Baha and Batui Saluan and Batui in the literature

language to employ its own negative term. 11 Whilst such language names have been adopted and are still in use in a few places of Sulawesi, the convention of identifying languages after their negative term no longer has currency in the Saluan area.

1.3.5 Baha and Batui

In his 1908 report of a trip through the Bungku, Mori and Banggai areas, the Dutch administrator O. E. Goedhart reported two languages to be spoken in the Batui district: the Ido or Daido language spoken in the village of Sinohowan, 12 and the Baha language spoken in the district capital of Batui Goedhart 1908:477. In both cases he had named these languages after their negative terms. For the former he provided enough information to classify it as a dialect of Pamona, but for the latter he provided no data other than the name, that is the negative term, which in fact he had mistranscribed—in actuality the word for ‘no’ in Batui is mbaha m bahaɁ. Having only this single datum to go by, when Adriani prepared his language map of the Celebes Adriani and Kruyt 1914, he decided to list Baha as a dialect of Pamona, perhaps influenced by the apparent similarity with the negative term baree in standard Pamona. 13 As discussed below, our conclusions concerning the so-called Baha language—better named Batui—are entirely different. This lect is not a Pamona dialect; rather, by all measures it is clearly a sister language to Saluan. 2 The evidence from lexicostatistics In this section we present the results of a lexicostatistical comparison. By lexicostatistical comparison, we simply mean a procedure whereby two wordlists are compared item by item, and the responses judged as either the ‘same’ or ‘different.’ The number of items which are the same, divided by the total number of items compared, gives a measure usually expressed as a percentage of lexical similarity between the varieties represented by the two wordlists. Repeated pairwise for a number of wordlists, this method has proved valuable for giving an initial overview of relationships within a language area. For lexical comparison, we had available the following Sulawesi Umbrella 488-item wordlists from across the Saluan-Banggai language area: Andio one wordlist collected by Robert Busenitz in August 1988 Balantak seven wordlists collected by Robert Busenitz in August 1988 Saluan twelve wordlists, including: - four wordlists collected by Robert Busenitz in August 1988 - one wordlist collected by Robert Brown in October 2001 - five wordlists collected by David Mead and Edy Pasanda in July 2006 - a partially completed wordlist collected by Kristina Tarp in July 2006 Batui one wordlist, collected by David Mead in July 2006 Banggai three wordlists, collected by Kristina Tarp in July 2006 11 Likewise, Banggai was once also known as the Aki language, and Balantak as the Kosian language. 12 During the course of our survey we attempted to collect information on the Ido or Da’ido lect as well. However, upon visiting Sinorang village Sinohoan is the Saluan name, we were told that the original Ido community no longer existed, and that the place was now occupied by Taa speakers who had migrated there within the past one hundred years. The Ido or Da’ido dialect of Pamona is thus very probably extinct; at any rate we were unable to uncover any evidence for its existence in the area where it was formerly spoken. 13 Adriani writes, “Although we have not been able to get any, more specific information about this language, nonetheless we dare here to put forward the supposition that Baha is no other language than that of the To Wana. We thus include it among the subdialects of Taa and therewith to the Bare’e [=Pamona] language area” Adriani and Kruyt 1914:14 our translation. The only formal basis for this decision which Adriani recognized in writing was that “Mr. Goedhart also names the Baha language in the same breath with Taa” 1914:14 our translation. Although strictly speaking this was true, in fact Goedhart 1908:476–477 mentioned three languages in the same clause, Madi = Saluan, Baha, and Taa. Since the Balantak and Banggai languages are outside the focus of this study, we included only one Balantak wordlist from Tokuu village; see Busenitz 1991 and one Banggai wordlist from Andean village, thus representing the Eastern dialect; see Aprilani, Tarp, and Susilawati 2010. Finally, in order to include data from all Saluan-Banggai languages, a Bobongko wordlist was compiled from the Bobongko lexical material available in Mead In progress. A lexical comparison of all 488 items was not undertaken. Rather, lexical similarity scores were calculated twice off of the same database, using items corresponding to the 100- and 200-item Swadesh wordlists, as enumerated in Martens 1989b. Results based on comparing 200 items are presented in this section. Similarity scores derived from comparing only 100 items can be found in appendix A. Some adjustments, naturally, were necessary as to which items were actually included. The items ‘older brother’, ‘older sister’, and ‘younger brother’, ‘younger sister’ were omitted, since in Saluan- Banggai languages these are invariably compounds literally ‘sibling old malefemale’ and ‘sibling young malefemale’. Instead we compared only responses for generic ‘sibling’. In addition, the following items were omitted, in order to avoid counting the same lexical items twice: ‘bark’ compounded from ‘skin’ + ‘wood’ ‘river’ overlap with ‘water’ and ‘wood’ ‘dust’ identical to ‘ash’ in Saluan languages ‘here’ overlap with the root in ‘this’ ‘there’ overlap with the root in ‘that’ ‘day’ overlap with ‘sun’ This left us with ninety-nine items to compare for the Swadesh 100 list, and an even two hundred items to compare for the Swadesh 200 list. 14 In comparing individual lexical items and judging whether they were the same or different, we followed the criterion suggested by McElhanon 1967:8, cited in Sanders 1977:34 that two stems should be judged the same if fifty percent or more of their phonemes are similar, giving greater weight to consonant agreement than vowel agreement Z’graggen 1971:6. 15 In practice this criterion proved easy to apply. Table 1 gives the lexical similarity scores for the Saluan-Banggai group of languages as a whole. Because the comparison included several Saluan wordlists, the similarity scores between Saluan and other languages presented in table 1 are averaged values. 14 The Balantak and Andio wordlists provided by Robert Busenitz did not include responses for ‘intestines’, ‘smooth’, ‘say, speak’, or ‘fight’, so these items were effectively discounted for these wordlists. Because there are actually several versions of the Swadesh 200 list, we follow the ‘collated’ version, containing 207 items, presented in Martens 1989b. 15 In a diachronic lexicostatistical comparison, the criterion is strictly whether two forms are ‘cognate’ inherited from the same protoform or not, with borrowings excluded. In our approach, which is a synchronic comparison, even borrowed words can be counted as the ‘same’ provided they meet the stated criteria. For example, responses such as molekeng and morekeng ‘to count’ were judged the ‘same’, even though both are borrowed from Dutch rekenen. Table 1. Matrix of Saluan-Banggai lexical similarity scores Swadesh 200 Bobongko 54 Batui 54 74 Saluan 48 60 62 Andio 37 46 49 64 Balantak 32 38 35 36 41 Banggai A number of initial SIL surveys in Sulawesi have followed the general rule that similarity scores below 80 can be taken to indicate separate languages Grimes and Grimes 1987; Friberg 1987, 1991; inter alia. However, in a study which investigated the correlation between lexical similarity scores and independent measures of intelligibility, Joseph Grimes 1988 concluded that only similarity scores below sixty percent reliably indicate that two speech varieties are indeed separate languages. Bearing this in mind, it is instructive to note that most of the similarity scores in table 1 not only fall below the ‘traditional’ 80 threshhold, but also fall below the more reliable 60 threshhold. Based on this criterion, for example, Bobongko and Banggai may safely be considered separate languages on the basis of lexical similarity alone. Andio scores 60 lexically similar with Batui, 62 lexically similar with Saluan, and 64 lexically similar with Balantak. These scores are at or marginally above the threshold. However, the position of Andio midway between these three other languages in fact makes it difficult to group Andio with one of them, to wit if Andio is not a separate language, then which language should it be considered a dialect of? The only questionable relationship in table 1 then is whether Batui—on average 74 lexically similar with Saluan—should be considered its own language or a dialect of Saluan. Table 2 shows the internal relationships between selected Saluan varieties 16 first eight rows of lexical similarity values and Batui ninth row. 16 The Kondongan and Leme-leme Bungin sites are not included in table 2. The Kondongan wordlist contained a number of Malayisms and consequently scored low, while the Leme-leme Bungin wordlist was incomplete and did not include the full complement of Swadesh 200 items. Table 2. Matrix of Saluan and Batui lexical similarity scores Swadesh 200 Simpang 85 Honbola 85 87 Bahingin 84 86 87 Pakowa Bunta 84 89 91 91 Sampaka 84 88 90 91 94 Kintom 80 85 89 87 91 91 Huhak 80 86 87 85 92 90 91 Lumpoknyo 79 87 84 85 90 90 93 90 Bantayan 70 72 73 74 75 76 75 77 75 Batui Of note in table 2 is that, when compared to each other, all Saluan wordlists score above sometimes well above 80 lexically similar, the traditional cut-off point between language and dialect. The lone exception is Simpang-Bantayan, which at 79 lexically similar is marginally below this threshold. Batui, on the other hand, scores low versus all Saluan dialects. Figures 1 and 2 present these same results in a graphical fashion, using the method of clique analysis. 17 In clique analysis, every wordlist location within a circle relates to all the other wordlists within that circle at or above the specified value of lexical similarity. We chose 90 and 84 as threshold values, as these percentages seemed particularly revealing of relationships within the Saluan area. At very high threshold values, each wordlist would be isolated within its own clique, while at low levels all wordlists would fall within a single clique. Such patterns, of course, would be unrevealing. In figures 1 and 2, geography is only roughly approximated and—in the placement of Sampaka—in fact distorted. Figure 1. Clique analysis at threshold value of 90 percent lexical similarity. 17 The method of clique analysis was presented to me by Joseph Grimes in a sociolinguistics survey course in 1984. I am not aware of a published resource which presents the methodology for clique analysis. Batui Simpang Honbola Bahingin Pakowa Bunta Sampaka Kintom Huhak Lumpoknyo Bantayan There are two things regarding figure 1 to which we would like to draw the reader’s attention. First, generally in the east, there is a large area—represented by Sampaka, Kintom, Huhak, Lumpoknyo and Bantayan—where all the wordlists relate to each other at or above 90 percent lexically similar. In an older scheme, these wordlists could be considered to represent ‘Coastal Saluan’—though given the overall high lexical similarity scores, they give the impression of constituting a dialect rather than a separate language. Furthermore, if we look at the wordlists which fall outside of this area that is, outside the large circle on the right-hand side in figure 1, these are principally lists which represent the so-called ‘Loinang’ peoples in the narrow sense as defined §1.3.2, specifically: Simpang represents the Kahumamaon clan of Loinang Honbola represents the Baloa clan of Loinang Bahingin represents the Lingketeng clan of Loinang The only exception is the Pakowa Bunta wordlist, and at present we have no explanation as to why this list scores relatively low in comparison with other ‘Coastal Saluan’ varieties. The second thing to note in figure 1 is the centrality accorded to Kintom and Sampaka—a result which on the surface seems odd, since these places are not located close to each other see map 2 above. Looking beyond geography, however, an explanation for their centrality is to be found in certain historical facts. As recounted by Kruyt 1930:341–350: a The Boalemo area where present-day Sampaka is located with its principal settlement at Malik formerly served as capital of the entire Saluan area. b Sometime in the second half of the eighteenth century, this capital was sacked by a combined force from Ternate and Gorontalo, after which a portion of the Saluan population of Boalemo was removed to Tilamuta in the Gorontalo area—presumably as prisoners-of-war—where their descendants live to this day see also Riedel 1885. c Owing to these same circumstances, a portion of the people and their rulers fled to the Kintom area, where they lived closer to, and were afforded protection by, the Banggai rulers, whom they now served as vassals. It is also to be noted that people of the Lingketeng clan—but not people of the Baloa or Kahumamaon clans—maintained regular relations with Kintom, whose ruler they regarded as their chief and to whom they paid a yearly tribute Kruyt 1930:354 ff.. This is perhaps why our wordlist collected at Bahingin former Lingketeng area shows a greater affinity with Kintom than does either Honbola former Baloa area or Simpang Kahumamaon area—even though at present Honbola is located only a few scant kilometers southwest of Kintom. We elaborate further on the topic of recent migrations in §3.2. Figure 2. Clique analysis at threshold value of 84 percent lexical similarity. Batui Simpang Honbola Bahingin Pakowa Bunta Sampaka Kintom Huhak Lumpoknyo Bantayan Figure 2 illustrates the essential unity of the Saluan area. Whilst at this threshold value the ‘Kahumamaon’ and ‘Coastal’ varieties can still be marginally distinguished, from the viewpoint of lexical similarity there is a large degree of overlap between these groups. Note also the separate position of Batui. In fact Batui would not group with any Saluan wordlist until the threshold value was dropped to 77 lexically similar figure not shown. Said another way, whatever dialect chaining exists in the Saluan area, Batui stands apart from it. In order to investigate the relationship between Saluan and Batui in more depth, we turn to historical sound changes and the results of sociolinguistic questionnaires. 3 The evidence from sound changes Immediately below we list some of the most distinctive historical sound changes which both link and distinguish Saluan from it from its nearest relatives. We repeat here data which was initially presented in Mead 2003, but now include evidence from Batui to show that—as far as historical sound change is concerned—it largely patterns the same way as Saluan. We must conclude that Saluan and Batui have a considerable period of shared history and thus, from a genetic perspective, must be considered immediate sister languages to each other. a Proto-Malayo-Polynesian 18 R Ø in initial and medial position in Saluan. This change is also shared by Batui, Bobongko and Andio, though occasionally it has been obscured in Bobongko by later borrowing from Gorontalo-Mongondow GM languages Mead 2003:78. In the following charts, italics indicates a non-cognate replacement form; a dash indicates lack of information. PMP Saluan Batui Bobongko Andio Rusuk ‘rib’ usuk usuk usuk usuk uRat ‘vein, tendon’ uat uat ugat GM uat beReqat ‘heavy’ maboat maboat maboat maboat duRi ‘thorn’ hii ʔ hii ʔ dugi ʔ GM rii ʔ diRuq ‘bathe’ mindii ʔ mindii ʔ mindii ʔ molobu b In certain lexemes, u assimilated to i in a neighboring syllable. Wherever this change is found in Saluan, it is shared by Batui, Bobongko and Andio. PMP Saluan Batui Bobongko Andio kulit ‘skin’ kilit kilit kilit kilit buni ‘hide’ suluk bini bini bini puki ‘vagina’ piki piki piki piki duRi ‘thorn’ hii ʔ hii ʔ dugi ʔ GM rii ʔ diRuq ‘bathe’ mindii ʔ mindii ʔ mindii ʔ molobu c b weakened to w and sometimes further to zero, particularly when following another b in the preceding syllable. This change is shared by Saluan, Batui and Bobongko, but not by Andio. PMP Saluan Batui Bobongko Andio bibiR ‘lips’ biwiː biwi bifi bibi babaw ‘above’ bawo bawo bafo babo baba ‘bring, carry’ boa boa boa baba bubu ‘fishtrap’ buu ʔ buu ʔ buu ʔ — ba-binahi ‘female’ boune boine boune bobine tubuq ‘live’ tuu ʔ tuu ʔ tuu ʔ tubu ʔ 18 Proto-Malayo-Polynesian PMP is a reconstructed language. It is the presumed ancestor of all Austronesian languages outside of Taiwan. In this section, we consider only low level changes, and omit the evidence that would show Batui also shares in all twelve of the changes which distinguish the Saluan-Banggai languages en bloc from PMP Mead 2003:68–75. Interested readers may demonstrate this for themselves using data from appendix B. d r from earlier r, d became h in initial and medial position, and was lost in final position. This change, which did not occur in Bobongko or Andio, is shared only by Saluan and Batui. PMP Saluan Batui Bobongko Andio deŋeR ‘hear’ mohongoː mohongo morongo morongo dahun ‘leaf’ hoon hoon ron roon rebuŋ ‘bamboo shoot’ sumpok hobung robung — budiŋ ‘charcoal’ buhing buhing buring — bidiŋ ‘side’ ‘ear’ bihing bihing biring biring kuden ‘cook pot’ kuhon kuhon — kuron tiked ‘heel’ ‘foot’ tengke tengke tengker tengker In a fifth change, final diphthongs with y from earlier R, j and y were monophthongized. In Saluan the monophthongized vowel retained contrastive length, but in Andio and Bobongko the lengthened quality of the vowel was lost. Batui shows a mixed pattern: some lexemes exhibit length in the final vowel, but in other cases length was lost. We devote a separate section to this change below §3.1. Finally, in §3.2 we discuss a sixth change which has heretofore not been considered, namely the merger of final l and n as n. This change is attested in only a portion of the Saluan language area. This change is important not only for considering where to draw dialect boundaries, but also for understanding migrations of the Saluan peoples.

3.1 Final long vowels in Saluan and Batui