silesr2015 013.

An Initial Appreciation of the

Dialect Situation in Saluan and

Batui (Eastern Sulawesi,

Indonesia)

Dialect Situation in Saluan and Batui

(Eastern Sulawesi, Indonesia)

David Mead and Edy Pasanda

Maps prepared by

Matt Connor and John Noya

SIL International

®

2015

SIL Electronic Survey Report 2015-013, November 2015 © 2015 SIL International®

In the eastern peninsula of the island of Sulawesi, Indonesia, the fifteenth edition of the Ethnologue

(Gordon 2005) lists two Saluan languages: Coastal Saluan and Kahumamahon Saluan. Based on a survey of the Saluan area conducted in July, 2006, we conclude that this division is unjustified—only one Saluan language need be recognized, though with various dialects as we explore in this paper. Our conclusions are based on a consideration of lexical similarity (lexicostatistics), historical sound change, and informal sociolinguistic interviews.

During the course of this survey, we also collected information on the small Batui lect, also known in the literature as Baha, and previously classified as a dialect of Pamona. In actuality Batui is a language closely related to Saluan.

With the merger of Coastal and Kahumamahon Saluan as a single language and the recognition of Batui as a separate language, the total number of recognized languages in the Saluan-Banggai

microgroup remains at six languages. An appendix presents eleven wordlists from Saluan and one from Batui.

iii

Abstract Ringkasan 1 Introduction

1.1 Current administrative boundaries 1.2 Research sites

1.3 Saluan and Batui in the literature

1.3.1 Mondono (also Mandona, Mandano, Mandana, Mandono, Mondonu, Mondone, Modone, Mendono)

1.3.2 Loinang (also La-Inang, Loindang, Lojnang, Loinan, Luinan, Loenan, Toloina) 1.3.3 Saluan

1.3.4 Madi

1.3.5 Baha and Batui

2 The evidence from lexicostatistics 3 The evidence from sound changes

3.1 Final long vowels in Saluan and Batui 3.2 Merger of final *l and *n

4 The evidence from sociolinguistic interviews

4.1 Village-by-village responses 4.2 Summary

5 Conclusions

Appendix A: Lexical similarity matrices (Swadesh 100) Appendix B: Wordlists

iv

Tulisan ini merupakan laporan atas survei kami pada daerah bahasa Saluan dan Batui. Saluan

merupakan salah satu bahasa daerah induk di semenanjung timur Propinsi Sulawesi Tengah. Menurut sebagian dari atlas-atlas bahasa (Sneddon 1983, Wurm 1994), hanya ada satu bahasa Saluan. Referensi bahasa lain, bagaimanapun juga, seperti edisi ke-15 Ethnologue (Gordon 2005) membedakan ada dua bahasa: bahasa Saluan Pesisir dan bahasa lainnya yang disebut Saluan Kahumamahon. Tentu saja memungkinkan untuk mengidentifikasi suku yang disebut dengan suku Kahumamahon, yang telah diperhitungkan sebagai suku terasing yang berada di pedalaman kecamatan Nuhon, namun diragukan apakah bahasa kelompok ini dapat dianggap sebagai bahasa yang terpisah.

Untuk tujuan penyelidikan yang lebih mendetil, pada bulan Juli 2006, dengan dukungan kantor Badan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Daerah di Palu dan Luwuk, kami mengadakan penjajakan di daerah Saluan. Dari kecamatan Nuhon hingga kecamatan Boalemo di pantai utara dan dari Kecamatan Luwuk Timur hingga Kecamatan Batui di pantai selatan, kami mengunjungi dua belas lokasi, dengan tujuan untuk mengumpulkan informasi mengenai perbendaharaan kata dan menyebarkan angket kuisioner sosiolingustik.

Kami menyimpulkan bahwa tidak perlu membedakan diantara kedua bahasa Saluan. Hanya ada satu bahasa Saluan, yang kami bagi dalam tiga dialek, yaitu: dialek Loinang, dialek Luwuk dan dialek Kintom-Pangimana-Boalemo (Kipabo). Dialek Loinang ternyata mengandung tiga subdialek yaitu Lingketeng, Baloa’ dan Kahumama'on. Dialek Loinang dipakai pada bagian pedalaman dulu, khususnya sepanjang sungai Sensean dan Lobu, namun sepanjang abad yang lalu, orang-orang ini telah

meninggalkan desa-desa asal mereka dan telah berdikari di berbagai lokasi sepanjang pantai. Dialek Luwuk dipakai umumnya di kecamatan Luwuk dan Luwuk Timur. Dialek Kimtom-Pagimana-Boalemo (Kipabo) tentu dipakai di kecamatan Kintom, Pagimana dan Boalemo dan juga di bagian-bagian tertentu di kecamatan Bunta dan Nuhon.

Hubungan diantara ketiga dialek ini adalah sebagai berikut. Luwuk dapat dianggap sebagai dialek inti. Dialek Luwuk sangat mirip dengan dialek Kintom-Pagimana-Boalemo dalam hal perbendaharaan kata, sebab banyak kata yang sama diantara kedua dialek ini. Bagaimanapun, dialek Luwuk juga mirip dialek Loinang dalam hal konsonan l pada akhir kata menjadi n. Coba perhatikan kata-kata berikut ini.

Loinang Luwuk Kintom-Pagimana-Boalemo

tuli mabongon mabongon mabongol

tumpul mokujun mokujun mokujul

sukar mahan mahan mahal

celana saluan saluan salual

Meskipun perbedaan ini dan perbedaan dalam perbendaharaan kata, dilaporkan kepada kami bahwa orang yang berbicara dalam tiga dialek tersebut dapat saling mengerti satu dengan yang lain.

Namun, tidak demikian dengan jenis bahasa yang bernama Batui, yang dipakai di kelurahan

Balantang, Tolando, Sisipan dan Batui di Kecamatan Batui. Ketika membandingkan dua ratus kata dalam perbendaharaan kata yang mendasar, Batui berbeda dengan dialek-dialek Saluan lainnya rata-rata seperempat kali. Cobalah perhatikan kata-kata berikut ini:

Batui Loinang Luwuk Kintom-Pagimana-Boalemo

telur ontolu nggalau' nggalau' nggalau'

kelapa potil niuː niuː niuː

dinding hinding pimpi' pimpi' pimpi'

baik kopian ma'ima' ma'ima' ma'ima'

Disebabkan oleh perbedaan yang mencolok ini, dan juga karena pendapat yang kuat dari orang-orang Batui sendiri, kami menganggap Batui adalah bahasa yang terpisah, meskipun sangat berhubungan dekat dengan bahasa Saluan.1

Di sini diberikan penjelasan singkat, bagian per bagian sinopsis dari karya ilmiah ini.

Bagian 1 adalah gambaran umum pengetahuan terkini mengenai situasi bahasa di Kabupaten Banggai dan alasan mengapa kami meneliti di daerah bahasa Saluan.

Bagian 1.1 merupakan gambaran umum mengenai kondisi pembagian geografis dan politik di Kabupaten Banggai.

Bagian 1.2 merupakan penjelasan mengenai dua belas tempat dimana kami mengumpulkan data selama penelitian kami.

Bagian 1.3 merupakan kilasan nama-nama lain dimana bahasa Saluan pernah disebut selama masa penjajahan Belanda, yaitu bahasa Mendono, bahasa Loinang, bahasa Saluan dan bahasa Madi. Kami juga menjelaskan mengapa seorang ahli bahasa Belanda Adriani salah mengklasifikasi Batui (yang mana dia sebut dengan bahasa Baha) sebagai suatu dialek bahasa Pamona.

Bagian 2 menyajikan hasil-hasil dari perbandingan leksikal. Sepasang demi sepasang, setiap pasangan daftar kata dibandingkan dengan tujuan untuk menghitung persentasi tertentu dari kesamaan leksikal (jumlah kata-kata yang dianggap sama, dibagi dengan jumlah jawaban-jawaban dikalikan dengan angka 100). Kami menghitung dengan membandingkan dua ratus kata (kata seperti ‘kepala,’ ‘rambut,’ ‘mata,’ ‘hidung,’ ‘mulut,’ dsb., sampai dengan dua ratus kata) berdasarkan daftar standar yang disebut dengan daftar Swadesh 200. Secara umum, bila dua daftar kata bernilai diatas 80% sama secara leksikal, mereka dapat dianggap termasuk dalam bahasa yang sama. Hasil-hasil ini disajikan dalam bentuk bagan dan grafik.

Bagian 3 merupakan diskusi mengenai perubahan bunyi historis, yang menunjukkan bahasa Batui, Babongko, Andio dan Saluan sangat erat hubungan diantaranya dari perspektif hubungan kekerabatan. Bagian 3.1 merupakan diskusi mengenai bunyi vokal panjang akhir dalam bahasa Saluan dan Batui. Contohnya, ketika kami mengukur cara orang Saluan mengucapkan kata siku ‘siku’ dan iku ‘ekor,’ kami dapat melihat bahwa bunyi vokal akhir u dari iku diartikulasikan hampir dua kali lebih panjang (sepanjang ~ 0.30 detik) dibandingkan dengan bunyi vokal akhir u dari siku (~ 0.15 detik).2 _Simbol yang digunakan para ahli bahasa untuk vokal yang panjang adalah tanda titik dua yang menggunakan persegi tiga ( _ː ), sehingga untuk Saluan ditulis _ikuː ‘ekor.’ Secara umum, semua daerah Saluan konsisten dalam hal bunyi vokal akhir mana yang diartikulasikan lebih panjang, namun beberapa kata Saluan dengan bunyi vokal panjang akhir diartikulasikan dengan bunyi vokal pendek di daerah Batui,

contohnya Saluan _pusoː ‘pusat’ (diartikulasi dengan bunyi vokal panjang pada akhir kata) dibandingkan Batui puso (diartikulasikan dengan bunyi vokal yang biasa).

Bagian 3.2 mendiskusikan perubahan bunyi historis dalam hal mana bunyi l akhir menjadi bunyi n akhir dalam dialek Luwuk dan Loinang di bahasa Saluan. Migrasi orang Loinang dari daerah pedalaman ke daerah pesisir pada abad ke-20 juga didiskusikan.

1_{Sebagaimana dijelaskan dalam risalah oleh Charles dan Barbara Dix Grimes (1987:viii), “Orang awam seringkali}

berpendapat bahwa bila hanya menjumlah kecil orang memakai suatu bahasa, maka bahasa tersebut tak dapat disebutkan ‘bahasa,’ tetapi ‘dialek’ saja. Namun demikian, para ahli bahasa tidak membedakan antara bahasa dan dialek berdasarkan jumlah pemakai bahasa, tetapi berdasarkan faktor-faktor lain, misalnya, persentasi kesamaan kosa kata, kesamaan sistem bunyi, kesamaan struktur, faktor pengertian, faktor-faktor sosial, dsb.” Dari enam bahasa yang merupakan rumpun bahasa Saluan-Banggai, ada tiga bahasa dengan ribuan penutur—Saluan, Banggai and Balantak—namun ada juga tiga bahasa yang penuturnya hanya dua ribu atau kurang, yaitu Bobongko (di kepulauan Togian), Andio (di Kecamtan Masama) dan Batui.

2_{Bunyi vokal panjang adalah akibat monoftongisasi diftong di akhir kata, misalnya kata dalam bahasa Austronesia}

Bagian 4 memuat informasi mengenai wawancara sosiolinguistik, khusunya pendapat dari orang Saluan sendiri bagaimana mereka melihat hubungan diantara dialek-dialek yang ada.

Bagian 5 menjelaskan mengenai kesimpulan kami, yaitu bahwa hanya ada satu bahasa Saluan dengan tiga dialek. Lagi pula, Batui bukanlah dialek dari Pamona namun merupakan bahasa daerah tersendiri, meskipun sangat dekat hubungannya dengan bahasa Saluan.

Appendix A memberikan angka persentasi kemiripan leksikal berdasarkan perbandingan hanya seratus kata.

Appendix B menyajikan dua belas daftar kata Saluan dan Batui yang kami kumpulkan selama penelitian kami. Tanggapan-tanggapan diwakili oleh penggunaan Abjad Fonetik Internasional (IPA), suatu sistim penulisan yang digunakan oleh para ahli bahasa.

1

As recently as the fifteenth edition of the Ethnologue (Gordon 2005), two Saluan languages have been located on the eastern arm of Sulawesi, Indonesia: Coastal Saluan and Kahumamahon Saluan. We know of two potential justifications for this division, neither one of which, however, is necessarily linguistic in nature. First, the Kahumamahon Saluan people have been singled out by the Indonesian government as a

suku terasing (suku ‘tribe, division,’ terasing ‘separated, isolated, secluded’), that is to say, they live in remote areas, follow traditional customs, and lack integration into the national culture (Team Survey 1974; Sukiyah, Silvana, and Hitipeuw 1995). Second, two separate efforts have been undertaken to translate the Bible into Saluan: one by New Tribes Missions personnel working in the interior village of Simpang (representing the ‘Kahumamahon’ variety), and the other by the Indonesian Bible Society, working in locations on the coast (thus representing the ‘Coastal’ variety).

Given that other linguistic atlases such as Salzner (1960), Sneddon (1983), and Wurm (1994) recognize only one Saluan language, and that furthermore even in the Ethnologue, a geographical boundary between the two putative languages had never been drawn, we set out to do what no linguist had done before: canvass the entire Saluan area in order to determine language and dialect boundaries. Building in part on the survey work of Busenitz (1991), which covered a portion of the Saluan area, in July of 2006 we undertook a survey of the entire Saluan area. Our goals were to clarify the dialect situation in the Saluan area and to determine if there was indeed a linguistic basis for recognizing two distinct Saluan languages. To this end, we gathered wordlists and sociolinguistic information from twelve primary research sites covering the breadth of the Saluan language area,3 _{including the supposed} Kahumamahon (emended, and hereafter in this paper: Kahumama'on) language area.

In this paper, we look at three factors to determine language relatedness: lexical similarity

(lexicostatistics), historical sound change, and the results of sociolinguistic interviews. Whilst in terms of word stock Kahumama'on is somewhat lexically divergent, the consensus is that it should be considered a dialect of Saluan.

During the course of our survey of the Saluan language area, we also gathered information on the Batui speech variety, sometimes also known under the name of Baha. Based on extremely thin evidence, the pioneering Dutch linguist Nicolaus Adriani classified Batui as a dialect of Pamona (Adriani and Kruyt 1914:14). Having at last collected solid information on Batui, we demonstrate that it is not a Pamona dialect, but instead is closely related to Saluan. Nonetheless, we consider it distinct enough to be considered a separate language.

The basis for drawing language and dialect boundaries is presented in the following sections. In §2 we present the results of a lexicostatistical comparison. In §3 we begin with an overview of sound change in the Saluan-Banggai languages. This provides background to a discussion of two further sound changes which crosscut the Saluan and Batui language area: the development and loss of contrastive vowel length (§3.1), and the merger of *l and *n as /n/ in word final position (§3.2). In §4 we briefly discuss the results of sociolinguistic interviews. Our conclusions, including a new map of the Saluan-Banggai group of languages, are given in §5. An appendix presents eleven Saluan wordlists and one Batui wordlist.

Before proceeding to the heart of this paper, we give additional background information. In §1.1 we give current political boundaries in the surveyed area; in §1.2 we briefly discuss the locations where we collected data; and in §1.3 we discuss references to Saluan in the extant literature and the various names by which this language had previously been identified.

3_{We gratefully acknowledge the Badan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Daerah offices in Palu and in Luwuk, and their}

1.1 Current administrative boundaries

The Saluan homeland lies within the boundaries of the current regency (Indonesian: kabupaten) of Banggai.4 _{This regency, with its capital of Luwuk, comprises thirteen districts (Indonesian: kecamatan),}

shown in map 1. The three southeastern districts of Balantak, Lamala, and Masama are the traditional homeland of the Balantak language area (the small Andio enclave is also located in Masama). The two most southwestern districts, Toili and Toili Barat, were traditionally a kind of no man’s land or disputed area between the Saluan peoples and their Bungku neighbors, who claimed control of the coastline further to the west (Goedhart 1908:489–490). The area was rich in dammar pines, and trade in dammar resin was likely a factor which spurred settlement of this area beginning more than a century ago. Today Toili and Toili Barat are largely populated by transmigrants from places such as Java and Bali, as well as by Bugis, Pamona, and other peoples who have migrated locally from other parts of Sulawesi.

Map 1. The Banggai Regency

©2015 SIL International. Includes geodata from worldgeodatasets.com. Used with permission. The remaining eight districts are the traditional homeland of the Saluan people. Below we discuss certain Saluan peoples who formerly lived in the interior. At present, however, the vast majority of Saluan people live on or within only a few kilometers of the coast. In fact today the entire regency is circumscribed by an all-weather coastal road, which is also linked across the ‘neck’ through the village of Salodik. Beyond Nuhon district in the northwest, this road links the Banggai Regency with Poso, and from there to Palu, the capital of Central Sulawesi. Only in the extreme southwest (Toili and Toili Barat districts) does the road turn rutted and a bit tortuous. In this direction one can travel by car only as far as Kolo Atas (in the Morowali Regency); points further west are normally reached by boat.

4_{This regency is so named because it used to also include the Banggai archipelago. In 1999 the Banggai islands} became their own regency, named the Banggai Archipelago Regency (Kabupaten Banggai Kepulauan).

1.2 Research sites

In preparing for this survey, we already had in hand four wordlists collected in 1988 by the SIL linguist Robert Busenitz in Kintom, Lumpoknyo, Sampaka, and Bahingin villages, and a fifth wordlist kindly provided to us by Robert Brown, representing the interior village of Simpang. Whilst we chose to revisit these five locations to collect sociolinguistic information and sometimes to also record a small amount of additional Saluan data, the wordlists were of sufficient quality that we were free to concentrate our efforts on ‘rounding out’ a picture of the Saluan dialect area. In total, we collected six other wordlists, while a companion team, sent to the Banggai archipelago, managed to also collect a short wordlist representing a Saluan community located in Leme-leme Bungin village. In all, we can count twelve (5 + 6 + 1) primary research sites, for which we have wordlist and sociolinguistic data. These twelve sites are shown in map 2.

Map 2. Saluan and Batui survey primary research sites

©2015 SIL International. Includes geodata from worldgeodatasets.com. Used with permission. A few notes about these sites are in order. First, the ‘Kondongan’ wordlist was collected outside of the area. Our respondents for this wordlist were two men from Kondongan village who had come to shop in the town of Pagimana, and who were returning by boat to Kondongan the next morning. Because we worked late at night with tired respondents, some items were not filled in, while other responses on this list are representative of the local variety of trade Malay rather than bona fide Saluan.

Second, for ‘Simpang’ we collected information only on the coast. We did not visit the asli (‘true, original’) village of Simpang, which lay another eight hours by foot toward the interior. Our

respondents, however, were people who had grown up in Simpang Asli.

Third, we were not entirely successful in collecting wordlist data which truly represents the extreme northwest and southwest extent of the Saluan dialect area. The residents of Pakowa Bunta acknowledge that they represent a fairly recent migration from Pakowa village in the Pagimana subdistrict (and even carried the name of ‘Pakowa’ to their new home). Of our two wordlists taken in the extreme southwest, the Tolando wordlist represents the Batui lect (which we do not consider to be Saluan), while the

Honbola wordlist represents the Saluan language of people who only recently migrated here from the interior village (now uninhabited) of Tambunan. The responsibility for this lack is entirely ours.

1.3 Saluan and Batui in the literature

Up until the twentieth century, the Saluan people remained barely a footnote to the more important Banggai kingdom located on the archipelago to the southeast of the eastern peninsula of Sulawesi. In writings of the Dutch colonial period, the Saluan people were known by four names: Mondono, Loinang, Saluan and Madi. We discuss each of these terms in turn, and conclude with a discussion of the so-called Baha language, but more properly known as Batui, which is closely related to Saluan.

1.3.1 Mondono (also Mandona, Mandano, Mandana, Mandono, Mondonu, Mondone, Modone,

Mendono)

One of the oldest names by which the Saluan language is known in Dutch writings is that of Mondono. This name derives from the Mendono River, which also lent its name to the village located where this river empties into the Gulf of Tolo. Valentijn, writing in 1724, mentioned two regions on the coast opposite Banggai: Balante or Balantak, which produced a lot of rice, and Modone, Mondone or Mandano, which he said was fairly fertile (Valentijn 1724:80, 1856:221). Bosscher and Matthijssen (1853:90–94) described Mondono as a prosperous, second capital of the Banggai kingdom, with a population of 575 people. De Clercq noted that only in Mandono was there an utusan (representative) of the Sultan of Ternate on the mainland, but considered the town to be run-down (1890:133). J. G. F. Riedel, who published much about the Sulawesi region but unfortunately was not known for his linguistic acumen, distinguished Loinan spoken on the north coast of the eastern peninsula from Mondonu and Balanta spoken on the south of the peninsula opposite Banggai (Riedel 1868:44, footnote 8; 1889:13). He was thus the first to use Mondonu—later revised to Mondono—as a language name. Brandes, following “better data,” concluded that the Mondono and Balantak languages “can very well nevertheless be considered merely dialects of Loinan” (1894:xix–xx) (our translation).5

To anyone passing through the village of Mendono today, there is little to distinguish it from any other coastal hamlet, and only a keramat (holy place) on top of a hill suggests its former importance.6 Certain families who trace their origin to this village, however, remain important in regional politics.

1.3.2 Loinang (also La-Inang, Loindang, Lojnang, Loinan, Luinan, Loenan, Toloina)

The term ‘Loinang’ has both narrow and broad uses. As far as we have been able to trace things, the term Loinang first appeared in the literature in Bosscher and Matthijssen’s list of negorijen (native villages) of the Mondono district (1853:94), where a side note indicated that “east and west La-Inang” were mountain villages. Riedel used the spelling Loinan on his 1868 map and in the accompanying prose description.

In its traditional and narrow use, Loinang referred to certain peoples (and their language) who formerly inhabited interior portions on the northern divide of the peninsula, in particular areas drained by the Lobu, Toimaa, Bunta, Bohotokong and Kalumbanga rivers (all of these rivers empty into the Tomini Bay to the west of Pagimana). Kruyt (1930) divided the Loinang into two groups, the Lingketeng clan and the Baloa clan. In the conclusions to this paper, we also use Loinang in this narrow sense, that is, as a cover term for the (formerly) ‘interior’ dialects of Lingketeng, Baloa' and Kahumama'on (this last

5 _{It is unclear where Brandes’s ‘better data’ came from. Whilst combining Loinang and Mondono was justified,}

Balantak is rightfully a separate language. This error was corrected on the language map in Adriani and Kruyt (1914), with correctly-placed language locations finally appearing in Esser (1938).

6 _{Kruyt reports that upon his visit in 1928, the district head of Mendono was in fact living in Lambangan, on the}

was subsumed by Kruyt under his ‘Baloa’). According to Kruyt’s respondents, in origin the name ‘Loinang’ was an exonym.7

Riedel used this term in a broader way, noting that “following information of the natives, Loinan is also used in the regions of Hata, Saluan, Pati-pati and Boalemo or Aaulimo” (Riedel 1868:44, footnote 8) (our translation). Whilst Riedel himself did not specify where these regions were located, the last three are all found on Van Musschenbroek’s contemporaneous map (Van Musschenbroek 1878, 1879).8 _A relevant portion of this map is reproduced in map 3. From this, it is clear that Riedel intended his term ‘Loinan’ to include all of the language area on the northern coast (up to the Balantak language area), and opposed this to his ‘Mondono’ language spoken on the southern coast.

Map 3. Extract from Van Musschenbroek’s 1878 map

Van Musschenbroek (1878). Public domain.

As noted above, Brandes (1894) further extended the term Loinang (his Loeinansch) to include the language spoken on the southern coast as well, effectively doing away with Riedel’s Mondono language. Whilst we believe this to have been the right move—recognizing the linguistic unity of the northern and southern halves of the peninsula—it is moot whether ‘Loinang’ was the correct cover term to use.

In our own investigations, we encountered people who used the term narrowly and others who used it broadly. On the south coast, for example, one lady was definite that she was not Loinang; Loinang people lived on the north coast, she said, and she singled out the people of Asa'an village as an example (on what basis we do not know, but several times this village in the Lingketeng area was mentioned to us to be relatively free from outside influences). Others, however, when asked about Loinang, told us there are three suku Lo (Lo divisions or ‘tribes’): the Loinang people who speak Saluan, the Lo’on people who speak Balantak, and the Lowo people who speak Banggai.9 _{For them, Loinang appears to be a term of} cultural unity by which they distinguish themselves from other people groups living in the area, including not only the Balantak and the Banggai, but also others such as the Pamona and Gorontalo. At

7_{Kruyt (1930:328) writes, “Concerning the name Loinang, I have been able to gain no insight. As it often goes with}

such names, the people do not name themselves so. ‘We know that outsiders call us To Loinang,’ they say, ‘but we do not know the word’ ” (our translation). Barr and Barr (1979:36) suggest that Loinang is a Banggai term (meaning ‘primitive people’), but we were unable to confirm this.

8_{Hata (correctly: hataː with long vowel) simply means ‘level area, plain’ in the Saluan language, and its precise}

reference is unclear to us. Perhaps by it Riedel intended the extensive coastal plain around the present-day city of Bunta.

9_{No meaning is attached to ‘Lo’; it simply happens (by chance, or forgotten historical origin) to be the onset syllable}

of the names Loinang, Lo’on and Lowo. These are thus the three principal people groups of the Saluan-Banggai group. Sometimes people we talked to also acknowledged the smaller Andio people group as an afterthought, but the Bobongko and Batui people were never brought into this scheme.

the same time, however, the term ‘Loinang’ often also brought to mind a period when people lived more primitively than today and life was punctuated by intra-ethnic warfare.

Maps 4. Four views of the language situation on Sulawesi’s eastern peninsula

In summary, we can state: (a) ‘Loinang’ originally referred to certain groups living in the interior of the northern half of the peninsula, and by extension to their language; (b) even as an appellation for just these people, it appears that Loinang was originally an exonym; (c) the further extension of the term Loinang to the entire area was a Dutch invention, which has been partly assimilated by the people themselves; (d) even when people refer to themselves as being ethnically ‘Loinang’ (in the broader sense), they refer to their language as Saluan; and (e) the term Loinang, perhaps in keeping with its original reference, sometimes still carries connotations of not being properly civilized.

1.3.3 Saluan

According to Kruyt (1930), the term Saluan originally applied to a settled area on the northern coast of the eastern peninsula of Sulawesi,10 _{but it came to be adopted as the name for the language spoken there}

and similar varieties elsewhere on the peninsula.

While Dutch authors of the first half of the twentieth century such as Adriani (Adriani and Kruyt 1914:82–87), Gobée (1929), and Esser (1938) continued to use the term Loinang (or less correctly, Loinan), more recent authors—including among others Barr and Barr (1979), Rozali et al. (1982), Hente et al. (1984), Wumbu et al. (1986), Huong, Pawennari and Rahim (1995), and Hente, Baisu and Ansan (2000)—have all preferred to use Saluan as the name for this language, and we heartily concur. During the course of our investigations, we encountered no objections to people calling their language Saluan, even among so-called ‘Loinang’ peoples. The only exception was among the Batui, who insisted that their language was not Saluan. We return to this last point below.

1.3.4 Madi

The term Madi has also been employed as an alternate name for Saluan (Goedhart 1908:476; Adriani and Kruyt 1914:544–555; Salzner 1960:14). It is derived from the negative term madi' (/madiɁ/) ‘no, not.’ This practice was promulgated by the Dutch, who were perhaps struck by the propensity for each

10_{While Kruyt (1930:328) claimed that the original Saluan people inhabited an area on the kop ‘head’ of the eastern} peninsula, other mapmakers that place Saluan generally locate it near present-day Toimaa and Lontio villages, or roughly twenty-five kilometers west of Pagimana. See for example Topografischen Dienst (1940). Pinpointing the original denotation of ‘Saluan’ requires further investigation.

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 bare'e 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 (Sinoho'an 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 male/female’ and ‘sibling young male/female’). 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

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 varieties16 _{(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

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 Kahumama'on 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

Kahumama'on 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 (Kahumama'on 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

‘Kahumama'on’ 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-Polynesian18 _{*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’ hiiʔ hiiʔ dugiʔ (<GM) riiʔ

*diRuq ‘bathe’ mindiiʔ mindiiʔ mindiiʔ 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’ buuʔ buuʔ buuʔ —

*ba-binahi ‘female’ boune boine boune bobine

*tubuq ‘live’ tuuʔ tuuʔ tuuʔ tubuʔ

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

Saluan is one of the few languages of Sulawesi to contrast long and regular vowels in final position. The only other indigenous languages of Sulawesi known to us to exhibit such a contrast—and here again only in word-final position—are the four Seko languages of northern South Sulawesi. In Seko languages long vowels reflect Proto-Malayo-Polynesian (PMP) *q. For example (data from Laskowske 2007):

PMP Pre-Proto-Seko Proto-Seko

‘ten’ *puluq > *puloq > _*puloː

‘split’ *bikaq > *bikaq > _*bikaː

‘feces’ *taqi > *taiq > _*taiː

‘descend’ *naquR > *nauq > _*nauː

By contrast, long vowels in Saluan did not develop from *q but rather developed from

monophthongization of final diphthongs, and reflect PMP *R, *j and *y. To take a simple example of how this contrast developed, compare the reflexes of the PMP words for ‘elbow’ and ‘tail’ in Saluan.

PMP Saluan

‘elbow’ *siku > *siku > siku

‘tail’ *ikuR > *ikuy > ikuː

Whilst the historical origin of long vowels in Saluan was first discussed in Mead (2003), at that time their synchrony was little understood, being known only from written wordlists and information— sometimes contradictory—provided by others. Their phonetic character had yet to be analyzed, and it was unknown whether there was dialectal variation in regard to long vowels in the Saluan area.

To make up for this lack, we paid particular attention to final vowel length during wordlist elicitation sessions, and in fact in seven locations (including Batui) specifically made electronic recordings for preliminary acoustic phonetic analysis. For example, figure 3 shows the waveforms and spectrograms of a person from Huhak village pronouncing the words ‘elbow’ and ‘tail.’ From this it can be seen that the final vowel of /ikuː/ is roughly twice as long (0.3038 seconds) as the final vowel of /siku/ (0.1509 seconds). Figure 4 shows the waveforms and spectrograms of a person from Tolando village (Batui). These figures were prepared using SIL’s Speech Analyzer program version 3.0.1.

Because of constraints on our time during the course of the survey, we recorded only one speaker in each of the seven locations. We realize therefore that our results lack statistical validity. Nonetheless the vowel length measurements summarized in table 3 provisionally suggest that a contrast between long versus regular vowels is a feature of all Saluan dialects as well as Batui—a result which was further confirmed ‘to our ears’ during the process of eliciting wordlist items in all twelve primary research sites. The two columns under each word indicate that we recorded each respondent saying that word twice (because of a technical glitch, our Simpang respondent was recorded saying each word only once).

Figure 3. Waveforms and spectrograms of /siku/ ‘elbow’ and /iku_ː/ ‘tail’ as recorded in Huhak village.

0.1509 sec

Figure 4. Waveforms and spectrograms of /siku/ ‘elbow’ and /ikuː/ ‘tail’ as recorded in Tolando village.

0.1835 sec

Table 3. Length (in seconds) of final vowels of /siku/ ‘elbow’ and /iku_ː/ ‘tail’ (each word recorded twice)

/siku/ ‘elbow’ /ikuː/ ‘tail’

Simpang — 0.2359 — 0.3452

Honbola 0.1509 0.1267 0.3506 0.2989

Bahingin 0.1551 0.1771 0.2502 0.2470

Sampaka 0.1386 0.2469 0.3630 0.3419

Kintom 0.1754 0.1771 0.3781 0.2827

Huhak 0.1509 0.1763 0.3038 0.3305

Batui 0.1390 0.1700 0.3102 0.3033

Table 3 indicates that the final vowel of one lexical item, /ikuː/ ‘tail,’ is articulated long in both Saluan and Batui. When we consider other lexical items with final long vowels, however, we find that the Saluan and Batui data do not always agree. That is to say, in some items (such as the response for ‘tail’), a final long vowel in Saluan corresponds to a long vowel in Batui. In other items, however, a long vowel in Saluan corresponds to a regular (unlengthened) vowel in Batui. Items which fall into these two patterns are summarized in tables 4 and 5, respectively. Table 4 presents those items for which we transcribed a final long vowel in at least one Saluan wordlist, and where the Batui response also had a long vowel. Table 5 presents those items for which we transcribed a final long vowel in at least one Saluan wordlist, but where the Batui response had a regular (unlengthened) vowel.19 _{The ‘item number’} given in the first column corresponds to the wordlist numbering scheme used in appendix B.

19_{PMP and PWMP (Proto–Western Malayo-Polynesian) reconstructions given in the last column of the tables and in}

this footnote have been drawn from various sources, including especially Blust and Trussel (2010) and Wurm and Wilson (1975). Proto-Celebic reconstructions are our own and have not yet been published with their supporting evidence.

Because they are not germane to our discussion, we have left out a number of words which have a long vowel in one or more Saluan wordlists, but for which a cognate form is unknown in Batui. These include:

096 ‘friend’ saŋaluː (Batui beːle);

125 ‘luminous millipede’ antata_ː (Batui ondat), cf. PWMP *(h)antatadu; 131 ‘snake’ ulo_ː (Batui bintana_ʔ), PMP *ulej ‘worm, maggot’;

154 ‘coconut’ niu_ː (Batui potil), PMP *ñiuR ‘coconut’;

156 ‘coconut shell’ baŋaː (Batui tobong), cf. Proto-Kaili-Pamona *baŋa' (Michael Martens p.c.) and Proto-Seko

*baŋaː‘coconut shell’ (Laskowske 2007:150) which together suggest *baŋaq;

172 ‘pandanus’ tondaː (Batui bahoi);

182 ‘moon’ koloa_ː (three wordlists; others, including Batui bitu_ʔon); 184 ‘sky’ _laŋaː(two wordlists, others including Batui _laŋit); 224 ‘space underneath house’ patu_ː (Batui su_ːkan);

233 ‘bamboo water container’ pongasuː (Batui balo), cf. Proto-Bungku-Tolaki *ahuR ‘bamboo water container’ (Mead 1998:425);

256 ‘big’ bosaː (one wordlist, others including Batui dakaʔ), PMP *besaR (Dempwolff 1925), but Dempwolff (1938) gives *besar;

260 ‘wet’ mohome_ː(Batui memes);

341 ‘left’ kowi_ː (Batui bobo_ʔ), PMP *ka-wiRi; 381 ‘laugh’ kumojo_ː (Batui molomi);

405 ‘burn (field)’ mompapu_ː, PMP *pa + hapuy;

On the whole, there are two possible explanations for the pattern observed in tables 4 and 5. (a) Just as in Bobongko and Andio, Batui lost all final long vowels via merger with regular vowels.

However, in Batui a contrast was reintroduced through influence from Saluan. This explanation assumes a certain degree of contact with and bilingualism in Saluan.

Table 4. Wordlist items ending in long vowel in both Saluan and Batui Item no. Meaning Saluan Batui Historical source

025 ‘shoulder’ oaː oaː PMP *qabaRa

028 ‘palm, sole’ palaː palaː PMP *palaj

107 ‘tail’ ikuː ikuː PMP *ikuR

122 ‘fly’ (n.) laloː laloː PMP *lalej

201 ‘water’ ueː ueː PMP *waiR

217 ‘floor’ saloː saloː PMP *saleR

262 ‘wide’ bolaː bolaː PMP *belaj ‘spread out’

352 ‘inside’ i unoː i unoː PMP *qunej

469 ‘awaken

someone’ molikoː molikoː Proto-Celebic *likoy ‘awake, alert’

532 ‘embers’ obaː obaː PMP *baRah

534 ‘ripe’ mahaː mahaː source unknowna

534 ‘level’ hataː hataː PMP *dataR

a_{Cf. PMP *ma-iRaq ‘red,’ but this is an unlikely source since *R > hin Saluan and Batui would be} irregular. Bobongko has mara ‘ripe.’

Table 5. Words ending in long vowel in Saluan but in a regular vowel in Batui Item no. Meaning Saluan Batui Historical source

018 ‘lips’ biwiː biwi PMP *bibiR

112 ‘egg’ ontoluː

‘testicle’ ontolu PMP *qateluR

137 ‘turtle’ heʔaː heʔa source unknown

142 ‘pig’ bauː bau PMP *babuy

209 ‘fire’ apuː apu PMP *hapuy

260 ‘dry’ montuʔuː motuʔu PMP *tuquR

271 ‘thick’ butoluː butolu source unknown

293 ‘satiated’ mobosuː mobosu PMP *besuR

311 ‘yellow’ mokiniː mokini PMP *kunij

354 ‘sun, day’ sinaː sina PMP *sinaR

355 ‘night’ pihiː pihi source unknown

382 ‘hear’ mohoŋoː mohoŋo PMP *deŋeR

426 ‘swim’ molaŋuː lumaŋu PMP *laŋuy

428 ‘climb

(mountain)’ mindakoː mindako cf. Malay mendaki 455 ‘delouse’ mompiaː mompipia source unknown

494 ‘navel’ pusoː puso *pusej

(b) A second possibility is that the merger of final long vowels with their regular counterparts is either still on ongoing process or else was arrested in Batui. The differences in these tables thus reflect lexical diffusion: Table 5 lists lexical items to which this change (merger of final long vowels with their regular vowel counterparts) has diffused, while table 4 lists lexical items—presumably high frequency lexemes—to which this change did not diffuse, or has not yet diffused, in Batui. This explanation need not assume any contact between Batui and Saluan speakers.

Which of these two explanations is to be preferred requires further investigation, but for our purposes the matter need not be settled. The important thing to note is that there are significant differences between Saluan and Batui with respect to which lexemes have final long vowels and which do not.20

A further question may arise: do we find any significant differences in regard to long vowels when comparing between Saluan dialects? We are aware of one case, the word for ‘pig,’ which we recorded as [bauʔ] in Loinang but as [bauː] elsewhere. Other cases may exist, but the situation is complicated because long vowels were not consistently represented in our outside sources; see the discussion in regard to this point in the introduction to appendix B.

3.2 Merger of final *l and *n

In this section we consider a sound change which has not previously been discussed in regard to Saluan, the merger of final *-l and *-n as -n.21 _{Let us begin by considering map 5, which presents the responses to} five wordlist items, respectively ‘rope’ (item no. 242), ‘to pay’ (445), ‘to plant’ (406), ‘trousers’ (246), and ‘fence’ (225).22

20_{Curious to us is that even the long vowels which we recorded on the evening of July 26th were for the most part}

not present in the speech of Nurmin, a female, whom we recorded the following day. Clearly this study is not the final word on long vowels in Batui.

21_{Kruyt (1930:330, footnote 1) noted that “on the coast one says tonggol [‘head, leader’], conversely in the interior}

one speaks of tonggon. There are many examples of the same phenomenon” (translation ours), but he did not present any further examples.

22_{For brevity, we present the responses for only five terms. The same results are obtained even when a fuller amount}

of data is considered, including the responses for 067 ‘boil’ (on skin) (bisul ~ bisun); 269 ‘old (of objects)’ (piil ~

piin); 278 ‘dull’ (mokujul ~ mokujun); 289 ‘deaf’ (_moboŋol ~ _moboŋon); 301 ‘round’ (timpodol ~ timpodon) and 303 ‘difficult’ (mahal ~ mahan) among others. See appendix B.

Map 5. Responses for ‘rope’, ‘to pay’, ‘to plant’, ‘trousers’, and ‘fence’ as recorded at the twelve primary research sites

©2015 SIL International. Includes geodata from worldgeodatasets.com. Used with permission. Most responses end in -r, -l, or -n, and at first glance there may appear to be little basis for

predicting when a form will end in a particular consonant. However, present-day forms can be explained by assuming the following historical processes.

(a) *r became h initially and medially, and was lost in word-final position in Saluan and Batui (§3). That is to say, there are no inherited forms which continue final *-r as -r.

(b) *l was retained as l initially and medially, but became -n in word-final position in a portion of the Saluan area.

(c) Subsequent to (a), and prior and/or subsequent to (b), there was a period in which borrowed words with final r were phonemicized to the local phonology: as l in areas which retained final -l, but as n in areas in which final *-l became -n.

(d) In some areas, this pattern of phonemicization ceased, so that borrowed words with final r retain -r. Taken together, these changes allow us to explain, for example, why Malay pagar ‘fence’ variously shows up in our Saluan data as pagan, pagal and pagar, and mutatis mutandis for bayar ‘to buy’ and saluar ‘trousers, pants.’ Because in Batui all three words have -r, it is possible that in the Batui area there may never have been a period in which -r in loan words was phonemicized to -l.23

Map 6 presents the same data as in map 5, except that non-cognate forms as well as forms with final -r have been removed from consideration. Huhak and Bantayan exhibit a mixed pattern, but otherwise the pattern is clear: either a community has final -n (indicated by a purple dot) or a community has final -l (indicated by a yellow dot).

In addition to the primary research sites shown in maps 5 and 6, during our canvass of the Saluan area we briefly stopped in a number of other villages to elicit the local terms for ‘rope,’ ‘to buy,’ ‘to plant (with dibble),’ ‘trousers’ and ‘fence,’ and as well as to ask about terms used in neighboring villages. Map 7 expands on map 6 by reporting these results for the twenty-nine villages where we collected data ourselves (circle),24 _{as well as for twenty additional villages for which we obtained information}

second-hand (square).

Map 6. Selected responses for ‘rope’, ‘to pay’, ‘to plant’, ‘trousers’, and ‘fence’ as recorded at the twelve primary research sites

©2015 SIL International. Includes geodata from worldgeodatasets.com. Used with permission.

24_{That is to say, our twelve primary research sites plus seventeen other villages where we stopped briefly to collect} data solely regarding the fate of *l in word-final position.

Map 7. Distribution of -n versus -l as reflex of Proto-Saluan *-l

©2015 SIL International. Includes geodata from worldgeodatasets.com. Used with permission. In broad outline, from map 7 we can note that northeast Saluan (Boalemo area and as far west as Taloyon) is solidly an ‘l-dialect’ area, while in the southeast (Luwuk area, from Hunduhon to Bubung) there is likewise a solidly ‘n-dialect’ area, with areas of alternating l- and n-dialect villages found in the northwest and southwest. On closer examination, however, nearly to a one if a village in the northwest or southwest speaks an n-dialect, that village was formerly located in the interior. In particular, we make note of the following migrations as they have been reported to us.

(a) From Lingketeng. Lingketeng was a complex of twenty or so villages formerly located in the interior, in the watershed of the Sensean, a tributary of the Lobu.25 _{The Lingketeng area was still densely}

inhabited at the time of Kruyt’s visit in 1928, but nonetheless some people from Lingketeng had by then recently relocated above Pagimana (in present-day Hohudongan?); near the mouth of the Pouhua River immediately to the west of Pagimana; and near the mouth of the Lobu River in the villages of Kadodi, Balean, Bomban, Niubulan, and Lobu (Kruyt 1930:331, 335). Today the former Lingketeng area is uninhabited, its people having relocated to various other coastal communities including—in addition to the ones already mentioned—Toima, Matabas, Bahingin, Nain, Asa'an, and Pinapuan. The last four are names of former interior villages which the settlers brought with them to the coast.

(b) From Baloa'. The traditional Baloa' area was roughly another dozen kilometers southwest of Lingketeng, located on the upper reaches of the Lobu River and under the shadow of Bulutumpu, a principal mountain of the area. Tambunan, Baloa', and Doda were always mentioned to us as the chief villages of this area. This region likewise is presently uninhabited, its former residents having settled in the villages of Gonohop, Doda Bunta, and Nganga-nganga'on, and in the Baompon hamlet of Pongian village. All of these places are located in the broad coastal plain surrounding Bunta. In

25_{According to Kruyt (1930), villages falling under Lingketeng included Panimbuluan, Salingan, Mongolos, Damak,} Pinapuan (= Salean), Bumbuk, Padang, Sopa, Bulakan, Buhangas, Heyuha, Bahingin, Indang, Lingketeng, Kolomboi, and Dodong (see the map included with his article for locations). To these we can add the following village names, supplied by our own respondents: Nain, Asa'an, Pinujat, and Hohudongan.

addition, a portion of the people from Tambunan settled Honbola on the southern coast, reportedly in two migrations in 1923 and 1932 (this is also mentioned by Kruyt 1930:350, who places his Hoombola “above Batui”).

(c) From Simpang (Kahumama'on). By all accounts, Simpang in the interior was settled by people who left (or fled from) the villages of Tambunan, Baloa', and Doda and settled a two days’ journey to the west on the other side of Bulutumpu mountain. The name of their principal village is Simpang. They are called the Kahumama'on people after the place where they live (kahumama'on means ‘abundance of kahumama' trees’26 _{and refers generally to the area between the Tobelombang and Bunta rivers)} (Robert Brown 2013:pers.comm.). The original Simpang village is still inhabited. In addition, over the past century Kahumama'on people have been migrating to the coastal plain around Bunta. Today these people can be found in the villages of Simpang I and Simpang II (both of these are on the coastal plain); Dowiwi, Mantan A, and Mantan B. Kahumama'on people also comprise a portion of the populations of Gonohop and Pibombo villages.

(d) From Buyangge. The village of Buyangge was located on the upper reaches of the Mendono River, on the southern side of the watershed divide, on the path connecting Lingketeng with the southern coast. Presumably Buyangge had at some time in the past been settled from Lingketeng.27 _Floods and landslides caused this site to finally be abandoned as a village in 1983, although people still maintain gardens there. Inhabitants of former Buyangge have settled in Solan and in present-day Buyangge (bringing the village name with them) on the coast.

From these descriptions, it is apparent that the alternating patterns found in the northwest and the southwest are primarily the result of recent migrations (within the past one hundred years or so) of interior, n-dialect speakers—representing the Lingketeng, Baloa' and Kahumama'on clans—into coastal areas, perhaps supplemented by migrations of l-dialect speakers westward. See the summary presented in map 8.

26_{Possibly bur-flower trees such as Neolamarckia cadamba (Roxb.) Bosser and/or Neolamarckia macrophylla (Wall.)}

Bosser.

27_{As described by Kruyt, the Lingketeng people paid yearly tribute to their lord, bosanyo, in Kintom, while the Baloa'}

people owed their allegiance to the bosanyo in Tangkian, also on the southern coast. The resulting intercourse led to “a few villages of Loinang which lie above Kintom, Tangkian and Batui” (Kruyt 1930:354) (translation ours). Presumably the hamlet of Molontobe in the interior, above and administratively part of Batui town—and still inhabited—is another such location. As reported to us, the people of Molontobe still wear loincloths, hunt game, and eat tubers rather than rice.

Map 8. Hypothesized prior distribution of -n (purple) and -l (yellow) dialect areas and subsequent migrations

©2015 SIL International. Includes geodata from worldgeodatasets.com. Used with permission. We present map 8 as an initial, rough and even idealized approximation, which doubtless will need to be modified as more becomes known about the Saluan area. We hope that future researchers will be able to provide a more detailed picture, as well as step further back in time. The following are some questions which remain unanswered at the present time.

(a) To what extent was the coastline from Pagimana westward uninhabited, due to headhunting and raiding for slaves, prior to the establishment of Dutch colonial authority in the area? According to Kruyt, Pagimana, the principal commercial center, was “exclusively inhabited by people from outside” (1930:331), while many Gorontalo people—whom the colonial administration brought in to work coconut plantations—ended up settling in Lobu and Bunta (1930:335–336).

(b) For how long have l-dialect speakers been established in the southwest (Kintom area)? Do they represent a fairly recent (within the past 300 years) migration from the Boalemo area, as suggested by Kruyt (1930:341 ff.) (see also the discussion at the end of §2), or does their presence in this location trace back further than this?

(c) Assuming that the merger of *-n and *-l > n signifies a period of shared history, then the people of southeastern, coastal Luwuk must be related at a deeper level to the Lingketeng, Baloa' and

Kahumama'on people of the interior west. When did this split occur, and was it a migration of interior peoples to the coast, or of coastal peoples to the interior? Is any connection acknowledged in present-day legends or traditions?

4 The evidence from sociolinguistic interviews

In this section we provide a summary of information gleaned from informal sociolinguistic interviews. These interviews were conducted at each of the primary research sites listed in §1.2. We present these results geographically in roughly clockwise fashion, beginning in the Bunta area (northwest) and ending in Batui (southwest).

Boalemo

Pagimana

Lingketeng Baloa'

Kahumama'on

Luwuk

Kintom

4.1 Village-by-village responses

(a) Simpang I (Nuhon District). According to respondents in the village of Simpang I, there are two dialects in Saluan: that which is used in Simpang, and that which is used in Batui. Besides this, they also acknowledge that there are also differences between various Saluan communities, but such differences do not impede mutual understanding.

According to them, the purest and best Saluan is that which is spoken in Simpang. They believe that the Saluan which they use is pure, and has not been tainted by outside influences, whereas the Saluan spoken in coastal villages has been influenced by outsiders.

(b) Pakowa Bunta (Nuhon District). According to respondents in Pakowa Bunta village (Nuhon District), Saluan has four dialects, namely Boalemo, Pagimana, Batui and Simpang. They say that their speech is exactly the same as that spoken in Pagimana and Boalemo. The Saluan which is spoken in

Simpang and Asa'an has a slightly different ring or accent, while the Saluan spoken in Batui is very different from their speech and difficult to understand.

According to them, the best Saluan is that which is spoken in Lokait (a hamlet of Simpang I village) and in Asa'an. The people in Pakowa Bunta originally came from Pakowa (a village in Pagimana

Subdistrict) some scores of years ago.

(c) Bahingin (Pagimana District). According to respondents in Bahingin village, Gonohop, Matabas and Huhak (Bunta Subdistrict) are villages whose speech is exactly the same as that of Bahingin, while Pakowa (Pagimana Subdistrict) and Kintom were acknowledged to have a somewhat different accent. Those with very different speech were the people of Balantak and Batui. According to them, the best and truest Saluan is that which is used in Bahingin.

(d) Kondongan (Walea Kepulauan District, Tojo-Unauna Regency). According to our two respondents from Kondongan village, whom we encountered in the town of Pagimana on the mainland, there are no dialects in Saluan, although there are differences in accent between Saluan as spoken in the islands and that of the mainland. In Walea Kepulauan District, the Saluan speech in Kondongan, Katogop, Tingki, Pongidan, Pasokan, Salinggoha', and Tumpang is slightly different from that spoken in Dolong, Malapo, Biga, Tomudon, Loe, and Kalia'.

(e) Huhak (Pagimana District). According to respondents in Huhak village, there are principally two dialects of Saluan, namely Batui and Pagimana. Apart from the major difference with Batui, they acknowledge that there are other, minor differences within Saluan, but people can still understand each other because they amount only to differences in accent. The Saluan spoken in Huhak is exactly the same as that spoken in Pagimana.

According to them, the most original and best Saluan is that which is spoken in Baloa', a village towards the interior of Pagimana Subdistrict.

(f) Sampaka (Boalemo District). According to respondents in Sampaka village, there are no dialects within the Saluan language, only differences in accent such as between Pagimana, Bunta and Batui. According to them, the speech of Sampaka is exactly the same as that which is used in Tikupon, Siuna, Mayayap, Toiba, Longkoga, and Binsil (all neighboring villages in Boalemo Subdistrict). According to them, the best and purest Saluan is that which is used in Kintom, as well as that which is used in Boalemo. Their ancestors originated from Tompotika Mountain, from whence also originated all the Saluan, Balantak, and Banggai peoples.

(g) Bantayan (Luwuk Timur District). According to respondents in Bantayan village, there are no dialectal differences in Saluan, although there are differences in accent such as between Bunta, Pagimana, and Lumpoknyo. According to them, their speech is exactly the same as that spoken in Biak and Kilongan, two villages slightly further to the west.

HHK ʔuˈtara LMP _ʔuˈtara BTY ʔuˈtara LLB — TLD —

south

542

selatan

SIM — HON saˈlatan BAH _seˈlatan PKB — KND — SAM saˈlatan KIN _seˈlatan HHK seˈlatan LMP _saˈlatan BTY tiˈagaʔ LLB — TLD —

day before yesterday

543

kemarin dulu

SIM _{naˈboŋiʔsamˈpahu} HON naˌboːŋiʔsamˈpahu BAH _{naˈboŋiʔanu ˈmae} PKB —

KND —

SAM naˈboŋiʔsampaˈhuan KIN _naˈboŋiʔ anu mae HHK naˈboŋiʔsamˈpahu LMP _{naboŋi samˈpahu} BTY naˈboːŋiʔsamˈpahu LLB —

TLD naboŋiʔˈmae

three days ago

544

tiga hari yang lalu

SIM _itoˈlunːo HON naˌboːŋiʔiˈtolun BAH _{ˌtolunsiˈnaː}mo PKB —

KND — SAM itoˈlunmo KIN _iˈtolun

HHK naˈboŋiʔsampaˈhuan LMP _{ˌtolunsiˈnamo | iˈtolun} BTY naˈboŋiʔˈanmae LLB —

TLD naˈboŋiʔmae sampahuˈaɲo

four (etc.) days ago

545

empat (dst) hari yang lalu

SIM —

HON naˌboːŋiʔiˈpaton | … iˈliman

| … iˈnomon | … iˈpitun | … iˈwalu (not: iwalun) | … iˈsion | …

sampuˈluʔan BAH —

PKB — KND — SAM —

KIN ipaton | iliman | ipitun | ialun | ision

HHK — LMP — BTY — TLD —

day after tomorrow

546

lusa

SIM hiˈpuan HON _hiˈpuan BAH hiˈpuan PKB — KND — SAM _hiˈpuan KIN iˈpuan HHK _hiˈpuan LMP iˈpuan BTY _hiˈpuan TLD hiˈpuan

three days from now

547

tiga hari di depan

SIM _{pohipuaˈnakon} HON hiˈtolun BAH _hiˈtolun PKB — KND —

SAM hipuan samˈbihaʔ KIN itolun_ʤe mule_ʔ HHK hiˈpuan saˈlundu LMP _iˈtolun

BTY hipuan samˈbihaʔ

TLD _{ˌdaŋaʔiˈtolun (lit. still three days)}

four (etc.) days from now

548

empat (dst) hari di depan

SIM — HON —

BAH hiˈpaton | hiˈliman | hiˈnomon | hiˈpitun | (etc.) | sampuˈluʔan PKB —

KND — SAM — KIN — HHK —

LMP ipaton | iliman BTY —

TLD _{ˌdaŋaʔiˈpaton | ˌdaŋaʔiˈliman} | ˌdaŋaʔiˈnomon | ˌdaŋaʔiˈpitun | ˌdaŋaʔiˈyalum | ˌdaŋaʔiˈsion | ˌdanaʔsampuˈluʔan

bring

549

membawa

SIM _momˈboa HON momˈboa BAH _momˈboa PKB — KND — SAM momˈboa KIN _momˈboa HHK momˈboa LMP _momˈboa BTY momˈboa TLD _momˈboa

carry on the head

550

menjunjung

SIM monˈsuʔun HON _monˈsuʔun BAH monˈsuʔun PKB —

KND —

SAM _monˈsuʔun KIN monˈsuʔun HHK _monˈsuʔun LMP monˈsombuŋ BTY _monˈsombuŋ LLB —

TLD _monˈsuʔun

go

551

pergi

SIM ˈmambaː HON _ˈmambaː BAH mamˈbaːmo PKB —

KND — SAM _ˈmamba_ː KIN ˈmambaː HHK _ˈmamba LMP mamˈbaːmo BTY _mamˈbaːmo LLB —

TLD _ˈmamba

use

552

memakai

SIM momˈpake HON _momˈpake BAH momˈpake PKB — KND — SAM _nimˈpake KIN momˈpake HHK _momˈpake LMP momˈpake BTY _momˈpake LLB — TLD _momˈpake

taste (food)

553

mencicipi

SIM moˈɲamit HON _moˈɲamit BAH moˈɲamit PKB —

KND — SAM _maˈɲamit KIN moɲaˈmiti HHK _moˈɲamit LMP moˈɲamit BTY _moˈɲamit LLB — TLD _moˈɲamit

sew roofing thatch

554

menjahit atap

SIM momˈpawot HON _momˈpawot BAH momˈpawot atop PKB —

KND —

SAM _momˈpawot

KIN momˈpawot atop | loˈdaʔan (slat to which thatch is sewn) HHK momˈpawot

LMP _{monˈtaduk at}op BTY momˈpawot LLB —

References

Adriani, N. and Alb. C. Kruyt. 1914. De Bare’e-sprekende Toradja’s van Midden Celebes, vol. 3: Taal- en letterkundige schets der Bare’e-taal en overzicht van het taalgebied Celebes–Zuid-Halmahera. Batavia: Landsdrukkerij.

Aprilani, Herdian, Kristina Tarp, and Tanti Susilawati. 2010. The Banggai of Central Sulawesi: A rapid appraisal survey report. SIL Electronic Survey Reports 2010-020. Online. URL:

http://www.sil.org/resources/publications/entry/9062.

Barr, Donald F. and Sharon G. Barr. 1979. Languages of Central Sulawesi: Checklist, preliminary classification, language maps, wordlists. In cooperation with Dr. C. Salombe. Ujung Pandang: Hasanuddin University.

Blust, Robert; and Stephen Trussel. 2010. Austronesian comparative dictionary, web edition. Online. URL:

http://www.trussel2.com/acd/.

Bosscher, C. and P. A. Matthijssen. 1853. Schetsen van de rijken van Tomboekoe en Banggaai, op de oostkust van Celebes. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 2:63–107.

Brandes, J. L. A. 1894. Toelichting tot de schetstaalkaart van Celebes samengesteld door den heer K. F. Holle. Notulen van het Algemeene en Bestuurs-Vergaderingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 32:xv-xxxiv.

Busenitz, Robert L. 1991. Balantak and Andio (Kabupaten Banggai). More Sulawesi sociolinguistic surveys, 1987–1991 (Workpapers in Indonesian Languages and Cultures, 11), edited by Timothy Friberg, 1– 17. Ujung Pandang: SIL.

De Clercq, F. S. A. 1890. Bijdragen tot de kennis der Residentie Ternate. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Dempwolff, Otto. 1925. Die L-, R- und D-Laute in Austronesischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen 15:19–50, 116–138, 223–238, 237–319.

Dempwolff, Otto. 1938. Vergleichende Lautlehre des austronesischen Wortschatzes, vol. 3: Austronesisches Wörterverzeichnis. (Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen, 19.) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Esser, S. J. 1938. Talen. Atlas van Tropisch Nederland, sheet 9b. Amsterdam: Koninklijk Nederlandsch

Aardrijkskundig Genootschap.

Friberg, Timothy (ed.) 1987. UNHAS-SIL: South Sulawesi sociolinguistic surveys, 1983–1987. (Workpapers in Indonesian Languages and Cultures, 5.) Ujung Pandang: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Friberg, Timothy (ed.) 1991. UNHAS-SIL: More Sulawesi sociolinguistic surveys, 1987–1991. (Workpapers in Indonesian Languages and Cultures, 11.) Ujung Pandang: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

Gobée, E. 1929. Een Loinansch verhaal. Feestbundel uitgegeven door het Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen bij gelegenheid van zijn 150-jarig bestaan 1778–1928, vol. 1, edited by Walther Aichele, 187–201. Weltevreden: Kolff.

Goedhart, O. H. 1908. Drie landschappen in Celebes. Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 50:442–549.

Gordon, Raymond G., Jr. (ed.) 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 15th edn. Dallas: SIL International.

Grimes, Charles E. and Barbara D. Grimes. 1987. Languages of South Sulawesi. (Pacific Linguistics, D-78.) Canberra: Australian National University.

Grimes, Joseph E. 1988. Correlations between vocabulary similarity and intelligibility. Notes on Linguistics 41:19–33. Dallas: SIL.

Hente, M. Asri, Arfah Adnan, H. Nurhayati Ponulele, and Jos E. Ohoiwutun. 1984. Morfologi dan sintaksis bahasa Saluan. Palu: Pusat Bahasa.

Hente, Asri, Laode Baisu, and Ansan. 2000. Morfologi nomina dan adjektiva bahasa Saluan. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.

Huong, Ing., Abd. Hamid Pawennari, and Arnold Rahim. 1995. Upacara daur hidup suku Saluan. Palu: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Bagain Proyek Pembinaan Permuseuman Sulawesi Tengah.

Kruyt, Alb. C. 1930. De To Loinang van den oostarm van Celebes. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsche Indië 86:327–536.

Laskowske, Tom. 2007. The Seko languages of South Sulawesi: A reconstruction. Studies in Philippine Languages and Cultures 15:115–210.

Martens, Michael. 1989a. The Badaic languages of Central Sulawesi. Studies in Sulawesi linguistics, part I (NUSA Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Other Languages in Indonesia, 31), edited by James N. Sneddon, 19–53. Jakarta: Badan Penyelenggara Seri Nusa, Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya. Martens, Michael. 1989b. Swadesh 100- and 200-wordlists on the Sulawesi Umbrella wordlist.

Bits & Pieces, December 1989, 29–33.

McElhanon, K. 1967. Preliminary observations on Huon Peninsula languages. Oceanic Linguistics 6:1–45. Mead, David. 2003. The Saluan-Banggai microgroup of eastern Sulawesi. Issues in Austronesian historical

phonology (Pacific Linguistics, 550), edited by John Lynch, 65–86. Canberra: Australian National University.

Mead, David. In progress. A brief Bobongko lexicon with reverse English-Bobongko finderlist. 33 pages. Musschenbroek, S. C. J. W. van. 1878. Kaart van de bocht van Tomini of Gorontalo en omliggende landen,

met de reeden, afvoerplaatsen, binnenlandsche wegen en andere middelen van gemeenschap, uit meerdere schetsen, teekeningen, opgaven en eigen opnamen. Map, scale ca. 1:834,586. Amsterdam: C. L.

Brinkman.

Musschenbroek, S. C. J. W. van. 1879. Toelichtingen, behoorende bij de kaart van de bocht van Tomini of Gorontalo en aangrenzende landen, de reeden, afvoerplaatsen, binnenlandsche wegen en andere middelen van gemeenschap. Amsterdam: C. L. Brinkman. [Reprinted 1880 in Tijdschrift van het Aardrijkskundig Genootschap, vol. 4, pages 93–110.]

Riedel, J. G. F. 1868. Bijdrage to de kennis der talen en dialekten, voorkomende op de eilanden Luzon of Lesoeng, Panai of Ilong-Ilong, Balangingi, Solog, Sangi, alsmede op Noord- en Midden-Celebes. (Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, 33/2.) Batavia: Lange.

Riedel, J. G. F. 1885. De oorsprong en de vestiging der Boalemoërs op Noord-Selebes. Bijgraden tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië 34:495–521.

Riedel, J. G. F. 1889. Bijdragen to de kennis van de Banggaaische of Banggajasche taal. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsche Indië 38:13–19.

Rozali, Latif, Asri Hente, Darwis Mustafa, and Amir Lumentut. 1982. Struktur bahasa Saluan. Palu: Pusat Bahasa.

Salzner, Richard. 1960. Sprachenatlas des indopazifischen Raumes. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Sanders, Arden G. 1977. Guidelines for conducting a lexicostatistic survey in Papua New Guinea.

Language variation and survey techniques (Workpapers in Papua New Guinea Languages, 21), edited by Richard Loving, 21–43. Ukarumpa: SIL.

Sneddon, J. N. (compiler.) 1983. Northern Celebes (Sulawesi). Language atlas of the Pacific area, part 2: Japan area, Taiwan (Formosa), Philippines, mainland and insular South-east Asia (Pacific Linguistics, C-67), edited by Stephen A. Wurm and Shirô Hattori, map 43. Canberra: Australian National

University, Australian Academy of the Humanities and The Japan Academy.

Sukiyah, Dahlia Silvana and Frankie Hitipeuw. 1995. Kartu data kebudayaan (HRAF) Propinsi Sulawesi Tengah: Suku Pamona, Kulawi, Kaili, Saluan, Dampelas, Lore, Toli-toli, Banggai, Kahumamoan, Daya, Sea-sea, Wana. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Direktorat Jenderal Kebudayaan, Direktorat Sejarah dan Nilai Tradisional, Proyek Pengkajian dan Pembinaan Nilai-Nilai Budaya Pusat.

Team Survey. 1974. Laporan survey suku Wana dan Kahumamahon di Kecamatan Ampana/Borone, Kabupaten Poso, Propinsi Sulawesi Tengah. Survey team led by Soeparman. Jakarta: Direktorat Pembangunan Masyarakat Suku-Suku Terasing, Direktorat Jenderal Bina Karya, Departemen Sosial. Topografischen Dienst. 1940. Togian-Eilanden. (Algemeene Schetskaart van Nederlandsch-Indië, leaf 82–

83/XX–XXI.) Map, scale 1:200,000.

Valentijn, François. 1724. Oud en nieuw Oost-Indiën, vervattende een naaukeurige en uitvoerige verhandelinge van Nederlands mogentheyd in die gewesten, benevens eene wydluftige beschryvinge der Moluccos,

Amboina, Banda, Timor, en Solor, Java, en alle de eylanden onder dezelve landbestieringen behoorende, het Nederlands comptoir op Suratte, en de levens der Groote Mogols, vol. 1, part 2: Moluccos. Molukse zaaken. Dordrecht, Amsterdam: Joannes van Braam, Gerard Onder de Linden.

Valentijn, François. 1856 [1724]. François Valentijn’s oud en nieuw Oost-Indien, met aanteekeningen, volledige inhoudsregisters, chronologische lijsten, enz, volume 1. Prepared by S. Keijzer. ’s-Gravenhage: H. C. Susan.

Wumbu, Indra B., Amir Kadir, Nooral Baso, and Sy. Maranua. 1986. Inventarisasi bahasa daerah di propinsi Sulawesi Tengah. Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Wurm, Stephen A. (ed.) 1994. Australasia and the Pacific. Atlas of the world’s languages, edited by Christopher Moseley and R. E. Asher, 93–156. London: Routledge.

Wurm, S. A. and B. Wilson. 1975. English finderlist of reconstructions in Austronesian languages (post-Brandstetter). (Pacific Linguistics, C-33.) Canberra: Australian National University.

Z’graggen, J. A. 1971. Classificatory and typological studies in languages of the Madang District. (Pacific Linguistics, C-19.) Canberra: Australian National University.