| Ramu–Lower Sepik | |
|---|---|
| (proposed) | |
| Geographic distribution | northernPapua New Guinea:East Sepik Province andMadang Province |
| Linguistic classification | One of the world's primarylanguage families |
| Subdivisions |
|
| Language codes | |
| Glottolog | lowe1437 |
TheRamu–Lower Sepika.k.a.Lower Sepik–Ramu languages are a proposedfamily of about 35Papuan languages spoken in theRamu andSepik river basins of northernPapua New Guinea. These languages tend to have simple phonologies, with few consonants or vowels and usually no tones.
Two primary branches are typically accepted:
However, Foley (2018) also considers the possibility ofGrass being a third primary branch.[1] Usher classifies some of the Grass languages (theKeram languages) as being coordinate with Ramu, and some (thePorapora languages) as being part of Ramu.[2]
The relatedness of the three branches are held together by morphological evidence, as very few lexical cognates are shared among them.[1]
The family was proposed byWilliam A. Foley and accepted byMalcolm Ross. Its two branches,Ramu andLower Sepik, had belonged toDonald Laycock's now-defunct 1973Sepik–Ramu proposal. If related, they are not close. The connection is not accepted by Timothy Usher.[3]
Based on oral histories of the Lower Sepik peoples, which record thatYimas is spoken near their homeland, as well as the conservative nature of Yimas itself, Ross suggests that the speakers of Proto–Ramu – Lower Sepik may have lived in the northern foothills of the New Guinea highlands and moved into the Sepik Basin as the inland Sepik Sea started to recede six thousand years ago.
The Ramu-Lower Sepik family is not accepted bySøren Wichmann (2013), who splits it into 4-5 separate groups.[4]
Foley (2018) accepts that Ramu and Lower Sepik are related on the basis of morphological evidence, although they are typologically still very different from each other.[1] It is also accepted by Glottolog.
Grass languages are lexically divergent, sharing very few cognates with the other Ramu languages.[1] Foley (2018: 205) leaves open the possibility of Grass being a third branch of the Lower Sepik-Ramu family, withLower Sepik andRamu beingsister branches.
Although theLower Sepik andRamu groups are related, Ramu is morphologically much simpler than Lower Sepik due to differing historical contact scenarios. TheNdu,Yuat, andRamu groups all have relatively simple morphology, while theLower Sepik family has some of the most complex morphology seen among Papuan languages.[1]
Foley posits that morphological simplification among these disparate languages families had occurred due tocreolization through widespreadlanguage contact. He notes that the most spread-out languages with wide geographical distributions are also the ones with the simplest morphologies:Abau,Iwam,Kwanga,Ambulas,Boiken,Iatmul,Ap Ma,Mikarew,Adjora, andRao (these are allSepik andRamu languages).[1]
The internal coherence of the two branches, Ramu and Lower Sepik, is based on similarpronounparadigms, which however do not connect the two branches to each other. Foley was able to connect them lexically, but the primary evidence for a Ramu – Lower Sepik family is a number of irregularplural markers shared by the Lower Sepik languages and the Ramu languagesWatam andBosman. The pronouns themselves have little in common except for3sg *man (proto-Ramu) ~ *mɨn (proto–Lower Sepik) and the non-singular affix *-ŋk- (dual in Ramu andpaucal in Lower Sepik: SeeRamu languages#Pronouns andLower Sepik languages#Pronouns for details).
Whereas the Ramu languages have *ŋgo ‘1sg’ and *nu ‘2sg’, the Lower Sepik languages have *ama ‘1sg’ and *mi ‘2sg’.[1]
Reconstructions of proto-Lower Sepik and proto-Ottilien (proto-Watam-Awar-Gamay, aLower Ramu branch) from Foley (2005) are as follows. Uncertain reconstructions are marked by question marks following the forms.[5]
| gloss | proto-Lower Sepik | proto-Ottilien |
|---|---|---|
| one | *mb(w)ia- | *kaku |
| two | *ri-pa- | *mbuniŋ |
| person | *nor | *namot |
| fire | *awr | *s(u)ək |
| moon | *m(w)il ? | *kər(v)i |
| canoe | *kay | *kor |
| breast | *nɨŋgay | *mɨr |
| tooth | *sisiŋk ? | *nda(r) |
| bone | *sariŋamp | *ɣar |
| tongue | *minɨŋ | *mi(m) |
| eye | *tambri | *rəmeak |
| leg | *namuŋk | *or ? |
| ear | *kwand- | *kwar |
| leaf | *nɨmpramp | *(ra)par |
| oar | *(mɨ)naŋ | *anup |
| betelnut | *poruŋ | *mbok |
| lime | *awi(r) | *awi(r) |
| pig | *numpran | *rəkəm |
| snake | *wakɨn | *ndop |
| mosquito | *naŋgun | *ŋgit |
| feces | *mɨndi | *yu/o |
| hear | *and- | *varak |
| eat | *am(b) | *amb |
| go | *wa | *saŋg |
| come | *ya | *kɨp |
| sit | *sa | *mbirak |
Lexical resemblances are few. The most likely lexical cognates are ‘tongue’, ‘ear’, ‘lime’, and ‘eat’.[5]
| gloss | proto-Lower Sepik | proto-Lower Ramu |
|---|---|---|
| tongue | *minɨŋ | *mi(m) |
| ear | *kwand- | *kwar |
| lime | *awi(r) | *awi(r) |
| eat | *am(b) | *am(b) |