Talk:Andamanese languages/Archive 1

Archive 1

Caucasoid affinity claims

"However, old skulls of unmixed Andaman aborigines display many morphological affinities to crania of the Caucasoid race." What is the source for this claim?

Andamanese is two families, not one

There is only typological evidence (grammatical words for body parts) linking Great Andamanese and South Andamanese. There is no cognate vocabulary. Given the close proximity and great time depth involved, this is completely inadequate to support a putative language family. If the languages weren't so obscure, we'd see the kinds of debates produced by Caucasian or by including Thai and Vietnamese in Tibeto-Burman. If no one objects, I will revise the article to reflect this.

Also, I'm unaware of any description or vocabulary lists for Sentinelese. It seems to be mere speculation that they have a distinct language, or on the other hand that their language is related to other Andamanese languages. If there is no data, it should be described as "unclassified", or perhaps better, "unknown". I'll make this change as well if no one has an argument to the contrary. kwami 23:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While the relationship may be distant, "no cognate vocabulary" seems a rather strong claim; even a cursory look at wordlists shows cases like "fingernail" A-Pucikwar oːŋ-puːte-dʌ, Aka-Bea -u-k-u-burenge "toenail", Onge -oborange, or "good", Onge i-baro, Aka-Bea bɛriŋʌ-dʌ. Can you cite some sources supporting your point? - Mustafaa 02:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Greenberg 1971 couldn't find good cognates, even while he claimed to have found cognates between Great Andamanese and Tasmanian! The toenail cognate looks good, but Bea and Onge are far more similar than Bea and Pucikwar, which suggests that not all three words can be related. kwami 11:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

(PS: not, of course, that I'm claiming these are necessarily cognates, just that it's not obvious that there are no cognates.) - Mustafaa 02:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An Indo-Pacificist friend who's researched Andamanese pretty extensively confirms that he knows of no wordlists. However, it does seem that first contact has been made[1]. - Mustafaa 02:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Andamanese is probably ONE language group - don't dismiss the most obvious hypothesis without a trial!!

I have been studying whatever I could gather from Andamanese languages for some years now, and it seems that, in fact, the two groups (GA and Onge-Jarawa) are more similar than what it would seem at first sight. The fact that no one could find good cognates attests only to the inefficiency of some linguists involved (the far-fetched and pseudolinguistic cognate-hunting by Greenberg is an example). However, once sound laws can be worked out, it becomes easy to see such a relationship. Andamanese tribes have been isolated for thousands of years, and it's perfectly acceptable that many sound changes must have occurred between language groups for all that time and eventually made things more difficult even for the most hard-working linguists(but not impossible - that's the exciting point.) So, to completely dismiss linguistic relationships after simply spending some time lazily trying to find 'cognates' with no scientific discipline as to investigate sound change is as biased as trying to assert relationship based on merely apparent cognates (unfortunately, that's the terrible skeleton in the closet left by Greenberg's statistic artifacts). So until someone comes up with a convincing set of regular sound changes between both Andamanese language groups (it could eventually be myself, although it's been hard for me to find more material lately) no one can dispute with such a degree of certainty in either direction. That's why I object to some previous comments here, and I hope to prove it on paper in the near future. Check back in a few years and I'll tell you. ;) Stephanos1ko 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Stephanos, how well do we even know Järawa? Is it clearly related to Önge, or do people just assume that as they do with Sentinelese? That is, when you're trying to establish Andamanese as a family, are you comparing Great Andamanese with Önge-Järawa, or just with Önge? kwami 21:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. I no longer have access to Onge material. Could you post the pronouns? I know Tim believes Onge 1sg m is related to Great Andamanese 1pl m, and that the rest of the pronouns are relatable as well. It would be nice to have something of a comparison. kwami 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to post some sample comparisons in the article soon.But as for your question,we know a little about Jarawa,yes.I mean,Indian linguists know,since foreigners are in practice prohibited from doing research in the Andamans.Imagine that only Papuan'linguists'were allowed to study all the languages of Papua.What a huge gap in knowledge we would have right now.But that's the sad reality.I can't even listen to recordings in order to compare and,if possible,to challenge their claims!but we do know the basics of Jarawa,and it is quite obvious that it is absolutely close to Onge,perhaps closer than,say,Frisian to English(Anglo-Frisian subgroup of Germaniclanguages).Pronouns are identical and most of the vocabulary can be traced through very few sound changes.As for the relation of Onge-jarawa with Great Andamanese,it's one step ahead,but equally promising once regular sound change starts to come in.We just have to ask the right questions. Stephanos1ko 01:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of Jarawa and Onge sound recordings (only a few words) available here, in a monograph by a Jawaharlal Nehru University academic on their linguistic field trip to the islands, which you may or may not be aware of.

With regards to the version of Great Andamanese as is spoken by its bare handful of remaining speakers, I've seen different accounts of which GA language it is supposed to be most closely related to. Some say A-Pucikwar (as indeed does this Andamanese languages article), others such as this one imply Aka-Jeru. Would you have any views or information as to which if either of these is valid?--cjllw | TALK 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that when their numbers got low, the surviving Great Andamanese were gathered together and placed on their current island to give them their own community, and that all their languages ended up being mixed together, something like a creole, in the next generation. Perhaps Pucikwar or Jeru was dominant numerically? kwami 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed,when I previously talked about'Great Andamanese',I surely meant by it the whole sub-group of languages originally spoken in Great Andaman, from Aka-Bo to AkaBea(Northern end to southern end of the Island.)What is commonly called'Modern Great Andamanese','Present-Day Great Andamanese'or, confusingly,just'Great Andamanese'is indeed a form of creole which arose from contact of remaining populations(specially Aka-Jeru and Aka-Pucikwar but also some Aka-Bo and Aka-Kora)with Burmese and Indian settlers.It's more closely related to the Northern group of GA languages,but has since been much influcenced by Hindi. Stephanos1ko 09:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am acquainted with the Andaman Association Website and Prof. Anvita Abbi's Article, but I must say that I had some problems trying to listen to those precious sound files. Perhaps my computer lacks the necessary codecs? Have any of you actually managed to listen to it? Stephanos1ko 09:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephanos and Kwami, most informative and helpful. Some minor updates and clarifications needed then for the relevant articles. And no, I've not had any success in playing those files, none of the players I've tried recognise them as a valid .mp3 format and complain that some unspecified codec is lacking.--cjllw | TALK 10:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There are some contradictory statements in the text about Great Andamanese and Onge-Jarawa being either two families or not. If we are going to present arguments and/or statements for and against each of these views, then it should not be without a clear indication or even mixed in a single paragraph:

A:"The Andamanese languages form a proposed family of languages spoken by the Andamanese peoples of the Andaman Islands (...). There are two uncontroversial sub-groups of Andamanese languages"

B:"The Andaman languages fall into two clear families, Great Andamanese and South Andamanese/Onge-Jarawa, plus one unattested language, Sentinelese. These are generally seen as related. (...) researchers such as Joseph Greenberg have expressed doubts as to the validity of Andamanese as a family. (...) significant shared vocabulary between the two families, for example the Onge vs. Aka-Bea pronouns mi "I" vs. m- "we" and ngi "thou" vs. ng- "thou/you", though not enough to establish regular sound correspondences."

It's just confusing. Regardless the dispute "1 family/2 families", we could come to a compromise and use a more neutral term such as "groups"(or something like it) in the words above that are shown in bold, and then go on to explain the diversity of hypotheses on the issue in a more organized way. As it appears now, it's kind of pushing one view right at the outset of the main discussion (paragraph 'B') just to deny it once more in the next phrase and then loosely alternate between opposing views...E.Cogoy 22:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

North & South Andaman are clearly families. That's uncontested, so this is the proper term. The only question is whether Andamanese as a whole is also a family, but it's generally accepted that it is. "Sub-family", "group", and "sub-group" are taxonomically meaningless terms and shouldn't be used, except 'group' when we wish to be ambiguous. kwami 23:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But how can we say that the Andamanese family is comprised of two families? These definitions are mutually exclusive. If Andamanese is one family, then the two sub-branches can be called anything but 'family'; if there are two independent 'families' with no direct or close relationship, then Andamanese could be called a stock, superfamily, whatever, but not a 'family'. This is a simple problem of logics. Ok, you don't have to change the agreed definitions, but we should rearrange them to avoid confusion. E.Cogoy 17:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should reword it, but there's no logical problem. After all, Germanic and Slavic are both families, but that doesn't mean they aren't part of the Indo-European family. kwami 17:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. The only problem is that the word 'family' is used twice in the same paragraph with different meanings, which certainly makes it quite confusing for those who haven't been previously exposed to the controversy. I don't have much time now, but I'll see later what I can do in terms of rewording. Perhaps we should maintain a less specific term in the second occurence of 'families' in the opening paragraph. There would be no loss of information, since the different views on the subject are explained in the other sections. E.Cogoy 12:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That should help, though you may want to touch in up some more. kwami 21:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks better now. Thanks. E.Cogoy 00:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know if you've noticed, but the Andaman Association's new website has been reshaped and has some additions which may be of interest for the article. Even Prof. Avita Abbi's sound files seem to be working now! Just a quick note.E.Cogoy 22:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Usher ref?

Re the statement from Tim Usher that

'...the similarities are genetic, in a relationship he calls "Paleo-Sundic" '

Is there a reference for this? Dougg 06:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I believe it was kwami who added that, but the only source I could find was this one[2], so kwami is probably the best person to answer your question. It is interesting, though, that no other references for the expression 'paleo-sundic' can be (easily) found, even here[3](Tim Usher's page at the controversial EHL project), so I'm not quite sure whether to classify it as a peer-reviewed source or original research. E.Cogoy 06:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit it's iffy, since Tim's a wikipedian. If y'all want to remove it as OR, I wouldn't object. kwami 06:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I reviewed the Wikipedia policy on original research and I think this pretty clearly falls within the guidelines as being OR. I'll remove the statement from the article, but copy it to this talk page and notify Tim Usher that if he can point us to a publication that includes it then it could be returned. Dougg 13:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the statement from the article, here it is:

Timothy Usher of the Rosetta Project believes that the similarities are genetic, in a relationship he calls "Paleo-Sundic". For example, most of the languages constituting Malcolm Ross's extended West Papuan family have first-person pronouns *da/*di ("I") and *m- (exclusive "we"); compare this to Aka-Bea d- and m- above. However, few linguists accept that the Andaman languages have any demonstrated relatives.

Some parts of the above could be returned to the article if rewritten into it, but the first sentence constitutes a new theory and as such needs to appear in a publication before being included. Dougg 13:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wurm quote

I'm concerned about the following statement and quote attributed to Stephen Wurm:

Stephen Wurm states that the lexical similarities between Great Andamanese and the West Papuan and Timor-Alor families "are quite striking and amount to vitual formal identity [...] in a number of instances"[citation needed], but considers this to be due to a linguistic substratum.

Is this meant to be based on Wurm's comments at p. 929 of 'New Guinea Area Languages and Language Study, Volume 1: Papuan Languages and the New Guinea Linguistic Scene'? If so then I think it seriously misrepresents what he actually said and should either be removed or be re-written. Dougg 00:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it probably is, and I fully agree with you that it goes a long way from what Wurm actually says. Just for clarity's sake, here is the whole paragraph (that had been partially quoted):

"On the lexical level, Andaman languages appear in thirty of Greenberg's eighty-four Indo-Pacific etymologies, and in quite a few of these some of the agreements, especially with languages of the West Papuan Phylum, and with those of the Timor-Alor-Pantar area which constitutes a sub-phylum in the Trans-New Guinea Phylum, to a lesser extent with those of the East Papuan Phylum and some other sub-phylic stocks of the Trans-New Guinea Phylum, are quite striking and may amount to virtual formal identity - the questionable reliability of much of the vocabulary material relied on by Greenberg has however to be kept in mind in this."

Of course the wording here is much vaguer and less conclusive than that selective quote implies. The fact that the single source for this is the infamous Greenberg wordlist and his specious (un)linguistic methods only reinforces this. It may well be that some Papuan languages prove to be related to Andamanese, but the fact remains that Greenberg's attempt is not serious enough (a short wordlist based on superficial similarities with no regular sound changes established - something that, honestly, any non-linguist could do to the same effect), and, consequently, a scattered comment by Wurm on the outcome of that attemp is not evidence enough to be mentioned here as such. There is too much speculation about Andamanese and, unfortunately, very little established facts. We should be able to distinguish them and avoid pre-judgements based on unscientific methods. E.Cogoy 08:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for those comments (with which I agree wholeheartedly). I'll go ahead and take the passage out. Dougg 11:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for the map

I was thinking of replacing the current linguistic map of the And. islands with this one [4] I've made and which, I believe, shows more clearly the linguistic scenario of the Andaman Islands (as described in the early 20th century) and is a little more visually appealing. It was loosely adapted from similar maps used by sources such as the Andaman Association. What do you think? If nobody objects, I will go ahead and apply this change on Friday.E.Cogoy 05:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes / Suggestions for improvement

I have made some major changes to the article, like creating an infobox for Andamanese, updating the classification and details on soubgrouping, including a few more sources in the bibliography, etc. Sections 2 and 3, however, need some more work, especially considering that there are new publications available (A very interesting paper published recently, for example, is Blevins 2007 - see Bibliography.) Maybe we should also add some inline references, but I'm not quite sure how to do it. Anyone? E.Cogoy 00:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1