Temotu languages: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Changed confusing wording-- Reefs-Santa Cruz and Temotu are not synonyms; repaired incomplete in-text citation |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|mapcaption={{legend|#640064|Temotu}} |
|mapcaption={{legend|#640064|Temotu}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
The '''Temotu languages''', named after [[Temotu Province]] of the [[Solomon Islands]], are a branch of [[Oceanic languages]] proposed in Ross & Næss 2007 |
The '''Temotu languages''', named after [[Temotu Province]] of the [[Solomon Islands]], are a branch of [[Oceanic languages]] proposed in Ross & Næss (2007) to unify the [[Reefs – Santa Cruz languages]] with the Utupua - Vanikoro languages. |
||
==History of classification== |
==History of classification== |
||
The Reefs-Santa Cruz languages had previously been considered [[Papuan languages|Papuan]], but Ross & Næss (2007) established that their closest relatives were the Utupua–Vanikoro languages, previously thought to be [[Central–Eastern Oceanic languages|Central–Eastern Oceanic]].<ref>{{cite journal | author= [[Malcolm Ross (linguist)|Ross, Malcolm]] and Åshild Næss | title= An Oceanic Origin for Äiwoo, the Language of the Reef Islands? | journal= Oceanic Linguistics | year= 2007 | volume= 46 | issue= 2 | pages= 456–498 | doi=10.1353/ol.2008.0003}}</ref> However, [[Roger Blench]] (2014)<ref>Blench, Roger. 2014. ''[https://www.academia.edu/5838021/Lapita_canoes_and_their_multi-ethnic_crews_marginal_Austronesian_languages_are_non-Austronesian Lapita Canoes and Their Multi-Ethnic Crews: Might Marginal Austronesian Languages Be Non-Austronesian?]'' Paper presented at the Workshop on the Languages of Papua 3. 20-24 January 2014, Manokwari, West Papua, Indonesia.</ref> argues that the aberrancy of Utupua and Vanikoro, which he considers to be separate branches that do not group with each other, is due to the fact that they are actually non-Austronesian languages. |
|||
Blench (2014) doubts that Utupua and Vanikoro are closely related, and thus should not be grouped together. Since each of the three Utupua and three Vanikoro languages are highly distinct from each other, Blench doubts that these languages had diversified on the islands of [[Utupua]] and [[Vanikoro]], but had rather migrated to the islands from elsewhere. According to Blench, historically this was due to the [[Lapita culture|Lapita]] demographic expansion consisting of both Austronesian and non-Austronesian settlers migrating from the Lapita homeland in the [[Bismarck Archipelago]] to various islands further to the east. |
Blench (2014) doubts that Utupua and Vanikoro are closely related, and thus should not be grouped together. Since each of the three Utupua and three Vanikoro languages are highly distinct from each other, Blench doubts that these languages had diversified on the islands of [[Utupua]] and [[Vanikoro]], but had rather migrated to the islands from elsewhere. According to Blench, historically this was due to the [[Lapita culture|Lapita]] demographic expansion consisting of both Austronesian and non-Austronesian settlers migrating from the Lapita homeland in the [[Bismarck Archipelago]] to various islands further to the east. |
||
Revision as of 00:59, 29 September 2019
| Temotu | |
|---|---|
| Geographic distribution | Solomon Islands |
| Linguistic classification | Austronesian
|
| Subdivisions | |
| Language codes | |
| Glottolog | temo1244 |
 Temotu | |
The Temotu languages, named after Temotu Province of the Solomon Islands, are a branch of Oceanic languages proposed in Ross & Næss (2007) to unify the Reefs – Santa Cruz languages with the Utupua - Vanikoro languages.
History of classification
The Reefs-Santa Cruz languages had previously been considered Papuan, but Ross & Næss (2007) established that their closest relatives were the Utupua–Vanikoro languages, previously thought to be Central–Eastern Oceanic.[1] However, Roger Blench (2014)[2] argues that the aberrancy of Utupua and Vanikoro, which he considers to be separate branches that do not group with each other, is due to the fact that they are actually non-Austronesian languages.
Blench (2014) doubts that Utupua and Vanikoro are closely related, and thus should not be grouped together. Since each of the three Utupua and three Vanikoro languages are highly distinct from each other, Blench doubts that these languages had diversified on the islands of Utupua and Vanikoro, but had rather migrated to the islands from elsewhere. According to Blench, historically this was due to the Lapita demographic expansion consisting of both Austronesian and non-Austronesian settlers migrating from the Lapita homeland in the Bismarck Archipelago to various islands further to the east.
Languages
- Reef Islands–Santa Cruz
- Utupua–Vanikoro (may be two independent branches)
Ethnologue does not accept the Vanikoro node.
References
- ^ Ross, Malcolm and Åshild Næss (2007). "An Oceanic Origin for Äiwoo, the Language of the Reef Islands?". Oceanic Linguistics. 46 (2): 456–498. doi:10.1353/ol.2008.0003.
- ^ Blench, Roger. 2014. Lapita Canoes and Their Multi-Ethnic Crews: Might Marginal Austronesian Languages Be Non-Austronesian? Paper presented at the Workshop on the Languages of Papua 3. 20-24 January 2014, Manokwari, West Papua, Indonesia.
- ^ François, Alexandre (2009), "The languages of Vanikoro: Three lexicons and one grammar" (PDF), in Evans, Bethwyn (ed.), Discovering history through language: Papers in honour of Malcolm Ross, Pacific Linguistics 605, Canberra: Australian National University, pp. 103–126