proceeded to the west and then to the south, and then south of the equator a further branch separated back in an easterly direction. So one may consider that Pamona, as the most eastern extension of this last-
named side flow, was arrested up against Loinan. Adriani 1914:89
And one can add to this last statement: “…and further to the south, against Mori”. The Mori and Kaili-Pamona language groups thus make up portions of two different language complexes,
which have their common point of origin in the Philippine languages. With that, however, not everything has yet been said. It applies to the western just as to the eastern language complexes that, the more southerly one goes, the
more the Philippine features recede, and are replaced by phenomena which are characteristic to Buginese and its relatives. This points to an influence of languages of the Buginese type on Pamona and its relatives just as on Mori
cum suis, to which a number of points of similarity between these two language groups are to be ascribed. Completely in keeping with this theory, however, it appears that this influence was stronger on the Kaili-Pamona
languages than on Mori. The vocabulary of the latter appears more similar with Loinan and the Minahasan languages than that of Pamona. And in grammatical respects it is, among other things, the existence of the prefix
moko-, mompoko- in potential meaning, the still productive infixes -in- and -um- and suffix -a IN -an, and the absence of palatals in Mori as opposed to Pamona, which indicate that the former is more closely related to the
Philippine languages than is the latter.
25
[p. 9]
10. The intention of this book is to give a description of the grammatical features
26
of Mori such as is spoken in Tinompo. Naturally what is said concerning Tinompo is applicable in large measure to the other dialects, and
especially to the other sub-dialects of the mokole dialect, but the possibility of differences must nevertheless always be taken into account. What shall be said about the characteristics of the dialects where they differ from Tinompo
makes very little claim to completeness.
Thus under ‘Mori’ one should first of all understand ‘Tinompo’. But whenever the latter appellation is used, one need not always conclude from this that differences are known in the other dialects or sub-dialects with respect
to the characteristics under consideration, although this is often the case. When the designation ‘Upper Mori’ is used, by that as a rule it is intended that the form or the characteristic in
question is known from two or more—but nevertheless not necessarily from all—of the Upper Mori subdialects. If this is not the case, then the name of the relevant sub-dialect itself is given, though one should naturally not exclude
the possibility that other subdialects also possibly share that form or characteristic.
A word or characteristic which is given as Watu, can also as a rule be found back in Karunsi’e, not to mention the possibility that it also occurs in Nuha or Upper Mori, but it is not thereby established to be the case.
It shall perhaps seem somewhat exaggerated to the reader to see the origin of every datum so exactly mentioned. However, as long as so little is yet known about the Mori dialects, their mutual relationships and their
history, it seems better to me to set to work in the indicated fashion, all the more as differences between the sub- dialects of even a single dialect are many times not insignificant.
Concerning abbreviations used, see the list included herein.
25
[from footnote 1, p. 8] Now that Adriani’s Spraakkunst der Bare’e-taal has appeared 1931, more particulars can be learned about the relationship between Pamona and Mori. Also, the theory which has been relayed in short in this paragraph is
treated more fully in that work. [Postscript, p. 8] A comparative sketch prepared by my own hand and intended for Adriani’s grammar was omitted because
in the whole of the Pamona grammar it was less easily able to be inserted, and there was no good reason for comparing Pamona in more detail only with Mori and not with other neighboring languages. For that matter, the Klank- en Vormleer van het
Morisch is comprehensive enough to make such a comparative sketch more or less superfluous, all the more because it continually refers to similarities in Pamona.
[Postscript, p. 8] From what is said here and in Adriani 1931 concerning this subject, it should not be taken that Mori, Pamona, etc. consist of some sort of mishmash of Philippine and South Sulawesi elements and do not exhibit in strong measure
their own unique character. The problems attached herewith however are for the time being not amenable to being solved. [from footnote 1, p. 8] An important point of difference between Mori and Pamona speakers is that with the Mori, taking the
names of family members of the older generation is not forbidden J. Kruyt 1924:88 ff.. Therefore in Mori one has to make many fewer lexical replacements than in Pamona for certain replacement terms see among others J. Kruyt 1924:166.
26
[footnote 1, p. 9] As is customary in grammars of Indonesian languages, the syntax receives no separate treatment. The principle syntactic features shall be pointed out incidentally.
6 [p. 10]
CHAPTER ONE. PHONOLOGY.
——————— ORTHOGRAPHY AND PRONUNCIATION.
Orthography.
11. In the spelling system adopted for Mori, use is made of the following letters and digraphs:
