Bembi, Baiberi, and Baibai (was: Re: Barba and Bestia)

From: stlatos
Message: 64649
Date: 2009-08-08

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> At 4:13:26 AM on Friday, August 7, 2009, stlatos wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> >> At 2:33:42 AM on Friday, August 7, 2009, stlatos wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> *aq'wARXWunWA > *Oq'wOBBumWO > *OwOrumO > Mafuara wOrOmuO;
> >>> *Oq'wOBBumWO > *qOBuw > Guriaso kOru, Bb kubhO 'leg'
>
> >>> *OÑWuq'RwiyE > *OÑWëp'Rwëy > F këbw; Bb nëmbi; Biaka
> >>> bObwi; Kw fofo 'a sore'
>
> >> Gesundheit. This isn't a method: it's a magic wand.
>
> > You have shown no method at all; you merely said that mb >
> > B in Fas,
>
> Actually, I did not: I made a rather weaker statement.


You mean:

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > No, B also occurs in Fas (in New Guinea) and must be
> > reconstructed for the common ancestor of Fas and (at least)
> > most neighboring languages.
>
> The only other language undoubtedly related to Fas is Baibai; even
> the proposed relationship with the Kwomtari languages is doubtful.
> And since F. /B/ apparently corresponds to B. /mb/, the obvious
> reconstruction here is *Mb, a prenasalized stop (and the usual
> source of the very rare bilabial trill, according to Ladefoged &
> Maddieson).


No matter how "weakly" you meant it, every part of it was wrong. I don't know where you got your information from, but Fas and Bembi are obviously related, as well as Baibai and Watape (with several others with little recorded information very likely related); not every B cor. to mb, not every mb to B.

I gave ev., most from material Wietze Baron put on the internet that was unpublished elsewhere, to support this and you ignore everything but the complexity of the rec. forms and use this alone as enought to condemn it. As I said, more phonemes and clusters are needed just to account for the Fas/Baibai data, the relation of which you don't dispute. Why is my inclusion of more material grounds to invalidate the whole, or at least that part you "weakly" disputed or raised doubt about?


> In any case, you appear to have missed the point of my last
> comment: just as one can find any number of resemblances
> between languages if one allows sufficient phonetic and
> semantic leeway, so one can construct a common ancestor to
> damn' near any small set of words if one allows sufficiently
> complex ancestral clusters, enough rare or unattested sound
> changes, and enough metatheses and optional rules.


Met. and opt. are obviously necessary just for Fas/Baibai (or within either), and several opt. alt. like o/u, e/i, u/i/ë are well-known and occur in a wide area of New Guinea. Most of the rec. I gave had no opt., little or no met. (some simple such as Gu kOru, Bb kubhO 'leg', in which a *kOBu seems fully justified considering the existence of B in a relative of Bb, especially as a>O before u (and a>E-i) have plenty of ev.). The proto-forms for Kw-Bi-Bb-F (*Oq'wOBBumWO, *ayEpRu, etc.) had even less, so you might as well ignore the "magic wand" forms used to relate these to languages outside New Guinea if you think they're not IE.

It is not a small set, I've done it for over 100 words. Since Mafuara is not only obviously related to Guriaso, it is called a dialect of it in some material, I see *Oq'wOBBumWO > *OwOrumO > Mafuara wOrOmuO, > *qOBuw > Guriaso kOru 'leg' as a simple and justified derivation, not mere chance, and Bb kubhO 'leg' as an obvious relative, justifying the *B, among many others.


> In your
> reconstructive enthusiasm you've lost sight of the forest
> for the trees -- at times perhaps even for the leaves.


You have displayed no knowledge of the actual situation, and given no ev. to back up your "weak" assertions. I see no reason for you to think these languages aren't related or to ignore the data I gave, even if you ignore my reconstructions. I think you should at least look at the available evidence, or perhaps even try to think of another rec. for Fas/Baibai if you think mine too complex, if only as something concrete to show I am wrong, which you haven't done for even one Fas/Baibai correspondence, of which many real ones should exist if they are "undoubtedly related".