Talk:Malayo-Sumbawan languages

Place of Javanese

There are Javanese similarities with Balinese and Sasak of the Lesser Sundas, which several classifications have taken as evidence for a relationship between them. However, the similarities are with the "high" registers (formal language/royal speech) of Balinese and Sasak; when the "low" register (commoner speech) is considered, the connection appears instead to be with Madurese and Malay. This is somewhat similar to the situation with English, where more 'refined' vocabulary suggests a connection with French, but basic language demonstrates its relationship to German.

I don't follow this reasoning. At least not in the context of an article titled "Malayo-Sumbawan languages". What the paragraph, taken for itself, seems to suggest is that Javanese does not belong to the Bali-Sasak group, which is admittedly unexpected on geographic grounds, and that the similarities are due to adstratum effects (specifically lexical borrowing, if the similarities are mainly lexical, as the comparison with English and French seems to suggest). However, Madurese and Malay are also listed as Malayo-Sumbawan languages here. Wouldn't this state of affairs (if Malayo-Sumbawan is a valid genetic unit and the situation described appropriately here) suggest that Javanese is also part of Malayo-Sumbawan? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Using another comparison, this sounds like a hypothetical argument that Danish cannot be a Germanic language because while its "refined" vocabulary resembles German and English, the basic language is much more similar to Icelandic – what this demonstrates is merely that Danish is not a West Germanic language, of course. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree it the paragraph needs to be rewritten. The real message is Balinese and Sasak languages appears more similar to Javanese only with regard to 'high' registers, but are actually more similar to Madurese and Malay with regard to 'low' registers. Since 'low' register is regarded as the true basic form of a language, it can be concluded that Balinese and Sasak languages are actually close to Malay & Madurese, hence belongs to Malayo-Sumbawan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.170.249 (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Added a line to clarify that Balinese and Sasak are included, Javanese excluded. Yes, like West Germanic: Javanese is Danish, Balinese and Sasak are English and Frisian, and Malayo-Sumbawan is West Germanic. — kwami (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I've identified the problem with the passage now. What is confusingly worded is the part "the connection instead appears to be with Madurese and Malay", as it is not clear which language is connected to them. I interpreted it as "the connection of Javanese appears to be with Madurese and Malay" (and I maintain that is the interpretation suggested by the syntax), while what is really meant is "the connection of Balinese and Sasak appears to be with Madurese and Malay". Due to the later sentence "Javanese is specifically excluded; the connections between Javanese and Bali–Sasak are restricted to the 'high' register, and disappear when the 'low' register is taken as representative of the languages", which appeared to suggest that Javanese too is to be divided into high and low registers for the purpose of this comparison, I failed to understand that the suggested direction of borrowing is from Javanese into Balinese and Sasak (especially their high registers), lacking as I did the background in Indonesian history that Javanese was the prestige language.

A closer analogy would be Javanese as German, Balinese and Sasak as Danish and Swedish, Madurese and Malay as Icelandic and Faroese, and Malayo-Sumbawan as North Germanic (or Javanese as French, Balinese and Sasak as English and Scots, Madurese and Malay as Icelandic and German, and Malayo-Sumbawan as Germanic):

"There are German similarities with Danish and Swedish of Scandinavia, which several classifications have taken as evidence for a relationship between them. However, the similarities (of German) are with the "high" registers (formal language/royal speech) of Danish and Swedish; when the "low" register (commoner speech) is considered, the connection (of German?) appears instead to be with Icelandic and Faroese." It's not German whose "low" register is more closely connected to Icelandic and Faroese, but Danish and Swedish. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Abandoned?

The lede suggestes that this grouping was proposed by Adelaar in 2005 and eventually rejected by the same Adelaar in 2019 — this is implied by saying that Adelaar «accepted both of these groupings» (i.e., apparently, the Greater North Borneo and Western Indonesian hypotheses, wich are incompatible with Malayo-Sumbawan, says here). Are there other proponents of Malayo-Sumbawan left, beside Adelaar? If not, this article should be rephrased to be presented as an abandoned hypothesis, and it should be expunged from language article’ cladograms and infobox “breadcrumbs”. Tuvalkin (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: As an "insider", I would prefer to say that Adelaar abandonded it (i.e. did not pursue it further after Blust's unfavorable review), instead of "rejected" (or retracted). "Malayo-Sumbawan" is still mentioned in very recent sources (cf. Google Scholar), but in all of these just as background information. Glottolog also still sticks to Malayo-Sumbawan. But in current research about the classification of MP languages, Malayo-Sumbawan does not play a role anymore (AFAICS). So agree, there is no place for it in infoboxes and other cladistic overviews. Masjawad99 and I actually have done a cleanup here already, but might have missed it here and there, and I know it is still the AN languages nav template (too lazy to fix it). "Greater North Borneo" has gained some acceptance, but for "Western Indonesian" (defined by Blust and Smith with completely different scopes), the verdict is still out. –Austronesier (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)