| Sepik | |
|---|---|
| Sepik River | |
| Geographic distribution | Sepik River region, northernPapua New Guinea (mostly inEast Sepik Province) |
| Linguistic classification | One of the world's primarylanguage families |
| Subdivisions | |
| Language codes | |
| Glottolog | sepi1257 |
 Distribution of Sepik languages in Papua New Guinea | |
TheSepik orSepik River languages are afamily of some 50Papuan languages spoken in theSepik river basin of northernPapua New Guinea, proposed byDonald Laycock in 1965 in a somewhat more limited form than presented here. They tend to have simple phonologies, with few consonants or vowels and usually no tones.
The best-studied Sepik language isIatmul. The most populous are Iatmul's fellowNdu languagesAbelam andBoiken, with about 35,000 speakers each.
The Sepik languages, like theirRamu neighbors, appear to have three-vowel systems,/ɨəa/, that distinguish onlyvowel height in avertical vowel system. Phonetic[ieou] are a result of palatal and labialassimilation to adjacent consonants. It is suspected that the Ndu languages may reduce this to a two-vowel system, with/ɨ/epenthetic (Foley 1986).
The Sepik languages consist of two branches of Kandru's Laycock'sSepik–Ramu proposal, the Sepik subphylum and Leonhard Schultze stock. According toMalcolm Ross, the most promising external relationship is not with Ramu,pace Laycock, but with theTorricelli family.
Palmer (2018) classifies theLeonhard Schultze languages as an independent language phylum.[1]
In the cladogram below,[2] the small, closely related families in bold at the ends of the branches are covered in separate articles.
| Sepik | |
Foley (2018) provides the following classification, with 6 main branches recognized.[3]
Like the neighboringTorricelli languages, but unlike the rest of the Sepik languages, theRam andYellow River languages do not have clause chaining constructions (for an example of a clause chaining construction in aTrans-New Guinea language, seeKamano language#Clause chaining). Foley (2018) suggests that many of the Ram and Yellow River-speaking peoples may have in fact been Torricelli speakers who were later assimilated by Sepik-speaking peoples.[3]: 298
Foley classifies theLeonhard Schultze languages separately as an independent language family.[3]
The pronouns Ross reconstructs for proto-Sepik are:[4]
| I | *wan | we two | *na-nd, *na-p | we | *na-m |
| thou (M) | *mɨ-n | you two | *kwə-p | you | *kwə-m |
| thou (F) | *yɨ-n, *nyɨ-n | ||||
| he | *ətə-d, *də | they two | *ətə-p, *tɨ-p | they | *ətə-m, *tɨ-m |
| she | *ətə-t, *tɨ |
Note the similarities of the dual and plural suffixes with those of theTorricelli languages.
Ross reconstructs two sets of pronouns for "proto–Upper Sepik" (actually, Abau–Iwam and Wogamusin (Tama)). These are the default set (Set I), and a set with "certain interpersonal and pragmatic functions" (table 1.27):
| I | *an | we two | *nə-d | we | *nə-n |
| thou (M) | *nɨ | you two | *nə-p | you | *nə-m |
| thou (F) | (*nɨ-n) | ||||
| he | *tə- | they two | (*rə-p) | they | *ra-m |
| she | *tɨ- |
| I | *ka | we two | *krə-d | we | *krə-m |
| thou (M) | *kɨ | you two | *kə-p | you | *kə-m |
| thou (F) | ? | ||||
| he | *si | they two | *sə-p | they | (*sə-m) |
| she | (*sae) |
Most Sepik languages have reflexes of proto-Sepik *na ~ *an for 1sg, *no for 1pl, and *ni for 2sg.[3]
Proto-Sepik forms reconstructed by Foley (2018) that are widespread across the family:[3]
| gloss | proto-Sepik |
|---|---|
| ‘breast’ | *muk |
| ‘tongue’ | *ta(w)r |
| ‘tree’ | *mi |
| ‘dog’ | *wara |
| ‘louse’ | *nim |
| ‘feces’ | *ri |
| ‘go’ | *(y)i |
| ‘come’ | *ya |
| ‘1sg’ | *na ~ *an |
| ‘2sg’ | *ni |
| ‘1pl’ | *no |
| ‘dative suffix’ | *-ni |
| ‘locative suffix’ | *-kV |
Even internally within Sepik subgroups, languages in the Sepik family can have vastly different typological profiles varying fromisolating toagglutinative, with example languages listed below.[3]
In contrast, languages within theRamu,Lower Sepik, andYuat families all have relatively uniform typological profiles.[3]
Like the isolateTaiap, but unlike theLower Sepik-Ramu,Yuat, andUpper Yuat families, Sepik languages distinguish masculine and femininegenders, with the feminine gender being the more common default unmarked gender. Proto-Sepik gender-marking suffixes are reconstructed by Foley (2018) as:[3]
| singular | dual | plural | |
|---|---|---|---|
| masculine | *-r | *-f | *-m |
| feminine | *-t ~ *-s |
In Sepik languages, gender-marking suffixes are not always attached to the head noun, and can also be affixed to other roots in the phrase.
Typically, the genders of lower animals and inanimate objects are determined according to shape and size: big or long objects are typically classified as masculine (as a result ofphallic imagery), while small or short objects are typically classified as feminine. In some languages, objects can be classified as either masculine or feminine, depending on the physical characteristics intended for emphasis. To illustrate, below is an example inAbau, anUpper Sepik language:[3]
Except for theMiddle Sepik languages, most Sepik languages overtly mark nouns using gender suffixes.[3]
Many Sepik languages from different branches, includingAwtuw,May River Iwam,Abau orAlamblak, encodeperiodic tense in their verbal morphology, though the markers themselves are not cognate.[5]
Ross, Malcolm (2005). "Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages". InAndrew Pawley; Robert Attenborough; Robin Hide; Jack Golson (eds.).Papuan pasts: cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. pp. 15–66.doi:10.15144/PL-572.ISBN 0858835622.OCLC 67292782.