08.07.2014 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!