> lexemes may even ‘look alike’—but, for <strong>the</strong> purposes <strong>of</strong> this<br />
study, unless <strong>the</strong>y meet <strong>the</strong> above phonological criteria, <strong>the</strong>y are not considered<br />
cognates.<br />
2.1.2 Non-phonological reasons for dissimilarity <strong>of</strong> cognate lexemes<br />
Based on a comparative analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> data collected <strong>in</strong> this study, I have<br />
noticed two non-phonological reasons why cognate lexemes may differ <strong>in</strong> form.<br />
The first reason is that a set <strong>of</strong> synonyms existed at one time <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tanna lexicon,<br />
with some modern languages ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g one lexeme and o<strong>the</strong>r modern<br />
languages adopt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> synonym, and yet o<strong>the</strong>r languages ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g both<br />
lexemes. The second reason is that compound words and abstract ideas are<br />
formed differently <strong>in</strong> different languages.