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

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 6:48:24 AM on Saturday, August 8, 2009, stlatos wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <BMScott@> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> 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.
>
> No.

Oh?

>
> > I don't know where you got your information
> > from, but Fas and Bembi are obviously related,
>
> Indeed: 'Bembi' is another name for Fas.

Wrong; there is a group of related languages, much of it probably a dialect continuum, containing many groups who live in villages called Fas or call themselves Bembi, or both, or similar words. However, the language spoken in Fas (the one Baron studied) has no mb (and for that reason, combined with that Bembi's dif. from his Fas in sounds in the recorded words, he speculated that Capell used the wrong word for the people he met; used an outside designation; or actually studied Baibai; which is a very foolish set of thoughts (considering the situation as a whole)); and the first-studied language in this group was called Bembi by Capell (those in Fas don't call themselves Bembi, *beBi, or anything similar) and the short time studying it, among other factors, makes it likely that it was related to or a dialect of Fas (unless you don't acknowledge metathesis, in which case it would be as unrelated as Kwomtari presumably would be) and that it likely wasn't recorded with full accuracy or confidence (for example, he might not have heard B as B, but as b, and so written it). In addition, the probable dialect continuum includes languages which have been called Baibai, Watape, Waris, Anggor, and whose speakers live in villages, some of which are known as Bembi, Baiuwai, Bifro, etc., < *bayamBya. That doesn't mean those who live in any village named Fas speak the same l. as in (Baron's) Fas, Kilifas, etc., or that speakers who call themselves Bembi never live in a place called Fas. Though Baiuwai and Baibai come from the same word, that doesn't mean the Fas (or dia.) in Baiuwai is actually Baibai, or that they're alt. names for the same language, anymore than the language (usually called Fas due to the modern work done in Fas) spoken in Bembi, or the other Bembi, or the other, is the same as that which was first called Bembi.

The fact that some non-linguists have recognized that some people who have been called Fas and some who call themselves Bembi or Baiuwai are related, or have the same culture, or call themselves part of one group, and so use terms like Fas-Bembi, has nothing to do with the names used in linguistic publications for studies of different people in different places in the same general area at different times. The confused situation, with the lack of much published work, has probably led to incorrect terminology from a historial perspective in some descriptions.

> > I gave ev., most from material Wietze Baron put on the
> > internet that was unpublished elsewhere,
>
> I assumed as much; so far as I know, there's very little
> available other than the material on or linked from his
> site.
>
> > to support this and you ignore everything but the
> > complexity of the rec. forms and use this alone as enought
> > to condemn it.
>
> No, I didn't ignore everything else. You're simply blind to
> the problem that I pointed out, just as you've been when
> it's come up before. I don't expect that you ever will see
> it, and I frankly don't care enough to make any further
> effort to point it out, especially in this off-topic
> context. Nowadays I'm content mostly to ignore ...
> eccentricity, even sophisticated ... eccentricity.

You haven't ignored me; your desire to show that I am wrong, even when you have no real way of knowing if I am, compelled you to speak of matters you shouldn't be confident about.