La virtud

Morobe Districts where languages or parts thereof related to those in the Central and Northern Districts are located. This has been a useful guide in consolidating the many alternative names scattered throughout the literature.

(ii) In place of a voiceless bilabial plosive /p/ in other languages, Notu, Baruga (at least Tafota), and Korafe exhibit a fricative /$/. There appears, however, to be some variation in the realisation of /p/ and l§l in some languages. In Binandere free variation of [p] and [<j>] for /p/ occurs in some speakers, and in Tafota Baruga and Korafe /<])/ is articulated towards labio-dental [f] before front vowels. In the pronunciation of my Hunjara informant [f], not [(f)], occurs. In languages where a voiceless bilabial fricative rather than plosive occurs, descriptivists have generally used either exclusively < f > or < p > (see also §1.7.1 below). This should be borne in mind when the symbols p, f, and p all appear as correspondending segments in a cognate set.

(iii) Similarly, where v, w, and ß are corresponding segments in a cognate set, the following should be noted. In Guhu-Samane and Orokaiva (Sose dialect) no phoneme /w/ or /ß/ is said to occur; rather, [ß] is said to be an intervocalic realisation of /b/. In Suena, Zia, and Notu /w/ is [ß] before front vowels. In Binandere /ß/ assimilates slight lip rounding from following rounded vowels but is not a true [w]. In Tafota Baruga and Korafe /ß/ is [w] before back vowels and approaches [v] before front vowels (and is [ß] before [a] in Korafe). Descriptivists have generally preferred the symbol < v > for the sound which is, or approaches, a voiced bilabial fricative, and < w > for elsewhere.

(iv) There are three different types of phonemic analyses in the phonology statements in my sources for what appear in the cognate sets as mb,nd,nj,ijg or Vb, Vd, Vj, Vg. (a) prenasalised voiced plosives, (b) nasalised vowels preceding voiced plosives, and (c) homorganic nasal-plosive clusters. The last case results in a phonotactic rule which permits syllables to be closed but by nasal consonants only. These analyses are different ways of describing what is essentially the same function. To the first type Notu is assigned, where /mb,nd,ndz/ are said to occur only word-medially, and /IJg/ is said to be pronounced [°g] medially and [rj] word-initially (Parrington and Parrington 1994:3). To the second type are assigned Binandere, Tafota Baruga, and Korafe. In Binandere [mb,nd,,Jg,nd3] are described as resulting when /b,d,g/ or [3I3] follow a syllable with a nasal plosive onset, e.g. /nabori/ [nambori] ‘brother-in-law’ (Wilson 1992:4). In Tafota Baruga /b,d,g,d3/ are said to be prenasalised following nasal vowels, thus having allophones [mb,nd,l]g,nd3] (Farr and Farr 2004:12). In Korafe /b,d,g,d3/ are analysed as having a prenasalised allophone occurring immediately following a syllable with a nasal onset, e.g. /mabe/ [mamb£] ‘threshold’), or a nasal vowel, e.g. /ada/ [anda] ‘sago leaf taboo marker' (Farr 1992:4). To the third type is assigned Orokaiva (Sose dialect), where /n/ is described

as being pronounced as nasalisation of the preceding vowel or vowel cluster word- finally and preceding /h/, e.g. /son/ [sd] ‘betel nut’ (Larsen 1992:3). Yekora is said to have both a full set of nasal vowels as well as /md,nd/, the latter presumably to account for a number of words in which these two sounds occur word-initially (Wilson 2002a:25, 1988a:§3).

(v) In keeping with widespread practice in Papuan linguistics, I have employed the symbol j in the cognate sets to represent the voiced coronal obstruent described for most languages as an alveolar affricate [dz], but as an alveolar fricative (with affricated variants) [dz, d?, z, ?] in Orokaiva (Sose dialect), and as an affricate [d3] which is alveopalatal in Tafota Baruga and palato-alveolar in Korafe. The symbol y

is used in the cognate sets to represent the palatal glide [j].

(vi) The phoneme /r/ is described variously as an alveolar tap or flap (Zia, Binandere, Notu, Tafota Baruga), an alveolar trill (Suena, Korafe), and a retroflex flap (Guhu- Samane). Orokaiva (Sose dialect) is analysed as having no rhotic phoneme, rather with [r] surfacing only allophonically as a medial realisation of I'd/. The rhotic phoneme or allophone surfaces in some languages as a lateral.

(vii) In Binandere (and apparently in Ambasi also, though no phonemic statement exists for this language) there are no phonemes /s/ and /dy, but [s] and [d3] do surface as allophones of It! and /d/ respectively before Hi.

1.7.1 Reliability o f sources

The bulk of the sources employed for this study are raw, unpublished papers, the exceptions being CK27 (Binandere), C&B15 (multiple languages), DW69 (multiple languages), DW74 (Suena), L&L85 (Orokaiva), and R&H02 (Guhu-Samane).

Comparisons of unpublished, data-oriented sources and published papers for the same language show that there is no significant difference in the representation of forms. Where differences occur, these are mainly of a phonetic or orthographic nature only. For example, a check of the unpublished word list by Wilson 2005 (source JW05) against the published article by King 1927 (source CK27) for the Binandere language reveals non- phonological discrepances such as the following: v versus ß (e.g. vetu versus ßetu in 51 pBin *wetu ‘bone’, and gavi versus gaßi in 172 pBin *gawi ‘fat’); i versus y (e.g. ia

versus ya in 128 pBin *ya(wa) ‘dance’); (V)N(V) versus (V)N(V) (e.g. ni versus ni in 35 pBin *ndi ‘bird’); and voiced plosive shown with prenasalisation both on the vowel and as a nasal consonant (e.g. mundii versus müdu in 158 pBin * {m,mw}unju ‘egg’). And in the case of the Suena language, the forms in the unpublished list of source DW80b (Wilson 1980b) are the same as those in the published grammar by Wilson 1974 (source

DW74), except that in the latter (in which far fewer forms occur), tone is indicated, and in the former source it is not. The two main sources for Orokaiva, both treating the Sose dialect, namely the published grammar by Larsen and Larsen 1985 (source L&L85) and the computer file word list of Larsen 1984 (source ML84), show more significant differences, e.g. pekihi versus petiki Tips’ in 232 pBin *giti ‘head’, tava versus tavi in 284 pNucBin *dawi Timestick/paddle’; but these most probably reflect dialectal mixture. (In such comparisons as just described, differences also appear in the form of the verb given, but this is no discrepancy.)

Such concord amongst the variety of sources drawn on for the study verifies them as reliable.

Furthermore, the most reliable lists are those prepared by trained linguists of the PNG Branch of the SIL who have worked for long periods in particular languages; and in the case of all of the Greater Binanderean languages, such lists have informed the lexical cognate sets assembled for this study.

The source P&P84, which has furnished five lists for various lects numbered 10 to 12, is insufficient for phonological purposes in employing only the symbol < g > for both /g/ and /y/; and only the symbol < p > when one assumes the realisation may be closer to [f] or [<j>], based on neighbouring languages and more phonetically rigorous sources, and particularly on the phonological statements to hand for Coastal Binandere languages (see Chapter 2), as observed in §1.7 above.

The old source C&B15, which represents Chinnery and Beaver (1915), is similarly deficient. In respect of their work (and also of Strong’s (1911)) it should be pointed out, as it is in Dutton (1996:64), that field officers were untrained in linguistics although they had been given some directives on how to write languages down. It followed that, while they were efficient fieldworkers, they naturally made mistakes in eliciting their lists for publication in Government Annual Reports where there was an increased potential for further errors to creep in, particularly given that the lists were printed in the Government Printing Office in Port Moresby. As a consequence fine distinctions in pronunciation were not made, as is later referred to in the discussion of the Orokaiva dialects in §2.10, and similarly in the case of Yega/Oukena pointed out in §2.9 and §2.11.

The supply of data from alternate sources in a given language has on the whole been effective in dispelling any ambiguity caused by such insufficiencies.

The issue of the competing phonological analyses of prenasalised plosives and nasalised vowels is addressed in point (iv) of §1.7 above and in §3.2. The differing representations across sources in this regard have presented no hindrance to the analysis.

1.8 Outline o f remaining chapters

The second chapter of this work begins the analysis of the phonological history of Binanderean. It presents the hypothesised phoneme inventory of Proto Binandere, a tabulation and demonstrations of reflexes in the present-day languages, and a diagram of the family tree. Beginning with higher-order subgroups and working through to those of lower order, the sound changes are reconstructed with supporting data. The final sections of the chapter discuss the problematic phenomenon of ‘drift’ and the different types of sound change observed.

Chapter 3 continues the treatment of Binanderean historical phonology, including vowel sequences, phonetic values of proto-phonemes, and suprasegmentals. It also treats lexicon, including the question of borrowing between Binanderean and Austronesian and the presence of multiple reconstructed forms with identical glosses. It also gives an analysis of irregular sound changes.

The fourth chapter explores the history of Binanderean bound morphology, looking first at verbal, and then at nominal morphology. For each morphological category examples are given from present-day languages, followed by sets which isolate the relevant morphological form and furnish a reconstruction. The forms under analysis are mostly inflectional, with a small number of derivational forms. The chapter closes with a comparison of the morphological against the phonological evidence for subgrouping within the family.

Chapter 5 examines the position of Guhu-Samane, a northern neighbour of the Binanderean group. Sound correspondences with Proto Binandere are given. The chapter presents phonological and morphological grounds for the language’s exclusion from Binanderean proper and its designation as a sister of Proto Binandere in the family tree. The wider group is referred to as Greater Binanderean.

Chapter 6 investigates the relationship of (Greater) Binanderean to the TNG family. I conclude that it is a subgroup of TNG but has no close relationship to any other subgroup. I first examine retentions of TNG etyma in Binanderean which are shared with other TNG subgroups, and then examine resemblant forms shared by Binanderean and other TNG subgroups which lack established pTNG antecedents.

Proto Binandere phonology and