Jump to content

Talk:Proto-Central Pacific language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rotuman f - Polynesian t

[edit]

I don't see where the correspondence between Rotuman f and Polynesian t has been dealt with in the reconstruction. The f - f correspondence has been reconstructed to *f, and the t - t correspondence has been reconstructed to *t but what happened to the f - t correspondence? Safulop (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rotuman actually has two reflexes of PCP *t, that being inherited /f/ and borrowed /t/. Originally, /f/ was recorded as an interdental /θ/. The correspondence between /f/ and /t/ corresponds to PCP *t, while the correspondence between /f/ and /f/ (< PCP *v) indicates Rotuman /f/ in this case is borrowed, the inherited reflex being /h/. Kwékwlos (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presence of *p?

[edit]

After looking around all day for the source of *p from POc, it seems that POc *p became PCP *v, leaving POc *p-less. From what I can find, all Central-Pacific /p/ comes from loan words or from Central-Pacific *b. Not sure if this can be fixed, since there's not a published source. BinaryPrime (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Indeed, many Oc languages (e.g. in Vanuatu) lack /p/, because POc *p> /v/. But Geraghty (p.291) cites quite a few examples of PCP *p, so this is to be trusted. The POc etymology of these examples is not obvious to me. -- Womtelo (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, I saw that but I couldn't verify it, but I'm just an amateur so what do I know :p
In general though I'm having trouble identifying the POc sources of a lot of Geraghty's reconstructions. Very frustrating. BinaryPrime (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another question is, what is the regular reflex of POc *pw? Does it correspond to PCP *p or does it merge with *v? Kwékwlos (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the POc *pʷ series became PCP *kʷ series. BinaryPrime (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the problem is that the number of etyma in *pw is extremely low. Only one comes to my mind: namely POc *pʷilak 'thunder' (which might be just a variant of *pilak). There may be a couple more, but so few, that I even doubt whether a phoneme *pʷ is reconstructable at all (in contrast with */ᵐbʷ/, which is amply attested). PNCV in Vanuatu is reconstructed with *vʷ, which can be the regular outcome of *pʷ — though most often it just reflects *p before a rounded vowel. I know only 2 Vanuatu languages that have a /vʷ/ phoneme in synchrony; in most places *vʷ is reflected as /w/. I'm skeptic that POc *pʷ became PCP *kʷ, unless you can give us some examples. -- Womtelo (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I meant the whole labial-velar series, so *ᵐbʷ would be *ᵑgʷ. I believe I read this in the Lexicon of Proto Oceanic, supposedly POc's labaial-velars (*pʷ *bʷ *mʷ) being the source of Fijian's labiovelars, and reflected in PPn as plain velars. BinaryPrime (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes sure. In various languages of Vanuatu, *ᵐbʷ mʷ are indeed the regular source of labiovelars. Kwékwlos was enquiring more specifically about about *pʷ (not the whole series), which is what I was replying to. -- Womtelo (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I didn't know *pʷ was especially poorly attested, and I figured it would have patterned with the rest of the series. Again, I'm a total amateur lol, just started researching this stuff a few days ago. Any literature you'd recommend? BinaryPrime (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Lexicon is a good place indeed, and work by Malcolm Ross. Also, the LRC book by Lynch, Ross & Crowley is a go-to reference for many things. -- Womtelo (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]