linguistic | Rejang

Loading...
Rejang Just another WordPress.com weblog

Archive for the ‘linguistic’ Category

Dialect Reveals About The Linguistic History of Rejang March 27, 2008 What The Rawas Dialect Reveals About The Linguistic History of Rejang ”The dialect which is probably most important from a historical point of view … is the Jang Abeus dialect, spoken in the upper reaches of the river Rawas….In 1941 it still had the final -l in such words as biyol, Lebong biyoa water.” –P. Voorhoeve, personal communication reported in Blust 1984:448, n.2. 1.0 Introduction[1] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn1)

Rejang Historical Phonology began with a pioneering article by Robert A. Blust (1984), in which contemporary Musi dialect data was derived from PMP via a set of (mostly regular) sound changes.[2] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn2) McGinn (1997) added new dialect data from the Kebanagung, Pesisir, and Lebong dialects in the attempt to explain some of the reported irregularities in the development of the vowels. McGinn (1999, 2000) explored some possible external subgrouping relationships for Rejang. Finally, although McGinn (2003) presented a reconstructed Proto-Rejang, owing to space limitations, only Rawas evidence was included. This paper attempts to fill some gaps in the record by displaying evidence from five major dialects against which the reconstructions can be tested and earlier work on the language can be verified or revised.

Rejang should be of interest to linguists for at least three reasons. (i) The position of Rejang as a linguistic isolate raises questions about the origin, migration route, and closest linguistic affiliations of the group (McGinn, 2003). (ii) Rejang exhibits more changes in the vowels than any other known Austronesian language: 27 splits of the original four PMP vowels are reflected in the Musi dialect, and 21 mergers (Blust 1984; McGinn 1997). (iii) Some apparently irregular vocalic developments affected pronouns and function words not only in Musi, but in all previously reported dialects, presenting prima facie evidence for recognition of non-phonetic conditions in the theory of sound change, refuting the neogrammarian position.

McGinn (1997) attempted to explain the irregular Musi function words in terms the placement of the reconstructed pre-Rejang accent (=word-level stress pattern), which fell on the penultimate vowel in pre-Rejang (whereas in all contemporary dialects the accent falls on the final syllabic vowel). The consequences of this analysis will be explored in relation to the contribution of Rawas to the historical phonology of Rejang, since in Rawas pronouns and other function words underwent the same regular changes as the content words.

More generally, it is fair to say that without Rawas, the dialects differ too little among themselves to offer much in the way of time depth, precluding any ambitions about reconstructing ProtoRejang, not to mention establishing an external subgroup smaller than Malayo-Polynesian. With the addition of Rawas dialect evidence the picture has changed dramatically. The time depth has increased; the relationships among the dialects have begun to gain some clarity; the reconstruction of Proto-Rejang has become feasible; and some of the evidence pertaining to possible subgrouping relationships with other Austronesian languages has become clarified. 1.1 Location and Number of Rejang Speakers

When Richard Noss (1969) conducted a survey of language use in the late 1960s there were 204,000 Rejang speakers living in Bengkulu and South Sumatra. Noss’ estimate is consistent with Siddik (1980), but not Wurm & Hattori (1981), who give a much higher figure (one million). The higher number can perhaps be reconciled with the population of Bengkulu Province as a whole, including the city of Bengkulu with its majority Malay population, as well as the Kerinci, Serawai, Minangkabau, and transmigrated Javanese living in and around Rejang country. 1.2 Dialect Diversity

The following pair-wise cognate percentages were derived from data obtained in the respective dialect areas from bilingual speakers (Rejang and Indonesian) based on a standardized list of 200 Indonesian sentences prepared by Amran Halim (no date) to elicit the Swadesh 200-word list. Table 1. Percentages of Shared Homosemantic CognatesA Rejang Dialects

Pesisir

Lebong

Musi

Kebanagung

Rawas

Pesisir

XXXXX

88%

87.5%

75.5%

70.0%

Lebong

XXXXX

XXXXX

87.5%

78.0%

70.5%

Musi

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

82.0%

71.5%

Kebanagung

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

71.5%

Rawas

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

XXXXX

a Cognate percentages reported in McGinn (1983) are 5% to 10% higher than those presented here. At that time I had access to dialect speakers living in the capital city, Curup. The data in this paper were elicited from older speakers based on field work in each dialect area.

Map of Rejang Country

The degree of variation among the dialects reported in McGinn (1983, 1997) was too slight to impede mutual understanding. By contrast, the Rawas dialect is incomprehensible to other Rejangs; I have played a recorded Rawas texts for Musi and Lebong speakers, always with the same result: they did not understand it. Vocabulary changes represent only part of the explanation, however. Many linguistic facts set Rawas apart from the other Rejang dialects. For instance, only Rawas retains the PMP diphthongs *iw and *uy as iw, uy; Rawas has a system o seven vowels (including low front ä), whereas the other dialects have six; Rawas reflects PMP *-j as –t in contrast to –g or –k in the other dialects; Rawas retains –l (derived from PMP *-R and *-l) as suggested by P. Voorhoeve in the quotation above; and (also as mentioned earlier) Rawas pronouns and other function words underwent the expected regular changes affecting word-final vowels, e.g. Rawas k«w ‘I’ and kum«w ‘you (honorific)’ alongside uku, kumu in the other dialects. The general impression is that Rawas is not only the most divergent among the five dialects, but also (pronouns notwithstanding) the most conservative. The remainder of this paper will substantiate this impression concerning the central importance of Rawas in determining the linguistic history of the Rejang language. 1.3. Synchronic Sketch of the Five Dialects 1.3.1 Contemporary Consonant Systems Table 2. Contemporary Consonant Systems Pesisir, Lebong, Musi Kebanagung Rawas Stops & Affri- p t c k ? p t c k p t c k ? cates b d j g b d j g b d j g Fricatives s s h s h Plain Nasals m n ñ N m n ñ N m n ñ N Barred Nasals m“ n“ ñ“ N“ m“ n“ ñ“ N“ m“ n“ ñ“ N“ Liquid l l l Semivowels w y w y w y

Secondary phonemes and phoneme sequences mark loan words (usually from Malay). For example sergap ‘attack’ displays an instance of r and a sequence of two consonants within a morpheme; neither occurs in native Rejang words. 1.3.2 Contemporary Vowel Systems

Most dialects have six vowels (a, e, i, o, u, «); Rawas has a seventh vowel ä which regularly corresponds to e or ia or ea in the other dialects. See 2.4. Rawas ä is a low front vowel. The ä – e contrast was very clear to this observer, whereas the contrast between ä and a was very difficult to hear; mostly ä sounded like a; and either phoneme could manifest as low central [ Ã] in rapid speech. Several Malay-speaking onlookers in Surulangun were as puzzled as I when Pak Daud insisted that pät ‘bitter’ and pat ‘four’ differed significantly in pronunciation. However, a (never ä) also varies freely with low back [] in certain phonetic environments. Phonologically all doubts disappear: Rawas pät from PMP *paqit ‘bitter’ contrasts with pat from PMP *epat `four’; and Rawas bäläk from PMP *balik `return home’ contrasts with balak `accident; occurrence’ (source unknown). Also important for what follows is the contrast between Rawas ä and e, although minimal pairs were not found: e.g. Rawas keke? `bad person’ vs. patäh `broken’; and kämäy ‘1Ppl(excl.)’ vs. ete? `small’. A seven-vowel system as witnessed in Rawas has been reconstructed for PR. See Table 4 below. 1.3.3. Contemporary Diphthongs and Accentuation

Although it is not always obvious, in all Rejang dialects the accent falls upon the final syllabic vowel of the word. The placement of the accent depends on syllable structure, and in particular on the prior identification of syllabic and non-syllabic vowels. See section 4.

Some consequences of syllabification and stress placement rules are as follows. First, morphemes like d«w [d«u9] ‘many’ and oa? [?oa9?] ‘far’ are monosyllabic and hence in metrical terms bear no word-level accent: instead, the observed contrast is between a vowel and a semivowel. Second, morphemes like um«a? [?um«:a9?] ‘home’ and tidoa [tido:a9] ‘sleep’ are disyllabic, with the accent falling on the second (final) syllabic vowel, as expected. Finally, canonical CVCVC morphs receive the accent on the final syllable as expected, e.g. Musi mono? [mono:?] `chicken’, s«lon [s«lo:n] `claw’, taN«n [taN«:n] ‘hand’. The complete set of Rejang diphthongs appears in Table 5 (from PMP diphthongs) and Table 13 (from PMP vowels). 1.4 Lexical-Phonological Conditions in Rejang Historical Phonology

As noted originally by Blust (1984), most vocalic changes in Rejang must be defined in terms of what he called ‘PMP sequences’; these are disyllabic (foot-length) and partially articulated speech segments such as *-aCi, *-aCiC, *-uCeC and so on. In this paper, these sequences are expanded in number and in quality (to include also the reconstructed accent) and labeled Gestalt Conditions (GCs). Two considerations make it necessary to find a replacement for Blust’s term “PMP sequences”. (i) Whereas PMP sequences refer to sequences of (reconstructed) PMP phonemes, GCs almost always refer to nondistinctive prosodic features, as well. (ii) Initially derived from PMP sequences, Gestalt Conditions may arise in any historical stage of a language, e.g. early pre-Rejang, late pre-Rejang, Proto-Rejang, or in one or all contemporary dialects (where they would be described synchronically as Morpheme Structure Conditions). GCs refer to one or all of the following: the last two syllables of the word; the accent; the pairing of the vowels (*a-i, *u-«, etc.); the shape of the final syllable (open or closed); and the velarity (= binary feature [ + velar] ) associated with the word-final consonant (if present).

It is assumed that Rejang underwent two prosodic shifts at different times in its early (before Proto-Rejang), and each prosodic shift led to ‘natural’ segmental changes affecting vowels and consonants; in particular, stressed vowels became strengthened, and unstressed vowels became weakened or lost (McGinn 1997). The sheer number of vocalic shifts in Rejang raises questions about the external history of the language; see section 4.4 for discussion. Other questions unfortunately cannot be answered here (but see 4.4.2). As noted by Paul Kiparsky,

What remains puzzling on all accounts is the persistence of (vocalic) shifts … in certain languages … and their total absence in others, such as Japanese. It has been speculated (Wallace 1975) that this persistence is ultimately traceable to certain properties of the prosodic system. (Kiparsky 1988:383) Early changes in the history of Rejang contributed to a high degree of lexical vowel harmony in Proto-Rejang which is largely, but not entirely, reflected in the contemporary dialects. In particular, the first nine changes listed in Table 3 are shown together with a tenth change that occurred after dialect split. All were governed by Gestalt Conditions. Table 3: Schematic History of Proto-Rejang Vowels Gestalt Changes in Early Pre-Rejang PMP pre-Rej Gloss__ A 1 First Stress shift (to Malay-type pattern) *manuk *ma:nuk chicken 2 Syllable reductions *daqan *dan branch 3a *a Neutralization *-V:CaC[-velar] > *-V:C«C *taNan *ta:N«n hand 3b *a Neutralization *-V:Ca # > -V:C« *mata *ma:t« eye Gestalt Changes in Late Pre-Rejang PMP Proto-Rej Gloss B 4 Second Stress Shift (to last syllabic V) *taNan *taN«:n hand 5 CVCV Harmony I *a-i: > i-i: *talih *tili: rope 6 CVCV Harmony II *a-u: > u-u: *sapu *supu: broom 7 CVCVC Harmony I *ä-i: > *ä-ä: *laNit *läNä:t sky 8 CVCVC Harmony II *ä-u: > *o-o: *manuk *mono:k chicken 9 CVCVC[-velar] Harmony III *i-«: > -ä-ä: *ipen *äpä:n tooth C 10 CVCVC[+velar] Harmony IV *u-«: > o-o: = u-«: *pusej *pus«:j navel pus«t (Rawas) posog (Keb) posok (PLM)

Table 3 is discussed in sections 2.4.6.3 and 3.2.1 of this paper. Table 3 schematizes the general outlines of Rejang’s linguistic history presented in McGinn (1997, 1999, 2000), extended now to accommodate the new evidence from Rawas. At first, the Rawas evidence shown in (10) appears to contradict our earlier analysis, since Rawas vowels were not affected at all. Upon closer examination, however, it is clear that Rawas provides exactly the right kind of negative evidence needed to “prove the rule”. McGinn (1997) claimed that the two vocalic changes illustrated in (10) were conditioned in part by the feature [+velar] associated with word-final -C (including PMP *-R, *-j, *-k ). But in Rawas, it is clear that consonantal change has intervened, namely, PMP and PR *-j became –t in Rawas, whereas PR *j > –g or –k in the other dialects. The explanation is that Rawas failed to undergo the harmonization pattern (10) parallel to the other dialects because PMP *-j had changed to –t in Rawas, in effect ‘bleeding’ the rule.

Theoretically, then, the Rejang evidence supports a theory of sound change that includes a restricted class of phonologically (and typologically) definable conditions, called here Gestalt Conditions (GC), operating over the domain of the word or word-base, perhaps in different ways at different time periods in the history of a language. 2.0 Proto-Rejang

In his famous Vergleichende Lautlehre des Austronesischen Wortschatzes (1934-1938) Otto Dempwolff presented the material as if (als ob) just three languages were necessary and sufficient to reconstruct a valid protolanguage (Volume I), and as if only eleven more languages were needed to confirm the reconstructions (Volume II). A similar simplification (on a much smaller scale to be sure) is implicit throughout this paper with respect to the reconstruction of Proto-Rejang. In fact, every feature of Proto-Rejang can be justified based on evidence from just two dialects—either Rawas and Pesisir, or Rawas and Kebanagung. As it happens, these are the only dialects that share a boundary with a dialect of Malay. By contrast, the remaining two (Musi and Lebong) may be viewed as “test dialects” with respect to our reconstructed Proto-Rejang. These two dialects occupy the political and geographic heartland in Kabupaten Rejang-Lebong. See section 4.4.3.

Of the three “criterion” dialects—Rawas, Pesisir and Kebanagung—Rawas typically provides the best (and sometimes the only direct) witness for a given feature of Proto-Rejang. In fact, the direct contributions of Pesisir and Kebanagung can be summarized in just a few sentences. Pesisir bears witness to just three features of Proto-Rejang that have been lost or obscured in Rawas. Pesisir retains: (a) –? from PR *-? and PMP *-q (=Rawas –h); (b) i and u in the end-rhymes –ia? and –ua? from PR *-i? and*-u? reflecting PMP *-iq and *-uq respectively (=Rawas –äh, –oh); and (c) –i and –u from PR *-i and *-u in the set of personal pronouns, e.g. si ‘ 3Psg’, uku ‘1Psg’ (Rawas s«y, uk«w). Kebanagung, on the other hand, bears witness to four features of Proto-Rejang that have been lost or altered in Rawas. Thus in Kebanagung (a) h regularly reflects PR *r from PMP *r and *R in all consonant positions (=Rawas l or ? or zero in corresponding positions); (b) –i regularly reflects PR *-i from PMP *-a when the penult was *u, e.g. dui, ‘two’ tui, ‘old’ buNi ‘flower’ (=Rawas du«y, tu«y, buN«y); (c) –k regularly reflects PR and PMP *-k[3] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn3) (=Rawas –?); and finally (d) –g regularly reflects PR and PMP *-j (= Rawas –t). All other features of PR are reflected with varying degrees of transparency in contemporary Rawas. 2.1 Reconstructed PR Systems

Proto-Rejang had several typologically important features: seven vowels (attested in Rawas); a high degree of vowel harmony in the lexicon–even higher than attested in any contemporary dialect; word-level stress (accent) on the final syllabic vowel (attested in all dialects); and just two diphthongs–far fewer than attested in any contemporary dialect. See section 3. for discussion. 2.1.1 Phonemic Inventory Table 4. Proto-Rejang Consonants (23), Vowels (7) and Diphthongs (3) Proto-Rejang Consonants Proto-Rejang Vowels Stops & Affri- *p *t *c *k *? High *i *u cates *b *d *z *g *j [gy][4] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn4) Fricative *s Mid *e *« *o Plain Nasals *m *n *ñ *N ‘Barred’ Nasals *m“ *n“ *ñ“ *N“ Low ä *a Liquids *l *r Semivowels *w *y Diphthongs: *iw, *uy

PR *? was glottal stop; PR *r was presumably velar liquid (reflected as h or ? or zero in contemporary dialects); PR *ä was low, front and unrounded (reflected as ä in Rawas); and the series *m“, *n“, * ñ“, *N“ represents the ‘barred nasals’ (Coady and McGinn 1983). They are regular reflexes of PMP consonant sequences *-mb-, *-nd-, *-nz- and *-Ng-, respectively. 2.1.2 Seven Vowels of Proto-Rejang

PR had an inventory of seven vowels (witnessed in Rawas): *a, *e, *i, *o, *u, *«, *ä. Given that PMP had four vowels (*i, *u, *a, *e (=schwa)) it is obvious that PR *o, *e and *ä are innovations. Two facts are especially noteworthy about the innovating set. First, the relationship between PR *ä and *e is problematic; in particular, most instances of PR *ä are inherited from PMP whereas PR *e is attested only in borrowed words from Malay or from unknown sources, e.g. PR *kidek ‘evil; dirty’. Second, the following pan-dialectal constraint applies when the relevant vowels are available.. Given e or o or ä as the penultimate vowel in a word, only like vowels are permitted in ultimate position. The constraint governs not only native words like monok ‘chicken’ and läNät = leNet ‘sky’ but also many borrowed words like topoN ‘western-style hat’ (Malay topi) and mugo mugo (Malay moga-moga ‘hopefully’).[5] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn5) Also included are PR words of unknown origin, e.g. PR *kidek > PLM kide? = Kebanagung kidek = Rawas kede? ‘evil’. 2.1.3 PR Diphthongs and Accent

The accent (word-level stress) is assigned to the final non-syllabic vowel of the word in Proto-Rejang, as in all contemporary dialects (1.4.3). The accent almost certainly contributed to the spread of diphthongization of final vowels after dialect split. See section 3. 2.2. Proto-Rejang Diphthongs (Reflecting PMP Diphthongs)

PR diphthongs either reflect PMP diphthongs or are the result of vowel coalescence following loss of intervocalic *-q– or *-h-. Like much else in the reconstruction of Proto-Rejang, the Rawas evidence proves crucial, in part because it diverges sharply from the other dialects, and in part because it is conservative. Rawas retains PMP and PR diphthongs *iw and *uy as iw and uy, respectively. Thus, although Rawas reflects only two PMP diphthongs as diphthongs (vs. three in each of the other dialects), it does so conservatively. This section is designed to explain the following display. PMP Diphthongs: *iw, *uy, *aw, *ay Regular reflexes in PR: *iw, *uy Regular reflexes in Rawas: iw, uy The following are the diachronic rules for each dialect.. (1) PMP *aw and *iw merged as PR *iw (witnessed by Rawas iw). (2a) PMP *ay and *uy merged as PR *uy (witnessed by Rawas uy). (2b) PMP sequences *-aqi and *-ahi became *ay before merging with *uy (witnessed by Rawas uy), e.g. PMP *taqi > PR *tuy (Rawas tuy). See Appendix: (31),(222),(243) Consider the examples in Table 5. Table 5: Regular Reflexes of PMP Diphthongs PMP PR Pesisir Lebong Musi Keban Rawas Gloss 1. *danaw *daniw dan«w dan«w danuo dan«a daniw lake 2. *kahiw *kiiw ki«w ki«w kiuo ki«a kiiw wood 3. *qatay *atuy at«y at«y atie at«e atuy liver 4. *hapuy *upuy opoy opoy opoy opoy upuy fire after loss of PMP intervocalic *-q-: 5. *tinaqi *t«nuy t«n«y t«n«y t«nie t«n«e t«nuy guts See Appendix: (1),(11),(45),(61),(99),(121),(134),(177),(200),(251). After dialect split the following changes account for the attested outcomes shown in Table 5. Pesisir and Lebong 1) PR *iw > «w 2) PR *uy > «y 3) PR Gestalt *-u-uy > -o-oy Musi 1) PR *uy > ie 2) PR *iw > uo 3) PR Gestalt *u-uy > o-oy (cf. (c) above) Kebanagung 1) PR *uy > «e 2) PR *iw > «a 3) PR Gestalt *u-uy > o-oy (cf. (c) above) Rawas (no change): PMP/PR *iw and *uy > iw, uy respectively 2.3 Consonantal Change The following consonantal changes can be attributed to Proto-Rejang (PR). Special reference will be made to the evidence from Rawas and Kebanagung, because (with only one exception (see (2) below) the PR reflexes can be derived on the basis of evidence from these two dialects alone (see section 2.0). 2.3.1 Summary of Consonantal Changes in Proto-Rejang (PR) (1) PMP *h disappeared unconditionally in PR: PMP *hasaq > Rawas as«a? ‘sharp’; PMP *talih > Rawas til«y ‘rope’; PMP *buhek > Rawas buk ‘head hair’. Appendix: (14),(41), (45),(50),(97),(116),(118),(146),(167),(249).(200),(236).

(2) PMP *q became PR *? in word-final position and disappeared elsewhere. However, Rawas and Kebanagung display –h instead of expected glottal stop. The explanation may be attributed to the broad spectrum of contiguous languages with borrowed h for expected ? under areal pressure from Malay (Blust 1992:37). See 2.3.2.2 for discussion. PMP PR Pesisir Lebong Musi Keban Rawas Gloss *Rumaq *ruma? um«a? um«a? um«a? umah umah house *taneq *tana? tan«a? tan«a? tan«a? tanah tanah earth Appendix: (7),(18),(29),(32),(34),(42),(43),(44),(57),(60),(69),(85),(91),(135), (136),(126),(150),(168),(172),(174),(187),(200),(211),(219),(243),(234),(244),(245) (246),(253),(248),(250),(255),(256). (3) PMP *k > PR *k (all positions) is attested by Kebanagung. In the other dialects, including Rawas, word-final PMP and PR *-k > –?, thus partially merging with PMP *-q. PMP PR Pesisir Lebong Musi Keban Rawas Gloss *anak *anak ana? ano? ana? anak ana? child *balik *bäläk bele? bele? bele? belek bälä? return *buhuk *buk bu? bu? bu? buk bu? head hair

Notice that in Lebong PMP/PR *a regularly became o before *-k but not *-q: *anak > ano? beside *Rumaq > um«a? ‘house’ (umo?** is unattested). In the phonological system of Kebanagung –k = [?]; thus buk [bu?], belek [bele?], anak [ana?] as the result of an allophonic rule (McGinn 1997:68). Phonologically, therefore, Kebanagung retains traces of earlier distinctions among PMP *-q, *-k and *-j, to which we next turn. (4) PMP *j became PR *g between vowels but was retained as PR *-j in word-final position before splitting into Rawas –t, Kebanagung –g [k] and PLM –k [k]. PMP PR Pesisir Lebong Musi Keban Rawas GLOSS A *qap«ju *p«gu p«gaw p«gaw p«g«w n.c. p«g«w gall *najan *gän gen gen gen gen gän name B *pusej *pusej posok posok posok posog pus«t navel *qulej *ul«j olok olok olok olog ul«t caterpiller *lalej *dal«j dal«k dal«k dal«k dal«g dal«t housefly Appendix: (58),(79),(162),(170),(172),(181)

(5) PMP *p and *b remained unchanged in PR in all positions except under a specific morphological condition, namely, word-initially in transitive verbs PMP *p-[6] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn6) and *b-[7] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn7) were re-analyzed as prefixes (hence disappeared lexically). PMP *puluq > PR *pulu? ‘ten’ Rawas poloh ‘ten’ PMP *piliq > PR *ili? ‘choose’ Rawas äläh ‘choose’ Appendix (39),(255),(85),(80),(86) (6) PMP *w > PR *b regularly in initial position. Intervocalic PMP *w regularly disappeared in trisyllables (*ka-wanan > kan«n ‘rightside). In disyllables PMP intervocalic *w was regularly retained as PR *w but (irregularly) became -b- in one known case (PR *ñabi ‘soul’). PMP *wahiR > PR *biol ‘water’ Rawas biol PMP *hawak > PR *awak ‘body’ Kebanagung awak PMP *ñawa > PR *ñabi ‘soul’ Rawas ñab«y Appendix: (12),(20),(38),(98),(102),(123),(159),(215) (7) PMP *ñ was retained as PR *ñ word-initially but became *n between vowels. PMP *ñamuk > PR *ñomok ‘mosquito’ Rawas ñomo? PMP *ñawa > PR *ñabi ‘soul’ Rawas ñab«y PMP *ma-añud > PR *monot ‘float away’ Kebanagung monot Appendix: (149),(159),(160) (8) PMP *l was retained as PR *l in all positions, as attested in Rawas. In all dialects except Rawas word-final PMP and PR *l disappeared. PMP *gatel > PR *gatal Rawas gatal ‘itch’ Appendix: (19),(26),(27),(28),(35),(46),(47),(48),(59),(78),(102),(104),(128), (129),(131),(135),(136),(173),(240),(245)[8] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn8)

(9) PMP *r (presumably alveolar) is reflected as PR *r (presumed to be velar or possibly uvular; hereafter [+velar] for concreteness) in all consonant positions; after dialect split PR *r developed regularly in each dialect. In Kebanagung PR *r > h in all three positions; in the other dialects PR *r > ? between vowels and zero elsewhere. PMP *rimba > PR *rim“a Kebanagung him“o ‘jungle’ PMP *zari > PR *ziri Kebanagung jih«y ‘finger’ PMP *tirus > PR tirus Kebanagung (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn9)

tihus

‘tapering’[9]

PMP *bener > PR *b«n«r Kebanagung b«n«h ‘true’ Appendix: (6),(30),(190),(138),(207), (231),(258); cf. also (194), (230) (10) PMP *R was retained as PR *r in initial position. Intervocalically and word-finally, PMP *R split into PR *r and *l under complex conditions as discussed in section 2.3.2.3. PMP *Ratus > PR *rotos Kebanagung hotos ‘hundred’ PMP *baqeRu > PR *b«lu Kebanagung b«l«w ‘new’ PMP *libeR > PR *lib«r Kebanagung lib«h ‘wide’ Appendix: (20),(29),(32),(36),(40),(51),(67), (70),(71),(109),(130),(131), (134),(175),(188),(193),(200),(202),(221),(228),(234),(250) (11) PMP *z became PR *d word-initially in CV(C)VC canons; elsewhere PMP *z was retained as PR *z except in the intervocalic cluster *-nz- which collapsed as PR * ñ“. Schematically: PMP *z > d / #__V(C)VC[10] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn10) *z > z elsewhere PMP PR Pesisir Lebong Musi Keban Rawas Gloss A *zalan *dal«n dal«n dal«n dal«n dal«n dal«n road *zaRum *dolom dolom dolom dolom dolom dolom needle *zaqit *m«n-dät m«n“et m«n“et m«n“et m«n“et m«n“ät sew B *zari *ziri ji?ay ji?ay ji?«y jih«y ji?«y finger C *quzan *uz«n uj«n uj«n uj«n uj«n uj«n rain *tazem *taz«m taj«m taj«m taj«m taj«m taj«m sharp *pinzem *iñ“«m iñ“«m iñ“«m iñ“«m iñ“«m iñ“«m borrow Aslo Appendix: (114),(244) (12) Voiced stops devoiced in final position. PMP *bukid > PR bukit ‘hill’ Rawas bukit PMP *tunked > PR *tokot ‘staff, cane’ Rawas tokot (13) A number of processes resulted in original CVCCV(C) and CVCeCVC canons reducing to CVCVC or CVCV template. (a) “Prenasalized voiceless obstruents reduced to the simple obstruent.” (Blust 1984:428) PMP kempu > PR *k«pu ‘grandchild’ Rawas k«p«w Appendix: (107),(201),(204) (b) “Prenasalized voiced obstruents shifted to the corresponding barred nasal.” PMP *embun > PR *«m“un ‘cloud’ Rawas «m“un Appendix: (75),(76), (86), (166),(180),(190),(233),(235); see also (87) (c) “The first of successive consonants in a reduplicated monosyllable was dropped.” (Blust 1984:428) PMP *tektek > PR *t«tok ‘chop, hack’ Rawas t«to? PMP *tuktuk > PR *tutuk ‘pound rice’ Rawas tutu?

(d) CVCeCVC trisyllables regularly reduced to CVCCVC (schwa syncope[11] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn11)) followed by cluster reduction. (See also 2.4.1) PMP *tupelak > *tuplak > PR *tulak ‘push; reject’ Rawas tula? PMP *timeRaq > *timRaq > PR *tima? ‘tin’ Rawas timah (14) The following irregular consonant changes have been noted in all dialects, hence presumably occurred in PR. 1) PMP *k- > PR *g: PMP *kutu > PR *gutu (Rawas gut«w) ‘head louse’ 2) PMP *d- > PR *t: PMP *deNeR > PR *t«Noa (Keban t«Noa) ‘hear’ 3) PMP *-j- > PR zero: PMP *pajay > PR *pay (Rawas pay ‘rice plant’ 4) PMP *l- > PR *d: *lalej > PR *dal«j (Rawas dal«t) ‘housefly’ 5) PMP *-l- > PR *n: PMP *qateluR > PR *t«nol (Rawas t«nol) ‘egg’ 6) PMP *-w > zero: PMP *laRiw > PR *lili (Rawas lil«y `run’ 7) PMP *n- > PR *l-: PMP *nipis > PR *m«-lipis (Rawas m«lipis) ‘thin’ 8) PMP *b- > PR *-w-: PMP *bahi ‘female’ > Rawas root –wuy in s«lawuy ‘woman’. 9) PMP *-p- > PR -b-: PMP *ma-kapal > PR *k«bol > Rawas k«bol ‘thick’ 10) PMP *-nd- > -d-: PMP *pandak > PR *p«dak > Rawas p«da? ‘short’ In addition, the following irregular consonant changes were introduced after dialect split in the named dialects. 11) PR *b- > zero in PLM: PMP/PR *busuk > PLM usu? ‘rotten’ 12) PR *r- > zero in Kebanagung: PR *ruma? > Kebanagung umah ‘house’ All other consonants remain unaltered in all dialects. 2.3.2 Residual Problems With Reference To Consonantal Changes in PR This section discusses problems arising from the proposed PR consonant system. The solutions offered are somewhat tentative. 2.3.2.1 Split of PMP *R into PR *r and *l

All contemporary dialects contain one liquid–lateral l — from two sources in PMP, namely, *l and *R. Some of the derivations are complex, and there are residues from the proposed analysis which are duly noted. As noted in the previous section: (1) PMP *l was retained as PR *l in all positions (attested by Rawas l ). (2) PMP *r was retained as PR *r in all positions (attested by Kebanagung h). These retention facts, unproblematic in themselves, are crucial for the analysis of the fate of PMP *R. (3) Word-initially PMP *R- was retained as PR *r- ([+velar]). PR *r- is reflected by Kebanagung h– corresponding to zero in the other dialects. An unexplained loss of PR *r- occurs in Kebanagung umah (expected humah**) from PMP *Rumah ‘house’. PMP PR P&L Musi Keban Rawas GLOSS *Rakit *rakit eket eket heket äkät raft *Ratus *rotos otos otos hotos otos hundred *Rumaq *(r)uma? um«a? um«a? umah umah house (4) Between vowels PMP *-R- split between PR *-r- and *-l- conditioned by a morph-shape (Gestalt) condition. According to McGinn (1997:87): PMP intervocalic *R became l except in the following two environments: (a) *-R- disappeared in trisyllables (b) *-R- > *-h- in the environment C1V _2VC3 when the initial consonant was a noncoronal obstruent (*p-, *b-, *k-, (?)*g-)

In this paper we have substituted PR *-r- for the *-h- of the earlier analysis, but the substance is unchanged. Here is the data presented in McGinn (1997:87, Table 10) updated to include the Rawas data and new reconstructions (with *-r- replacing *-h-). Table 6: Split of PMP *-R PMP PR Pes & Leb Musi Keban. Rawas Gloss A *keRiN *k«riN k«?iN k«?iN k«hiN ki?iN dry *peRes *p«r«s n.c. p«?«s n.c. n.c. squeeze *buRuk *buruk bu?u? bu?u? buhuk n.c. decayed B *waRej *wal«t[12] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn12) bal«t bal«t bal«t n.c. root, vine *waRi *wili bilay bil«y bil«y bil«y day *baqeRu *b«lu b«law b«l«w b«l«w b«l«w new *daRaq *dalaq dal«a? dal«a? dalah dalah blood *zaRum *dalum dolom dolom dolom dolom needle *laRiw *lili lilay lil«y n.d. lil«y run *beRay *luy l«y lie l«e luy give *ma-iRaq *milaq mil«a? mil«a? n.c. n.c. red *qasiRa *sili silay sil«y sil«y n.c. salt C *beReqat *b«r«t b«?«t b«?«t b«h«t n.c. heavy — *b«n«g b«n«k (Leb) n.c. n.c. b«n«k heavy *deRes *d«r«s n.c. d«?«s d«h«s d«?«s swift (current)

The Rawas reflexes of PMP *-R- show the identical split as Pesisir, Lebong and Musi. Only Kebanagung is different, exactly as reported in McGinn (1997), which now gains support from the new evidence. Set C contains two unexplained residues of the analysis (expected b«l«t** and d«l«s**). Probably this pair of outcomes can be explained as regularized early borrowings from Malay deras and berat. (5) In word-final position PMP *-R split between PR *-r and *-l. Table 7: Split of PMP *-R PMP PR PL Musi Keban Rawas GLOSS A *wahiR *biol bioa bioa bioa biol water *niuR *niol nioa nioa nioa niol coconut *ikuR *ikol ikoa ikoa ikoa iko? (borr) tail *dapuR *dopol dopoa dopoa dopoa dopol hearth *qateluR *t«nol t«noa t«noa t«noa t«nol egg *deNeR *t«Nol t«Noa t«Noa t«Noa n.c. hear B *huluR *ulur ulua oloa uluh ulua lower *qapuR *upur upua opoa opoh upua chalk *tiDuR *tidur tidua tidoa tiduh tidua sleep *libeR *lib«r lib«a lib«a lib«h lib«a wide *qiliR *ilir n.c. elea ilih n.c. downstream C *bibiR *bibir bibia bebea (Nus) bibia lips

In McGinn (1997:86)–which lacked Rawas data–the question was: Under what conditions did PMP *-R become h in Kebanagung and zero in the other dialects? Given our analysis so far, the right question seems to be: Under what conditions did PMP *-R split into PR *-l and *-r ? Consider the complementation facts in sets A and B. All the forms in set A display PR *-ol and a the forms in set B show PR *-ir, *-ur or *-«r. PMP *-R thus evidently changed to PR *-l before derived *o, but became PR *-r elsewhere. This analysis assumes that pre-Rejang *-oR appeared before the consonantal split. Thus the split of PMP *R into PR *r, *l and zero was overwhelmingly regular. 2.3.2.2 Malay Influence in Early pre-Rejang Reflected in PR Consonants

(1) Three PR kin terms show irregular final *-k instead of expected *-? from PMP *-q. E.g. Kebanagung bapak ‘father’, kakak ‘elder sibling’, mamak ‘mother’s brother’ occur instead of expected bap«a?**, mam«a?**, kak«a?**. The explanation for the irregularity is early borrowing from Malay bapak, mamak, kakak. See McGinn (1997) for discussion.

(2) Rawas and Kebanagung show –h regularly corresponding to –? from PMP *-q in the other dialects. Whereas this derives in a straightforward way from PMP *q, it is less clear how it relates to Proto-Rejang. There are three possible ways to account for the correspondence set ?=?=?=h=h, none particularly satisfactory. The set reflects either (i) PR *-h from *-q, (ii) PR *-? from *-q, or (iii) a retention, namely PR *-q from *-q. Probably (i) should be rejected on the grounds that *h > ? is phonetically unlikely in the Austronesian world, if not universally. And possibility (iii) offers no new insight and therefore should be available only as a last resort. That leaves (ii), which like (i) suffers the consequence of an unlikely regular change, namely *? > –h in two Rejang dialects (Rawas and Kebanagung). However, there is another fact to be considered based on a suggestion by Blust (1992:37). Blust has suggested that –h has replaced the regular reflexes of PMP *-q in many languages over a broad and not always contiguous area in Java, Sumatra, and Borneo. Since this pattern represents a partial irregularity in language after language, it may be explained as an areal feature spread by the prestige of Malay, whose early history included the change *-q > h (see Adelaar 1992). Accepting this theory, and applying it to Rejang, I assume that PMP *-q became *-? in Proto-Rejang, which then was replaced by –h in Kebanagung and Rawas via borrowing from Malay. (Note that these two Rejang dialects just happen be the only ones in direct contact with Malay.) One advantage of the borrowing theory is that it helps to account for the peculiar distribution of Rawas h, which occurs only wordfinally. This fact would be surprising except for the assumption that Rawas –h is a borrowed phoneme.

In contrast, Kebanagung shows h in all positions, reflecting partial merger of PMP *R and *r as PR *r. Continuing with the consequences of the borrowing theory, in Kebanagung (but not Rawas) our presumed borrowed –h extended in its distribution through replacement of PR *r by h in all positions. (In the other dialects, PR *r became ? between vowels and zero elsewhere.) As a consequence of all these developments, r does not occur in native words, but is a sure sign of borrowing in Rejang, e.g. s«rgap ‘attack’ (all dialects) from Malay sergap. 3) Two outcomes showing PR intervocalic *-l- might be explained in terms of early Malay influence. Malay PR Rawas PMP Gloss lari *lili lil«y *laRiw run kura-kura *kuli kul«y — turtle Early borrowing from Malay lari as PR *lili is the probable source of Kebanagung and Rawas lil«y, which would account for the apparent loss of *-w (cf. PMP *laRiw ‘run’). Furthermore, Rawas –l– corresponding to Malay –r– suggests that the pre-Rejang form was *laRi (with velar or uvular *R) which occurs in Pagar Alam Malay. 4) Rawas añut (expected monot**) from Malay hanyut ‘drift away’ from PMP *ma-qañud. 5) PM b«?«t ‘heavy’, Keb b«h«t ‘heavy’ (expected b«l«t**) from Malay berat ‘heavy‘; cf. PMP *beReqat. The origin of PR *b«n«g (> Rawas, Lebong b«n«k ‘heavy’) is unknown. 6) PMP *ajeN > PR *araN (Rawas a?aN) ‘charcoal’ (expected ag«N**) from Malay arang. *** 7) PMP *tawad > PR *taw«r (Keban taw«h) ‘haggle’ (expected taw«t**) from Malay tawar. 2.4. Changes Affecting PMP Vowels in Proto-Rejang

The PMP inventory of four vowels (*i, *u, *a, *e (=schwa)) evolved into a seven-vowel system in PR by the addition of PR *o and *ä (= low front unrounded) plus a new phoneme PR *e introduced by early borrowing (see 5.0)). It is interesting that no new diphthongs developed between PMP and PR. Nineteen vocalic changes separating PMP and Proto-Rejang (PR) are illustrated in this section (2.4) followed by discussion (2.5). Rawas and Kebanagung dialect evidence is especially prominent in this section for reasons given in 2.0. (See section 3. for seventeen additional vocalic changes separating PR from contemporary Rawas.) 2.4.1 PR Reflexes of PMP *a (=7) PMP *-a is reflected as zero and six PR vowels (all except *e), namely: *a,* ä, *i, *u, *o, and *«. The changes were conditioned by the accent in every case. a) Vocalic Changes Reconstructed For Early Pre-Rejang And Conditioned (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn13)

By

Malay-type

Accent[13]

(1) *a > Ø *qaCV:CV(C) (prepenultimate *V unstressed) *ma-V:CV(C) (prepenultimate *V unstressed) The prepenultimate sequence PMP *qa- disappeared regularly. Moreover, in PMP affixes *mi-, and *um- (for which see below) and *ma- the vowel disappeared before a base-initial vowel. PMP *qapeju > PR *p«gu: > Rawas p«g«w PMP *ma-iRaq > PR *mila? > Pesisir mil«a? ‘red’ Appendix: (136),(146),(149),(150),(172),(200),(202),(221) (2a) *a > *« *CaCV:CV(C) (prepenultimate *V unstressed) PMP *baqeRu > PR *b«lu > Rawas b«l«w ‘new’ Appendix: (17),(28),(29),(40),(130),(136),(145),(149),(173),(200),(226) More generally, prepenultimate PMP *a, *i and *u became PR *« except where schwa syncope (2.3.1 (14)) applied first. PMP *tuqelaN > PR *t«lan > Rawas t«lan ‘bone’ PMP *tinaqi > PR *t«nuy > Rawas t«nuy ‘intestines’ To anticipate somewhat, two other cases of schwa syncope ‘bled’ prepenultimate neutralization (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn14)

of

PMP

*i

and

*u.[14]

PMP *tupelak > *tuplak > PR *tulak > Rawas tula? ‘push PMP *timeRaq > *timRaq > PR *tima? > Rawas timah ‘tin’ (2b) *a > *« *-V:CaC[-velar] (ultimate *a unstressed) PMP *bulan > bu:l«n > PR *bul«:n > Rawas bul«n ‘moon’ PMP *anak >*a:nak > PR *ana:k > Rawas ana? ‘child’ PMP *takebas > *t«ba:s > PR *t«ba:s > Rawas t«bas ‘clear-cut’ PMP *daqan >*dan > PR *dan > Rawas dan ‘branch’ Appendix: (3),(43),(46),(47),(57),(59),(60),(69),(81),(88),(97),(98),(104),(110), (115),(123),(117),(136),(139),(145),(150),(164),(166),(167),(168),(180),(193),(204), (213),(215),(219),(225),(226),(229),(234),(238),(239),(246),(253),(256); See section 2.4.6.1 for discussion. (2c) *a > *« *-VCa (all vowels unstressed in function words; see 3.3) PMP *(k)ita > PR *it« > Rawas it« 1Ppl(incl) PMP *ni-a > PR *n« > Rawas n« 3Psg(agent-possessive) PMP *duha > pre-Rejang *du:« Appendix: (113),(156) See (3a) below for further changes affecting content words, and section 3.3 for pronouns and other function words. b) Vocalic Changes Reconstructed For Late Pre-Rejang And Conditioned By Contemporary Accent (3a) *-a > *-« > *-«: > *i (last step applied to output of (2c)) *-V:Ca > *-V:C« > *-VC«: > -VCi: 1 2 3 4 PMP *duha > *du:« > du«: > PR *dui: > Kebanagung dui ‘two’ PMP *tuqa > *tu:« > tu«: > PR *tui: > Kebanagung tui ‘old’ PMP *buNa > *bu:N« > buN«: > PR *buNi: > Kebanagung buNi ‘flower’ Appendix: (49),(72),(140),(159),(238),(130)

Outcomes (2b), (2c) and (3a) are obviously closely related. When described together, they bring several issues into focus, including the following. (i) 1st Stress Shift to Malay-type pattern (ii) 2nd Stress Shift to contemporary pattern; (iii) neutralization of unstressed vowels; (iv) strengthening (eventual diphthongization) of stressed vowels; and (v) non-participation of grammatical function words (=clitics) in vocalic strengthening rules. Table 8 displays the skeletal history just described. Crucially for the theory developed here and in McGinn (1997), word-level stress (accent) is assigned metrically within the disyllabic base; thus monosyllables like ba were exempt (see 4.3). Stressed vowels are represented by a colon. Table 8a: Two Stress Shifts In Relation to Three Regular PR Outcomes for PMP *-a in Open Final Syllables PMP (accent unknown) *teka *ba *(k)ita *duha Early pre-Rej (Malay-type accent) *t«ka: *ba *it« *du:« Late pre-Rej (contemporary accent) *t«ka: *ba *it« *du«: Proto-Rejang *t«ka: *ba *it« *dui: Contemporary Kebanagung t«ko ba it« dui Contemporary Rawas t«kaw ba it« du«y Gloss ‘come’ particle ‘1Ppl(incl)’ ‘two’

The crucial step is underlined in Table 8a. Under the influence of the reconstructed Malay-type accent in early pre-Rejang, word-final vowels were unstressed when the penultimate vowel was *« (schwa); otherwise the penultimate vowel was stressed. These assumptions underlie the following derivation of the Rawas diphthong «y from PR *i and PMP *-a. PR Rawas PMP *-a > –« > –«: > -i: > «y | | | | | (accent unstressed stressed stressed stressed unknown)

First, unstressed *-a regularly became *« (schwa). Then, after the accent shifted (=late pre-Rejang), stressed *-«: became *-i and later (after dialect split) became «y in Rawas (3.2). The reason the pronoun it«~t« escaped diphthongization is that all function words (including pronouns) behaved like unstressed or de-stressed clitics in Proto-Rejang, hence systematically escaped the earliest vocalic changes affecting stressed vowels. See McGinn (1997) and section 2.4.6.1 below.

These same themes come into play in the PR outcomes shown in (2b), as shown in Table 8b below. Again the major issue concerns the conditions for neutralization of unstressed reflexes of PMP final-syllable *a–in this case, when the final syllable was closed (final -C = non-velar); it did not affect stressed vowels (*t«ba:s) nor monosyllables, which bear no metrical stress at all. Table 8b: Two Stress Shifts In Relation to Two Regular PR Outcomes for PMP *-a in Closed Final Syllables PMP (accent unknown) *hasap *anak *daqan *takebas Early pre-Rej (Malay-type accent) *a:s«p *a:nak *dan *t«ba:s Late pre-Rej (contemporary accent) *as«:p *ana:k *dan *t«ba:s Proto-Rejang *as«p *ana:k *dan *t«ba:s Contemporary Kebanagung as«:p ana:k dan t«ba:s Contemporary Rawas as«:p ana:? dan t«ba:s Gloss ‘smoke’ ‘child’ ‘branch ‘clear-cut’

The crucial step is underlined in Table 8b. The unity of the processes displayed in Tables 8a and 8b was expressed as a single formula in McGinn (1997). This unity remains valid after reviewing the Rawas data. See 2.4.6.1 and 4.2.2. (3b) *a > *i *-aCi: (*a unstressed) PMP *talih > *ta:li > PR *tili: > Rawas til«y ‘rope’ Appendix: (38),(40),(258) (4) *a > *u *-aCu: (*a unstressed) PMP *sapu > *sa:pu > PR *supu: > Rawas sup«w ‘broom’ Appendix: (52),(119),(247) (5) *a > *o *-aCu:C (*a unstressed) PMP *manuk > PR *mono:k > Rawas mono? ‘chicken’ Appendix: (70),(71),(148),(149),(191),(205) (6) *a > *ä *-aCi:C (*a unstressed) PMP *laNit > * la:Nit > PR *läNä:t > Rawas läNät ‘sky’ Appendix: (25),(26),(188),(124)(144) (7) *a > *a Elsewhere, PMP *a was retained as PR *a.

Two noteworthy retentions of PMP *a concern (i) monosyllables such as PMP *ba, and (ii) ‘oxytone’ bases with open final syllables, such as PMP *t«ka. Such forms regularly retained *-a in PR (Table 8a above); after dialect split PR *-a was retained in monosyllables (all dialects), but *-a became aw in Rawas disyllabic bases (corresponding to –o in the other dialects–perhaps with *aw as intermediate step). PMP *teka > PR *t«ka: > Kebanagung t«ko = Rawas t«kaw ‘come’ PMP *ba > PR *ba > Kebanagung ba = Rawas ba ’emphatic particle’. Appendix: (106),(128),(190),(218),(224),(233); cf. (56) 2.4.2 PR Reflexes of PMP *e (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn15) (=5)

(schwa)[15]

PMP *e (schwa) is reflected as zero and four PR vowels, namely: *a, *o, *ä, *«. The changes occurred in late pre-Rejang and were conditioned by the contemporary accent. In all contemporary Rejang dialects (hence PR) the accent falls predictably on the final syllabic vowel of the word. (1) *e (schwa) > Ø *«CV:C (schwa unstressed) PMP *emis > *«mi:s > PR *mis > Rawas mis ‘sweet’ PMP *mi-hepi > *mi-«pi: > PR *mipi > Rawas mip«y ‘dream’ Appendix: (146),(147),(167) (2) *e (schwa) > *a *-VC«:C (schwa stressed) PMP *taneq > PR *tana:? > Rawas tanah ‘earth’ Appendix: (135),(211); cf. (78),(252) (3) *e (schwa) > *o *-«C«:C[+velar] (schwa stressed) PMP *tektek > PR *t«to:k > Rawas t«to? ‘chop, hack’ PMP *wahiR > *w«y«R > *w«yoR > PR biol > Rawas biol ‘water’ Appendix: (80),(223),(227); see 2.4.6.4 for discussion. (4) *e (schwa) > *ä *-iC«:C[-velar] (schwa stressed) PMP *ipen > PR *äpä:n > Rawas äpän ‘tooth Appendix: (14),(15),(16),(86),(131),(143); see 3.2.1 for discussion. (5) *e (schwa) > *« (elsewhere) PMP *bales > PR *bal«:s > Rawas bal«s ‘reply’ PMP *lesuN > PR *l«su:N > Rawas l«suN ‘mortar’ 2.4.3 PR Reflexes of PMP *i (=4) PMP *i is reflected as zero and three PR vowels, namely: *ä, *«, *i. The changes were conditioned by the accent in every case. a) Vocalic Changes Reconstructed For Early Pre-Rejang And Conditioned By Malay-type Accent (1) *i > *« *CiCV:CV(C) (prepenultimate *V unstressed) PMP *tinaqi > *t«naqi > *t«nai > PR *t«nuy > Rawas t«nuy ‘intestines’ cf. PMP *timeRaq > *timRaq > PR *tima? > Pesisir tim«a? ‘tin’ Appendix: (3); see 2.4.1 for discussion. b) Vocalic Changes Reconstructed For Late Pre-Rejang And Conditioned By the Contemporary Accent (1b) *i > « *CiCV:(C) (*i unstressed) PMP *lima > PR *l«ma: > Rawas l«maw ‘five’ PMP *silun > PR *s«lo:n > Kebanagung s«lon ‘claw’ PMP *gilap > PR g«l«:p > Pesisir g«l«p ‘flash’ Appendix: (81),(128),(199); see Blust (1984:437) and below n. 18. (2) *i > *ä *-aCi:C (*i stressed) PMP *laNit > PR *läNä:t > Rawas läNät‘sky’ Appendix: (25),(26),(124),(144),(188); see 2.4.6.3 for discussion. (3) *i > Ø niV (all vowels unstressed in function words) PMP *ni-a > *na > PR *n« > Rawas n« ‘3Psg (agt-poss)’ PMP *ni-hu > *niu > PR *nu > Kebanagung nu ‘2Sg (agt-poss)’ See 3.3 for discussion. 2.4.4 PR Reflexes of PMP *u (=4) PMP *u is reflected as zero and three PR vowels, namely: *o, *«, *u. The changes were conditioned by the accent in every case. a) Vocalic Changes Reconstructed For Early Pre-Rejang And Conditioned By Malay-type Accent (1) *u > Ø *uCV:CV(C) (prepenultimate *V unstressed) PMP *um-imem > PR *min«m > Kebanagung menem ‘drink’ Appendix: (143),(150); see 2.4.1(1). (2) *u > *« *CuCV:CV(C) (prepenultimate *V unstressed) PMP *tuqelaN > PR *t«la:n > Rawas t«lan ‘bone’ Appendix: (219); see 2.4.1 for discussion. b) Vocalic Changes Reconstructed For Late Pre-Rejang And Conditioned By the Contemporary Accent (3a) *u > *o *-aCu:C (*u stressed) PMP *manuk > PR *mono:k > Rawas mono? ‘chicken’ Appendix: (70),(71),(148),(149),(191),(205) (3b) *u > *o *-i(C)uC[+velar] PMP *ikuR > PR *iko:l > Kebanagung ikoa ‘tail’ PMP *niuR > *nio:R > PR *niol > Rawas niol ‘coconut’ Appendix: (84),(157); cf. also (87) (4) *u > *u (elsewhere) PMP *kamu > PR *kumu > Rawas kum«w ‘you Sg (honorific)’ (3.2.3) PMP *sapu > PR *supu: > Rawas sup«w ‘broom’ (3.2.3) PMP *lesuN > PR *l«su:N > Rawas l«suN ‘mortar’ PMP *buhek > PR *buk > Rawas bu? ‘head hair’ PMP *quzan > PR *uz«n > Rawas uj«n ‘rain’ 2.4.5 Low-Frequency Vocalic Changes and Other Residues

Although low-frequency changes may be inappropriate to describe in terms of a ‘regularity hypothesis’, they may be viewed as typologically characteristic of the language in question. This section lists a number of analytic residues, including cases wherein early changes triggered re-syllabification in Proto-Rejang.

1) The mid front vowel PR *e is not derivable from PMP. It is assumed to have existed in PR as an early borrowing from unknown sources. More generally, accounting historically for the contemporary contrast between e and ä in Rawas is a major problem discussed in 5.0. 2) A number of cases of vowel coalescence followed the loss of PMP intervocalic laryngeals. a) Intermediate *CaiC > PR *CäC or *C«y«C PMP *paqit > *pait > PR *pät > Rawas pät (=PLMK pet) ‘bitter’. PMP *nahik > *naik > PR *näk > Rawas nä? = PLM ne? = K nek) ‘climb’. However, in at least one other example *CaiC > C«y«C (Blust 1984:429). PMP *wahiR > *waiR > *w«y«R > *w«yoR > PR *biol > Rawas biol ‘water’ cf. PMP *lain > PR *lain > Pesisir lain ‘other’. Note that parallel changes did not affect *CauC. PMP *taqun > PR *taun > PLMK taun ‘year’ (Rawas ton) PMP *lahud > PR *laut > Rawas laut ‘sea’. PMP *daun > PR *daun > Rawas daun b) Intermediate *Cau > PR *Co PMP *kahu > *kau > PR *ko > PLMK ko ‘2Psg’ pronoun. (Later in Rawas PR *ko underwent lexical replacement by kab«n. See 3.3.2.) c) Intermediate *Cai > PR *Cuy PMP *bahi > *bai > PR *s«la-wuy > Rawas s«lawuy ‘woman’ PMP *tinaqi > *tinai > PR *t«nuy ‘stomach’. See 2.1.3. cf. PMP *ay regularly became *uy (2.2) 3) Two words ending with diphthongs underwent different vocalic changes than words ending with simple consonants. a) PMP *kahiw > *kaiw > PR *kiiw > Rawas kiiw ‘wood’ (not käw**) contrasts with the regular outcome for intermediate CaiC.

b) PMP *hapuy > *apuy > PR *upuy > Rawas upuy ‘fire’ (not PR opoy**) contrasts with the regular outcome for intermediate *CaCuC > CoCoC, e.g. *manuk > PR *monok ‘chicken’. See discussion of vowel harmonization in 2.4.6. 5) Another Gestalt Condition triggered *u-Lowering (McGinn (1997:82). *u > o /iC _ C [+velar]# :where [+velar] = reflexes | of PMP velars and *R [-stress] This rule accounts for PR *o from PMP *u in the outcomes shown below. PMP pre-Rej PR Musi P&L Keban. Rawas Gloss — *i:ndok *in“ok in“o? in“o? in“ok in“o? mother *biluk *i:lok *ilok ilo? ilo? n.c. belo?[16] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn16) turn, veer *niuR *ni:oR *niol nioa nioa nioa niol coconut Elsewhere in the same environment PMP *u is reflected as PR u, e.g. PMP *buRuk > PLMK bu?u? ‘decayed’; PMP *lesuN > PR *l«suN (Rawas l«suN ‘mortar’.

The rule presumably occurred in early pre-Rejang, hence the GC included the Malay-type accent. Thus, unstressed ultimate *u was lowered to o when preceded by high front *i and followed by a velar or *R and word boundary. The change involved a degree of `action at a distance’ since *u was affected only when the (stressed) penult was *i. See McGinn (1997, Table 7) for discussion. 5) The PMP end-rhyme *-el became PR *-al in the only known example. PMP PR PLM Keb Rawas Gloss *gatel *gatal gata gata gatal itch 6) The PMP end-rhyme *-ej was retained as PR *-«j in the only known example. In contrast, a parallel end-rhyme, namely PMP *-eq, regularly became PR *-a?. PMP PR PLM Keb Rawas Gloss *lalej *dal«j dal«k dal«g dal«t housefly cf. *taneq *tana? tan«a? tanah tanah earth 7) PMP *-a is irregularly reflected as PR *-a (expected *-i) in one form: PMP *dada > PR *dada ‘chest; breast. 2.4.6 Discussion: Toward ‘Perfect’ Harmony in the Proto-Rejang Lexicon

All Rejang dialects exhibit a high degree of vowel harmony in the lexicon. Yet the degree of vowel harmony may have been greater at an earlier stage between PMP and PR, called preRejang in McGinn (1999). In this paper, the middle ground is occupied by Proto-Rejang, where two systems of vowel harmony split the lexicon, as follows. System A System B [non-*a] [based on *a] *i *u *e (*«) *o (*«) *a

Note that any change producing schwa within the disyllabic word-base automatically harmonized it, because schwa was–and is–the neutral vowel (thus equally at home in System A or System B); and also because all prepenultimate vowels (e.g. affixal vowels) were schwa in PR, as in contemporary dialects. Note too that whereas harmonization of PMP *a-i and *a-u vowel pairs as PR *u-u or *o-o and *i-i or ä-ä, respectively, affected previously un-harmonic vowel pairs, other PMP vowel pairs were in effect ‘pre-harmonized’ (e.g. PMP and PR *a-a, *u-i, *u-«, *i-«, *«-u among others); moreover, other PMP vowel pairs underwent vocalic shifting without thereby failing to contribute to the emerging harmony of the lexicon, including two vocalic dissimilation changes. Thus the outcomes of PMP *«–«C[+velar] > PR *«-o (e.g. PMP *t«kt«k > PR *t«tok ‘chop, hack’) and PMP *i-uC[+velar] > *i-oC (e.g. PMP *niuR > PR *niol ‘coconut’) satisfied System A.

Readers can satisfy themselves with respect to the degree of vowel harmony of the reconstructed PR lexicon by simply perusing the Appendix, where it will be noticed that a substantial set of unharmonic PR forms reflect PMP *-a as *-i (e.g. *mati from PMP *mata ‘eye’). But the members of this set derive from etyma that were harmonized earlier, e.g. pre-Rejang *mat«. We turn to this topic next. 2.4.6.1 From PMP to Early Pre-Rejang: Some Early Vocalic Changes

Probably the earliest set of changes leading to vowel harmony effectuated neutralization of last-syllable PMP *a in open and closed syllables. In particular, after the shift to the Malay-type stress pattern, last-syllable PMP *-a and *-aC became *-« and *«C, respectively. Although the conditions are complex in both cases, they can be captured by a single formula (McGinn 1997). First, consider each change individually. i) *-V:CaC[-velar] > *-V:C«C[-velar] PMP *quzan > pre-Rejang *u:z«n ‘rain’ (Table 8b above and Table 9A below) ii) *-V:Ca > *-V:C« PMP *mata > pre-Rejang *ma:t« ‘ eye’ (Table 8a above and 2.4.1)

When the final syllable was closed, the change failed to occur under the following conditions: when *a was stressed (as in intermediate pre-Rejang *t«ba:s ‘clear-cut’); when *a stood alone in a monosyllable (where the concept of word-level stress differentiation is theoretically vacuous, as in pre-Rejang *dan ‘branch’); and when the final consonant was velar (pre-Rejang *a:nak). See Table 9B. When the final syllable was open, on the other hand, as in PMP *mata, the change failed to occur under the following conditions: when *a was stressed (as in preRejang *t«ka:); and when *a was preceded by a consonant cluster (as in pre-Rejang *ti:mba). See Table 9A. These effects can be represented in the following formula (repeated from McGinn (1997:75)). *a > « /-V(C) _ _ (C[-velar])# (Malay-type accent) | [-stress] Table 9A: Partial Merger of PMP *a and *e as PR *« When the final Syllable Was Open PMP pre-Rej PR Pes Leb Musi Keb Rawas Gloss *duha *du:« *dui: duay duay du«y dui du«y two *mata *ma:t« *mati: matay matay mat«y mat«y mat«y eye *teka *t«ka: *t«ka: t«ko t«ko t«ko t«ko t«kaw come *timba *ti:mba *tim“a: tim“o tim“o tim“o tim“o tim“aw pail Appendix: (17),(28),(45),(49),(72),(106),(128),(130),(156),(159),(190),(197), (202), (216) (218),(224),(233),(238) Table 9A: Partial Merger of PMP *a and *e as PR *« When the final Syllable Was Closed PMP PR Pesisir Lebong Musi Keban. Rawas Gloss A *hasap *as«p as«p as«p as«p as«p as«p smoke *panas *pan«s pan«s pan«s pan«s pan«s pan«s hot *taNan *taN«n taN«n taN«n taN«n taN«n taN«n hand *quzan *uz«n uj«n uj«n uj«n uj«n uj«n rain B *anak *anak ana/ ano? ana/ anak anak child *hawak *awak awa/ awo? awa/ awak awak body *panzaN *pañ“aN pañ“aN pañ“aN pañ“aN pañ“aN pañ“aN long *hisaN *isaN isaN isaN isaN isaN isaN gills *t«baN *t«baN n.d. t«baN t«baN n.d. t«baN fell (tree) C. *daRaq *dala? dal«a? dal«a/ dal«a/ dalah dalah blood *dilaq *dila? dil«a? dil«a/ dil«a/ dilah dilah tongue *ma-iRaq *mila? mil«a? mil«a/ mil«a/ n.c. n.c. red *Rumaq *(r)uma? um«a? um«a/ um«a/ umah umah house D *hekan *kan kan kan kan kan kan fish *daqan *dan dan dan dan dan dan branch *hepat *pat pat pat pat pat pat four *qayam *yam yam yam yam yam yam toy E. *tebaN *t«baN n.d. t«baN t«baN n.d. t«baN fell (tree) *takebas *t«bas t«bas t«bas t«bas t«bas t«bas clear-cut *tuqelaN *t«lan t«lan t«lan t«lan t«lan t«lan bone Appendix: (3),(18),(22),(27),(32),(43),(46),(47),(57),(59),(60), (79),(88),(96), (104),(105),(117),(123),(139),(150),(151),(164),(166),(168),(180),(193),(195), (204),(207),(213),(215),(219),(225),(226),(229),(234), (235),(239),(246),(253),(256)

Sets B and C indicate that the change did not occur when the word-final consonant reflected a PMP velar; recall that PMP *q was a voiceless back velar stop (Blust 1991c); hence the forms in set C were excluded (after dialect split the vowel diphthongized in PLM but not K&R (3.2.3.1). Sets D and E indicate that monosyllables and `oxytones’ regularly escaped the change, for reasons of the accent. Thus, given the Malay-type pattern at the time the change occurred, the etyma in set E were accented on the ultimate vowel in pre-Rejang; therefore the change did not apply. As for set D, the change did not affect monosyllables, which lack metrical (word-level) accent (4.2). Note that t«baN falls in two sets: set B by virtue of the final consonant and set E by virtue of the penult vowel. 2.4.6.2 Interlude: Rule Order vs. Rule Complementation McGinn (1997:71) argued that syllable-reduction rules producing monosyllables (e.g. Kebanagung dan from PMP *daqan) and oxytones (e.g. Kebanagung t«lan

from *tuqelaN) must be ordered before the merger of PMP *-aC and *-eC as PR *-«C. The Rawas data support this analysis without exception. Even more interestingly, the partial merger in question was complemented by other changes discussed in 3.2.1 and 4.2.2. Notably, the vowel assimilation process that produced PMP *qutek > Kebanagung *otok ‘brain’ was restricted to etyma ending with reflexes of PMP and PR velars *k and *j in all dialects except Rawas, which underwent a different set of changes. The Rawas evidence is conclusive that harmonization of PMP *qutek > Musi oto? occurred later than *-aC > *-«C, and therefore (as argued on independent grounds in earlier work), rule ordering (‘bleeding order’) is not a possible explanation for the failure of e.g. PMP *bulat > PR *bul«t ‘round’ and PMP *quzan > PR *uj«n ‘rain’ to become harmonized as unattested bolot** and ojon** in Kebanagung, Musi, Lebong and Pesisir. This argument is developed fully in 4.2.2. 2.4.6.3 Second Stress Shift and Vowel Harmony

Some GCs contrast solely in terms of whether the final syllable is open or closed. As recognized by Blust (1984), PMP vowel pairs *a-i and *a-u evolved differently in CVCV and CVCVC canons. See examples (5)-(6) of Table 3 and 2.4.1 changes (3b) and (4). In CVCV morphs the PMP vowel pairs *a-u and *a-i became PR *u-u and *i-i prior to diphthongizing the final vowels (see 3.2.4 below). Schematically: 2nd Stress Shift -V:-V- > -V-V:*a Harmonization a-u: > u-u: *sapu: > *supu: ‘broom’ a-i: > i-i: *tali: > *tili: ‘rope’ Diphthongization (de-Harmonization) *supu: > supaw ‘broom’ (P&L) *tili: > tilay ‘rope’ (P&L) *supu: > sup«w (MKR) *tili: > til«y (MKR) By contrast, in CVCVC morphs the same PMP vowel pairs became PR *o-o and *ä-ä, respectively, as shown in (7)-(8) of Table 3 and 2.4.1 (5) and (6). Schematically: 2nd Stress Shift -V:-V- > -V-V:*a shift/backing *-aCu:C > *-Cu:C *manu:k > *mnu:k `chicken’ *a shift/fronting *-aCi:C > *-ä:CiC *laNi:t > *läNi:t ‘sky’ Harmonization CCu:C > CoCo:C *mnu:k > mono:k ‘chicken’ CäCiC > CäCäC *läNi:t > läNä:t ‘sky’ 2.4.6.4 Dissimilation Without Deharmonization

Two rather similar rules called *u Lowering and *« Backing in McGinn (1997) introduced further instances of PR mid back *o. Both involved dissimilation; however, unlike later cases of dissimilation, the outcomes satisfied vowel harmony System A (see 2.4.6). PMP pre-Rej *u Lowering: *-i:CuC[+velar] > *-iCC *ikuR *i:koR ‘tail’ PMP PR *« Backing: *-«–«:C[+velar] > «-oC *tektek *t«to:k ‘chop’ *u Lowering was conditioned by the Malay-type stress pattern; see 2.4.6

*« Backing presumably applied later because it affected stressed schwa. Evidence for *« Backing is shown in Table 10[17] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn17). Note how *« Backing affected set A but not B below[18] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn18). Table 10: Evidence for *«–Backing PMP Pre-Rej PR PLM Keban. Rawas Gloss A *deNeR d«No:R t«Noa t«Noa n.c. hear *pegeN p«go:N goN goN goN hold *tektek *t«t«k t«to:k t«to? t«tok t«tok chop, hack *wahiR *w«y«R>w«yoR bio:l bioa bioa biol water B *peRes p«r«:s p«?«s n.c. n.c. squeeze *genep g«n«:p g«n«p g«n«p g«n«p complete *gilap *g«l«p g«l«:p g«l«p g«l«p n.c. flash *bener *b«n«:r b«n«:a b«n«a b«n«h b«n«a true *tawed *taw«:r taw«:a taw«a taw«h taw«a haggle *libeR *lib«:r lib«:a lib«a lib«h lib«a wide Given the vowel-pair PMP *e-e (both schwa), *«–Backing changed (backed) the stressed member when followed a PMP velar ( PMP *R was presumably velar). The velarity condition explains the failure of the change to affect the forms in set B. 3. From Proto-Rejang to Contemporary Rawas

Much of Rawas’ linguistic history has already been accounted for in the previous sections; this is inevitable given the methodological convenience of illustrating our reconstructed PR using Rawas evidence wherever possible (2.0). Moreover, apart from minor advancements noted in 4.1 below, the history of the other dialects is well known from previous studies (Blust 1984; McGinn 1997; 4.2 below). What remains to be accounted for are just the special features of Rawas, that is, the systematic exceptions to patterns of continuity and change in the other dialects. The following changes occurred in Rawas (and only Rawas) after dialect split. a) Diphthongization of final *i and *u in grammatical function words (3.3;4.2). b) Change of PMP/PR *-j > t ‘bleeding’ *u-« Harmonization (3.2.1). c) Retention of PR *-l ‘bleeding’ diphthongization of the tautosyllabic vowel (3.2.3.1). In addition, Rawas shares the following with Kebanagung. d) Borrowing (from Malay) of word-final –h (replacing PR *-? from PMP *-q) accompanied by systematic failure of tautosyllabic vowels to diphthongize (3.2.3.1).

These five developments are described under two topics: harmonization of the PMP/PR sequence *uCe in all dialects except Rawas, and diphthongization of PMP/PR final vowels. These topics are definitive of the Rejang language typologically, and are the major sources of dialect diversity. In particular, as noted in 1.0, Rawas’ conservatism plays a major role in the description. To properly interpret some changes in the other dialects, it is always helpful–and sometimes necessary–to know what happened in Rawas. 3.1 Summary of Proto-Rejang Outcomes in Rawas

For Rawas diphthongs from PR diphthongs, see 2.2; for Rawas consonants from PR consonants, see (c)-(e) above and 2.3. The remainder of this section is devoted to the Rawas reflexes of PR vowels. The seven vowels of PR are reflected as 17 regular outcomes in Rawas, resulting in seven vowels and eight (new) diphthongs, summarized in Table 11. The following vocalic developments in Rawas are the unexplained residues of the analysis presented in this paper. 1) Rawas pokot ‘fish trap’ (=Keb puk«t); expected puk«t from PR *puk«t; see 3.2.2 for discussion. Other Rawas words showing vowel harmony unattested in the other dialects (and without clear conditions) are PR *kidek > Rawas kede? ‘evil’; PR *k«?iN > ki?iN ‘dry’, PR *b«?u? > bu?u? ‘ape’. 2) Rawas mouy ‘crocodile (=Keb bua«y); expected buuy** from PR *buuy. 3) Malay Influence may account for the following irregular vocalic outcomes in Rawas. a) Rawas tan“« ‘sign’ (cf. PMP *tanda ‘sign’); expected Rawas tan“aw** = Keb tan“o). See Table 13. Probable source: Besemah Malay. b) Rawas kait ‘fish hook’; also Kebanagung kait (cf. PMP *kawit, PR *käwät ‘hook’); expected Rawas käwät** = Pesisir kewet). c) All dialects including Rawas tokot ‘staff, cane’ (cf. PMP *tuNked ‘staff, cane’); expected tuk«t** (all dialects). See 3.2.2 for discussion. 3.2 Patterns of Vocalic Change in Rawas

After dialect split, Gestalt Conditions (GC–see 1.5) continued to play a role in vocalic change in Rawas. In particular, all vocalic changes were conditioned by the contemporary accent. It is important to bear in mind that the accent, being predictable on the final syllable of the word, does not appear in the phonemic representations. See 1.3.3.

As mentioned in 3.0, two classes of vocalic change having unique effects in Rawas were (i) diphthongization of vowels (which affected each dialect in different ways); and (ii) harmonization of the PMP/PR vowel-pair *u-« (which affected four of five dialects–all except Rawas). Let us begin with the latter, which is particularly striking for the way in which the Rawas evidence sheds light on the other dialects. Table 11. Regular Development of Vowels and Diphthongs in Rawas PR *a (2) CHANGE SEC. RAWAS DEVELOPMENT KEBAN. COGNATE 1) *-a > aw 3.2.3 PR *t«ka > t«kaw ‘come’ (cf. K t«ko) 2) *a > a 2.4.1 PR *mati > mat«y ‘eye’ (cf. K mat«y) PR *« (3) 1) *« > «a 3.2.3 PR *b«n«r > b«n«a ‘true’ (cf. K b«n«h) 2) *« > a 3.2.1 PR *ut«k > uta? ‘brain’ (cf. K otok) 3) *« > « 3.2.1 PR *pus«j > pus«t ‘navel’ (cf. K posog) 3.3.2 PR *it« > it« ‘we (incl)’ (cf. K it«) PR *i (5) 1) *i > «y 3.2.3 PR *tili > til«y ‘rope’ (cf. K til«y) 2) *i > ia 3.2.3 PR *bibir > bibia ‘lip’ (cf. K bebea) 3) *i > ä 3.2.3 PR *pili? > päläh ‘choose’ (cf. K peleah) 4) *i > äy 3.3.2 PR *kimi > kämäy ‘1Ppl (excl)’ (cf. K keme) 5) *i > i — PR *isi > is«y ‘contents’ (cf. K is«y) PR *u (4) 1) *u > «w 3.2.3 PR *supu > sup«w ‘broom’ (cf. K sup«w) 2) *u > ua 3.2.3 PR *ulur > ulua ‘lower’ (cf. K oloa) 3) *u > o 3.2.3 PR *pulu? > poloh ‘ten’ (cf. K poloah) 4) *u > u — PR *l«suN > l«suN ‘mortar’ (cf. K l«suN) PR *o, *e, *ä (3)(all retentions) 1) *o > o PR *monok > mono? ‘chicken’ (cf. K monok) 2) *e > e PR *kidek > kede? ‘rotten’ (cf. K kidek) 3) *ä > ä PR *läNät > läNät ‘sky’ (cf. K leNet) PR *äpän > äpän ‘tooth’ (cf. K epen) 3.2.1 Harmonization of PMP Vowel pairs *u-e and *i-e We return next to examples (9)-(10) of Table 3 (1.5). A complete display of the relevant data is provided in Table 12, especially sets A and D. Table 12: Harmonization of PMP/PR *i-« and *u-« PMP PR PLM Keban. Rawas Gloss A *ipen *äpän epen epen äpän tooth *isep *äsäp esep esep äsäp suck *hiket *äkät eket eket äkät to tie *um-inem *min«m menem menem n.c. drink B *libeR *lib«r lib«a lib«h lib«a wide *pinzem *piñ“«m iñ“«m iñ“«m iñ“«m borrow *lalej *dal«j dal«k dal«g dal«t housefly *gilap *gil«p>*g«l«p g«l«p g«l«p n.c. flash C. *kizep *kij«p s«-kij«p k«nd«rij«p k«dip blink *kilat — g«l«p smitoa kil«t lightning *tikam *tujaq tik«m tujah tujah to stab D *pusej *pus«j posok posog pus«t navel *qulej *ul«j olok olog ul«t maggot *qutek *ut«k oto? otok utak brain E *puket *puk«t puk«t n.c. pokot dragnet *bulat *bul«t bul«t bul«t bul«t round *quzan *uz«n uj«n uj«n uj«n rain *buhek *buk bu? buk bu? head hair F *tuNked *tokot tokot tokot tokot staff, cane

As indicated in sets A and D of Table 12, the two harmonization processes operated in parallel in all dialects except Rawas, where *u-« failed to harmonize.[19] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn19) This fact has clear implications for relative ordering of the two processes. a) Before dialect split: As shown in sets A-C in Table 12, the vowels in PMP/PR vowel-pair *i-« underwent mutual assimilation, becoming PR *ä-ä, reflected as Rawas ä-ä and PLMK e-e, when the specific GC was met. The following schematizes the harmonization process. PMP *-iCeC[-velar] > PR *-äCä:C[-velar] :where [-velar] = reflexes of PMP consonants except velars

b) After dialect split: As shown in sets D-E of Table 12, in all dialects except Rawas the vowels in PMP/PR vowel-pair *u-« underwent mutual assimilation, becoming PR *o-o, when the specific GC was met. The following schematizes the harmonization process. PR *-uC«:C[+velar] > -oCo:C[+velar] :where [+velar] = reflexes of PMP velars and *-R (or PR *-r)

Set B of Table 12 illustrates the claim that the final [+velar] consonant PMP *-R or PR *-r (both [+velar]) blocked harmonization of *i-«. Thus PMP/PR *lib«R did not undergo vowel harmonization because the etymon ended with *-R (= [+velar]). Next, compare the outcomes for ‘drink’ in set A and ‘borrow’ in set B. Apparently *i-« harmonization was blocked by intervening consonant clusters (which eventually became ‘barred nasals’ (Coady and McGinn 1983)): thus iñ“«m (all dialects) from PMP *p-inzem resisted harmonization in conformity with the rule (which allows for -C- but not -CC- between harmonizing vowels). Next, PR *dal«j from PMP *lalej failed to harmonize because it had the wrong penult vowel (*a rather than *u or *i).

Set D of Table 12 illustrates the parallel effects with respect to *u-« harmonization in the harmonizing dialects (see 3.2.2). Notice that Rawas offers indirect evidence in support McGinn (1997)’s analysis of *u-« Harmonization. In particular, Rawas’ non-participation in *u-« > o-o harmony is predicted given the fact that word-final PMP/PR *-j changed to Rawas –t. This change altered a crucial part of the Gestalt; in particular, it changed the final consonant from [+velar] to [-velar], in effect ‘bleeding’ the rule. By contrast, in the harmonizing dialects, the PMP/PR vowel-pair *u-« underwent mutual assimilation as illustrated in sets D-F of Table 12. Set D illustrates the change; set E illustrates the blocking effect of final non-velar -C.

Here as elsewhere in Rejang historical phonology, systematic exceptions seem to outnumber the forms undergoing a regular change. Thus the outcome for ‘head hair’ has a straightforward explanation given that syllable reductions preceded all harmonization rules (McGinn 1997, 1999, 2000); thus PMP *buhek was reduced to PR *buk before the harmonization schema could apply (thus bok** is unattested). See 3.5.1 for discussion of the role played by rule ordering in the analysis. Another interesting case is PMP *gilap ‘flash’ > g«l«p in most dialects. This form must have been *gil«p in pre-Rejang, and if so, it should have become unattested gelep** by *i-« Harmonization. The fact that it did not is explained by an earlier rule changing penult *i > « (cf. 3.2.1) which effectively ‘bled’ harmonization by altering relevant segments, in effect altering the Gestalt. Therefore g«l«p may be regular. Finally, I assume that the exceptional outcomes in set C of Table 12 were due borrowing or analogy. In particular, the PLM words for ‘stab’ and the Rawas word for ‘lightning’ appear to be partly regularized borrowings from Malay tikam and kilat; and the various outcomes for ‘blink’ may have been influenced by morphology (but if so the mechanism is unclear). 3.2.2 Rawas pokot and tokot

The analysis is not without its problems stemming from the Rawas lexicon, however. Consider the Rawas outcomes tokot ‘staff, cane’ and pokot ‘fish trap’ (Table 12 sets E and F). The anticipated outcomes are unattested tuk«t** and puk«t** parallel to Rawas bul«t ’round’ and uj«n ‘rain’. Recall that the GC governing harmonization of the Gestalt -uC«:C[+velar] predicts (falsely) that PR *puk«:t should not harmonize, a prediction that is upheld by puk«t in all dialects except Rawas.

McGinn (1997:85) accounted for PKM puk«t as regular and for tokot as a borrowing from Malay tongkat which was then regularized in conformity with contemporary (synchronic) morpheme structure restrictions prohibiting (a) voiceless intervocalic nasal clusters and (b) penultimate mid-vowels paired with any vowel except the selfsame ultimate vowels (cf. Malay topi = Rejang topong ‘western style hat’) and many other examples. See 2.1.2. Perhaps Rawas pokot as well can be discounted as a Rawas borrowing from Malay pukat.[20] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn20) 3.2.3 Contemporary Diphthongs From Proto-Rejang Vowels Table 13 shows every known diphthong-type derivable from a simple vowel in contemporary Rejang. The diversity of the dialects is greatest in the manner in which diphthongs developed from vowels. This claim is amply illustrated in Table 13, and underlies two related claims made in this paper. (i) The majority of Rejang diphthongs developed after dialect split. (ii) The only diphthongs in PR were derived from PMP diphthongs (2.2).

As Table 13 shows, Rawas again proves the exception to broad tendencies in the post-split vocalic development of the five dialects. Four observations are especially noteworthy. (i) In all dialects except Rawas, PR *-a regularly became –o corresponding to aw in Rawas (set A of Table 13). (ii) Whereas PR *-i and *-u regularly diphthongized in all dialects (set B), only in Rawas did the process become generalized to include pronouns and other clitics (see 5-6 and 8-9 pf Table 13 and 3.3 below). (iii) In all dialects except Rawas, word-final PR *-l disappeared and PR tautosyllabic *o and *ä diphthongized to oa and ea respectively, whereas in Rawas, PR word-final *l was retained and the vowels did not diphthongize (see 15-17 of Table 13 and 3.2.3.1). (iv) In all dialects except Rawas and Kebanagung, PR *-? (from PMP *-q) was retained as –? and tautosyllabic high vowels *u and *i diphthongized in diverse ways, whereas in Rawas and Kebanagung, PR *-? was replaced by a borrowed phoneme –h (2.3.2.1) and the adjacent high vowels did not diphthongize, at least not in Rawas (they diphthongized anyway in Kebanagung). See 22-25 of Table 13 and 3.2.3.1.

The issues that require further discussion are taken up in the next few subsections, namely: (i) the role of final consonants in diphthongization; (ii) secondary harmonization, and (iii) diphthongization of final vowels in grammatical function words (which is a problem not for Rawas but for the other dialects). 3.2.3.1 Diphthongization of *-VC where *-C = PR *-r ,*-l, *-?

Consider set D of Table 13. An important generalization is that loss of PR *-l or *-r is associated with diphthongization of the tautosyllabic vowel. This holds for all dialects, and suggests that consonantal changes preceded diphthongization in each case. For example, in Rawas three cases of loss of PR *-r are associated with three diphthongs in set D, namely, PR *-«r became «a; PR *-ir became ia, and PR *ur became ua. The same principle accounts for Kebanagung’s two diphthongs in set D compared to three in Musi and five in Pesisir and Lebong. The analysis depends heavily on our reconstruction of word-final PR *-r and *-l. Recall that PR *-r derives from two PMP sources: *-r and*-R; likewise PR *-l derives from two PMP sources: *-R and *-l See 2.3.2.1. 3.2.3.2 Secondary Harmonization

The Rawas outcomes for ‘white’ and ‘choose’ are especially interesting with respect to secondary harmonization of the penult vowels. The simplest solution that is plausible phonetically is to assume that the end-rhymes PR *-i? and *-u? developed differently in Rawas (whereas they developed in parallel in the other dialects). In particular, PR *pulu? ‘ten’ became Rawas poloh by the shortest possible route via intermediate *puluh and *puloh. By contrast, PR *ili? ‘choose’ became äläh by first diphthongizing the end-rhyme, yielding *ilia? similar to PR *bibir > Rawas bibia. After diphthongization, intermediate *ilia? underwent the remainder of its derivation by the shortest route, namely via intermediate *iliah > iläh > äläh. The advantage of early diphthongization is that it motivates ä from PR *i in a dialect with an established phoneme e (albeit from unknown sources). The alternative absolute shortest-route derivation may be possible but seems less plausible phonetically. Another argument for this solution is that a similar disjunction is observed in the case of *u-« harmonization and *i-« harmonization (previous section directly above). In all dialects except Rawas these two vowel pairs harmonized in parallel, becoming o-o and e-e respectively; but in Rawas, *i-« harmonized (as ä-ä) but *u-« did not harmonize at all. A third argument concerns the central step in the derivation of PR *-i?, namely, coalescence of peak and coda of the derived diphthong *-iah as *-äh. A partial precedent for coalescence may be found in the fact that intervocalically Table 13. Rejang Diphthongs Reflecting PMP Vowels PMP pre-R PR Pesisir Lebong Musi Keban Rawas GLOSS A 1. *teka *t«ka: t«ko t«ko t«ko t«ko t«kaw come Appendix: (56),(106),(128),(190) (218),(233); cf. also (224) B 2 *isi *isi: isay isay is«y is«y is«y contents Appendix: (38),(40),(89),(112),(132), (146),(159),(245), (258) 3. *mata>mat« *mati: matay matay mat«y mat«y mat«y eye Appendix: (49),(72),(130),(238) 4. *duha>du« *dui: duay duay du«y dui du«y two Appendix: (49),(72),(238) 5. *si-ia *si si si si si s«y 3sg/pl 6. *kami *kimi keme keme keme keme kämäy 1pl(excl) C 7 *qulu *ulu: ulaw ulaw ul«w ul«w ul«w head Appendix: (29),(40),(52),(65),(172),(203),(206),(220),(248) 8. *aku *uku uku uku uku uku uk«w 1sg 9. *kamu *kumu kumu kumu kumu kumu kum«w 2(honor) D 10. *bibiR *bibir bibia bibia bebea n.c. bibia lips 11. *hiliR *ilir n.c. n.c. elea ilih n.c. upstream 12. *huluR *ulur ulua ulua oloa uluh ulua to lower 13. *qapuR *upur upua upua opoa k-opoh upua chalk 14. *niuR *niol nioa nioa nioa nioa niol coconut 15. *dapuR *dopol dopoa dopoa dopoa dopoa dopol hearth 16. *kawil *käwäl kewea kewea kewea kewea n.c. fishhook 17. — *käkäl kekea kekea kekea kekea käkäl foot 18. — *k«bol k«boa k«boa k«boa k«boa k«bol thick Appendix: (35),(36),(71),(84),(101),(102),(104),(157), (221),(223), (228) (249),(250) 19. *bener *b«n«r b«n«a b«n«a b«n«a b«n«h b«n«a true 20. *tawed *taw«r taw«a taw«a taw«a taw«h taw«a haggle 21. *libeR *lib«r lib«a lib«a lib«a lib«h lib«a wide Appendix: (30),(36),(131),(186) (215) 22. *hasaq *asa? as«a? as«a? as«a? asah asah sharpen Appendix: (7),(18),(43),(57),(69), (123),(136),(150),(163),(173),(193),(234) 23. *taneq *tana? tan«a? tan«a? tan«a? tanah tanah earth 24. *putiq *puti? putia? putia? putea? puteah putäh white Appendix: (85),(168),(174),(187) 25. *p«nuq *p«nu? p«nua? p«nua? p«noa? p«noah p«noh full Appendix: (174),(178),(244),(255)

PR *-ai- regularly coalesced as ä in Rawas, e.g. PMP *paqit > PR *pait > Rawas pät. This analysis entails the derivations given in Table 14.

It is hardly surprising to discover that another GC governed secondary harmonization in Rawas, Kebanagung and Musi. Thus the intermediate vowel pairs *i-ea (Musi *ilea?) and *u-oa (Kebanagung *puloah) did not harmonize independently of surrounding consonants; rather, secondary harmonization of the penult vowel was conditioned by the end-rhyme, i.e. not only the diphthong but the tautosyllabic consonant. Thus PR *kidek ‘rotten’ showing final vowel-pair *i-e and word-final *-k did not trigger harmonization of Musi kide? and Kebanagung kidek (Musi kede?** and Kebanagung kedek** are unattested). And even Rawas kede? from PR *kidek, which did undergo late harmonization of the penult vowel (2.4.5), cannot be generalized together with äläh for obvious reasons. Instead, to account for Rawas äläh from PR *ili? it is plain that the syllables harmonized only when the Gestalt included just the right end-rhyme. 3.3 Personal Pronouns

The last correspondence sets to be considered in this section concern the personal pronouns, including (5), (6), (8), and (9) of Table 13, where again the uniqueness of Rawas is on display. The pronouns present a problem pointed out by Blust (1984:441; cf. McGinn (1997:75f). For reasons discussed in 4.2.1, pronouns resisted diphthongization of PR *-i and *-u in all dialects except Rawas. This issue clearly does not concern Rawas, at least not directly; nonetheless, the Rawas evidence is extremely important for the light it sheds on Proto-Rejang and the histories of the other dialects.

As in many Western Austronesian languages, Rejang personal pronouns come in a long form (roughly, subject) and a short-form (non-subject).[21] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn21) Table 15 displays the correspondences among pronouns in the five dialects. Table 16 gives the Rawas pronouns in relation to the reconstructed protolanguages PMP and PR. Problems of lexical replacement notwithstanding (3.3.2 below), it is clear that Rawas pronouns underwent the regular diphthongization rules affecting PR *-i and TABLE 14. Effects of Secondary Harmonization a) without secondary harmonization PMP *putiq ‘white’ PR *puti? P&L *puti? > putia? Musi *puti? > *pute? > putea? Keban *puti? > *putih > *puteh > puteah Rawas *puti? > *putia? > putiah > *putäh PMP *p«nuq ‘full’ PR *p«nu? P&L *p«nu? > p«nua? Musi *p«nu? > p«nua? > p«noa? Keban *p«nu? > *p«nuh > *p«nuah > p«noah Rawas *p«nu? > *p«nuh > p«noh b) with secondary harmonization PMP *piliq ‘choose’ PR *ili? P&L *ili? > ilia? Musi *ili? > *ilia? > *ilea? > elea? Keban *ili? > *ilih > *iliah > *ileah > eleah Rawas *ili? > *ilia? *iliah > iläh > äläh PMP *puluq ‘ten’ PR *pulu? P&L *pulu? > pulua? Musi *pulu? > *pulo? > poloa? Keban *pulu? > *puluh > puluah > puloah > poloah Rawas *pulu? > *puluh > puloh > poloh XZThis table is badly placedXZ

*-u. Equally important, as Table 17 below demonstrates, in Rawas other grammatical classes behaved similarly, again in contrast to the other dialects, where function words generally (including pronouns) escaped diphthongization of *-i and *-u (see 4.2).

What is patently clear is that in Rawas, the function words developed diphthongs by the same rules as other grammatical classes. More generally, since all diphthongization rules in all dialects occurred after dialect split, it follows that the explanation for the regular developments in Rawas may not apply in other dialects, especially in those dialects where putative regularities have been observed. See 4.2. 3.3.2 Residual Problems 1) The most pressing problem is to account for the failure of diphthongization in pronouns and other function words in all dialects except Rawas. This problem is addressed in section 4.2.

2) Rawas kämäy from PR *kimi is unexpected, as is keme in the other dialects (expected kim«y** in Rawas and kimi** in PLMK). See 4.2.1 for discussion. The existential verb Rawas adäy = PLMK ade likewise shows the expected regular correspondence äy = e, e.g. Rawas äpän = PLMK epen ‘tooth’. However, there is insufficient data to determine whether kämäy represents a regular development based on pre-Rawas *kim«y from PR *kimi. Table 15. Contemporary Personal Pronouns subject-object agent-possessive subject-object agent-possessive PLMK Singular Rawas __ 1Pers uku ku uk«w k«w 2Pers ko nu kab«n kab«n 2Pers (hon) kumu kumu kum«w kum«w 3Pers si n« s«y n« Plural 1P(incl) it« t« it« t« 1P(excl) keme keme kämäy kämäy 2Pers udi udi gal«ygal«y gal«ygal«y 2Pers (hon) kumukumu kumukumu gal«ygal«y kum«w gal«ygal«y kum«w 3Pers si n« s«y n« Table 16: Rawas Personal Pronouns and Their Etyma PMP PR pre-Rawas Rawas Gloss *aku *uku uk«w I *kahu *ko kab«n you (sg) *ni-hu *nu kab«n you (sg/poss) *(ka)mu *kumu (hon) kum«w you (sg,hon) *si-ia *si s«y s/he; they *ita *it« it« we (inclusive) *kami *kimi *kim«y kämäy we (exclusive) *kamu *udi *kumukumu kum«wkum«w you (pl) *si-iDa *si; tobo o s«y; tobo « they; that group 3) Two lexical replacements affecting 2nd Person pronouns remain mysterious: PLMK udi; and Rawas kab«n. Possibly Rawas kab«n is an internal borrowing based on kab«n ‘friend’ (cf. Ujan Mas Malay kaba (McGinn 1991:219)).

4) Another replacement is variable. Rawas si = s«y ‘he/she/it; they’ can be used in the singular or plural. When the context demands that the plurality be emphasized, the phrase tobo « ‘that group’ is common in Rawas (=tobo o in the other dialects). Finally PR *k«bol (if from PMP *kapal) shows unexplained *b from *p and *o from *a. PMP PR Pesisir Lebong Musi Keban Rawas Gloss 5) *ma-kapal *k«bol k«boa k«boa k«boa k«boa k«bol thick 4. Consequences of the Analysis

It was mentioned in section 2 of this paper that every feature of Proto-Rejang can be justified based on evidence from Rawas and one other dialect—either Pesisir or (most often) Kebanagung. As it happens, these are the only dialects that share a boundary with a dialect of Malay. Some consequences of this fact are discussed in 4.4.3 below. It was also mentioned that without Rawas the remaining dialects differ too little among themselves to offer much in the way of time depth. If those dialects were all linguists had to go on, it might be concluded that the Rejangs were relatively recent arrivals in Sumatra. The pioneering work of Blust (1984) on the Musi dialect, however, might suggest the opposite given the extremely high number of changes (over 100 according to McGinn 1999) separating Rejang-Musi from Proto-Austronesian. With the discovery of Rawas the possibilities have narrowed and start to become reconciled with the linguistic facts: the time depth is increased; the reconstruction of Proto-Rejang becomes feasible; and certain practical questions can be raised, such as: How long have the Rejangs been in Sumatra? Where did they come from? What language or language group is their closest linguistic relative? These and other questions are addressed below as we attempt to extract the most important consequences from the historical phonology presented in this paper.

Four topics will occupy us in this concluding section. All are concerned with the linguistic contributions of Rawas with respect to the goal of developing a valid and useful historical phonology for the Rejang language of Sumatra. First, analytical improvements are considered in relation to previous research (4.1 below). Second, empirical confirmations of earlier work are revisited in light of the new evidence from Rawas (4.2). Third, potential contributions of Rejang to the theory of sound change Table 17: Rejang Function Words PR Pesisir Lebong Musi Keban Rawas Gloss *nak~taN di na? di na? di na? di nah di taN d«y (at) there *apa~api api api api api apaw who *adäy ade ade ade ade adäy there is/are *ba ba ba ba ba ba emph. part. *unu unu unu unu unu n.d. hesitation part.

are considered (4.3). Fourth, the usefulness of our reconstructed PR is considered in relation to certain practical questions pertaining to the origin and likely closest linguistic relatives of the Rejangs (4.4). 4.1 Analytical Advancements In Relation To Previous Work

Four claims made in earlier work by McGinn (1997, 1999, 2000) have been abandoned or modified here. Two concern laryngeals and two concern diphthongs.[22] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn22) 1) The opening statement in McGinn (1997) must be abandoned (“Every known Rejang dialect has a single laryngeal, namely, h or ?…“) because Rawas has both –h (in word-final position only) and ? (word-medially as well as word-finally).

2) Pre-Rejang *h has been abandoned and replaced by Proto-Rejang *r in light of the limited distribution of Rawas h. This paper has reconstructed PR *r in all positions reflecting PMP *r, *R and *l; later Rawas and Kebanagung borrowed -h from Malay (cf. Blust 1992); and later still, Kebanagung substituted h for PR *r in all positions. A crucial assumption is that PR *r was [+velar]; thus PR *r plays the same role assigned to PMP/PR *R in McGinn (1997) with respect to the conditioning of vocalic changes. See 2.3.2.2.

3) Two metatheses suggested by McGinn (2000 Appendix 2) have been abandoned in light of the Rawas evidence. The problem was (and is) to account for Kebanagung ponoy ‘dove’ from PMP *punay; and also for Kebanagung ki«a ‘wood’ from PMP *kahiw. The metathesis idea collapsed in light of the fact that Rawas retains PMP diphthongs *uy and *iw unaltered. It is now straightforward to derive Rawas punuy and kiiw from PR *punuy and PR *kiiw, from which all other dialect outcomes follow as described in 2.1.3.

4) A final improvement derives straightforwardly from the fact that PMP *ey and *ew have been removed from the inventory of PMP diphthongs (Blust, personal communication); they have been collapsed with PMP *ay and *aw, respectively. This move simplifies the derivation of Rejang diphthongs from PMP diphthongs. (Rejang provided no evidence for PMP *ey and *ew.) 4.2 Empirical Confirmations

We turn next to consider a number of cases where the new dialect evidence from Rawas, although diverging from the other dialects, does so in such a way as to strengthen specific claims made in earlier work on the historical phonology of Rejang (i.e. before any Rawas data was available). 4.2.1. Rawas Pronouns and other Function Words

At first the Rawas function words appear to present counterexamples with respect to earlier analyses of RHP, but on closer inspection the problem vanishes in light of the claim that Rawas simply generalized regular diachronic rules by relaxing phonological conditions that held in PR and that continue to hold in the other dialects. As pointed out in 3.3, diphthongization of word-final PR *-i and *-u was not limited to content words in Rawas (as it was in the other dialects), but extended to all morpheme classes equally. When properly understood as post-split effects, the Rawas facts are consistent with the analysis of the other dialects in earlier work. As pointed out in my earlier paper:

“The analysis is consistent with the striking fact that Rejang function words and content words differ in canonical shape. With few exceptions (notably o), content words almost always end with a diphthong if not a consonant, whereas function words almost always end with vowels; and only function words have been observed ending with schwa. Thus … the synchronic generalization is consistent with the claim of regularity. …Although their histories diverged (=content words, function words), the divergence had a phonetic basis, and in particular, all reflexes of PMP vowels in the pronouns were regular.” (McGinn 1997:77)

What is unique about Rawas, then, is that the conditions changed (generalized). Two closely-related arguments support this claim. First, all diphthongization of PR vowels occurred after dialect split. In all dialects except Rawas, those diphthongization rules were conditioned by the accent, which falls on the last syllable of content words; hence only stressed vowels diphthongized. Therefore, there is a ready explanation why pronouns and other function words were exempted from diphthongization rules in PLMK; as clitics, function words bear no inherent (word-level) stress pattern. They may receive stress within the domain of the sentence (intonation) but not at the word (lexical) level, which is presumably the proper domain for the study of sound change. It follows that there are phonetic grounds for the claim that pronouns and other function words were systematically exempted from rules applying to stressed vowels in Pesisir, Lebong, Musi, and Kebanagung. The second argument concerns an interesting bit if new information which is highly welcome, namely, Rawas’ 1P(excl) pronoun kämäy from PR *kimi and PMP *kami. This outcome supports the reconstruction of PR *kimi, thus completely regularizing the pronouns at the level of PR. The conclusion I draw from these two arguments is that the Rawas facts are consistent in every important detail with earlier claims about the pronouns of pre-Rejang (now Proto-Rejang). 4.2.2 Rawas As `Best Witness’ For Rejang Historical Phonology

Most of this paper has focused on the uniqueness of Rawas in relation to the other dialects. In this section, the focus shifts to the conformity of Rawas, especially those specific cases where it is clear that Rawas directly confirms earlier work on the historical phonology of Rejang. The following are the major aspects of Rejang historical phonology as presented by McGinn (1997, 2000). All are supported by the Rawas evidence.

1) Pre-Rejang underwent two accent shifts: (a) 1st stress shift to Malay-type pattern regularly followed by neutralization of unstressed PMP *a except before velars, e.g. PMP *mata > preRejang *ma:t« `eye’; PMP *taNan > pre-Rejang *ta:N«n `hand’. (b) 2nd Stress Shift to contemporary Rejang pattern, followed by V-V harmonization of certain vowel pairs and then diphthongization affecting certain word-final syllables, e.g. PMP *laNit > pre-Rejang *laNi:t > PR *läNät ‘sky’ and *isi > *isi: > Rawas is«y ‘contents’. 2) As expected in accord with (1), unstressed vowels weakened (deleted, neutralized, or harmonized), and stressed vowels became strengthened (diphthongized, de-neutralized). 3) No fewer than ten vocalic shifts were conditioned by complex morph-shape conditions labeled GCs (hereafter GC) rather than merely locally by strictly adjacent segments. See 4.3.2. A partial list of GCs is provided in Table 3.

4) Two of the Gestalt Conditions can be generalized and captured in a single formula. The essential features of this claim, which may have important consequences for subgrouping,[23] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn23) are partially repeated here. Table 18: Raising of PMP *a PMP pre-Rej PR Rawas Gloss *a > « /V(C[-velar]) _ # *duha *du:« *dui: du«y two | *mata *ma:t« *mati: mat«y eye [-stress] *kita *it« *it« it« 1Ppl(incl) *ni-a *ni-« *n« n« 3Psg *taNan *ta:N«n *taN«:n taN«n hand *anak *a:nak *ana:k anak child *teka *t«ka: *t«ka: t«kaw come *timba *ti:m“a *tim“a: tim“aw pail *daqan *dan *dan dan branch The Rawas outcomes are perfectly consistent with the earlier analysis presented in McGinn (1997), before anything was known about this dialect. 5) Rule Order vs. Rule Complementation (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn24)

(Revisited)[24]

As mentioned in 2.4.6.2, two traditional tools of the Comparative Method are rule order and rule complementation. However, when two (or more) rules are in complementary distribution all claims about (external) rule order become obviated. The following illustrates the point with two conditioned changes presented in McGinn (1997). 1) PMP *qut«k > Musi oto? ‘brain’ :only when *-C = [+velar] PMP *lib«R > Musi lib«a ‘wide’ 2) PMP *bulan > Musi bul«n ‘moon’ (not bolon**) :only when *-C = [-velar] PMP *anak > Musi ana? ‘child’

Blust (1984) recognized that rule (2) regularly failed to apply before a velar consonant, but the fact that rule (1) applied only before velars was overlooked. The Musi facts only become clear in light of dialect evidence from Kebanagung, where PMP *-k is preserved as –k and *-j becomes –g (McGinn 1997:68). Further, Blust assumed (a) that Musi puk«t was an unexplained exception, and (b) that change (1) must have preceded change (2) in the linear ordering (hence in relative chronology) in order to explain why Musi *bul«n ‘moon’ failed regularly to become bolon**. McGinn (1997) proposed an alternative analysis, namely, that the environments were in complementary distribution with respect to the binary feature [ +velar ] associated with the word-ending consonants. If so, then two consequences followed: (a) Musi puk«t was regular because the etymon ended with an non-velar consonant; and (b) linear ordering–crucially–was unnecessary to account for the failure of e.g. bul«n to become bolon** in Musi.

The Rawas evidence mentioned in 3.2.1 is relevant for this argument. Rawas underwent rule (2) but not rule (1). This fact permits an improvement of McGinn’s analysis by actually giving away the correct ordering, namely: change (2) preceded change (1). This is inescapable since (2) affected all dialects equally (hence may be reconstructed for PR) whereas (1) occurred after dialect split everywhere except in Rawas (where a different set of changes occurred). Also supported is the claim that changes (1) and (2) were in complementary distribution in the harmonizing dialects, exactly as proposed by McGinn (1997). 4.3 Theoretical Contributions of Rejang Historical Phonology

The data in this paper may be of theoretical interest with respect to the following three questions. (i) What is the proper domain for the assignment of word-level stress rules in Rejang (and other languages)? (ii) What is the proper relationship between stress rules and syllabification rules in Rejang (and other languages)? [25] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn25) (iii) What is the status of Gestalt Conditions in the historical phonology of Rejang (and other languages)? 4.3.1 Stress and Syllabification

As mentioned in the Introduction to the paper, Rejang should be of interest to linguists if only because of its rich array of diphthongs, especially the ones that arose by regular changes from PMP vowels (3.2.3). My remarks here are limited to this set of innovating diphthongs. Three points bear repeating in this context. (a) Since these diphthongs affected stressed vowels, they mus have arisen after the stress had shifted to the final syllable. (b) Since the innovating diphthongs differ from dialect to dialect, they must have arisen after dialect split (probably influenced by areal pressures (4.4.3)). (c) Since last-syllable stress is shared by all dialects, the stress assignment rule must be older than the innovating diphthongs.

The theoretical point to be made here is that the stress assignment rule at whatever level one examines seems to depend crucially on prior recognition of the segmental structure of words, and in particular, on the proper identification of syllabic and non-syllabic vowels. [26] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn26) Once this is accomplished, assigning stress to “the last nonsyllabic vowel of the word” is straightforward: forms like tidoa are disyllabic once non-syllabic [a9] is recognized as the coda of a breaking diphthong, and forms like oa? are monosyllables.

The analysis not only simplifies the stress assignment rule for Rejang, it also supports the empirical claim of Bromberger and Halle (1989) concerning the derivational relationship between syllabification rules and stress assignment rules in the theory of (synchronic) phonology. We can add the point that ontogeny repeats phylogeny in the Rejang case. In PR the stress assignment rule arose before the breaking diphthongs. 4.3.2 Word-Level Stress Is ‘Metrical’

In the historical phonology of Rejang, the phenomenon of multiple reflexes of PMP last-syllable *a have been explained in terms of the word-level stress pattern operating at different times (2.4.6.1) This explanation depends on the assumption that word-level stress (also called accent) is assigned ‘metrically’ within a disyllabic domain called a ‘foot’. Applied to disyllabic word bases, this theory states that stress, whether predictable or contrastive, must be assigned to either the penultimate vowel or the ultimate vowel. An important corollary is that monosyllables cannot bear metrical word-stress, by definition since stress differentiates between the members of a pair of vowels within a specified domain.

This theory has an important consequence for Rejang historical phonology, namely, it explains why monosyllables did not participate in the changes affecting PMP last-syllable *a. The relevant outcomes include both original monosyllables such as (e.g. PMP *ba ‘interrogative particle’ > PR *ba (not b«**) ’emphatic particle’; and also derived monosyllables (e.g. PMP *hekan > pre-Rejang *kan > PR *kan ‘fish’ (not k«n**) beside PMP *taNan > PR *taN«n ‘hand’. See 2.4.6.1. 4.3.3 Gestalt Conditions (GC) and the Regularity Hypothesis (RH)

This section seeks theoretical support for the use of GCs in the historical phonology of Rejang, and discusses their potential contribution to the theory of sound change. Two ideas from Kiparsky (1988) guide the discussion.

1) The Exceptionless Hypothesis (EH) must be distinguished from the Regularity Hypothesis (RH) (Kiparsky 1988:390). The EH is wedded to phonetic mechanisms that apply blindly and randomly (see 1.4 of this paper). The RH is conceptually simpler, more open-ended, and less theory-dependent than the EH. The RH says that sound changes tend overwhelmingly to be regular, for whatever the reason; and that depending upon the theory one adopts, further restrictions on the scope and limits of sound change can and must be determined. For example, in Kiparsky’s theory, regular sound changes operate over the domain of phonological structures in the lexicon. 2) Sound change is structure-dependent (Kiparsky 1988:390). Furthermore, structure arises from implicational universals and from individual grammars.

In this subsection we attempt to apply these theoretical points to justify the existence and use of GCs in RHP. Our major empirical claim is that GCs are structures that refer to one or all of the following: the accent, the quality of the penult vowel, and the nature of the word-final consonant (if present). Once recognized, they play a major role because they induce regularity throughou in RHP (1.4 and Table 3). Virtually all vocalic changes in Rejang were conditioned by GCs operating on the level of the disyllabic base (prosodic foot), and resulted in a high degree of lexical vowel harmony in pre-Rejang and Proto-Rejang, which is largely, but not entirely, reflected in the contemporary dialects. The most dramatic demonstration of this point is found in Rawas’ non-participation in *u-« > o-o harmony (3.2.1). This fact was explained in terms of another fact unique to Rawas, namely, the change of word-final PMP/PR *-j > Rawas –t. This change altered the Gestalt; in particular, the final consonant changed from [+velar] to [-velar], in effect ‘bleeding’ the harmonization process exactly as predicted by the form of the rule as proposed in McGinn (1997) to account for the harmonization facts in Musi, Pesisir and Kebanagung.

The conclusion I draw is as follows. To the extent that GCs contribute to the overall regularity of RHP they are consistent with the demands of RH. However, to the extent that they cannot be construed as purely phonetic conditions, their existence cannot be justified in terms of EH. It follows that GCs lie outside the bounds of the neogrammarian theory of sound change (EH). Expressed in more general terms, the right place to seek the motivation for GCs might lie neither in universal phonetics nor in the set of contrasts within a lexical-phonological system, but in what Roman Jakobson has called the ‘culminative’ role of phonetic features. The following quotation by one of Jakobson’s collaborators is probably relevant here. In English, stress plays … a cumulative rule in that it signals both the unity of the word and the number of words or word-groups in any given syntagm. In some languages, the device known as vowel harmony fills the similarly culminative rule of indicating the unity of the word. (Waugh 1987:163). 4.4 Some Practical Considerations The historical phonology presented in this paper should be welcomed by researchers interested in pursuing further practical questions, such as: where did the Rejangs come from; how long have they been in Sumatra; which dialect represents the local homeland in Sumatra; what is the contact situation in Sumatra.

Preliminary answers are presented below in the form of four specific hypotheses guided by a general theory about a possible correlation between rate of linguistic change and distance traveled by out-migrating groups, proposed independently by Blust (1991b) and Ross (1991). The first concerns the problem of discovering an external subgroup and associated geographical point of origin for Rejang (4.4.); the second concerns the high number of innovations (over 100) separating PMP and any single contemporary Rejang dialect (4.4.3); the third posits the most likely ‘local homeland’ within Rejang country (4.4.2.2); and the last deals with the contemporary contact situation together with the question about which Austronesian group was the first to arrive in southern Sumatra. 4.4.1 The Search for an External Subgroup Smaller Than PMP The discovery an external subgrouping hypothesis for Rejang may depend on three features that have been reconstructed for earlier stages of the language. a) In pre-Rejang the accent fell regularly on the ultimate vowel when the penultimate vowel was schwa; otherwise on the penultimate (=Malay-type stress pattern).

b) In pre-Rejang PMP last-syllable *a underwent neutralization in two environments that can be generalized in terms of a single formula. See 4.2.2. The two neutralizations constitute the central problem of Rejang historical phonology as defined by McGinn (1997): they applied very early in the historical phonology (before the stress shifted to the contemporary pattern); and one of them (*-a(C) > *-«(C) except before velars) is typologically rare. In McGinn (2000, 2003) it is suggested that any language in the western Austronesian group that shared this pair of rules was eo ipso a candidate for subgrouping with Rejang. Such a language has indeed been reported in the literature by Christopher Court. Bukar-Sadong Land Dayak, spoken in the area around Serian, 3rd District Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo, betrays a similar (parallel or shared) history in two respects: PMP *-a regularly became schwa (PMP *duha > du«h ‘two’); and PMP *-aC regularly became –«C except before velars (Court 1967). McGinn (2003) attempted but was ultimately forced to reject a direct subgrouping relationship between Bukar-Sadong Land Dayak and Rejang. At one and the same time, however, it was proposed that the early Rejangs probably migrated to Sumatra from someplace near the Land Dayak region of Borneo around 1200 years ago. 4.4.2 On Explaining High Rates of Linguistic Change

Blust (1991b) and Ross (1991) suggest there is a significant correlation between rate of sound change in a language and the geographical (migration) distance from the homeland. Let us call this the Blust-Ross Hypothesis (BRH). For example, Madagascar, off the coast of Africa, is inhabited by speakers of a closely-related dialects of a single language; Taiwan (a much smaller island off the coast of China) is inhabited by speakers of 22 highly diverse, distantly-related languages. Archeologists report that Madagascar has been occupied by Austronesian speakers for about 1,000 years; for Taiwan the figure is more like 6,000 years. Details aside, such facts are just what should be anticipated given the BRH.

An important fact about Rejang is the relatively high number of phonological changes: over 100 for any single dialect (Blust 1984; McGinn 1997, 2000, 2003). Considering just the four PMP vowels, Rejang has undergone more vocalic splits (27) than any other known Austronesian language. As mentioned earlier in this paper, however, dialect diversity among Rejang dialects is relatively slight: only Rawas shows divergence severe enough to impede mutual understanding: roughly 70-72% of basic vocabulary is shared between Rawas and each of the other four dialects. A high rate of change coupled with a low level of dialect diversity leads to a prediction: the Rejangs must have traveled to south-west Sumatra from a distant location relatively recently.

However, as pointed out by Robert Blust (personal communication), the prediction is not very compelling with respect to geography, particularly in light of arguments by McGinn (2003) that the Rejangs originated in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo–a scant 600 miles away.

On the other hand, both Blust (1991b) and Ross (1991) have questioned whether geography is the crucial variable here; and Ross has offered an alternative. It can be added that Kiparsky (1988:383) believes that high rates of phonological change favor production, low rates favor perception. This bias is perhaps explained by Ross’s alternative explanation –rejected by Blust– namely, that homeland languages are conservative because they are dominated by older speakers who tend to be intolerant of perceived mistakes in pronunciation and grammar. (In Kiparsky’s terms, adult language-perceivers (hearers) predominate in the homeland.) By contrast, according to Ross, out-migrating language groups are dominated by younger adults with children, the latter being the major source of innovations. (In Kiparsky’s terms, younger language-producers (speakers) predominate in out-migrating groups.) Combining these ideas, the crucial variable is probably not absolute geographical distance but ‘psychological distance’ (isolation) from the homeland. Returning to the Rejang case, a plausible scenario is that the group migrated en masse without further contact, and without leaving behind sufficient population to maintain their cultural and linguistic identity in the homeland. If so, then Rejang’s high number of innovations is consistent with its presumed geographical isolation from the original homeland (wherever it was). 4.4.3 Rawas As Local Homeland

The next question to ask is: which Rejang dialects are relatively more conservative, and which more innovative? Based on the BRH, conservative dialect(s) should point toward the local homeland, whereas the more innovative dialects should represent the communities that ventured out from there. As emphasized throughout this paper, Rawas is the most divergent dialect in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary–but is this caused by conservatism, innovation, or contact with Malay? The evidence suggests that all three factors have played a role, but that conservatism is the most prominent.

A telling argument for Rawas’ conservativism was mentioned in section 2: Every PR etymon can be reconstructed on the basis of just two dialects–either Rawas and Pesisir or (more often) Rawas and Kebanagung. The argument can be stated in another way as follows: It is impossible to derive the Rawas data from an alternative PR reconstructed on the basis of any two, three, o four of the remaining dialects. To repeat just one rather typical example: In all dialects except Rawas, word-final PR *-l from PMP *-l and *-R disappeared, and adjacent vowels PR *o and ä diphthongized to oa and ea respectively; but Rawas retained PR word-final *l and the adjacent vowels did not diphthongize. See 3.2.3. Readers can work out for themselves the impossibility of predicting Rawas biol ‘water’ given only PLMK bioa and PMP *wahiR. If this argument is accepted together with the BRH, the conclusion is clear. The upper reaches of the Rawas River (Bioa Ab«s) represents the first area settled by the Rejangs in Sumatra. 4.4.4 Neighbors in Sumatra: Contact Issues

If Rawas, Kebanagung and Pesisir represent the ‘outlier’ dialect areas, the Lebong and Musi dialects occupy the Rejang heartland. They are centrally located; they are highest in elevation at the headwaters of the Ketaun and Musi rivers; and they occupy the political center (called Kabupaten Rejang-Lebong). There is even a working gold mine there. Importantly for purposes of this paper, the Lebong and Musi areas share no boundary with Malay-speaking populations: every point of contact with the world beyond Rejang-Lebong is either another Rejang dialect or uninhabited jungle. See map 1.1. In this section are listed some linguistic elements in Rejang that appear to be the result of by areal pressures. The first two played important roles in the development of Rawas. a) Borrowed –h obviated diphthongization of PR *-V? in Rawas and Kebanagung–the two dialects in closest contact with Malay. (See map 1.1.)

b) Borrowed PR *e (= mid front unrounded vowel) in the inventory of PR vowels contrasted with inherited PR *ä from PMP *i, *a, *« via a number of regular vocalic shifts. However, the source (donor) language remains to be discovered.

c) Rejang’s diphthongs–particularly the large number derived from PMP vowels (see Table 13)–might well receive an interpretation in terms of areal pressure. An important claim that bears repeating is that these diphthongs arose after dialect split in Rejang, hence represent late changes. It is highly likely that they developed in part in response to the larger social milieu which included linguistic contact (intermarriage, etc.) with at least two neighboring languages likewise displaying large numbers of diphthongs, namely, Kerinci (Prentice and Hakim 1978; Blust 1984:440) and Minangkabau Malay. d) As pointed out in 3.3.2, three Rejang pronouns are unexplained: PLMK nu (expected mu**); PLMK udi ‘2Ppl’; and Rawas kab«n ‘2Psg’ expected kaw**). Possibly Rawas kab«n is an internal borrowing based on kab«n ‘friend’ (cf. Ujan Mas Malay kaba (McGinn 1991:219); and PLMK nu ‘2Psg’ may be borrowed from Lampung niku.

Blust (1992) has argued that Malayic speakers were relatively late arrivals in Sumatra. If so, the Rejangs likely preceded them. This view is consistent both with linguistic facts and with legends on both sides. Rejangs refer to themselves as tun asl«y ‘original people’, and the Besemah Malays appear to agree. According to William Collins (1998), some Besemah megaliths are called makam Rejang (`Rejang graves’), and Besemah legends explain how the Rejangs were displaced by Besemah founder Atung Bungsu by means of a cleverly worded oath. Whatever the causes, Rejang farmers came to occupy the highlands whilst Malay farmers took the surrounding lowlands; and several other major language groups (the Komering, the Kerinci, and the Lampungese) found their way into the country as well. Meanwhile, the Malay-speaking Javano-Malay empire of Sriwijaya rose and fell in Palembang, the unrivaled center of prestige in the region (Coedes1992). 5. Possible Alternatives for Proto-Rejang Vowels and Diphthongs

This section presents some alternatives for deriving the Rawas vowels and diphthongs from Proto-Rejang and ultimately PMP. The alternatives are presented as less plausible than the analyses that appeared in the body of the paper. The discussion will be guided by two principles which serve to impose limits on linguistic reconstructions.

Realism: Protolanguages must conform to the expectations of attested languages. This is a theoretical (a priori) condition marking as highly suspicious the reconstruction of phonemes or arrays of phonemes that are not to be found in attested languages anywhere on earth. Moreover, since grammars tend overwhelmingly to display motivated structures, it follows that protolanguages should be the same. My claims that the PR vowel inventory consisted of seven vowels in an ordered array, and that the PR lexicon was governed by vowel harmony, represent two proposals for a structured protolanguage named PR. A protolanguage failing to yield plausible structures fails to be realistic.

Uniformitarianism: Protolanguages must be motivated by the evidence of the set of languages and dialects presumably derived from them. In this respect, PR *ä is a plausible reconstruction because the Rawas dialect bears direct witness to it. By contrast, PR *-j from PMP *-j is not supported by –j in any of the dialects but rather by a phonetically ambivalent formal correspondence, namely, PMP/PR *-j > k = g = t. In fact, PMP *-j is puzzling phonetically and may always remain problematic (Blust 1991c:132) .[27] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn27) It has proven its usefulness in Rejang Historical Phonology (and repeated for other Austronesian language groups) as a way of capturing the formal regularity of a phonetically disjunctive correspondence set. But it remains problematic from the standpoint of the uniformitarian principle. Four interesting cases arise in RHP showing how the two principles mention above can come into conflict. Two have to do with the seven-vowel system reconstructed for PR; the remaining two have to do with diphthongs derived from PMP vowels. 1) Alternatives for deriving two Rawas diphthongs from PMP/PR vowels: a) Why not replace PR *-i with *-« from PMP *-a (e.g. *mat« from PMP *mata ‘eye’) at the level of Proto-Rejang? (Recall that *-« represents an essential intermediate step in the derivation of Rawas «y from PMP *-a.) b) Why not reconstruct diphthongized end-rhymes PR –*ia? and *-ua? to underlie Pesisir and Lebong –ia? and –ua? corresponding to Rawas –äh and –oh? (Recall that in the body of the paper these diphthongs were derived from PR *-i? and *-u?, respectively.) 2) Alternatives to the seven-vowel inventory of vowels for Proto-Rejang: c) Why not reconstruct PR * alongside *ä to yield an eight-vowel system for PR? d) Why not remove PR *ä and thereby posit a six-vowel inventory for Proto-Rejang? These four alternatives are considered in turn below.

a) PR *mati: ‘eye’. Why not reconstruct PR *mat«: from PMP *mata ‘eye’ parallel to PR *it« from PMP *(k)ita ‘1Ppl(incl)’? As pointed out in section 4.2.2, Rawas mat«y ‘eye’ represents the regular outcome based on a sequence of rules which includes *mat«: (with stress on the ultimate vowel) as intermediate form. But *mat«: was pre-Rejang; the proposed PR form was *mati: which directly underlies Rawas mat«y. The full derivation is: PMP *mata > ma:ta > *ma:t« > *mat«: > PR *mati: > Rawas mat«y ‘eye’. It must be admitted that reconstructing *mat«: instead of *mati: at the level of PR would be highly attractive from the realist perspective, because *mat«: conforms to the vowel harmony structures posited for PR (unlike *mati: which breaks the mold). However, realism does not imply perfection; real languages are often imperfect. After all, structures do undergo change; moreover, *mati: represents the prelude to several diphthongization processes that ‘conspired’ to (partially) destroy vowel harmony.

The ultimate reason to prefer PR *mati: over *mat«: is that the former involves less abstraction. In every dialect PR stressed *-i: from PMP *-a developed exactly the same as PR stressed *-i: from PMP *-i. Put in another way, *mati: represents the ‘safer’ alternative from the uniformitarian perspective.

b) PR *pulu? ‘ten and PR *ili? ‘choose’. Why not reconstruct PR *pulua? from PMP *puluq ‘ten’ and PR *iliä? from PMP *piliq ‘choose’? This may be a question for phoneticians, for what is at stake is the derivation of Rawas äläh from either PR *ili? or *ilia?. Given PR *ili? we have a longer derivation that includes diphthongization: *ili? > *ilih > *iliäh > *iläh > äläh. Given PR *ilia? the derivation is one step shorter: *iliä? > *iliäh > *iläh > äläh. Actually, there is little to choose between these two alternatives considered by themselves. However, the parallel case of PMP ‘ten’ is not quite so ambivalent. PR *pulu? yields the simpler derivation: *pulu? > *puluh > *puloh > *poloh. By contrast, PR *pulua? would require not only a longer derivation, but also a rather dubious reversal of simple vowel to diphthong and back again to simple vowel: PMP *puluq > *pulua? > *puluah > *puloah > poloh. A strict uniformitarian would perhaps argue that Rawas poloh shows no evidence of diphthongization, so why impose it on the derivation? A structural advantage is also gained by adopting this perspective here: it supports a potentially significant generalization, namely, all contemporary diphthongs from PMP vowels developed after dialect split.

Next, we consider the consequences of replacing PR’s seven-vowel inventory (based on Rawas) with either an eight-vowel inventory (witnessed by none of the dialects) or a six-vowel inventory (witnessed by four of five dialects). In either alternative, the historical status of Rawas ä is the focus of attention.

c) Why not reconstruct PR * parallel to *ä? As readers can easily work out for themselves, it is certainly plausible to propose a symmetrical eight-vowel system for PR, and also a set of diachronic rules with greater parallelism than the analysis presented in the body of the paper. For example, alongside regular changes like PMP *laNit > PR *läNät ‘sky’ there would be PMP *manuk > *mnk ‘chicken’ and an extra rule such that PR * > o was an unconditioned pan-dialectal rule paralleling the (absolutely necessary) unconditioned rule PR *ä > e that affected all dialects except Rawas. Notice that this alternative eight-vowel system is perfectly reasonable from the realist point of view, and may even be correct. But if so, it must overcome the uniformitarian objection that the proposed contrast between PR * and *o is not supported by any of the contemporary dialects. Strong arguments (not ventured here) would be required to overturn the uniformitarian objection in this case.

d) Why not eliminate PR *ä and posit six-vowels for PR based on PLMK? The answer offered here is somewhat tentative. A six vowel system (*i, *u, *«, *e, *o, *a) is supported by contemporary PLMK. Given such a system for PR, Rawas ä would have developed after dialect split. One consequence is that the correspondence set e-e = e-e = e-e = e-e = ä-ä would have to reflect PR vowel-pair *e-e; moreover , a number of changes would be needed to account for the Rawas ä in these examples and several other types of cases. Such an analysis would work if every PR *e were derivable from PMP, but that is apparently not the case. Consider the fact that PR *kidek became Rawas kedek and not kädäk** or kidäk**. The assumption that *e and *ä contrasted in PR (as in contemporary Rawas) explains why contemporary Rawas ä always reflects vowels inherited from PMP, whereas Rawas e never does. The explanation is straightforward on the assumption that Rawas is conservative, and continues to reflect the PR distinction between inherited phonemes (*ä-ä) derived directly from PMP vowels, and borrowed phonemes e and e-e which did not exist in PMP and which, after entering pre-Rejang, remained distinct in PR, as in Rawas, while in the other dialects (inherited) *ä and (borrowed) *e merged as e. On these assumptions, it is reasonable to claim that PMP *laNit became PR *läNät ‘sky’ alongside borrowed PR *kidek, and then, after dialect split, the following two changes occurred. (i) In PLMK PR *läNät became leNet via unconditioned change *ä > e. (ii) In Rawas *kidek > kede?. It just seems harder (perhaps impossible) to justify reconstructing PMP *laNit t become PR *leNet alongside PR *kidek, and then deriving the Rawas outcomes. How could putative PR *leNet become läNät via the change *e > ä while at the same time *kidek became kedek and not kädäk** or at least kidäk**?

A second objection to the six-vowel hypothesis concerns the phonetic motivation for outcomes like Rawas äpän = PLMK epen from PMP *ipen [ip«n]. In a PR six-vowel system, PR *epen is perfectly harmonized, which leaves little room to motivate the change *e > ä needed in Rawas to produce äpän. The only possible motivation would be a theoretically highly dubious one, namely, a ‘push-chain’ effect whereby non-native words like kedek ‘bad’ (source unknown), sen ‘money’ (Dutch), and laher ‘born’ (Malay) had to be distinguished from native words like putative PR *epen by changing them to äpän. Since the days of Rask and Grimm, theories of linguistic change have sought to explain sound shifts on phonetic or (more recently) phonological grounds. Clearly such grounds are lacking in this account.

Therefore, if our analysis is accepted, PR had a seven-vowel system (including *ä). It follows that after dialect split, all dialects except Rawas underwent unconditioned change PR *ä > e, thereby broadening the distribution of PR *e. By contrast, in Rawas there were four types of vocalic changes which broadened the distribution of ä. First, vowel coalescence produced Rawas ä from the PR sequence *-ai-, e.g. Rawas nä? from PR *naik (*nahik ‘climb’), and Rawas pät from PR *pait (*paqit ‘bitter’). Second, the Rawas word-final rhyme –äh as in putäh ‘white’ and äläh ‘choose’ regularly reflects PR *-i? from PMP *-iq (PMP *putiq ‘white’ and PMP *piliq ‘choose’). Third, the derivation of Rawas äläh = PLMK from PR *ili? (*piliq ‘choose’) shows one case of the vowel-pair ä-ä developing after dialect split in Rawas (whereas läNät ‘sky’ developed before split). Finally, the pronoun kämäy shows another case. Presumably PR *kimi (from PMP *kami ‘1Ppl(excl)’) by diphthongization (> *kim«y) followed by an unexplained harmonization change modeled on an earlier perfectly regular change (PMP and PR *ip«n > äpän ‘tooth’).

So far our survey of sources of Rawas ä and e has turned up e only from borrowed sources, whereas ä occurs in both borrowed words and inherited words.[28] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_edn28) This general situation is best explained in terms of three assumptions adopted throughout this paper: (a) PR *ä contrasted with PR *e; (b) the distribution of ä from PR *ä expanded in Rawas; and (c) the distribution e from PR *e expanded in the other dialects through an unconditioned change of PR *ä > e (see set A, table 12). I should like to conclude this paper with a quotation from Nature writer Rebecca L. Cann (2000).

Words do not fossilize. Yet they leave evidence of their evolution in the populations that speak them, in much the same way that genes reveal the evolutionary history of the populations that transmit them.

A standard assumption in historical phonology, well-supported by the evidence of this paper, is that dialect differences develop from (mostly) regular changes that may affect each dialect slightly differently (Blust 1991c, 1999). By following standard techniques of linguistic reconstruction, aspects of the linguistic history of a set of dialects (such as the five Rejang dialects under investigation here) can sometimes be reconstructed, and aspects of the past thereby revealed. In addition, lexicostatistical and glottochronological techniques, although admittedly crude and inexact, may allow such results to be combined with evidence from other fields (such as archeology and genetics) to be mapped onto a graph representing years of separation (Bellwood, Fox and Tryon 1995). The evidence thus extracted from various fields will someday provide the necessary facts and arguments for understanding the external history of the Rejangs: where they came from, how long they have occupied the Barisan highlands of southwest Sumatra, and whether they preceded or followed the other language groups presently occupying the surrounding lowlands. Consideration of such questions has been touched upon in this paper only in terms of possible consequences that may follow reasonably from the linguistic evidence. But the answer provided here represent only the first, somewhat tentative, proposals in relation to these broader issues. At one and the same time, an important goal will have been met if the questions raised in this paper serve to encourage future research in linguistics, archeology, anthropology, history, and education relating to the Rejang people and their Sumatran neighbors.

[1] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref1) I would like to express my appreciation to the Rejang speakers who offered information about their dialects: Ismail Amir (Kebanagung), Arma Zuazla and Sahril Umar (Musi), Pak Anwar (Padang Bendar, Pesisir); Ibu Baima (Embong Panjang, Lebong); Mo. Haji Daud, Pak Ibraham, Mariam, and Kartila S.E. (Muara Kulam, Rawas). I also wish to thank Dr. Zainubi Arbi of Kepahiyang and Pak Sabidin Ishak of Curup for invaluable assistance spanning thirty years. Likewise I am grateful to Dr. Amran Halim, Dr. Zainab Bakir and Dr. Chuzaimah Diem, all at the University of Srivijaya, Palembang, for many kindnesses and much help with facilities and resources. Finally, I wish to thank Dr. Robert A. Blust for reading an earlier draft of this article and making many helpful suggestions. All errors of fact and interpretation remain mine alone. [2] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref2) Abbreviations and special symbols used in the paper are as follows: colon (:) = accented vowel on the word-level, e.g. V: vs. V (unaccented) end-rhyme = -V# or -VC# n.c. = non-cognate n.d. = no data dialect abbreviations: P = Pesisir; L = Lebong; M = Musi; K = Kebanagung; R = Rawas; PL = Pesisir and Lebong; PLM = Pesisir, Lebong and Musi, etc.

[3] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref3) Kebanagung -/k/ provided crucial evidence explaining an apparently irregular change affecting kin terms (McGinn 1997:68).

[4] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref4) Blust (1991c:132) describes PMP *j as a voiced palatalized velar stop that occurred word-finally and between vowels.

[5] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref5) One exception is Rawas /belo?/ ‘turn’ from Malay belok (expected bele?**). Note that the expected form would not, in Rawas, be homophonous with inherited /bälä?/ from PMP *balik ‘return’. [6] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref6) Morphological variants reflecting PMP *piliq and PR *ili? include Pesisir: /milia?/ (active) ~ /nilia?/ (passive) ~/kilia?/ (imperative) ~/pilia?/ (nominal). [7] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref7) It is noteworthy that all words beginning /b«m…/ or /p«m…/, although historically probably infixed with -/«m/- ‘active’, have undergone reanalysis into two prefixes, e.g. Musi /b«monoa?/ / ‘die off’ = {b«-} + {m(«)-} + {onoa?}.

[8] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref8) Many Rawas words with final -/l/ derive from Malay or from unknown sources: Rawas PLMK Malay Gloss tiN”al (syn. /di«m/) tiN”a tinggal wait, stay, live batal bata bantal pillow m«sol m«soa cari look for; hunt tokol palu hammer nugal to dibble; plant by dibbling macol buko buka to open; take off (clothes) tukäl tukil bamboo wine-making instrument kacäl kacea kancil mouse-deer cukäl kikoa gali dig [9] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref9)A discrepancy is hereby noted between my data and Blust’s (1984:427) with respect to the Musi words for ‘finger’ and ‘tapering’. My data shows Musi /ji?«y/ and /ti?us/ with the expected regular development of -/?/- from PMP *-r-, whereas Blust recorded /ji«y/ and /tius/. [10] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref10) Given that PMP *Z and *z have collapsed into a single phoneme *z in recent literature (Blust 1999), the GC shown here is needed to preserve regularity for the Rejang outcomes.

[11] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref11) Schwa Syncope remains an active (synchronic) rule applying across morpheme boundaries in contemporary Rejang, e.g. Musi {-«m-} ‘active’ + {t«Noa} ‘hear’ –> /t«mNoa/ ‘to hear’. [12] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref12) PR *-t from PMP *-j is irregular (expected PR -j).

[13] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref13) In early pre-Rejang the accent fell on the final syllabic when the penult was schwa; otherwise on the penult. See McGinn (1997, 2000).

[14] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref14) Blust (1982) describes a similar process of syllable reduction in the history of Malay.

[15] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref15) PMP *-e (schwa) did not occur wordfinally. [16] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref16) Rawas /belok/ is borrowed from Malay belok ‘turn’. [17] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref17) Table 10 is adapted from McGinn (1997, Table 14) with Rawas data added.

[18] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref18) The Rejang place-name Lebong [l«boN] is potentially interesting in this context. If from PMP *lebeN (presumably pronounced [l«b«N]) ‘valley’ then Lebong [l«boN] is regular.

[19] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref19) Rawas pokot and tokot are exceptions (Table 12).

[20] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref20) Blust (1984:434) assumes that Musi /puk«t/ was borrowed from Malay pukat.

[21] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref21) The alternation is by no means grammaticalized; each pronoun can fulfill either function as governed by discourse rules. [22] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref22) In analyzing Rejang diphthongs McGinn (1997) followed Blust (1984) and not McGinn (1983).

[23] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref23) This topic is explored in McGinn (2003) in connection with the search for a subgrouping hypothesis.

[24] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref24) The form of the argument may be schematized as follows, where 1,2,3 are sound changes. Situation A: 1. a > b / c__d; 2. b > e / c__d; 3. a does not become e / c__d; therefore, rule 2 preceded rule 1. Situation B: 1. a > b /c__d > e /f__g; therefore, the ordering relation between rules 1 and 2 is indeterminate.

[25] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref25) In focus here is not the deeper question of how to define a diphthong (that would take us too far afield), but rather, how the traditional definition (=a phoneme consisting of a syllabic vowel and a non-syllabic vowel) interacts with stress in the historical phonology of a language.

[26] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref26) James W. Harris (1985:31) stated the following about Spanish: “Essentially, the paradox is that the rules of stress and diphthongization must each refer to the output of the other.” [27] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref27) “(PMP) *j was a palatalized velar stop [gy] … it had no voiceless counterpart; …(it was) an ‘island’ within the phoneme inventory.” [28] (http://adebachtiar.multiply.com/journal/item/358/What_The_Rawas_Dialect_Reveals_About_The_Linguistic_History_of_Rejang#_ednref28) Rawas /ät/ ‘dirty; worn out’ is from an unknown source (cf. Ml jahat), as are /käkäl/ ‘foot’ (cf. Malay kaki) and /kacäl/ ‘mouse-deer’ (cf. Malay kancil).

Posted in Journal, linguistic | Leave a Comment »

Inilah Profile Prof. Richard MCGinn yang sangat berjasa meneliti Bahasa Rejang March 10, 2008 (http://bp1.blogger.com/_h8QUKh9nNTk/R9UTmTWdurI/AAAAAAAAAGI/vTk5xwpBWTM/s1600-h/McGinn.jpg) Richard McGinn E-Mail: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) Phone: 740-593-4566 Department: 740-593-4564 Fax: 740-593-2967 Office: Room 377 Gordy Hall Mailing Address: Department of Linguistics 383 Gordy Hall Ohio University Athens, OH 45701 USA

Southeast Asian Studies (http://www.ohiou.edu/seas/index.html) (http://www.ohiou.edu/seas/index.html)

Rejang Language Archive (http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/%7Emcginn/rejanglang.htm)

LING 280 – Language in America (http://oak.cats.oh

Ling 485/585 – Historical Linguistics (http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/%7Emcginn/485-585_Contents.html)

ILL 340/540 – Traditional Southeast Asian Literature (in translation) (http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/%7Emcginn/)

ILL 345/545 – Modern Southeast Asian L (http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/%7Emcginn

Academic Degrees (http://www.ohiou.edu/linguistics/people/McGinn.html#Degrees)

Current Position (http://www.ohiou.edu/linguistics/people/McGinn.html#Position)

Language Backgroun (http://www.ohiou.edu/linguistics/people/M

Experience Abroad (http://www.ohiou.edu/linguistics/people/McGinn.html#Experience)

Administration (http://www.ohiou.edu/linguistics/people/McGinn.html#Administration)

Professional Service (http://www.ohiou.edu/linguistics/people/

Selected Publications (http://www.ohiou.edu/linguistics/people/McGinn.html#Publications)

Research Papers (http://www.ohiou.edu/linguistics/people/McGinn.html#Conferences)

Research In Progres (http://www.ohiou.edu/linguistics/people/M

Date of Birth: December 23, 1939 Academic Degrees: Ph.D. 1979 (Linguistics) University of Hawaii M.A. 1966 (English) Gonzaga University B.A. 1961 (Psychology, English) Gonzaga University Current Position: Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies LanguageBackground: Indonesian / Malay Rejang (Sumatra) Tagalog German Bidayuh (Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo) Experience Abroad: Indonesia: 2007 One month field trip to Rejang-Lebong, Bengkulu 2006-07 Six month field trip to Rejang-Lebong, Bengkulu (Fulbright Grant) 2004 Three month field trip to Rejang-Lebong, Bengkulu, and Ulu Rawas, Sumatra Selatan. 2001 three-week field trip to Rejang-Lebong, Bengkulu, Sumatra 1999 one-week field trip to Rejang-Lebong, Bengkulu, Sumatra 1994 two-month field trip to Rejang-Lebong, Bengkulu, Sumatra 1989 two-month field trip to Rejang-Lebong, Bengkulu, Sumatra 1988 two month field trip to Rejang-Lebong, Bengkulu, Sumatra 1987 three months, coordinator of the COTI Advanced Indonesian Abroad Program 1974-76, Director, Pertamina English Language Institute, Jakarta 1972-1974 Instructor, University of Sriwijaya, Palembang, South Sumatra (Fulbright grant) Malaysia: 2001 three-week field trip to Sarawak, Borneo 2000 four-week field trip to Sarawak, Borneo 1999 one week in Penang 1974 two week tour of Kuala Lumpur and Malacca Italy, England, Ireland: 1967 (12-week tour) France: 1967 (12 weeks language study); Germany: 1966-67 (6 months language study) Philippines: 1963-1966 (Peace Corps volunteer, Los Banos, Laguna) Administration: Chair, Linguistics Department, July 1994-June 2004 Acting Chair, Linguistics Department, Winter quarter 1993. Director, Southeast Asia Studies Program, Ohio University, 1984-1988 Associate Director, Southeast Asia Studies Program, Ohio Universty, 1979-80 and 1983-84. Language Coordinator, Southeast Asian Studies Summer Institute (SEASSI), Ohio University, summer 1982 and summer 1983. Language Coordinator, Indonesian Studies Summer Institute (ISSI), Ohio University, summer 1981 Director, Pertamina English Language Institute, National Oil Company of Indonesia, 1973-1975. Training Director, Peace Corps/Philippines, Hilo, Hawaii 1967-68 Language Coordinator, Peace Corps/Philippines Training Program, Stanford University, Summer 1967 Professional Service: Executive Committee, Southeast Asian Studies Summer Institute, (1997- ) Editorial Board, CROSSROADS, AN INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES (1986-1995) First President, Consortium of Teachers of Southeast Asian Languages (1984-87) Board of directors, Southeast Asian Studies Summer Institute, 1982-1987 Language director, Southeast Asian Studies Summer Institute, Ohio University (1983) Organized the Third Eastern Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Athens (1983) Editor, Antara Kita: the newsletter of the Indonesian Studies Committee of the Association for Asian Studies (1979-81) Indonesian Studies Summer Institute (1981-82) Past editor of Antara Kita the newsletter of the Indonesian Studies Committee of the Association for Asian Studies (1979-81) Since 1979 organized panels for the Association for Asian Studies, the Conference on Indonesian Studies and the Malay World Symposium Selected Publications:

2009 (forthcoming). Out-of-Borneo Subgrouping Hypothesis for Rejang: Re-weighing the Evidence. In Festschrift for Robert A. Blust, ed. by K. Alexander Adelaar. Canberra: Australian National University. 2008a (forthcoming). Asal Bahasa Rejang. Lingua: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra. Palembang: Swiwijaya University.

2008b (forthcoming). Indirect Licensing at the Interface of Syntax and Semantics in Rejang.. Proceedings of the 16th Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, ed. by Uri Tadmor. Jakarta: Atma Jaya University Press.

2008c (forthcoming, co-authored with Dr. Zainubi Arbi). Serial Buku Bacaan Bahasa Rejang untuk Kanak-kanak. (10 books: five dialects, two titles each). Bengkulu and Palembang: Indonesian Department of Education. 2005. What the Rawas Dialect Reveals About the Linguistic History of Rejang. Oceanic Linguistics Vol.44. no. 1, pp. 12-64. 2003. Raising of PMP *a in Bukar-Sadong Land Dayak and Rejang. In Issues in Austronesian Historical Phonology, ed. by John Lynch. Canberra: Australian National University. Pacific Linguistics Series C.

2002. Review Article: Pacific Languages: An Introduction by John Lynch. In Pacific Studies Vol. 24Nos.3/4—Sep.-Dec. 2001 Honolulu: Brigham Young University-Hawaii, Institute for Polynesian Studies, pp. 93-100. 2000. “Where Did the Rejangs Come From?” In Marlys Macken (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Southeast Asia Linguistics Society, University of Arizona. 1999. “The Position of the Rejang Language of Sumatra in Relation to Malay and the ‘Ablaut’ Languages of Northwest Borneo.” In Elizabeth Zeitoun and Paul Jen-kuei Li (eds.), Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Taipei: Academia Sinica Institute of Linguistics, 205-226. 1998. “Anti-ECP Effects in the Rejang Language of Sumatra. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 43(3/4): 359-376. 1997 “Some Irregular Reflexes of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian Vowels in the Rejang Language of Sumatra”. Diachronica XIV.1:67-108. 1994 “COTSEAL Tenth Anniversary Address”. Journal of Southeast Asian Language Teaching III:34-40.

1991 “Pronouns, Politeness and Hierarchy in Malay.” In Robert Blust (ed.), Currents in Pacific Linguistics: Festschrift in Honor of George W. Grace. Canberra, Australian National University: Pacific Linguistics C-117, pp. 197-221. 1989 “The Animacy Hierarchy and Western Austronesian Languages”. The Ohio State University: ESCOL ’89, pp. 207-217. 1988a Book editor, with Introduction. Studies in Austronesian Linguistics. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Monographs in International Studies, Southeast Asia Series No. 76; 492 pp. 1988b “Government and Case in Tagalog,” Studies in Austronesian Linguistics, McGinn (ed.), pp. 275-294. 1985a “Introduction to Interpretive Approaches to Southeast Asian Languages and Cultures” (with Susan Rodgers), Journal of Asian Studies , XLIV No. 4. pp. 735-742. 1985b “A Principle of Text Coherence in Indonesian Languages,” Journal of Asian Studies XLIV No. 4, pp. 743-753. 1982a Outline of Rejang Syntax. Jakarta: Series NUSA, Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Languages of Indonesia. 1982b “On the So-Called Implosive Nasals of Rejang” (with James Coady), Gava` 17: Studies in Austronesian Languages and Cultures: Festschrift for Hans Kahler. Reiner Carle (ed), pp. 437-449. Research Papers Presented Recently at Conferences 2002 McGinn, Richard. Raising of PMP *a in Bukar-Sadong Land Dayak and Rejang. Paper delivered at the 9th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Canberra, Australia, January 8-10. 2000 “Where Did the Rejangs (And the Malays) Come From?” Presented at the annual meeting of the Southeast Asia Linguistics Society, Madison, Wisconsin, May 5-7.

1997 “The Position of Rejang among the Malayo-Polynesian Languages”. Presented at the Eighth International Conference for Austronesian Linguistics, Taiwan, R. O. C., December 2830. 1997 “Syllable Reduction in Rejang and Malay”. Invited paper, Workshop in Comparative Linguistics, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, October 15-16. 1997 “Isolation vs. Adaptability in Rejang Language and Culture”, Association for Asian Studies annual meeting, Chicago, IL, March 16-18. 1995 “Discourse, Markedness, and the Evolution of Focus in Rejang”. Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA) annual meeting, Montreal. 1994 “The Role of Dialect Evidence in Rejang Historical Phonology”. Seventh International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Leiden, The Netherlands. 1994 “The Empty Category Principle and Western Austronesian Languages”. University of Toronto. Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA) annual meeting, Toronto. 1991 “Some Indirect Object Properties in Philippine Languages”. Sixth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Honolulu, Hawaii. Researchin Progress: Three-volume Mss. THE REJANG LANGUAGE: VOLUME I – HISTORICAL PHONOLOGY THE REJANG LANGUAGE: VOLUME II – GRAMMAR THE REJANG LANGUAGE: VOLUME III – TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS ht*p://www.ohiou.edu/linguistics/people/McGinn.html Posted in linguistic | Leave a Comment »

SEMINAR BAHASA DAN HUKUM ADAT REJANG March 10, 2008 SEMINAR BAHASA DAN HUKUM ADAT REJANG SABTU 17 NOVEMBER 2007 PSKK STAIN, CURUP ASAL BAHASA REJANG Richard McGinn Ohio University USA 0. Ringkasan Di dalam tulisan ini, kami mengajukan tiga hipotesa yang secara logis tidak perlu diterima sekaligus atau sebagai gabungan. Ketiga-tiganya didasarkan atas perbandingan bahasa-bahasa, terutama perbandingan kosakata sehari-hari termasuk bentuk (struktur) perkataan. 1. Bahasa Rejang adalah anggota subkelompok besar “Austronesia” dan turun dari bahasa induk purba yang bernama Austronesia Purba. 2. Dialek-dialek Rejang adalah anggota subkelompok kecil di Sumatra yang turun dari bahasa induk purba yang kami namai bahasa Rejang Purba. Ternyata, dialek Rawas yang paling penting dalam upaya merekonstruksikan Rejang Purba. Selanjutnya bahasa Purba dipergunakan sebagai langkah pertama atau ‘menara berlampu’ untuk melihat dengan lebih jelas dan lebih jauh ke masa lalu – misalnya untuk mengatahui tempat yang paling pertama diduduki oleh suku Rejang. 3. Bahasa Rejang (purba) adalah anggota subkelompok Bidayŭh dan turun dari bahasa induk yang kami namai Rejang-Bukar-Sadong-Bidayŭh Purba. Lagi pula, leluhur Rejang itu berasal dari sana, yaitu Kalimantan Utara.

Tiga hipotesa ini tidak sama penilaiannya. Misalnya, hipotesa yang pertama sudah sering dibenarkan oleh para akhli bahasa sejak 70 tahun belakang ini; dengan demikian kami kemukakannya sebagai latar belakang. Lain halnya dengan hipotesa kedua dan ketiga yang kami ajukan sebagai teori pribadi. Walau sudah diterbitkan dalam jurnal dan buku, haruslah diakui bahwa hipotesa kedua dan ketiga masih baru, dan belum banyak didiskusikan (apalagi dibenarkan dan dikonfirmasikan) oleh para akhli bahasa. Malah teori ketiga sudah memiliki pendukung (Zork 2006) dan pengritik (Adelaar 2007). 1. Hipotesa yang pertama Bahasa dan suku Rejang adalah anggota kelompok besar bahasa-bahasa yang bernama “Austronesian”, yang terdiri dari lebih dari seribu duaratus bahasa, yang tersebar di Asia Tenggara dan pulau-pulau di Lautan Pasifik dengan penutur berjumlah ratusan juta orang (Dempwolff 1934-1938; Dahl 1976; Blust (MS, no date). Berikut adalah beberapa contoh kata sehari-hari yang merupakan bahan keterangan (data, fakta) untuk dimengerti dan ditafsirkan oleh hipotesa serupa rekonstruksinya bahasa Austronesia Purba. Kata-kata Sehari-hari dalam Tujuh Bahasa Austronesia Melayu Rukai Tagalog Bidayuh Rejang Samoan Malagasy (Taiwan) (Filipina) (Kalimantan) Rawas (Pasifika) (Afrika) Dua dosa da-lawa duŭ duei lua rua Empat sepate apat umpĕt pat fi efatra Lima lima lima rimŭ lemau lima dimi Enam enem anim inŭm num ono ëninä Ayam (aDaDame) manok manuk monok manu ?? Kutu koco kuto gutu guteu ?utu hao Mata maca mata matŭh matei mata maso Telinga calinga talinga (kaping) (ti’uk) talinga tadini Ati aTay atay ati atui ate ati Jalan dalan da?an jĕrĕn dalen ala ?? Niur (abare) niyog (buntĕn) niol niu ?? Ujan odale ulan ujĕn ujen ua uranä Langit (sobelebeleng) langit rangit längät langi laniträ Batu (lenege) bato batuh buteu fatu `fruit pit‘ vato Makan kane ka?in ma?an ka?en ?ai hanä

Bahasa-bahasa di atas ini tersebar di hampir semua kepulauan Asia Tenggara dan Pasifik waktu sekarang, dari Taiwan (Rukai) hingga di Afrika (Malagasy) dan lautan Pasifik (Samoan). Ternyata, semua bahasa ini termasuk dalam satu kelompok bahasa, yaitu Austronesian. Prinsip dasar ilmu sejarah bahasa yang jelas digambarkan adalah: Evolusi fonologi sangat sistematis dan bertata dalam setiap dialek. (“Sound changes are regular”). Misalnya huruf ‘c’ dalam bahasa Rukai selalu menunjukkan ‘t’ atau ‘s’ atau nol dalam bahasa lain (lihat Kutu, Mata, Telinga) tanpa kecualian. Data seperti ini mustahil telah muncul hanya sebagai kebetulan saja, atau sebagai gara-gara kecampuran penduduk yang jauh sekali jarak antaranya pada waktu sekarang. Sebaliknya, para akhli bahasa menyatakan bahwa semua perkataan di atas itu diwariskan dari sebuah bahasa induk yang walaupun sudah lama mati sebagai bahasa sehari-hari, masih tetap hidup serupa bahasa keturunannya. 2. Di manakah Tempat yang paling Lama Diduduki oleh Suku Rejang? Hipotesa 2: Dialek-dialek Rejang merupakan subkelompok terpencil di Sumatra yang turun dari bahasa induk purba yang kami namai Rejang Purba. Ternyata, dialek Rawas yang paling konservatif yaitu penting dalam upaya merekonstruksikan Rejang Purba. Selanjutnya bahasa Purba dipergunakan sebagai langkah pertama atau menara berlampu untuk melihat dengan lebih jelas dan lebih jauh ke masa lalu–misalnya untuk mengatahui tempat yang paling pertama diduduki oleh suku Rejang. Dalam seksi tulisan ini akan dibicarakan keunikan bahasa Rejang pada umumnya, kemudian sumbangan setiap dialek untuk merekonstrusikan bahasa Rejang Purba. 2.1 Keunikan Bahasa Rejang Bahasa Rejang yang unik ini dapat dicirikan oleh beberapa macam unsur leksikon, tatabahasa dan fonologi.

ERBENDAHARAAN KATA YANG KAYA-RAYA

TRUKTUR KALIMAT YANG SUSAH DITERJEMAHKAN Rajo yo mebureu coa si awié lak nien.

ISIPAN -EM- DAN -ENInuk cemerito dongéng kelem. ~ Dongéng o cenerito inuk ku.

ETIDAKADAAN AKHIRAN Uku nelei nak Cu’up = Saya dibesarkan di Curup

UA SERIAL NASAL (BUNYI SENGAU) jameu inok singeak janjei ‘jambu’ ‘ibu’ ‘singgah’ ‘janji’

EKANAN PADA AKHIR PERKATAAN “Lalan Bélék” delafalkan LaLAN bĕLÉK (bukan LAlan BÉlék)

ARMONI VOKAL MPP Rejang MPP Rejang *langit léngét *nyamuk nyomok *Rakit ékét *tungked tokot *balik bélék *ipen épén~äpän (Rawas) *manuk monok *hiket ékét~äkät (“) *sabung sobong *isep ésép~äsäp (“)

ANYAK SEKALI DIFTONG MPP RP Pes Leb Musi Keban Rawas 1. *danaw *daniu daneu daneu danuo danea daniu 2. *qatay *atui atui atei atié ateé atui 3. *kahiw *kiiu kieu kieu kiuo kiea kiiu 4. *hapuy *upui upui opoi opoi opoi upui 5. *tinaqi *tenui tenui tenei tenié teneé tenui 1. *sapu *supu supau supau supeu supeu supeu 2. *talih *tili tilai tilai tilei tilei tilei 3. *duha *dui duai duai duei dui duei 4. *mata *mati matai matai matei matei matei 5. *kena *kena keno keno keno keno kenau

Keunikan bahasa Rejang dan perbedaan dialek-dialeknya satu sama lain yang memungkinkan merekonstruksikan bahasa Rejang Purba sebagai suatu hipotesa. Sebaliknya bahasa Purba mengandung informasi tentang sejarah bahasa dan suku Rejang.

Yang muncul dengan jelas dari penelitian kami adalah: dialek Rawas dan Kebanagung yang paling penting dalam perekonstruksian bahasa Rejang Purba, sedangkan dialek Lebong, Pesisir dan Musi lebih bermanfaat untuk menunjukkan proses evolusi fonologi. Dengan kata lain, perekonstruksian bahasa purba Rejang tidak mungkin dengan hanya dialek Lebong, Musi dan Pesisir, sebab ketiganya sangat mirip dan perbedaannya sedikit sekali. Lain halnya dengan dialek Rawas dan Kebanagung yang sangat berbeda dengan dialek Rejang lain. 2.2 Sumbangan Dialek Kebanagung Berikut adalah dua sumbangan dari dialek Kebanagung yang paling penting. 1. H diwariskan dari Rejang Purba *r (yang hilang dalam dialek lain): hotos ‘ratus’; kehing ‘kering’; libeh ‘lebar’ 2. -i dalam dui, tui, bungi diwariskan dari *due, tue, bunge dalam bahasa Rejang-Bukar-Sadong Purba (yang menjadi diptong duey atau duay dalam dialek Rejang lain). 2.3 Sumbangan Dialek Rawas Adalah tiga sumbangan dari dialek Rawas yang paling penting. 1. Konson -l di akhir kata diwariskan dari Rejang Purba *-l, *-r. 2. Diftong ui dan iu diwariskan dari Austronesia Purba *ui dan *iu tanpa perubahan sejak 6000 tahun. 3. Vokal ä diwariskan dari Rejang Purba *ä yang bergabung dengan é dalam dialek lain. 2.3.1 MPP *-l, *-R dan Rawas -l

MPP *-l di akhir kata diwariskan dari Rejang Purba *-l, *-r yang hilang dari dialek lain, misalnya: niol ‘niur’; biol ‘air’; tenol ‘telur’ dalam Rawas tetapi menjadi nioa, bioa, tenoa dalam dialek lain. Juga MPP *-R berubah menjadi RP *-l dan *-r dalam Bahasa Rejang Purba. MPP RPur P&L Musi Keban Rawas Melayu A *wahiR *biol bioa bioa bioa biol air *niuR *niol nioa nioa nioa niol niur *ikuR *ikol ikoa ikoa ikoa iko? (borr) ékor *dapuR *dopol dopoa dopoa dopoa dopol dapur *qateluR *tenol tenoa tenoa tenoa tenol telor *tiduR *tidul tidua tidoa tiduh(borr) tidul tidur *dengeR *tengol tengoa tengoa tengoa n.c. dengar B *huluR *ulur ulua oloa uluh ulua ulur *qapuR *upur upua opoa opoh upua kapur *libeR *liber libea libea libeh libea lébar *qiliR *ilir n.c. éléa ilih n.c. ilir 2.3.2 MPP, RP *iu dan *ui dan Rawas iu dan ui Diftong MPP *uy dan *iw diwarisi kepada Rawas dan Rejang Purba Purba ui dan iu tanpa perubahan sejak 6000 tahun, sedangkan sudah berubalah dialek yang lain. MPP RP Pes Leb Musi Keban Rawas *kahiw *kiiu kieu kieu kiuo kiea kiiu *hapuy *upui upui opoi opoi opoi upui 2.3.3 Rejang Purba dan Rawas *ä Rejang Purba *ä menjadi é dalam setiap dialek kecuali Rawas. MPP RPurba Rawas Dialek lain Melayu *nahik *näk näk nék naik *paqit *pät pät pét pahit *ipen *äpän > äpän épén (gigi) *langit *längät > längät léngét langit Oleh sebab adanya Rawas -l, ui, iu, ä; dan adanya Kebanagung dui, tui, bungi dan H, maka sebagian kecil sejarah bahasa Rejang tidak hilang. Lain halnya dengan kecirikhasan fonologi dialek Lebong, Pesisir dan Musi, yang menunjukkan proses evolusi fonologi. 2.4 Kecirikhasan Fonologi Dialek Lebong Pada umumnya, kecirikhasan Lebong menunjukkan evolusi fonologi. Berikut adalah beberapa contoh yang penting. Lebong Rejang Purba Melayu 1. ei sadei, atei *sadui, atui desa, ati 2. eu piseu, daneu *pisiu, *daniu pisau, danau 3. ai duai, isai *dui, *isi dua, isi 4. au supau, butau *supu, *butu sapu, batu 5. -ok anok, bapok *anak, *bapak anak, bapak 6. u dute, luyen *dete, *leyen semua, lain 7. oi poi, moi *pai, *mai padi, ke 2.5 Kecirikhasan Fonologi Dialek Pesisir Juga kecirikhasan Pesisir cenderung menunjukkan evolusi fonologi. Berikut adalah beberapa contoh yang penting. Pesisir Arga Makmur Rejang Purba Melayu 1. ui sadui, atui *sadui, *atui desa, ati 2. eu piseu, daneu *pisiu, *daniu pisau, danau 3. ai duai, isai *dui, *isi dua, isi 4. au supau, butau *supu, *butu sapu, batu 2.6 Kecirikhasan Fonologi Dialek Musi Juga kecirikhasan Musi cenderung menunjukkan evolusi fonologi. Berikut adalah beberapa contoh yang penting. Musi Rejang Purba Melayu 1. ié sadié, atié *sadui, *atui desa, ati 2. uo pisuo, danuo *pisiu, *daniu pisau, danau 3. ei duei, isei *dui, *isi dua, isi 4. eu supeu, buteu *supu, *butu sapu, batu 5. –éak lebéak, putéak *lebi?, *puti? lebih, putih 6. -oak poloak, penoak *pulu?, *penu? puluh, penuh 2.7 Sumbangan Lebong, Pesisir dan Musi kepada Rejang Purba Kebetulan ada juga unsur dialek Lebong, Pesisir dan Musi yang menunjukkan Rejang Purba, dan sebaliknya, ada unsur dialek Rawas yang menunjukkan perkembangan baru dan bukan Rejang Purba. Berikutlah ada dua contoh yang menarik dan penting.

1. -iak dan -uak dalam Pesisir dan Lebong diwariskan dari RP *-i? dan *-u? yang berubah lebih lanjut dalam Rawas; misalnya dalam Rawas RP *puti? menjadi putäh dan *pulu? menjadi poloh.

2. Serial kata ganti dalam Pesisir, Lebong, Musi dan Kebanagung, yaitu uku, kumu, ko, nu, udi, si, diwariskan langsung dari Rejang Purba, sedangkan serial itu sudah berubah dalam Rawas menjadi: keu, kumeu, kaben, kaben, kaben, sei. 2.8 Kesimpulan tentang Sumbangan setiap Dialek

Rawas dan Kebanagung berfungsi sebagi “dialek kriterion” dalam usaha reconstruksi Rejang Pruba. Sebab kebanyakan kecirikhasannya menunjukkan kepada unsur-unsur bahasa Rejang Purba. Sedangkan dialek lainnya (Lebong, Pesisir dan Musi) berfungsi sebagai “dialek ujian” untuk membenarkan Rejang Purba; kebanyakan kecirikhasannya menunjukkan perkembanganperkembangan baru. Akhir katanya, sumbangan setiap dialek sama pentingnya tetapi tidak sama gunanya 2.9 Di manakah Tempat yang paling Lama Diduduki oleh Suku Rejang? Dengan adanya bahasa Rejang Purba, muncullah pertanyaan dengan jawabannya juga. Pertanyaannya adalah: di mana tempat nenek-moyang pada waktu mereka masih berbicara dengan bahasa Rejang Purba? Artinya, dari mana titik tolaknya waktu mereka mulai menyebar ke seluruh tanah Rejang? Jawabannya yaitu: mengikuti prinsip akhli bahasa Blust (1991b) dan Ross (1991), umumnya dialek para perantau cenderung berkembang cepat sedang dialek orang yang tinggal cenderung berkembang lebih lambat (konservatif). Malah Ross (1991) menambahkan pengaruh psikologi: para perantau cenderung toleran terhadap “kesalahan” (perubahan bahasa) yang selalu akan muncul dari mulut anak-anak, sedang orang yang tinggal tidak setoleran “kesalahan” itu. Prinsip ini pasti menunjukkan Rawas sebagai tempat pertama nenek moyang waktu mereka masih berbahasa dengan Rejang Purba. 2.10 Terletak Geografi Akhirnya, hipotesa tentang Rejang Rawas sebagai tempat Rejang Purba cocok dengan letak geografi di Sumatra.

Tanah Rawas terletak di hulu Sungai Rawas yang sudah lama menjadi jalan untuk memasuki pedalaman hampir sampai di puncak Bukit Barisan. Dari sana orang bisa berjalan kaki ke Lebong dengan tidak susah-payah, mengikuti jalan gajah. Sebaliknya Sungai Rawas mengalir jauh sekali ke laut sampai di Pulau Bangka tanpa halangan berupa air terjun. Artnya mudah sekali naik perahu ke Rawas dan tidak terlalu sulit berjalan kaki ke Lebong.

Kesimpulan: Cukup banyak fakta yang menunjukkan Rawas sebagai dialek yang paling unik dan konservatif, dan tempatnya sebagai tempat yang paling lama dihuni orang Rejang. Walaupun demikian, hipotesa kedua sangat terbatas dan belum dapat menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan lain seperti: Dari mana datangnya pelopor pertama, leluhur Rejang Purba, sebelum mereka pergi merantau sampai di tanah Rejang? Apakah mereka datang dari arah timur melalui Sungai Musi, ataukah dari arah lain seperti misalnya barat-laut dari daerah Jambi dan Minangkabau sekarang? Ataukah mungkin dari pantai barat konon melalui Sungai Ketaun sampai ke tanah Pesisir dan Lebong sekarang? Untuk menjawab pertanyaan ini, perlulah kita pindahkan perhatian kepada hipotesa baru, yaitu hipotesa ketiga dalam tulisan ini. 3. Hipotesa Ketiga: Asal Bahasa Rejang Hipotesa ketiga tergantung total atas adanya bahasa Rejang Purba sebagai langkah pertama atau menara lampu untuk dapat melihat lebih jauh ke masa lalu. Jadi tujuan penelitian kini adalah untuk mencari bahasa Austronesia lain yang sedemikian sama dengan Rejang Purba sehingga dapat dinyatakan mereka adalah anggota sebuah subkelompok (sekelompok kecilan). Kalau benar ditemukan subkelompok bahasa seperti itu dalam dunia bahasa di Asia Tenggara, maka sangat mungkinlah kesimpulan bahwa suku Rejang berasal dari sana.

Hipotesa Ketiga: Bahasa Rejang (purba) adalah anggota subkelompok Bidayŭh (Land Dayak) dan turun dari bahasa induk yang kami namai Rejang-Bukar-Sadong-Bidayŭh Purba. Lagi pula, leluhur Rejang itu berasal dari sana atau sekitarnya, yaitu Kalimantan Utara, di bagian selatan dari kota Kuching sekarang (daerah 2 dalam peta). Ada juga Sungai Rejang dekat situ. auto0

Tujuan seksi tulisan ini untuk membenarkan hipotesa keanggotaan bahasa Rejang dan bahasa Bukar-Sadong dalam sebuah subkelompok yang dinamai Rejang-Bukar-Sadong Purba. Hipotesa didasarkan atas 12 perkembangan bersama fonologi, dan 9 kesamaan tatabahasa. 3.1 Prinsip Kemunculan bersama dari perkembangan-perkembangan fonologi yang menentukan keanggotaan dua bahasa dalam satu subkelompok. Hasil penelitian kami baik di Sumatra maupun di Kalimantan Utara menunjukkan sebuah bahasa di Sarawak, Malasia, sebagai bahasa yang paling dekat dengan Rejang Purba. Meskipun demikian, harus diakui bahwa “paling dekat” tidak berarti “dekat”. Kedua bahasa itu sangat berbeda, tetapi banyak kesamaan juga. Maka hipotesa keanggotaan kedua bahasa itu merupakan suatu hipotesa saja yang baru kami ajukan sejak tahun 2003 dalam jurnal dan buku.

Nama bahasa di Kalimantan itu adalah bahasa Bukar-Sadong Bidayŭh. Nama itu mencirikan penuturnya sebagai penduduk tanah pertanian terletak di pegunungan antara Sungai Bukar dan Sungai Sadong; dan nama Bidayŭh itu menunjukkan keanggotaan mereka dalam sebuah subkelompok besar dengan anggotanya sejumlah 20 bahasa lebih. Rupanya ke-20 bahasa Bidayŭh itu berbeda sekali dengan satu sama lain, sehingga tidak saling dimengerti oleh penuturnya masing-masing. Kedua bahasa purba itu jelas keturunan dari bahasa Melayu-Polynesia Purba (MPP). Berikut adalah perkembangan bersama dan kesamaan lain antara bahasa Rejang Purba dan Bahasa Bukar-Sadong Purba. 3.2 Kesamaan Fonologi 1-6 Baik Rejang Purba maupun Bukar-Sadong Purba memperlihatkan perkembangan fonologi bersama dari Melayu-Polinesia Purba (MPP). MPP 1. *-mb-, *-nd-, *-ngg-, *-nj- > -m-, -n-, ng, nj (`barred nasals’) Rejang Rawas: emun tane pingan minjem Bukar-Sadong: amum tanŭ pingan minjem ‘awan’ ‘tanda’ ‘piring’ ‘meminjam’ 2. *-m, *-n, -ng > –bm, –dn, –gng (‘pre-stopped nasals’) Di akhir kata, bunyi sengau biasa sering dilafalkan dengan tambahan konsonan hambat. Rejang: dolobm, buledn, burugng, minjebm Bukar-Sadong: jarubm, burĕdn, bŭrŭgng, minjebm `bundar’ 3. *qa- hilang dalam tiga-sukukata MPP: *qapeju *qalimetaq *qateluR Rejang: pegeu liteak tenol Bukar-Sadong: puduh matak tolok ‘empeduh’ ‘lintah’ ‘telur’ 4. *-Ce- dan *-eC- hilang dalam tiga-sukukata MPP: *binehi *baqeRu *palaqepaq Rejang Lebong: biniak belau pelepak Bukar-Sadong: bénék bauh kilepak ‘benih’ ‘baru’ ‘pelapah’ 5. *-q > *-k [-?] MPP *taneq *jibaq *hasaq Rejang Lebong: taneak jibeak aseak Bukar Sadong: tanak abak asak 6. *z > *j (kec. Rej. d- dalam `dalen’ dan `dolom’) MPP: *quzan *pinzem *tuzuq Rej Lebong: ujen minjem tujuak Buk-Sad: ujĕn minjem ijuk 3.3 Kesamaan Fonologi KE-7: Perkembangan MPP Diftong *aw dan *ay Dalam kedua diftong *ay dan *aw MPP itu, vokalnya *-a- berkembang menjadi *-e- dalam Bahasa Rejang-Bukar-Sadong Purba (yang mirip Rejang Lebong sekarang). MPP Rej-Buk-Sad Rejang Pur Buk-Sad Purba Purba &Rawas & Tibakang *danaw *daneu daniu danu *punay *punei punui puni *qatey *atei atui ati 3.4 Kesamaan fonologi KE-8: MPP *uy tidak berubah dan diwariskan sebagai ui MPP Rej-Buk-Sad Rejang Purba Buk-Sad Purba Purba &Rawas & Tibakang *hapuy *apui upui apui *kahiw *kaiu kiiu kayu 3.5 Kesamaan Fonologi 9-10: Perkembangan MPP *-a di akhir kata

Antara banyaknya evolusi MPP *a dalam sejarah bahasa Rejang termasuk dua perkembangan yang paling penting untuk hipotesa kami. MPP *a naik menjadi *e dalam pola perkataan KVKaK dan KVKa nampaknya bersama dalam sejarah bahasa Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong. Kedua perubahan ini terdapat sebelum tekanan menggeser ke akhir kata, yaitu sewaktu vokal *a itu tak ditekankan. 3.5.1 Kesamaan Fonologi 9: Perkembangan Bersama yang paling Penting

Dalam pola KVKaK (silabel akhir kata tertutup), MPP *-a berubah menjadi /e/ = /ĕ/ kecuali konsonan terakhir adalah [+velar] (ka-ga-nga-qa). Perubahan yang unik ini terdapat dalam semua dialek Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong. MPP Keban- Tibakang Melayu agung (Sarawak) A. *bulan bule:n burĕ:tn bu:lan *quzan uje:n ujĕ:tn u:jan *surat suhe:t surĕ:t su:rat B. *anak ana:k ana:k a:nak *hisang isa:ng insa:kng i:sang *hasaq asa:h ng-asa:? a:sah 3.5.2 Kesamaan Fonologi Ke-10

Dalam pola KVKa (silabel akhir kata terbuka), MPP *-a berubah menjadi /e/. Perubahan ini terdengar dalam puluhan bahasa di Nusantara termasuk semua dialek Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong. Tetapi ada keunikan juga, sebab antara puluhan bahasa itu, hanya Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong mempunyai tekanan pada vokal yang bersangkutan. Logisnya, perubahan *a > e adalah unsur evolusi lama dalam Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong. Lain halnya dalam puluhan bahasa lain itu, di mana *a > e telah muncul sebagai pinjaman dari bahasa Sanskerta dan Jawa di zaman Majapahit (Tadmor 2003) MPP Rejang Buk-Sad Tibakang Melayu Purba Purba *mata *ma:te *ma:te bate:h mata *nanga *na:nge *na:nge nange:h muara *lima *li:me *ri:me rime:h lima *duha *du:e *du:e due:h dua *ni?a *ni:?e *ni:?e ni?e:h nya 3.5.3 Rangkuman Kesamaan Perkembangan 9-10 secara Formal *a > *e / V:C__(C[-velar])# Rej-BS Purba > perkemgangan Kebanagung Melayu *ki:ta > kite > ite kita *du:ha > *du:e > dui: > dui dua *ma:ta > *ma:te > *mati: > matei mata *bu:lat > *bu:let > bule:t bulet bundar *a:nak > *anak anak anak 3.5.4 Kesamaan ke-11 – Tekanan Menggeser ke Akhir Kata Tekanan di akhir kata juga muncul bersama dalam Rejang Purba dan Bukar-Sadong Purba. Dalam hipotésa kami, sesudah perkembangan tekanan itu, berpisahlah suku Rejang dan mulailah mereka hidup sendirian. Kemudian mereka masih tinggal di Kalimantan selama 1000 tahun baru migrasi ke Sumatra. 3.6 Tiga Macam Kesamaan Tatabahasa Selain kesamaan evolusi fonologi, ada juga beberapa kesamaan tata bahasa yang mungkin juga menunjukkan bahasa Rejang-Bukar-Sadong-Bidayŭh Purba. 1. Awalan hilang 2. Kasus kataganti hilang 3. Beberapa kata-berfungsi yang sepadan Arti Tibakang RejPurba Melayu Masa lalu embeh *mi~bik~bi sudah Masa depan kelék *kelak hendak Bentuk perintah boh, mah *bah~ba lah `Berapa?’ kudu *kedu berapa `Di’ ang *tang di `Mana?’ api *ipe mana ‘Yang’ de *di~do yang 3.7 Kesimpulan: Suku Rejang Berasal dari Kalimantan Utara Kesimpulan kami dapat digambarkan dalam bentuk pohon bercabang yang mewakili hipotesa ketiga tentang asalnya suku Rejang. Hipotesa Subkelompok Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong Bahasa Rejang-Bidayŭh Purba 3500 tyl di Kalimantan Utara Rejang-Bukar-Sadong Purba (3000 tyl) Biatah Milikin Grogo Singgai Lara’ Lunde *a > e / V:C__(C[-velar])#

pra-Rejang pra-Bukar-Sadong

(migrasi ke Sumatra 1200 tyl) Rejang Purba (1000 tyl) Bukar-Sadong Purba (1000 tyl)

Menurut hipotesa, nenek moyang suku Rejang keturunan dari suku Rejang-Biday«h yang berada di Kalimantan Utara antara 3500-3000 tahun yang lalu. Kemudian bahasa Rejang-BukarSadong berpisah menjadi Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong, dan sesudah itu, suku Rejang hidup sendirian di Kalimantan Utara selama 1000 tahun lebih. Kemudian entah mengapa suku Rejang migrasi ke Sumatra kira-kira 1200 tahun yang lalu.

Dalam perjalannya yang jaraknya kurang dari 600 kilometer, mereka naik perahu menyeberangi lautan melalui selat Bangka dan masuk Sungai Musi lalu menyusurinya hingga mencapai muara Rawas. Di sana sungai itu bercabang. Ada separuh dari imigran tersebut meneruskan perjalanannya menyusuri sungai Musi terus melewati Bukit Dempo sampai menemukan lahan yang bagus di daerah Kebanagung sekarang. Yang separuh lagi belok ke kanan dan menyusuri sungai Rawas hingga ke bagian yang paling hulu. Di hulu Rawas terdapat lahan yang baik untuk pertanian dan juga bermanfaat. Dari sana para imigran berjalan ke Lebong tanpa bersusah-payah melalui jalan gajah. Dengan demikian, para pendiri Rejang dapat mencapai Lebong yang sangat indah dan subur itu. Seiring dengan waktu, kemudian dari Lebong ada sekelompok pelopor yang membuka lahan baru sampai ke Pesisir dan daerah Gunung Kaba di sekitar Curup sekarang.

Konon nenek-moyang Rejang tersebut tidak menemukan penduduk lainnya di Sumatra. Namun, tidak lama kemudian para pelopor Rejang ini disusul oleh pelopor Melayu yang cukup puas menduduki dataran rendah sehingga saat ini mereka menempati dataran rendah, sedangkan orang Rejang menduduki dataran tinggi. Seminar Bahasa dan Budaya Rejang STAIN Curup 17 November 2007 PUSTAKA ACUAN A. Pustaka tentang Bahasa Rejang oleh Richard McGinn 2009 (akan datang) Out-of-Borneo Subgrouping Hypothesis for Rejang: Re-weighing the Evidence. In Festschrift, ed. by K. Alexander Adelaar. Canberra: Australian National University. 2008a (akan datang, dengan Dr. Zainubi Arbi). Serial Buku Bacaan Bahasa Rejang untuk Kanak-kanak. (Lima dialek x dua judul = sepuluh buku.) Akan diterbitkan oleh pemerintah. 2008b (akan datang) Indirect Licensing at the Interface of Syntax and Semantics in Rejang. Proceedings of the 16th Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, ed. by Uri Tadmor. Jakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya. 2005. What the Rawas Dialect Reveals About the Linguistic History of Rejang. Oceanic Linguistics 44.1:12-64. 2003. Raising of PMP *a in Bukar-Sadong Land Dayak and Rejang. In Issues in Austronesian Historical Phonology, ed. by John Lynch. Canberra: Australian National University . Pacific Linguistics Series C, pp. 37-64. 2000. Where Did the Rejangs Come From? In Marlys Macken (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Southeast Asia Linguistics Society, University of Arizona. 1999. The Position of the Rejang Language of Sumatra in Relation to Malay and the ‘Ablaut’ Languages of Northwest Borneo. In Elizabeth Zeitoun and Paul Jen-kuei Li (eds.), Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics. Taipei: Academia Sinica Institute of Linguistics, pp. 205-226. 1998. Anti-ECP Effects in the Rejang Language of Sumatra. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 43(3/4):359-376. 1997 Some Irregular Reflexes of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian Vowels in the Rejang Language of Sumatra. Diachronica XIV.1:67-108. 1991 Pronouns, Politeness and Hierarchy in Malay. In Robert Blust (ed.), Currents in Pacific Linguistics: Festschrift in Honor of George W. Grace. Canberra, Australian National University: Pacific Linguistics C-117, pp. 197-221. 1989 The Animacy Hierarchy and Western Austronesian Languages. The Ohio State University: ESCOL ’89, pp. 207-217. 1985 A Principle of Text Coherence in Indonesian Languages, Journal of Asian Studies XLIV.4:743-753. 1982a Outline of Rejang Syntax. Jakarta: Series NUSA, Linguistic Studies in Indonesian and Languages of Indonesia. 1982b On the So-Called Implosive Nasals of Rejang (with James Coady). In Reiner Carle (ed), Gava` 17: Studies in Austronesian Languages and Cultures: Festschrift for Hans Kähler. pp. 437-449.

B. Penelitian Masih Belum Selesai The Musi Dialect of Rejang: Phonology and Morphology. (monograph, akan diterbitkan oleh jurnal Lingua, Departemen Linguistik dan Pendidikan Bahasa, Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Sriwijaya, Palembang) (dengan teman sepengarang Dr. Zainubi Arbi) Percakapan Dengan Petani-Petani Rejang Pada Tahun 1974. (artikel) Rejang Teks dalam Lima Dialek Rejang. (monograph) C. Pustaka Acuan lain tentang Bahasa dan Budaya Rejang Aichele, W. 1935, 1984. A fragmentary sketch of the Rejang language. Reprinted in Jaspan (1984), pp. 145-158. Blust, Robert A. 1984. On the history of the Rejang vowels and diphthongs. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 140:422-450. Galizia, Michele. 1992. Myth does not exist apart from discourse, or, The story of a myth that became history. In Victor T. King, ed. The Rejang of southern Sumatra. Hull, England: University of Hull Centre For South-East Asian Studies, pp. 3-29. Hazairin. De Redjang. 1936. De volksordening, het verwantschaps-,huweliijks- en erfrecht. Batavia doctoral thesis (unpublished). 242pp. With map. Bandoeng. Helfrich, O. L. Uit de folklore van Zuid-Sumatra. BKI 83(1927), pp. 193-315. (Rejang texts pp. 244-248 w/translation pp. 308-315). Holle, van K. F. n.d. Rejdangische Woordenlijst door den controleur SWAAB in het archief te Kepahiang aangetroffen, door een onbekende bewerkt naar de blanco-woordenlijst, 36pp. Hosein, H. M. 1971 ms. Edited by Abdullah Sani. Rejang asal-usul. 58 pp. (stenciled) Hosein, H. M. 1971 Ms, edited by Abdullah Sani. Rejang asal-usul. 58pp. (stencilled) Jaspan, Mervyn A. 1964. Folk literature of South Sumatra: Rejang Ka-Ga-Nga texts. Canberra: The Australian National University. _____. 1984. Materials for a Redjang-Indonesian-English dictionary, ed. by P. Voorhoeve. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Series D, No. 58. Marsden, William. 1783, 1811. History of Sumatra. London. Reprinted 1966. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. (includes a Rejang wordlist and Ka-Ga-Nga script) Rees, W. A. Van. 1860. De Annexatie Der Redjang eene Vredelievende Militaire Expeditie. Rotterdam: Nijgh. 119pp. (Contains description of the Rejang and Besemah people occupying the region between Bengkulu and Palembang.) Saleh, Yuslisal. 1988. System Morphologi Verba Bahasa Rejang. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Sani, Abdullah. Ms. (n.d. ca. 1975) Petweak lem serambeak. 4pp. (stencilled) Siddik, Abdullah. 1980. Hukum Adat Rejang. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka. Syahrul Naspin et. al. 1980/81. Morfologi dan sintaksis bahasa Rejang. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Sya’rani, Atika. 1980. Kata kerja bahasa Rejang. Laporan penelitian. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 97pp (stencilled) _______. 1981/2. Sistem perulangan kata dalam bahasa Rejang. Laporan penelitian. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 97pp (stencilled) Voorhoeve, P. 1955. Critical survey of studies on the languages of Sumatra. ‘S-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff. . 1984. Preface and Postscript to Jaspan (1984). P. Wink, De onderafdeeling Lais in de Residentie Bengkoeloe. VBG 66/2 (1926), pp. 111-124: Maleisch-Rejangsche woordenlijst, Lais. Wuisman, J.J.J.M. 1984. The Rejang and the field of ethnological study concept (Comments by William D. Wilder). Unity in Diversity: Indonesia as a Field of Ethnological Study. VKI 103, pp. xzxz. D. Pustaka Acuan Ilmu Bahasa Adelaar, K. Alexander, 1992, Proto Malayic: A reconstruction of its phonology and part of its morphology and lexicon. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics C-119. __________. 2007. Review of John Lynch, ed., Issues in Austronesian historical phonology. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics 550. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 163/1:139-146. Asmah Haji Omar. 1983. The Malay Peoples Of Malaysia and their Languages. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. __________. 1992. An overview of linguistic research on Sarawak. In Martin, Peter W., ed., Shifting patterns of language use in Borneo. Williamsburg, VA: The Borneo Research Council Proceedings Series Vol. Three. Bellwood, Peter. 1997. Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Blust, Robert A. 2006. The origin of the Kelabit voiced aspirates: A historical hypothesis revisited. Oceanic linguistics 45.2: 311-338. __________. 1991a (ed). Currents in Pacific Linguistics: Papers in honor of George W. Grace. Pacific Linguistics Series C, No. 17. Canberra. __________. 1991b. Sound change and migration distance. In Blust (ed.), pp. 27-42. __________. (Ms., no date) Austronesian comparative dictionary. Electronic manuscript. Clark, Ross. 1987. Austronesian Languages. In Bernard Comrie, ed., The World’s Major Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Collins, James T, ed. 1990. Language and oral traditions in Borneo. Selected Papers from the first extraordinary conference of the Borneo Research Council, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia August 49 . Williamsburg, VA: The Borneo Research Council Proceedings Series Vol. Two. Court, Christopher, 1967. Some Areal features of Měntu Land Dayak. Oceanic Linguistics VI: 46-50. Dahl, Otto Christian. 1976. Proto-Austronesian (2nd Edition). Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies monograph series, No. 15. Lund. Dempwolff, Otto. 1934-1938. Vergleichende Lautlehre des Austronesischen Wortschatzes. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Diamond, Jared and Peter Bellwood. Farmers and their languages: The first expansions. Science vol. 300, April 24, 2003. Hudson, A.B. 1978. Linguistic relations among Bornean peoples with special reference to Sarawak: an interim report. In Sarawak: Linguistics and Development Problems. Williamsburg, VA: Studies in Third World Societies No. 3, pp. 1-45. Kroeger, Paul R., 1994 Ms. The dialects of Biatah. Borneo Research Council, 3rd Biennial Meeting, 10-14 July, 1994. Ray, Sidney H., 1913, The languages of Borneo. The Sarawak Museum Journal 1(4):1196. Ross, Malcom D. 1991. How Conservative are Sedentary Languages? Evidence from Western Melanesia. In Blust (ed.). __________. 1998. Language classification in Sarawak: a status report. The Sarawak Museum Journal LIII 74:137173. Scott, N.C., 1964, Nasal consonants in Land Dayak (Bukar-Sadong). In David Abercrombie et. al. eds., In honour of Daniel Jones. London: Longmans, pp. 432-436. Tadmor, Uri. 2003. Final /a/ mutation: a borrowed feature in Western Austronesia. In John Lynch, ed., Issues In Austronesian Historical Phonology. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics 550, pp. 15-36. Topping, Donald M. 1990. A dialect survey of the Land Dayaks of Sarawak. In James T. Collins, ed., 247-274. Voorhoeve, P. 1955. Critical survey of studies on the languages of Sumatra. Martinus Nijhof: ‘S Gravenhage. Zorc, David. 2006. Review of John Lynch, ed., Issues in Austronesian historical phonology. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics 550. In Oceanic linguistics 45.2: 505-516. Posted in linguistic | Leave a Comment »

ASAL BAHASA REJANG February 29, 2008 ASAL BAHASA REJANG Richard McGinn Ohio University 0. Ringkasan Di dalam tulisan ini, kami mengajukan tiga hipotesa yang secara logis tidak perlu diterima sekaligus atau sebagai gabungan. Ketiga-tiganya didasarkan atas perbandingan bahasa-bahasa, terutama perbandingan kosakata sehari-hari termasuk bentuk (struktur) perkataan. 1. Bahasa Rejang adalah anggota kelompokbesar “Austronesia” dan subkelompok “Melayu-Polynesia” dan turun dari bahasa induk purba yang bernama Melayu-PolinesiaPurba. 2. Dialek-dialek Rejang adalah anggota subkelompok kecil di Sumatra yang turun dari bahasa induk purba yang kami namai bahasa Rejang Purba. Ternyata, dialek Rawas yang paling penting dalam upaya merekonstruksikan Rejang Purba. Selanjutnya bahasa Purba dipergunakan sebagai langkah pertama atau ‘menara berlampu’ untuk melihat dengan lebih jelas dan lebih jauh ke masa lalu – misalnya untuk mengatahui tempat yang paling pertama diduduki oleh suku Rejang.

3. Bahasa Rejang (purba) adalah anggota subkelompok Bidayŭh dan turun dari bahasa induk yang kami namai Rejang-Bukar-Sadong-Bidayŭh Purba. Lagi pula, leluhur Rejang itu berasal dari sana, yaitu Kalimantan Utara.

Tiga hipotesa ini tidak sama penilaiannya. Misalnya, hipotesa yang pertama sudah sering dibenarkan oleh para akhli bahasa sejak 70 tahun belakang ini; dengan demikian kami kemukakannya sebagai latar belakang. Lain halnya dengan hipotesa kedua dan ketiga yang kami ajukan sebagai teori pribadi. Walau sudah diterbitkan dalam jurnal dan buku, haruslah diakui bahwa hipotesa kedua dan ketiga masih baru, dan belum banyak didiskusikan (apalagi dibenarkan dan dikonfirmasikan) oleh para akhli bahasa. Malah teori ketiga sudah memiliki pendukung (Zork 2006) dan pengritik (Adelaar 2007). 1. Hipotesa yang pertama

Bahasa dan suku Rejang adalah anggota kelompok besar bahasa-bahasa “Austronesia” dan subkelompok besar bahasa-bahasa yang bernama “Melayu-Polynesian”, yang terdiri dari lebih dari seribu bahasa, yang tersebar di Asia Tenggara dan pulau-pulau di Lautan Pasifik dengan penutur berjumlah ratusan juta orang yang merupakan bahan keterangan (data, fakta) untuk dimengerti dan ditafsirkan oleh hipotesa serupa rekonstruksinya bahasa Melayu-PolinesiaPurba. (Bellwood, Fox and Tryon, 1995) Kata-kata Sehari-hari dalam Tujuh Bahasa Austronesia Bahasa Rukai Tagalog Bidayuh Rejang Rawas Samoan Malagasy Indonesia (Taiwan) (Filipina) (Kalimantan) (Sumatra) (Pasifika) (Afrika) Dua dosa da-lawa duŭ duei lua rua Empat sepate apat umpĕt pat fi efatra Lima lima lima rimŭ lemau lima dimi Enam enem anim inŭm num ono ëninä Ayam (aDaDame) manok manuk monok manu ?? Kutu koco kuto gutu guteu ?utu hao Mata maca mata matŭh matei mata maso Telinga calinga talinga (kaping) (ti’uk) talinga tadini Ati aTay atay ati atui ate ati Jalan dalan da?an jĕrĕn dalen ala ?? Niur (abare) niyog (buntĕn) niol niu ?? Ujan odale ulan ujĕn ujen ua uranä Langit (sobelebeleng) langit rangit längät langi laniträ Batu (lenege) bato batuh buteu fatu `fruit pit‘ vato Makan kane ka?in ma?an ka?en ?ai hanä

Bahasa-bahasa di atas ini tersebar di hampir semua kepulauan Asia Tenggara dan Pasifik waktu sekarang, dari Taiwan (Rukai) hingga di Afrika (Malagasy) dan lautan Pasifik (Samoan). Ternyata, semua bahasa ini termasuk dalam satu kelompok bahasa, yaitu Austronesian. Prinsip dasar ilmu sejarah bahasa yang jelas digambarkan adalah: Evolusi fonologi sangat sistematis dan bertata dalam setiap dialek. (“Sound changes are regular”). Misalnya huruf ‘c’ dalam bahasa Rukai menunjukkan ‘t’ atau ‘s’ atau nol dalam bahasa lain (lihat Kutu, Mata, Telinga) tanpa kecualian. Data seperti ini mustahil telah muncul hanya sebagai kebetulan saja, atau sebagai gara-gara kecampuran penduduk yang jauh sekali jarak antaranya pada waktu sekarang. Sebaliknya, para akhli bahasa menyatakan bahwa semua perkataan di atas itu diwariskan dari sebuah bahasa induk “Austronesia Purba” yang walaupun sudah lama mati sebagai bahasa sehari-hari, masih tetap hidup serupa bahasa keturunannya. 2. Di manakah Tempat yang paling Lama Diduduki oleh Suku Rejang? Hipotesa 2: Dialek-dialek Rejang merupakan subkelompok terpencil di Sumatra yang turun dari bahasa induk purba yang kami namai Rejang Purba. Ternyata, dialek Rawas yang paling konservatif yaitu penting dalam upaya merekonstruksikan Rejang Purba. Selanjutnya bahasa Purba dipergunakan sebagai langkah pertama atau menara berlampu untuk melihat dengan lebih jelas dan lebih jauh ke masa lalu–misalnya untuk mengatahui tempat yang paling pertama diduduki oleh suku Rejang. Dalam seksi tulisan ini akan dibicarakan keunikan bahasa Rejang pada umumnya, kemudian sumbangan setiap dialek untuk merekonstrusikan bahasa Rejang Purba. 2.1 Keunikan Bahasa Rejang Bahasa Rejang yang unik ini dapat dicirikan oleh beberapa macam unsur leksikon, tatabahasa dan fonologi . • PERBENDAHARAAN KATA YANG KAYA-RAYA • STRUKTUR KALIMAT YANG SUSAH DITERJEMAHKAN Rajo yo mebureu coa si awié lak nien. ‘Raja itu seperti tidak bersemangat lagi berburu.’ • SISIPAN -EM- DAN -ENInuk cemerito dongéng kelem. ~ Dongéng o cenerito inuk ku. ‘Ibu menceritakan dongen tadi malam ~ Dongeng itu diceritakan oleh Ibu saya.’ • KETIDAKADAAN AKHIRAN Uku nelei nak Cu’up. ‘Saya dibesarkan di Curup.’ • DUA SERIAL NASAL (BUNYI SENGAU) Rejang: jameu inok singeak janjei Bahasa Indonesia ‘jambu’ ‘ibu’ ‘singgah’ ‘janji’ • TEKANAN PADA AKHIR PERKATAAN Misalnya “Lalan Bélék” delafalkan LaLAN béLÉK (bukan LAlan BÉlék) • HARMONI VOKAL MPP Rejang BI MPP Rejang BI *sabung sobong sabung *tungked tokot tongkat *langit léngét langit *nyamuk nyomok nyamok *Rakit ékét rakit *hiket ékét (Rawas äkät) ikat *balik bélék pulang *ipen épén (Rawas äpän) gigi *manuk monok ayam *isep ésép (Rawas äsäp) hisap • BANYAK SEKALI DIFTONG MPP RP Pes Leb Musi Keban Rawas BI 1. *danaw *daniu daneu daneu danuo danea daniu danau 2. *qatay *atui atui atei atié ateé atui ati 3. *kahiw *kiiu kieu kieu kiuo kiea kiiu kayu 4. *hapuy *upui upui opoi opoi opoi upui api 5. *tinaqi *tenui tenui tenei tenié teneé tenui usus 1. *sapu *supu supau supau supeu supeu supeu sapu 2. *talih *tili tilai tilai tilei tilei tilei tali 3. *duha *dui duai duai duei dui duei dua 4. *mata *mati matai matai matei matei matei mati 5. *kena *kena keno keno keno keno kenau kena

Keunikan bahasa Rejang dan perbedaan dialek-dialeknya satu sama lain yang memungkinkan merekonstruksikan bahasa Rejang Purba sebagai suatu hipotesa. Sebaliknya bahasa Purba mengandung informasi tentang sejarah bahasa dan suku Rejang.

Yang muncul dengan jelas dari penelitian kami adalah: dialek Rawas dan Kebanagung yang paling penting dalam perekonstruksian bahasa Rejang Purba, sedangkan dialek Lebong, Pesisir dan Musi lebih bermanfaat untuk menunjukkan proses evolusi fonologi. Dengan kata lain, perekonstruksian bahasa purba Rejang tidak mungkin dengan hanya dialek Lebong, Musi dan Pesisir, sebab ketiganya sangat mirip dan perbedaannya sedikit sekali. Lain halnya dengan dialek Rawas dan Kebanagung yang sangat berbeda dengan dialek Rejang lain. 2.2 Sumbangan Dialek Kebanagung Berikut adalah dua sumbangan dari dialek Kebanagung yang paling penting. 1. Konson h diwariskan dari Rejang Purba *r (yang hilang dalam dialek lain): hotos ‘ratus’; kehing ‘kering’; libeh ‘lebar’ 2. Vokal -i dalam dui, tui, bungi diwariskan dari *due, tue, bunge dalam bahasa Rejang-Bukar-Sadong Purba (yang menjadi diptong duey atau duay dalam dialek Rejang lain). 2.3 Sumbangan Dialek Rawas Adalah tiga sumbangan dari dialek Rawas yang paling penting. 1. Konson -l di akhir kata diwariskan dari Rejang Purba *-l, *-r. 2. Diftong ui dan iu diwariskan dari Melayu-PolinesiaPurba *uy dan *iw tanpa perubahan sejak 6000 tahun. 3. Vokal ä diwariskan dari Rejang Purba *ä yang bergabung dengan é dalam dialek lain. 2.3.1 MPP *-l, *-R dan Rawas -l MPP *-l di akhir kata diwariskan dari Rejang Purba *-l, *-r yang hilang dari dialek lain, misalnya: niol ‘niur’; biol ‘air’; tenol ‘telur’ dalam Rawas tetapi menjadi nioa, bioa, tenoa dalam dialek lain. Juga MPP *-R berubah menjadi RP *-l dan *-r dalam Bahasa Rejang Purba. MPP RPur P&L Musi Keban Rawas BI A *wahiR *biol bioa bioa bioa biol air *niuR *niol nioa nioa nioa niol niur *ikuR *ikol ikoa ikoa ikoa iko? ékor *dapuR *dopol dopoa dopoa dopoa dopol dapur *qateluR *tenol tenoa tenoa tenoa tenol telor *tiduR *tidul tidua tidoa tiduh tidul tidur *dengeR *tengol tengoa tengoa tengoa — dengar B *huluR *ulur ulua oloa uluh ulua ulur *qapuR *upur upua opoa opoh upua kapur *libeR *liber libea libea libeh libea lébar *qiliR *ilir — éléa ilih — ilir 2.3.2 MPP *iw (=*iu) dan *uy (=*ui) dan Rawas iu dan ui Diftong MPP *uy dan *iw diwarisi kepada Rawas dan Rejang Purba Purba ui dan iu tanpa perubahan sejak 6000 tahun, sedangkan sudah berubalah dialek yang lain. MPP RP Pes Leb Musi Keban Rawas BI *kahiw *kiiu kieu kieu kiuo kiea kiiu kayu *hapuy *upui upui opoi opoi opoi upui api 2.3.3 Rejang Purba dan Rawas *ä Rejang Purba *ä menjadi é dalam setiap dialek kecuali Rawas. MPP RPurba Rawas Dialek lain Bahasa Indonesia *nahik *näk näk nék naik *paqit *pät pät pét pahit *ipen *äpän > äpän épén gigi *langit *längät > längät léngét langit Oleh sebab adanya Rawas -l, ui, iu, ä; dan adanya Kebanagung dui, tui, bungi dan konson h, maka sebagian kecil sejarah bahasa Rejang tidak hilang. Lain halnya dengan kecirikhasan fonologi dialek Lebong, Pesisir dan Musi, yang lebih menunjukkan proses evolusi fonologi. 2.4 Kecirikhasan Fonologi Dialek Lebong Pada umumnya, kecirikhasan Lebong menunjukkan evolusi fonologi. Berikut adalah beberapa contoh yang penting. Lebong Rejang Purba Bahasa Indonesia 1. ei sadei, atei *sadui, atui desa, ati 2. eu piseu, daneu *pisiu, *daniu pisau, danau 3. ai duai, isai *dui, *isi dua, isi 4. au supau, butau *supu, *butu sapu, batu 5. -ok anok, bapok *anak, *bapak anak, bapak 6. u dute, luyen *dete, *leyen semua, lain 7. oi poi, moi *pai, *mai padi, ke 2.5 Kecirikhasan Fonologi Dialek Pesisir Juga kecirikhasan Pesisir cenderung menunjukkan evolusi fonologi. Berikut adalah beberapa contoh yang penting. Pesisir Arga Makmur Rejang Purba Bahasa Indonesia 1. ui sadui, atui *sadui, *atui desa, ati 2. eu piseu, daneu *pisiu, *daniu pisau, danau 3. ai duai, isai *dui, *isi dua, isi 4. au supau, butau *supu, *butu sapu, batu 2.6 Kecirikhasan Fonologi Dialek Musi Juga kecirikhasan Musi cenderung menunjukkan evolusi fonologi. Berikut adalah beberapa contoh yang penting. Musi Rejang Purba Bahasa Indonesia 1. ié sadié, atié *sadui, *atui desa, ati 2. uo pisuo, danuo *pisiu, *daniu pisau, danau 3. ei duei, isei *dui, *isi dua, isi 4. eu supeu, buteu *supu, *butu sapu, batu 5. -éak lebéak, putéak *lebi, *puti lebih, putih 6. -oak poloak, penoak *pulu, *penu puluh, penuh 2.7 Sumbangan Lebong, Pesisir dan Musi kepada Rejang Purba Kebetulan ada juga unsur dialek Lebong, Pesisir dan Musi yang menunjukkan Rejang Purba, dan sebaliknya, ada unsur dialek Rawas yang menunjukkan perkembangan baru dan bukan Rejang Purba. Berikutlah ada dua contoh yang menarik dan penting.

1. -iak dan -uak dalam Pesisir dan Lebong diwariskan dari RP *-i? dan *-u? yang berubah lebih lanjut dalam Rawas; misalnya dalam Rawas RP *puti? ‘putih’ menjadi putäh dan *pulu? menjadi poloh.

2. Serial kata ganti dalam Pesisir, Lebong, Musi dan Kebanagung, yaitu uku, kumu, ko, nu, udi, si, diwariskan langsung dari Rejang Purba, sedangkan serial itu sudah berubah dalam Rawas menjadi: keu, kumeu, kaben, kaben, kaben, sei. 2.8 Kesimpulan tentang Sumbangan setiap Dialek

Rawas dan Kebanagung berfungsi sebagi “dialek kriterion” dalam usaha reconstruksi Rejang Pruba. Sebab kebanyakan kecirikhasannya menunjukkan kepada unsur-unsur bahasa Rejang Purba. Sedangkan dialek lainnya (Lebong, Pesisir dan Musi) berfungsi sebagai “dialek ujian” untuk membenarkan Rejang Purba; kebanyakan kecirikhasannya menunjukkan perkembanganperkembangan baru. Akhir katanya, sumbangan setiap dialek sama pentingnya tetapi tidak sama gunanya 2.9 Di manakah Tempat yang paling Lama Diduduki oleh Suku Rejang? Dengan adanya bahasa Rejang Purba, muncullah pertanyaan dengan jawabannya juga. Pertanyaannya adalah: di mana tempat nenek-moyang pada waktu mereka masih berbicara dengan bahasa Rejang Purba? Artinya, dari mana titik tolaknya waktu mereka mulai menyebar ke seluruh tanah Rejang? Jawabannya yaitu: mengikuti prinsip akhli bahasa Blust (1991b) dan Ross (1991), umumnya dialek para perantau cenderung berkembang cepat sedang dialek orang yang tinggal cenderung berkembang lebih lambat (konservatif). Malah Ross (1991) menambahkan pengaruh psikologi: para perantau cenderung toleran terhadap “kesalahan” (perubahan bahasa) yang selalu akan muncul dari mulut anak-anak, sedang orang yang tinggal tidak setoleran “kesalahan” itu. Prinsip ini pasti menunjukkan Rawas sebagai tempat pertama nenek moyang waktu mereka masih berbahasa dengan Rejang Purba. 2.10 Terletak Geografi Akhirnya, hipotesa tentang Rejang Rawas sebagai tempat Rejang Purba cocok dengan letak geografi di Sumatra.

(http://bp0.blogger.com/_h8QUKh9nNTk/R8eiE3UQLeI/AAAAAAAAAE4/lbWCrzFyWFU/s1600-h/figur10000.jpg) Tanah Rawas terletak di hulu Sungai Rawas yang sudah lama menjadi jalan untuk memasuki pedalaman hampir sampai di puncak Bukit Barisan. Dari sana orang bisa berjalan kaki ke Lebong dengan tidak susah-payah, mengikuti jalan gajah. Sebaliknya Sungai Rawas mengalir jauh sekali ke laut sampai di Pulau Bangka tanpa halangan berupa air terjun. Artnya mudah sekali naik perahu ke Rawas dan tidak terlalu sulit berjalan kaki ke Lebong.

Kesimpulan: Cukup banyak fakta yang menunjukkan Rawas sebagai dialek yang paling unik dan konservatif, dan tempatnya sebagai tempat yang paling lama dihuni orang Rejang. Walaupun demikian, hipotesa kedua sangat terbatas dan belum dapat menjawab pertanyaan-pertanyaan lain seperti: Dari mana datangnya pelopor pertama, leluhur Rejang Purba, sebelum mereka pergi merantau sampai di tanah Rejang? Apakah mereka datang dari arah timur melalui Sungai Musi, ataukah dari arah lain seperti misalnya barat-laut dari daerah Jambi dan Minangkabau sekarang? Ataukah mungkin dari pantai barat konon melalui Sungai Ketaun sampai ke tanah Pesisir dan Lebong sekarang? Untuk menjawab pertanyaan ini, perlulah kita pindahkan perhatian kepada hipotesa baru, yaitu hipotesa ketiga dalam tulisan ini. 3. Hipotesa Ketiga: Asal Bahasa Rejang Hipotesa ketiga tergantung total atas adanya bahasa Rejang Purba sebagai langkah pertama atau menara lampu untuk dapat melihat lebih jauh ke masa lalu. Jadi tujuan penelitian kini adalah untuk mencari bahasa Melayu-Polinesialain yang sedemikian sama dengan Rejang Purba sehingga dapat dinyatakan mereka adalah anggota sebuah subkelompok (sekelompok kecilan). Kalau benar ditemukan subkelompok bahasa seperti itu dalam dunia bahasa di Asia Tenggara, maka sangat mungkinlah kesimpulan bahwa suku Rejang berasal dari sana.

Hipotesa Ketiga: Bahasa Rejang (purba) adalah anggota subkelompok Bidayŭh (Land Dayak) dan turun dari bahasa induk yang kami namai Rejang-Bukar-Sadong-Bidayŭh Purba. Lagi pula, leluhur Rejang itu berasal dari sana atau sekitarnya, yaitu Kalimantan Utara, di bagian selatan dari kota Kuching sekarang (daerah 2 dalam peta). Ada juga Sungai Rejang dekat situ.

(http://bp3.blogger.com/_h8QUKh9nNTk/R8ehBnUQLdI/AAAAAAAAAEw/E3QgoQUWtrQ/s1600-h/Figur+20000.jpg) Tujuan seksi tulisan ini untuk membenarkan hipotesa keanggotaan bahasa Rejang dan bahasa Bukar-Sadong dalam sebuah subkelompok yang dinamai Rejang-Bukar-Sadong Purba. Hipotesa didasarkan atas 11 perkembangan bersama fonologi, dan 9 kesamaan tatabahasa. 3.1 Prinsip Kemunculan bersama dari perkembangan-perkembangan fonologi yang menentukan keanggotaan dua bahasa dalam satu subkelompok. Adelaar (1992) Hasil penelitian kami baik di Sumatra maupun di Kalimantan Utara menunjukkan sebuah bahasa di Sarawak, Malasia, sebagai bahasa yang paling dekat dengan Rejang Purba. Meskipun demikian, harus diakui bahwa “paling dekat” tidak berarti “dekat”. Kedua bahasa itu sangat berbeda, tetapi banyak kesamaan juga. Maka hipotesa keanggotaan kedua bahasa itu merupakan suatu hipotesa saja yang baru kami ajukan sejak tahun 2003 dalam jurnal dan buku. Nama bahasa di Kalimantan itu adalah bahasa Bukar-Sadong Bidayŭh. Nama itu mencirikan penuturnya sebagai penduduk tanah pertanian terletak di pegunungan antara Sungai Bukar dan Sungai Sadong; dan nama Bidayŭh itu menunjukkan keanggotaan mereka dalam sebuah subkelompok besar dengan anggotanya sejumlah 20 bahasa lebih. Rupanya ke-20 bahasa Bidayŭh itu berbeda sekali dengan satu sama lain, sehingga tidak saling dimengerti oleh penuturnya masing-masing. Kedua bahasa purba itu jelas keturunan dari bahasa Melayu-PolinesiaPurba (MPP). Berikut adalah perkembangan bersama dan kesamaan lain antara bahasa Rejang Purba dan Bahasa Bukar-Sadong Purba. 3.2 Kesamaan Fonologi 1-6 Baik Rejang Purba maupun Bukar-Sadong Purba memperlihatkan perkembangan fonologi bersama dari Melayu-Polinesia Purba (MPP). MPP 1. *-mb-, *-nd-, *-ngg-, *-nj- > -m-, -n-, ng, nj (“barred nasals”) Rejang Rawas: emun tane pingan minjem B-S Tibakang : amum tanŭ pingan minjem Bahasa Indonesia ‘awan’ ‘tanda’ ‘piring’ ‘meminjam’ 2. *-m, *-n, -ng > -bm, -dn, -gng (‘pre-stopped nasals’) 3. Di akhir kata, bunyi sengau biasa sering dilafalkan dengan tambahan konsonan hambat. Rejang dolom bulen burung ‘burung’ minjem B-S Tibakang jarum burĕn bŭrŭng ‘bundar’ minjem Bahasa Indonesia ‘jarum’ ‘bulan’ ‘meminjam’ 4. *qa- hilang dalam tiga-sukukata MPP *qapeju *qalimetaq *qateluR Rejang Rawas pegeu liteak tenol B-S Tibakang puduh matak tolok Bahasa Indonesia ‘empeduh’ ‘lintah’ ‘telur’ 5. *-Ce- dan *-eC- hilang dalam tiga-sukukata MPP *binehi *baqeRu *palaqepaq Rejang Lebong biniak belau pelepak B-S Tibakang bénék bauh kilepak Bahasa Indonesia ‘benih’ ‘baru’ ‘pelapah’ 6. *-q > *-k [-?] MPP *taneq *jibaq *hasaq Rejang Lebong: taneak jibeak aseak Bukar Sadong: tanak abak asak Bahasa Indonesia ‘tanah’ ‘jangan’ ‘asah’ 7. *z > *j (kec. Rej. d- dalam `dalen’ dan `dolom’) MPP: *quzan *pinzem *tuzuq Rej Lebong: ujen minjem tujuak B-S Tibakang: ujĕn minjem ijuk Bahasa Indonesia ‘ujan’ ‘meminjam’ ‘tujuh’ 3.3 Kesamaan Fonologi KE-7: Perkembangan MPP Diftong *aw dan *ay Dalam kedua diftong *ay dan *aw MPP itu, vokalnya *-a- berkembang menjadi *-e- dalam Bahasa Rejang-Bukar-Sadong Purba (yang mirip Rejang Lebong sekarang). MPP Rej-Buk-Sad Rejang Pur Buk-Sad Purba Bahasa Purba &Rawas & Tibakang Indonesia *danaw *daneu daniu danu danau *punay *punei punui puni punai *qatey *atei atui ati ati 3.4 Kesamaan fonologi KE-8: MPP *uy tidak berubah dan diwariskan sebagai ui MPP Rej-Buk-Sad Rejang Purba Buk-Sad Purba Bahasa Purba &Rawas & Tibakang Indonesia *hapuy *apui upui apui api *kahiw *kaiu kiiu kayu kayu 3.5 Kesamaan Fonologi 9-10: Perkembangan MPP *-a di akhir kata

Antara banyaknya evolusi MPP *a dalam sejarah bahasa Rejang termasuk dua perkembangan yang paling penting untuk hipotesa kami. MPP *a naik menjadi *e dalam pola perkataan KVKaK dan KVKa nampaknya bersama dalam sejarah bahasa Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong. Kedua perubahan ini terdapat sebelum tekanan menggeser ke akhir kata, yaitu sewaktu vokal *a itu tak ditekankan. 3.5.1 Kesamaan Fonologi 9: Perkembangan Bersama yang paling Penting

Dalam pola KVKaK (silabel akhir kata tertutup), MPP *-a berubah menjadi /e/ = /ĕ/ kecuali konsonan terakhir adalah [+velar] (ka-ga-nga-qa). Perubahan yang unik ini terdapat dalam semua dialek Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong. MPP Keban- Tibakang Bahasa agung (Sarawak) Indonesia A. *bulan bule:n burĕ:tn bulan *quzan uje:n ujĕ:tn ujan *surat suhe:t surĕ:t surat B. *anak ana:k ana:k anak *hisang isa:ng insa:kng isang *hasaq asa:h ng-asa:? asah 3.5.2 Kesamaan Fonologi Ke-10

Dalam pola KVKa (silabel akhir kata terbuka), MPP *-a berubah menjadi /e/. Perubahan ini terdengar dalam puluhan bahasa di Nusantara termasuk semua dialek Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong. Tetapi ada keunikan juga, sebab antara puluhan bahasa itu, hanya Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong mempunyai tekanan pada vokal yang bersangkutan. Logisnya, perubahan *a > e adalah unsur evolusi lama dalam Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong. Lain halnya dalam puluhan bahasa lain itu, di mana *a > e telah muncul sebagai pinjaman dari bahasa Sanskerta dan Jawa di zaman Majapahit . (Tadmor 2003) MPP Rejang Buk-Sad Tibakang Bahasa Purba Purba Indonesia *mata *ma:te *ma:te bate:h mata *nanga *na:nge *na:nge nange:h muara *lima *li:me *ri:me rime:h lima *duha *du:e *du:e due:h dua *ni?a *ni:?e *ni:?e ni?e:h nya 3.5.3 Rangkuman Kesamaan Perkembangan 9-10 secara Formal *a > *e / V:C__(C[-velar])# Rej-BS Purba > perkemgangan Kebanagung Bahasa Indonesia *ki:ta > kite > ite kita *du:ha > *du:e > dui: > dui dua *ma:ta > *ma:te > *mati: > matei mata *bu:lat > *bu:let > bule:t bulet bundar *a:nak > *anak anak anak 3.5.4 Kesamaan ke-11 – Tekanan Menggeser ke Akhir Kata Tekanan di akhir kata juga muncul bersama dalam Rejang Purba dan Bukar-Sadong Purba. Dalam hipotésa kami, sesudah perkembangan tekanan itu, berpisahlah suku Rejang dan mulailah mereka hidup sendirian. Kemudian mereka masih tinggal di Kalimantan selama 1000 tahun baru migrasi ke Sumatra. 3.6 Tiga Macam Kesamaan Tatabahasa Selain kesamaan evolusi fonologi, ada juga beberapa kesamaan tata bahasa yang mungkin juga menunjukkan bahasa Rejang-Bukar-Sadong-Bidayŭh Purba. 1. Awalan hilang 2. Kasus kataganti hilang 3. Beberapa kata-berfungsi yang sepadan Arti Tibakang RejPurba Bahasa Indonesia Masa lalu embeh *mi~bik~bi sudah Masa depan kelék *kelak hendak Bentuk perintah boh, mah *bah~ba lah `Berapa?’ kudu *kedu berapa `Di’ ang *tang di `Mana?’ api *ipe mana ‘Yang’ de *di~do yang 3.7 Kesimpulan: Hipotesa Subkelompok Rejang dan Bukar-Sadong Kesimpulan kami, yaitu suku Rejang berasal dari Kalimantan Utara, dapat digambarkan dalam bentuk pohon bercabang yang mewakili hipotesa ketiga dalam tulisan ini.

(http://bp2.blogger.com/_h8QUKh9nNTk/R8egIXUQLcI/AAAAAAAAAEo/RddCqpm8P2M/s1600-h/peta0000.jpg) Posted in linguistic | Leave a Comment »

Unicode Bahasa Rejang (Unicode for Rejang Language)

February 29, 2008 This latest version of Unicode adds new characters required for Malayalam and Myanmar and important individual characters such as Latin capital sharp s for German. Version 5.1 extends support for languages in Africa, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, and Vietnam, with the addition of the Cham, Lepcha, Ol Chiki, Rejang, Saurashtra, Sundanese, and Vai scripts. Scholarly support includes important editorial punctuation marks, as well as the Carian, Lycian, and Lydian scripts, and the Phaistos disc symbols. Other new symbol sets include dominoes, Mahjong, dictionary punctuation marks, and math additions. Unicode 5.1 contains significant additions and improvements that extend text processing for software worldwide. Rejang: U+A930—U+A95F The Rejang script dates from at least the mid-18th century. Rejang is spoken by about 200,000 people living in Indonesia on the island of Sumatra. There are five major dialects of Rejang.

Rejang is a complex, Brahmic script that uses combining marks. It uses European digits and common punctuation, as well as one script-specific section mark. Traditional texts tend not to use spacing and there are no known examples using hyphenation. Modern use of the script may use spaces between words. http://unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/ (http://unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/) Posted in linguistic | Leave a Comment »

Dialect & Alternate Names : ReJang Language February 24, 2008 Djang Bele Tebo ; Pasisir ; Musi ; Rejang-Lebong ; Redjang ; Rawas ; Djang ; Jang ; Kebanagung ; Rejang ; Lebong ; Djang Lebong Source : Eastern Michigan University http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/get-language-by-country.cfm?country=111 (http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/get-language-by-country.cfm?country=111) Posted in linguistic | Leave a Comment »

THE POSITION OF THE REJANG LANGUAGE OF SUMATRA IN RELATION TO MALAY AND THE `ABLAUT’ LANGUAGES OF NORTHWEST BORNEO February 22, 2008 THE POSITION OF THE REJANG LANGUAGE OF SUMATRA IN RELATION TO MALAY AND THE `ABLAUT’ LANGUAGES OF NORTHWEST BORNEO* 0. Introduction

This paper suggests that certain findings with respect to the historical phonology of Rejang can shed light on similar developments in the histories of Malay and the `ablaut’ languages of Northwest Borneo. The argument begins with a topdown analysis of sound changes in Rejang, with special attention to the role of prosodic structure, especially word-level stress. In McGinn (1997) it was claimed that Rejang underwent not just one but two prosodic changes (stress shifts), one paralleled by (and conceivably shared with) Malay, and a second placing the stress uniformly on the final syllable of the word. If accepted, this claim raises at least the following questions. (1) (i) How many languages besides Rejang underwent the FIRST stress shift parallel to (or possibly together with) Malay? (ii) Are there any related languages besides Rejang showing evidence of multiple prosodic changes? (iii) Is there any other (segmental) evidence supporting a lower-order subgroup for Rejang? Rejang assistants were Dr. Zainubi Arbi and Arma Zuazla (Musi dialect), Irlan Caya (Kebanagung) and Sabidin Ishak (Lebong). Invaluable help was given by Amran Halim and Zainab Bakir. Helpful comments and suggestions provided by Robert Blust and two ananymous reviewers. All are hereby gratefully acknowledged.

This paper begins to address questions (i)-(ii) and explores some possible implications with respect to (iii). As an example of the latter, strict adherence to the “family tree” model of linguistic differentiation precludes any close relationship between Rejang, Malay, and the languages of Borneo, despite numerous similarities in their historical developments. In particular, identical changes that might possibly support a hypothesis linking Rejang with Malay in a lower-order subgroup are undermined by independent changes in Rejang that cannot be reconciled with any subgrouping hypothesis. See especially changes A-(1)-(4) in Appendix A. Similar remarks apply to a chain of languages and dialects in Northwest Borneo reported in Robert Blust (1997). Thus, both the fact of Rejang’s geographical isolation and the family tree theory applied strictly to the comparative data converge to suggest that Rejang developed independently in highland Southwest Sumatra, and, although surrounded by Malay dialects and penetrated to the bone by the national language (Indonesian-Malay), and although sharing many features with certain Borneo languages, Rejang nonetheless belongs to no linguistic subgroup lower than Malayo-Polynesian. What makes this conclusion more interesting than it might otherwise be is the range of parallel developments (parallel drifts[1]) in Rejang, Malay, and the `ablaut’ languages of Northwest Borneo in modern-day Sarawak, Malaysia. Careful documentation of parallel drifts contributes to the typological study of sound change. 1.0 Methodological Preliminaries In both phonology and morpho-syntax, Rejang displays some Malay-like and some `un-Malay’ historical drifts. The first set is reviewed in the next subsection below; the second (much larger) set is discussed beginning with section 2.1. 1.1 Four Malay-like Morpho-syntactic Drifts Many if not all of the Malay-like tendencies are older than the non-Malay drifts, and were conditioned (in part) by the FIRST STRESS SHIFT. This statement seems valid for morpho-syntax as well as for phonology, given the obvious proviso that certain similarities are due to common inheritance from PAN/PMP. Consider the following four candidates. (2) a. Word Order Change from VS to SV (cf. Blust 1997:16) b. Loss of PAN `focus’ suffixes *-en and *-an[2] c. Re-analysis of PAN `perfective’ infix *-in- as the passive marker d. Loss of PAN “focus” prefix affix *Si-

Rejang, Malay, and the ablaut languages of Sarawak all presumably underwent similar grammatical changes whereby the PAN four-focus voice system (Philippine-type) became a morphologically simpler active-passive voice system (Dahl 1976; Blust 1997:17). Although the correct theoretical characterization of either system is far from settled, the morphological changes (2c-d) are correlated with the word order change (2a) and (ex hypothesi) the FIRST STRESS SHIFT (to penult stress) put forth in McGinn (1997) and this paper (see next section). Finally, the reanalysis change (2c) was clearly `compensatory’ in relation to the loss of suffixes (2b): the passive-like functions of *-en and *-an were re-assigned to the perfective infix *-in-, and the perfective function became secondary or disappeared categorically. This explains why reflexes of PAN/PMP *-in- serve as the passive marker in all three languages compared in this paper. Consider the display in (3). (3) Contemporary Reflexes of PAN/PMP *ni- ~ *-inMalay di- (di-tembak `be shot’)[3] Rejang ne- ~ n- ~ -en- (t-en-ia’ `be shot’) Mukah Melanau ne- ~ n- ~ -en- ~ -i- (bibed `be tied’) In the next sub-section, I will present four hypotheses relating to prosodic change. 1.2 Hypothesis: Two Prosodic Changes, Two Typologies

My major claims can be stated in the form of four hypotheses relating to Rejang, Malay, and the `ablaut’ languages of coastal Sarawak. First, I assume that all these languages underwent the same (or very similar) prosodic change, conceivably as a shared innovation but more likely as parallel development, whereby the word-level accent (hereafter, simply the stress) shifted to the penult in a Malay-type pattern[4]. See Appendix C for the Rejang evidence. (In the Malay-type pattern the stress falls on the ultimate when the penult is schwa; otherwise on the penult.) Second, Rejang and the ablaut languages of Sarawak, but not Malay, underwent a Second Stress Shift whereby the stress was placed uniformly on the final syllable of the (phonological) word. See section 2.1. Third, between these two prosodic changes, when all these languages had the Malay-type stress pattern, the stress pattern conditioned the morphosyntactic changes mentioned in (2) above. Fourth, and most significantly, in phonology the Maay-type stress pattern conditioned the reduction of certain trisyllables to disyllables. This last included no fewer than five segmental innovations, all of which occurred in the same chronological order in the affected languages, as follows. (4) “Blust’s Law” (BL): I. Prepenultimate *a Neutralization (PN *a) II. Prepenultimate *#e- Deletion (PD *e) III. Schwa syncope (SS) IV. Intervocalic -CC- Reduction (CR) V. Prepenultimate *i, *u Neutralization (PN *i,*u) This set shall be referred to in this paper as “Blust’s Law” (BL).

First, a caveat: Schwa Syncope (SS) is extremely widespread in Western Austronesian languages, and of itself may have little subgrouping value; what is significant is the interaction of SS with PN and CR. Originally discovered in the historical phonology of Malay (Blust 1982), the same rules (in the same order) were reported for the `ablaut’ languages of Sarawak (Blust 1997). Thus: “There is some evidence that the first prepenultimate vowel to merge with schwa was *a, followed by *u and lastly *i” in the Mukah Melanau language of Sarawak (1997:21). This statement characterizes the effect of BL and explains the retention of prepenultimate PMP *i as /i/ and *u as /u/ (or /o/) in original trisyllables. Compare PMP *timeRaq > *timRaq > *timaq > Rejang timea’ = Malay timah `tin’); PMP *tuqelang > Malay and Mukah /tulang/ (but Rejang /telan/ `bone’ owing to the effect of rule A-(1) of Appendix A).

Blust’s Law interacted with other changes causing losses of whole prepenultimate syllables. Thus loss of *q- (Rejang change A-(2) in Appendix A) interacted with loss of *a through PN and PD, causing loss of initial sequence *qa-, e.g. *qapeju > pegew `gall’. Compare this effect with the following statement by Blust: “All 40 or more languages of Borneo have lost initial *a, or *a preceded by *q or *S (which disappeared) in prepenultimate position, thereby reducing a number of original trisyllables to disyllables. A similar change has taken place in Malay and some other western MP languages.” (Blust 1990b:240). Such changes contributed to what Blust (1990:244) has characterized as “the widespread disyllabic canonical target of Austronesian languages”. This statement is obviously valid for Rejang as well. See Appendix A.

In morphology, notice that the FIRST STRESS SHIFT entails that the stress never fell on affixes[5]. Blust hints at a similar idea in the following remark: “It is possible that (the) drift-like tendency to lose pretonic vocalic distinctions initiated the transformation of the Proto-Austronesian `focus’ system in western Indonesia through eliminating the instrumental marker *Si-.” (Blust 1990b:240). To account for the other morpho-syntactic changes in (2), equally powerful drifts must be recognized; and they, too, seem to be motivated (in part at least) in terms of the stress pattern. 1.3. Syllable-Reduction Schemata Interpreted By the Family Tree Model

It appears that the earliest segmental changes in Rejang’s independent history, especially B-(1) but also B-(2)-(4) in Appendix B, were chronologically prior to the BL set shown in (4) above (cf. B-(5)-(9) in Appendix B). In particular, change B-(1) was, apparently, unique to Rejang, which then `fed’ B-(2)-(4). This sequence suffices to undermine any subgrouping arguments within the family tree theory. (See Section 6 for an alternative interpretation of the facts.) 2.1 Extensions of “Blust’s Law” Across Morpheme Boundaries

The remaining comparisons involve relatively recent changes in Rejang and Mukah Melanau, and differ from the above in that Malay fades into the background. The evidence suggests that Rejang is typologically closer to the Sarawakan languages than to Malay. This claim is consistent with my hypothesis that Rejang and the Sarawakan languages underwent a SECOND STRESS SHIFT independently, whereby the stress fell on the ultimate. The hypothesis accounts directly for the fact that in each of the contemporary languages under consideration here, excepting of course Malay, the stress falls upon the final syllable of the (phonological) word. It also accounts for numerous parallel developments unattested in Malay and linking Rejang typologically with the coastal Sarawak group. 2.1 Mukah Melanau Simple Ablaut

In Rejang and the Sarawakan languages (but not Malay), “Blust’s Law” applied across morhpeme boundaries, with morphological consequences. In Borneo simple ablaut arose via straightforward historical extension of SS and CR before PN (*i,*u) across morpheme boundaries. By contrast, over in Sumatra the re-application of BL changes PN (*i, *u) and SS was in reverse order in (infixed) words, resulting in word-medial consonant clusters. Consider the comparisons in Table 1. Mukah seput `blowpipe’ Rejang tengoa `hear’ PMP *s-um-eput, *s-in-eput *d-um-engeR, *d-in-engeR SS CumCVC CinCVC CR CuCVC CiCVC PN(*i,*u) CemeCVC CeneCVC SS CemCVC CenCVC Outcome suput siput temngoa tenngoa Table 1: Infixation of CeCVC Bases

From the display in Table 1 we can derive an explanation for why certain Rejang and Mukah affixed verbs are disyllables (and others remain trisyllables). In both languages, a selection from the set of BL changes re-applied affected infixed verbs across morpheme boundaries. The affected bases were `oxytone’ (CeCVC)[6]. Despite the differences in morphological outcomes, it is important to bear in mind that Rejang bases underwent the BL changes in the same chronological order as Malay and Mukah Melanau bases. See rules A-(5)-(9) in Appendix A and Blust (1982, 1997). 2.2 Mukah Melanau “Compound Ablaut”

Vowel-initial bases increased their frequency in both Rejang and Mukah Melanau owing to the loss of base-initial *p- and *b- in transitive verbs. Although the mechanisms differed in detail, this parallel is perhaps the most striking of all. In Mukah the effect was what Blust calls compound ablaut. Like simple ablaut, compound ablaut involves infixed bases of the shape CeCVC[7]; what distinguishes the latter is that the initial C- is labial (*p or *b)[8]. In other words, in Mukah CeCVC bases lost the labial as part of the historical process that gave rise to compound ablaut. Schematically: (5) BASE WORD PMP Mukah compound ablaut: *bebed mubed < *b-um-ebed (active) Mukah simple ablaut:: *bebed bibed < *b-in-ebed (passive) Compound ablaut is relevant for active voice. To account for it, Blust offers an ordered set of changes that began with Infix Metathesis (IM) followed by the familiar BL changes. (6) *b-um-ebed > mu-bebed (IM) > mubbed (SS) > mubed (CR). *p-um-epek > mu-pepek (IM) > muppek (SS) > mupek (CR) 2.3 Loss of *p… and *b… in Rejang Transitive Verbs

The Rejang changes paralleling the development of compound ablaut in Mukah were less radical morphologically, but more far-reaching in terms of the impact on the lexicon. Consider the following Rejang data. (7) BASE WORD PMP Gloss onoa’ monoa’ *b-um-unuq `kill’ onoa’ nonoa’ *b-in-unuq `be killed’ gong megong [m.gong] *p-um-egeng `hold’ gong negong [n.gong] *p-in-egeng ‘be held’

In Rejang, prepenultimate infix vowels became schwa by extension of BL), and then word-initial *pe… and *be… simply disappeared[9]. The effect was an increase in the frequency of vowel-initial bases, and therefore of single-phoneme alternants /m-, n-, k- and p-/, giving rise to morphologically complex disyllables like m-onoa’, negong, me-lié; ne-lié `give; be given’ (< PMP *beRay `give’) and m-uka’; n-uka’ `open; be opened’ (< PMP *buká’ `open’ (Zorc 1995:1114)). 2.4 Morphological Motivation for Compound Ablaut?

Blust (1997) does not attempt to explain the historical pressures which led to the rise of Infix Metathesis (hence compound ablaut) in Mukah Melanau. (Note to self: My error–Yes he does in Blust 1997:25 where he evoks Consonant Harmony, which precludes sequences bum…, pem… etc.) It might be useful to consider the situation in Rejang, where some bit of morphological motivation can be adduced to explain why *p- and *b- disappeared in transitive verbs. Consider the contemporary Rejang word /be-m-onoa’/ which contains the de-transitivizing prefix /be-/ affixed to the active (transitive) verb /monoa’/ `kill’. Before the loss of *pe… and *be… this word would certainly have been ambiguous: the phonological strings *pem…, *pen…, *bem… and *ben… could have arisen by infixation (transitivization); they could also have arisen via prefixation with *be- (de-transitivization) or *pe- (nominalization)[10]. After the analogical change in question (i.e. loss of the potentially ambiguous phoneme sequence *be… in infixed verbs), the independent prefix /be-/ was free to cooccur with any stem, as evidenced by detransitivized /be-m-onoa’/ `to die off mysteriously, be killed off unnaturally or without known cause’ (predicated of failed crops)’. 3.0 Further Morphological Parallels Between Rejang and Mukah Melanau Another typological feature that separates Rejang from Malay, and associates Rejang with geographically distant Bornean languages, is the existence of infixes. Consider again the following Rejang and Mukah alternations. (8) Rejang Mukah Melanau Active: me- ~ m- ~ -em- me- ~ m- ~ -em- ~ u (ablaut) Passive: ne- ~ n- ~ -en- ne- ~ n- ~ -en- ~ i (ablaut)

The fact that parallel alternations are found in Sumatra and Borneo would be astonishing if caused entirely by `drift’ (see section (6)). Fortunately, a simpler hypothesis is available: the alternations derive in large part directly from PAN/PMP. Observing comparable alternations to be widely distributed in contemporary Austronesian languages, including Atayal (Formosa) and Borneo, Dahl (1976:119) assigned doublets *mu- ~ *-um- and *ni- ~ *-in- to PAN. Both Rejang and Mukah developed a third set (m-, n-) for reflexes of *mu- and *ni- (> *me-, *ne-) when added to vowel-initial bases, motivated by a phonotactic constraint (not found in Malay) disallowing VV sequences when the first V is schwa; and Mukah developed a fourth type alternant (ablaut) as previously discussed.

In the remainder of this section are listed a number of morphological features of Rejang that are either (virtual) retentions from PAN/PMP, or are derived from PAN/PMP by the application of one or a chain of rules beginning with the set labeled “Blust’s Law” (BL). For data displays below, the following symbols have been adopted from Blust (1997) to facilitate comparison with Mukah: (B = Base; S = Stem; A = Active; P = Passive; N = Nominal; NS = Nasal Substitution).

1. Rejang has two (or possibly three) active-voice prefixes which distinguish degree of transitivity: the alternating prefix/infix me- ~ m- ~ -em-; and the doublet meng- ~ nge- that triggers `Nasal Substitution’. (9) B: tebas A: t-em-bas `to clear-cut’ A: menebas `clear-cutting’ meng-t… > men-t > menA: nebas `clear-cutting’ nge-t… > n-t > nP: t-en-bas `be clear-cut’

2. Owing to phonologically conditioned complementation among affixes, the phoneme /n/ is free to serve as an active or a passive prefix, depending on the lexical nature of the verb. Compare /nebas/ (active) above and /nonoa’/ (passive) below. (10) B: onoa’ A: monoa’ `kill’ P: nonoa’ 3. The prefix meng- surfaces as /meng/- before bases that begin with a vowel, but another prefix ke- is sometimes added to bases that begin with /l/-. (11) B: léa’ `see’ S: ke-léa’ ‘see’ (imperative) A: k-em-léa’ `see’ A: mengeléa’ `observe’ (meng+ke+léa’) P: k-en-kéa’ `be seen’ An exception is me-leket `stick, adhere’ (not **mengeleket). Rejang me-leket derives from PMP *mang+deket. 4. A morphophonemic extension of Schwa Syncope is a synchronic rule affecting infixed bases that begin with a consonant followed by schwa. (See change III of Blust’s Law; Table 1 above; and rule B-(7) of Appendix B.) (12) B: teko `come’ A: t-em-eko > temko `cause to come; arrange to bring s.o. in’ P: t-en-eko > tenko `be caused to come’ 5. Historically, base-initial labial consonants (/p/-, /b/-, /m/-) disappeared in transitive verbs. (13) PAN B A P GLOSS *balik bélék — — return (intr) *b-um-unu qonoa’ monoa’ nonoa’ kill *p-um-injem injem minjem ninjem borrow *p-um-egeng gong megong negong hold As mentioned in section 2.2 above, the conditions closely resemble the conditions for compound ablaut in Mukah Melanau as described by Blust (1997:15).

6. Also paralleled in Mukah Melanau (cf. Blust (1997:22) is a strong tendency to develop vowel-initial verb bases by analogical back-formation based on the affixational pattern resulting from the above change. (14) B: ékér N: pékér `thought’ (Arabic fikir `think’ (Malay pikir)) A: mékér `think’ P: nékér `be thought’,`thought s/he’ (in narratives) (15) B: teret N: pe-teret `photograph’ (English: portrait) A: t-em-ret `take (picture)’ P: t-en-ret `(picture) be taken’ Given that m(e)-, n(e)-, p(e)- exist as prefixes, analogical back-formation tends to convert borrowed initial labials /p…, b…, m…/ into prefixes whenever the semantics allows[11]. 4.0 Phonological Changes Associated With Second Stress Shift

Rejang and Mukah Melanau underwent at least two changes typical of languages with word-final stress: diphthongization of final high vowels, and weakening or loss of intervocalic consonant clusters. As illustrated in Appendix B, stressed *-i and *-u diphthongized In Rejang. (16) *is:i > ise:y `contents’ *ulu: > ule:w `head’

According to Blust, “In other languages which diphthongize *-i and *-u the stress pattern is oxytone: Chamic, Mukah, and other Melanau dialects of coastal Sarawak.” (personal communication, April 1995). Second, compare PMP Nasal Cluster Reduction in Rejang and Mukah. In Rejang two classes of phonemes developed from intervocalic sequences of (homorganic) nasal + obstruent. (17) *sempit > sepit [spit] `narrow’ *tungked > tokot [to.ko:t] `staff, cane’ *timbak > tia’ [ti.a:’] `shoot’ *induk > io’ [i.o:’] `mother (of animals)’ In Rejang, the nasal was dropped when the stop was voiceless (*mp > p, *nt > t, etc.); but when the stop was voiced the sequence coalesced into a `barred nasal’ (*mb > , *nt > , etc.)[12]. In Mukah the nasal was simply dropped (Blust 1997:20). Thus in both languages all PMP homorganic nasal clusters became single phonemes.

Finally, Rejang probably represents the extreme for an Austronesian language in terms of the number of vocalic changes in its phonological history (Blust 1984), including harmonization of base vowels, e.g. *langit > léngét `sky’; *qutek > oto’ `brain’, *sapu (> *supu) > supew `broom’; *tali > (*tili) > tiley `rope’. See Appendix C rules (1)-(2). 5. Summary

McGinn (1997) argued that two prosodic changes conditioned most of the regular segmental shifts in Rejang’s historical phonology. In this paper, it has been suggested that comparable prosodic changes may have occurred in the `ablaut’ languages of Northwest Borneo as described by Blust (1997). The FIRST STRESS SHIFT, defined in terms of prosodic change to a Malay-type stress pattern, may account for the fact that the stress is never assigned initially to an affix in Rejang, Malay, and the ablaut languages of Northwest Borneo. An unusually strong historical tendency to develop binary (disyllabic) BASES has been linked (ex hypothesi) to this aspect of the stress pattern and to a set of five syllable-reduction rules labled “Blust’s Law” (BL). A subset of the affected languages, exemplified by Malay, retains the older stress pattern; furthermore, contemporary Malay favors trisyllabic (and above) affixed words, and the stress alternates under conditions of suffixation[13]. The second (newer) stress pattern is represented by Rejang and the Bornean languages. This subset underwent a second prosodic change whereby the stress came to fall uniformly on the final syllable of the word; medial consonalt clusters were simplified; and final high vowels were diphthongized. Moreover, the set of changes labeled “Blust’s Law” applied across morpheme boundaries, causing the phonological reduction of certain affixed verbs to disyllables. In this way, the preference for binaryness extended beyond wordbases and invaded the domain of the PHONOLOGICAL WORD. In Mukah this preference was implemented by ablaut (CuiCVC); in Rejang by CemnCVC formations. In Rejang at least, the pattern is found only in morphologically complex verbs (never in simple bases)[14]. There are no suffixes in Rejang, and as a direct consequence alternating base-stress is an alien concept. 6. Theoretical Conclusions

It is always a mistake to use Sapir’s singulary term `drift’ to refer to a plurality of parallel developments in daughter speech communities following dialect- or language-split. There is no singulary theory of `drift’, but only theories of linguistic change; and linguistic change can be implemented within the family tree model or the wave model. By contrast, the phrase `parallel drift(s)’ can represent a valid concept when used as a near-synonym for `parallel changes’ or `parallel developments’; the metaphor of `drift’ adds to these the expectation that linguistic changes are never totally isolated events, but always in some sense `directional’ vis-a vis other changes. Furthermore, one subset of linguistic changes, namely sound changes, tend toward absolute regularity under conditions of reconstruction; and yet they cannot be predicted in real time. It follows that after language split, daughter languages should (and apparently always do) develop individually, yet in many parallel ways; unpredictably, yet vaguely in the same direction, as determined by earlier changes.

The family tree model applied strictly to the comparative data indicates that the earliest changes affecting Rejang as an independent language (with the possible exception of FIRST STRESS SHIFT) must be ordered after split. These are the earliest changes, namely, A-(1)-(4) in Appendix A. If so, then as mentioned in section 1.3, the similarities noted in this paper cannot be interpreted as shared innovations but must be either retentions from the protolanguage or parallel developments (=parallel drifts).

There is another interpretation that might be given, however, and it is provided by the wave model. Suppose contemporary Rejang, Malay and the ablaut languages of Borneo, all began as slightly divergent dialects of a single language occupying a single geographic area (such as Northwest Borneo), and that there was considerable areal influence, before one of the dialects migrated to southern Sumatra. Within this scenario, each language would be expected to show one or more unique changes while sharing others that had spread throughout the entire homeland area as shared innovations. The BL changes offer the most obvious candidates for a set of shared innovations; and Rejang changes (1)-(4) in Appendix A are candidates for presplit changes that failed to spread to other dialects. Finally, the wave theory offers the possibility of adding Rejang changes A-(9)-(15) of Appendix A, and the SECOND STRESS SHIFT, to the set of pre-split changes which spread to some dialects but not others (certainly not to pre-Malay). Be that as it may, there is no doubt that the pre-Rejang dialect group migrated from its point of origin, wherever it was. If it was indeed coastal Sarawak, then the outgroup would have had a relatively easy sail along the west coast of Borneo and across a hundred miles of open sea to Sumatra, and thence to Rejang country, passing either by way of Bangka Island and up the Musi and Rawas rivers to the fertile foothills of the Barisan mountains and the contemporary Lebong-Rawas dialect area in present-day South Sumatra, or by way of the Sunda strait and along the west coast of Sumatra to the contemporary Pasisir dialect area in present-day Bengkulu. REFERENCES Adams, Karen L. and Thomas John Hudak, eds. 1992. Papers from the Second Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistic Society. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University Program for Southeast Asian Studies. Baldi, Phillip, ed. 1990. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 45. Berlin: Mouton. Blust, Robert A. 1982. An overlooked feature of Malay historical phonology. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. XLV.2:284-299. . 1984. On the history of the Rejang vowels and diphthongs. BTLV 140:422-450. . 1990a. Patterns of sound change in the Austronesian languages. In Philip Baldi, ed., pp. 231-267. . 1990b. Linguistic change and reconstruction methodology in the Austronesian language family. In Philip Baldi, ed., pp. 133-153. , ed. 1991. Currents in Pacific Linguistics: Papers in Honor of George W. Grace. Pacific Linguistics C-117. . 1992. The Austronesian settlement of mainland Southeast Asia. In Adams and Hudak, eds., pp. 25-83. . 1997. Ablaut in Northwest Borneo. Diachronica XIV:1-30. Coady, James and Richard McGinn. On the so-called implosive nasals of Rejang. GAVA’ 17:437-449. Cohn, Abigail C. and John J. McCarthy. 1994 MS. Alignment and parallelism in Indonesian prosody. Dahl, Otto Christian. 1976. Proto-Austronesian. Lund: Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series 15. McGinn, Richard. 1997. Some irregular reflexes of Proto-Malayo- Polynesian vowels in the Rejang language of Sumatra. Diachronica XIV.66-107. Ross, Malcom. 1992. The sound of Proto-Austronesian: an outsider’s view. Oceanic Linguistics 31.1:23-64. Teeuw, A. 1959. The history of the Malay language. BTLV.115:138156. Wolff, John. 1981. Similarities between Indonesian and Tagalog and their historical basis. Historical Linguistics in Indonesia, Part I, ed. by Robert A. Blust. NUSA 10:83-90. 1991. The PAN Phoneme *t and the grouping of the Austronesian languages. In Robert Blust, ed., pp 535-549. Zorc, R. David. 1983. Proto-Austronesian accent revisited. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 14.1:1-24. . 1991 MS. Austronesian and Philippine accent patterns. Paper delivered at the Sixth International Conference for Austronesian Linguistics, Honolulu. . 1995. A glossary of Austronesian reconstructions. In Daryl Tryon, ed. Comparative Austronesian Dictionary. New York and Berlin: Mouton, pp. 1008-1149. APPENDIX A: First Stress Shift and Syllable Reduction Changes in Rejang Rejang data is provided for three dialects: Musi, Lebong, and Kebanagung. Tables A-1, A-2 and Rules (1)-(15) of this Appendix illustrate the claim that all syllable-reduction changes in Rejang involved the loss of unstressed schwas within the reconstructed pre-Rejang Malay-type stress pattern[15]. (PN = prepenultimate vowel neutralization; DEL = loss of a syllable.) Pre-Rej PN DEL Musi Lebong Keban. Gloss A *ba:qeru beqeRu: beRu belew belaw blew new *baRa:ni beRa:ni bani biney binay biney brave *ka-wa:nan kewa:nan kanan kanen kanen kanen right *qasi:Ra siRa siley silay siley salt *qapeju: peju pegew n.d. n.d. gall *qatelu:R teluR tenoa tenoa tenoa egg *qalimeta:q litaq litea’ litea’ n.d. leech *ma-i:Raq me-i:Raq miRaq milea’ milea’ n.c. red *ma-a:ñud me-a:ñud mañut monot monot monot drift *um-u:taq em-u:taq mutaq mutea’ mutea’ mutah vomit *in-u:taq en-u:taq nutaq nutea’ nutea’ nutah (passive) B *beReqa:t beRet be’et n.c. behet heavy *bi:nehiq biniq bénéa’ n.d. n.d. seed *biti:qis beteqi:s betis betis n.d. n.d. leg *ma-Ruqa:nay meReqa:nay manay[16] -manié -maney -maneé male *pala:qepaq peleqepa:q pelpaq pelpea’ n.d. n.d. palm *ti:meRaq timaq timea’ timea’ n.d. tin *tu:qelaN teqela:N telaN telan telan telan bone C *da:qan dan dan n.d. n.d. branch *emi:s mis mis mis mis sweet *epa:t pat pat pat pat four *na:hik naik né’ né’ nék climb *pa:qit pait pét pét pét bitter D. *lem lem lem lem inside *la:ud laut laut laut sea *la:in leyen luyen leyen other Table A-1: Illustrative Derivations Table A-2 below illustrates the claim that only prepenultimate vowels underwent rule (1); disyllabic bases were unaffected. PMP pre-Rej Musi Lebong Keban. Gloss *daqan da:qan dan dan dan branch *taqun ta:qun taun taun taun year *puqun pu:qun pun pun pun tree *tuqa tu:a tuey tuay tui old *kahu kahu ko ko ko 2s (sub/obj) *ni-hu nihu nu nu nu 2s (poss) *laud la:ud laut laut laut sea *dahun da:hun dawen dawen dawen leaf *buhek bu:hek bu’ bu’ buk hair *Duha Du:ha duey duay dui two Table A-2: Disyllables Were Unaffected by Rule (1) APPENDIX B: Syllable Reduction Changes (1) Prepenultimate vowels to the left of intervocalic *-q- (but not *-h- from *S) neutralized as schwa, causing the stress to shift to the ultimate in the Malay-type pattern. See Table A-2 above, and consider the contrast between Rejang and Malay in set A below. Pre- (1) Rejang Malay GLOSS Rejang (Musi) A. *ba:qeRu beqeRu: belew baru new *tu:qelaN teqela:N telan tulang bone *biti:qis beteqi:s betis betis calf of leg *tina:qi teneqi: tenei>teney n.c. stomach B. *bi:nehiq bénéa’ benih seed *ti:meRaq timea’ timah tin *tu:pelak tula’ tolak push (2) *q and *h (from PAN *S) disappeared, with the exception that word-final *-q was retained as glottal stop. *qasi:Ra > *asi:Ra (siley) salt *hekan > *ekan (kan) fish *beteqi:s > *betei:s (betis) calf of leg *bi:nehiq > *bi:neiq (bénéa’) seed for planting *bu:hek > *bu:ek (bu’) head hair *Ru:maq > *Ru:maq (ume:a’) house (3) (Reanalysis) Derived sequence *-ei# became diphthong *-ey > Rejang-Musi ié (*tina:qi > teneqi: > tenei: > tene:y) > teni:é `stomach’. (4) Other schwas in derived VV clusters disappeared. *betei:s > beti:s `calf of leg’ *bu:ek > bu’ `head hair’ Note: Rules (5)-(9) constitute the set I have labeled “Blust’s Law” (5) Prepenultimate *a Neutralization (PN *a) *baRa:ni > *beRa:ni (> ba:ni > bine:y) brave *ta:kebas > *tekeba:s (> tekba:s > teba:s) clear-cut *pa:lepaq > *pelepa:q (> pelpa:q > pelpe:a’) frond *ka-wa:nan > *kewa:nan (> ka:nen > kane:n) right *(q)asi:Ra > *esi:Ra (> si:la > sile:y) salt *(q)epeju: > peju: (> pege:w) gall (6) Prepenultimate *#e Deletion (PD *e) *esi:Ra > si:Ra > si:la (> siley) salt *epeju: > peju: (> pegew) gall[17] (7) Schwa Syncope (SS) *ti:meRaq > *ti:mRaq tin *tu:pelak > *tu:plak push *tekeba:s > *tekba:s clear-cut (8) CC Reduction: -CC- > C (except -lC-) (CR) Morphological effects: *ti:mRaq > *ti:maq -CC- remained unreduced *tu:plak > *tu:lak at morpheme boundaries *tekba:s > teba:s (t-em-ney, t-en-mew, etc.) *pelpa:q > pelpe:a’ (9) Prepenultimate *i, *u neutralization (PN *i, *u) *binatang > benatang animal *um-inem > *eminem (> méném) drink *t-um-imbak > t-em-ia’ `shoot’ *t-in-imbak > t-en-ia’ `be shot’ (10) Derived sequence -ew- disappeared: *kewa:nan > ka:nan (> kane:n) *beR-munuq > be-munuq ( > bemonoa’) (11) Derived sequence -eR- disappeared: *beRa:ni > ba:ni (> bine:y) *beR-anak[18] > b-anak (12) All word-initial schwas disappeared (cf. (6). *eminem > méném drink *emi:s > mis sweet *epa:t > pat four *eka:n > kan fish *ene:m > num six[19] (13) Adjacent sequences of like vowels coalesced into a single vowel *da:qan > *da:an > dan branch *pu:qun > *pu:un > pun tree (14) Derived -ai- clusters collapsed to [é], and one derived -aucluster collapsed to [o] in a pronoun. *pa:qit > *pa:it > pét bitter *na:hik > *na:ik > nék climb *kahu > *kau > ko you(2s) (15) The sequence #niV# reduced to nV (affecting two pronouns). PMP *h>ø *a>e/V(C) _ #[20] *i>ø Gloss | [-stress] *ni-a nie ne 3s poss. *ni-hu *niu nu 2s poss. This completes the (partially) ordered list of changes resulting in the loss of a syllable in Rejang historical phonology. APPENDIX C: Rejang Changes Associated with the Second Stress Shift

As reported in McGinn (1997), Rejang underwent a SECOND STRESS SHIFT whereby the stress shifted to the final syllable of the base. This change initiated a battery of segmental changes illustrated in (1)-(6) below. Outcomes are shown in the Musi dialect. (1) Unstressed *a underwent four harmonization patterns: *tali: > tili: > tiley (open final syllable) *sapu: > supu: > supew “ *manu:k > monu:k > mono’ (closed final syllable) *langi:t > léngi:t > léngét “ (2) Stressed schwa (*e:) underwent two harmonizations: *qute:k > oto:’ brain *puse:j > posok navel *ipe:n > épén tooth *mine:m > méném drink (3) Stressed *-i and *-u diphthongized: *is:i > ise:y contents *ulu: > ule:w `head’ (4) (Derived) stressed *-e: (schwa) raised to *-i: and diphthongized following the pattern of (3) above: *bunge: > bungi: > bunge:y flower *tue: > tui: > tue:y old (5) Stressed vowels also diphthongized before liquids and glottal stop (then final liquids disappeared): *Rumaq > ume:a’ house *tawaD > tawe:a haggle *kawil > kéwé:a fishhook *dengeR > tengo:a hear (6) Single phonemes developed from intervocalic sequences of (homorganic) nasal + obstruent: *sempit > sepit [spit] narrow *tungked > tokot [to.ko:t] staff, cane *timbak > tia’ [ti.a:’] shoot *induk > indo’ [ind.o:’] mother (of animals) APPENDIX D: Evidence for Reconstructing a Malay-Type Stress Pattern for Pre-Rejang

Two arguments are presented here to justify reconstructing a Malay-type stress pattern[21] for pre-Rejang. (For more see McGinn 1997). First, the reconstruction is necessary to capture the regularity of a number of sound changes, the most important of which is (1) below. (1) *a > e /-V(C) (C)# :where -C = [-velar] | [-stress] This rule says that unstressed *a changed to schwa in disyllables except when followed by a velar (*-k, *-q, *-ng). Rule (1) must be ordered after the set of syllable-reduction changes shown in Appendix A. Consider the following evidence. (2) A. CVCVC Disyllables *bu:lat > *bu:let *pa:nas > *pa:nes *ta:ngan > *ta:ngen *qu:Zan > *u:jen B. CVCVC Oxytones *ta:kebas > teba:s (not tebes*) *tu:qelaN > tela:n (not telen*) *teba:ng > teba:ng (not tebeng* C. CVC Monosyllables *heka:n > kan (not ken*) *qa:yam > yam (not yem*) *epa:t > pat (not pet*)

Notice that *a in monosyllables (set C) and the second syllable of `oxytone’ disyllables (set B) were unaffected by rule (1), as predicted, because rule (1) affected unstressed vowels. The reconstructed Malay-type stress pattern accounts for these data and establishes their regularity in relation to the rule (sound change). Second, consider the following generalizations that can be adduced from the Rejang changes illustrated in Appendix B and especially the harmonization rules in Appendix C. (3) a) PMP *a was less stable than *e (schwa) in Rejang[22]. b) The changes affecting PMP simple vowels caused the lexicon to split based on the vocalic feature [low]: System A System B [-low] [+low] i u e é e o a

At first glance (3a) seems `unnatural’; if the low central vowel [a] represents the ideal (=most sonorous) vowel on the sonority hierarchy, and if schwa is the least sonorous, then all things being equal [a] should be a more stable vowel than schwa. The reconstructed stress pattern resolves the paradox: all unstable *a’s and stable schwas were in unstressed positions. Unstressed *a changed (harmonized) in conformity with System A; and unstressed *e (schwa) resisted change only in the penult position of disyllables, in words that conformed with Systems A and B. In contrast, unstressed penult schwas were maximally unstable in trisyllables (they disappeared); and stressed schwas underwent harmonization (see rule (2) of Appendix C). [1]The singulary term `drift’ means little more than `regular sound changes’ plus the further suggestion that these tend to be directional. See section 6 for discussion. [2]As for Malay’s multi-purpose derivational suffix -an, it is uncertain whether -an is a retention from PAN or an innovation similar to -kan. [3]The Malay passive prefix /di-/ presumably derives from PAN variant *ni- via denasalization. See Teeuw (1959) for extensive discussion.

[4]What it shifted from remains unknown; but that the stress pattern of PAN/PMP was not Malay-type is taken for granted here. See Ross (1992), Wolff (1991) and Zorc (1978) for arguments and discussion. [5]The exception is found in in Malay suffixes -kan and -i, which can receive the stress under the influence of enclitic pronoun /nya/: bicára > bicará-kan > bicara-kán-nya. See Cohn and McCarthy (1994:MS). [6] Presumably these had stress on the ultimate in the Malay-type pattern; thus: CeCV:C. [7] CeCVC shapes are oxytone (CeCV:C) in the Malay-type stress system. [8] Although rare to nonexistent in PMP, conceivably *m- initial CeCVC bases should also be included here. [9] i.e. the chage affected CVCVC bases as well as CeCVC bases. [10]/be-/ likely derives from PAN/PMP *maR-, and /pe-/ from PAN/PMP *paR-. (See Teeuw 1959:141 and Wolff 1981:84 for discussion of comparable Malay affixes). [11]Compare Malay (tidak) peduli `(don’t) care’ = Rejang peduley `concern’ (noun), which yields a base that can be infixed: d-em-uley `show concern’. [12]See Coady and McGinn (1982) for a synchronic description of the barred nasals. [13]In other words, penult stress extends beyond the base to encompass the phonological word in Malay. [14]The exception is that Rejang tolerates intervocalic consonant clusters when the second element is /l/ in bases and complex formations: kemelbea’ `very; extremely’ (based on -em-, ke- and lebea’ `more’, cf. Malay /lebih/); /pelpea’/ `midrib of coconut frond’ (< PMP *palaqpaq). [15]See Appendix C. [16]Here *-eq- and *-eR- delete iteratively, i.e. the first application produces an intermediate trisyllable: *meRanay. [17]The outcome for `gall’ indicates that loss of *qa- in trisyllables must have preceded SS and CR; otherwise *qapeju should have become unattested **ugew in Rejang-Musi, via **qapju > **aju > **agu > **ugu > **ugew (cf. *sapu > supew `broom’). [18]I assume pre-Rejang *beR- derives from PAN *maR- (Teeuw 1959:141; Wolff 1981:84). [19]Note: *e > /u/ in /num/ is unexplained. [20]This is a special application of rule C-(1) in Appendix C. [21]In a Malay-type pattern the stress is on the ultimate when the penult is schwa; otherwise on the penult. [22]According to Blust (1984) and McGinn (1997), PMP *e split into seven phonemes in Rejang and PMP *a split into nine. Posted in linguistic | Leave a Comment »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Loading...

linguistic | Rejang

Rejang Just another WordPress.com weblog Archive for the ‘linguistic’ Category Dialect Reveals About The Linguistic History of Rejang March 27, 2008...

509KB Sizes 10 Downloads 25 Views

Recommend Documents

No documents