Classification of Native American Languages

January 7, 2018 BWB Evaluation of Lexical Evidence for Campbell’s (1997) Classification of Native American Languages (Online Appendix begins on page 38) Cecil H. Brown Abstract Lyle Campbell’s (1997) widely referenced appraisal of lexical evidence for proposed classifications of New World languages are compared to new evaluations of the same evidence using the Beck-Wichmann-Brown (BWB) system. BWB is designed to render the comparative method of historical linguistics objective and to provide it with uniformity and scientific rigor. The approach quantitatively assesses degrees of support that collections of comparative sets of words provide for proposals of language kinship, with regard to whether or not observed similarities exceed chance expectation. For the most part, evaluations of Campbell and BWB concur; for example, both accept the genetic relationship of Quechua and Aymara, and both advise that the longstanding California Penutian proposal be abandoned. Some differences are striking since they involve broadly accepted, uncontested proposals such as Eskimo-Aleut and Otomanguean, with Campbell accepting and BWB rejecting. Where differences are observed, BWB should be considered to trump Campbell, since the former is an objective approach to evaluation, while Campbell’s appraisals, even though based on an extraordinary personal knowledge of Amerindian languages, involve human judgment and its unavoidable subjectivity. 1. Introduction. In 1997, American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America by Lyle Campbell (hereafter, the book is designated C) was published, a herculean attempt to classify most New World languages through evaluation of earlier publications proposing and offering evidence for their phylogenetic relationship. This work quickly became and remains the sine qua non of scholars doing any brand of writing on the subject of the comparative linguistics of Native American languages. In this study I use the Beck-WichmannBrown (BWB) system to re-evaluate evidence for many of the proposals evaluated by C. In addition to appraising proposals, C also provides brief historical accounts of the geneses of many hypotheses, and other details of proposal development over time. This information is not repeated in this work, but can be retrieved by consulting C. In the vast majority of cases, lexical rather than grammatical comparisons constitute the sole evidence for proposals evaluated. C’s (p. 107) treatments of language genetic groups (families) are sorted into two categories. In one section, “well-established and generally uncontested families” are discussed, in another, “[u]ncertain proposals of distant genetic relationships”. BWB re-evaluates evidence for these hypotheses in the order they are dealt with by C, thereby beginning with comparative sets for proposals of the former category and ending with those of the latter.

1

2. BWB. The Beck-Wichmann-Brown system is designed to render the comparative method of historical linguistics objective and to provide it with uniformity and scientific rigor. The approach quantitatively assesses degrees of support that collections of comparative sets of words provide for proposals, with regard to whether or not observed similarities exceed coincidental expectation. If they do, an algorithm is developed for distinguishing word resemblance due to genealogical affiliation from that due to borrowing. The first full-scale application of BWB was to 65 lexical sets assembled over the years by many different scholars as support for hypotheses grouping languages of global distribution into families (Brown 2017). The latter paper also includes an in depth description of the approach. Details of the method are also given in the Online Appendix for this article (supply link), which includes an upgrade of the procedure, and gives as well BWB results for 96 comparative sets, including the 65 sets originally evaluated in Brown (2017).1Among these 96, 65 involve New World languages and these are all discussed in detail in 3., most in conjunction with C’s evaluations of many of the same collections of comparative sets. Since the BWB system is explained at length in Brown (2017) and again in an shortened version in the Online Appendix, only few features are mentioned here. As first described in Brown, Wichmann, and Beck (2014), the core of BWB is a system for assigning points to each comparative set assembled in support of a language genealogical relationship. Point assignment is as follows: (i) 2 points: for each sound correspondence observed for a comparative set (ii) 2 points: for translation equivalence if observed for a set (iii) 1 point: for lack of potential onomatopoeia if observed for a set (iv) 1 point: for lack of unexplained, unmatched phonological segments if observed for a set Points earned by a set are aggregated to yield an overall point score for the comparison. If a set earns 7 or more points, the lexical similarity it reports is considered unlikely to be the product of chance, and, therefore, should be retained as persuasive support for a language-connection proposal. (“Language connection” includes possibilities of either language contact or genealogical affiliation.) These matches are dubbed “BWB sets”.2 If a set earns less than 7 points, lexical similarity is considered most likely due to chance, and the match is not regarded as a BWB set nor retained as persuasive of language association. From the BWB sets observed in support of a proposal, the following indices are determined: (i) SETi: The number-of-sets index, which is the number of BWB sets observed for a proposal.

1

Results for some of the 65 have changed from Brown (2017), due to a major addition to the BWB protocol (see Online Appendix). 2 If a set does not show “translation equivalence”, it is not considered a BWB set even if it earns 7 or more points (Brown 2017:260 and Online Appendix).

2

(ii) CORi: The correspondence index, which is the number of BWB correspondence series observed for a collection of BWB sets. (A BWB sound correspondence is observed only if supported by at least three BWB sets.) (iii) BVi: The basic-vocabulary index, which is the percentage of a collection of 100 or fewer BWB sets showing basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100 list3); or the absolute number of a collection of 100 or more BWB sets showing basic vocabulary. (iv) COMi: The composite index, which is BVi and CORi multiplied. The indices determined for a collection of sets constitute its metric profile, indicating how likely observed lexical similarities are due to historical contact as opposed to coincidental development. Since the chance threshold for indices is yet to be statistically determined, their averages across evaluated-set assemblages are used as benchmark proxies. In the present case, 96 BWB evaluations (see Online Appendix) are available for determining index means. This is the average of all index values for those sets among the 96 in which SETi is greater than 0 (zero). Means so calculated are as follows for three of the four metrics4: CORi = 13.1, BVi = 42.0, COMi = 514.7. A suggested interpretation of actually occurring set-assemblage metric profiles based on these means is given in Table 1. Table 1. Suggested framework for interpreting BWB results (metric profiles) (cf. Brown 2017:276, Table 6).

BWB result (Metric profile)

Interpretation

COMi ≥ 514.7 COMi < 514.7

Strong support for genealogical relationship. Less than strong support for genealogical relationship. Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact. At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth. Weak support for historical connection. No support for historical connection.

COMi < 514.7; CORi ≥ 13.1; BVi < 42.0 COMi < 514.7; CORi < 13.1; BVi ≥ 42.0

COMi < 514.7; CORi < 13.1, but > 0; BVi < 42.0 COMi = 0; CORi = 0; BVi = 0

3. BWB and Campbell’s evaluations. In this section, BWB metric profiles are given for each of the 65 collections of comparative sets compiled in support of proposals of language genetic relationships for Amerindian languages. All 65 profiles are extracted from the 96 BWBevaluated comparisons of the Online Appendix. An interpretation for each profile is given based on Table 1. 57 of the 65 collections are also evaluated in C. Quotes from C’s appraisals are juxtaposed with BWB evaluations and followed by discussions. The 57 collections are dealt with in the order these are discussed in C. First treated are proposals C (p. 107) considers to be “wellestablished and generally uncontested” (3.1.), followed by those considered “uncertain distant 3 4

Swadesh (1971:283). SETi averages are not directly used in determination of chance development.

3

genetic relationships” (3.2.), and then by those evaluated using BWB, but not appraised by C (3.3.).

3.1 Campbell’s “well-established and generally uncontested families” 3.1.1. Eskimo-Aleut (C108-110) (see also 3.2.1., 3.3.2.) ID No.

BWB-evaluated comparison

Possible group affiliation

37

Proto-Eskimo/Aleut

Eskimo-Aleut

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

107

285

16

448

Source of lexical sets Fortescue et al. 2010

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact C108: “The relationship between Eskimo and Aleut…has…been thoroughly confirmed.” C108: “…it is a somewhat remote connection…Anthony Woodbury refers to the ‘enormous gap between Eskimo and Aleut’… Discussion: In his treatment of many of the lexical comparisons involving “distant genetic relationships”, C directly refers to detailed evidence (e.g. he cites actual words compared, forms and/or meanings) motivating assessment that languages are genealogically affiliated or not. This is typically not his approach to what he considers “well-established and generally uncontested families”, including his treatment of Eskimo/Aleut (E/A). He apparently takes it on faith that matched languages of the latter category are genetically related, citing sources considered to provide firm proof of relationship. In the case of E/A, lexical similarities attesting to sound correspondences are abundant. Among the 96 sets of comparisons to which BWB evaluation has been applied, E/A with 107 BWB sets ranks second in magnitude, and its number of BWB correspondences (28) ranks fifth in size. Given these results, it is not surprising that authorities should generally find E/A comparisons to be strongly suggestive of genetic affiliation. Despite high numbers (above average) for SETi and CORi, the E/A composite index (COMi = 448.0) is below average (= 514.7) and, hence, indicative of less than strong support for genealogical connection. This is in part because of the below average BVi (= 16, average = 42.0). The combination of many sound correspondences (CORi = 28, average = 13.1) and few comparisons involving basic vocabulary is indicative of strong support for historical connection, but one involving language contact, i.e. diffusion/borrowing. That borrowing explains the copious lexical similarities for E/A is mentioned by Anna Berge as well. Also analyzing comparative sets assembled by Fortescue et al. (2010), Berge (2018) concludes that most and possibly all observed lexical similarities for Eskimo and Aleut are accountable to borrowing rather than to genetic association, a conclusion in accord with BWB results. However, she leaves the door cracked for possible Eskimo-Aleut 5

Values for CORi, BVi, and COMi given in boldface type are equal to or above average. Those that are below average are not boldfaced.

4

kinship, speculating that a small core of lexical lookalikes could be cognates. BWB evaluation indicates that even this small core is attributable to borrowing. The relatively large numbers of BWB sets and correspondeces observed for E/A suggest that lexical diffusion between Eskimo and Aleut was exceptionally extensive, perhaps involving bilingualism and development of language shift rather than casual or occasional borrowing. Among all comparative sets of the 96 evaluated by BWB, E/A shows a substantially larger metric for SETi indicating substantially more diffusion than other comparisons with that profile (see Table 2). If language shift accounts for this finding, transfer from Eskimo to Aleut is most likely given Eskimo’s considerable language diversity and extensive geographical distribution compared to that of Aleut.

Table 2. The nine comparisons of the 96 total with metric profiles indicating similarities due to borrowing rather than genetic affiliations, ranked-ordered by size of number of BWB comparative sets (SETi) from largest to smallest. (The correlation between SETi and CORi in the table is 86.9.) ID No.



37

Proto-Eskimo/Aleut

34 41

44 42

47

39

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

Eskimo-Aleut

107

28

16

448

Atakapa/Chitimacha

AtakapaChitimacha

67

26

19.4

504.4

ProtoShuar/Candoshi

JivaroanCandoshi

60

22

15

330.3

Transeurasian

55

24

12

288

Gulf

44

23

13.6

312.8

California Penutian

32

21

12.5

262.5

Transeurasian

30

17

23.3

396.1

ProtoJapanese/ProtoTungusic Natchez/ProtoMuskogean Wintu (Wintun)/Southern Sierra Miwok (Utian) ProtoJapanese/ProtoMongolic

35

Timucua/Warao

TimucuaWarao

30

16

30

480

40

Yana/Karok

Hokan

27

15

25.9

388.5

3.1.2. Siouan [Core Siouan-Catawba] (C140-142) (see also 3.2.4., 3.2.15.) ID No.



22

Lakota/Catawba

Siouan

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

36

17

38.9

661.3

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship 5

Source of lexical sets Carter et al. 2006

C141: “…Catawba is much more distantly related to the other languages of the [Siouan] family than these languages are among themselves—that is, this Siouan constitutes a large family with a related outlier branch which is very different.” Discussion: If any doubt remains, BWB evaluation decisively indicates the genetic affiliation of Catawba with Core Siouan. 3.1.3. Iroquoian [Northern Iroquois-Cherokee] (C150-152) ID No. 16

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Northern Iroquoian/Cherokee

Possible group affiliation Iroquoian

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

70

21

34.3

720.3

Source of lexical sets Julian 2010

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship Discussion: Campbell’s (C151) chart of the internal classification of the Iroquoian family identifies Cherokee as its most divergent member. 3.1.4. Algic [Algonquian-Ritwan (Wiyot-Yurok)] (C152-154] (see also 3.2.9., 3.2.12, 3.2.13., 3.3.8.) ID No. 10

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Central Algonquian/Wiyot (Ritwan)

Possible group affiliation Algic

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

Source of lexical sets

39

20

43.6

872

Haas 1958

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C152: “The connection of Wiyot and Yurok [Ritwan]…with Algonquian…first proposed by Sapir…was quite controversial…but the relationship has subsequently been demonstrated to the satisfaction of all…” Discussion: BWB evaluation adds to general satisfaction with results by robustly indicating Wiyot’s genetic affiliation with Algonquian. 3.1.5.Otomanguean [Oto-Pamean-Chinantecan-Tlapanec-Manguean-Popolocan-ZapotecanAmuzgo-Mixtecan] (C157-159) 3.1.5a. ID No.



SETi

CORi

6

BVi

COMi


70

ProtoPopolocan/ProtoMixtecan

Otomanguean

4

2

25

50

Gudschinsky 1959


Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection 3.1.5b. ID No.



83

Proto-ChiapanecMangue/ProtoMixtecan

Otomanguean

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

0

0

0

0

Fernández de Miranda and Weitlaner 1961

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection 3.1.5c. ID No.



84

Proto-ChiapanecMangue/ProtoPopolocan

Otomanguean

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

0

0

0

0

Source of lexical sets Fernández de Miranda and Weitlaner 1961

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection 3.1.5d. ID No.



89

ProtoOtopamean/ProtoPopolocan-Mixtecan

Otomanguean

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi


0

0

0

0

Bartholomew 1965

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection 3.1.5e. ID No. 93

BWB-evaluated comparison Tlapanec /Isthmus Zapotec

Possible group affiliation Otomanguean

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

0

0

0

0

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection 3.1.5f.

7

Source of lexical sets Rensch 1977

ID No. 94

BWB-evaluated comparison Tlapanec,/ProtoPopolocan

Possible group affiliation Otomanguean

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

0

0

0

0

Source of lexical sets Rensch 1977

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection C325: “Rensch [see comparisons 3.1.5e., 3.1.5f.]…argued that Tlapanec-Subtiaba belongs with Otomanguean, and…has demonstrated this grouping beyond any reasonable doubt… It is now clear that Tlapanec-Subtiaba is just one more branch of Otomanguean.” Discussion: Tlapanec-Subtiaba is treated in Campbell’s “distant genetic relationships” section. BWB evaluation supplies ample reason for why Tlapanec and its closely related sister, Subtiaba, should not at present be considered “beyond any reasonable doubt” a branch of Otomanguean. C157: “Otomanguean is an old family, with eight subfamilies [see above]. Linguists of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (who are to be credited with much of the Otomanguean comparative work) feel that their reconstruction rivals that of Proto-Indo-European in its completeness and accuracy…” Discussion: As he apparently does for all proposals in the “well-established and generally uncontested families” section of his book, Campbell takes it on faith that Otomanguean is a bona fide language family, presenting no discussion of the detailed lexical evidence assembled in support of it (such as the above comparisons), but citing some sources making such a claim (e.g. Kaufman “in press” in 1997). Otomanguean is now an unquestioned genealogical group in the published literature as far as I can tell (but see Brown 1915). For example, Wikipedia’s6 language-profile box describes Otomanguean as “One of the world’s primary language families”.7 BWB evaluates only a few of the 28 logically possible binary comparisons of the eight “Otomanguean” language families. All of these evaluations, save one, accord with the interpretation of “no support for historical connection”. The one that does not, ProtoPopolocan/Proto-Mixtecan, shows a metric profile indicating only “weak support for historical connection”. Curiously, C does not cite in his Otomanguean discussion (pp. 156-159) three of the lexical sources evaluated, i.e. Gudschinsky (1959), Fernández de Miranda and Weitlaner (1961), and Bartholomew (1965)—lexical comparisons among the very few provided in the literature touted as substantial support for Otomanguean by their compilers. BWB indicates these comparisons provide no such support. BWB evaluations cited here, while challenging the validity of Otomanguean, are not conclusively negative since there are many other binary comparisons of the eight families to which BWB could be applied. Rensch (1976, 1977) has published multilateral comparisons of these groups from which a number of binary comparisons in addition to the above can be 6

Accessed on December 23, 2018. Some other groups so described in Wikipedia include Indo-European, Austronesian, Afroasiatic, Sino-Tibetan, Uralic, and Eskimo-Aleut (see 3.1.1.). 7

8

extracted and evaluated using BWB. I intend to undertake these evaluations in the near future, the results of which might be more positive than the current ones (although I am not optimistic). Until then, present findings indicate that, at the very least, the Otomanguean proposal is not “well-established” as C claims. In addition, the assertion cited by C, that reconstruction of Otomanguean “rivals that of Proto-Indo-European in its completeness and accuracy”, is patently absurd. Nearly, if not all proposals discussed by Campbell in his book are primarily if not exclusively supported by lexical comparisons. However, while C does not directly assess lexical evidence assembled for Otomanguean, he does mention specific structural features shared by many or most proposed member languages. These include tone, phonemic vowel nasalization, open syllables, limited syllable-initial consonant clusters, and lack of labial consonants (C157). Such features are only circumstantial evidence for genetic unity since all of these commonly diffuse across geographically contiguous languages (cf. Dryer and Haspelmath 2013: Chapters 10, 12, 13, 18). Given this, Brown (2015) proposes that so-called “Otomanguean” languages may just as likely constitute a linguistic area (Sprachbund) instead of a language family. 3.1.6. Misumalpan [Miskito-Sumu-Cacaopera-Matagalpa] (C167, 177) ID No.



46

Miskito/Cacaopera

Misumalpan

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

16

7

37.5

262.5

Source of lexical sets Constenala Umaña 1987

Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection C167: “An unresolved question in Misumalpan prehistory is how Cacaopera spoken in El Salvador… came to be so separated geographically from the other Misumalpan languages, whose center of gravity seems to be in northern Nicaragua.” Discussion: BWB results suggests a plausible answer to the question mention by Campbell. Cacaopera’s location is not explained by some kind of geographical relocation of the language away from the other Misumalpan languages or vice versa, but rather by the possibility that Cacaopera is not genealogically affiliated with those languages, developing in a region removed from the Misumalpan “center of gravity”. 3.1.7. Chibchan (C174-176) ID No.



82

Paya/Talamancan

Chibchan

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

0

0

0

0

Source of lexical sets Constenala Umaña 1981

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection C174: “The most accurate and reliable classification to date is that of Constenala Umaña…”

9

C174-175: “…Paya has been demonstrated indisputably to be a member of the Chibchan family…” Discussion: BWB results do not accord with the strong assertion of Paya as a Chibchan language. 3.1.8. Puinavean [Hudpa-Kaburi (Nadëb)-Guariba-Cacua-Puinave-Waviare] (C182-183) ID No. 17

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-KakuaNukak/Puinave

Possible group affiliation Puinavean

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

20

11

65

715

Source of lexical sets Epps and Bolaños 2017

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C182: Campbell presents a classification list of Puinavean languages including all the languages listed above. Discussion: While BWB results robustly indicate the genetic affinity of Cacua (Kakua), Waviare (Nukak), and Puinave, other evidence assembled by Epps and Bolaños (2017) suggests that Hudpa, Kaburi (Nadëb), and Guariba (Nadëb) are not part of the Puinavean genealogical union. 3.1.9. Huitoto-Ocaina (C186) (see also 3.1.10.) ID No. 4



SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

Witoto/Ocaina

Witoto Proper

191

18

59

1062

Source of lexical sets Alvaro Echeverri and Seifart 2015

Interpretation of BWB results: Support for genealogical relationship Discussion: BWB results and C are in firm agreement on the genetic affinity of Witoto and Ocaina. 3.1.10. Witotoan [Bora-Muinane-Huitoto-Ocaina] (C186-187) (see 3.1.9.) ID No.



64

Proto-Witoto/ProtoBoran

Witotoan

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

7

3

42.9

128.7

Source of lexical sets Alvaro Echeverri and Seifart 2015

Interpretation of BWB results: At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth C187: “…I follow the classification…that indeed ‘Boran’ and ‘Witotoan’ [Huitoto-Ocaina] belong to the same family…” 10

Discussion: A large basic-vocabulary index (BVi) for BWB sets, coupled with only a few sound correspondences observed for those sets is interpreted as moderate indication of divergence of compared languages from a common ancestor at a very early time depth. 3.1.11. Pano-Tacanan (C190-192) ID No. 11

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Panoan/ProtoTakanan


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

Pano-Takanan

70

23

37.1

853.3

Source of lexical sets Girard 1971

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C190: “…the Pano-Takanan relationship is now quite generally accepted.” Discussion: If there were any remaining doubt whatsoever regarding the affiliation, it should be dispelled by this BWB evaluation. 3.1.12. (Nuclear) Macro-Je (C195-197) (see 3.3.1.) 3.1.12a. ID No.


5

Proto-Je/Maxacali

Possible group affiliation (Nuclear-) Macro-Je

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

26

14

73.1

1023.4

Source of lexical sets Davis 1968

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship 3.1.12b. ID No.


86

Proto-Jê/Karaja

Possible group affiliation (Nuclear-) Macro-Jê

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

0

0

0

0

Source of lexical sets Davis 1968

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection C197: “He [Davis] argues that Karaja and Proto-Jê are related and presents suggestive evidence.” Discussion: Campbell acknowledges genealogical affiliation of Proto-Je and Maxacali since Macro-Je is included in the “well-established and uncontested” section of his book. C’s inclusion in the same group of Karaja, based on Davis, is not supported by BWB evaluation.

3.2. Campbell’s “uncertain distant genetic relationships” 11

3.2.1. Uralo-Siberian [Uralic-Yukagir-Eskimo-Aleut] (C109, Fortescue 1998 and per. com.) (see 3.1.1, 3.3.2.) ID No. 48

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Samoyedic (Uralic)/ProtoEskimo


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

Uralo-Siberian

14

9

28.6

257.4

Source of lexical sets Fortescue (per. com.)

Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection C109: “Claims that Eskimo-Aleut may be related to Uralic…have not been demonstrated and the evidence presented thus far is dubious.” Discussion: This proposal of distant genetic relationship is discussed by C in conjunction with Eskimo-Aleut (p.109), and is not included in the “distant genetic relationship” section of his book. 3.2.2. Jivaroan-Candoshi (C185) ID No. 41

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Shuar (Jivaroan)/Candoshi

Possible group affiliation JivaroanCandoshi

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

60

22

15

330.3

Source of lexical sets Payne 1981

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact C185: Greenberg’s (1987) Jibaro-Candoshi grouping is very poorly supported by data cited in his book…” Discussion: This proposal of distant genetic relationship is mentioned by C in conjunction with discussion of the Jivaroan-Cahuapanan proposal in the “well-established and generally uncontested families” section of his book (p. 185). Payne (1981) assembles lexical data superior to that supplied by Greenberg (1987) to which BWB is applied. This application attests to contact between Jivaroan and Candoshi, but not to genealogical affiliation. 3.2.3.Tupian-Cariban (C199-204) ID No. 63

BWB-evaluated comparison Tupinamba (Tupian)/ Hishkaryana (Cariban)

Possible group affiliation Tupi-Carib

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

9

4

33.3

133.2

Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection 12

Source of lexical sets Rodrigues 1985

C201-202: “Rodrigues…finds some lexical evidence along with possible sound correspondences linking Tupian and Cariban. …[this proposal needs] to be tested.” Discussion: Campbell’s comment is given in the “well-established…families” section of his book. This application of BWB is one test of the relationship that is found wanting, suggesting further testing will not be fruitful. 3.2.4. Macro-Siouan [Siouan-Iroquoian-Caddoan(-Yuchi)] (C262-269) (see 3.1.2., 3.2.15.) ID No.



SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi


31

Seneca (Iroquoian)/ProtoSiouan

Macro-Siouan

36

17

30.6

520.2

Chafe 1964

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C262: “-20% probability, 75% confidence” C268: “In sum, there is reason to exercise caution about the majority of the sixty-seven forms [for Siouan/Iroquoian compiled by Chafe] as possible cognates, and those which are not questioned are so few in number that a clear case cannot be made for genetic relationship.” C269: “My overall discussion concerning Macro-Siouan agrees with that of specialists in these languages…that the evidence presented thus far is far from persuasive. For the present, I recommend that the language families included in the Macro-Siouan proposal be classified as unrelated.” Discussion: Among the 96 collections of comparative sets to which BWB is applied (Online Appendix), 30 have COMi’s greater than average (= 514.7), ranging from 2757-520.2, indicating “strong support for genealogical relationship”. Seneca/Proto-Siouan with 520.2 might then be considered least likely among the 30 to involve genetic affiliation. If not related, a clear case can be made through reference to BWB results that language contact has contributed to observed lexical similarity. 3.2.5. Aztec-Tanoan [Uto-Aztecan-Kiowa-Tanoan] (C133, 138, 269-273) ID No.



33

Uto-Aztecan/ProtoTanoan

Aztec-Tanoan

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

16

9

56.3

506.7


Whorf and Trager 1937

Interpretation of BWB results: At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth C269: “0% probability, 50% confidence” 13

C273: “Although the evidence offers very little to convince skeptics, there is enough to suggest that the hypothesis should not be rejected outright. It needs more study.” Discussion: The additional study provided here by BWB makes a reasonable case for a chronologically-remote genetic link for Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan. 3.2.6. Quechumaran [Aymara-Quechua] (C188-189, 273-283) (see 3.2.19.) ID No. 21

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Quechua/ProtoAymara

Possible group affiliation Quechumaran

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

67

24

28.4

681.6

Source of lexical sets Emlen 2017

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C273: “+50 probability, 50% confidence” C283: “I suspect that the Quechuan and Aymara families are related, but it should be noted that the evidence is insufficient to support such a discussion.” C273: “…the question of whether these two families are genetically related needs to be left open.” Discussion: BWB results provide sufficient evidence for Campbell’s suspicion that Quechuan and Aymara families are genetically related. 3.2.7. Na-Dene [ Tlingit-Eyak-Athabaskan-Haida] (C110-115, 284-286) (see 3.2.8.) ID No. 80

BWB-evaluated comparison Haida/ProtoAthabascan

Possible group affiliation Na-Dene

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

0

0

0

0

Source of lexical sets Enrico 2004

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection C284: “0% probability, 25% confidence” C285: “That Haida is related to the other languages [Tlingit-Eyak-Athabaskan] is now denied or at least seriously questioned by most specialists…” C285: “For now it is best to consider the genetic affiliation of Haida unknown.” Discussion: BWB results are in agreement with Campbell’s assessment. 3.2.8. Dene-Sino-Caucasian [Na-Dene-Yenisei-Basque-Sino-Tibetan-North Caucasian] (C287288) (see 3.2.7.) ID No. 88

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Na Dene/ProtoYeniseian

Possible group affiliation Dene-SinoCaucasian

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

0

0

0

0

14

Source of lexical sets Vajda 2010

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection C288: “…since not even Na-Dene [including Haida, see 3.2.7.] has been satisfactorily demonstrated and is seriously challenged by specialists, to conjecture that broader connections might be established between it and Old World languages is out of the question.” Campbell (2011:448): “In sum, the majority of…[Vajda’s] proposed cognates are problematic, challenged on the basis of standard criteria for investigating proposals of distant genetic relationship. The remaining forms are not sufficient in number to support conclusions about sound correspondences. The lexical comparisons do warrant the assumption of a genetic relationship between Yeniseian and Na Dene.” Discussion: Campbell does not directly address the possible relationship of Proto-Na Dene/Proto-Yenisiean in his book. Subsequently, he (2011) reviews an anthology in which Vajda’s paper is published. Campbell and BWB are in full agreement that Vajda does not assemble lexical evidence providing any reason for assuming a genetic association between Na Dene and Yeniseian. With respect to BWB results, an assumption of even language contact is not supported. 3.2.9. Beothuk-Algonquian (C152-155, 289-290) (see 3.1.4., 3.2.12., 3.2.13., 3.3.8.) ID No. 24

BWB-evaluated comparison ProtoAlgonkian/Beothuk

Possible group affiliation AlgonquianBeothuk

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

35

21

30.6

642.6

Source of lexical sets Hewson 1971

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C290: “Moreover, the linguistic evidence presented by Hewson…although not conclusive, suggests that Beothuk has an Algonquian kinship. Although we may suspect, on the basis of intuition and circumstance, that Beothuk is related to Algonquian, we cannot at present confirm such a relationship…” Discussion: BWB results give reason for considering a Beothuk-Algonkian relationship confirmed. 3.2.10. Hokan [Shasta-Palaihnihan-Chimarico-Pomo-Karok-Yana-Seri-Tequistlatecan-YumanWasho] (C122-124, 127, 159-160, 290-296) 3.2.10a. ID No. 6



Washo/Karok

Hokan

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

62

27

37.1

1001.7

15

Source of lexical sets Jacobsen 1958

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C293: “Some of his [Jacobsen’s] 121 sets are quite suggestive (and could be true cognates)…” Discussion: BWB results robustly accord with C’s view that some of Jacobsen’s matches are indeed true cognates. 3.2.10b. ID No.



40

Yana/Karok

Hokan

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

27

15

25.9

388.5

Source of lexical sets Haas 1964

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact Discussion: Borrowing is indicated by above-average sound correspondences (average = 13.1) and a below-average basic-vocabulary index (BVi, average = 42.0). 3.2.10c. ID No. 9



Shasta/Karok

Hokan

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

71

33

26.8

884.4

Source of lexical sets Silver 1964

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C294: Silver’s…comparison…between Shasta and Karuk…[did not succeed]… in demonstrating a relationship…between the languages in focus…” Discussion: Contrary to C’s conclusion, BWB results indicate that it indeed was successful. 3.2.10d. ID No. 20

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Pomo/ProtoYuman

Possible group affiliation Hokan

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

18

9

77.8

700.2

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C295: “…thirteen comparisons are suggestive, but there is need for clearer sound correspondences and more supporting evidence.”

16

Source of lexical sets Langdon 1979

Discussion: BWB evaluation indicates both clear sound correspondences and decisive evidence in strong support of a Pomo-Yuman genetic affiliation. 3.2.10e. ID No. 25

BWB-evaluated comparison Shasta/Achumawi (Palaihnihan)


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

15

12

53.3

639.6

Source of lexical sets Olmstead 1956, 1957, 1959

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C123: “The Hokan hypothesis, which includes Palaihnihan [Achumawi and Atsugewi], is quite controversial in general…For the present, the family is best considered not known to be related to any other.” Discussion: BWB results indicate that Shasta is a genetic kin of both Palaihnihan and Karok (see 3.2.10c., 3.2.10e.). 3.2.10f. ID No.



38

Seri/Cocopa (Yuman)

Hokan

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

27

12

37

444.4

Source of lexical sets J.G.Crawford 1976

Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection C160: “For the present, Seri is best considered an isolate.” Discussion: C’s conclusion is supported by BWB evaluation. 3.2.10g. ID No. 56

BWB-evaluated comparison Chimariko/Yavapai (Yuman)


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

18

8

22.2

177.6

Source of lexical sets J.M. Crawford 1976

Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection C295: “I conclude that it is by no means clear or even likely that there was a proto language from which some or most of the putative Hokan languages diverged long ago, but that this hypothesis is fully worthy of continued research.” Discussion: BWB evaluation indicates that at least some so-called “Hokan” languages are interrelated through genealogical ties. These include Achumawi (Palaihnihan), Karok, Shasta, 17

and Washo, all historically spoken in northern California. Yana, also in northern California, is linked to this group through Karok, but only by language contact. To the south appears to be a genetic connection between Pomo and Yuman. More binary lexical comparisons between languages possibly belonging to Hokan need to be undertaken followed by their BWB evaluations before the full expansion of the group is entirely understood. Until then, the continued research provided here by BWB attests to clear and likely evidence for at least a northern California grouping within the hypothesized family. 3.2.11. Gulf [Muskogean-Natchez-Tunica-Atakapa-Chitimacha] (C145,-147, 305-309) (see 3.2.12., 3.3.6.) 3.2.11a. ID No. 42

BWB-evaluated comparison Natchez/ProtoMuskogean

Possible group affiliation Gulf

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

44

23

13.6

312.8


Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact C305: “+ 40% probability, 20% confidence” C305: “This possibility needs to be investigated thoroughly…” Discussion: Abundant sound correspondences (average = 13.1) and a below average basicvocabulary index (average = 42.0) indicate lexical similarity due to borrowing and not to genetic relationship. 3.2.11b. ID No.


34

Atakapa/Chitimacha

Possible group affiliation AtakapaChitimacha

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

67

26

19.4

504.4

Source of lexical sets Swadesh 1946

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact C305: “-50% probability, 60% confidence” Discussion: Again, above-average sound correspondences (average = 13.1) and a below average basic-vocabulary index (average = 42.0) indicate lexical similarity due to borrowing. Genetic affiliation is not likely as C’s evaluation implies. C306: “-25% probability, 40% confidence” 18

C306: “Gulf classification is widely known but is no longer upheld… Those attempting to find broader genetic affinities for these languages will need to also account for the effects of diffusion within the Southeast linguistic area…” Discussion: BWB evaluations indicating lexical similarity due to borrowing accord with C’s observation that resemblances among so-called “Gulf” languages may be explained by effects of diffusion in a linguistic area. C provides a discussion of this Sprachbund in his book (341-344). Focusing on nomenclatural features, especially those involving marking reversals, I (Brown 1996, 1999:145-146) present evidence that this diffusion area is a post-contact development promoted at least in part by a regional pidgin lingua franca, Mobile Jargon. 3.2.12. Algonkian-Gulf (C152-154, 308) (see 3.1.4, 3.2.9., 3.2.11., 3.2.12., 3.2.13., 3.3.8.) ID No.



62

Proto-Central Algonquian / ProtoMuskogean

AlgonquianGulf

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi


6

4

33.3

133.2

Haas 1958

Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection C308: “-50% probability, 50% confidence” C309: “…stronger evidence would be required to make the Algonquian-Gulf proposal acceptable.” Discussion: BWB evaluation and C agree that evidence for this proposal does not render it persuasive. 3.2.13.Tonkawa-Algonquian (C143, 152-154, 309) (see 3.1.4., 3.2.12., 3.3.8.) ID No. 65

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Central Algonkian/Tonkawa

Possible group affiliation AlgonquianTonkawa

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

13

7

15.4

107.8


Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection C309: “Her (Haas’s) evidence is quite scanty…with attempts at deriving regular sound correspondences.” C143: “Tonkawa is best considered unrelated to other families.” Discussion: BWB evaluation and that of C again are in agreement. 3.2.14. Penutian [California Penutian-Oregon Penutian-Plateau Penutian-Mexican Penutian] (C309-322) 19

3.2.14.1. California Penutian [Miwok-Costanoan (Utian)-Yokuts-Maidu-Wintun] (C129-130, 310) 3.2.14.1a. ID No.



12

ProtoCostanoan/ProtoMiwok

California Penutian

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi


34

18

47.1

847.8

Callaghan 2014

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C130: “While Miwokan and Costanoan are clearly related, the other families in the Penutian proposal, with which Miwok-Costanoan is usually associated, have not been demonstrated to be genetically related, though some scholars see promising signs for the future…” Discussion: C’s Costanoan-Miwok (Utian) discussion is appropriately given in the “wellestablished and generally uncontested families” section of his book. BWB metrics for the relationship, CORi, BVi, and COMi, are all above average. 3.2.14.1b. ID No.



47

Wintu (Wintun)/Southern Sierra Miwok (Utian)

California Penutian

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi


32

21

12.5

262.5

Broadbent and Pitkin 1964

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact C313: This [Broadbent and Pitkin’s] collection of resemblant lexical forms is simply insufficient as evidence in support of a genetic relationship. Discussion: The lexical assemblage is indeed insufficient support for genetic kinship, but an above average CORi and a below average BVi do indicate contact and borrowing. 3.2.14.1c. ID No. 49

BWB-evaluated comparison Wintu (Wintun)/Lake Miwok (Utian)

Possible group affiliation California Penutian

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

12

7

33.3

233.1

20

Source of lexical sets Pitkin and Shipley 1958

Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection Discussion: Weak BWB-evaluated evidence for a Wintu/Lake Miwok historical connection implies no genetic connection between Wintu and Southern Sierra Miwok (see 3.2.14.1b.). 3.2.14.1d. ID No. 66

BWB-evaluated comparison Maidu (Maidun)/Lake Miwok (Utian)


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

14

7

14.3

100.1


Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection 3.2.14.1e. ID No. 71

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Maidun/ProtoWintun


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

0

0

0

0


Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection 3.2.14.1f. ID No. 77

BWB-evaluated comparison Maidu (Maidun) /Yawelmani Yokuts


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

4

3

0

0


Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection 3.2.14.1g. ID No.



96

Wintu (Wintun)/Yawelmani Yokuts

California Penutian

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi


0

0

0

0

Pitkin and Shipley 1958

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection C313: “Pitkin and Shipley attempted to establish sound correspondence among five California families [see above five comparisons], reconstruct sounds, and eliminate diffused material. However, Shipley’s [later] assessment…of this article and of other Penutian work undertaken before 1980 makes clear that these goals were not met.”

21

Discussion: Pitkin and Shipley (1958) present multilateral language comparisons for so-called “California Penutian” languages. From these I extracted the above five binary sets and used BWB to evaluate them. These evaluations strongly agree with Shipley’s subsequent observation that goals of compiling persuasive evidence for various matches within California Penutian were not met. 3.2.14.1h. ID No. 91

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Yokuts/ ProtoCostanoan-Miwok (Utian)


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi


0

0

0

0

Callaghan 2014

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection Discussion: Callaghan (2014) is post-C and no subsequent published discussions by Campbell are known to me. C321: “…one should not put much faith in the original [California] Penutian hypothesis…” Discussion: Other than for the connection of Costanoan/Miwok (Utian), BWB evaluation of lexical evidence is negative for all logically possible binary comparisons of languages of California Penutian families, i.e. Utian/Maidun, Utian/Wintun, Utian/Yokuts, Maidun/Wintun, Maidun/Yokuts, and Wintun/Yokuts. This indicates the California Penutian proposal will not be improved by further study and should be abandoned. 3.2.14.2. Mexican Penutian [Huave-Mixe-Zoquean] (C160-162, 320) (see 3.2.17., 3.3.6.) ID No.



51

Huave/Mixe of Totontepec (MixeZoquean)

Mexican Penutian

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi


16

9

25

225

Suárez 1975

Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection C320: “-40% probability, 60% confidence” C320: “Mexican Penutian should be abandoned.” Discussion: BWB evaluation agrees with C’s assessment that Mixe-Zoquean is not historically connected with Huave. Instead, the former group shows genetic connections with both Totonacan and Mayan (see 3.2.17.). 3.2.14.3. Plateau Penutian [Sahaptian (Sahaptin-Nez Perce)]-Klamath(-Molala)] (C120-121, 320) 22

ID No. 27

BWB-evaluated comparison Klamath/Nez Perce (Sahaptian)


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

Plateau Penutian

37

21

29.7

623.7

Source of lexical sets Aoki 1963

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C320: “+75% probability, 50% confidence” C320: …there is a significant number of close lexical similarities [provided by Aoki] that suggest a possible genetic relationship…it appears that Klamath and Sahaptian are probably genetically related.” Discussion: BWB evaluation agrees with C’s assessment that Klamath and Sahaptian are genealogically affiliated. 3.2.14.4. Oregon Penutian [Takelman (Takelma-Kalapuyan)] (C120, 321) (see 3.2.14.5.) ID No. 19

BWB-evaluated comparison Takelma/ProtoKalapuya


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

Proto-Takelman

17

10

70.5

705.5

Source of lexical sets Shipley 1969

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C321: “+80 probability, 60% confidence” C321: “…on the whole the evidence [provided by Shipley] appears to be strong and I am inclined to accept the classification, though it should be investigated more fully.” Discussion: BWB and C both agree that lexical evidence for a Proto-Takelman component of Oregon Penutian is strongly supportive. 3.2.14.5. Oregon Penutian-California Penutian (C119, 128) (see 3.2.14., 3.2.14.4.) ID No.


79

Alsea/Wintu (Wintun)

Possible group affiliation Oregon PenutianCalifornia Penutian

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

0

0

0

0

Source of lexical sets Golla 1997

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection C119: “Alsea is often associated with (Oregon) Penutian…, although the evidence has not been convincing…” Discussion: BWB evaluation does not find lexical evidence assembled by Golla in support of Alsea/Wintu to be persuasive, and, thus, agrees with C’s assessment that Alsea is not Penutian. 23

C321-322: “The prevailing attitude today, even among some Penutian specialists is that the languages involved in various versions of the Penutian hypothesis have not successfully been shown to be related; therefore, one should not put much faith in the original [California} Penutian hypothesis and, by implication, certainly not in the broader Macro-Penutian proposals…However, the evidence that at least some of these languages share broader relationships is also mounting, and most scholars do not discount entirely the possibility (probability?) that the near future will see more successful demonstrations of these family relations.” C322: “The final determination of Penutian is yet to come. At present, these are but tantalizing possibilities, no version of which has been demonstrated.” Discussion: BWB evaluation of lexical evidence shows weak or no support for the original California Penutian proposal (3.2.14.1.) and weak support for Mexican Penutian (3.2.14.2.). These hypotheses should be discarded. In contrast, evaluation of evidence for both Plateau Penutian (3.2.14.3.) and Oregon Penutian (3.2.14.4.) is strongly supportive. The only evaluated serious comparison of lexical evidence for a link between any two Penutian groups, Oregon Penutian/California Penutian (3.2.14.5.), indicates no evidence for genetic affiliation. BWB results do not bode well for the Penutian hypothesis, either in its original or extended versions. Given this, unlike C’s forecast, here in the “near future” BWB results indicate little possibility for successful demonstrations of Penutian. 3.2.14.6. Zuni-California Penutian (C139, 321) (see 3.2.14.1.)

ID No. 50

BWB-evaluated comparison Zuni/Yawelmani Yokuts

Possible group affiliation Zuni-California Penutian

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

13

10

23.1

231

Source of lexical sets Newman 1964

Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection C321: “-80% probability, 50% confidence” C321: “In short, all considered, Newman’s evidence for a Zuni connection with California Penutian fails to be convincing.” Discussion: BWB results are in accord with C’s assessment. 3.2.15. Yukian-Siouan (C132-133, 140-142, 322) (see 3.1.2., 3.2.4.) ID No. 95

BWB-evaluated comparison Wappo (Yukian)/ Proto-Siouan


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

Yukian-Siouan

0

0

0

0

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection 24

Source of lexical sets Elmendorf 1963

C322: “-60% probability, 75% confidence” C322: “…his [Elmendorf’s] ninety-five sets of lexical similarities, although suggestive, do not support a genetic relationship…” Discussion: BWB results accord with C’s assessment. 3.2.16. Timucua-Warao (C149-150, 323) ID No.



SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

35

Timucua/Warao

Timucua-Warao

30

16

30

480

Source of lexical sets Granberry 1993

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact C323: “…Timucua at present has no demonstrated affiliations…” Discussion: BWB results agree with the assessment of no demonstrated genetic affiliation, but supports one involving historical contact and borrowing. 3.2.17. Macro-Mayan [Mayan-Totonacan-Mixe-Zoquean-Huave] (C160-166, 323-324) (see 3.2.14.2., 3.3.6.) 3.2.17a. ID No. 18

BWB-evaluated comparison ProtoTotonacan/ProtoMixe-Zoquean

Possible group affiliation Totozoquean

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

43

16

44.2

707.2

Source of lexical sets Brown et al. 2011

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship 3.2.17b. ID No. 54

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Mayan/ProtoMixe-Zoquean


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

Mayan-Zoquean

3

2

100

200

Source of lexical sets Mora-Marín 2016

Interpretation of BWB results: At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Discussion: Below average sound correspondences (average = 13.1) and above average basicvocabulary index (BVi, average = 42.0) indicates genetic connection of an especially great time depth for Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean. 25

C323: “+30% probability, 25% confidence [in the Macro-Mayan hypothesis]” C323-324: “…the hypothesis is too weak to be embraced without reservations. The evidence presented thus far has been suggestive, but is not persuasive. The major problem…is that of distinguishing borrowed material from potential cognates.” C324: I believe that ultimately Mayan and Mixe-Zoque, and perhaps also Totonacan, will be shown to be genetically related (Huave should definitely be removed from the picture).” Discussion: Demonstration of a genetic relationship for Totonacan/Mixe-Zoquean (Totozoquean) should be considered achieved by BWB results, thus, realizing C’s belief. Mayan/Mixe-Zoquean is less certain but still in the range of likely genetic relationship. That Huave does not fit into the picture is also indicated by BWB results (see 3.2.14.2.). 3.2.18. Jicaque-Tequistlatecan (C159-160, 325) ID No.



SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi


76

Tol (aka Jicaque)/Chontal (aka Tequistlatec)

JicaqueanTequistlatecan

0

0

0

0

Campbell and Oltrogge 1980

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection C325: “+65% probability, 50% confidence” C325: “I believe that these two will ultimately prove to be related, but the evidence I presented— a few look-alikes as possible cognates and some phonological matchings (possible sound correspondences)—is not conclusive” Discussion: BWB results indicate that Campbell should give up on Jicaquean-Tequistlatecan, if he has not already done so. 3.2.19. Tarascan-Quechua (C166, 188-189, 325-326) (see 3.2.6.) ID No.


14

Quechua-Tarasco

Possible group affiliation QuechuanTarascan

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

14

8

100

800

Source of lexical sets Swadesh 1967

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship C325: “-90% probability, 80% confidence” C325: “…these amount mostly only to a good example of how not to convince others of a possible relationship—nearly all are questionable…” C326: “…a genetic relationship is…out of the question.”

26

Discussion: To the contrary, Swadesh’s comparison is a good example of how a proposal should be initially investigated to establish genetic relationship since he restricts compared items to basic vocabulary. This is one of a very few instances where C unequivocally dismisses a proposal. In contrast, BWB results suggest that at the very least it should be further studied.

3.3. Uncertain distant genetic relationships not evaluated by Campbell (1977)8 3.3.1. (Nuclear) Macro-Je (C195, 198) (see 3.1.12.) ID No.



74

Proto-Jê/Proto-Jabuti

(Nuclear-) Macro-Jê

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

0

0

0

0

Source of lexical sets Rivail Ribeiro and van der Voort 2010

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection C198: “Swadesh groups this family [Jabutian] with Kunsa-Kapishana…but the available material does not look promising for such a conclusion.” Discussion: van der Voort’s inclusion of Jabuti in Macro- Jê is not justified by BWB evaluation. 3.3.2. Uralo-Siberian [Uralic-Yukagir-Eskimo-Aleut] (Fortescue 1998 and per. com.) (see 3.1.1., 3.2.1.) ID No. 59

BWB-evaluated comparison Proto-Eskimo/ProtoYukagir


SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

Uralo-Siberian

4

3

50

150

Source of lexical sets Fortescue 2017

Interpretation of BWB results: At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Discussion: An above average BVi (average = 13.1) and a below average CORi (average = 42.0) accord with the conclusion that Proto-Eskimo and Yukagir are remotely genetically related. Given the very negative BWB assessment of Vajda’s (2010) earlier published lexical evidence for the Dene-Yeniseian proposal (see 3.2.8.), Proto-Eskimo-Yukagir emerges as the only existing proposal supported by solid lexical evidence for a genetic relationship between Old and New World families. “Uncertain distant genetic relationships” evaluated by Campbell (1977:260-329) but not by BWB are: Mosan (C288), Wakashan-Chimakuan (C228), Almosan (C389), Hokan-Subtiaba (C296), Coahuiltecan (C297), Guaicurian-Hokan (C304), Quechua-Hokan (C305), Tunican (C305), Cayuse-Molala (C320), Sahaptian-KlamathTsimshian (C320), Yukian-Gulf (C322), Keresan and Zuni (C323), Keresan and Uto-Aztecan (C323), MayaChipaya (C324), Maya-Chiapya-Yunga (C324), Otomanguean-Huave (C324), Jicaque-Subtiaba (C325), JicaqueHokan (C325), Xinca-Lenca (C325), Misumalpan-Chibchan (C326), Nostratic-Amerind (C328). 8

27

3.3.3. Katukinan-Harakmbut (C177, 181) ID No.



13

Kanamari (Katukinan)/ Amarakaeri (Harakmbut)

KatukinanHarakmbut

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

27

14

59.3

830.2


Adelaar 2000

Interpretation of BWB results: Strong support for genealogical relationship (C177). Campbell includes Kanamari in Maipurean (Arawakan) (C181), but treats Amaracaeri as a one of two members of the Harakmbut family with no other known affiliations Discussion: Adelaar’s (2000) strong evidence for Katukinan-Harakmbut indicates a necessary expansion of the Harakmbut family with the inclusion of Kanamari. 3.3.4. Aikaná-Kwaza (Koayá) (C198) (see 3.3.5.) ID No.



SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

53

Aikanã/Kwaza

Aikanã-Kwaza

27

11

18.5

203.5

Source of lexical sets van der Voort 2005

Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection Discussion: (see following comparison) 3.3.5. Kanoê (Kapixaxa)-Kwaza (Koayá) (C:173, 198) (see 3.3.4.) ID No.



SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

58

Kanoê/Kwaza

Kanoê-Kwaza

6

3

50

150

Source of lexical sets van der Voort 2005

Interpretation of BWB results: At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Discussion: Campbell treats Kwaza (Koayá) and Aikaná as two language isolates (C198), and Kanoê (Kapixaná) as a member of a Macro-Páesan cluster (C173). van der Voort (2005) assembles lexical evidence for Kwaza/Aikaná shown by BWB to be weak. On the other hand, BWB evaluation of lexical evidence for Kanoê/Kwaza indicates a genealogical union, but one of considerable chronological removal. So Kwaza appears to be unrelated to Aikaná and either a sister of the ancestor of Macro-Páesan or a member of that family.

28

3.3.6. Chitimacha-Totozoquean (Totonacan-Mixe-Zoquean) (C146, 161-162) (see 3.2.14.2., 3.2.17.) ID No. 73

BWB-evaluated comparison Chitimacha/ProtoTotozoquean

Possible group affiliation ChitimachaTotozoquean

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

0

0

0

0

Source of lexical sets Brown et al. 2014

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection Discussion: The idea for the BWB approach originated with David Beck, and its initial development involved equal contributions from Beck, Søren Wichmann, and the current author. As originally conceived, the method was designed for vetting individual comparative sets in the process of assembling lexical evidence for a proposal. This vetting procedure was first used to identify comparative sets for Chitimacha-Totozoquean (Brown, Wichmann, and Beck, 2014). The idea of applying the system to evaluation of pre-existing proposals, as done in this study, originated mostly with the present author, as have some changes from the original BWB recommendations. This application (with changes) was first used in Brown (2017). In the latter work, the original Chitimacha-Totozoquean comparative sets (Brown et al. 2014) were evaluated along with 64 other assemblages for various proposals. The latter evaluation yielded a metric profile for the sets indicative of strong support for historical connection of Chitimacha and Totozoquean, but one limited to language contact. The present evaluation for this match is that no support whatsoever for historical contact is observed. The change in evaluation is due to two factors. One was a correction of an error made in the original BWB evaluation, but most of the change is attributable to the addition of a new evaluative criterion described in the Online Appendix of this paper. 3.3.7. Pumé (Yaruro)-Chocoan (C184, 172-173) ID No.



SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi

92

Pumé/Proto-Chocoan

Pumé-Chocoan

0

0

0

0

Source of lexical sets Pache 2016

Interpretation of BWB results: No support for historical connection Discussion: Further investigation of this proposal is not justified by BWB results. 3.3.8. Algic-Austronesian (C152-154) (see 3.1.4., 3.2.9., 3.2.12, 3.2.13. ) ID No.



52

Menominee (Algonquian)/Maori (Austronesian)

AlgicAustronesian

SETi

CORi

BVi

COMi


15

11

20

220

David Beck, per. com.

Interpretation of BWB results: Weak support for historical connection 29

Discussion: While compared languages are assumed by Beck (almost certainly, correctly) not to be historically connected, Menominee and Maori show striking lexical similarity, clearly the result of random variation. Assemblage of comparative sets for these two languages involved use of algorithms for the automated identification of cognate lexemes initially applied to languages known to be genealogically related—including languages within Polynesian (Austronesian), within Algonquian (Algic), and within Totonac (Totozoquean) families. The Menominee/Maori sets are the outcome of applying the same algorithms to languages known almost certainly not to be related. (The software for this was developed by Adam St. Arnaud for his MSc project under the supervision of Grzegorz Kondrak.) BWB results for Menominee/Maori indicate that comparisons for which the interpretation “weak support for historical connection” is appropriate may not be historically affiliated either genealogically or through contact. All metrics for Menominee/Maori are below average including 220 for COMi. Conceivably, all observed comparisons for which “weak support” is pertinent having COMi’s equal to or smaller than 220, may not be historically related at all. In the present study, these include Proto-Popolocan/Proto-Mixtecan, Tupian/Cariban, Chimariko/Yavapai, Algonkian/Gulf, Tonkawa/Algonquian, Maidu/Lake Miwok, Aikanã/Kwaza, and Maidu/Yawelmani Yokuts. Other comparisons exhibiting metric profiles for “weak support”, with COMi’s greater than 220 but less than the average of 514.7, may not be historically connected as well. The latter include Misumalpan, Uralo-Siberian, Seri/Cocopa, Wintu/Lake Miwok, Huave/Mixe-Zoquean, and Zuni-California Penutian. An important goal for improving the BWB approach is to somehow determine the smallest COMi always indicative of historical connection.

4. Summary. Table 3 is a summary of BWB and Campbell’s evaluations of comparative sets for proposals dealt with in the “well-established and uncontested families” (gray-shaded comparisons in Table 3) and “uncertain distant genetic relationships” (not shaded) sections of C. There are 57 such sets, to all of which BWB has been applied. Three of the sets have been discussed by C, but do not benefit from his evaluation (indicated by “?”). Also, while most of the sets have been directly evaluated by C, some are only indirectly assessed. For example, of the six lexical comparisons for Otomanguean designated as receiving a positive (pos) appraisal by C in Table 3, none are directly evaluated by him in the book, suggesting that his faith in the validity of Otomanguean is indicative of positive determinations for all possible collections of sets involving “Otomanguean” languages. In four of the 57 comparisons, C’s evaluation is that the proposal requires “more study”. This is taken to indicate possible genetic affiliation and a positive determination, since C has not expressed a denial of the genealogical connection of compared languages.

Table 3. Summary of BWB and Campbell evaluations of comparative sets for proposals of “well-established and uncontested families” (gray shaded) and “uncertain distant genetic relationships” (not shaded) sections of C. 30

Sec. No. 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4. 3.1.5a. 3.1.5b. 3.1.5c. 3.1.5d. 3.1.5e. 3.1.5f. 3.1.6. 3.1.7 3.1.8 3.1.9. 3.1.10. 3.1.11. 3.1.12a. 3.1.12b. 3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.3. 3.2.4. 3.2.5. 3.2.6. 3.2.7. 3.2.8. 3.2.9. 3.2.10a. 3.2.10b. 3.2.10c. 3.2.10d. 3.2.10e. 3.2.10f. 3.2.10g. 3.2.11a. 3.2.11b. 3.2.12. 3.2.13. 3.2.14.1a. 3.2.14.1b. 3.2.14.1c. 3.2.14.1d. 3.2.14.1e. 3.2.14.1f. 3.2.14.1g. 3.2.14.1h. 3.2.14.2. 3.2.14.3. 3.2.14.4. 3.2.14.5.

Comparison (and ID No.) 37. Proto-Eskimo/Aleut 22. Lakota/Catawba 16. Proto-Northern Iroquoian/Cherokee 10. Proto-Central Algonquian/Wiyot (Ritwan) 70. Proto-Popolocan/Proto-Mixtecan 83. Proto-Chiapanec-Mangue/Proto-Mixtecan 84.Proto-Chiapanec-Mangue/Proto-Popolocan 89. Proto-Otopamean/Proto-Popolocan-Mixtecan 93. Tlapanec /Isthmus Zapotec 94. Tlapanec,/Proto-Popolocan 46. Miskito/Cacaopera 82. Paya/Talamancan 17. Proto-Kakua-Nukak/Puinave 4. Witoto/Ocaina 64. Proto-Witoto/Proto-Boran 11. Proto-Panoan/Proto-Takanan 5. Proto-Je/Maxacali 86. Proto-Jê/Karaja 48. Proto-Samoyedic (Uralic)/Proto-Eskimo 41. Proto-Shuar (Jivaroan)/Candoshi 63. Tupinamba (Tupian)/ Hishkaryana (Cariban) 31. Seneca (Iroquoian)/Proto-Siouan 33. Uto-Aztecan/Proto-Tanoan 21. Proto-Quechua/Proto-Aymara 80. Haida/Proto-Athabascan 88. Proto-Na Dene/Proto-Yeniseian 24. Proto-Algonkian/Beothuk 6. Washo/Karok 40. Yana/Karok 9. Shasta/Karok 20. Proto-Pomo/Proto-Yuman 25. Shasta/Achumawi (Palaihnihan) 38. Seri/Cocopa (Yuman) 56. Chimariko/Yavapai (Yuman) 42. Natchez/Proto-Muskogean 34. Atakapa/Chitimacha 62. Proto-Central Algonquian/Proto-Muskogean 65. Proto-Central Algonkian/Tonkawa 12. Proto-Costanoan/Proto-Miwok 47. Wintu/Southern Sierra Miwok (Utian) 49. Wintu (Wintun)/Lake Miwok (Utian) 66. Maidu (Maidun)/Lake Miwok (Utian) 71. Proto-Maidun/Proto-Wintun 77. Maidu (Maidun) /Yawelmani Yokuts 96. Wintu (Wintun)/Yawelmani Yokuts 91. Proto-Yokuts/ Proto-Costanoan-Miwok (Utian) 51. Huave/Mixe of Totontepec (Mixe-Zoquean) 27. Klamath/Nez Perce (Sahaptian) 19. Takelma/Proto-Kalapuya 79. Alsea/Wintu (Wintun)

3.2.14.6. 3.2.15. 3.2.16. 3.2.17a. 3.2.17b. 3.2.18. 3.2.19.

50. Zuni/Yawelmani Yokuts 95. Wappo (Yukian)/ Proto-Siouan 35. Timucua/Warao 18. Proto-Totonacan/Proto-Mixe-Zoquean 54. Proto-Mayan/Proto-Mixe-Zoquean 76. Tol (aka Jicaque)/Chontal (aka Tequistlatec) 14. Quechua-Tarasco

Possible Group Affiliation Eskimo-Aleut Siouan Iroquoian Algic Otomanguean Otomanguean Otomanguean Otomanguean Otomanguean Otomanguean Misumalpan Chibchan Puinavean Witoto Proper Witotoan Pano-Tacanan (Nuclear) Macro-Je (Nuclear) Macro-Je Uralo-Siberian Jivaroan-Candoshi Tupi-Carib Macro-Siouan Aztec-Tanoan Quechumaran Na-Dene Dene-Sino-Caucasian Algonquian-Beothuk Hokan Hokan Hokan Hokan Hokan Hokan Hokan Gulf Gulf Algonquian-Gulf Algonquian-Tonkawa California Penutian California Penutian California Penutian California Penutian California Penutian California Penutian California Penutian California Penutian

BWB neg pos pos pos neg neg neg neg neg neg neg neg pos pos pos pos pos neg neg neg neg pos pos pos neg neg pos pos neg pos pos pos neg neg neg neg neg neg pos neg neg neg neg neg neg neg

Campbell pos pos pos pos pos pos pos pos pos pos pos pos pos pos pos pos pos pos neg neg more study neg more study pos neg neg pos pos ? neg more study neg neg ? more study neg neg neg pos neg neg neg neg neg neg ?

Outcome dis agr agr agr dis dis dis dis dis dis dis dis agr agr agr agr agr dis agr agr dis dis agr agr agr agr agr agr ? dis agr dis agr ? dis agr agr agr agr agr agr agr agr agr agr ?

Mexican Penutian Plateau Penutian Oregon-Penutian Oregon-Penutian- California Penutian Zuni-California Penutian Yukian-Siouan Timucua-Warao Macro-Mayan Macro-Mayan Jicaquean-Tequistlatecan Quechuan-Tarascan

neg pos pos neg

neg pos pos neg

agr agr agr agr

neg neg neg pos pos neg pos

neg neg neg pos pos pos neg

agr agr agr agr agr dis dis

Abbreviations: pos = positive determination for genetic relationship. neg = negative determination for genetic relationship. more study = no Campbell evaluation other than suggestion for further investigation, this interpreted as “pos". ? = no evaluation given

31

agr = BWB and Campbell agreement. dis = BWB and Campbell disagreement.

BWB and Campbell’s evaluations are generally in agreement (agr). Of the 54 sets evaluated by C, agreement on 37 or 68.5% is observed. Disagreements (dis) are plausibly most anticipated for comparative sets from the “distant genetic relationships” category. For the latter, there are 35 comparisons for which there are seven disagreements (20.0%). Perhaps surprisingly, for the “well-established and uncontested” section there are 19 comparisons for which there are nine disagreements (47.4%). Nevertheless, of the latter nine differences, six involve discrepancies for Otomanguean groups, all of which BWB evaluates as negative (neg), and, of course, all of which C evaluates as positive (pos). Counting Otomanguean as a single disagreement, only four disagreements for the “well-established” category remain, i.e. Otomanguean, Eskimo-Aleut, Misumalpan, and Chibchan, all of which are negative for BWB and positive for C. As discussed in 3.1.1., C apparently accepts judgments on Otomanguean from authorities, and does not meticulously, if at all survey for himself published lexical materials assembled in support of the proposal.9 If he had, undoubtedly he would have recognized the inadequacies of the latter as documented by BWB. In any case, application of BWB to binary comparisons beyond those reviewed here, especially those available in Rensch (1976)—as I hope to undertake in the near future—would be appropriate before a final declaration of Otomanguean’s demise. C’s influence by authority apparently influences his positive evaluation of Eskimo-Aleut as well (section 3.1.1.). BWB evaluation attests to abundant comparative sets for the latter in terms of which more than the average number of BWB sound correspondences are observed. Lexical similarities motivating BWB results were certainly not lost on authorities, and their positive evaluations of Eskimo-Aleut are not unexpected. What apparently was not regarded as significant to them is the very small number of comparative sets involving basic vocabulary, this indicating the Eskimo-Aleut connection to be one entailing contact and borrowing rather than genetic relationship.10 BWB and C’s evaluations involving “uncertain distant genetic relationships” are in substantial agreement at 80.0% (Table 3). The largest group of agreements within this category involves the so-called “Penutian” languages, for which there are 12 lexical comparisons (3.2.14.). For the latter, BWB and C are in 100.0% agreement. Both concur on positive support for Plateau Penutian and Oregon Penutian, and negative support for California Penutian, Mexican Penutian, Oregon Penutian-California Penutian, and Zuni-California Penutian. California Penutian should now be declared dead and buried. Overall the general Penutian hypothesis, without its core of California Penutian, is not tenable. The Hokan group (section 3.2.10.) receives mixed outcomes, with three agreements and two disagreements. BWB-positive results attest to a northern California grouping of Achumawi 9

Campbell (per. com.) informs me that his positive evaluation of Otomanguean is primarily influenced by unpublished papers of Terrence Kaufman. It would be helpful if Kaufman could permit scholarly review of these materials and eventual publication in a carefully peer-monitored journal such as the International Journal of American Linguistics. 10 As mentioned in 3.1.1., language contact has been recognized by Berge (2018) as a significant, if not the only source of Eskimo-Aleut lexical similarities.

32

(Palaihnihan), Karok, Shasta, and Washo, which I dub “Core Hokan”. C’s judgment for WashoKarok is positive, but gives negative evaluations for Shasta-Karok and Shasta-Achumawi (Palaihnihan). Connections of other languages with Core Hokan are not supported by either BWB or C. Both agree that Proto-Pomo and Proto-Yuman are either genetically linked or worthy of more study, and that Seri-Cocopa (Yuman) is not. A notable agreement are evaluations of comparisons for the Macro-Mayan proposal (sections 3.2.14.2. and 3.2.17.). Both BWB and C concur that Totonacan/Mixe-Zoquean (Totozoquean) and Mayan/Mixe-Zoquean comparisons are supportive of genetic relationship, and that Huave should not be included in the group. BWB results attest to a very deep chronological connection for Mayan/Mixe-Zoquean, suggesting that its ancestral language involved divergence from Proto-Totozoquean long before the divergence of Proto-Totonacan and Proto-Mixe-Zoquean from one another.

5. Conclusion: Who or what to believe and why? Since BWB and C are substantially in agreement with respect to what Amerindian languages are and are not genealogically linked, the latter question is largely moot. Nonetheless, there are differences. In such cases, I advocate BWB results for the following reason—other than my role in developing the method. BWB is an objective approach to comparative linguistics while the traditional method relies almost entirely on human judgment, the privileged strategy of C and of the vast majority of historical linguists over the last two centuries. Application of BWB to the 96 comparisons of the Online Appendix was achieved manually. Nevertheless, this involved strict adherence to, without deviation from, the BWB algorithm (see Brown 2017 and the Online Appendix). The same results would be achieved for the 96 comparisons were the method entirely automated, a development someone with computer programming skills might pursue. Finally, David Beck (2017) discusses the substantial role of the International Journal of American Linguistics in publishing articles treating the comparative study of Native American languages during its first 100 years. The current paper has benefited immensely from this focus. Of the 65 lexical sets evaluated, 26, or 40.0%, were provided by IJAL.

References Adelaar, Willem F. H. (2000). ‘Propuesta de un nuevo vínculo genético entre dos grupos lingüísticos indígenas de la Amazonía occidental: harakmbut y katukina’, in L. Miranda Esquerre (ed.), Actas del I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas de Sudamérica. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma, Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Departamento Académico de Humanidades, 219–236. Alvaro Echeverri, Juan, and Frank Seifart (2015). ‘Proto-Witoto-Ocaina-Nonuya and its relation to Proto-Bora-Muinane: A re-evaluation of the Witotoan family’. Unpublished manuscript in possession of its authors. Aoki, Haruo (1963). ‘On Sahaptian-Klamath linguistic affiliations’. International Journal of American Linguistics 29: 107–112. 33

Bartholomew, Doris A. (1965). The Reconstruction of Otopamean (Mexico). PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Beck, David (2017). The contribution of a century of Americanist studies to historical linguistics. International Journal of American Linguistics 83:447-466. Berge, Anna (2018). Re-evaluating the reconstruction of Proto-Eskimo-Aleut. Unpublished manuscript in possession of its author. Broadbent, Sylvia M., and Harvey Pitkin (1964). ‘A comparison of Miwok and Wintun’, in William Bright (ed.), Studies in Californian Linguistics [University of California Publications in Linguistics 34]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 19–45. Brown, Cecil H. (1996). A widespread marking reversal in languages of the southeastern United States. Anthropological Linguistics 38:439-460. Brown, Cecil H. (1999). Lexical acculturation in Native American languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Brown, Cecil H. (2015). Paleobiolinguistics of New World Crops and the Otomanguean Language Family. Ethnobiology Letters 6. (Online) Brown, Cecil H. (2017). ‘Evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship: The BeckWichmann-Brown (BWB) system’, Language Dynamics and Change 7: 1–34. Brown, Cecil H., David Beck, Grzegorz Kondrak, James K. Watters, and Søren Wichmann (2011). ‘Totozoquean’, International Journal of American Linguistics 77: 323–372. Brown, Cecil H., Søren Wichmann, and David Beck (2014). ‘Chitimacha: A Mesoamerican language in the Lower Mississippi Valley’, International Journal of American Linguistics 80: 425–474. Callaghan, Catherine A. (2014). Proto Utian Grammar and Dictionary with Notes on Yokuts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Campbell, Lyle. (1997). American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press. Campbell, Lyle. (2011). Review of The Dene–Yeniseian Connection by James Kari and Ben A. Potter. International Journal of American Linguistics 77:445-451. Campbell, Lyle, and David Oltrogge (1980). ‘Proto-Tol (Jicaque)’, International Journal of American Linguistics 46: 205–223. Carter, Richard T., A. Wesley Jones, and Robert L. Rankin (2006). Comparative Siouan dictionary. Unpublished manuscript in possession of its authors. Chafe, Wallace L. (1964). ‘Another look at Siouan and Iroquoian’, American Anthropologist 66: 852–862. Constenla Umaña, Adolfo (1981). Comparative Chibchan Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Constenla Umaña, Adolfo (1987). ‘Elementos de fonología comparada de las lenguas misumalpas’, Filología y Linguística 13: 129–161. Crawford, James M. (1976). ‘A comparison of Chimariko and Yuman’, in Margaret Langdon and Shirley Silver (eds), Hokan Studies. The Hague: Mouton, 177–191. Crawford, Judith G. (1976). ‘Seri and Yuma’, in Margaret Langdon and Shirley Silver (eds), Hokan Studies. The Hague: Mouton, 305–324.

34

Davis, Irvine (1968). ‘Some Macro-Jê relationships’, International Journal of American Linguistics 34: 42–47. Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) (2013). The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Elmendorf, William W. (1963). ‘Yukian-Siouan lexical similarities’, International Journal of American Linguistics 29: 300–309. Emlen, Nicholas Q. (2017). ‘Appendix to Perspectives on the Quechua–Aymara contact relationship and the lexicon and phonology of pre-Proto-Aymara’, International Journal of American Linguistics 83: 307–340. Enrico, John (2004). ‘Toward Proto-Na-Dene’, Anthropological Linguistics 46: 229–302. Epps, Patience, and Katherine Bolaños (2017). ‘Reconsidering the “Makú” language family of northwest Amazonia’, International Journal of American Linguistics 83: 467–507. Fernández de Miranda, María Teresa, and Robert J. Weitlaner (1961). ‘Sobre algunas relaciones de la familia Mangue’, Anthropological Linguistics 3: 1–99. Fortescue, Michael (1998). Language Relations across Bering Strait. London: CASSELL. Fortescue, Michael (2017). ‘Correlating Palaeo-Siberian languages and populations: Recent advances in the Uralo-Siberian hypothesis’, Man in India 97: 47–68. Fortescue, Michael, Steven Jacobson, and Lawrence Kaplan (1994). Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates. Fairbanks: University of Alaska. Girard, Victor (1971). Proto-Takanan Phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Golla, Victor (1997). ‘The Alsea-Wintuan connection’, International Journal of American Linguistics 63: 157–170. Granberry, Julian (1993). A Grammar and Dictionary of the Timucua Language. 3rd edition. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1966). The Languages of Africa. Bloomington: University of Indiana. Gudschinsky, Sarah A. (1959). Proto-Popotecan: A Comparative Study of Popolocan and Mixtecan. Supplement to International Journal of American Linguistics 25.2. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Haas, Mary R. (1956). ‘Natchez and the Muskogean languages’, Language 32: 61–73. Haas, Mary R. (1958a). ‘Algonkian-Ritwan: The end of a controversy’, International Journal of American Linguistics 24: 159–173. Haas, Mary R. (1958b). ‘A new linguistic relationship in North America: Algonkian and the Gulf languages’, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 14: 231–264. Haas, Mary R. (1959). ‘Tonkawa and Algonkian’, Anthropological Linguistics 1.2: 1–6. Haas, Mary R. (1964). ‘California Hokan’, in William Bright (ed.), Studies in Californian Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 73–84. Hewson, John (1971). ‘Beothuk consonant correspondences’, International Journal of American Linguistics 37: 244–249. Jacobsen, William H. (1958). ‘Washo and Karok: An approach to comparative Hokan’, International Journal of American Linguistics 24: 195–212. Julian, Charles (2010). A History of the Iroquoian Languages. PhD dissertation, University of Manitoba.

35

Kaufman, Terrence (“in press” as of 1979 ). Tlapaneko-Subtiaba, OtoMangue, and Hoka: where Greenberg went wrong. In Language and Prehistory in the Americas, ed. Allan Taylor. Stanford University Press, 2003. Langdon, Margaret (1979). ‘Some thoughts on Hokan with particular reference to Pomoan and Yuman’, in Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun (eds), The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. Austin: University of Texas Press, 592–649. Mora-Marín, David E. (2016). ‘Testing the Proto-Mayan-Mije-Sokean hypothesis’, International Journal of American Linguistics 82: 127–180. Newman, Stanley (1964). ‘Comparison of Zuni and California Penutian’, International Journal of American Linguistics 30: 1–13. Olmsted, David L. (1956). ‘Palaihnihan and Shasta I: Labial stops’, Language 32: 73–77. Olmsted, David L. (1957). ‘Palaihnihan and Shasta II: Apical stops’, Language 33: 136–138. Olmsted, David L. (1959). ‘Palaihnihan and Shasta III: Dorsal stops’, Language 35: 637–644. Pache, Matthias (2016). ‘Evidence for a genealogical link between Pumé (Yaruro) and Chocoan’, Language Dynamics and Change 6: 99–155. Payne, David L. (1981). ‘Bosquejo fonológico del proto-shuar-candoshi: Evidencia para una relación genética’, Revista del Museo Nacional 16: 323–377. Pitkin, Harvey, and William Shipley (1958). ‘A comparative survey of California Penutian’, International Journal of American Linguistics 24: 174–188. Rensch, Calvin R. (1976). Comparative Otomanguean Phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University. Rensch, Calvin R. (1977). ‘Classification of the Otomanguean languages and the position of Tlapanec’, in David Oltrogge and Calvin R. Rensch (eds), Two Studies in Middle American Comparative Linguistics. Dallas, TX: The Summer Institute of Linguistics, 53– 108. Rivail Ribeiro, Eduardo, and Hein van der Voort (2010). ‘Nimuendajú was right: The inclusion of the Jabutí language family in the Macro-Jê stock’, International Journal of American Linguistics 76: 517–570. Rodrigues, Aryon D. (1985). ‘Evidence for Tupi-Carib relationships’, in Harriet E. Manelis Klein and Louisa R. Stark (eds), South American Indian Languages: Retrospect and Prospect. Austin: University of Texas Press, 371–404. Shipley, William (1969). ‘Proto-Takelman’, International Journal of American Linguistics 35: 226–230. Silver, Shirley (1964). ‘Shasta and Karok: A binary comparison’, in William Bright (ed.), Studies in Californian Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 170–181. Suárez, Jorge (1975). Estudios huaves. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Swadesh, Morris (1946). ‘Phonologic formulas for Atakapa-Chitimacha’, International Journal of American Linguistics 12: 113–132. Swadesh, Morris (1967). ‘Lexicostatistic classification’, in Norman A. McQuown (ed.), Handbook of Middle American Indians: Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, 79–115.

36

Swadesh, Morris (1971). The Origin and Diversification of Language. Chicago: Aldine Atherton. Vajda, Edward J. (2010). ‘A Siberian link with Na-Dene languages’, in James M. Kari and Ben A. Potter (eds), The Dene-Yeniseian Connection. Fairbanks, Alaska: Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, 33–99. van der Voort, Hein (2005). ‘Kwaza in a comparative perspective’, International Journal of American linguistics 7: 365–412. Whorf, Benjamin L., and George L. Trager (1937). ‘The relationship of Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan’, American Anthropologist 39: 609–624.

37

ONLINE APPENDIX: Beck-Wichmann-Brown (BWB) Evaluation of 96 Lexical Comparisons for Proposals of Language Genealogical Relationship

Cecil H. Brown

A. Introduction. BWB quantitatively assesses the degree of support that collections of sets of compared words provide for proposals of language genealogical affiliation, with regard to whether or not observed lexical similarity exceeds chance expectation. A detailed description of the approach can be found in Brown (2017). Only major features of the system are described here. 96 lexical comparisons treating languages of global distribution are evaluated (section D), the vast majority of which are from publications and theses, but a few from documents supplied through personal communications.

Reference cited Brown, Cecil H. (2017). ‘Evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship: The BeckWichmann-Brown (BWB) system’, Language Dynamics and Change 7: 1–34.

B. BWB. The core of BWB is a system for assigning points to each comparative set assembled in support of a language genealogical relationship. Point assignment is as follows:

38

(i) 2 points: for each sound correspondence observed for a set (ii) 2 points: for translation equivalence if observed for a set (iii) 1 point: for lack of potential onomatopoeia if observed for a set (iv) 1 point: for lack of unexplained, unmatched phonological segments if observed for a set

Points earned by a set are aggregated to yield an overall point score for the comparison. If a set earns 7 or more points, the lexical similarity it reports is considered unlikely to be the product of chance, and, therefore, should be retained as persuasive support for a language-relatedness proposal. These matches are dubbed “BWB sets”. If a set earns less than 7 points, lexical similarity is considered more likely due to chance, and the match is not regarded as a BWB set nor retained as persuasive of language association. To further reduce chance similarity for BWB sets, eight conditions apply in their evaluation:

(i) A comparative set for which translation equivalence is not observed is not recognized as a BWB set (and is excluded as supportive evidence) even if the set earns 7 or more points (see Brown [2017:256-258] for a detailed discussion of translation equivalence). (ii) A sound correspondence is deemed observed (and thus merits 2 points for a set) only if it is supported by at least three comparative sets, each of which shows at least 7 BWB points. (iii) A sound correspondence involving a sound segment corresponding with Ø (nil) earns no points (i.e., does not merit 2 points for a set). (iv) If all sound correspondences observed for a comparative set entail only corresponding vowels, the set receives no points for correspondences.

39

(v) When identifying correspondences involving vowels, only vowel quality is taken into consideration; attributes such as vowel nasalization, length, laryngealization, stress, and tone are ignored. (vi) When identifying correspondences involving consonants, consonant length is not taken into consideration. (vii) A set with words whose compared constituents all involve metathesis is not recognized as a BWB set (and is excluded as supportive evidence). (viii) All sets for any particular proposal evaluated by BWB should only include binary comparison of words of the same two taxonomic units of language groups compared. Since condition (viii) is neither used nor discussed in Brown (2017), it requires elaboration. For example, all BWB evaluated sets for a Basque/Indo-European proposal entail only words from Proto- Basque (PB) and Proto-Indo-European (PIE) (see comparison 23 below), but could have entailed only PB and Greek, or only PB and Proto-Germanic, and so on. Similarly, no more than one branch of a family should pertain to a BWB evaluation. BWB is not applied to compared words from mixtures of taxonomic levels, for example, to all sets offered in support of a proposal that include both PB/PIE and PB/Proto-Germanic, or both PB/Greek and PB/ProtoGermanic. Consultation of words of multiple taxonomic levels of a genetic group expands the pool of words searched for lexical similarity, thus augmenting, often substantially, the likelihood that words found to be similar are so by chance (Campbell and Poser 2008:208). Preferably, sets evaluated should be restricted to the highest levels of group inclusion, such as PB/PIE (as opposed to PB/Greek or PB/Proto-Germanic). If adequate data are not forthcoming from a highest level (say, reconstructions were not available for a pertinent proto-language) then a proto-language or historical language of a lower level with adequate lexical documentation

40

would be appropriate (say, in place of PIE words in binary comparison, those from ProtoGermanic or Greek could be used if these are well documented). BWB outcomes for collections of comparative sets are quantitatively ranked to make apparent the relative strength of support these provide for proposals (e.g., Table 5 in Brown 2017 ) . A suggested framework for interpreting ranked findings is provided (see Table 6 in Brown 2017, and Chart 1 below). BWB results are expressed by four indices:

(i) SETi: The number-of-sets index, which is the number of BWB sets observed for a proposal. (ii) CORi: The correspondence index, which is the number of BWB correspondence series observed for a collection of BWB sets. (iii) BVi: The basic-vocabulary index, which is the percentage of a collection of 100 or fewer BWB sets showing basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100 list); or the absolute number of a collection of 100 or more BWB sets showing basic vocabulary. (iv) COMi: The composite index, which is BVi and CORi multiplied.

Both SETi and CORi could be used as a gage of the relative strength of language comparisons; in both cases, the larger the index, the stronger the support for a proposal. However, CORi is a more comprehensive metric, and, hence, used in BWB evaluation, since, it registers both lexical similarity and phonological systematicity. Including basic vocabulary as a factor in BWB analysis is important in evaluating borrowing as a potential explanation for observed lexical similarity (Brown 2017). In this study, Swadesh’s (1971: 283) list of 100 items of basic vocabulary is used; see below for the complete

41

list. Mainstream comparativists have long assumed basic vocabulary to be more resistant to diffusion and, hence, to lexical replacement through borrowing than non-basic vocabulary (Campbell and Poser 2008: 24, 166, 167, 174, 194) and this has been carefully documented in Brown (2017; https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5441536 .v1). If lexical similarities observed for compared languages involve considerable basic vocabulary, similarities should tend not to be due to borrowing, but rather to genealogical association. Thus, the more basic vocabulary, the more likely genealogical affiliation. Conversely, the less basic vocabulary in comparative sets, the more likely observed similarities are due to borrowing. The basic-vocabulary index (BVi), is designed to insert basic vocabulary into the analytical mix for interpreting BWB results (Brown 2017). It is used to measure the likelihood that a historical connection found for compared languages involves genealogical relationship rather than contact (diffusion/borrowing). A larger BVi is more indicative of descent from a common ancestor than a smaller one. For comparisons involving 100 or fewer BWB sets, BVi is the same in value as the basic-vocabulary percentage (BVp), i.e., the number of BWB sets involving basic vocabulary divided by the total number of BWB sets observed for a comparison, multiplied by 100. For comparisons with more than 100 BWB sets, BVi is the absolute number of sets involving basic vocabulary. A BWB set entails basic vocabulary (BV) if any word of the set is glossed by a word designating a basic-vocabulary item on the Swadesh list of 100 (see section C), or if some reflex of a proto-word of a set is so glossed. CORi and BVi are considered together as indicative of the relative strength of lexical evidence assembled in support of proposals for genealogical relationship. For doing so, the composite index (COMi) is developed, which mathematically combines CORi and BVi; COMi is derived through simple multiplication of BVi by CORi . COMi is available to assess the relative

42

strength of BWB-evaluated lexical evidence for genealogical affiliation: the larger the index, the more likely the relationship, the smaller the index, the less likely. A numerical threshold above which a COMi value is decisive evidence for genealogical association, and below which it is not, has yet to be definitively determined. Until it is, a BWB proxy for this threshold is the average or mean for COMi values reported for all language comparisons for a proposal for which more than zero BWB sets have been observed. All language comparisons with COMi values larger than or equal to the COMi mean are considered strong support for genealogical relationship, while comparisons with COMi values smaller than the mean are considered less than strong support for genealogical association. Means for both CORi and BVi are also used in interpreting BWB results, the justification for which is given in detail in Brown (2017). Chart 1 (adapted from Brown 2017:276) indicates how these and COMi are used in interpreting BWB results.

Chart 1. Framework for interpreting BWB results Metric Profile (BWB results)

Interpretation

COMi ≥ Mean

Strong support for genealogical relationship.

COMi < Mean

Less than strong support for genealogical relationship.

COMi < Mean; CORi ≥ Mean; BVi < Mean

Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact.

COMi < Mean; CORi < Mean; BVi ≥ Mean

At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth.

COMi < Mean; CORi < Mean, but > 0; BVi < Mean

Weak support for historical connection.

COMi = 0; CORi = 0; BVi = 0

No support for historical connection.

The metric means for the 96 comparisons evaluated in section D are as follows: 43

CORi = 13.1 BVi = 42.0 COMi = 514.7

References cited Brown, Cecil H. (2017). ‘Evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship: The BeckWichmann-Brown (BWB) system’, Language Dynamics and Change 7: 1–34. Campbell, Lyle, and William J. Poser. 2008. Language Classification: History and Method. Cambridge University Press. Swadesh, Morris (edited by Joel Sherzer). 1971. The Origin and Diversification of Language. Chicago: Aldine Atherton

C. BWB Evaluation The 96 collections of lexical comparisons include the 65 treated in Brown (2017). Evaluations of some of the later have been revised to be in accord with criterion (viii) described in section B. Two have been additionally or otherwise revised from their presentation in Brown (2017): Proto-Japanese/Proto-Korean and Chitimacha/Proto-Totozoquean. The former was reevaluated by narrowing analysis only to comparative sets showing basic vocabulary; the later involved correction of an error made in the original analysis. In section D, each language comparison and its BWB evaluation is described in detail. First, names of languages compared are given preceded by their ID numbers. Comparisons are ordered by ID number, from smallest to largest which accords as well with magnitude of COMi,

44

from largest to smallest. Names of languages compared are followed by the name of the genetic group to which they possibly belong, given in brackets. Bibliographic sources of lexical comparison are given in full; followed by rough geographic location of compared languages. BWB results are presented, i.e., values of indices (with values for CORi, BVi, and COMi that are equal to or above average given in boldface), followed by interpretation of results (see Chart 1), abbreviations used, and sound correspondences observed for lexical sets. Finally, comparative sets are presented including words compared in each set and BWB numerical evaluation of each set. In comparative sets, matched words are given in transcriptions provided by lexical sources unless otherwise indicated. Phonological constituents of matched words that are compared are presented in boldface. Presentation of BWB evaluation for each set involves the following format: “[Evaluation: X (A,B,C,D)]”, where X = overall set score (aggregate of points for A, B, C, and D), A = sound correspondences (2 points for each), B = translation equivalence (2 points if observed), C = no potential for onomatopoeia (1 point), and D = no unexplained phonological residue (1 point). Sets earning fewer than 7 points are not considered BWB sets and are not listed in comparison collections. Some set evaluations are followed by BV indicating that the set involves an item of basic vocabulary. This study recognizes basic vocabulary as identified by Swadesh (1971:283) on his 100-item list. Items on the list are represented by these English glosses: 1. I (1st person singular), 2. you (2nd person, singular, dual, or plural, formal or non-formal), 3. we (1st person plural, exclusive or inclusive), 4. this, 5. that, 6. who, 7. what, 8. not (no or negative), 9. all, 10. many, 11. one, 12. two, 13. big (large), 14. long, 15, small (little) , 16. woman, 17. man, 18. person (people), 19. fish, 20. bird, 21. dog, 22. louse (head or body), 23. tree, 24. seed, 25. leaf, 26. root,

45

27. bark (of tree), 28. skin (noun), 29. flesh (meat), 30. blood, 31. bone, 32. grease (fat), 33. egg (of bird), 34. horn (antler), 35. tail, 36. feather, 37. hair (body or head), 38. head, 39. ear, 40. eye, 41. nose, 42. mouth, 43. tooth, 44. tongue, 45. claw (nail), 46. foot, 47. knee, 48. hand, 49. belly, 50. neck, 51. breast, 52. heart, 53. liver, 54. drink (verb), 55. eat, 56. bite, 57. see, 58. hear, 59. know (someone or something), 60. sleep, 61. die, 62. kill, 63. swim, 64. fly (verb), 65. walk, 66. come, 67. lie (prone), 68. sit (sit down), 69. stand (stand up), 70. give, 71. say, 72. sun, 73. moon, 74. star, 75. water, 76. rain, 77. stone (rock), 78. sand, 79. earth, 80. cloud, 81. smoke (noun), 82. fire, 83. ash, 84. burn, 85. path (road, trail), 86. mountain (hill), 87. red, 88. green, 89. yellow, 90. white, 91. black, 92. night, 93. hot, 94. cold, 95. full, 96. new, 97. good, 98. round, 99. dry, 100. name. Parenthesized items either disambiguate referents or indicate judgement of the item as being a synonym of the referent it immediately follows.

Reference cited: Brown, Cecil H. (2017). ‘Evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship: The BeckWichmann-Brown (BWB) system’, Language Dynamics and Change 7: 1–34. Swadesh, Morris (edited by Joel Sherzer). 1971. The Origin and Diversification of Language. Chicago: Aldine Atherton

D. The 96 Comparisons. 1. Gadsup/Tairora [Kainantu] Source of lexical sets: Howard McKaughan. 1973. A study of divergence in four New Guinea languages. In The Languages of the Eastern Family of the East New Guinea Highland Stock, Howard McKaughan, ed., pp. 694-738. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Geographic region: Papua New Guinea BWB results: 46

Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average

Abbreviation SETi CORi BV BVp BVi COMi

Result 74 30 68 91.9 (68/74) 91.9 2757 (30 x 91.9)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: G = Gadsup, T = Tairora Correspondences series (30): G T

Supporting sets

p

b

|2,|27,|97,

p

q

|20,|72,|90,|98,

b

b

|27,|32,|55,|78,|82,|91,

m m |12,|14,|25,|35,|45,|54,|57,|80,|88,|94, m b

|17,|26,|33,|38,|40,|47,|52,|67,|76,|86,|87,|95,|100,

s

h

|13,|22,|27,

n

n

|7,|11,|14,|17,|24,|38,|39,|54,|55,|70,|88,|94,|95,|96,

n

t

|4,|43,|51,|52,|60,|71,

n

r

|13,|15,|44,|48,|50,|56,|58,|63,|64,|68,|80,|83,|85,|90,|92,|93,|98,

n

k

|45,|64,|86,

k

k

|10,|37,|85,

k

t

|15,|17,|20,|23,|33,|40,|45,|46,|46,|50,|58,|93,|95,

q

q

|37,|43,|46,|49,|65,|66,|71,|84,|100,

q

r

|7,|10,|25,|32,|69,|79,

47

q

h

|6,|16,|38,

y

k

|39,|53,|84,|92,

i

i

|15,|16,|38,|44,|65,|66,|66,|83,|87,|90,|90,|92,

i

e

|37,|48,|88,

i

a

|6,|10,|14,|27,|45,|54,|68,|69,|71,|80,|84,|86,|87,|94,|98,

i

u

|25,|26,|33,|38,|49,|52,|53,

e

e

|27,|48,|86,|95,|98,

e

a

|96,|97,|97,

a

a

|2,|4,|6,|16,|17,|22,|22,|25,|26,|27,|27,|35,|39,|39,|40,|40,|57,|58,| 60,|63,|64,|65,|66,|72,|82,|88,|92,|92,|95,|98,|12,|38,|64,|69,|78, |88,|90, |11,|14,|23,|24,|32,|68,|70,|84,|93,

a

ai |55,|78,|91,

a

i

|12,|50,|51,|55,|56,|85,

a

u

|13,|17,|33,|47,|95,

a

o

|10,|23,|67,

u

u

|6,|20,|33,|45,|45,|54,|71,|76,|80,

o

o

|7,|17,|46,|50,|58,|82,|83,

o

a

|43,|64,|79,|94,

o

u

|20,|52,|63,

Comparative sets (74): 2. G pakoni ‘arrow’ T beba ‘arrow’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 4. G ana ‘bamboo’ T taqu ‘bamboo’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 48

6. G amuqi ‘belly’ T auha ‘belly’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 7. G inoqna ‘big’ T nora ‘big’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 10. G kasiqi ‘black’ T bankora ‘black’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 11. G naarei ‘blood’ T naare ‘blood’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 12. G ayampai ‘bone’ T buhaarima ‘bone’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 13. G isandai ‘bow’ T huru ‘bow’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 14. G naami ‘breast’ T naama ‘breast’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 15. G ikankemi ‘burn’ T itero ‘burn’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0) BV] 16. G opaqi ‘claw’ 49

T kakahi ‘claw’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 17. G konama ‘cloud’ T tonabu ‘cloud’ [Evaluation: 16 (12,2,1,1) BV] 20. G pukono ‘die’ T qutubiro ‘die’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 22. G kasagute ‘dry’ T ahara ‘dry’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 23. G aakami ‘ear’ T aato ‘ear’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 24. G naano ‘eat/drink’ T naana ‘eat/drink’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 25. G amuqi ‘egg’ T amru ‘egg’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 26. G okami ‘eye’ T abu ‘eye’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 27. G basapemi ‘fat (grease)’ T bahabera ‘fat (grease)’ [Evaluation: 18 (14,2,1,1) BV]

50

32. G baaqdini ‘fly’ T baubaari ‘fly [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 33. G akarakumi ‘foot (sole)’ T aiqutubu ‘foot (sole)’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0) BV] 35. G ameno ‘give’ T amina ‘give’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 37. G abokuqi ‘good’ T koqeba ‘good’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 38. G namiqi ‘grass’ T naabuhi ‘grass’ [Evaluation: 16 (12,2,1,1)] 39. G yanamanai ‘green’ T bukana ‘green’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 40. G maka ‘ground’ T bata ‘ground’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 43. G aaqnomi ‘head’ T qieta ‘head’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 44. G indequ ‘hear/know’ T iri ‘hear/know’ 51

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 45. G amukuni ‘heart’ T muntuka ‘heart’ [Evaluation: 15 (12,2,1,0) BV] 46. G kokoqmemi ‘hot’ T totoq ‘hot’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 47. G maqi ‘house’ T naabu ‘house’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 48. G teni ‘I’ T tere ‘I’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 49. G areqi ‘kill’ T ququbiro ‘kill’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 50. G akona ‘knee’ T tori ‘knee’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 51. G anau ‘leaf’ T itu ‘leaf’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 52. G anonomi ‘liver’ T tubu ‘liver’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 53. 52

G iyaaqi ‘long’ T bukai ‘long’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 54. G numi ‘louse’ T numa ‘louse’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 55. G banta ‘man’ T bainti ‘man’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 56. G amuqna ‘many’ T airi ‘many’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 57. G amaqi ‘meat’ T mati ‘meat’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 58. G ikona ‘moon’ T tora ‘moon’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 60. G anui ‘mountain’ T batamuatu ‘mountain’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 63. G anokami ‘neck’ T aru ‘neck’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 64. G onana ‘new’ T araaka ‘new’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 53

65. G nurambaqi ‘night’ T entaqira ‘night’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 66. G asiqi ‘nose’ T aiqi ‘nose’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 67. G manaa ‘one’ T bohaiqa ‘one’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 68. G aani ‘path’ T aara ‘path’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 69. G aqi ‘rain’ T aara ‘rain’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1) BV] 70. G naarei ‘red’ T naare ‘red’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 71. G anuqi ‘root’ T tuqa ‘root’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 72. G epayauni ‘sand’ T nuqama ‘sand’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 76. G kumandeno ‘sit down’ 54

T oqubuana ‘sit down’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 78. G barano ‘sleep’ T baitaana ‘sleep’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 79. G tsitoq ‘small’ T inara ‘small’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 80. G inumuni ‘smoke’ T mura ‘smoke’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 82. G bayo ‘star’ T bahoqura ‘star’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 83. G oni ‘stone’ T ori ‘stone’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 84. G yaaqi ‘sugarcane’ T kaaqa ‘sugarcane’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 85. G ikona ‘sun’ T kuari ‘sun’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 86. G ameni ‘tail’ T beka ‘tail’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV]

55

87. G mini ‘that’ T biha ‘that’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 88. G mana ‘this’ T maana ‘this’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV] 90. G anapini ‘tongue’ T maaqiri ‘tongue’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0) BV] 91. G bakuni ‘tooth’ T aabai ‘tooth’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 92. G yaani ‘tree’ T katari ‘tree’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV] 93. G kaantani ‘two’ T taarqanta ‘two’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 94. G nomi ‘water’ T namari ‘water’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 95. G yikenama ‘we (excl.)’ T tenabu ‘we (excl.)’ [Evaluation: 15 (12,2,1,0) BV] 96. G nepi ‘what’ T nana ‘what’ 56

[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 97. G yepe ‘who’ T tababe ‘who’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 98. G epani ‘white’ T eqara ‘white’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV] 100. G miqyunawnemi ‘yellow’ T tatbauqa ‘yellow’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV]

2. Proto-Nubian/Proto-Taman [Eastern Sudanic] Source of lexical sets: Claude Rilly. 2009. Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique. LouvainParis-Dudley, MA: PEETERS. Geographic region: Africa BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 93 36 48 51.6 (48/93) 51.6 1857.6 (36 x 51.6)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: PN = Proto-Nubian, PT = Proto-Taman, RM = reflex meaning Correspondences series (36): PN PT

Supporting Sets 57

b

b

|26,|35,|98,|140,|140,

t

t

|47b,|55,|77,|79,|167,|182,|188,|190,

n

n

|31,|44,|62,|92,|113,|184,

n

l

|14,|77,|104,|111,

l

l

|11,|16,|26,|30,|183,

l

r

|66,|85,|106,|160,

l

d

|40,|81,|175,|198,

s

s

|30,|39,|41,|68,|104,|134,|152,|192,|194,

s

t

|33,|77,|84,|136,|182,

s

r

|145,|173,|174,|192,

r

r

|5,|21,|22,|28,|32,|34,|42,|46,|48,|53,|67,|72,|73,|75a,|79,|115,|120,|130,|141a,|142,|14 9,|167,|180,|186,|189b,|195a,

r

l

|93,|109,|126,|162,|172,

r

n

|7,|47b,|56,|94,|199,

r

g

|116,|133,|144,

ɲ

ɲ

|61,|98,|153,

k

k

|39,|73,|79,|115,|120,|121,|136,|183,

k

g

|7,|11,|59,

g

g

|31,|111,|126,|127,|161,|191,|200,

g

k

|16,|72,|132,

ŋ

ŋ

|33,|40,|48,

i

i

|14,|30,|33,|34,|39,|47b,|56,|61,|66,|68,|79,|104,|123,|127,|152,|173,|174,|182,|184,|19 1,|200,|200,

i

e

|59,|106,|106,

i

ei

|136,

i

a

|93,|141a,|194,

58

ie

a

|162,

e

e

|33,|34,|35,|35,|46,|61,|84,|85,|116,|133,|133,|153,|191,

ei

e

|188,

e

i

|26,|40,|136,|161,|167,

e

u

|113,|135,|149,|186,

e

a

|32,|48,|75a,|144,|160,|160,|172,|173,

a

a

|28,|44,|53,|62,|67,|81,|92,|94,|104,|109,|127,|149,|195a,

a

u

|5,|175,|198,|199,

u

u

|21,|41,|68,|79,|81,|115,|120,|135,|180,|183,

u

o

|126,|130,|190,

u

a

|21,|134,|161,|174,

u

i

|42,|72,|123,

o

o

|11,|22,|85,|92,|111,

o

u

|121,|132,|142,

o

a

|7,|42,|55,|145,

Comparative sets (93): 93 BWB comparative sets: Note: The hyphens in reconstructions do not always appear to be justified by observed reflexes. Consequently, these are not considered as being explained phonological residue (e.g. indicating an affix.) 5. bitter, sour PN ŋard-i, PT kuur[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 7. tree PN koor-i PT gaan [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 59

11. rod, stick PN kolPT dog(ul)[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 14. drink PN niiPT li[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 16. mouth PN agil PT kul [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 21. ash PN uburti PT agurŋo [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 22. sing PN oorPT or[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 26. goat PN bel(-ti) PT bil [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 28. sky PN ar PT (ŋ)ar[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 30. heart PN asil PT samil [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 31, PN goɲ (RM: ‘weave’) 60

PT gʊn- (RM: ‘weave’) [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 32. rope PN err-i PT (ŋ)arugun [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 33. horn PN ŋees-i PT ŋe-ti [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 34. body PN e(e)r-i PT mer(i)-ti [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 35. neck PN ebe PT (s)ebe-ti [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 39. ask PN is-kir PN isk[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 40. tooth PN ŋil PT ŋedi [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 41. descend PN sukkPT sur[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,1)] 42. two PN orr-u PT wari [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV]

61

44. say PN anPT an[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 46. ten PN di-mer PT mer [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 47b. give PN tir PT ti(n)[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 48. sleep PN ŋeerPT ŋar[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 53. take, grab PN aarPT ar-i [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 55. child PN too-di PT taat [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 56. give birth PN irPT in[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 59. thorn PN kandi PT gir-e [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 61. star PN oɲe, wiɲe PT miɲe 62

[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 62. to be PN –a(n) PT an[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 66. woman PN il-di PT i(r) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 67. iron PN ʃaarti, sar-ti PT ari [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 68. fire PN usi-gu PT usi [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0) BV] 72. strong PN kugur, ugur PT kiir [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 73. ant PN koor PT kirge [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 75a. brother PN wer-i PT ɲar [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 77. smoke PN gusin-ti PT tulut [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 79. knee 63

PN kurti PT kur-t(i) [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 81. big PN dag-i, dag-ul PT dawud[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 84. grass PN gis-e PT teri [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 85. yesterday PN ool-e PT ore [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 92. I (je) PN on(na) PT hon(a) [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 93. throw PN wirk, wirj PT kal[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 94. young girl PN taar PT mean [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 98. language PN baɲPT boɲ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 104. long PN nass-i PT lasi-k [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 64

106. flash (of light) PN bilit-ti (RM: ‘flash (of light)’) PT (me)mered- (RM: ‘flash (of light)’) [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 109. house PN kar PT wal-i [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 111. walk PN nog-, nog-jPT log[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 113. mother PN een PT unon [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 115. mountain, hill PN kuur PT kur[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 116. climb PN keerPT seg[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 120. sheep PN kur-, ur-ti PT kuri(-ti), ur [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 121. nine PN iskolda, oskolda PT uku [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 123. black PN ur(r)-i 65

PT kidi-k [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 126. navel, belly button PN gurw-e-(n)-di PT (a)gol [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 127. we, us PN agi PT wa-gi [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 130. night PN ugur PT or [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 132. egg PN gos-kal-ti PT kube [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 133. bird PN *ka-wer-e PT weege [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0) BV] 134. nail PN suŋpu-di, sun-ti PT ŋus-a-ti [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 135. ear PN ugul(-e) PT (ŋ)usu-ti [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 136. bone PN kiser PT kei-ti [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV]

66

140. father PN baab(-Vn); aboo ‘my father’ PT anon, abba ‘term of address’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 141a. person PN ir PT ar-i [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 142. little PN nor-e PT gur- ‘short’ (RM: ‘little’) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 144. fear PN erPT aag [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 145. foot PN os-i PT mar (RM: ‘foot’) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 149. rain PN ar-e PT (ŋ)ar-u [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1) BV] 152. louse PN is-i PR si-ti [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 153. take, grab PN eɲPT eɲ[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 160. red PN geel-e PT ara-k 67

[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 161. blood PN ug-er PT agi [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 162. know PN ier PT nal[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 167. PN teer- (RM: ‘to sow’) PT tir-d- (RM: ‘to sow’) [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 172. thirst PN eer PT kal-ŋa [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 173. sun PN ees-i PT ari [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 174. sorghum PN usi PT kari [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 175. leave PN balPT ud [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 180. head PN ur PT (ŋ)ur[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 182. three 68

PN tossi-gu PT atti [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 183. well, hole PN kul PT kul [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 184. you (tu) PN in PT i-nu [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 186. one PN weer PT kura [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 188. cow PN tegi, tei PT te [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 189b. come PN taarPT or[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 190. belly PN tuu PT tolol, totol [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 191. worm PN wirge(-di) PT wige [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 192. green PN desse PT sir-ni [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 69

194. meat PN kos-i PT isa [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 195a. old PN baarPT mariŋ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 198. see PN ŋalPT gud [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 199. steal PN margPT ŋun[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 200. you (vous) PN igi PT i-gi [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV]

3. Defaka/Nkọrọ [Ijoid] Source of lexical sets: Roger Blench and Kay Williamson (†). 2017. A Comparative Study of the Ịjọ Languages: Volume II: Core Lexicon (This version, Cambridge, 03 June 2017). Manuscript in possession of its surviving author. Geographic region: Africa BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index 70


Result 25 15 25 100 (25/25) 100 1500

Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: D = Defaka, N = Nkọrọ Correspondences series (15): D

N

Supporting Sets

p

p

|231,|369,|594,|701,

ɓ

ɓ

|199,|226,|309,|353,|399,|426,

f

f

|51,|324,|387,|387,

m

m

|122,|122,|298,|399,

t

t

|309,|540,|665,

l

l

|226,|312,|324,|540,

r

r

|233,|357,|369,

n

n

|51,|311,|317,|377,|442,|442,|594,|701,

k

k

|226,|312,|622,

i

i

|51,|199,|298,|324,|324,|357,|357,|369.|369,|443,|442,|442,|594,|594,|622,

ii

i

|540,|665,

iɔ

i

|231,

e

e

|122,|122,

ee

e

|426,

ɛ

e

|233,|233,|298,

ɛ

a

|399,|399,|701,

a

a

|317,|369.|369,|377,|377,

aa

aa

|311,|353,

aa

ai

|317,

71

u

u

|387,|387,|387,|540,

uɔ

u

|312,

Comparative sets (25): 51. Bird D fònì N fóní [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1) BV] 122. Claw D ámẽ́ mẽ́ N fónĩ́ ḿmeme [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 199. Ear D ɓàsì N ɓeri [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 226. Fat (n.) D ɓɛ́lɛ́kí N ɓɛ́lɛ́kí [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 231. Feather D pɪ́ɔ́m N pí↓kɔ́ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 233. Female, woman (n.) D ɛ́sɛ́rɛ́ àlà N éré [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 298. Hair (of body) + Fur D ʤím̀ɛ́ N ɓú ɗíme [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 309. Head 72

D tóɓò N téɓé [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 311. Hear (vt.) D nã̀ ã̀ N nãa [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 312. Heart D kúɔ̀ ŋ́mgbɔ́lú N kúɣú ḿgbɔli [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 317. Hill, Mountain D anãa N anãĩ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 324. Horn D ífálí N í↓fálí [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 353. Kill (vt.) D ɓáá N ɓáá [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 357. Know (vt.) D ʤírí N ʤírí [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 369. Leaf D dʒírí ápá N jírí páɣara - ápa [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 377. Lie down (vi.) D ʔɔ́m̃ ɲà̀̃nà ̃ N nyanã ɓíɔ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 73

387. Liver D fùfùkù N fufuɣu [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV] 399. Man, male D ɛ̀mɛ̀nɛ̀ ɓáɪ́ N amã-ɓɔ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 426. Mouth + Lip D ɓéé N ɓéɓé [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 442. Nose D nıǹ̀̃ı ̀ ̃ N nĩ́ ni [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1) BV] 540. Seed D tıı́ ̀̃ ̀ ̃ ŋ́mgbɔ́lú N tĩ́ ḿgbɔlu [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 594. Star D íp↓íní N ípínĩ́ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 622. Swim D bìɔ̀ òkí N ókí [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 665. Tree + trunk + stick D tıı́ ̀̃ ̀ N tĩ́ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 701. White, become (s.v.) D pɛnɛ 74

N pí↓nã́ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV]

75

4. Witoto/Ocaina [Witoto Proper] Source of lexical sets: Juan Alvaro Echeverri, and Frank Seifart. 2015. Proto-Witoto-OcainaNonuya and its relation to Proto-Bora-Muinane: A re-evaluation of the Witotoan family. Unpublished manuscript in possession of its authors. Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 191 18 59 NA 59 1062 (18 x 59)

Note: The source for this comparison provides a reckoning of the number BWB sets with basic vocabulary and also a basic-vocabulary percentage. These are based on basic vocabulary of the Swadesh 100-item list plus items from another list. Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Correspondences series (18): Echeverri and Seifart (2015) can be consulted for a chart of sound correspondences. Comparative sets (191): Echeverri and Seifart (2015) can be consulted for a listing of comparative sets including the overall number of BWB points earned by each set, with a breakdown for points received for number of correspondences, translation equivalence, no potential onomatopoeia, and no unexplained phonological residue.

5. Proto-Je/Maxacali [(Nuclear-) Macro-Je] Source of lexical sets: Irvine Davis. 1968. Some Macro-Jê relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 34:42-47. Geographic region: South America BWB results:

76



Result 26 14 19 73.1 (19/26) 73.1 1023.4 (14 x 73.1)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: PJ = Proto-Je, M = Maxacali Correspondences series (14): PJ

M

Supporting Sets

p

p

|48,|51,|52,

m

m

|28,|30,|31,

m

p

|13,|27,|32,

z

c

|62,|65,|66,

c

c

|2,|28,|52,|65,|66,

r

t

|16,|19,|25,|32,|45,|46,|48,|51,|62,

ñ

ñ

|30,|40,|41,

k

k

|5,|8,|12,|15,|16,|19,|25,|63,

ŋ

k

|43,|45,|46,

a

a

|5,|5,|27,|48,|62,

wa

o

|2,|8,|63,

o

o

|13,|15,|31,|40,|41,

o

ɨ

|12,|43,|66,

ɔ

o

|19,|32,|41,

Comparative sets (26): 77

2. TOOTH PJ cwa M –coc [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 5. SNAKE PJ kaŋã M kãñã(noc) [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 8. SKY PJ keckwa M ñãñko(tɛʔ) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 12. HORN PJ ko M kɨp [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 13. TO DRINK PJ –kõ, kõm M -coʔop [Evaluation: 9 (4,2,0,1) BV] 15. KNEE PJ kõn M –kopa(-cɨc) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 16. CHILD JP kra M kɨtok ‘son’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 19. ROTTEN PJ krɔ M- ktoc [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 25. MANIOC PJ kwɨr M kon, kohot [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 27. TO HEAR 78

PJ –ma, -mar M (-cɨ) pak [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 28. GOOD PJ mɛc M –mac [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 30 ALLIGATOR PJ mĩ, mĩñ M mãʔãñ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 31. TO GO, WALK PJ mõ, mõr M mõŋ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 32. ASHES PJ mrɔ, mrɔc M pɨtohok [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 40. TO SLEEP PJ ñõt M –ñõn [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 41. TONGUE PJ ñõt-tɔ M –ñõñcõŋ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 43. LOUSE PJ ŋo M -kɨt [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 45. TO SING, DANCE PJ ŋrɛ, ŋrɛr M -kɨtɛc [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 46. PJ ŋri-rɛ ‘small’ 79

M –ktõŋnãŋ ‘small’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 48. FOOT PJ par M -pataʔ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 51. PATH PJ prɨ M pɨtahat, pɨtat [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 52. ONE PJ pɨ-ci M pɨcɛt [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 62. ROOT PJ za-re M (-ñip)catit [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 63. MOUTH PJ zaz-kwa M –ñĩ-koc [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 65. NAME PJ zici M -cɨcet(ʔac) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 66. LEAF PJ zo, zoc M cɨc [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV]

80

6. Washo/Karok [Hokan] Source of lexical sets: William H. Jacobsen, Jr. 1958. Washo and Karok: An approach to comparative Hokan. International Journal of American Linguistics 24:195-212. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 62 27 23 37.1 (23/62) 37.1 1001.7 (27 x 37.1)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: W = Washo, K = Karok Correspondences series (27): W

K

Supporting Sets

b

p

|11,|14,|19,|78,

b

v

|50,|79,|106,

m

m

|17,|35,|48,|63,|80,|113,

m

ṽ

|5,|30,|51,|64,|89,|99,

m

v

|32,|54,|57,|59,|100,|112,

t’

r

|5,|64,|84,|105,

d

t

|3,|49,|51,|90,

d

r

|1,|25,|32,|100,|109,

d

n

|54,|60,|63,

l

n

|2,|59,|87,

81

l

r

|6,|12,|15,|53,|65,|68,|80,|88,|92,|99,|104,

š

s

|7,|21,|75,|89,

k’

k

|88,|96,|110,

g

k

|2,|18,|33,|37,|42,|47,|55,|56,|61,|65,|66,|109,

ŋ

x

|6,|9,|68,

y

h

|14,|33,|96,

ʔ

ʔ

|3,|55,|84,|87,|113,

ʔ

h

|11,|42,|77,|92,|104,

ʔ

r

|43,|47,|57,|78,

i

i

|3,|11,11,|19,|25,|43,|47,|48,|77,|92,|104,|106,

i

a

|17,|19,|50,|60,|109,

e

a

|14,|30,|59,|61,|80,|90,|99,

a

a

|1,|3,|6,|7,|9,|12,|15,|17,|21,|21,|35,|35,|37,|49,|63,|65,|75,|84, |100,|110,|110,|112,

a

i

|51,|54,|66,|68,

ɨ

a

|5,|18,|53,|105,

u

u

|42,|49,|56,|57,|79,|96,

u

a

|55,|64,|84,|87,|109,

Comparative sets (62): 1. ACROSS W -ahad ‘position, motion, or dimension across (a river, road, gulley, hole, room, etc.)’ K –ka:ra ‘p.i. to cross a river’, -kara ‘horizontally toward the center of a body of water, often with implication of continuation of motion across the body of water’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 2. ANCIENT W -legi ‘recent past referring to the same day’ K {=anik} =hanik- ‘ancient tense, designating time more remote than that indicated by the past or anterior morph’ 82

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 3. AND W ʔida ‘and, and then’ K taʔitam ‘adv. so, and, and so’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 5. APART W –t’a:t’ɨm ‘apart, in two’ K -raṽ ‘in two’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 6. ARM W alŋ ‘arm, wing’ K atra:x ‘arm’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 7. BACK W ašg back’ K vasih ‘back (of a body or, e.g., of a house’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 9. BLOOD W ašaŋ ‘blood, to bleed’ K ʔa:x ‘blood’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 11. BONE W i:biʔ K ʔipih [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 12. BREAD W wa:laš ‘bread, to make bread’ K sarA ‘bread’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 14. BROTHER W –beyu ‘younger brother, male cousin...’ K tipah ‘brother, male cousin’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 15. BROTHER-IN-LAW 83

W –wala:dut, wla:dut ‘wife’s brother’ K ʔê:ra ‘man’s brother-in-law,...’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 17. CHILD W -ŋaʔmiŋ ‘child (in the sense of “offspring”)’ K -ʔaRamah ‘child (in the sense of “offspring”)’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 18. CLOSE W –i:t’sɨg ‘to close, obstruct’ K –čak ‘closing up’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 19. COME W (-)i:biʔ ‘to have come’ K ʔipak ‘to come back, arrive (here) again, to return’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 21. COTTONWOOD W t’ašaʔ ‘cottonwood tree’ K ʔasapi:p ‘black cottonwood tree’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 25. DIG W i:deg ‘to dig up, dig out (e.g., post, tree, potatoes, roots)’ K ʔirip ‘to dig’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 30. EAT W emulu ‘food; to eat (intrans.)’ K aṽ ‘to eat’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 32. FAT W i:dɨm ‘fat, lard, grease; to be fat’ K ʔšri:v ‘fat (or persons)’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 33. FATHER W -goʔy K ʔakah [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 84

35. FINISH W -mamaʔ ‘to finish...-ing’ K –mara ‘to finish...-ing’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 37. FLINT W pat’sa:gaʔ ‘flint, i.e. obsidian’ K sa:k ‘flint, i.e. obsidian; arrowhead; bullet’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 42. GATHER W –a:guʔ ‘to gather, pick up things from the ground...’ K pâ:ku(hi) ‘to pick or gather acorns’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 43. GO W iyeʔ, iye ‘to go, walk’ K iyâ:ramu ‘to go (away), to leave, to go on to’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 47. W i:geʔ ‘to grind’ K ikraṽ ‘to grind...’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 48. HAIR W –imel ‘body hair, beard’ K imya:t ‘fur, body hair’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 49. HAND W a:du ‘hand’ K atru:p ‘palm of hand’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 50. HEAD W iheb K axvâ:h [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 51. HEAR W damal ‘to hear’ 85

K Ɵitiṽ ‘to hear’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 53. HERE AND THERE W –gap’ɨl ‘here and there’ K –varauva ‘here and there, in various places’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 54. HIDE W ašdɨm ‘to hide’ K ʔišunva ‘to bury, to hide’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 55. HIT W ʔug- ‘to strike or swing at or stir with a long object, strike or swing at with the hand and arm, kick’ K ʔa:k ‘to hit (with an implement, as a stick)’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 56. HITHER W –ug ‘hither, in this direction’ K –uk ‘hither’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 57. HORN W mesuʔ ‘antler, horn’ K vê:šura ‘horn (as of deer)’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 59. HUSBAND W bume:liʔ ‘husband’ K ʔavan ‘husband’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 60. W di- ‘first person, possessor of nouns, subject of verb’ K na: ‘I’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 61. IMPERATIVE W ge ‘second person imperative prefix’ K kan- ‘I – him/them’, kam- he – him/them ‘specifically imperative prefixes for first and theird person sg. subjects’ 86

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 63. IN-LAW W damaw ‘sister’s husband’ K na:m ‘spouse’s relative, in-law’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 64. INTO W -at’um- ‘into a location out of sight or difficult of access, into a hole’ K -raṽ ‘in, into’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 65. INTO MOUTH W –a:gal ‘into or in the mouth, down the throat’ K –kara ‘into one’s mouth [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 66. KILL W –atg, at’ig ‘to kill’ K iykara ‘to beat’ (a person) to kill; to catch (fish)’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 68. LICK W alŋ ‘to lick’ K virax ‘to lick (acorn soup) off of cooking stones’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 75. MOTHER’S SISTER W -šašʔa K ƟusaƟ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 77. NAIL W tulipiʔ ‘fingernail, toenail’ K axpih ‘nail (of finger or toe)’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 78. NAVEL W iʔb ‘navel’ K ʔarup ‘navel, navel cord’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 79. NECK 87

W i:bu ‘back of neck’ K vu:p ‘neck’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 80. NIGHT W lelm ‘night’ K ikxaram ‘night’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 84. OLDER BROTHER W -ʔa:t’u ‘older brother..’ K ʔarih ‘older brother...’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 87. SIT PLURAL W ʔlu- ‘(pl.) to sit’ K ʔi:na ‘to live, stay, sit’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 88. SIT SINGULAR W k’ule ‘to be located, sit, lie’ K ikriv ‘to live, stay, sit, be’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 89. SLEEP W elšɨm ‘to sleep K ʔasiṽ ‘to sleep’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 90. SNOW W de- ‘to snow’ K ta:h ‘snow (on the ground)’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 92. W yaliʔ ‘(sg. person) to stand’ K ihyrih ‘to stand’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 96. SWIM W k’uye ‘to swim’ K ikpuh ‘to swim’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0) BV] 88

99. THREE W helme-, helmi- ‘three’ K ʔaraṽ ‘to weave with three strands (in basketry)’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 100. TROUGH A TUBE W –amad ‘through a tubular space’ K –vara ‘in through a tubular space’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 104. UP W -iliʔ, ili ‘up, upwards’ K –rih ‘up’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 105. UPHILL W –a:t’i ‘upwards on a hillside, upwards in a slanting direction’ K -ura: ‘up to a considerable height; hence uphillward’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 106. VULVA W i:bis K vi:Ɵ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 109. WHO W gudiŋa ‘who?’ K ʔakaray ‘who?, anyone’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 110. WITH W –hak’a ‘with, in the company of’ K xaka:n ‘together (with one another)’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 112. WORM W mat’uš K vakay [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 113. YOU W ʔum- ‘second person, possessor of nouns, subject of verbs’ 89

K ʔi:m ‘you (sg.)’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV]

7. Classical Attic Greek/Early Vedic Sanskrit [Indo-European] Source of lexical sets: Don Ringe (per. com.) Geographic region: Eurasia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 26 14 18 69.2 (18/26) 69.2 966.8 (14 x 69.2)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: G = Classical Attic Greek, S = Early Vedic Sanskrit Correspondences series (14): G p t d n s r k g e a a u o

S p t d n s r ś h a a i u a

Supporting Sets |30,|31,|34,|36,|38,|83, |18,|30,|35,|35,|37,|48,|83,|93,|101,|103, |7,|36,|39,|39,|46,|98,|103,|108, |15,|20,|51,|58,|103, |10,|15,|37,|38,|93,|101, |18,|30,|31,|37,|46,|47,|58,|93,|101, |7,|20,|47,|48,|98, |5,|18,|49, |5,|15,|18,|30,|31,|34,|34,|35,|35,|37,|37,|49,|83,|93,|98, 5,|7,|37,|46,|48,|83,|98, |18,|30,|35, |20,|51,|108, |10,|15,|31,|36,|48,|51,|103, 90

ɔ

a

|39,|49,|108,

Comparative sets (26): 5. G mégas ‘big’ S mahā́ n ‘big’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 7. G dáknei ‘bite’ S dáśati ‘bite’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1) BV] 10. G ostô:n ‘bone’ S ásthi ‘bone’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 15. G néphos ‘cloud’ S nábhas ‘cloud’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 18. G thugátɛ:r, -tér ‘daughter’ S duhitā́ , -tár- ‘daughter’ [Evaluation: 15 (10,2,2,1)] 20. G kun- ‘dog’ S śún- ‘dog’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1) BV] 30. G patér- ‘father’ S pitár- ‘father’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 31. G pterón ‘feather’ S parṇám ‘feather’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 34. 91

G pénte ‘five’ S páñca ‘five’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 35. G pétetai ‘fly’ S pátati ‘fly’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0) BV] 36. G pod- ‘foot’ S pad- ‘foot’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 37. G téttares ‘four’ S catvā́ ras ‘four’ [Evaluation: 16 (12,2,1,1)] 38. G plɛ́:rɛ:s ‘full’ S pūrṇás ‘full’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 39. G dídɔ:si ‘give’ S dádāti ‘give’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 46. G kardía: ‘heart’ S hā́ rdi ‘heart’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1) BV] 47. G kéras ‘horn’ S śr̥ṅ́ gam ‘horn’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 48. G hekatón ‘hundred’ S śatám ‘hundred’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 49. G egɔ́: ‘I’ 92

S ahám ‘I’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 51. G gónu ‘knee’ S jā́ nu [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 58. G anɛ́:r ‘man’ S nar- ‘man’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 83. G heptá ‘seven’ S saptá ‘seven’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 93. G astér- ‘star’ S star- ‘star’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 98. G déka ‘ten’ S dáśa ‘ten’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 101. G trê:s ‘three’ S tráyas ‘three’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 103. G odónt- ‘tooth’ S dánt- ‘tooth’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 108. G húdɔ:r ‘water’ S udán- ‘water’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV]

8. Proto-Paman/Proto-Ngayarda [Pama-Nyungan]

93

Source of lexical sets: Barry Alpher. n.d. Pama-Nyungan: Phonological reconstruction and status as a phylogenetic group. Unpublished manuscript in possession of its author. Geographic region: Australia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 28 13 20 71.4 (20/28) 71.4 928.2 (13 x 71.4)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: P = Proto-Paman, N = Proto-Ngayarda, RM = reflex meaning Correspondences series (13): P

N

Supporting Sets

p

p

|24,|25,|26,|29,

m

m

|8,|9,|10,|11,|13,|14,

c

c

|2,|3,|24,

c

th

|1,|16,|28,

n

n

|3,|6,|18,|20,|21,|22,

ñ

ñ

|21,|22,|23,

r

r

|2,|7,|9,|26,

rr

rr

|10,|23,|27,

k

k

|4,|5,|6,|7,|15,|25,

ng

ng

|16,|17,|18,|19,|20,

i

i

|3,|17,|20,|21,|22,|27,

94

a

a

|1,|1,|2,|2,|3,|4,|4,|6,|8,|8,|9,|9,|10,|10,|11,|13,|16,|16,|17,|18,|18,|19,|20,|21,|23,|24, |24,|25,|25,|27,|28,|28,|29,|29,

u

u

|5,|5,|6,|7,|7,|13,|14,|14,|15,|23,|26,

Comparative sets (28): 1. TONGUE pPaman calan pNgayarda thalañ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 2. MOUTH pPaman ca:ra pNgayarta cara [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,1,1) BV] 3. FOOT pPaman cina pNgayarda cina [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 4. COOK IN EARTH OVER pPaman ka:mpapNgayarda kampa- RM: ‘be burning, be cooking’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 5. URINE pPaman kumpu pNgayarda kumpu [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 6. EXCREMENT pPaman kuna pNgayarda kuna [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 7. EYE pPaman kuru pNgayarta kuru [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 8. BOTTOM

95

pPaman mangka RM: ‘nest’ PNgayarda mangka “nest, hair” [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 9. HAND pPaman mara pNgayarta mara [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 10. WING pPaman marra RM: ‘wing feather’ pNgayarda marra [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 11. TAKE pPaman ma(-)pNgayarda ma[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 13. EAT pPaman mungkapNgayarda mungka[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 14. BACK pPaman mutu RM: ‘back, tail’ pNgayarda murru [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 15. ANKLE pPaman nukal RM: ‘ankle, foot’ pNgayarda nhuku [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 16. 1st Sg Oblique Pronoun pPaman ngaca RM: ‘I’ pNgayarda ngatha RM: ‘I’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,1,1) BV] 17. WE pPaman ngali pNgayarda ngali [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 18. WE

96

pPaman ngana pNgayarda nganarna [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 19. ‘I’ pPaman ngayu pNgayarda ngayi [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 20. WHAT pPaman nga:ni pNgayarda ngani [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 21. SIT pPaman ñi:na, ñinapNyayarda ñina[Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 22. “2 Sg” pronoun pPaman ñuntu, ñintu pNgayarda ñinta [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 23. YOU PLURAL pPaman ñurra, ñirra pNgayarda ñurra [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 24. BITE pPaman pacapNgayarda paca[Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1) BV] 25. ROTTEN pPaman puka pNgayarda puka [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 26. PULL pPaman purrapNgayarda purri[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 27. TOOTH

97

pPaman tirra pNgayarda yirra [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 28. WHERE pPaman wañca pNgayarda wanhtha [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 29. WIND pPaman wa:lpa pNgayarda warlpa [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)]

9. Shasta/Karok [Hokan] Source of lexical sets: Shirley Silver. 1964. Shasta and Karok: A binary comparison. In Studies in Californian Linguistics, William Bright, ed., pp. 170-181. Berkeley: University of California Press. Geographic region: California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 71 33 19 26.8 (19/71) 26.8 884.4 (33 x 26.8)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: S = Shasta, K = Karok Correspondences series (33): S

K

Supporting Sets

p

p

|37,|42,|70,

98

p

f

|25,|27,|39,

m

m

|5,|24,|36,|40,|53,|75b,

w

v

|14,|16,|44,|82,

w

p

|24,|32,|34a,|46,|52,|65,|83,|96,

t

t

|19,|48,|79,

s

s

|4,|65,|71,|79,

n

n

|13,|38,|72,|93,

r

r

|2,|4,|18,|32,|52,|54,|60,|63,

r

n

|17,|33,|35,|50,|55b,

c

s

|64,|69,|77,|91,

č

č

|11,|40,|65,|72,|76,

č

Ɵ

|14,|51,|60,|90,

č’

č

|25,|43,|50,|71,

k

k

|16,|26,|31,|35,|37,|48,|50,|60,|92,|95,

k’

k

|5,|55b,|79,|89,|97,

x

x

|8,|68,|80b,

x

k

|13,|33,|53,|65,

x

s

|3a,|11,|25,|38,

Ɂ

Ɂ

|7,|8,|14,|27,|52,|53,|54,|63,|64,|68,|69,|85,|91,

Ɂ

h

|41,|44,|54,|96,

Ɂ

p

|10,|15,|17,|75b,

Ɂ

v

|39,|70,|90,

Ɂ

y

|23,|28,|82,

h

h

|10,|20,|46,

h

p

|54,|82,|86,|88,

99

i

i

|14,|18,|20,|33,|43,|65,|76,|88,|90,|92,

i

a

|5,|34a,|69,|72,|75b,|77,|82,

e

a

|32,|39,|52,|68,|83,|86,|93,

a

a

|2,|8,|10,|11,|13,|13,|14,|15,|16,|18,|19,|24,|26,|27,|31,|35,|38,|42,|44,|46,|46,|51, |63,|63,|65,|69,|89,|91,|93,|95,|95,

a

u

|7,|33,|40,|50,|52,|53,|53,|54,|64,|71,|82,|96,

a

i

|40,|54,|60,|70,|86,

u

u

|3a,|4,|15,|17,|23,|23,|25,|28,|36,|41,|70,|72,|79,|80b,|85,|97,

Comparative sets (71): 2. arm S Ɂa:čar K atra:x [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 3a. backbone S tu:xu: K su:f [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 4. basket S tu:rus K Ɂarus [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 5. big S k’impiɁ K –ka:m [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 7. bitter S Ɂč’ay K Ɂyu:x [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 8. blood 100

S Ɂa:xta K Ɂa:x [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 10. brother S Ɂahu K tipah [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 11. brother S Ɂa:čaxi K ča:s [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 13. cedar S ɁinaxaK na:kas [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 14. chest S Ɂičwat K ɁiƟva:y ‘chest, breast, heart’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV] 15. chew S -aɁuč’iK papuƟ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 16. chin S č’awa:k K Ɂišva:k [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 17. Chokeberry S Ɂu:r K pu:n [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 18. male cousin S kari:waɁ K Ɂarih [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 101

19. snow S Ɂipta ‘powdered snow’ K ta:h ‘snow on the ground’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 20. dance S –ihintK Ɂihuk ‘to do the flower dance’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 23. downstream S ɁuruK yuRuk [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 24. ashes S mahawa K Ɂamta:p [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 25. bald eagle S Ɂč’upxa K ču:fis [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 26. eel S ku:par K akra:h [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 27. excrement S Ɂapsi K Ɂa:f [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 28. eye S Ɂuy K yu:p [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 31. flint S Ɂa:kwayɁ 102

K sa:k [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 32. fox S kwa:re:wax K apra:x [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 33. gall S Ɂax:ir K Ɵukin [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 34a. gather acorns S –akwi K pa:ku(hi) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 35. goose S kararax K Ɂahaknah [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 36. take handful S –e:muK mu:t [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 37. knee S Ɂič’:iPKa K paƟak [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 38. leaf S xan:ar K sa:n [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 39. liver S Ɂe:psiɁ K vafiš [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV]

103

40. lizard S tamačiɁ K Ɂači:mu:č, či:mu:č [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 41. log S Ɂu:yu:waɁ K ahyu:m ‘foot-log’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 42. look for S –apsK Ɂapiṽ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 43. louse S č’i:tak’ K ači:č [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 44. madrone S Ɂa:wa:s ‘madrone berry’ K ɁihvaƟ ‘madrone bark’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 46. green manzanita S wah:a K paha:v [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 48. mother’s father S Ɂk:wit K ku:t [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 50. mushroom species S č’arak K Ɂačnu:k [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 51. mussel S ča:xnuk’ K axƟah 104

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 52. navel S Ɂe:raw K Ɂarup [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 53. near S Ɂam:ax K Ɂu:muk[Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 54. net S Ɂa:ra:huɁ K Ɂuripih [Evaluation: 16 (12,2,1,1)] 55b. nettle S k’uhur K akvi:n [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 60. owl S Ɂičmakaraypsir K Ɵuifkirik [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 63. person S Ɂarapxa: K ɁarA, Ɂarah [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 64. pine nut, sugar S Ɂac:aw K Ɂu:s [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 65. porcupine quill S xasč’i:wa K kasči:p [Evaluation: 15 (12,2,1,0)] 68. red 105

S Ɂe:Ɂe:xtiɁ K imɁa:x [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 69. rock S Ɂic:aɁ K Ɂasa [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 70. sack S pu:Ɂas K pu:viš [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 71. salmon S č’a:s K čuska:k [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 72. dog salmon S Ɂičmu:n:a K ačvu:n [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 75b. sinew S Ɂim:i: K Ɂipam [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 76. sister S Ɂa:či K či:s [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 77. sleep S –icmasK Ɂasiṽ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 79. sweat S –u:stuk’ K astu:k [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 106

80b. to swell S –e:pxuk:u K imxup [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 82. tail S ɁihiwaɁ K apvu:y [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0) BV] 83. this S we: K pay [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 85. tobacco S Ɂu:wa K Ɂu:h [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 86. tongue S Ɂehena K apri:h [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 88. tree (suffix) S –hi:huɁ K -Ɂi:p [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 89. upstream S –k’a:huɁ K kaɁ[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 90. vulva S Ɂičta K vi:Ɵ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 91. water S Ɂac:a 107

K Ɂa:s [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 92. weave S -ikɁyK vik [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 93. weasel S wa:n:e K Ɂa:naxus, Ɂa:nxus [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 95. who S taka: K Ɂakaray, Ɂaka:y [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 96. wood S Ɂa:wa K ahup [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 97. yellowhammer S č’u:k’ K Ɵu:k [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)]

108

10. Proto-Central Algonquian/Wiyot [Algic] Source of lexical sets: Mary R. Haas. 1958. Algonkian-Ritwan: The end of a controversy. International Journal of American Linguistics 24:159-173. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 39 20 17 43.6 (17/39) 43.6 872 (20 x 43.6)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: PC(E)A = PCA = Proto-Central Algonquian, Proto-Central(-Eastern) Algonquian, W = Wiyot Correspondences series (20): PC(E)A

W

Supporting Sets

p

p

|40,|42,|47,|53,

m

β

|2,|5,|11,|13,

w

w

|3,|10,|12,|19,|22,|23,|27,|30,|49,|52,|53,|58,|58,

Ɵ

t

|3,|27,|36,|40,|52,

t

t

|13,|23,|45,|53,

l

l

|10,|34,|38,|59,

n

n

|21,|32,|41,|48,

n

R

|3,|5,|11,|19,|27,|42,|48,|51,|55,

š

t

|16,|55,|56,

109

k

k

|3,|8,|16,|22,|33,|36,|37,|40,|46,|56,|57,

hkw

kw

|9,|29,|37,

i

i

|16,|32,|38,|52,|55,|58,|59,

i

a

|8,|53,|57,

e

a

|5,|5,|9,|11,|13,|21,|23,|27,|30,|40,

e

i

|29,|41,|47,|51,|56,

e

o

|8,|11,|19,|22,|37,|46,

a

a

|3,|3,|10,|27,|34,|45,|49,

a

o

|2,|12,|33,

o

a

|9,|42,|46,

o

u

|13,|30,|48,

Comparative sets (39): 2. BEAR (noun). PCEA maƟkw-a W βokw [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 3. BONE. PCEA waƟkan-i W watkaR[Evaluation: 16 (12,2,1,1) BV] 5. BREAST (NIPPLE): SOMEONE'S PCA meƟen-i W βasaR [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1) BV] 8. DAY. PCA ki.šek- day, sky 110

W kažoʔy- daytime [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 9. DEER. PCA atehkw-a caribou W hołakw [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] ( 10. DIG. PCEA wa.lW waluʔł dig well [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 11. DRINK. PCA mene W βaRo[Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1) BV] 12. EGG. PCA wa.w-i W woʔl roe of salmon [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 13. ELBOW: SOMEONE'S-. PCA meto.-Hkwan-i W βatuk (R) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 16. FINISH. PCA ki.šW ki.t[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 19. FOUR. PCA nyew- (root) W Riyo.ʔw-. 111

[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 21. HAND: DO WITH -. PCA -enW -an-. [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 22. HAWK. PCA keliw-a eagle; in some lgs. Hawk W koʔwal-ił[Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 23. HEART. PCA wete.h-i his W watw[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 27. LIVER. PCEA weƟkwan-i his W watwaR [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV] 29. LOUSE. PCA ehkw-a W hikw [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 30. MOUTH: HIS -. PCA weto.n-i W walul [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 32. NAME. PCA wi.n-lW Ri.n[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 112

33. NEGATIVE. PCA kaƟ-, katW koʔ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 34. OBVIATIVE. PCA -ali W -aʔl [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 36. PENIS. PCA -ƟakW tkat penis [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 37. POT. PCA axkehkw-a kettle W łakokwis-o'swał [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] (Note: pot and kettle are considered synonyms) 38. PRONOUN BASE. PCA -i.l- (with several pronoun prefixes) W –i.l (with three pronoun prefixes) [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 40. ROCK. PCEA -a.peƟk-w- stone, metal W płatk [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] (Note: rock and stone are considered synonyms) 41. SLEEP. PCA nepa.W ni.tw-. [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV]

113

42. SNOW. PCEA mexponw-i it snows W paRoʔR [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 45. SPOTTED. PCA ketakW taYa-latk[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 46. IN STEAL. PCA kemotW komar[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 47. STINK. PCA pec- (?) W pi.r[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 48.

SUCKLE. PCA no.nW -Runoč[Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 49. TAIL. PCA waƟany-i his W wadi.ʔl [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 51. THREE. PCA neʔƟ- (root) W Riʔg[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 52. 114

TONGUE: HIS -. PCA wi.Ɵan-i W wi.t[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 53. TOOTH: HIS -. PCA wi.pitW wapt[Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 55. TWO. PCA ni.š- (root) W Riʔt[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 56. URINATE. PCA šekiW ti.k-al[Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 57. WASH. PCA kesi.- rub, wipe, wash W kłaʔ[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 58. WIFE. PCA wi.w-a W wi.w (familiar term) [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 59. YOU. PCA ki.lW gi.l [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV]

11. Proto-Panoan/Proto-Takanan [Pano-Takanan] 115

Source of lexical sets: Victor Girard. 1971. Proto-Takanan Phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 70 23 26 37.1 (26/70) 37.1 853.3 (23 x 37.1)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations and symbols: P = Proto-Panoan, T = Proto-Takanan, RM = reflex meaning, B = barred b, Ṣ = roofed s with sub-dot, Į = ɨ with cedilla Correspondences series (23): P p B m w w t r r n n Š Š č k kw i

T p b m w kw t ř d n r c ç t k kw i

Supporting Sets |81,|83,|85,|85,|86,|86,|92, |17,|18,20,|22,|23,|24,|26,|27,|89, |48,|61,|62,|64,|65,|66,|67,|69,|70,|71,|72,|73,|78, |4,|5,|108, |12,|43,|44,|47, |20,|24,|71,|103,|104,|108,|111,|112, |33,|73,|89, |4,|37,|42, |27,|46,|54,|76,|77,|94,|98,|114, |2,|23,|34,|52,|60,|78,|91,|99, |57,|101,|113, |3,|67,|91,|92,|93,|94,|95,|96,|97,|98,|99, |22,|31,|32,|33, |51,|51,|52,|53,|54,|55,|55,|57,|64,|66,|116, |58,|59,|60,|97,|104, |2,|22,|22,|23,|31,|33,|47,|48,|54,|69,|72,|78,|83,|89,|89,|94,|99,|113,|114, 116

io į ia i į i į a

iu i ia a a e e a

aa ą ao ɨ ɨ Į u oa o oǫ

a a au a e e u ui u u

|95, |33, |32, |47,|48,|54, |5, |24,|76,|116, |12, |2,|3,|4,|4,|4,|12,|17,|18,|20,|23,|24,|27,|46,|46,|51,|52,|52,|53,|58,|61,|61,|62,|64,|65, |66,|67,|71,|78,|81,|83,|91,|92,|94,|98,|103,|104,|104,|108,|108, |5, |37,|51,|62,|66, |93, |17,|18,|59, |43,|60,|64,|67,|70,|71,|96,|97,|97,|98,|99,|101, |44, |26,|111,|112, |77, |27,|34,34,|42,|42,|55,|57,|57,|60,|73,|85,|85,|92,|101,|113, |91,

Comparative sets (70): Note: P reconstructed forms in parentheses apparently have very limited distributions in Panoan. 2. P ʔani ‘big’ T ari ‘big’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 3. P ʔaṢa ‘barbasco’ T aça ‘barbasco’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 4. P ʔawara ‘tapir’ T awada ‘tapir’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,0,1)] 5. P ʔawį-bo ‘woman’ 117

T wane ‘wife, woman’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,1,0) BV] 12. P ɨwa ‘mother’ T e-kwa- ‘mother’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 17. P Bakɨ ‘child’ T bakwa ‘child’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 18. P Bakɨ ‘to plant’ T bana- ‘to plant’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 20. P Bata ‘sweet’ T bita ‘sweet’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 22. P Biči ‘skin’ T biti ‘skin’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 23. P Bina ‘wasp, bee’ T bira ‘wasp’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 24. P ra-Bita ‘two’ T beta ‘two’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 26. P Bu ‘down’ T –bu ‘down (verbal suffix)’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)]

118

27. P Bona ‘ant, bee’ T buna ‘ant (tucandera)’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 31. P čipǫ ‘large end, downriver’ T ti- ‘large end’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 32. P (čia-) ‘go over/across’ T ti-a- ‘to give, go across’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 33. P (čirį-) RM: ‘hop...jump, kind of dance’ T tiři- ‘dance, drum’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 34. P (čono) RM: ‘swallow...andorinha (bird sp.)’ T čuru ‘found only in Kav. Čuru ‘swallow’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 37. P rą- ‘knee, ankle’ T da- ‘leg, knee, stick’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 42. P roʔo ‘howler monkey’ T duʔu ‘howler monkey’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 43. P -wɨ ‘imperative suffix’ T –kwe ‘imperative suffix’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 44. P (-wĮ) ‘pronominal possessive suffix (probably for all three persons singular)’ T –kwe ‘pronomiinal possessive affix’; (apparently used for only 1st and 2nd persons) 119

[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 46. P ana ‘tongue’ T ana ‘tongue’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 47. P iwi ‘tree’ T akwi ‘tree’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 48. P imi ‘blood’ T ʔami ‘blood’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 51. P kąkama ‘pineapple’ T kaka ‘fruit’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 52. P kana ‘macaw’ T kara ‘macaw’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 53. P –kas, -kaci ‘desiderative suffix’ T –ka ‘desiderative suffix’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 54. P kini ‘hole’ T kani ‘hole’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 55. P koka ‘maternal uncle’ T kuku ‘uncle’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 57. 120

P koŠo ‘wild turkey sp. T kucu ‘wild turkey sp. [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 58. P kwa ‘to go’ T kwa- ‘to go’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 59. P kwɨbiči ‘lip, mouth’ T kwaca ‘mouth’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 60. P kwɨno ‘sharpen (a point, sharp edge’ T kweru ‘sharp’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 61. P –(ya)ma ‘negative suffix (verbal)’ T (a)ma ‘negative suffix verbal and nominal)’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 62. P maną ‘up; hill’ T mata ‘summit, mountain, top of head’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] (Note: hill and mountain are considered synonyms) 64. P makɨ ‘piranha’ T make ‘piranha’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 65. P mawa- ‘to die’ T manu- ‘to die’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 66. P mąkaNV ‘stone chopper, pestle’ T a-maka ‘mortar, chopper, grinder’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 121

67. P maŠɨ ‘achiote’ T maçe ‘achiote’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 69. P mi- ‘story, tell a story’ T mimi- ‘speak, tell’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 70. P mɨ- ‘hand (instrumental prefix)’ T me- ‘hand’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 71. P yamɨta ‘night’ T meta ‘night’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 72. P mi ‘thou’ T mi ‘thou’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 73. P moro ‘to dry’ T muři ‘to dry’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 76. P ni- ‘stand, go’ T neti- ‘to stand (upright)’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 77. P noa ‘delicious, savory (of fruit, nuts, etc.)’ T nui ‘delicious, as fruit’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 78. P nami ‘flesh, meat 122

T rami ‘meat’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 81. P –pa ‘augmentative suffix...’ T –pa ‘general augmentative suffix’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 83. P pisa ‘toucan’ T pica, pija ‘toucan’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 85. P (popo) RM ‘owl’ T (pupu) RM: ‘owl’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 86. P (pĮpĮŠawa) ‘butterfly’ T sapipi ‘butterly’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 89. P risBiči ‘rope, thong’ T řibi ‘a snare made of ropes’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 91. P (Šanoǫ-) RM: ‘to be covered with feathers’ T çaru- ‘hair, feathers’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 92. P Šapo ‘mapajo’ T çapu ‘mapajo’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 93. P Šao ‘bone’ T çau ‘bone’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV]

123

94. P (Šina) RM ‘during the night’ T çina ‘night, afternoon’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 95. P Šio ‘marihui (gnat sp.)’ T çiu ‘marihui’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 96. P Šɨ-ta ‘tooth T çe ‘tooth’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 97. P Šɨkwɨ ‘doorway’ T çekwe ‘door, -way’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 98. P Šɨna ‘worm’ T çena ‘worm’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 99. P Šɨni ‘fat, grease’ T çeri ‘fat’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 101. P Šokɨ ‘toucan’ T cukwe ‘toucan’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 103. P taʔɨ ‘foot’ T ta- ‘foot, leg’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 104. P takwa ‘liver’ T takwa ‘liver’ 124

[Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 108. P tawa ‘cane, bamboo; arrow’ T ta(wa) ‘cane’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 111. P (tu-) RM: ‘round, circular’ T tu- ‘round, bent...’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 112. P (tu-) RM: ‘cut, slice, wound’ T tubu- to cut, shorten’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 113. P yoŠi-ni ‘demon spirit’ T duci ‘spirit’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 114. P Šɨni ‘old’ T ziri ‘old’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 116. P Šɨki ‘corn’ T jike ‘corn’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)]

12. Proto-Costanoan/Proto-Miwok [California Penutian; Utian] Source of lexical sets: Catherine Callaghan. 2014. Proto Utian Grammar and Dictionary with Notes on Yokuts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Geographic region: California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets

Abbreviation SETi 125

Result 34

2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average

CORi BV BVp BVi COMi

18 16 47.1 (16/34) 47.1 847.8 (18 x 47.1)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: PCo = Proto-Costanoan, PMi = Proto-Miwok Correspondences series (18): PCo

PMi

Supporting Sets

p

p

|77,|78,|78,|79,

m

m

|56,|65,|67,

w

w

|90,|125,|128,

t

t

|42,|90,|99,|101,|156,

s

k

|18,|34,|41,|42,|74,|144,|145,

n

n

|70,|71,|99,|151,|156,

r

l

|33,|41,|65,|101,|115,|128,

k

k

|12,|33,|36,|77,|87,|102,|115,

Ɂ

Ɂ

|23,|128,|144,|145,|146,|147,|150,|151, |153,|156,

h

h

|11,|12,|18,|19,|23,

i

i

|19,|34,|150,|151,|153,

i

e

|70,|144,|145,

i

ɨ

|41,|42,|90,|99,

e

e

|11,|12,|71,|146,|147,|156,

e

ɨ

|23,|23,|34,|56,|99,

a

a

|33,|41,|77,|77,|78,|78,|87,|102,|115,|125,|128,|150,

126

u

u

|18,|65,|65,|67,|144,|145,|156,

o

o

|36.|36,|79,|153,

Comparative sets (34): 11. PCo heS:o-n ‘to hate, be disgusted by’ PMi he(:)č... ‘to dislike, hate’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 12. PCo hekSe-n ‘valley quail’ PMi hek... ‘valley quail’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 18. PCo hu:s ‘nose, nostrils PMi hu:k, huk:u ‘nose, beak, bill (of a duck)’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0) BV] 19. PCo hiSme-n ‘sun’ PMi hi:S ‘sun, day’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 23. PCo he:Ɂe ‘yes’ PMi hɨ:Ɂɨ ‘yes’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,1,1)] 33. PCo ka:r ‘smoke (from fire)’ PMi ka:l ‘smoke’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 34. PCo si:y, siy:e ‘water’ PMi ki:k, kik:ɨ ‘water’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 36. 127

PCo kolo ‘foot’ PMi kolo ‘foot, tracks’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 41. PCo sira ‘liver’ PMi kɨl:a ‘liver’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,1,1) BV] 42. PCo si:t, sit:e ‘tooth, teeth’ PMi kɨ:t, kɨt-ɨ- ‘tooth, teeth’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 56. PCo mukw:e ‘person, man, male’ PMi miw:ɨ- ‘person’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 65. PCo muru-T ‘darkness, night’ PMi mulu- ‘black, dark blue, dark’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 67. PCo mu:S ‘breast(s), milk’ PMi mu:s ‘breast(s), milk’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 70. PCo –ni- ‘medio-passive...’ PMi –ne ‘medio-passive’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 71. PCo ne(:) ‘this, here’ PMi ne(:) ‘this, this one; he, she, it’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 77. PCo pala:tuk ‘California woodpecker’ PMi palaT:ak ‘California woodpecker’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 128

78. PCo pa:pa ‘grandfather’ PMi pa:pa ‘grandfather’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 79. PCo –po ‘reflexive imperative’ PMi –po- ‘reflexive’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 87. PCo sa:k ‘piNon, pine nut’ PMi sa:k, sak:ɨ ‘gray pine, gray pine nut’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 90. PCo siw:ot ‘gopher’ PMi sɨw:ɨt ‘gopher’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 99. PCo hinte, hi(:)n ‘eye’ PMi Sɨntɨ, Sɨt:ɨ ‘eye’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 101. PCo tire ‘to wake someone up’ PMi tal:i ‘to wake up...’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 102. PCo Tak:al- ‘to sit down’ PMi Tak- ‘to sit, land (insect)’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 115. PCo warka ‘to cry’ PMi yalak ‘to cry out, wail for the dead’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 125. PCo wa-t:i-n ‘to go’ 129

PMi wa: ‘to go’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 128. PCo Ɂarweh ‘valley oak, valley oak acorn’ PMi Ɂalwa-S Ɂala:wa-S ‘valley oak, valley oak acorn’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 144. PCo Ɂistu-n ‘to dream’ PMi Ɂekču ‘to dream’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 145. PCo Ɂis:u ‘hand, arm’ PMi Ɂek:u-s ‘hand, finger’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 146. PCo Ɂetwe ‘to turn something over, to turn over on someone’ PMi ɁeTɨ:p-ɨ ‘to turn someone over onto his stomach’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 147. PCo Ɂe:T-e ‘to sleep’ PMi Ɂe:č-ɨ- ‘to sleep’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 150. PCo ɁiTka-y ‘behind’ PMi Ɂič:a ‘behind’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 151. PCo Ɂi(:)n ‘tears’ PMi Ɂi(:)n ‘tears’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 153. PCo ɁoTi-s ‘two’ PMi ɁoTi ‘two’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV]

130

156. PCo Ɂuten ‘sorcerer, shaman’ PMi Ɂuten ‘sorcerer, shaman’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)]

13. Kanamari (Katukinan)/ Amarakaeri (Harakmbut) [Katukinan-Harakmbut] Source of lexical sets: Willem F. H. Adelaar. 2000. Propuesta de un nuevo vínculo genético entre dos grupos lingüísticos indígenas de la Amazonía occidental: Harakmbut y Katukina. In L. Miranda Esquerre (ed.), Actas del I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas de Sudamérica, 219-236. Lima: Universidad Ricardo Palma, Facultad de Lenguas Modernas, Departamento Académico de Humanidades. Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 27 14 16 59.3 (16/27) 59.3 830.2 (14 x 59.3)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: Ka = Kanamari (Katukina), Am = Amarakaeri (Harakmbut) Correspondences series (14): Ka p b m t d n ny

Am p m b m t n d n n

Supporting Sets |26,|40,|41, |9,|10a,|23a, |13,|13,|14,|24,|52, |19,|30,|46, |17,|22,|28,|33,|38, |8,|14, |42, 131

k k h i a a a a ai u o

k Ɂ h i a ai e ẽi ẽ e o

|1,|12,|17,|21,|33,|35,|35,|38, |8,|10a,|28, |1,|4,|25,|49, |13,|13,|14,|17,|21,|52, |1,|9,|10a,|19,|22,|23a,|30,|38,|41,|42, |46, |19, |24, |25, |26,|35,|35, |4,|8,|12,|23a,|28,|40,|49,|49,

Comparative sets (27): 1. ‘casa’ Ka hak Am hak [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 4. ‘nariz’ Ka o(h) pak Am oh [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 8. ‘lengua’ Ka noko Am nōɁ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 9. ‘mano’ Ka ba Am –mba [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 10a. ‘hoja’ Ka hakba Am ɛɁmba [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 12. ‘ojo’ Ka iko 132

Am –kpo [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 13. ‘sangre’ Ka mimi Am mīmī [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 14. Ka min kin ‘tripas’ (min ‘barriga’) Am –mīn ‘intestino’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 17. ‘nombre Ka wadik Am -ndik [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 19. Ka tawa ‘yuca (variedad dulce’ Am taɁre/ ‘yuca’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 21. ‘negro’ Ka tik Am sik-nda [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 22. ‘camino K dan Am ndagn [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 23a. ‘nuevo’ Ka (a)bowa (FQ Am –mbo-nda [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 24. ‘palo, arbol’ Ka o(h)man Am wẽimẽi [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV]

133

25. ‘carne’ Ka barahai Am -hẽn [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 26. ‘comer’ Ka pu Am pe [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 28. ‘defecar’ Ka dokna ‘(ir a) defecar Am ndoɁ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 30. ‘leña’ Ka i(h)ta Am ɨtaɁ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 33. ‘cielo’ Ka kodoh (CG) Am kɨɁɨdn [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 35. ‘quebrar, romper’ Ka kuruk Am ketek [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 38. ‘piel’ Ka dak Am –sindak [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 40. ‘hermano’ Ka ponpia Am pogŋ ‘hermano mayor de la mujer’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 41. ‘padre’ Ka pama Am a:pagn (Note: pagŋ) 134

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 42. ‘madre’ Ka nyama Am naŋɁ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 46. ‘dormir’ Ka kitan Am taiɁ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 49. ‘hamaca’ Ka homo Am horoɁɛɁ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 52. Ka miyo ‘hermana (vocativo)’ Am mig’ [=mīŋɁ] ‘herman mayor de mujer (vocativo)’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

14. Quechua-Tarasco [Quechuan-Tarascan] Source of lexical sets: Morris Swadesh. 1967. Lexicostatistic classification. In Handbook of Middle American Indians: Linguistics, Norman A. McQuown, ed., pp. 79-115. Austin: University of Texas Press. Geographic region: South America and Middle America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 14 8 14 100 (14/14) 100 800 (8 x 100)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship 135

Abbreviations: Q = Quechua, T = Tarasco Correspondences series (8): Q

T

Supporting Sets

m

m

|1,|2,|13,

w

w

|4,|10,|17,

r

r

|7,|8,|25,|27,

k

k

|20,|23,

kh

k

|3,

q

k

|14,

q

kw

|7,|10,

i

i

|13,|17,|27,

a

a

|1,|3,|4,|10,|14,|14,|17,|20,|25,

a

i

|2,|7,|7,|8,|23,

Comparative sets (14): 1. ‘what’ Q ima T emaŋka [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 2. ‘no’ Q mana T ampi [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 3. ‘many’ Q as-kha T kani [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 4. ‘woman’ 136

Q war-mi T wali [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 7. ‘skin’ Q qara T si-kwiri [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 8. ‘blood’ Q yawar T yuli-ri [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 10. ‘horn’ Q waqra T si waŋkwa [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 13. ‘mouth’ Q simi T pen-cumi[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 14. ‘tongue’ Q qala T katampa [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 17. ‘kill’ Q wañu-ci T wan-ti-ku [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 20. ‘moon’ Q kila T kukala [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 23. ‘burn’ Q kana T kuli [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 137

25. ‘white’ Q yura T ura[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 27. ‘cold’ Q ciri T ¢ira[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV]

15. Proto-Austronesian /Buyang (Tai-Kadai) [Austro-Tai] Source of lexical sets: Austronesian/Buyang lexical lookalikes designating basic vocabulary of the Swadesh 100-item list, plus lookalikes for numerals 3-10 and 100 were assembled by Cecil H. Brown from materials in Blust and Trussel (http://www.trussel2.com/acd/) for ProtoAustronesian (PAN) and from materials in Greenhill, Blust and Gray (https://abvd.shh.mpg.de/austronesian/) for Buyang. Geographic region: China, Southeast Asia, South Pacific, and adjoining areas BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 22 9 18 81.8 (18/22) 81.8 736.2 (9 x 81.8)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: PAN = Proto-Austronesian, Bu = Buyang Correspondences series (9): PAN

PMP

Bu

Supporting sets

p

p

p

|4,|10b,|37,

p

|60,

p

138

m

m

m

|5,|22,|25,

m

m

m

|16,|32,|53a,

m

m

|6,|26,|56,

m

m

|42,

C

t

t

|32,|33,

C

t

t

|17,

C

t

t

|22,|63,

C

t

|21a,

n

n

|6,|64,

n

n

n

|16,

k

k

k

|16,

k

|12,|64,

k

|20,

q

k

|57,

q

k

|60,

k q

q

a

a

a

|5,|22,|25,|63,

a

a

a

|16,|22,|32,|33,|53a,

a

a

|26,

a

a

|21a,|42,|60,

a

a

a

|4,

u

u

a

|20,

u

a

|56,

u

a

|57,

u

u

a

|17,

u

u

u

|17,|37,

u

|12,

u

|10b,

u u

u

139

u

u

u

|16,

Comparative sets (22): ID no. Gloss

PAN

Buyang

Set Evaluation

4.

four

Sepat

pa

E: 7 (4,2,1,0)

5.

five

lima

ma

E: 8 (4,2,1,1)

6.

six

enem

nam

E: 7 (4,2,1,0)

10b.

ten

sa-puluq

put

E: 7 (4,2,1,0)

12.

I

aku

ku

E: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV

16.

bird

manuk ‘chicken’

manuk

E: 13 (10,2,0,1) BV

17.

louse

kuCux

qatu, Ɵu, atu

E: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV

20.

bone

CuqelaN ‘condyles bone’

qadak

E: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV

21a.

ear

Caliŋa

ta ða, ʔba ða, E: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV hrau

22.

eye

maCa

mata

E: 10 (8,2,1,1) BV

25.

tongue Sema

ma

E: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV

26.

hand

qalima, kamay

maqa

E: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV

32.

die

ma-aCay (RM: ‘kill;)

ma tɛ ‘to kill’

E: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV

33.

kill

pa-p-aCay

ta

E: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV

37.

fire

Sapuy

pui

E: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV

42.

who

si-ima, ima

ma nɔ, wa ni,

E: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV

53a.

grease

SimaR

man, ma nɛn

E: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV

140

56.

hair

gumuN (F) ‘body hair’, kumeS (F) ‘pubic hair’

ma a:m, Ɵam ma luə,

E: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV

57.

head

quluh

ka luə

E: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV

60.

foot

paqa ‘thigh’ (RM: ‘foot, leg’)

pa:k Ɂa ‘foot’

E: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV

63.

liver

qaCay

tap

E: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV

64.

eat

kaen

ka:n

E: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV

16. Proto-Northern Iroquoian/Cherokee [Iroquoian] Source of lexical sets: Charles Julian. 2010. A History of the Iroquoian Languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manitoba. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 70 21 24 34.3 (24/70) 34.3 720.3 (21 x 34.3)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: PI = Proto-Iroquoian, PNI = Proto-Northern-Iroquoian, Ch = Cherokee Note: Apparent loanwords, recognized by me but not by Julian, are removed from the collection of sets evaluated. These are comparisons involving words that are three or more syllables in complexity referring to animals and cultural items. The possibility that these items are diffused is highlighted by their comparison with likely cognates (70 BWB comparative sets below) that are typically much less complex in form, most of which denote non-cultural items. The PI 141

reconstructions are provided by Julian. The apparent loanword comparisons identified and removed follow. 6 sets involving apparent loanwords: 33. PI { kahnaːwẽːh } 'butterfly' Ch / khàmàːma̋ː / 'butterfly' PNI / kahˈnaːwẽh / 'butterfly'. 35. PI { kanõːnowẽɁ } 'pipe' Ch / kànʌ̀ ̀̃ːnòwa̋ː / 'pipe' PNI { kanõnawẽɁ }, { -nõnawẽɁt- } 'pipe'. 40. PI { kihɹjuɁkẽh } 'chipmunk' Ch / khìjûːka̋ː / 'chipmunk' PNI / tsihˈɹjoɁkẽh /, { -hɹjoɁkẽh } 'chipmunk'. 75. PI { tawiːhskaɹaɁ } 'flint' Ch / tàwǐːhskála̋ː / 'flint' PNI { tawihskaɹaɁ } 'flint'. 80. PI { tsiːhskʷoːɁkʷoːɁ } 'robin' Ch / tsǐːhskʷôːkʷőː / 'robin' PNI / tsihˈskoɁkoɁ / 'robin' 90. PI { waɁkuhɹiːɁ } 'whippoorwill' Ch / wàɁkùːliː̋ / 'whippoorwill' PNI / waɁˈkohɹi(ː)Ɂ /, / kwaɁˈkohɹjVɁ / 'whippoorwill'.

Correspondences series (21): Ch

PNI

Supporting Sets

w

w

|5,|6,|24,|37,|51,|91,

t

t

|1,|5,|6,|6,|7,|8,|9,|10,|23,|44,|53,|60,|66,|68,|69,|70,|71,|76,|77,|79,|85,|93,

l

ɹ

|3,|6,|10,|14,|16,|21,|22,|29,|36,|42,|46,|50,|63,|71,|72,|73,|77,|82,|84,|88,|89, 142

n

n

|17,|19,|21,|22,|27,|50,|51,|52,|53,|54,|55,|56,|59,|60,|63,|67,

s

s

|1,|3,|19,|20,|21,|22,|23,|25,|39,|45,|53,|56,|66,|76,|93,|95,

ts

ts

|11,|30,|59,|82,|84,|85,|86,|89,

j

j

|28,|29,|30,|31,|34,|39,|64,|95,

k

k

|9,|16,|19,|25,|34,|36,|37,|38,|39,|42,|43,|43,|44,|45,|46,|48,|50,|56,|66,|70,|72,|78,|87,

h

h

h

ʔ

|1,|2,|2,|6,|7,|7,|8,|9,|9,|16,|17,|19,|20,|21,|22,|23,|24,|24,|25,|25,|39,|30,|42,|43,|45, |51,|53,|54,|56,|66,|72,|76,|93,|95, |1,|11,|15,

ʔ

ʔ

|42,|64,|77,|79,|85,|86,|95,

i

i

|23,|25,|27,|59,|73,|82,

i

e

|21,|42,|44,|71,|77,

i

o

|48,|70,|77,|87,

e

e

|7,|11,|14,|28,|29,|30,|37,|46,|52,|53,|91,

a

a

|1,|2,|3,|5,|5,|6,|6,|6,|8,|9.|9,|10,|11,|16,|19,|34,|36,|37,|43,|50,|51,|70,|71,

a

o

|27,|53,|85,|93,

ʌ

o

|2,|8,|10,|22,|29,|31,|34,|45,|59,|60,|63,|66,|67,|68,|69,|70,|71,|95,

u

o

|3,|21,|24,|39,|46,|63,|66,|87,|88,|89,

o

a

|44,|64,|72,|79,|84,|86,

o

e

|5,|6,|7,|15,|17,|19,|38,|51,|54,|55,|56,|76,|78,

Comparative sets (70): 1. Ch { -àːhsìht- } in / ùːlȁːsihte̋ːnîː / 'his foot' PNI { -ahsiɁt- } 'foot' [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV] 2. Ch { -àhsʌ̀ ̀̃ːh- } in / ùhsʌ̋ ̃ːɁîː / 'night' PNI { -ahtsõh- }, { -ahtsõt- } 'darkness, night'. 143

[Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 3. Ch{ -àlȁːsǔːl- } in / àlȁːsǔːlőː / 'shoe' PNI { -aɹahso- } 'shoe'. [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 5. Ch { -àtàwò- } in / kàtàwóːɁa̋ː / 'I'm bathing, I'm swimming' PNI { -atawẽ- } 'swim, bathe'. [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV] 6. Ch { -àtàwòːhìlàt- } 'climb over' PNI { -atawẽhɹat- }, { -awẽhɹat- } 'climb over, go over', the latter form occurring with incorporated nouns. [Evaluation: 22 (18,2,1,1)] 7. Ch { -àtèːhòːh- } in / ȁːtèːhǒːhska̋ː / 'he's embarrassed' PNI { -atehẽh- } 'be ashamed, be embarrassed'. [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 8. Ch { -àthʌ̀ ̀̃ːk- } in / hàthʌ̀ ̃ ːkʌ̃̏ ̃ ːka̋ː / 'hear it!' PNI { -athõt- }, { -athõtaːt- } 'agree, consent, hear, listen, pay attention'. [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 9. Ch { -àkàhth- } in / kàkȁːthǒːhstiː̋ / 'I'm looking at it' PNI { -atkahtho- }, { -atkahthw- } 'look at'. [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 10. Ch { -àtʌ̀ ̀̃ːl- } 'breathe' PNI { -atõɹi- }, { -atõɹj- } 'breathe'. [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 11. Ch / àtseː̋ hîː / 'green, new' PNI / ˈaːtseːɁ / 'green, new'. [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 14. 144

Ch { -èːl- } in / kèːlíɁa̋ː / 'I think so' PNI { -eɹ- } 'think, want'. [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 15. Ch { -òh- } in / kòɁòhska̋ː / 'I'm falling' PNI { -ẽɁ- }' drop, fall, happen' [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 16. Ch { -áːhsùːhkàl- } in / úːhsùhkàlhʌ̋ ̃ ːɁîː / 'his claw' PNI { -ihkaɹ- } 'claw; tail'. [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 17. Ch { -hnòː- } in / khànòːke̋ː / 'arm, wing' PNI { -hnẽ- }, { -hnẽhts- } 'arm, shoulder'. [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 19. Ch { -hskànò- } in / ùːhskànőːlîː / 'slow' PNI { -hskanẽ- }, { -hskẽnõ- } 'for free, slow, peace, peaceful'. [Evaluation: 16 (12,2,1,1)] 20. PI { -hskʷ- } 'head' Ch { -hskʷ- } in / kàlȉːskʷàlǔːtíɁa̋ː / 'I'm sticking my head out' PNI { -hskoɁt- } ‘head’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 21. Ch { -hsìnűːlîː } in / ùːhsìnűːlîː / 'quickly' PNI { -hsnoɹeɁ } 'be fast, be quick'. [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 22. Ch { -hslʌ̀ ̀̃ːn- } in / hòːhlʌ̃̌ ̃ ːna̋ː / 'he's making it' PNI { -hsɹõni- }, { -hsɹõnj- }, { -õni- }, { -õnj- } 'prepare, make, create', [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 23. Ch { -hstìː } in / ùhstiː̋ / 'little' PNI { -ahsthw- }, { -ahsto- }, { -hsthwih }, { -hstwih } 'shrink, be small' [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 145

24. Ch { -hsùːhw- } in / hìhsǔːhwa̋ː / 'paint it!' PNI { -ahtsoh- }, { -ahtsohw- } 'colour, paint, dye', [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 25. Ch / hìhskiː̋ / 'five' PNI / ˈhwihsk / 'five' [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 27. Ch / iː̋nâː / 'far' PNI / ˈiːnõh / 'far'. [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 28. Ch { -jè- } in / hìjȅːkiː̋ / 'wake up!' PNI { -je- } 'wake up, be awake'. [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 29. Ch { -jèːlʌ̀ ̀̃Ɂ- } in / àjèːlʌ̋ ̃ːɁîː / 'his body' PNI { -jeɹõɁ }, { -jeɹõɁt- } 'body, corpse, flesh'. [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV]

30. Ch { -jèːts- } 'smile' PNI { -jetshõ- } 'laugh, smile' [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 31. Ch { -jʌ-̀ ̃ } in / ȁːjʌː̀ ̃ hih́ aː̋ / 'he's entering it' PNI { -jõ- } 'arrive, enter, return' [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 34. Ch { -kàjʌ̀ ̀̃- } in / àkàjʌ̋ ̃ ːlîː / 'old (inanimate)' PNI { -akajõːɁ }, { -kajõh } 'be old (of objects)'. [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 36. Ch { -hskàl- } in / hih̀ skal̀ aː̋ / 'bite it!' PNI { -kaɹi- }, { -kaɹj- } 'bite, devour'. 146

[Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0) BV] 37. Ch { -kàwèː- } in / hìːkàwěːhiː̋ / 'row! paddle!' PNI { -kaweː- } 'row, paddle'. [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 38. Ch { -kò- } in / tsìkȍːwhthih̀ aː̋ / 'I see it' PNI { -kẽ- } 'see'; perfect { -kẽːh } 'have seen'. [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 39. Ch { -khìjùːhs- } in / àkhìjùːhske̋ː / 'elbow' PNI { -khjohs- }, { -hjohs- }, { -hjoɁɹ- } 'elbow'. [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 42. Ch { -kìɁlh- } in / kìɁlha̋ː / 'loose hair' PNI { -keɁɹh- } 'hair, messy hair'. [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV] 43. Ch / khóːka̋ː / 'crow' PNI / kahkaːɁ /, / kaɁkaːɁ / 'crow'. [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 44. Ch { -kȍːtiː̋ } in / ǔːkȍːtiː̋ / 'much, a lot of' PNI { -atkaɁteɁ } 'be much, be many, be often, be plentiful', { -kaɁteɁ } 'have much'. [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 45. Ch { -kʌ̀ ̀̃ːhs- } in / kàkʌ̃̏ ̃ ːskʷóɁa̋ː / 'I'm washing my face' PNI { -kõhs- } 'face'. [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 46. Ch / kùːle̋ː / 'acorn' PNI / ˈkoːɹeh / 'acorn, oak' [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 48. 147

Ch { -kì- } in / hik̀ iː̋ / 'pick it up!' PNI { -ko- }, { -kw- }, { -kʷ- }, { -hkw- } 'gather, lift, pick up, raise, take'. [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 50. Ch { -nàkìl- } 'reside' PNI { -nakɹ- } 'dwell, live, occur in abundance, reside'. [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,1)] 51. Ch { -nàwòːh- } in / ȁːkàːnàwòːhska̋ː / 'it's getting warm' PNI { -nawẽːh }, { -naɁnawẽːh } 'be warm, be wet, melt' [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 52. Ch { -nèː- } in / kànèːkíːɁa̋ː / 'he's picking up some liquid' and / kànèːhwah̀ thih́ aː̋ / 'he's finding some liquid' PNI { -nehkʷ- }, { -hnek- } 'liquid', the first meaning 'water' in Huron, the second 'liquid' in Susquehannock and the Five Nations languages. [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 53. Ch { -nèːhstàl- } in / ùːněːstála̋ː / 'ice' PNI { -nehsto- }, { -nehstwar- } 'ice'. [Evaluation: 15 (12,2,1,0)] 54. Ch { -nòh- } in / kànòhe̋ːnâː / 'rice', / kànòhe̋ːnîː / 'hominy grits', both meaning literally 'long grain'. PNI { -nẽh- }, { -nẽhst- } 'corn, grain, kernel, seed'. [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 55. Ch { -nò- } in / nǒːkʷʌ̋ ̃ ː / 'now' PNI / ˈoːnẽ / 'now'. [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 56. Ch { -nòːhsk- } in / kànòːhskíːɁa̋ː / 'he's stealing it' PNI { -nẽhsko- }, { -nẽhskʷ- } 'steal' [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 59. Ch { -nʌ̃̌ ̀̃ːtsíː- } in / ùːnʌ̃̌ ̃ ːtsíːta̋ː / 'brain' 148

PNI { -nõtsi- }, { -nõtsihst- } 'brain, head'. [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 60. Ch { -nʌː̀̃̃̌ t- } in / ùːnʌː̃̃̌ tiː̋ / 'milk' PNI { -nõɁt- } 'milk, breast'. [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 63. Ch { -nùːlʌ̀ ̀̃hʌ̀ ̃ - } 'fail, be unable to' (King 1975:202). PNI { -noɹõ- } 'be unable to, fail to do, find difficult; be dear, be expensive, be valuable'. [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 64, Ch { -oɁj- } in / ùwȍːje̋ːnîː / 'his hand', { -òɁje̋ːnîː } 'hand' PNI { -aɁnj- }, { -Ɂnj- } 'hand, finger'. [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 66. Ch { -ʌː̀ ̀̃ kùːhst- } in / kʌː̀ ̃ kǔːhstih́ aː̋ / 'he's sifting it' PNI { -õkohst- } 'sift'. [Evaluation: 16 (12,2,1,1)] 67. Ch { -ʌ̀ ̀̃ːhn- } in / kʌ̀ ̃ ːhna̋ː / 'he is alive' PNI { -õnh- } 'be alive, live. [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 68. Ch { -ʌ̀ ̀̃ːt- } in / tèːkʌ́ ̃ ːtǐːjéɁa̋ː / 'I'm washing dishes', / ʌː̃̃̌ tiː̋ / 'pot' (Mooney 1900:544). PNI / ˈõːtaɁ /, / ˈõːtak / 'pot' [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 69. Ch { -ʌ̀ ̀̃ːt- } in / kʌ̀ ̃ ːthʌ́ ̃ hska̋ː / 'he's putting it into a fire' PNI { -õt- } 'put into fire'. [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 70. Ch { -ʌ̀ ̀̃ːtàkì- } 'take off fire' (King 1975:221). PNI { -õtako- }, { -õtakw- } 'remove from fire'. [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 149

71. Ch / ʌː̀ ̀̃ tal̀ iː̋ / 'pond, lake' PNI { -õtaɹ- } 'lake', { -õtaɹeɁ } 'be a lake'. [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 72. Ch { -lhòkiː̋ } in / ùːlhòkiː̋ / 'his aunt' PNI { -ɹhak }, { -aɹhak } 'be paternal aunt to' [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 73. Ch { -àːlìː- } in / àːlǐːjőː / 'sock' PNI { -ɹihs }, { -ɹihsr- } 'socks, leggings' [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 76. Ch / tòːhsa̋ː / 'mosquito' PNI / ˈtẽhseɁ / 'mosquito'. [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 77. Ch / tíɁliː̋ / 'skunk' (King 1975:210), / tíɁlaː̋ / 'skunk' PNI / ˈteɁɹõ /, / ẽˈtiɁɹõ / 'skunk', with sementic shift to 'raccoon' in languages other than Tuscarora. [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,0,1)] 78. Ch { -kòː- } in / ȕːkòːhska̋ː / 'it's decaying, it's spoiling' PNI { -tkẽː- }, { -atkẽ- } 'be decayed, be spoiled, be rotten'. [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 79. Ch { -tòɁn- } in / ȁːnìːtôːnàɁa̋ː / 'they are standing (congregation)' PNI { -taɁ- }, { -taɁn- } 'stand up, stop' [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 82. Ch { -tsìːl- } in / àtsǐːla̋ː / 'fire' PNI { -tsiɹ- } 'fire, ember'. [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1) BV] 84. Ch { -tsòːl- } in / tsòːla̋ː / 'tobacco' 150

PNI { -tsjaɹ- } 'tobacco'. [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 85. Ch { -tsàɁt- } in / àtsàɁtiː̋ / 'fish' PNI { -itsjõh }, incorporating form { -itsj- }, { -itsjõɁt- } 'fish' [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 86. Ch { -tsőːɁîː } 'daughter-in-law' PNI { -tsaɁw } 'be daughter-in-law', 'have as in-law' [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 87. Ch { -ùːkì- } 'take from water' PNI { -okw- }, { -oko- } 'remove from water'. [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 88. Ch { -ùːl- } in / hȕːlhʌ́ ̃ Ɂʌ̃̏ ̃ːka̋ː / 'cover it!' PNI { -oɹ- }, { -oɹok- }, { -oɹeːk- }, { -Ɂɹhoɹ- }, { -Ɂɹhoɹeːk- }, { -Ɂɹhoɹok- } 'cover, cover over, cover up' [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 89. Ch { -ǔːtsl- } in / tȁːhstùːtlíɁa̋ː / 'he's sprinkling it (with a liquid)' , { -hstùːtsìːt- } 'sprinkle [around]' PNI { -otsɹ- } 'sprinkle'. [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 91. Ch { -wè- } in / nìkàwèɁa̋ː / 'he's saying it, it's barking, meowing, whinnying, etc.' PNI { -we- } 'speak'. [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 93. Ch { -ȍːhst- } in / őːhstâː / 'good, well' PNI { -wahstih }, { -akwahst } 'be good' [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 95. Ch { -Ɂjʌ̀ ̀̃ːhs- } in / khàjʌ̀ ̃ ːhsőːlîː / 'his nose' PNI { -Ɂnjõhs- } 'nose'. 151

[Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV]

152

17. Proto-Kakua-Nukak/Puinave [Puinavean] Source of lexical sets: Patience Epps and Katherine Bolaños. 2017. Reconsidering the “Makú” language family of Northwest Amazonia. International Journal of American Linguistics 83:457507. Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 20 11 13 65 (13/20) 65 715 (11 x 65)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: K = Proto-Kakua-Nukak, P = Puinave Correspondences series (11): K

P

Supporting Sets

b

b/m

1,2,3,6,12,20,21,

j

j/i

3,8,22,23,

k

k

4,10,13,14,17,

h

h

7,16,22,

tʃ

s

8,10,11,

w

w/u

12,18,19,

e

a

1,2,3,4,6,7,8,

a

a

10,11,12,

ɨ

ǝ

13,14,16,

ɨ

o

17,18,19,20,

u

u

21,22,23,

Comparative sets (20): 153

1. 1sg K ~we:b P Ɂãm, a[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 2. 2sg K ~be:b P mam, ma[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 3. 2pl K je:b P jãm, ja[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 4. 3pl K ke:t P ka[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 6. blood K ~bep P -mã [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 7. stone K he: P ha [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 8. night K tʃej P sai [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 10. bite K ~tʃa:k P -sak [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1) BV] 11. lung K tʃaa P sabak-ot 154

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 12. pot K wa:b P wãm [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) ] 13. (41) nose K wɨ:k P –hək [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 14. star K kɨj P kət [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 16. tobacco K hɨ:p P həp [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 17. tongue K ~dɨ:k P -dok [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 18. sleep K ~ʔɨw P -ou [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 19. caiman K wɨw P wou [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) ] 20. house K ~bɨ: P mõ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) ]

155

21. ear K ~budi P –but, -butuk [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 22. hear K huj P -hui [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 23. armadillo K jǔ P juu [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) ]

18. Proto-Totonacan/Proto-Mixe-Zoquean [Totozoquean] Source of lexical sets: Cecil H. Brown, David Beck, Grzegorz Kondrak, James K. Watters, Søren Wichmann. 2011. Totozoquean. International Journal of American Linguistics 77:323372. Geographic region: Mexico BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 43 16 19 44.2 (19/43) 44.2 707.2 (16 x 44.2)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: PTn = Proto-Totonacan, PMZ = Proto-Mixe-Zoquean, RM = reflex meaning Correspondences series (16): PTn PMZ Supporting Sets

156

p

p

|82,|84,|88,|89,|91,|94,|95,|95,|99,|109,|152,

m

m

|55,|57,|59,|60,|63,|145,

t

t

|28,|55,|102,|109,|121,|139,|141,|143,|145,|146,|148,|149,|152,|172,

s

s

|39,|103,|112,

š

s

|29,|82,|91,

n

n

|57,|63,|68,|69,|72,|99,|141,|181,

k

k

|21,|27,|28,|29,|47,|159,

q

k

|39,|68,|84,|103,|136,|156,|174,

h

h

|14,15,19,

i

i

|27,|29,|57,|69,|82,|82,|109,|139,|141,|172,

i

ə

|14,|27,|28,|149,|152,|159,

a

ə

|47,|63,|72,|99,|146,|148,

a

a

|21,|55,|68,|103,|103,|121,|136,|160,|160,

a

o

|94,|95,|95,|174,

u

u

|59,|60,|88,|89,|112,|145,|156,

u

o

|39,|84,|102,|143,|181,

Comparative sets (43): 14. PTn hi:qi ‘yes’ PMZ hə:ʔ ‘yes’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 21. PTn kax ‘sour, bitter’ PMZ kaȼu(ȼ) ‘sour, bitter’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 27. PTn kí'wi' ‘tree, wood, firewood, stick’ 157

PMZ kəpi ‘tree, firewood’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 28. PTn kití ‘grind on metate’ PMZ kə:ʔt ‘grind pinole’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 29. PTn kúši' ‘corn (maize), corn kernels’ PMZ ʔəks-i ‘corn nibs (dry)’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 39. PTn ȼuqus- ‘knee’ PMZ koso(k) ‘knee’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 47. PTn ɬka: ‘measureV’ PMZ kəʔ ‘hand, arm’ (RM: ‘...hand (measure of five)’) [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 55. PTn qašmát- ‘hear’ PMZ matow ‘hear’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 57. PTn min ‘come’ PMZ min ‘come’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 59. PTn mu'nú: ‘make wet’ PMZ muh ‘to soak’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 60. PTn mú'sni' ‘spring (water)’ PMZ muʔt ‘spring (water)’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

158

63. PTn ma'ntáh ‘sweet potato’ PMZ mən(i) ‘sweet potato’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 68. PTn naq- ~ nik- ‘beat, hit’ PMZ naks ‘to whip, beat’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 69. PTn ni: ‘negation’ PMZ ni ti ‘(particle) nothing’. (RM : ni ‘(particle) negation’) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 72. PTn nanq ‘having to do with water’ PMZ nə:ʔ ‘water’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 82. PTn pisí:s ‘Elephant Ears (plant with edible tuber)’ (RM: ‘cassava, yucca’ (Manihot sp.)) PMZ pisi ‘Manihot sp.’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 84. PTn puq ‘gourd’ PMZ pok(ok) ‘gourd’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 88. PTn pu:čí:' ‘rotV’ PMZ pu:ȼʔ ‘rot’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 89. PTn pu'qu' ‘belly, stomach’ PMZ puʔpu ‘intestines’ (RM: ‘belly’) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 91. PTn pu'šám ‘twenty’ PMZ ʔi:ʔps ‘twenty’ 159

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 94. PTn papá' ‘moon, month’ PMZ poyʔa ‘moon, month’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 95. PTn snapápa ‘white’ (= s- ‘diminutive’ + napápa ‘white’) PMZ po:pʔoʔ ‘white’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 99. PTn la:pán ‘person’ PMZ pən ‘man’ [Evaluation: 7 (6,2,1,0) BV] 102. PTn qu'tá ‘knead’ PMZ yo:ʔt ‘knead’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 103. PTn sa'qáqa ‘white’ PMZ sa:ka ‘white’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 109. PTn spi't- ‘roll, spin; return’ PMZ pit ‘roll up’. (RM: ‘return’) [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 112. PTn sú'ku' ‘perforated’ PMZ sut ‘to perforate’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 121. PTn ská:ta' ‘louse’ PMZ ʔawat ‘louse’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 136. 160

PTn štaq ‘leave something, give’ PMZ yak ‘give’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 139. PTn ti: ‘what?, who?’ PMZ ti ‘what?’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 141. PTn (ʔiɬ)tín ‘excrement’ PMZ tin ‘excrement’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 143. PTn tu'nq- ‘spreadTR, stretchTR, extendTR’ PMZ toʔk ‘to spread out on the ground’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 145. PTn tum ‘one’ PMZ tum ‘one’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 146. PTn taȼa- ‘tooth’ PMZ tə:ȼ ‘tooth’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 148. PTn ta'nks ‘straight, correct’ PMZ təw ‘be upright, straight’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) 149. PTn ti: ‘dry up’ PMZ tə:ȼʔ ‘to dry out, become thin’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 152. PTn tip- ‘shoot arrow’ PMZ təp ‘stab, shoot with arrow’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 161

156. PTn -čuqú ‘stopped’ PMZ ʔaw-tuk ‘to close’. (RM: ‘to stop’) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 159. PTn čik ‘house, home’ PMZ tək ‘house’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 160. PTn ȼáwa' ‘amaranth’ PMZ ȼamam ‘a kind of edible green’ (RM: ‘quintonil (Amaranthus hypocondricus)’]. [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 172. PTn -wi:t ‘twisted, winding, curved’ PMZ wi:ʔt ‘to twist’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 174. PTn wa:q ‘scratch, dig’ PMZ wo:ʔk ‘to grasp a fistful of something’ (RM: ‘dig’, RM: `scratch, scratch (leaving a mark)’) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 181. PTn xun ‘hummingbird’ PMZ hon ‘bird’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)BV] 19. Takelma/Proto-Kalapuya [Proto-Takelman] Source of lexical sets: William Shipley. 1969. Proto-Takelman. International Journal of American Linguistics 35:226-230. Geographic region: Oregon BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets


Result 17



10 12 70.5 (12/17) 70.5 705 (10 x 70.5)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: T = Takelma, PK = Proto-Kalapuyan Correspondences series (10): T p m w t n y k e a o

PK p m w t n y k a a u

Supporting Sets |20,|33,|39,|60,|64, |23,|63,|66, |44a,|44b,|56, |37,|51,|65, |44a,|52,|56,|64, |31,|55,|56, |32,|44a,|44b,|52,|66, |32,|37,|60, |23,|33,|39,|39,|44a,|44b,|51,|52,|52,|56,|63,|65,|66, |20,|31,|55,

Comparative sets (17): 20. dust T khoɁpx PK sku:p [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 23. father T ma PK ma:ma [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 31. know T yok’oy, yok’woy, yokhy PK yukhu 163

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 32. left T ske PK kay [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 33. liver T pan PK paw [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 37. name T kwetey PK kwat [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 39. new T palaw PK pa(n)ƚa [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 44a. path T kwan kwa:l PK kawni [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 51. rock T tan PK ta: [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 52. say T naka PK naka [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 55. sit T yo: PK yu: [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 56. sleep 164

T waya:n PK wayn [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 60. sun T pe PK pyan [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 63. thou T ma: PK ma:ha [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 64. three T xipini PK psin [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 65. tie T takh PK takt [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 66. two T ka:m PK ka:mi [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV]

20. Proto-Pomo/Proto-Yuman [Hokan] Source of lexical sets: Margaret Langdon. 1979. Some thoughts on Hokan with particular reference to Pomoan and Yuman. In The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment, Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, eds., pp.592-649. Austin: University of Texas Press. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series

Abbreviation SETi CORi 165

Result 18 9

3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average

BV BVp BVi COMi

14 77.8 (14/18) 77.8 700.2 (9 x 77.8)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: PP = Proto-Pomo (designating those words reconstructed by Robert L. Oswalt), PY = Proto-Yuman (designating those words reconstructed by Margaret Langdon) Correspondences series (9): PP

PY

Supporting Sets

m

m

|10,|11,|12,|22,|26,|41,|42,

l

ly

|2,|29,|32,

š

ṣ

|2,|10,|35,

h

ʔ

|18,|29,|49,|51,

ʔ

ʔ

|25,|39,|40,|51,

i

i

|2,|31,|35,|50,

e

i

|25,|25,|26,|39,|40,

a

a

|2,|10,|11,|12,|18,|31,|32,|41,|42,|46,|49,

a

i

|18,|22,|22,|51,

Comparative sets (18): 2. ARM PP ʔiša:l PY i:- ṣaly [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 10. EAR PP šima PY ṣmaly(k) [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 166

11. EARTH PP a(h)ma: PY –mat [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 12. EAT PP maʔa PY ma: ‘eat much’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 18. FISH PP ʔahša PY ʔ-či: [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 22. FOOT PP qhama PY i:-mi:y [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 25. HAIR (HEAD) PP heʔe: PY i:-ʔi [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 26. HAIR (BODY), FUR PP ci(h)me PY –mi(y)(s) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 29. LONG PP ʔahqol PY ʔqoly [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 31. MAN PP hiʔbaya PY i:pa(y) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 32. MOON PP ʔala:ša 167

PY šlyʔa: [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 35. NAME PP ʔahši PY -ṣi [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 39. ROCK PP qhaʔbe PY ʔ-wi(:)(y) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 40. SALT PP kheʔe: PY sʔi: [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 41. SINEW PP hima PY -ṣma [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 42. SLEEP PP sima PY ṣma [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 49. WATER PP ʔahqha PY ʔ-ša [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 51. WOOD PP ʔahay PY ʔ-ʔi: [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)]

21. Proto-Quechua/Proto-Aymara [Quechumaran] Source of lexical sets: Nicholas Q. Emlen. 2017. Appendix to Perspectives on the Quechua– Aymara contact relationship and the lexicon and phonology of pre-Proto-Aymara 1. International Journal of American Linguistics 83:307–40. 168

Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 67 24 19 28.4 (19/67) 28.4 681.6 (24 x 28.4)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: PQ = Proto-Quechua, PA = Proto-Aymara Note: Emlen (2017) identifies 144 comparative sets involving “obvious loans”. These 144 sets are not included in the BWB evaluation. Correspondences series (24): PQ

PA

Supporting Sets

p

p

|508,|517,|520,|545,|502,|541,|566,|698,

p

m

|384,|807,|385,

m

m

|802,|468,|462,|450,|420,|440,|470,|575,

w

w

|829,|842,|844,

n

n

|662,|164,|413,

r

r

|203,|642,|340,|464,|423,|169,|670,|670,|850,|644,|661,

r

l

|787,|654,|915,|655,

ʎ

ʎ

|882,|389,|801,|384,|499,|385,

s

s

|684,|707,|697,|516,

s

tʂ’

|693,|619,|700,|676,

169

ñ

n

|485,|637,|490,

k

k

|294,|308,|545,

k

k’

|308,|739,|302,

k

kh

|294,|345,|389,|277,|470,

k

q

|450,|878,|841,

q

q

|615,|654,|468,|584,|51,|574,

i

i

|693,|662,|707,|164,|470,|697,

i

a

|615,|693,|882,|450,|440,|697,|878,

i

u

|787,|662,|169,|308,|308,|389,|450,|700,|661,

a

a

|203,|203,|654,|654,|294,|294,|485,|508,|517,|423,|423,|520,|490,|619, |413,|829,|545,|584,|584,|502,|850,|850,|384,|420,|420,|842,|844,|807, |499,|655,|739,|739,|277,|277,|385,|302,|516,|51,

a

u

|787,|464,|684,|684,|169,|389,|850,|700,|878,|574|575,

a

i

|882,|413,|915,|676,

u

u

|642,|642,|340,|464,|345,|637,|801,|670,|670,|462,|462,|541,|644,|807, |470,|51,

u

a

|802,|490,|468,|468,|801,|915,|644,|566,|440,|841,|698,

Comparative sets (67): PQ 203

642

PA

harawi-

‘a type of song or poem, to perform song or poem’

hayra-

quru

‘blunted, cropped’

muru

turi

787 615 qipi-

‘brother of woman’ ‘bundle carried on back, to carry on back’

alu iqa-

‘idle, dance, song, to dance, sing, be idle’ ‘blunted, cropped, worn out’ ‘brother of woman’ ‘to carry, move,

170

BWB Evaluation 9 (6,2,1,0)

10 (6,2,1,1)

10 (6,2,1,1) 7 (4,2,1,0)

693 siki 340 464

kurpa muruču

684 sara 654

raqra-

karka

294 662 rinri 485 ñawi 707 supi164

tʂina

508 paqtʂa 345

kušma

pašña 517 882 wiʎka 423

maray

pay 520 802 uma 637 quñu490 ñuqa 169

tʂirapa

‘butt, base’ ‘clod, clump of earth’

tʂ’ina

‘corn variety’

paru

‘corn’ ‘crack, ditch, trench, to crack, split’ ‘dirty, dirt, manure’ ‘ear’ ‘eye’ ‘fart, to fart’

suq’u

‘female’

činki

‘forehead’ ‘garment, tunic (e.g., worn by Amazonians)’ ‘girl, young woman’ ‘grandchild, idol’

para

‘grinding stone’

parana

‘he, she’

hupa

‘head’ ‘hot, to heat’ ‘I’ ‘mist, drizzle, sun shower, rainbow’

lamp’a (h)untʂ’u naya

uraqi

larqa kʰanka hinču nayra sira-

urkʰu

apa aʎči

urpʰu

171

spread out fabric’ ‘butt’ ‘earth, soil, land’ ‘toasted, goldenbrown color, corn variety’ ‘corn husk’ ‘canal, irrigation ditch’ ‘dirty, rough’ ‘ear’ ‘eye’ ‘fart, to fart’ ‘sister of man, younger sister, younger female cousin’ ‘forehead’ ‘female garment’ ‘old woman’ ‘grandchild’ ‘grinding stone’ ‘he, she, they’ ‘head’ ‘hot’ ‘I’ ‘cloud, mist, fog’

10 (6,2,1,1) 7 (4,2,1,0) BV 9 (6,2,1,0)

10 (6,2,1,1) 12 (8,2,1,1)

12 (8,2,1,1) 10 (6,2,1,1) BV 7 (4,2,1,0) BV 7 (4,2,0,1) 7 (4,2,1,0)

7 (4,2,1,0) 7 (4,2,1,0)

7 (4,2,1,0) BV 10 (6,2,1,1) 8 (6,2,0,0) 7 (4,2,1,0) 7 (4,2,1,0) BV 7 (4,2,1,0) BV 10 (6,2,1,1) BV 9 (6,2,1,0) BV

308 kitʂki 619 qisa 389

ʎika

468 mušuq 801

uʎuku

413 mana 915 829

yura watʂi-

545 puka 584 qaqa 670

ruru

462 muru 502

850

k’uʎku tʂapa

‘net, spider web’

ʎukʰu-

‘new’

mačaqa

‘olluco (tuber species)’

uʎa

‘no, not’

hani

‘plant’

ali

‘pole, lance, stick, to poke, sting, stab’ ‘red, colored’ ‘rock, cliff, crag’ ‘round thing, pit, egg, testicle, kidney’ ‘seed, pit’

čupika qala

‘narrow’ ‘nest’ ‘beard, muzzle, net for carrying things, to pull hair, beard’ ‘new’ ‘cooked, overcooked, or spoiled potato’ ‘no, not’ ‘plant, stem’ ‘wood, stick, firewood’ ‘red’ ‘stone’

mayruru

‘kidney’

muhu

‘seed’ ‘aunt (father’s sister)’ ‘intestines, slingshot’ ‘spinning wheel, to spin thread’ ‘sweet’ ‘testicle’ ‘to crush, smash’

10 (6,2,1,1) BV 7 (4,2,1,0)

7 (4,2,1,0)

irpa-

‘to escort, accompany’

10 (6,2,1,1)

mayi-

‘to ask for, request, borrow’

lawa

pani

‘sister of man’

ipa

waraka

‘sling, slingshot’

q’urawa

‘spindle, to spin thread’

qapu-

541 pučka450 miški 644 quruta 384

‘narrow, tight’ ‘nest’

ʎapča-

566 puša-

420 maña-

‘sweet’ ‘testicle’ ‘thin, flat, to touch, squeeze, crush’ ‘to accompany, guide, bring along, escort’ ‘to ask for, request’

muqsa maqʰura ʎamq’i-

172

12 (8,2,1,1) 7 (4,2,1,0) 12 (8,2,1,1)

11 (8,2,1,0) BV 9 (6,2,1,0)

10 (6,2,1,1) BV 10 (6,2,1,1) 7 (4,2,1,0)

9 (6,2,1,0) BV 10 (6,2,1,1) BV 11 (8,2,1,0)

12 (8,2,1,1) 7 (4,2,1,0)

8 (4,2,1,1) 9 (6,2,1,0) 8 (6,2,0,0)

842 wantu-

844 wañuupya-

807 440 miku499

655

paʎa-

rata-

739 taka277 katʂa700 sira470

mutki

‘to carry among two or more people’ ‘to die, wilt, lose consciousness, pass away’

iwa-

7 (4,2,1,0)

7 (4,2,1,0) BV hiwa-

‘to die’

kʰitatʂ’uku-

‘water, to drink’ ‘to eat’ ‘to harvest, harvest potatoes, pick’ ‘to fall, fly, run, go out’ ‘to beat, hit with an object’ ‘to send’ ‘to sew’

mukʰi-

‘to smell’

‘to drink’

uma-

‘to eat’

manq’a-

‘to harvest, pick’

ʎama-

‘to land, fall, stick in a place’ ‘to punch, knock, hit with hard object’ ‘to send, release’ ‘to sew’ ‘to smell, perceive odor’ ‘to snap neck, yank, slaughter’

‘to carry straw’

halasak’a-

9 (6,2,0,1) BV 10 (6,2,1,1) BV 7 (4,2,1,0)

7 (4,2,1,0) BV 9 (6,2,0,1)

10 (6,2,1,1) 10 (6,2,1,1) 12 (8,2,1,1)

‘to yank, pull out’ ‘language, to speak’ ‘to crush, smash’ ‘to have a full stomach’

10 (6,2,1,1)

haqu-

‘to throw’

10 (6,2,1,1)

k’ana

‘braid’

7 (4,2,1,0)

‘to untie, unstitch, loosen’

‘untie, unstitch, loosen’

7 (4,2,1,0)

pʰasa-

‘to vomit, spit up, drool’

aqru-

‘to vomit’

9 (6,2,0,1)

‘to wrap, bundle, bandage’

tʂ’uqa-

574 qaʎu

‘tongue’

laqra

‘to tie up, bind up, bandage’ ‘tongue’

7 (4,2,1,0)

841 wanku-

697 661 385

sipirima-

‘to speak’

aru-

ʎapi-

‘to squeeze, crush, smoosh’

ʎamq’i-

‘to swell, be full of food’

tʂ’iti-

676 saksa-

878 302

wika(pa)kawpu-

516 paska-

51

sikʰa-

aqtu-

‘to throw into the air’ ‘to twist fibers, braid, spin thread’

173

7 (4,2,1,0) 8 (6,2,0,0) 7 (4,2,1,0)

7 (4,2,1,0) BV

757 tawna 698 sipu575 qam

‘walking cane’ ‘wrinkle, to wrinkle, furrow, pleat’ ‘you’

tukru qurpa huma

‘cane, staff’ ‘furrow, ditch, boundary’ ‘you’

8 (4,2,1,1) 7 (4,2,1,0)

7 (4,2,1,0) BV

22. Lakota/Catawba [Siouan] Source of lexical sets: Richard T. Carter, A. Wesley Jones, and Robert L. Rankin. 2006. Comparative Siouan Dictionary. Unpublished manuscript, version of August 17, 2006, in possession of this paper’s author. (Note: Later version now online.) Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 36 17 14 38.9 (14/36) 38.9 661.3 (17 x 38.9)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: LA = Lakota, CA = Catawba Correspondences series (17): LA

CA

Supporting Sets

p

p

|10,|29,|48,|66,|104,|111,

p

w

|1,|11,|18,

ph

p

|54,|68,|73,

w

w

|56,|93,|95,|107,|124,

t

t

|9,|39,|51,|87,|121,|122,

174

s

s

|2,|18,|56,|73,|78,

n

r

|1,|78,|107,

n

n

|94,|99,|104,

k

k

|2,|21,|27,|52,

h

h

|23,|87,|110,

i

i

|21,|28,|39,|54,|68,|87,|108,

e

e

|9,|11,|124,

a

a

|1,|10,|18,|27,|28,|29,|48,|51,|56,|66,|93,|99,|107,|108,|111,|121,

a

i

|2,|10,|62,|73,|110,

a

e

|62,|73,|78,|107,

u

u

|23,|34,|52,|73,|94,|95,|122,

u

a

|34,|56,|104,

Comparative sets (36): 1. ache LA paníyĄ ‘ache’ CA warepa ‘ache’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 2. armpit LA alóksohą ‘armpit, put under the arm; to carry under the arm’ CA hinų́ksu ‘his armpit’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 9. base, root, stump LA húte, ohúte, ohúta ‘base, root’ CA teṭ ‘root’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 10. beaver LA čhápa ‘beaver’ CA čapi “chaupee” ‘beaver’ 175

[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 11. bison LA pté ‘bison’ CA widé• ‘bison’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 18. bulrush, cane (plant) LA psá ‘rush, water grass’ CA wąsa ‘reed’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] (Note: bulrush, cane and reed are considered synonyms) 21. carry LA kʔį́ ‘carry on the back’ CA kida KS (‘carry’ + ‘go’) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 23. come LA p-hú ‘I am coming; an old word meaning waú’ CA hu•ʔ[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 27. cut LA ká, wa- ‘cut or strip, as the feather from a quill; to cut off e.g. the ribs of an animal; to split a quill in the middle’ CA kąʔ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 28. dance LA wa_čhí ‘dance’ CA bari ‘dance’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 29. day LA ąpétu ‘day’ CA ya•p ‘day’ [Evaluaation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 34. ear, inner; hearing LA nų́ɣe ‘ear’ CA -duksu•ʔ ‘ear’, tákshu ‘ear’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 39. eye LA ištá 176

CA įtu•ʔ [Evaluation; 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 48. four LA tópa ‘four’ CA parp(ə)re [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 51. frozen LA tasáka ‘freeze’ CA tap ‘frozen’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 52. give LA kʔú ‘give’ CA kų́həre ‘gave it’; kų́rəre ‘he gave him’; kúkawe ‘gave it may have’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 54. good LA phí ‘good’ CA pî•rɛ´, píhəre [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 56. hail LA wasú ‘hail’ CA wasa- ‘hail’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 62. ice LA čháɣa ‘ice’ CA mǫhe• ‘ice’, mǫ́hi• [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 66. leaf LA apé ‘leaf’ CA yáp’há ‘tree leaves’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 68. liver LA phí ‘liver’ CA hipí•yą ‘his liver’ [Evaluation; 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 73. nose, end, point, tip LA phasú ‘nose, beak’ CA hipįsu•ʔ ‘his nose’, dəpęsuʔ ‘my nose’ 177

[Evaluation: 12 (10,2,0,0) BV] 78. rattle LA sná ‘ring, rattle, rustle’ CA səréʔsəreʔhowe ‘rattling may make’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 87. ball joint LA hįyéte ‘shoulder’ CA híri•t ‘his shoulder’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 93. snow LA wá ‘snow’ CA wa; waʔwə, wa•ʔ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 94. steal LA manų́ (mawánų) CA hiinų́-, inų́- ‘steal’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 95. stink LA xųwį́ ~ xwį́ ‘stink, become putrid, as does meat’ CA sųwi•tcúwe ‘stinks much will’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 99. three LA yámni ‘three’ CA ná•mnaʔ “three’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 104. two LA nų́pa CA nąpre, nąpəre ‘two’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 107. winter LA waníyetu ‘year; winter’ CA wéra, wáya [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 108. female, woman LA wį́yą ‘woman’ CA įya• ‘woman’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 178

110. yes, to be so LA hą́, ohą́ ‘yes’ CA hįbáʔ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 111. navel LA čhekpá ‘navel’ CA hipat ‘his navel’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 121. interrogative, indefinite LA tá- {in} táku ‘something’ B-475 CA tα- {in} tαpα ‘something’ (Note: can be transcribed as “a”) [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 122. interrogative LA tu- {in} tuwé ‘who? which? (rarely)’ CA tu- {in} “təwε̨´ hinɛ” ‘who’s that’ KS-249 [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 124. interrogative LA -wé {in} tuwé ‘who? which? (rarely)’ CA -wę {in} təwε̨´ hinɛ ‘who’s that’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV]

23. Proto-Basque/Proto-Indo-European [Basque-Indo-European] Source of lexical sets: Juliette Blevins. 2018. Advances in Proto-Basque Reconstruction with Evidence for the Proto-Indo-European-Euskarian Hypothesis. Routledge: New York . Geographic region: Eurasia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average

179


Result 50 17 19 38 (19/50) 38 646 (17 x 38)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: PB = Proto-Basque, PIE = Proto-Indo-European, RM: Reflex meaning Correspondences series (17): PB

PIE

Supporting Sets

b

w

|2,|3,|4,|5,|6,|7,|43,

m

m

|25,|26,|26,

th

t

|14,|16,|17,|20,|37,|38,|41,|59,|60,

d

d

|34,|44,|45,

s

s

|10,|14,|17,|20,|30,|32,|33,|34,|35,|36,|37,|39,|40,|49,|57,|58,|59,

l

l

|3,|6,|24,|25,|31,|35,|38,|45,|49,|54,

r

r

|4,|6,|7,|8,|9,|12,|13,|14,|16,|17,|19,|36,|37,|40,|41,|44,|57,

n

n

|1,|13,|22,|23,|27,|28,|30,|39,|47,|54,|55,

g

gj

||9,|11,|47,

h

h

|11,|12,|13,|14,|17,|18,|19,|37,|52,|59,

i

i

|35,|43,|60,

i

e

|7,|22,|23,|38,

e

e

|5,|27,|30,|31,|32|33,|34,|45,

a

e

|1,|2,|3,|4,|11,|12,|13,|14,|17,|25,|26,|28,|44,|55,|59,

o

o

|8,|10,|36,|37,|54,

o

e

|18,|24,|41,

o

eu

|40,|52,|58,

Comparative sets (50): 1. PB *an ‘in, on, at; on the side’ LOC 180

PIE *en ‘in’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 2. PB *bagi ‘cut, cut in pieces; break off’ PIE *weh2gj- ‘break, be broken’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 3. PB *bal1 ‘cover, include, connect, group together, mix’ PIE *wel-1 ‘include, enclose, cover’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 4. PB *bar1 ‘block, obstruct, bar, enclose, fence in; stop’ PIE *wer- ‘stop, ward off, defend’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 5. PB *be ‘same, exact, precisely, verily’ EMPH PTCL (RM: B bere ‘self, oneself; own’) PIE *s/we- ‘self’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 6. PB *bero ‘hot; heat’ PIE *werH- 'heiß sein/ be hot' [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 7. PB *bil ‘turn, go around, wind; round’ PIE *wel-2 ‘to turn, roll’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 8. *borho ‘fight’ PIE *bhor-ni- 'fight' [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 9. PB *gar1 ‘grain, grass’ PIE *gjrh2-n-, *gjrh2no- ‘grain’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 10. 181

PB *gos ‘hunger, have a taste for’ PIE *g(j)hósd- ‘hunger’ [AK:461] [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 11. PB *hagi ‘command’ (RM: B agimen 'command, leadership; authority, order, mandate') ?PIE *h2egj-men 'leading, leadership' [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 12. PB *har1 ‘take, receive’ PIE *h2er- ‘to take, acquire’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 13. PB *haran ‘move back and forth; wander; swing, sway, circle’ (RM: B arrano ‘eagle; vulture’) PIE *h3er(o)n- ‘eagle’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 14. PB *hasthur ‘bone’ PIE *h2est-r ‘bone’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV] 16. PB *thiri ‘three; tie, entwine’ PIE *tréi/es [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 17. PB *hi-sthar ‘star’ PIE *h2ster ‘star’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV] 18. PB ?*hopha ‘wish,desire’ PIE ?*h3ep- ‘wish, choose’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 19. PB *hur1 ‘water’ PIE *uh1r ‘water’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 182

20. PB *thus ‘empty’ PIE *teus- ‘to be empty, become empty’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 22. PB *khin1 ‘like, fond of’ PIE ?*k(u)enH- ‘to like, take pleasure in’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 23. PB *khin2 ‘effort, energy’ PIE *kenh1- ‘to make an effort’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 24. PB *lo ‘dirt, mud’ PIE *lew- ‘to soil, dirty’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 25. PB*mal2 ’’soft’ PIE *mel-1 ‘soft’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 26. PB *mami ‘sweet and fleshy; meat’’ PIE *mēm/s- 'meat, flesh' [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 27. PB *ben3 ‘small; waning’ PIE *men-4 'small, isolated’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 28. PB *na-u-s- ‘be in the lead’ (RM: B nagusi, nagosi ‘leader, chief, master’) PIE *nejh1- ‘lead, guide, direct’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 30. PB *nes ‘evade, flee, escape’ 183

PIE *nes- ‘to get away, escape; return home unscathed’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 31. PB *phel ‘warm’ PIE *pel/h1- ‘to warm up’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 32. PB *saspi ‘seven’ PIE *sep/tm [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 33. PB *segi ‘hang, hang off’ PIE *seg- ‘to attach, hang onto’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 34. PB *sede ‘sit’ PIE *sed- ‘to sit, to sit down’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 35. PB *sil ‘silent; silence’ PIE *si-lo, *si-leh ‘silent’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 36. PB *sor1 ‘woman’ PIE *soro- ‘woman’ [Evaluation: X (X,2,1,0) BV] 37. PB sthahar(o) ‘old’ PIE *stah2-ró- ‘old’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 38. PB *(s)thil ‘still; stagnant’ PIE *telH- ‘still, silent’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)]

184

39. PB *suni son-in-law’ PIE *su(h)-nu- ‘son’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 40. PB *suro ‘pour,, spill’ PIE *sreu- ‘to flow, to pour’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 41. PB *thor ‘come, come from; come through, bore through’ PIE *ter/h2- ‘to come through, cross, traverse’ [BF:57] [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 43. PB *bi1 ‘two’ PIE *dwi- ‘two’ (derivational compositional form) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 44. PB *dar ‘strong, firm, solid’ PIE *der/u-, *dr/eu- ‘to be firm, solid, steadfast’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 45. PB *del(h) ‘long; along; extending; run through’; PIE *del-1 ‘long’ [CW:16] [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 47. PB *gin2 ‘knowledge, know’ PIE *gjn/eh3- ‘know, recognize’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 49. PB *hal-s ‘alder’ PIE *als/nos ‘alder’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 52. PB *(h)okha ‘empty; vomit; give up’ PIE *h1ueh2- ‘be empty, become empty’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 185

54. PB *lon-s ‘long; length’ PIE *d/lon/-gho- ‘long’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 55. PB *na ‘some, any; not, no’ INDEFINITE, NEGATIVE, PRIVATIVE PIE *né [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 57. PB *sar(h) ‘blood, gore’ PIE *h1e/sh2-r- ‘blood’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 58. PB *só2 ‘whole, full’ PIE *?seuh3 ‘full’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 59. PB *stha(h) ‘to be, exist, stand, stay; to be standing, settled, lasting’ PIE *steh2- ‘to stand’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 60. PB *thi ‘thou’ 2SG PRONOUN ?OBLIQUE PIE *tíh1 ‘you; 2sg NOM’ [Evaluation: X (4,2,1,0) BV]

24. Proto-Algonkian/Beothuk [Algonquian-Beothuk] Source of lexical sets: John Hewson. 1971. Beothuk consonant correspondences. International Journal of American Linguistics 37:244-249. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 186

Abbreviation SETi CORi BV BVp

Result 36 21 11 30.6 (11/36)

5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average

BVi COMi

30.6 642.6 (21 x 30.6)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: PA = Proto-Algonkian, B = Beothuk Correspondences series (21): PA

B

Supporting Sets

p

p

|3,|6,|14,|47,|53,

p

b

|49,|52,|54,|56,

m

m

|2,|4,|7,|25,|25,|28,|34,|43,|46,|48,|55,

w

w

|1,|17a,|21,|34,|53,|56,

Ɵ

th

|1,|11,|30,|47,|55,

t

t

|52,

t

d

|4,|11,|33,|34,|35,

s

s

|7,|21,|23,|46,|50,

l

t

|35,|48,|52,

l

d

|20,|43,

n

n

|7,|14,|17b,|24,|26,|30,|33,|38,|43,|46,

š

sh

|20,|36,|41,|49,

k

k

|1,|23,|28,|38,|50,

k

g

|6,|14,|23,|24,|26,|27,|35,

k

c

|35,|36,|41,

i

i

|20,|24,|26,

i

o

|20,|36,|52,

e

e

|14,|17a,|27,|49,

e

i

|1,|26,|34,|34,|46, 187

e

a

|1,|11,|33,|38,|47,|48,

e

o

|3,|28,|35,|43,

a

a

|2,|23,|35,|55,

a

e

|2,|25,|28,|30,|30,|35,|43,|43,|47,|53,

a

u

|4,|6,|41,

a

ue

|33,

a

o

|25,|46,|49,|52,|54,|56,

o

o

|11,|21,

o

ou

|17b,

Comparative sets (36): Note: Hewson (1971) includes in many comparative sets Beothuk words provided by several different transcribers, none of which seem to use exactly the same orthography. The B (Beothuk) form listed in sets below is typically the first one presented in his sets. Hewson (1971:244) reports that “Apparent distinctions in voicing in Beothuk should be ignored, since the great wealth of variants in the spelling of Beothuk glosses clearly indicates that voicing was not distinctive...” This lack of a voicing distinction is reflected by the grouping of correspondences belonging to the same series (see above correspondence chart). 1. arm PA weƟenki B wathik [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 2. PA ama- ‘wake’ B amet ‘awake’] [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 3. back PA nexpeƟkwani B posson [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 4. bad 188

PA matB mudti [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 6. beat PA pakB pugathuse [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 7. berry PA min-ehs-i B manus [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 11. boat PA weto:Ɵ B adothe [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 14. break PA po:xkw-en B pugenon [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 17a. cheek PA –no:way-i B wee-noun [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 17b. cheek PA –no:way-i B wee-noun [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 20. cut PA ilišB odishuik [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 21. deer PA –o:swa B oswit [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 189

23. dry PA ka:skB gasook [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 24. eye PA neški:nšekwi B gwinya [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 25. eyebrow PA ma:ma:wona B mome-augh [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 26. PA –i:nkwe:- (RM: ‘he is blind’) B kaesinguinyeet ‘blind’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 27. fear PA kweɁƟB geswat [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 28. fish PA –ame:kw B wasemook ‘salmon’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 30. five PA nya:Ɵanwi B nunyetheek [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 33. hear PA no:ntawe:wa B noduera [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 34. kiss PA wetye:me:wa 190

B widumite [Evaluation: 12 (10,2,0,0)] 35. leg PA kexka:tali B co-ga-de-atta [Evaluation: 18 (14,2,1,1)] 36. lip PA meškišayi B coosh [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 38. long PA kenwB kannabuch [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 41. nail PA weškašya B cush [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 43. red ochre PA welamana, walamana B odemen [Evaluation: 15 (12,2,1,0)] 46. shoe PA maxkeseni B. moosin [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 47. sit PA eƟapB athep [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 48. smell PA me:la:B marot [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)]

191

49. string PA –a:pyehšB madobeesh ‘twine’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 50. sun PA ki:seɁƟwa B kuis [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 52. teeth PA –i:pitali B botomet [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0) BV] 53. thigh PA –pw:amB ipweena [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 54. warm PA ap- ‘hot’ (RM: ‘warms himself’) B obosheen ‘warming yourself’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 55. weep PA maƟB matheoduc [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 56. white PA wa:pB wobee [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV]

192

25. Shasta/Achumawi (Palaihnihan) [Hokan] Source of lexical sets: David L. O1msted: 1956. Palaihnihan and Shasta I: Labial stops. Language 32:73-77; 1957. Palaihnihan and Shasta II: Apical stops. Language 33:136-138; 1959. Palaihnihan and Shasta III: Dorsal stops. Language 35:637-644. Geographic region: California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 15 12 8 53.3 (8/15) 53.3 639.6 (12 x 53.3)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: S = Shasta, Aj = Achumawi (Palaihnihan) Correspondences series (12): S

Aj

Supporting Sets

w

p

|11,|14,|15,

t

t

|33,|43,|45,

s

s

|33,|45,|47,

n

l

|18,|39,|63b,

c

s

|43,|44,|62,

k

q

|37,|62,|63b,

k

t

|31,|37,|45,|47,

i

i

|11,|15,|33,|44,|45,

i

i

|33,|45,|47,

a

i

|11,|18,|31, 193

a

a

|14,|31,|39,|50,|43,|44,

a

o

|62,|63b,|85,

Comparative sets (15): 11. tail Aj ipi S ihiwa [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 14. mouth Aj ap S aw [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 15. boat Aj sa:pi S ɁikwiɁ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 18. tongue Aj iphli S ehena [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 31. they Aj atwi: S kwakaɁ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 33. ant Aj walo:psita S ci:psit [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,1,0)] 37. green Aj məsuqati S makɛkɛɁ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 39. cedar 194

Aj laɁto: S nahhuɁ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 43. sand Aj ta:s S tɁacu [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 44. three Aj jasti S xacki [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 45. breast Aj iɁtsit S itsik [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,0,1) BV] 47. ear Aj issat S isak [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 50. leg Aj saɁye: S xatis [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 62. blackbird Aj tsoqa S cakiɁ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 63b. skin Aj toqolu S Ɂikwani ‘dried deer hide’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] (Note: skin and hide are synonyms)

26. Common Bantu/Proto-Akanic [Volta-Congo]

195

Source of lexical sets: John M. Steward. 2002. The potential of Proto-Potou-Akanic-Bantu as a pilot Proto-Niger-Congo, and the reconstructions update. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 23:197-224. Geographic region: Africa BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 83 33 16 19.3 (16/83) 19.3 636.9 (33 x 19.3)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: CB = Common Bantu, PA = Proto-Akanic Correspondences series (33): CB

PA

Supporting Sets

p

p

|31,|32,|33,

p

f

|1,|3,|5,|6,|8,|9,

b

b

|63,|64,|65,|66,

b

v

|47,|54,|81,

m

m

|73,|100,|101,|103,|104,

m

v

|5,|9,|20,|77,|80,|103,

mb

v

|44,|45,|49,|57,|78,|90,

t

t

|34,|35,|36,|38,

t

s

|11,|14,|15,|16,|18,|19,|20,

d

d

|68,|69,|71,|73,

d

t

|51,|56,|57, 196

d

l

|3,|6,|36,|40,|43,|59,|60,|64,|82,|83,|84,|85,|86,|86,|87,|87,|88,|88,|98,|101,

d

n

|58,|65,|66,|83,|84,|91,

d

v

|25,|26,|77,|78,|79,|80,|81,

d

c

|53,|54,|55,|58,

n

n

|46,|105,|106,|107,|108,|109,

k

k

|39,|40,|41,|42,|43,|44,

k

w

|25,|26,|29,

k

kp

|45,|46,|47,|48,

g

l

|28,|96,|97,

c

s

|21,|23,|24,

y

h

|94,|95,|96,|97,

i

i

|8,|53,|54,|55,|60,|66,|96,|97,

i

I

|21,|38,|41,|42,|91,|100,|109,

i

u

|87,|87,|88,|88,

e

ɛ

|58,|71,|83,|91,

e

I

|6,|43,|43,|80,|90,|94,|94,|101,|103,

a

a

|5,|11,|15,|16,|31,|34,|35,|39,|51,|57,|68,|69,|77,|78,|79,|82,|105,

I

I

|1,|23,|24,|40,|65,|106,

u

u

|3,|3,|14,|29,|32,|33,|56,|59,|59,|63,|64,

u

ʊ

|9,|18,|19,|20,|36,|44,|81,|85,|86,|86,|95,|104,|107,|108,

u

I

|25,|28,|28,|46,|47,|48,|97,|98,|98,

o

ɔ

|40,|41,|45,|46,|49,|84,

Comparative sets (83): 1. become burnt CB –pI197

PA –fI [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 3. foam CB –pudu PA –fulu [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 5. short (argue) CB –pamPA –favI [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 6. CB –pede ‘the itch, crawcraw’ PA –filI ‘itchy’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 8. where? CB –pi PA –fi [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 9. breathe, rest CB –pu[u]mPA -fʊvʊ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 11. war CB –ta PA –sa [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 14. carry CB –tutPA –su [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 15. tie up CB –tatPA –sa [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

198

16. three CB tat[-]u PA –sa [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 18. ear CB –tu[-]u PA -sʊ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 19. ashes CB –tu[-]e PA -sʊ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 20. send CB –tumPA sʊvʊ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 21. ground CB –ci PA –sI [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 23. underneath CB –cI PA –sI [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 24. (his) father CB –cI PA –sI [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 25. CB -ko[d][-]ud ‘cough v.’ PA –wavI ‘cough n.’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 26. snail CB –ko[d][-]a PA –wavI 199

[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 28. sugar-cane CB –ku[u]gu PA -ɕwIlI [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 29. die CB –kuPA –wu[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 31. hold CB –patPA –pa [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 32. stomach CB –pu PA –pu [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 33. dig up CB pukPA -pulu [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 34. bow CB –ta PA –ta [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 35. spittle CB –ta PA –ta [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 36. forge CB –tudPA -tʊlʊ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 38. vein 200

CB tiŋg[-]a PA tIlI [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 39. headpad CB –kat[-]a PA –ka[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 40. kind of hawk CB –kodI PA -kɔlI [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 41. neck CB –koti PA -kɔnI [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 42. dawn v. CB –kiPA –kI [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 43. salt CB –kede PA –kIlI [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 44. bend tr. CB –kumb PA -kʊvʊ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 45. scrape CB –kombPA -kpɔvI [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 46. break off tr. CB –kon[-]udPA -kpɔnI [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 201

47. hit CB –kubPA –kpIvI [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 48. pull CB –kudPA –kpI [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 49. become wet CB –bombPA -pɔvi [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 51. oath CB –dap[-]o PA –ta [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 53. bury CB di[-]ikPA –ci [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 54. stop up CB –dibPA –civi [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 55. tie a knot CB –ditPA –ci [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 56. pull CB –dutPA –tu [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 57. cloth CB –damb[-]a 202

PA –tavI [Evaluation: 7 (6,2,1,0)] 58. become suspended CB –dedPA -cɛnI [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 59. top, sky CB –judu PA –sulu [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 60. abstain CB –gidPA –kili [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 63. stone CB –bu[-]e PA –bu [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 64. hit CB –budPA –bulu [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 65. become crooked CB –bIdPA –bInI [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 66. dirt CB –bid[-]o PA –binI [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 68. madness CB –dad[-]u PA –da [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

203

69. lie down, sleep CB –da[-]ad PA –da [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 71. today CB –de[-]ed[-]o PA -dɛ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 73. extinguish CB –dImPA –dumu [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 77. stick to CB –damPA vavI [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 78. become starved CB –dambPA vavI [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 79. follow CB –da[nd]PA –va [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 80. become too difficult for CB –demPA –vIvI [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 81. make a mistake CB –dubPA vʊvʊ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 82. abdomen CB –da PA –la 204

[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] (Note: belly is a synonym for abdomen) 83. look after (child) CB ded PA lɛnI [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 84. look at, face towards CB –dod PA -lɔnI [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 85. plait CB –duk PA -lʊlʊ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 86. bitterness CB –dudu PA -lʊlʊ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 87. cold CB –didi PA lulu [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 88. shadow CB –didi PA lulu [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 90. God CB –yamb[-]e PA ɲiavI [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 91. moon, white CB –yedi PA -ɕɛnI [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 94. chief 205

CB –yene PA –hIlI [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 95. body CB –yutu PA -hʊ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 96. shut CB –yig[-]adPA hili [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 97. open CB –yig[-]udPA hilI [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 98. nose CB –yudu PA hwIlI [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 100. me CB –mi PA –mI [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 101. swallow CB –medPA –mIlI [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 103. become full CB –memPA –mIvI [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 104. you pl. CB mu[-]e PA -mʊ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 206

105. four CB –na PA –na [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 106. defecate CB –nIP –nI [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 107. drink CB –nuPA -nʊ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 108. mouth CB –nu[-]a PA -nʊ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 109. his mother CB nin[-]a PA –nI [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

27. Klamath/Nez Perce [Plateau Penutian] Source of lexical sets: Haruo Aoki. 1963. On Sahaptian-Klamath linguistic affiliations. International Journal of American Linguistics 29:107-112. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average 207


Result 37 21 11 29.7 (11/37) 29.7 623.7 (21 x 29.7)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations and symbols: K = Klamath, NP = Nez Perce, X = sub-dot x, G = sub-dot g Correspondences series (21): K p p b m m w w t t d d d l l l l s s č’ k k g g q’ q’ ʔ i i i e e o

NP p p p m m w w t t t t l l l s s c k k k k q q ʔ i i I i i i

Supporting Sets |35,|44,|87,|21, |1,|34, |34,|66,|85, |51, |19,|25, |46,|62, |78,|78,|85, |21,|91, |97, |13,|73,|83, |14, |31,|53,|60, |62,|75, |7,|17,|57, |14,|14,|23,|63, |32,|64,|87, |64,|91, |19,|63, |7,|31,|69, |29, |7,|10,|10, |69, |38,|82, |33, |57,|63, |19,|41,|97,|46, |29,|73, |60,|69, |35,|38, |13,|82, |46, |7,|66,|51, 208

e e e a a a a a o o o o

e e e e e e a a a a a a

|64, |62, |25,|53, |87, |1,|10,|10,|19,|85,|97, |38,|75, |44,|83, |41,|57,|78, |33,32, |14, |91, |17,|57,

Comparative sets (37): 1. ASHES NP ʔile:PKuy K LaPK’e:ks [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 7. BODY NP cila:kt K č’ole:ks ‘meat, flesh, body’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 10. BROWN NP kewxke:wx K kaWkaWl’i [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 13. COUNT NP hite:me K sʔedw [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 14. CRICKET NS tla:l K dlol [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 17. DOWN NP ʔalla:y 209

K o:li [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 19. FALL (SEASON) NP seʔniʔm K sʔaLm [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 21. FATHER NP pist K ptisap [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 25. FISH NP cu:yem K kyem [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 29. FROM NP kinix K kni: ‘from, people from’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 31. GOOD NP taʔc K dič’a: ‘good’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 32. GRANDCHILD (SON’S CHILD OF A MALE) NP qalac- ‘grandchild, father’s father’ K bloksip ‘father’s father’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 33. MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER NP qa:cK q’ol [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 34. GREAT GRANDPARENT NP poXpoqc K baba:Gip [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

210

35. HAND NP ʔip[sus K n’ip [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 38. HERE NP kine K gida [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 41. ISLAND NP ʔama K ʔawalw [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 44. KINSHIP SUFFIX NP –-ap K –ap [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 46. LAKE NP ʔiwe:tem K ʔews [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 51. MOUTH NP hiʔm K som [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 53. NET FISH NP teqi: K deklga ‘nets fish’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 57. PINE NP la:qa K lala:q’o ‘pine gum’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 60. RISE (OF SUN ETC.) NP tiʔneʔtK dini:Gi ‘sun rises’ 211

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 62. RUN NP wile: K wle- ‘a few four legged animals run’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 63. SALIVA NP silu:qs K slo:q’oks ‘to spit’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 64. SEE NP ʔ]sle:wK sleʔa ‘sees’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 66. SINEW NP pi:s K mboyč [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 69. SISTER-IN-LAW NP ci:ks ‘woman’s sister-in-law (voc.)’ K pč’igap ‘husband’s brothers’s wife’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 73. SMELL NP ti:we K sdigs [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 75. SPIDER NP XelXelu:ye K q’aljijiks [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 78. STRIKE NP wawyaK waw’i:na ‘strikes with a long instrument among’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 82. THIS 212

NP ki K ge: [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 83. THREE NP mita:t K ndan [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 85. TONGUE NP pe:ws K ba:wač [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 87. TWO NP lepit K la:p [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 91. WILLOW NP taXs K toq’s [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 97. YOU (PL.) NP ʔe:tx K ʔa:t [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV]

28. Proto-Japanese/Proto-Korean [Transeurasian] Note: This evaluation replaces that for Japanese/Korean reported in Brown (2017). Further evaluation focusing on sets limited to basic vocabulary yields the present results. Source of lexical sets: Martine Robbeets. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Geographic region: East Asia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets


Result 12



6 12 100 (12/12) 100 600 (6 x 100)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: PJ = Proto-Japanese, PK = Proto-Korean, RM = reflex meaning Correspondences series (6): PJ

PK

Supporting Sets

p

p

|150,|152,|166,|121,|124,|126,

t

t

|21,|144,|24,|25,

k

k

|25,|4,|126,|24, |125,

i

i

|152,|144,|124, |150,

a

a

|121,|4,|21,|126,|125,

a

o

|4,|24,|24,|166,

Comparative sets (12): 4. ‘open’ PJ akaPK ako (RM: ‘mouth, opening’) [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 21. PJ ta- ‘reach, come’, PK ta- ‘reach’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 24. ‘say’ PJ katarPK koto [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 214

25. ‘walk’ PJ katPK ketu[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 121. ‘tooth’ PJ pa PK pal [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 124. PJ poni(C)a ‘bone, skeleton, rib’ PK peCi ‘bone’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 125. PJ kami ‘head, hair on the head’, PK kama ‘hair on the head’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 126. PJ kapa ‘bark, skin, shell’ PK kap(o)h- ‘bark, skin, outer layer’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 144. ‘road’ PJ ti PK ti-h [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 150. PJ pi ‘sun’ PK picuk, picok ‘sun, light’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 152. ‘star’ PJ posi PK peli ‘star’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 166. ‘red’ PJ pa215

PK pol(o)k[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 29. Koguryo/Japanese [Koguryo-Japanese] Source of lexical sets: Christopher I. Beckwith. 2007. Koguryo: The Language of Japan’s Continental Relatives: An Introduction to the Historical-Comparative Study of JapaneseKoguryoic Languages. Brill’s Japanese Studies Library, 2nd Edition. Geographic region: East Asia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 40 14 17 42.5 (17/40) 42.5 595 (14 x 42.5)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: NJpn = New Japanese, OJpn = Old Japanese, OKog = Old Koguryo Correspondences series (14): OKog p p m m m ҫ t t n n r r r

OJpn p p m m s t t n n r r r

NJpn h m m

t n

r

Supporting Sets |2,|33,|34,|35,|37,|40,|46,|51, |36, |18,|20,|21,|22,|23,|30,|39, |19, |24,|25, |38,|39,|40, |41,|42, |46, |27,|28,|29,|30,|31,|31,|41, |32, |50, |21,|30,|33,|34, |14,|49, 216

r k k i i ia ia ia i i i ia ey ɨ ɨ a u u uə u u ʋ ʋ

r k k i i i e e e u u u i i i a ʋ ʋ u u u ʋ u

k i

e

u

o

u o u

|19, |5,|6,|8,|9,|12,|15,|37, |10,|13,|14,|16,|17, |6,|22,|23, |13,|17, |34,|49, |35, |36, |22, |2,|46, |25, |39, |8,|20,|21, |50, |9,|40, |5,|6,|18,|27,|28,|29,|30,|31,|33,|38,|39,|40,|41,|42, |15,|37, |10, |12, |51, |24, |32, |13,|16,|17,

Comparative sets (40): 2. OKog pi ‘verb derivational morpheme’ OJpn -pu- ‘verb derivational morpheme’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 5. OKog kan ‘head’ OJpn kabu ‘head’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 6. OKog katҫi ‘east’ OJpn pimukatҫi ‘east’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)]

217

8. OKog keyr ‘canine tooth’ OJpn ki ‘canine tooth’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 9. OKog kɨr ‘tree, wood’ OJpn ki ‘tree’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 10. OKog ku ‘child’ OJpn kʋ ‘child’ NJpn ko ‘child; small one, little’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 12. OKog kuər ‘rotten’ OJpn kut- ‘to rot’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 13. OKog kʋtsi ‘mouth’ OJpn *kuti, kuṭi ‘mouth’ NJpn kuchi ‘mouth’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 14. OKog kür, kɨr ‘heart’ OJpn kɨkɨrɨ, kükürü ‘heart’ NJpn kokoro 'heart [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 15. OKog kutsi ‘solid, thick; honest, sincere’ OJpn kʋ ‘thick, dense’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 16. OKog kʋɦɨy ‘swan, Cygnus bewicki’ OJpn kukupi ‘swan’ NJpn kugui [kuki ?] ‘swan’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 218

17. OKog kʋsi ‘roe-deer’ OJpn kudzika ‘roe-deer’ NJpn kujika ‘roe-deer’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 18. OKog makri, makari ‘true, correct, rightful’ OJpn ma ‘true, genuine [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 19. OKog mawr ‘round’ NJpn maru ‘round (thing), circle’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 20. OKog mey ‘water, river’ OJpn mi ‘water’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 21. OKog meyr ‘garlic’ OJpn *mira ‘leeks, Chinese chives, fragrant-flowered garlic’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 22. OKog miŋ ‘female, yin' OJpn me ‘female, mina ‘woman, female’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 23. OKog mir ‘three’ OJpn mi ‘three’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 24. OKog mur ‘roof-beam, bridge’ OJpn mune ‘roof-ridge beam’ NJpn mune ‘roof-ridge beam’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

219

25. OKog mutsi ‘section, festival’ OJpn maturi ‘festival, offering’ NJpn matsuri ‘festival, offering’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 27. OKog na ‘land, earth’ OJpn na- ‘earth’ (compounding form) [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 28. OKog na ‘in, inside’ OJpn na ‘inside, middle’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 29. OKog namey ‘long’ OJpn naga ‘long’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 30. OKog namur ‘lead (metal)’ OJpn namari ‘lead (metal)’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 31. OKog nan ‘seven’ OJpn nana ‘seven’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 32. OKog nʋ ‘land, earth OJpn nʋ ‘land, field, moor, plain’ NJpn no ‘land, field, moor, plain’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 33. OKog par ‘second growth paddy rice’ OJpn par- ‘to open up a new rice paddy’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 34. OKog piar ‘level, flat’ 220

OJpn pira ‘level, flat’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 35. OKog piar ‘-fold, times; layer’ OJpn pe ‘-fold, times; layer’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 36. OKog piar ‘apart, separate’ OJpn pe ‘apart, separate’ NJpn he ‘apart, separate’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 37. OKog puk ‘deep’ OJpn pʋka- ‘deep’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 38. OKog ҫa ‘abundant, flourishing, luxuriant, rich’ OJpn sa ‘abundance, luck, good fortune’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 39. OKog ҫamiar ‘cool’ OJpn samu ‘cool, cold’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 40. OKog ҫapɨy ‘red’ OJpn sapi ‘rust; to rust; red’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 41. OKog tan ‘valley’ OJpn tani ‘valley’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 42. OKog tar ‘mountain’ OJpn take, takɨy ‘high mountain, |mountain peak [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 221

46. OKog tawŋpi ‘to open’ OJpn təwŋpu, təŋpu- ‘to pass through, open’ NJpn tô(r-) ‘to pass through, open’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 49. OKog *tҫiar ‘silver’ OJpn tҫira-, tҫir, tҫirükan y ‘white’, sirökane ‘silver’ NJpn shira-, shiro ‘white’, shirogane ‘silver’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 50. OKog tҫɨri ‘north’ OJpn *tsiri, ✩siri ‘back, behind; rump, buttocks’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 51. OKog tҫüpu ‘long’ OJpn təŋpu ‘long (distance), far’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 30. Nara/Proto-Nyimang [Eastern Sudanic] Source of lexical sets: Claude Rilly. 2009. Le méroïtique et sa famille linguistique. Louvain-Paris-Dudley, MA: PEETERS Geographic region: Africa BWB results: Result type Abbreviation Result 1. Number of BWB comparative sets SETi 21 2. Number of BWB correspondence series CORi 11 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) BV 11 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage BVp 52.4 (11/21) 5. Basic-vocabulary index BVi 52.4 6. Composite index COMi 576.4 (11 x 52.4) Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: Nr = Nara (forms collected from several dialects and recorded by Claude Rilly) Ny = Proto-Nyima

222

Correspondences series (11): Nr b l n r k k g a au a a o

Ny b l ṱ r k ṱ g a a u i a

Supporting sets |38,|98,|140, |16,|38,|109,|110, |47,|48,|98, |2,|28,|42,|133,|144,|149, |18,|66,|142,|181, |110,|116b,|144, |47,|48,|127a,|178, |28,|38,|42,|66,|98,|98,|110,|127a,|140,|140,|142,|149,|178, |16, |18,|48,|133, |127a,|149,|181, |2,|109,|116b,

Comparative sets (21): 2. buy Nr toorNy tar[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 16. mouth Nr aulo Ny ŋal[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 18. to burn Nr kalNy k-us [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 28. sky Nr nara Ny ar[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 38. dance Nr balNy ṱe-bal 223

[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 42. two Nr ari, ariga Ny arma(g) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 47. give Nr nege ‘donne-lui’ Ny ṱVg ‘donne-moi’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 48. sleep Nr naaga ‘sommeil’ Ny ṱug[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 66. woman, wife Nr kade Ny kari [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 98. language, word Nr bana Ny baṱa [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 109. house Nr wŏl, wŏɽ Ny wal-i [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 110. eat Nr kal Ny ṱal [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 116b. climb Nr kool-, koorNy ṱan[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 127a. we 224

Nr agga Ny agi [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 133. bird Nr karba Ny wordu [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 140. father Nr abbaa Ny aba [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 142. little Nara niʃ-ka Ny ka-ti [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 144. fear Nr kori Ny ṱorV [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 149. rain Nr hara Ny ar-iŋV [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0) BV] 178. sterile (CHB: barren?) Nr mallaa-gu Ny nagVr [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 181. Nr kâm ‘thing’ Ny ki ‘thing’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

31. Seneca (Iroquoian)/Proto-Siouan [Iroquoian-Siouan] Source of lexical sets: Wallace L. Chafe. 1964. Another look at Siouan and Iroquoian. American Anthropologist 66:852-862. 225

Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 36 17 11 30.6 (11/36) 30.6 520.2 (17 x 30.6)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for genealogical relationship Abbreviations: SE = Seneca, PS = Proto-Siouan, RM = reflex meaning Correspondences series (17): SE

PS

Supporting Sets

t

t

|6,|25,|26,|37,|43,|54,

t

r

|8,|23,|29,

s

s

|9,|26,|27,

s

š

|17,|18,|40,|44,|45,

r

r

|14,|29,|34,|38,

k

k

|18,|32,|42,|45,|49,|50,|54,|64,

k

x

|8,|13,|29,

y

y

|7,|37,|44,|63,|67,

h

h

|13,|14,|46,|66,

h

x

|31,|36,|54,|62,

i

i

|6,|19,|23,|27,|36,

i

į

|66,

226

e

e

|1,|37,|38,|50,

e

a

|8,|43,

ę

ą

|14,|25,|42,|47,|49,|63,|67,

a

a

|1,|8,|17,|17,|26,|29,|32,|34,|40,|44,|62,

a

o

|7,|13,|26,|43,

ǫ

ų

|9,|19,|31,

o

a

|47,

ǫ

ą

|46,|50,|64,|66,

Comparative sets (36): 1. Again. Se (ʔ)are(ʔ) PS akhe [Evaluation: → 7 (4,2,1,0) 6. Bird. Se -jiʔtPS rit~rįt [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 7. Body. Se -yaʔ(t)PS yo [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 8. Burn. Se -atekPS arax [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1) BV] 9. Buttocks. Se -(hn)ǫʔshaPS ųse [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 13. Cough. 227

Se -(a)hsaʔkPS hoxp [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 14. Day. Se -hręʔ- 'become day' PS hrąp (RM: 'day') [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 17. Dirt, dirty. Se -stakwa(r)- 'dirt' PS šapa (RM: ‘dirty, black’). [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 18. Dish. Se -ksaPS kši [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 19. Do, make. Se -ǫniPS ų-ni (RM: ‘do, make’) PSI ų ~ųni [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 23. Feces. Se -iʔtaPS įre [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 25. Fly. Se -tęPS tʔą [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 26. Fog, Foggy. Se -shata- 'fog, mist' PS sota (RM: 'hazy, clouded,' 'foggy') [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 27. Foot. Se -(ah)siʔ(t)PS si 228

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 29. Fry. Se -ta-kiriʔ(t)PS ra-xere [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 31. Hear. Se -(at)hǫ(te)PS (ha-)xʔų [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 32. Hole. Se -oka(hrę(t)- 'make a hole' PS (xr)oka (RM: 'hole') [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 34. Hunt. Se -(at)ora(t)PS ore [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 36. Intensifier. Se -hjiPS xti~xtį [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 37. Know, heart. Se -yęte(ri)- 'know' PS yątke [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 38. Lake. Se -(nyota)rePS re [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 40. Lips. Se -skwa(r)PS špa (RM: ‘move the lips’) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 229

42. Move, etc. Se -kę(ri-st)- 'move' PS xką (RM: 'move,' 'move, stir,' 'lean on,' 'lean against') [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 43. Much. Se -(k)aʔtePS ota [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)) 44. Name. Se -yasPS yaš [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 45. Near. Se (to)sk(ę) PS (a)šk(a) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 46. Night. Se -(a)hsǫ(t)PS hą [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 47. Now. Se (ʔ)onę(h) PS waną [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 49. Old. Se -kę(hji)PS ką [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 50. Person. Se -ǫkwePS wąkwe [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 54. Saturate. Se -(ǫ)koht230

PS kaxt(ą) [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 62. Tie. Se -hwah(r)- 'tie around' PS phax(ta) (RM: 'tie up in a bundle') [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 63. Tobacco. Se -yęʔ(kw)PS yą(ni) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 64. Us. Se -ǫkPS wąk[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 66. Woman. Se -ihǫPS wįhą PSI wįhǫ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 67. Wood. Se -yę(t)PS yą [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

32. Thai (Tai-Kadai)/Proto-Indonesian (Austronesian) [Austro-Tai] Source of lexical sets: Paul K. Benedict. 1942. Thai, Kadai, and Indonesian: A new alignment in Southeastern Asia. American Anthropologist 44:576-601. Geographic region: Southeast Asia and adjoining areas BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 231


Result 11 7 8 72.7 (8/11)


BVi COMi

72.7 508.9 (7 x 72.7)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Abbreviations Th = Thai, In = Proto-Indonesian (modern Malayo-Polynesian) Correspondences series (7): Th

In

Supporting Sets

m

m

|5,|20,|22,

t

t

|11,|24,|28,|28,

n

n

|2,|5,|8,|15,|27,

k

k

|8,|27,|29,

a

ǝ

|15,|20,|22,

u

u

|2,|11,|29,

o

u

|8,|24,|28,

Comparative sets (11): 2. moon Th Ҍluan IN bulan [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 5. water Th nam In danum [Evaluation: 6 (4,2,1,0) BV] 8. bird Th nok In manuk [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0) BV] 11. door 232

Th tu In pintuɁ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 15. tooth Th van In Ɂipǝn [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 20. fat, oil Th man ‘fat, oil’ In mǝńak ‘fat’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 22. black Th đam In Ɂi(n)tǝm [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 24. blind Th Ҍot In butaɁ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 27. eat Th kin In kaɁn [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 28. flatus ventris Th tot In Ɂǝ(n)tut [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 29. I (pejorative) Th ku In ɁakuɁ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV]

33. Uto-Aztecan/Proto-Tanoan [Aztec-Tanoan]

233

Source of lexical sets: B. L. Whorf and G. L. Trager. 1937. The relationship of Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan. American Anthropologist 39:609-624. Geographic region: Middle and North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 16 9 9 56.3 (9/16) 56.3 506.7 (9 x 56.3)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Abbreviations: UA = Uto-Aztecan (reconstructed by Whorf), PT = Proto-Tanoan (reconstructed by Trager), RM = Reflex meaning Correspondences series (9): UA

PT

Supporting Sets

p

p

|38,|39,|61,

w

w

|6,|31,|51,|56,|57,|58,|61,

k

k’

|18,|19,|56,

k

y

|9,|49,|59,

y

y

|27,|58,|61,|62,

i

i

|27,|31,|56,|59,

ĕ

e

|49,

e

e

|9,

ex

ẽ

|49,

en

ẽ

|57,

ă

a

|61,

234

a

a

|6,|6,|59,

a

o

|6,|18,|19,|38,|39,|51,|62,

ax

o

|56,

Comparative sets (16): 6. ‘squirrel’ UA cawaLa-Nwe PT c’owala [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 9. ‘foot’ UA kena PT iyen [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 18. ‘rest in place, sit, lie’ UA ka PT k’o [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 19. ‘neck’ UA kura PT k’əwo [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 27. ‘take, get, pick up’ UA kwiyi PT xwiya [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 31. ‘woman’ UA siwPT Liw[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 38. ‘older brother’ UA pa PT po [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 39. ‘three’ 235

UA pahi PT poyuwo [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 49. ‘cut’ UA tĕkexPT t’eyẽ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 51. ‘sun, day’ UA tawa PT t‘ow[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 56. ‘be dry, wasted, thin’ UA waxki PT wok’i RM: ‘thin’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 57. ‘comb, brush’ UA wen- (RM: (in addition to the above) ‘feather’) PT wẽ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 58. ‘two’ UA woye PT wiyi [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 59. ‘hoe’ UA wika PT xwiya [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 61. ‘sleep UA yăxpewi PT yapiw [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 62. ‘sing’ UA yaPT yo[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)]

34. Atakapa/Chitimacha [Atakapa-Chitimacha] 236

Source of lexical sets: Morris Swadesh. 1946. Phonologic formulas for Atakapa-Chitimacha. International Journal of American Linguistics 12:113-132. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 67 26 13 19.4 (13/67) 19.4 504.4 (26 x 19.4)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact Abbreviations: A = Atakapa, C = Chitimacha Correspondences series (26): A

C

Supporting Sets

p

p

|4,|31,|32,|33,|35,|37,|108,|124,

p

b

|40,|41,|42,|43,

m m |31,|46,|47,|49, w w |28,|29,|114, w y

|53,|132,|133,

t

t

|52,|53,|54,|56,|59,|59,|85,

n

n

|66,|67,|68,|71,|72,|77,|80,|81,|115,|127,|146,

l

n

|85,|86,|130,

l

y

|35,|94,|95,

c

š

|47,|71,|101,|113,

c

J

|14,|100,|102,|106,|108,|109,|110,

237

š

š

|3,|28,|59,|101,|108,|109,|111,|112,|114,|115,

š

č

|122,|140,|146,

k

k

|49,|54,|101,|109,|110,|121a,|122,|124,|126,|127,|128,|130,|132,|133,|135,|136,|137,|140,

k

g

|66,|67,|106,|141,|146,|147,|151,|152,

h

ʔ

|29,|33,|52,

h

h

|11,|13,|14,|15,|152,

i

i

|14,|66,|111,|112,|121a,|122,|146,

i

e

|13,|15,|101,|115,|127,

i

u

|3,|11,|124,

e

e

|14,|53,|54,|72,|127,|128,|141,

e

i

|40,|68,|100,|113,|114,|126,

e

a

|31,|32,|85,

a

a

|4,|29,|33,|35,|41,|46,|47,|77,|94,|95,|102,|106,|132,|133,|146,

o

a

|28,|42,|80,|81,|86,|108,|109,|135,|136,|137,|147,

o

e

|37,|43,|56,|110,|140,|151,

Comparative sets (67): Note: The following 67 BWB sets are from original comparative sets from Swadesh (1946). This list contains only those BWB sets among the first 153 listed by Swadesh. Altogether Swadesh presents 240 sets. Sets numbered from 154-240 are secondary, described as involving ‘special problems of form’ (no. 154-187), ‘divergent meanings’ (nos. 188-219), ‘inferred meanings’ (nos. 220-235), and ‘miscellaneous’ (236-240). 3. A iš- ‘us’ C ʔuš ‘we, us’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 4. A ap ‘here, this way’ C ʔap ‘preverb ‘coming here, this way’ 238

[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 11. A hiš ‘to plant’ C huwi ‘to plant [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 13. A hiwew ‘holy’ C heJin ‘holy, taboo’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 14. A heyciŋ ‘ten’ C heyJi ‘ten’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 15. A hišan ‘parent-in-law’ C hestma ‘father-in-law, step-father’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 28. A woš ‘hand, finger’ C waši ‘arm, hand’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 29. A wahš ‘uncle’ C waʔ ‘maternal uncle’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 31. A pem ‘to shoot’ C pa:hma- ‘to shoot’ (-ma- perhaps plural) [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 32. A pec ‘tired’ C pa:kine- tired’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 33. 239

A hapalst ‘two’ C ʔupa ‘two’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 35. A ipal ‘nearby, beside C paye ‘side, beside’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 37. A popo ‘ribbon’ C pe:špe:šn ‘very thin, ribbin’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 40. A pew ‘to swell’ C bis- ‘swell’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 41. A palpal ‘flat, level’ C bakbakniš ‘flat’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 42. A hiponiš ‘to fold’ C bašte- ‘to bend over, fold’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 43. A pol ‘to float’ C bekste- to float’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 46. A ma ‘yon’ C ma-nki ‘yonder’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 47. A maciwa ‘housefly’ C mašku ‘housefly’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 240

49. A temak ‘knee’ C mokun ‘knee’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 52. A tehop ‘hole (in garments, etc.)’ C tuʔu ‘hole’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 53. A itew ‘to ride horseback, to sit’ C tey- ‘to sit, dwell’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 54. A tektekš ‘speckled’ C tektekmam ‘speckled’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 56. A –to ‘suffix for imperative plural C te ‘postposition for plite imperative [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 59. A ketošt, akitoš ‘frog’ Ch tuštu ‘toad’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 66. A nikš ‘gum’ C nigi ‘gum’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 67. A hanik, tanuk ‘one’ C ʔungu ‘one’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 68. A –ne ‘instrumental suffix’ 241

C –niš ‘agentive suffix’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 71. A nagcnaŋ ‘a kind of turtle’ C ne:pš ‘a kind of turtle’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 72. A ne ‘land’ C ney ‘land’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 77. A nal ‘to hunt’ C našma- ‘to hunt’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 80. A nokiš ‘to lie down’ C nadi- ‘to lie down’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 81. A nomš ‘child’ C nahibu ‘child’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 85. A alešt, alš ‘ice’ C nakt ‘ice’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 86. A lomš ‘to peel’ C nakt- ‘to skin, peel’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 94. A hilakš ‘tired, lazy, tired of’ C ya:mte- ‘to get tired of’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

242

95. A lalec, lak ‘strong, hard, quick’ C yaʔi ‘strong’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 100. A haceyeš ‘bad’ C Jiw- ‘bad’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 101. A cišk ‘glad, pleased’ C šeška ‘pleased’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 102. A camps, akcaw ‘cold, cool, chilly’ C Jaki ‘cold’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 106. A cak ‘to chew’ C Jagumt- ‘to chew’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 108. A copcopš ‘spotted’ C JahapšJin ‘spotted’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 109. A cokcokš ‘rough’ C Jakšgu ‘rough’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 110. A cok ‘blackbird’ C Jekt ‘red-winged blackbird’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 111. A ši ‘smoke’ C šičt ‘smoke’ 243

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 112. A šit ‘gray moss’ C si:c ‘dried Spanish moss’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 113. A hacewan ‘to forget’ C šiki- ‘to forget’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 114. A šew ‘gum tree’ C šiw ‘gum tree’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 115. A šiwon ‘lake’ C še:ni ‘pond’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 121a. A –kin ‘in, at’ C –nki, ki ‘suffix and postposition at in’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 122. A kiš ‘woman’ C kiča ‘woman’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 124. A kipacu ‘gourd’ C kupu ‘gourd’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 126. A kec ‘left’ C ki:s ‘left’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 127. 244

A hatakineŋ ‘string of beads’ C kenehčp ‘beads’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 128. A keck ‘liver’ C kesi ‘liver’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 130. A akiwilš ‘master, White man, Frenchman’ C ka:nuš ‘master, White man, Frenchman’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 132. A kaw ‘to awake’ C kap kayi- ‘to awake (kap preverb up)’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 133. A kawkaw ‘to rain’ C kaya ‘rain’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0) BV] 135. A ko ‘basket’ C ka:kt ‘double-weave basket’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 136. A koŋ neš ‘hackberry’ (neš ‘tree’) C kamu, kam ‘hackberry’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 137. A kon ‘garfish’ C ka:stp ‘garfish’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 140. A koš ‘bend of river, inlet, corner’ C ni kečt ‘bend in river or road’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 245

141. A keš ‘deep’ C gewi ‘deep’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 146. A kanšinkš ‘live oak’ C gahčin ‘live oak’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 147. A koŋ ‘to take, seize’ C gapt- ‘to take seize’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 151. A koy ‘throat, neck, to speak’ C geʔ ‘neck of animal’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 152. A ko, kohš ‘to want’ C giht- to want’, -ga ‘suffix I want’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

35. Timucua/Warao [Timucua-Warao] Source of lexical sets: Julian Granberry. 1993. A Grammar and Dictionary of the Timucua Language, Third Edition. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. Geographic region: North and South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average 246


Result 30 16 9 30 (9/30) 30 480 (16 x 30)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact Abbreviations: T = Timucua, W = Warao Correspondences series (16): T

W

Supporting Sets

b

b

|29,|32,|36,|37,|40,

t

t

|3,|4,|43,

n

n

|6,|26,|27,|28,|29,|31,|36,|38,|40,

r

r

|1,|2,|18,|22,|30,|43,

s

s

|4,|9,|15,

(unvoiced velar stop )

k

|2,|7,|14,|24,|25,|30,|35,|44,

qu (unvoiced velar stop)

k

|7,

h

h

|12,|23,||29,|31,|38,|42,|44,

i

i

|2,|9,|40,

i

a

|27,|28,|37,|43,

i

ai

|31,

a

a

|3,|14,|18,|18,|22,|23,|29,|37,|42,|44,|44,

a

ai

|4,

a

ao

|6,

a

ae

|43,

a

i

|22,|31,|35,|36,

u

u

|3,|7,|35,

u

o

|2,|15,|25,|32,

o

o

|12,|24,|24,|26,|29,

o

u

|1,|38,|38,

c

247

o

i

|2,|9,|27,

Comparative sets (30): 1. ALLIGATOR T itori W ruru-ruru [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 2. ANGER T yurico W oriki [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 3. ARROW T atulu W atabu [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 4. ATTACK T utasi W ataihase [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 6. COME T naW nao[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 7. COVER T cuque W kuku[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 9. DEVIL T miso W misi[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 12. EAT T ho W ho248

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 14. EQUAL T eca W mon-uka [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 15. EXCREMENT T asu-rupa W so [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 18. FINISH T bara W yiwara [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 22. HARVEST T abara W ari[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 23. HAVE T haW ha[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 24. HEAR T ocoto W noko [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 25. HEART/BREAST T cume W kobe [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 26. HUNGER T hono W noho [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 27. I 249

T ho-ni-he W ina [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 28. KILL T nihi W na[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 29. KNOW/UNDERSTAND T nahiabo W nahobo [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1) BV] 30. LIGHT T caro W o-kera [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 31. LOSE T hani W hahinai [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 32. LOVE T huba W obo[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 35. MOON T acu W waniku [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 36. T nariba ‘old man’ W nibora ‘man’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 37. T abi ‘put on’ W aba ‘put’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 250

38. T hono-sta ‘shellfish’ W hunu ‘shrimp’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 40. SLOW T beni W abani [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 42. STOP T hani W ha[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 43. STRONG T tari W taera [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 44. WIND T aca, haca W haka [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)]

36. Proto-Khoe/Kwadi [Khoe-Kwadi] Source of lexical sets: Tom Güldemann and Edward D. Elderkin. 2010. On external genealogical relationships of the Khoe family. In Brenzinger, Matthias and Christa König (eds.), Khoisan Languages and Linguistics: the Riezlern Symposium 2003. Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung 17. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe. Geographic region: Africa BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 251

Abbreviation SETi CORi BV BVp BVi

Result 19 8 11 57.9 (11/19) 57.9

6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average

COMi

463.2 (8 x 57.9)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Abbreviations: PKh = Proto-Khoe, Kw = Kwadi Correspondences series (8): PKh

Kw

Supporting comparative sets

m

m

|13,|18,|27,|32,|35,|58,

r

l

|4,|10,|28,

k

x

|35,|36, |37,

ʔ (’)

ʔ (’)

|3,|30,|32,|50,|51,

|

|

|20,|43,|44,|45,

a

a

|10,|10,|18,|27,|36,|37,|51,

a

A

|44,|45,

au

au

|30,

a

o

|4,|43,

ao

o

|3,

u

u

|13,|28,

U

U

|50,

U

u

|58,

ui

ui

|20,

Comparative sets (19): 3. PKh ’ao, ‘blood’ Kw ’o, ‘blood’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 4. 252

PKh kx’aro ‘boy’ Kw kolo ‘boy’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 10. PKh tara ‘female’ Kw tala ‘females’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 13. PKh kum ‘hear’ Kw kum ‘hear’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 18. PKh kx’am ‘mouth’ Kw kx’ami ‘mouth’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 20. PKh |ui ‘one’ Kw |ui ‘one’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 27. PKh dam ‘tongue’ Kw tame- ‘tongue’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 28. PKh kuri ‘year’ Kw kuli- ‘year’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 30. PKh ||’au ‘fish’ Kw ’au- ‘fish’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 32. PKh ||’om ‘sleep Kw ’mu ‘sleep, lie down’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 253

35. PKh kam ‘penis’ Kw xami ‘penis’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 36. PKh ka ‘want’ Kw xa ‘want’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 37. PKh ku(a) ‘zebra’ Kw xwa- ‘zebra’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 43. PKh |xabu ‘star’ Kw |xo- ‘star’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 44. PKh |am ‘two’ Kw |A ‘two’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 45. PKh |xam ‘urinate’ Kw |hA- ‘urinate’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 50. PKh ’yU ‘eat’ Kw ’ɲU ‘eat’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 51. PKh ’yam ‘top (of)’ Kw ’ɲa: ‘top (of)’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 58. PKh mU ‘see’ 254

Kw mun- ‘see’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV]

37. Proto-Eskimo/Aleut [Eskimo-Aleut] Source of lexical sets: Michael Fortescue, Steven Jacobson, and Lawrence Kaplan. 2010. Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates. Fairbanks: University of Alaska. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 107 28 16 NA 16 448.0 (28 x 16)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact Abbreviations: A = Aleut, PE = Proto-Eskimo, RM = reflex meaning Correspondences series (28): PE p m v ð t t t 1 n c c

A h m m ð t ð c 1 n c s

Supporting Sets |102,|189,191,|192,|195,|202,|203,|208,|210, |155,|161,|255,|279,|296, |64,|81,|140,|148,|152,|208,|225,|304, |3,|32,|66,|86, |181,|182,|189,|232,|233,|302, |41,|42,|42, |90,|115,|124,|191,|259, |261,|264, |272,|274,|291, |39,|79,|145, |77,|255,|269,|277,|279,|280,|282, |1,|71,|109,|110,|124,|161,|163, |247,|255,|277, |291,|293, |23,|25,|125,|126,|142,|165,|166,|187,|188,|218, |280,|297,|298, |60,|66,|67,|79,|81,|84, |57,|64,|65,|71,|77,|203,|284,

255

q

q

ʀ ʀ ʀ k

ʀ ɣ X k

ŋ ɣ

ŋ ɣ

y i

y i

i i 3 3 3 a

a u a i u a

u

u

u

a

104,|119, |191,|218,|219,|220,|220,|222,|225,|226,|232,|233,|235, |237,|238, |240,|241,|243,|247,|282, |25,|125,|222,|261,|297,|302, |1,|182,|235, |50,|210,|259, |57,|124,|125,|126,|128,|134,|136,|140,|142,|144,|145,|146, |148, |151,|152,|153,|169,|264, |26,|28,|30,|31,|97,|115,|116,|128,|144,|176,|202,|237,|269, |3,|9,|10,|66,|71,|90,|135,|136,|153, |182,|183, |187,|195,|235,|247,|286,|293,|294, |50,|65,|126,|134,|153,|192, |210,|226,|261,|305, |9,|10,|57,|64,|66,|67,|77,|79,|81,|109,|110,|116,|119,|119,|142,144,|145,|146, |148,|181,|182,|183, |187, |202,|218,|232,|233,|235, |237,|238,|241,|284,|286,|298, |32,|247,|296, |115,|203,|240, |32,|71,|86,|124,|128, |135,|191, |291, |60,|136,|195, |264,|279, |28, |115,|140,|163,|240,|247,|261, |1,|3,|9,|10,|23,|23,|25,|26,|28, |30,|31, |39,|39, |41,|41,|42,|42,|42, |50,|50,|57,|60,|64,|65,|66, |97,|109, |124,|125.|125,|126,|126, |128,|134,|135,|155, |165,|166,|169,|169,|176,|188,|189, |191,|192,|192, |218,|219,|220,|222,|222, |225,|226,|232,|237,|237,|255,|259, |261, |269,|277,|294,|304, |50,|65,|79,|84,|90,|102, |110,|134,|151,|152,|153, |163,|181,|187, |202,|203, |208,|210,|210, |243,|247,|255,|261, |272,|274,|280,|280, |282,|284,|286,|291,|291, |293,|294,|294,|296,|297,|298, |302,|302, |305, |30,|31,|41,|182,|183,|188,|235,|277,

Comparative sets (107): 1. PE a(C)aʀluɣ ‘killer whale’ A aɣlu-χ ‘killer whale’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 3. PE aðɣiʀ ‘roast’ A aðaɣ- ‘roast over open fire’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 256

9. PE aɣiɣ ‘file or rub’ A aɣiʀ ‘rub, be rubbed (e.g. boat against dock)’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 10. PE aɣittaʀ ‘open mouth’ A aɣi- ‘open (mouth, eyes, clams, etc.)’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 23. PE ana(a)na ‘older female relative’ (RM: ‘maternal aunt’) A ana-χ ‘mother, mother’s sister’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 25. PE anǝʀ- ‘breath (out) A anʀ(i) ‘breathe, blow’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 26. PE a(a)ŋ ‘yes (here you are)’ A aaŋ ‘yes’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 28. PE aŋǝ- ‘be big’ A aŋuna-χ ‘big, be big, much’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 30. PE aŋuðaʀ- ‘paddle’ A aŋaaʀu-χ ‘single-bladed paddle for skin boat’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 31. PE aŋuyaɣ(-) ‘enemy, wage war’ A aŋaðuuti-χ ‘enemy, war’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 32. PE aqǝðɣiʀ ‘ptarmigan’ A aŋaðiika-χ ‘ptarmigan’ 257

[Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 39. PE ata ‘father’ A aða-χ ‘father’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 41. PE ataʀuciʀ ‘one’ A ataqan ‘one’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 42. PE ata(a)ta ‘older male relative’ (RM: ‘father’) A taata-χ ‘father, dad’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 50. PE ayaʀuʀ ‘walking stick’ A ayaχu-χ ‘walking stick’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 57. PE caki(C)aɣ ‘rib cage’ A sakiix ‘rib, ribs’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 60. PE capǝ- ‘block’ A camit- ‘to block, obstruct...’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 64. PE caviɣ ‘knife’ A saami-χ ‘stone knife’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 65. PE cayuɣ- ‘pull or twitch’ A sayu ‘pull’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 66. 258

PE ciðaɣ- ‘spread out’ (RM: ‘stretch or straighten out’) A ciðaɣ- ‘stretch’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 67. PE ciɣǝðquʀ ‘knee’ A ciðiɣi-χ ‘knee’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 71. PE cilǝɣ- ‘be thick or wide’ A slaɣ- ‘be wide’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 77. PE citamat ‘four’ A siciŋ ‘four’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 79. PE citu- ‘slide down’ A ciðu- ‘set, go down (sun), slide down’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 81. PE civvur ‘wring out’ A cimiɣlu-, civilu- ‘wring out’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 84. PE culaɣ ‘root (edible)’ A cuq(i)- ‘root, bottom, area beneath’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 86. PE aðǝ ‘eye’ A ða-χ ‘eye’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV) 90. PE ǝɣut- ‘pierce’ A ɣut- ‘put through, pierce’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 259

97. PE ǝƚ(ǝ)ŋa ‘he or she’ A ŋaaŋ ‘to him, her’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 102. PE ǝpu ‘handle’ A hutu-χ ‘handle’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 109. PE ila(-) ‘part’ A ila ‘part (of something)’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 110. PE ilu ‘inside’ A ilu- ‘inside’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 115. PE iŋǝt- ‘sit down’ A uŋut ‘sit down, be seated’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 116. PE iŋqiʀ ‘louse nit’ A hiŋala-s ‘nit, louse egg’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 119. PE iqǝ(ʀ) ‘corner of mouth’ A iiqi-χ ‘(inside) corner’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 124. PE kalǝɣ, kalǝt- ‘tow or drag’ A kalat- ‘drag along ground’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 125. PE kanaʀ- ‘fall over (headlong)’ 260

A kanaʀ- ‘fall headlong, bow’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 126. PE kannuyaʀ ‘copper’ A kanu(u)ya-χ ‘copper’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 128. PE kaŋǝʀ ‘top’ A kaŋ(a)- ‘top’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 134. PE kayu- ‘be strong’ A kayu-χ ‘strength, muscle’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 135. PE kǝɣaɣ- ‘do fast’ A xaðaɣ- ‘move or walk fast’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 136. PE kǝɣǝ ‘bite’ A kiɣ ‘bite’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1) BV] 140. PE kǝvǝɣ- ‘lift’ A kumsi- ‘lift’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 142. PE ki(na) ‘who’ A kiin ‘who’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 144. PE kiŋu ‘area behind or after’ (RM: ‘time after’) A kiŋ- ‘time after, younger sibling’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

261

145. PE kit- ‘sink’ A kiðuɣ ‘sink, become submerged’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 146. PE kitŋiɣ ‘lowbush cranberry’ A kiŋða-χ ‘crowberry bush...’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 148. PE kivǝ- ‘sink or settle’ A kim- ‘sink, go down’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 151. PE kuvðaʀ ‘net’ A kuðmaci-χ ‘seine net’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 152. PE kuvǝ- ‘pour or spill’ A kum- ‘pour out’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 153. PE kuyaɣ ‘lumbar vertebra or keel of boat’ A kuyɣi-χ ‘loin vertebra, rump bone of bird’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 155. PE mamǝ- ‘close over or heal’ A ham- ‘heal, be healed’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 161. PE mǝlquʀ ‘body hair (or fur) or feather’ A imli-χ ‘hair of head’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 163. PE mulǝ(ɣ) ‘nipple or tip’ A huluχ ‘nipple, teat (woman’s)’ 262

[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 165. PE na-, na(a)ɣɣa ‘no’ A naŋaa ‘no’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 166. PE na- ‘where’ A qana- where, which’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 169. PE nakacuɣ ‘bladder’ A taka-χ ‘swim bladder, codfish bladder’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 176. PE nǝŋa(C)u(ɣ) ‘son- or brother-in-law’ A ŋaru-x ‘son-in-law’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 181. PE niðuʀ- ‘suck in or inhale’ A iðut- ‘sniff, inhale’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 182. PE niɣǝðuʀ- ‘drill’ A iɣðaɣ ‘drill into’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,0,1)] 183. PE niɣu- ‘get or take out’ A iɣa- ‘get out (of boat, etc.)...’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 187. PE nuɣiʀ ‘three-pronged bird spear’ A nuɣi-s ‘three-pronged bird dart’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 188. 263

PE nuna ‘land’ A tana-χ ‘land...earth...’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 189. PE paðǝ ‘opening or entrance’ A haðɣ-iχ ‘channel, narrow entrance to bay’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 191. PE paqǝt- ‘(go and) find’ A haqat- ‘find, come across, learn...’ Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 192. PE pay(y)a(ɣ)- ‘be unsteady or weak’ A hayamða- ‘be unsteady’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 195. PE pǝɣlǝʀ- ‘bounce or jump up’ A hiɣit- ‘to jump, make a jump’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 202. PE piŋu- ‘push (over)’ A hiŋu ‘push’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 203. PE puci- ‘lie face down’ A husuɣ- ‘lie prostrate’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 208. PE puvǝ- ‘swell’ A hum- ‘inflate, swell’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 210. PE puyuʀ ‘smoke’ A huyuχ ‘smoke, steam’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,0,1) BV] 264

218. PE qaniɣ ‘falling snow’ A qaniix ‘snow’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) 219. PE qaŋa ‘when (in past)’ A qnayaam ‘when’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 220. PE qaqðar ‘loon’ A qaqaχ ‘Arctic loon’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 222. PE qaʀa- ‘dance or have fun’ A qaʀaðuuɣ- ‘dance (men)’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 225. PE qavlu(ʀ) ‘eyebrow’ A qami-x ‘eyebrows’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 226. PE qayaʀ ‘kayak’ A iqya-χ ‘kayak’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 232. PE qiða- ‘cry’ A qiða- ‘cry’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 233. PE qiðǝʀ ‘grey hair’ A qiðaayu-s ‘grey hair’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 235. PE qiɣuʀ- ‘cut hair’ 265

A qiɣaɣ- ‘cut, mow’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,0,1)] 237. PE qilaŋŋaʀ ‘puffin’ A qizaŋa-χ ‘ancient murrelet’ [Evaluation: 12 (10,2,0,0)] (Note: Both types of bird are Alcids.) 238. PE qiLǝʀ- ‘tie’ A qisat- ‘tie’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 240. PE qipǝ- ‘twist’ A qumu- ‘twist, be twisted’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 241. PE qiʀuya- ‘feel cold’ A qiŋana- ‘be cold’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 243. PE qu(C)aɣðuɣ ‘ridge or edge’ A quɣðu-χ ‘edge, ridge’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 247. PE quɣǝlŋiʀ ‘sorrel or sourdock’ A quuɣulnaaða-χ ‘sourgrass’ [Evaluation: 15 (12,2,1,0)] 255. PE tamlu ‘chin’ A camlu- ‘chin’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 259. PE taʀǝʀ(-) ‘(be) dark’ A taχt- ‘get dark’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)]

266

261. PE taʀ(ǝ)yuʀ ‘salt’ A taʀayu-χ ‘salt’ [Evaluation: 15 (12,2,1,0)] 264. PE tǝkǝʀ ‘index finger’ A tikla-χ ‘middle finger’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 269. PE taŋaɣ, tǝŋǝ ‘public hair’ A cŋa-χ ‘fur, body hair’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 272. PE tucaʀ- ‘hear or understand’ A tut- ‘hear, get to hear’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 274. PE tuɣǝkaʀ(aʀ) ‘(walrus) tusk’ A tumɣa-χ ‘ivory, walrus tusk’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 277. PE tulaɣ- ‘land (come ashore)’ A cala- ‘land, come ashore’ [Evaluation: 9 (8,2,1,0)] 279. PE tumǝ ‘tract or footprint’ A cimi-χ ‘tract, footprint’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 280. PE tunu ‘back’ A cunu-χ ‘back of neck’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 282. PE tuqlu(ɣ), tuqluʀ ‘windpipe’ A cuqa- ‘throat, shout’ 267

[Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 284. PE uci ‘load’ A husi-χ ‘load’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 286. PE uɣi ‘husband’ A uɣi-χ ‘husband’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 291. PE ulǝt- ‘turn inside out’ A ulat- ‘turn inside out’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 293. PE uluɣ- ‘soften skin by rubbing’ A uliɣ- ‘rub (a hide)’ [Evaluatiton: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 294. PE uƚuɣaɣ ‘cheek’ A uluɣa-χ ‘cheek’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 296. PE umciɣ ‘be airtight or watertight’ A umna- ‘be watertight, leakproof’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 297. PE unǝʀ ‘armpit’ A unʀ-im sitx-a ‘armpit’ (Note sitx- ‘under’) [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 298. PE univkaʀaʀ ‘story’ A uniika-χ ‘tale’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 302. 268

PE uʀðuʀ ‘moss’ A uʀðu-χ ‘moss’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 304. PE uvva ‘here (you are)’ A ma ‘demonstrative...”motional” in the sense of being shown by the speaker’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 305. PE uya(quʀ) ‘neck’ A uyu-χ ‘neck’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV]

38. Seri/Cocopa (Yuman) [Hokan] Note: BWB evaluation benefited from a review by Steven A. Marlett for which I am grateful. Source of lexical sets: Judith G. Crawford. 1976. Seri and Yuman. In Hokan Studies, Margaret Langdon and Shirley Silver, eds., pp. 305-324. The Hague: Mouton. Geographic region: Mexico and Arizona BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 27 12 10 37.03 (10/27) 37.03 444.4 (12 x 37.03)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: S = Seri, Co = Cocopa Correspondences series (12): S p m

Co p m

Supporting Sets |20,|33,|37,|38, |1,|42,|44,|52,|60,|72, 269

t t s s k i e a a o

y r ṣ š k i a a u u

|6,|31,|54,|80,|86,|89,|90, |37,|42,|57,|59, |23,|45|47,|59, |42,|55,|62, |6,|9,|14,|22,|22,|53,|89,|90, |23,|53,|55,|59, |1,|38,|54,|72, |6,|9,|14,|33,|44,|52,|60,|62,|86, |20,|47,|89,|90, |20,|22,|22,|31,|37,|57,|59,

Comparative sets (27): 1. agave S ʔeme Co mʔaly [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 6. bone S itak Co ya:k [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 9. brother, older S ʔikkaaš Co kasa[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 14. child S ʔi-kaak ‘daughter’s child’ Co xka: ‘daughter’s son’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 20. S ʔapox ‘digging stick’ Co u:pun ‘hoe’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 22. dove S koyoko Co lku:ku:ʔa 270

[Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 23. drink, to S kissi Co ṣi [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 31. eye S ʔa-to Co ʔiyu [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 33. father’s father S ʔi-paš Co kwinypa: [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 37. full S kpokt Co čpu:r [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 38. good S kiipe Co pxway [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 42. jealous S kasamikt Co šimkwir [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 44. land S ʔant, ʔamt, ʔamat Co maṭ ‘earth’ (meaning reported in Crawford’ [1989] dictionary) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 47. liver S iyas Co nyčpuṣu [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 52. mother’s father 271

S ʔi-maš Co nyima [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 53. mother, mother’s S ʔi-ikt Co nyika: [Evaluation: 9 (4,2,1,0)] 54. mouth S ʔa-teen Co i:ya [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 55. name, to S ʔataasi Co ši [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 57. prepare, to S ka-tʔo Co čirʔuy [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 59. S k-ossiit ‘rattle (a snake)’ Co nyiku:ṣi:r ‘rattlers (snake)’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 60. ripe S kwąm, kmam Co mač [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 62. rotten S kasa Co šax [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 72. sky S ʔamime Co ma:ły [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 272

80. sweet S koatw Co miyu:lq [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 86. tooth S ʔa-taast Co nyiyawi: ‘his tooth’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 89. vomit, to S kattaaxk Co yu:k [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 90. wash, to S kattaaxk Co yu:k [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)]

39. Proto-Japanese/Proto-Mongolic [Transeurasian] Source of lexical sets: Martine Robbeets. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Geographic region: Asia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 30 17 7 23.3 (7/30) 23.3 396.1 (17 x 23.3)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact Abbreviations: PJ = Proto-Japanese, PMo = Proto-Mongolic 273

Correspondences series (17): PJ

PMo

Supporting Sets

p

b

|10,|32,|61,

np

b

|25,|38,

m

m

|14,|23,|40,|64,

t

t

|2,|10,|46,|46,|71,

t

d

|42,|64,|74,

s

s

|18,|38,|39,|40,|41,|52,|96,

r

r

|16,|27,|67,|83,

k

k

|13,|13,|14,|16,|18,|48,|96,

k

g

|4,|11,|39,|41,|42,|56,|66,|74,|86,

i

i

|16,|38,|39,|40,|42,|96,

a

a

|4,|11,|13,|13,|16,|42,|56,|66,|66,|71,

a

e

|10,|14,|40,|74,

a

u

|48,|67,

a

ui

|4,

u

o

|27,|41,|56,|86,

u

u

|41,|48,|52,|67,|96,

u

ui

|39,

o

ü

|18,|64,|83,

o

e

|2,|14,|23,|25,

o

a

|32,|46,|61,|61,

Comparative sets (30): 2. PJ to- ‘that’ (demonstrative pronoun of the distal plan) 274

PMo te- ‘that’ (demonstrative pronoun of the distal plan) [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 4. PJ aka- ‘open’ PMo agui ‘opening’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 10. PJ puta- ‘cover, stop up’ PMo büte- ‘cover, stop up’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 11. PJ ka- ‘go away ’ PMo gar- ‘go out’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 13. PJ kaka- ‘break off’ PMo kaka- ‘break, tear off’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 14. PJ kamo- ‘bite, chew’ PMo kemeli- ‘gnaw, bite’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] BV] 16. PJ kira- ‘cut’ PMo kira- ‘mince, cut small’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 18. PJ kos- ‘wish’ PMo küse- ‘wish’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 23. PJ mora- ‘become full, satiated’ PMo mel- ‘(be) full’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0] BV]

275

25. PJ nonpa- > nonpo- ‘make long and wide’ PMo nebse- ‘be broad and long’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 27. PJ nura- ‘get wet’ PMo nor- ‘to soak, be wet’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 32. PJ op- ‘chase’ PMo aba ‘hunt, chase’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 38. PJ sinpor- ‘squeeze’ PMo sibka-, sibkar- ‘squeeze out, press’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 39. PJ siku- ‘grow thick’ PMo sigui ‘thick growth’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 40. PJ sima ‘soak, permeate’ PMo sime ‘soak in, be saturated’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 41. PJ sunkur- ‘choose’ PMo soNgu- ‘choose’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 42. PJ tanki- ‘flow rapidly’ PMo dargil ‘rapid current’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 46. PJ tonto- ‘stop, close’ PMo todka ‘fasten’, togta ‘stop’ 276

[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 48. PJ uka- ‘dig, bore, pierce’ PMo uku- ‘dig, delve’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 52. PJ usa- ‘vanish’ PMo us- (WMo usta ‘I disappear’)’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 56. PJ kupa‘beautiful’ PMo gowa ‘beautiful, good’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 61. PJ onpo- ‘heavy’ PMo amban ‘big, large, heavy’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 64. PJ tomo- ‘scarce’ PMo dömü- ‘be few, scarce, barely sufficient’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 66. PJ waka- ‘young’ PMo baga ‘young’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 67. PJ waru- ‘bad’ PMo buruYu ‘wrong, bad’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 71. PJ anti ‘taste’ PMo. amta ‘taste’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 74. 277

PJ ka(C)itu ‘back, north’ PMo gede ‘back’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 83. PJ uro ‘hollow, interior’ PMo örü ‘inside, breast’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] BV] 86. PJ kura ‘valley’ PMo gol ‘river, river valley, centre’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 96. PJ kusi ‘chestnut’ PMo kusiga ‘walnut’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)]

40. Yana/Karok [Hokan] Source of lexical sets: Mary R. Haas. 1964. California Hokan. In Studies in Californian Linguistics, William Bright, ed., pp. 73-84. Berkeley: University of California Press. Geographic region: California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 27 15 7 25.9 (7/27) 25.9 388.5 (15 x 25.9)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact Abbreviations: Y = Yana, northern dialect, K = Karok Correspondences series (15): 278

Y b m w l c’ Z k’ g x i i i a u u

K p m v r č Ɵ s k k i a u a u i

Supporting Sets |17,|30,|48b,|59, |34,|35,|36,|59,|60, |1,|4,|24,|38,|66, |9,|29,|37,|48b,|49,|51a,|54,|57, |27,|27,|40, |24,|32,|36,|45,|51a, |3,|9,|37, |23,|28,|51a, |27,|32,|34, |3,|4,|24,|40,|66, |23,|36,|60, |27,|27,|51a, |1,|3,|9,|9,|9,|17,|23,|28,|29,|34,|45,|49,|59, |35,|37,|38,|40,|54,|57, |30,|51a,|51a,

Comparative sets (27): 1. above Y –wasa K -Ɂavah [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 3. back Y mak’i K vasih [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 4. belly Y wilK višva:n [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 9. brains Y p’aak’ulabba K Ɂa:sravara [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 17. dust Y t’abɁlaawi279

K am-ta:p ‘dust, ashes’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 23. father Y cigal(la) K Ɂakah [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 24. to fight Yn ZiwauK vaƟiv [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 27. fish hawk Y c’ixc’i K ču:kču:k [Evaluation: 12 (10,2,0,0)] 28. flint Yn xaga K sa:k [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 29. foot Y lal(la) K axra:n ‘foot of animal’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 30. step, stepping Y buK piv[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 32. gall Y Zaaxa K Ɵukin [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 34. grass Y maaxa K ma:k [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)]

280

35. to hand Y mu:t-, mu:dK mu:t [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 36. heavy Y miZaK ma:Ɵ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 37. hole Y mak’ulɁaa ‘hole, pit’ K suru- ‘to make a hole’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 38. horn Y weeyuK ve:šura [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 40. hummingbird Y p’uc’i K xanpučini:šve:nač [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 45. manzanita berry Y baaZai(na) K fa:Ɵ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 48b. tongue Y bawalɁ(la) K apri:h [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 49. night Y xal..luK ikxaram [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 51a. owl Y Zixgulu K Ɵufkirik 281

[Evaluation: 14 (12,2,0,0)] 54. to pull (2) Y ixc’ulK –yuru [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 57. rub Y yulK iyvuruk [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 59. sinew Y baama K Ɂipam [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 60. skin Y miwi ‘fur, hair (of animal)” (Note: Yc miwi ‘skin, hide’) K ma:n ‘skin’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 66. to weave Y wi:K vik [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

41. Proto-Shuar/Candoshi [Jivaroan-Candoshi] Source of lexical sets: David L. Payne.1981. Bosquejo fonológico del proto-shuar-candoshi: Evidencia para una relación genética. Revista del Museo Nacional 16:323-377. Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index 282


Result 60 22 9 15 (9/60) 15 330 (22 x 15)

Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact Abbreviations: S = Proto-Shuar, C = Candoshi Correspondences series (22): S

C

Supporting Sets

p

p

|3,|5,|24,|27,|28,|28,|103,|138,|156,|285,|314,|356,

m

m

|3,|28,|103,|187,|208,|209,|222,|225,|285,|314,|356,|439,

w

w

|91,|165,|270,|305,|444,|445,

t

t

|28,|33,|35,|57,|59,|59,|97,|176,|222,|317,

s

s

|129,|156,|162,|162,|440,

n

n

|5,|57,|59,|89,|103,|187,|222,|228,|257,|281,|305,|317,|317,|375,

sh

sh

|83,|176,|209,|305,|356,

ts

ts

|129,|135,|138,|375,|409,

ts

sr

|137,|307,|410,

ch

ch

|24,|57,|165,|187,|285,|302,|383,

ch

ts

|141,|145,|152,

k

k

|74,|79,|79,|89,|91,|103,|111,|112,|112,|119,|152,|278,|281,|302,|414,

ng

ng

|79,|112,|152,|302,|439,

ng

r

|111,|362,|438,

y

y

|314,|378,|380,|381,|439,

i

i

|5,|24,|57,|97,|145,|281,|285,|302,|305,|383,|439,

e

i

|103,|156,|375,|409,|445,

a

a

|3,|3,|5,|33,|35,|79,|79,|83,|83,|89,|91,|91,|97,|103,|129,|129,|141,|165,|176,|208,|209, |228,|270,|278,|281,|285,|285,|317,|317,|356,|356,|362,|362,|375,|378,|380,|409,|410, |439,|444,

283

a

o

|59,|74,|89,|187,

u

u

|175,|439,|439,

u

o

|24,|27,|28,|28,|57,|59,|89,|91,|103,|111,|111,|112,|112,|138,|152,|162,|162,|175,|176, |208,|209,|222,|222,|225,|257,|305,|307,|356,|375,|380,|381,|438,|445,

u

a

|119,|135,|137,|440,

Comparative sets (60): 3. S pamau ‘tapir, sachavaca’ C pamara ‘sachavaca’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 5. S pani ‘caribe (pez)’ C pani ‘pirana’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 24. S puwachi ‘sapo’ C poochi ‘rana’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 27. S puhu ‘blanco’ C (m) po (orshi) ‘blanco’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 28. S pumput ‘lechuza’ C pompoot ‘lechuza’ [Evaluation: 14 (12,2,0,0)] 33. S ta- ‘decir’ C ta (a-) ‘decir’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 35. 284

S ta (ka-) ‘trabajar’ C ta- ‘trabajar’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 57. S tunchi ‘arana chica’ C tonchi ‘arana’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 59. S tunta ‘aljaba (calabaza en que se guarda algodon)’ C tonto ‘calabaza’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 74. S ka (ka-ngu) ‘podrido’ C ko (chaari) ‘podrido’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 79. S kangka ‘boquichico (pez)’ C (Sh) kangka ‘boquichico’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 83. S (k) asha ‘aguti, paca’ C (m) asha (ashi) ‘paca’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 89. S kau-na- ‘juntarse muchos’ C kayono ‘juntos’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 91. S kawau ‘loro’ C kawaaro ‘loro’ [Evaluation: 15 (10,2,0,1)] 97. S kita- ‘tener sed’ C (sa) chita- ‘tener sed’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 285

103. S kunampe ‘ardilla’ C konampi ‘ardilla’ [Evaluation: 17 (14,2,0,1)] 111. S kungu ‘puerco espin’ C koro ‘puerco espin’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 112. S kungku ‘caracol de tierra’ C (ng) kopongko ‘caracol’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 119. S ku ‘bajar’ C ka (rowa) ‘bajarse’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 129. S tsegasa ‘veneno’ C tspasa ‘veneno’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 135. S tsu (mu-) ‘rio abajo’ C tsa (poosho) ‘abajo’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 137. S tsu (ngi) ‘arrancar’ C (t) sra- ‘arrancar’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 138. S tsupi ‘cortar’ C tsopa- ‘cortar’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 141. S cha ‘apretar’ 286

C tstsa- ‘apretar’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 145. S chi (cha) ‘hablar’ C tsi (yata) ‘hablar [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 152. S chungk (uni) ‘codo’ C (man) tsongk (arich) ‘codo’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 156. S saepe ‘cascara, corteza’ C srapi ‘corteza’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 162. S susu ‘barba’ C (va) soso ‘barba’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 165. S (su) wach ‘pulmones’ C wach (achkorich) ‘pulmones’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 176. S shuuta ‘cucaracha grande’ C shorota ‘cucaracha grande’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 187. S (h) incham (a) ‘murcielago’ C nchom (ira) ‘murcielago’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 208. S manchu ‘zancudo’ C mantro ‘zancudo’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)]

287

209. S mashu ‘paujil’ (bird) C masho ‘paujil’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 222. S mukuntu ‘sapo’ C monto ‘rana’ [Evaluation: 12 (10,2,0,1)] 225. S muu (ke) ‘cabeza’ C moo (cho) ‘cabeza’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 228. S na (ha-na-) ‘hacer cosas’ C (i) na ‘hacer’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 257. S nu ‘aquel’ C (a) no ‘aquel’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 270. S waa ‘hueco’ C waa (cho) ‘hueco’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 278. S (wa) ka- ‘subir’ C ka (ri) ‘subir’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 281. S (wa) kani ‘espiritu’ C kani (ch) ‘espiritu’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 285. S wampachi ‘bolsa’ C pampachi ‘bolsa’ 288

[Evaluation: 16 (12,2,1,1)] 302. S wichingk (i) ‘ardilla’ C (A) pchiingk ‘ardilla’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 305. S wishinu ‘brujo, curandero’ C (A) wishino ‘brujo’ [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 307. S (ya) tsu ‘hermano de hombre’ C sro (wanchi) ‘hermano de hombre’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 314. S yamp (iya) ‘achiote’ C yomp (sa) ‘achiote’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 317. S yantanaa ‘lagarto’ C nta (ra) na ‘largarto’ [Evaluation: 12 (10,2,0,0)] 356. S ampusha ‘lechuza’ C (Sh) amposha ‘lechuza’ [Evaluation: 15 (12,2,0,1)] 362. S anga- ‘lejos’ C ara (pi) ‘lejos’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 375. S auntse ‘pucacunga’ C (k) arontsi ‘pucacunga’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 378. 289

S a ya- ‘llevar’ C ya ‘llevar’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 380. S ayu ‘bien’ C ayo ‘bien’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 381. S (a) yu- ‘alimentar’ C yo (ngkanta-) ‘alimentar’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 383. S (i) chi (naka) ‘olla’ C chi (rimpoochi) ‘olla’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 409. S etsa- ‘afilar’ C (iw) itsa- ‘afilar’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 410. S (e) tsa ‘sol’ C sraa (ri) ‘sol’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 438. S unge ‘pluma, pelo’ C (po) oro ‘pluma’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 439. S ungkumiya ‘ronsoco’ C ungkumiya ‘ronsoco’ [Evaluation: 18 (14,2,1,1)] 440. S (u) su ‘saliva’ C (i) sa (ntaa-) ‘salivar [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 290

444. S (u) wa- ‘beber’ C wa- ‘tomar ‘liquido’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 445. S uwe (hi) ‘mano’ C owi (ch) ‘mano’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV]

42. Natchez/Proto-Muskogean [Gulf] Source of lexical sets: Mary R. Haas. 1956. Natchez and the Muskogean languages. Language 32:61-73. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 44 23 6 13.6 (6/44) 13.6 312.8 (23 x 13.6)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact Abbreviations: N = Natchez, M = Proto-Muskogean, RM = reflex meaning Correspondences series (23): N

M

Supporting Sets

p

p

|3,|8,|13,|33,|38,|54,|65,|70,

w

xw

|19,|26,|29,|39,

t

t

|2,|22,|25,|30,|43,|54,|69,|70,

291

l

l

|1,|20,|26,|28,|30,|33,|36,|43,|66,

L

l

|44,|48,|71,

n

n

|6,|23,|67,

c

c

|11,|15,|20,|36,|41,|57,

c

č

|13,|18,|51,

k

k

|1,|6,|11,|15,|19,|26,|28,|34,|38,|45,|51,|68,

kw

kw

|10,|23,|44,

h

h

|4,|5,|14,|23,|49

h

k

|3,|4,|8,|41,

ʔ

h

|14,|35,|59,|71,

i

i

|18,|29,|39,|59,

i

u

|5,|13,|30,|30,

e

i

|10,|23,

ee

i

|33,

e

a

|1,|11,|33,|54,|70,

e

u

|4,|10,|48,

a

a

|4,|15,|18,|19,|25,|26,|26,|28,|35,|38,|41,|44,

aa

a

|15,|28,|45,|71,

u

u

|3,|43,|43,|68,

uu

u

|8,|57,

u

i

|22,|51,

uu

i

|34,

o

u

|6,|20,|36,|66,

oo

u

|14,|35,|39,|65,|67,

o

a

|69,

oo

a

|2,|8, 292

Comparative sets (44): 1. ACORN N ʔelekeh M lak-ca, lak-ča [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 2. ASTRINGENT N catoo-ʔop M takkwa [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 3. BALL N puhs M pukku [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 4. BARK (verb) N weh-hakiis M wuh-ka [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 5. BEE N hih-waa ‘hornet’ M xwuhi, xwuhu [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 6. BEND N konoo-halʔis M kun- (only one reflex) [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 8. BLOW WITH MOUTH N puuW-hooʔis M pu:xw-ka [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 10. BONE N ʔekwel(e-) M xwuni, -xwkwuni [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 293

11. BREAK N kec-halʔis M kac- (RM: ‘to break one’) [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 13. BUY N ci:p-hakiis M ču:pa [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 14. CALL N ʔoo-hooʔis M huh-ka [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 15. CHEW N cakaa-hooʔis M yaca-ka [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 18. DEW N sica M sičaku, xwičaku [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 19. DIP N kaw-helkuus M kaxw-li [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 20. DRIP N col-hakiis M cul[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 22. EYE N ʔuk-tuL M tiNi [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 23. FAT, GREASE N nehkw M nihakwa 294

[Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 25. FOREHEAD N ʔukt(a-) M kwitakla [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 26. FORKED N walak-up M xwalak [Evaluation: 14 (10,2,1,1)] 28. GOOSE N laalak M salaklak [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 29. GOURD N ʔiwi M xwipaki [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 30. GRIND UP FINE N pilit-halʔs M xwulut[Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 33. LICK N lepee-hooʔis M lakw-li, lapi[Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 34. MORTAR N kuu M kisti, kistu, kihci, kihcu [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 35. PEPPER N ʔoomah M hu:ma [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 36. PINE 295

N col M culyi [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 38. PUT IN MOUTH N hikap-hakuus M kap [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 39. QUAIL N ʔooweh ‘guinea’ M kuxwi, kuwi (RM: ‘guinea’) [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 41. RING (verb) N ca:N-halʔis M camak [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 43. ROLL (verb) N tuluM-haciis M tulum-, lum [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 44. RUN N kwaL-heskuus PM kwal[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 45. SAY SO N maak-hooʔis M ma:ka [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 48. SHOULDER N ʔapeL ‘back of shoulder’ M xwuluwa [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 51. SPECKLED, SPOTTED N cukcuk-up M čikčiki [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 296

54. SPREAD N pet-halʔis M pata[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 57. SUCK N cuu-heluuʔs M cu:-ka RM ‘to suck’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 59. TAIL N ʔisi M haci [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 65. TOUCH N poo-hooʔis M pu-t [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 66. TURTLE N ʔolo M lukci, lukca [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 67. UNDER N ʔinoo M nuta [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 68. WATER N kuN M aku [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 69. WEAVE N tol-halʔis ‘to plait’ M taNa [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] (Note: plait and weave are viewed as synonyms) 70. WIDE N ʔepet-kup 297

M patha [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 71. WIFE N ʔaaL M –halki [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)]

43. English/Tocharian B [Indo-European] Source of lexical sets: Don Ringe (per. com.) Geographic region: Eurasia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 9 7 4 44.4 (4/9) 44.4 310.8 (7 x 44.4)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Abbreviations: E = English, TB = Tocharian B Correspondences series (7): E r ð f m ǝ aɪ n

TB r c p m e u ñ

Supporting Sets 12,12,18,30,32,62, 12,30,62, 30,32,35, 61,62,65, 12,18,30,62, 32,35,69, 61,65,69,

298

Comparative sets (9): 12. E brʌðər 'brother' TB procer 'brother' [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 18. E dɔtər 'daughter' TB tkācer 'daughter' [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 30. E fɑðər 'father' TB pācer 'father' [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 32. E fɑɪər 'fire' TB puwar 'fire' [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1) BV] 35. E flɑɪ 'fly' TB plu[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 61. E mu:n 'moon' TB meñe 'moon' (Note: phonological residue is explained) [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 62. E mʌðər 'mother' TB mācer 'mother' [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 65. E neɪm 'name' TB ñem 'name' [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 69. E nɑɪn 'nine' (Note: phonological residue is explained) TB ñu 'nine' [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 299

44. Proto-Japanese/Proto-Tungusic [Transeurasian] Source of lexical sets: Martine Robbeets. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Geographic region: Asia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 50 24 6 12 (6/50) 12 288 (12 x 24)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact Abbreviations: PJ = Proto-Japanese, PTg = Proto-Tungusic, RM = reflex meaning Correspondences series (24): PJ p np p m w t t s n n r r k k k y i

PTg p p b m b t d s n l r l k g x d i

Supporting Sets |3,|4,|7,|13,|16,|34,|38,|40,|43,|50, |22,|23,|26, |8,|10,|20,|46,|60, |28,|35,|57, |33,|45,|53,|63,|65, |10,|15,|26,|28,|29,|29,|30,|37,|43,|47,|55, |46,|54,|61, |22,|23,|24,|25,|36,|45,|60, |7,|48,|54, |18,|27,|34,|58, |31,|35,|41,|56, |8,|32,|58, |4,|17,|18,|25,|27,|33,|40,|47,|55,|56,|57,|64, |3,|24,|30,|61, |15,|16,|17,|41,|42, |34,|49,|51, |7,|13,|23,|24,|27,|54,|55,|55,|60, 300

ī a ā e u u ǖ e ū ü e

i a a a a u u u o o o

|64, |4,|27,|28,|28,|33,|33,|36,|37,|38,|43,|47,|54, |48,|49, |3,|7,|10,|15,|15,|16,|22,|26,|31,|34,|36,|40,|41,|45,|61,|63, |35,|50,|61, |10,|17,|17,|18,|22,|30,|31,|31,|32,|45,|46,|47,|56,|57, |24, |20,|34,|42, |53,|57, |51, |8,|16,|20,|40,|58,|65,

Comparative sets (50): 3. PJ paka- ‘tear off’ PTg pegde- ‘cut off, tear off’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 4. PJ paka- (RM: ‘put on, let wear’) PTg pakū- ‘close in’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,1)] 7. PJ pinta(-)k- ‘crush’ PTg pinče- ‘crush’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 8. PJ pora ‘lose one's sense PTg beli(n) ‘lose one's senses’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 10. PJ puta- ‘cover, stop up’ PTg bute ‘cover’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 13. PJ ipa- ‘tell’ PTg iPKe- ‘order, tell’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 15. 301

PJ kata- ‘overcome, win’ PTg xete- ‘overcome, win’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 16. PJ kopa- ‘break’ PTg xepe- ‘break, destroy’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 17. PJ kuku- ‘wrap, bind’ PTg xuku- ‘wrap’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 18. PJ nuka- ‘remove’ PTg luk- ‘remove clothing’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 20. PJ opu- ‘carry on the back’ PTg ebe- ‘carry’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 22. PJ sanpu- ‘rust’ PTg septu - ‘rust’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 23. PJ sinpor- ‘squeeze’ PTg siPKu- ‘twist, squeeze’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 24. PJ siku- ‘grow thick’ PTg sigǖ ‘thick growth’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 25. PJ suku- ‘scoop’ PTg soka- ‘to scoop, ladle’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 26. PJ tanpa- ‘cover, protect’ 302

PTg tePKe- ‘cover, protect’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 27. PJ tanki- ‘flow rapidly’ PTg Zalki- ‘flow rapidly, overflow’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 28 PJ tama- ‘gather’ PTg tama- ‘gather, collect’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 29. PJ tonto- ‘stop, close’ PTg tokto- ‘stop’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 30. PJ tuk- ‘hit’ PTg tug- ‘hit’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 31. PJ ura- ‘mature, ripen’ PTg ure- ‘grow, ripe’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 32. PJ uru- ‘get wet’ PTg ula- ‘soak, wet’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 33. PJ waka-n (RM: ‘divide, distribute, distinguish’) PTg baka- ‘separate, divide’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 34. PJ yanpu- ‘tear, break, burst’ PTg delpe- ‘split, burst’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,0,1)] 35. PJ maru-, maro- ‘round’ PTg murV (Note: Unclear in source that this means ‘round’) 303

[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 36. PJ saya- ‘clear, bright’ PTg saje- ‘become light, become clear’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 37. PJ anti ‘taste’ PTg amta- ‘to taste’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 38. PJ pa ‘tooth’ PTg palV ‘molar’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 40. PJ kapo (RM: ‘face’) PTg kepe ‘lower part of the face’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 41. PJ kara ‘hull, skin’ PTg xere-kte ‘skin’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 42. PJ kosi ‘waist’ PTg xelgene ‘waist’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 43. PJ pata (RM: ‘fin, fish’) PTg pati ‘fin, fish tail’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 45. PJ suwa(č)i ‘end’ PTg sube ‘end’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 46. PJ tupi ‘end’ PTg dubē ‘end’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 304

47. PJ kuta(č)i ‘bog, marsh’ PTg kuta ‘bog, marsh’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 48. PJ na ‘earth’ PTg nā ‘earth’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 49. PJ ya((č)i) ‘older relative’ PTg dā ‘older relative, relative in law’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 50. PJ pa- ‘red’ PTg pula- ‘red’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 51. PJ yo ‘four’ PTg dügin ‘four’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 53. PJ towo ‘ten’ PTg Zuba-‘ten’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 54. PJ anti ‘a kind of duck’ PTg andi ‘a kind of duck’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 55. PJ PJ kituni(č)a ‘fox’ PTg kitiri ‘a kind of fox’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 56. PJ kuru ‘chestnut’ PTg kuri ‘cone, nut’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)]

305

57. PJ monkura ‘mole’ PTg muktu(r) ‘mole’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 58. PJ nori ‘seaweed, moss’ PTg lelu-kte ‘moss’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 60. PJ sipi (RM: ‘chinquapin’) PTg sibu ‘tree producing pines, firs or nuts’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 61. PJ taka(č)i (RM: ‘mushroom’) PTg degun ‘mushroom’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 63. PJ wa(č)i (RM: ‘bait’) PTg be ‘bait’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 64. PJ -ki (RM: suffix in animal names) PTg -kī animal suffix [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 65. PJ wo (RM: ‘accusative’) PTg be ‘accusative marker’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)]

45. Proto-Tungusic/Proto-Mongolic [Transeurasian] Source of lexical sets: Martine Robbeets. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Geographic region: East Asia BWB results:

306



Result 22 12 5 22.7 (5/22) 22.7 272.4 (12 X 22.7)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: PTg = Proto-Tungusic, PMo = Proto-Mongolic Correspondences series (12): PTg

PMo

Supporting Sets

p

b

|9,|14,|16,

m

m

|17,|18,|20,

t

t

|2,|12,|13,|13,|20,

d

d

|14,|15,|22,|24,|26,|28,

s

s

|7,|9,|10,

l

l

|14,|15,|16,|19,|25,|27,

ń

n

|6,|21,

n

n

|23,|28,

k

k

|6,|9,|23,

e

e

|2,|6,|6,|14,|14,|22,

a

a

|12,|17,|17,|19,|20,|20,|25,|28,|28,

ā

a

|16,

u

u

|21,|27,

u

ü

|2,|24,|15,|25,

ü

ui

|10,

u

ö

|7,|18,|23,|23,

307

ü

ö

|26,

Comparative sets (22): 2. PTg *bute- ‘cover’ PMo *büte- ‘cover, stop up’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 6. PTg *ńeke- ‘intend, demand’ PMo *neke- ‘to demand’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 7. PTg *usa, *us ‘hateful, sad’ PMo *ös ‘revenge, hate’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 9. PTg *siPKu- ‘twist, squeeze’ PMo *sibka-, *sibkar- ‘squeeze out, press’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 10. PTg *sigǖ ‘thick growth’ PMo *sigui ‘thick growth’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 12. PTg *tia- (*taj-) ‘swim, float, slide’ PMo *taji-tu- ‘slide, drag one's feet’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 13. PTg *tokto- ‘stop’ PMo *togta ‘stop’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 14. PTg *delpe- ‘split, burst’ PMo *delbe- ‘burst, break’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,0,1)] 15. 308

PTg *dül ‘to warm (of sun)’ PMo *dula-Ɣan ‘warm’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 16. PTg *pālZe- ‘be ashamed’ PMo *balči- ‘shame somebody’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 17. PTg *amba- ‘big’ PMo *amban ‘big, large, heavy’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 18. PTg *čuNnu < *čum-nu ‘all, entirely’ PMo *čöm ‘all, entirely’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 19. PTg *alču-kan ‘knuckle-bone’ PMo *alča- ‘knuckle-bone’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 20. PTg *amta- ‘to taste’ PMo. amta ‘taste’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,1,1)] 21. PTg *puń - ‘smell, to smell’ PMo *punir ‘smell, to smell’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 22. PTg *gedi-muk ‘back of the head’ PMo *gede ‘back’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 23. PTg *xukun ‘breasts’ PMo *kökön ‘breast’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 24. PTg *duru-n ‘form, outlook’ 309

PMo *düri ‘form, outlook’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 25. PTg *pula- ‘red’ PMo *pula-Ɣan ‘red’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 26. PTg *dügin ‘four’ PMo *dö(r)- ‘four’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 27. PTg *pula ‘ash tree, asp tree, poplar’ PMo *hulijasun ‘ash tree, poplar, aspen’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 28. PTg *anda ‘friend’ PMo *anda ‘friend’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)]

46. Miskito/Cacaopera [Misumalpan] Source of lexical sets: Adolfo Constenla Umaña. 1987. Elementos de fonología comparada de las lenguas Misumalpas. Filología y Linguística 13:129-161. Geographic region: Middle America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 16 7 6 37.5 (6/16) 37.5 262.5 (7 x 37.5)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: C = Cacaopera, M = Miskito

310

Correspondences series (7): C m w l k j i i a a

M m w l k j i ĩ a ã

Supporting Sets |23,|28,|79,|87, |8,|9,|43,|64, |4,|5,|5, |13,|23,|37,|74,|82, |28,|42,|91, |4,|8,|13,|13,|37,|64,|74, |9, |5,|5,|23,|28,|42,|43,|79,|82,|87,|91, |9,

Comparative sets (16): 4. AGUA C li M li [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 5. AMARILLO C lala M lalalh-ni [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 8. ATAR C wiri M wil [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 9. AYOTE C iwa M ĩwã [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 13. BUHO C iskiri M iskri [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 23. CHILE 311

C kuma M kuma [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 28. ESPOSA C majru M maja [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 37. GUATUSA C kiki M kjaki [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 42. INTERROGATIVO C ja M ja [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 43. IR C wa M wa [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 64. PESADO C wim M wira [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 74. PRIMERA PERSONA (SUFIJO) C –ki M –ki [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 79. SEGUNDA PERSON (SUFIJO) C ma M –ma [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 82. TERCER PERSONA (SUFIJO) C –ka M –ka [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 312

87. TU C mani M man [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 91. YO C jami M jaŋ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV]

47. Wintu (Wintun)/Southern Sierra Miwok (Utian) [California Penutian] Source of lexical sets: Sylvia M. Broadbent, and Harvey Pitkin. 1964. A comparison of Miwok and Wintun. In Studies in Californian Linguistics, ed. W. Bright, 19-45. University of California Publications in Linguistics, vol. 34. Berkeley: University of California Press. Geographic region: California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 32 21 4 12.5 (4/32) 12.5 262.5 (21 x 12.5)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Strong support for historical connection, but one limited to language contact Abbreviations: W = Wintu (Wintun), Miss = Southern Sierra Miwok (Utian) Correspondences series (21): W p b t l n

Miss p p t l n

Supporting Sets |22,|36,|86, |3,|73,|76, |36,|43b,|85, |2,|23,|24,|31,|34,|40,|50,|86, |8,|16,|43a,|43b,|75,|77, 313

s y k q h h i i i i a a u o o o

s j (y) k k h Ɂ i e y (ɨ) u a y (ɨ) a o u e

|30,|38,|79,|88, |7,|69,|82, |38,|44,|50, |14,|29,|69, |40,|42,|45, |22,|73,|77, |7,|30,|43a,|44,|44, |2,|23,|30,|86, |16,|50,|88, |24,|75,|86, |7,|14,|14,|16,|29,|29,|34,|42,|50, |22,|22,|85, |24,|69,|79,|79,|82, |3,|40,|40,|45, |8,|8,|31,|36,|76, |76,|77,|82,

Comparative sets (32): 2. afraid, to be W k’ilep Miss helaj[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 3. ball W bo:λ Miss pohko[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 7. bluejay W c’ayi[k] Miss taji[c:u-] [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 8. buckeye W yonot Miss Ɂu:nu [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 14. creek W waqat 314

Miss wakaHl[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 16. defecate W c’ina: Miss kyna:[t] [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 22. father W ha:pa Miss ɁypyH[Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 23. flower W luli Miss lo:je[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 24. flute W λi:lu[s] Miss lu:la[Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 29. frog W wataq Miss waṭak-[-na-] [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 30. gall W sili-[h] Miss siw:e[n-] ‘gall bladder’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 31. girl W loyMiss lupu [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 34. goose W laq Miss laŋlaŋ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)]

315

36. guts W pot Miss put[kal] [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 38. hair, body W sekey Miss hi:sok- ‘hair, fur’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 40. hole W holoq Miss hol:op ‘hole, cave’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 42. hunt, to W hayu:[qa] Miss hal-ki[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 43a. I W ni Miss [ka]n:i[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 43b. I W netMiss =nti[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 44. ice W kiki Miss kil:impe ‘frost, ice’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 45. jump, to W hok-[el-ta] Miss ho:Ɂ[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 50. liver W kila Miss kyl:a316

[Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 69. shake, to W yuqu:ra Miss jyka:-t- ‘shaking’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 73. smoke tobacco, to W bihe Miss paɁm[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 75. snot W λini[q] Miss nu:nat[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 76. soft W bolo[q] Miss pun:e[te][Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 77. soon W ho:nMiss Ɂena[t] [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 79. sugar pine W sumuh Miss saŋ:ak[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 82. want, to W koyu, Miss hejaw-ŋe[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 85. wet W λatMiss jyt-ŋe[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 86. whistle, to 317

W λili:pa Miss hule:p[Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 88. write W si:wMiss sy:k[Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 48. Proto-Samoyedic (Uralic)/Proto-Eskimo [Uralo-Siberian] Source of lexical sets: Michael Fortescue (personal communication) Geographic region: Asia and North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 14 9 4 28.6 (4/14) 28.6 257.4 (9 x 28.6)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: S = Proto-Samoyedic, E = Proto-Eskimo Correspondences series (9): S

E

Supporting Sets

m

m

|7,|12,|15,

t

t

|6,|12,|20,|23,|24,|25,|26,

t

c

|16,|21,|26,

n

n

|15,|16,|18,|24,

n

n’

|17,

n’

n

|22,

318

k

q

|20,|21,|22,

ə

ə

|6,|21,|24,|25,|25,

ə

a

|15,|20,|26,

ä

a

|7,|12,|23,

u

u

|17,|18,|26,

ü

u

|16,

Comparative sets (14): 6. S teptə ‘juice. sap’ E əvtəR ‘juice’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 7. S jäm- ‘sea’ E ima(R) ‘contents, sea’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 12. S mät ‘tent, home’ E mamtəRaq ‘temporary dwelling’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 15. S məna ‘egg’ E manniɣ ‘egg’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV 16. S nüt- ‘pull’ E nuccuɣ- ‘pull, tug’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 17. S n’uə ‘child, boy’ E nu ‘child, boy’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 319

18. S nul- ‘stop’ E nulqaR- ‘stop’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 20. S kəpta- ‘extinguish’ E qamə(t)- ‘extinguish’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 21. S kətə- ‘scratch’ E qəccuɣ- ‘scratch’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 22. S kən’ələ ‘tear’ E qunik ‘tear, matter in eye’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 23. S tä ‘this, that’ E ta- ‘that’ (anaphoric/deictic prefix) [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 24. S tən ‘you (sing.)’ E -tən ‘you (sing.)’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 25. S təpə ‘dirt, things thrown up on beach by waves’ E təpə- ‘drift ashore (jetsam)’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 26. S tumtə- ‘understand, feel’ E tucaR- ‘hear, understand’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV]

49. Wintu (Wintun)/Lake Miwok (Utian) [California Penutian]

320

Source of lexical sets: Harvey Pitkin and William Shipley.1958. A comparative survey of California Penutian. International Journal of American Linguistics 24:174-188. Geographic region: California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 12 7 4 33.3 (4/12) 33.3 233.1 (7 x 33.3)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: W = Wintu, M = Lake Miwok Correspondences series (7): 7 BWB correspondence series: W

M

Supporting Sets

p

p

|15,|16,|26,

l

l

|1,|1,|3,|8,|13,|15,|21,|25,|26,|42,

e

e

|25,|26,|26,

a

a

|13,|16,|40,

a

u

|38,|38,|40,

u

u

|3,|24,|42,

o

o

|8,|8,|21,

Comparative sets (12): 1. ABOVE W 7ole:l M li:le 321

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 3. BLACK W culu:li M kawul [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 8. BUTTERFLY W saysayboloq M wolook [Evaluation: 9 (8,2,1,0)] 13. FEATHER W k’ala(q) M ṣale [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 15. FRIGHTENED W k’ilep M ṣelpi [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 16. FULL W parM palla [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 21. HOLE W holoq M talokh [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 25. NO W 7elew M hella [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 26. OAK W penel ‘black oak’ M penel- ‘iron oak’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 38. STINK, TO 322

W Lala M hukuh [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 40. THIGH W makas M muyya [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 42. TROUT W sulat M huul [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

50. Zuni/Yawelmani Yokuts [Zuni-California Penutian] Source of lexical sets: Stanley Newman. 1964. Comparison of Zuni and California Penutian. International Journal of American Linguistics 30:1-13. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 13 10 3 23.1 (3/13) 23.1 231.0 (10 x 23.1)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations and symbols: Z = Zuni, Y = Yawelmani Yokuts, C = sub-dot c Correspondences series (10): Z p w t l

Y p w t l

Supporting Sets |13,|15,|65, |63,|72,|121, |21,|32,|72,|168, |2,|63,|77, 323

ʔ i i i a o

ʔ i a o a a

|5,|15,|66, |5,|72,|78,|121, |13,|63,|65,|66, |77,|77,|168, |13,|21,|32,|65, |2,|21,|63,

Comparative sets (13): 2. ANT Z halo ‘red ant’ Y o:layxolay ‘black ant’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 5. BASKET Z huʔčipo ‘conical pack basket’ Y ʔeʔCi ‘large basket’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 13. BURN, TO Z čapi Y ṣa:pa [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1) BV] 15. CHEST Z poʔhata Y piʔis [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 21. DANCE, TO Z ʔota Y ha:tam ‘to dance’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 32. FOOTPRINT Z teʔana Y tana-ʔiy [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 63. LIGHTNING Z wilo ‘to be a lightning flash’ 324

Y walam’-wiyi ‘to lightning, to shine brightly’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 65. LOUSE Z piLašo ‘rabbit louse’ Y pataṭ ‘body louse’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 66. MAHOGANY Z ʔasi ‘mountain mahogany’ Y ʔa:cay ‘mahogany’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 72. OAK Z taʔwi Y to:wixit ‘white oak’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 77. RATTLE, TO Z čili ‘to make a rattling sound’ Y ṣololol-wiyi ‘to rattle’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 121. WORM Z wi Y wek’wik’ ‘worm’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] Note: The following is from Newman’s “problematic” sets. I evaluate only those “problematic” sets that are both BV and show translation equivalence: 168. NIGHT Z tehLi ‘to become night’ Y toy’o:n ‘to be night’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV]

51. Huave/Mixe of Totontepec (Mixe-Zoquean) [Mexican Penutian] Source of lexical sets: Jorge Suárez. 1975. Estudios huaves. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Geographic region: Mexico

325

BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 16 9 4 25 (4/16) 25 225 (9 x 25)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: H = Proto-Huave, Mi = Mixe of Totontepec (Mixean) Correspondences series (9): H mb t t c l l k k I a a a a

Mi p t t c t t k k o a a ɨ ë

Supporting Sets |5,|19,|49, |30, |17,|20,|24b,|32,|43b, |10,|17,|23, |5,|10, |27, |30, |4a,|13,|16,|20,|23,|44,|49, |10,|23,|43b, |27, |13,|13,|49, |4a,|19,|32,|44,|49, |16,|24b,|24b,

Comparative sets (16): 4a. axila H –cIka Mi šaxkɨpaɁtk [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 5. ayudar H –mbIlo Mi putäka [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 326

10. ceñidor H -lɨncI Mi tincom [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 13. derecha H aka Mi akaɁyɨn [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 16. duro H –paka Mi mëk [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 17. empujar H -tɨcI Mi tiɁic [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 19. flor H –mbaha Mi pɨh [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 20. gota H –toko Mi taɁkš [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 23. hormiga H –cIko Mi cokɨn [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 24b. mujer H –taha Mi tëɁëtëhk [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 27. oreja H –la:ka 327

Mi taack [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 30. petate H -tɨkI Mi tëɁëk [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 32. piojo H mbata Mi aɁvɨt [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 43b. camino H tI:to Mi tooɁ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 44. enojarse H –hV-kaya Mi ekhɨ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 49. pueblo H kambaha Mi kahpɨn [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 52. Menominee (Algonquian)/Maori (Austronesian) [Algic-Austronesian] Source of lexical sets: David Beck (personal communication). (Note: While compared languages are assumed by Beck (almost certainly, correctly) not to be historically connected, Menominee and Maori show striking lexical similarity, clearly the result of random variation. Assemblage of comparative sets for these two languages involved use of algorithms for the automated identification of cognate lexemes initially applied to languages known to be genealogically related—including languages within Polynesian (Austronesian), within Algonquian (Algic), and within Totonac (Totozoquean) families. The Menominee/Maori sets are the outcome of applying the same algorithms to languages known almost certainly not to be related. The software for this was developed by Adam St. Arnaud for his MSc project under the supervision of Grzegorz Kondrak.) Geographic region: North America and New Zealand

328

BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 15 11 3 20 (3/15) 20 220 (11 X 20)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: Me = Menominee (Algic), Ma = Maori (Austronesian) Correspondences series (11): Me p m n n k hk e e e a o

Ma p m n ng k k e i a a o

Supporting Sets |19,|45,|50,|52, |8,|8,|26, |4,|13,|26,|50, |4,|5,|7,|17,|17, |1,|3,|7,|19,|30,|35,|45,|50, |4,|5,|52, |4,|5,|19, |19,19,|50, |30,|45,|50, |1,|7,|8,|13,|26,|35,|52, |3,|5,|7,|17,

Comparative sets (15): 1. ROPE Me ka:hkap ‘rope, cord, string; boundary line’ (see set 52) Ma kaha ‘rope; especially on seine’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 3. BITE Me kotaːmæːw ‘he tries to mouth, bite, eat him’ Ma komi ‘bite; close the jaws on; eat’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 329

4. WEAK Me noːhken ‘he is soft, weak Ma ngahengahe ‘weak; feeble; wasted’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 5. SOFT Me noːhken ‘he is soft, weak’ Ma ngohe ‘easy; agreeable; soft’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] (Note: This set shows the same Me form as set 4.) 7. FAT Me onaːkow ‘he is fat’ Ma ngako ‘fat’ (CHB: ‘fat, grease’) [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0) BV] 8. PAIN Me enaːmamow ‘he has such pain’ Ma mamae ‘pain’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 13. GUEST Me naːnaːw ‘invited guest’ Ma manuwhiri ‘visitor; guest’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 17. SUCK Me noːnew ‘he sucks at the breast’ Ma ngongo ‘suck; suck out; nectar; tube’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 19. SHUT Me kepeːken ‘it grows blocked or shut’ Ma kopiti shut up; closed [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 26. SUPERNATURAL POWER Me manæːtoːwew ‘he is animal-like, has supernatural power’ Ma mana ‘supernatural force’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 30. EAT Me ketaːm ‘he eats all of it, he eats it up’ 330

Ma kamu ‘eat; munch’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 35. VISIBLE Me naːkwat ‘it is visible’ Ma makaro ‘dimly visible; to be; show oneself at distance’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 45. COVER (VERB) Me kepaːnoham ‘he covers it; closes it with cove lid’ Ma kapi ‘be covered; closed’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 50. BLOCK (VERB) Me kepeːhnetaw ‘he lays it so as to block something’ Ma koopani ‘shut up; block up; enclose; shut in; door’ [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,1,0)] 52. LINE Me kaːhkap ‘rope, cord, string; boundary line’ (see set 1) Ma kapa ‘row; line’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)]

53. Aikanã/Kwaza [Aikanã-Kwaza] Source of lexical sets: Hein van der Voort. 2005. Kwaza in a comparative perspective. International Journal of American linguistics 7:365-412. Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 27 11 5 18.5 (5/27) 18.5 203.5 (11 x 18.5)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection

331

Abbreviations: Ak = Aikanã, Kw = Kwaza Correspondences series (11): Ak w tʃ r y k h i ɛ a a a ai a u ui

Kw w tʃ r i k h i u a ai au a e u u

Supporting Sets |14,|17,|18,|46, |29,|50,|50, |1,|19,|19,|22,|25,|26,|48,|53,|57, |22,|24,|57,|57, |24,|35,|41,|45,|45,|46,|47,|48,|55,|55, |5,|7,|21,|30,|31,|52,|54,|54, |1,|7,|18,|29,|50,|50, |26,|48,|52, |5,|7,|14,|17,|21,|30,|31,|41,|46,|46,|46,|53,|53,|54,|55, |35, |47, |55, |25,|25,|41, |19,|45,|45,|48,|48,|48,|50, |24,

Comparative sets (27): Note: While given in source, nasalized vowels are not recorded here. BWB evaluation makes no distinction between nasalized and non-nasalized vowels and only applies to vowel quality. Also, syllable stress is not recorded. 1. liver Ak i:ri Kw e-ri [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 5. water Ak hanɛ Kw ha [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 7. stone Ak haZi Kw haki(-dwa) [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV]

332

14. sleep Ak awaKw wawɨi[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 17. cold Ak kjawɨj Kw awɨ[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 18. cut Ak wiKw wi[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 19. roll Ak durɛrɛKw durɨrɨ[Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 21. hive Ak hazu Kw haxo [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 22. field Ak wɛry Kw e-ri [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 24. chigger Ak akynui Kw kikiñu [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 25. cacau Ak ara Kw ereto [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 26. moth Ak tʃɛtʃɛpɛrjyo Kw pura 333

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 29. vagina Ak tʃikiti Kw itʃi [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 30. mushroom Ak hadidi Kw hahe [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 31. bamboo Ak hani Kw haxɨi [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 35. leg Ak ka-døka Kw e-kai [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 41. wing (grammatical element, classifier) Ak ka-Ɂditaka Kw (-)cake [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 45. cicada Ak ku:ku Kw kuku [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)] 46. heron Ak hawakaɁi Kw awaka [Evaluation: 12 (10,2,0,0)] 47. carrion Ak kawkaw Kw kakau [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 48. cock-a-doodle-doo 334

Ak kuturɛɁu: Kw kuturuɁu: [Evaluation: 15 (12,2,0,1)] 50. locust Ak tʃitʃipu Kw tʃitʃilu [Evaluation: 13 (10,2,0,1)] 52. kazoo flute Ak atuwɛ-hɛɁi Kw kai-huhɛ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 53. saracura bird Ak darakwa Kw daraku [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 54. yawn Ak hahojapaɁi Kw hahaɨ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 55. toucan Ak kakai Kw marakaka [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 57. tinamou bird Ak tʃyrytʃyruwa Kw sirisiri-Ɂekai (lit., ‘sirisiri-legs’) [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)]

54. Proto-Mayan/Proto-Mixe-Zoquean [Mayan-Zoquean] Source of lexical sets: David E. Mora-Marín. 2016. Testing the Proto-Mayan-Mije-Sokean hypothesis. International Journal of American Linguistics 82:127-180. Geographic region: Middle America BWB results: 335



Result 3 2 3 100 100 200 (2 x 100)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Abbreviations: Ma = Proto-Mayan, MZ = Proto-Mixe-Zoquean Correspondences series (XX): 2 BWB correspondence series: Ma q a

MZ k a

Supporting Sets |A2,|A8,|A52, |A2,|A8,|A52,

Comparative sets (3): A2. Ma b’aaq ‘bone’ MZ pak ‘bone’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] A8. Ma ʔaq ‘to give, place, put’ MZ yak ‘to give’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] A52. Ma saq ‘white’ MZ saaka ‘white’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV]

55. Proto-Korean/Proto-Tungusic [Transeurasian] 336

Source of lexical sets: Martine Robbeets. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Geographic region: East Asia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 3 2 3 100 (3/3) 100 200 (2 x 100)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Abbreviations and symbols: PK = Proto-Korean, PTg = Proto-Tungusic, V = vowel Correspondences series (2): PK p l

PTg p l

Supporting Sets |12,|13,|15, |12,|13,|15,

Comparative sets (3): 12. PK *pal ‘tooth’ PTg *palV ‘molar’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV] 13. PK *pal ‘foot’ PTg *palgan ‘foot’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 15. PK *pol(o)k- ‘red...bright’ PTg *pula- ‘red’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 337

56. Chimariko/Yavapai (Yuman) [Hokan] Source of lexical sets: James M. Crawford. 1976. A comparison of Chimariko and Yuman. In Hokan Studies, Margaret Langdon and Shirley Silver, eds., pp. 177-191. The Hague: Mouton. Geographic region: Arizona and California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 18 8 4 22.2 (4/18) 22.2 177.6 (8 x 22.2)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: HCh = Chimariko (reported by Harrington), Ya = Yavapai (Yuman) Correspondences series (8): HCh m l n qh ʔ i a a

Ya m l l h ʔ i a i

Supporting Sets |1,|3,|9,|12,|15,|24,|32,|35,|58, |1,|16,|27, |2,|49,|52, |6,|35,|54, |22,|24,|36,|54, |36,|49,|52, |2,|3,|6,|12,|15,|16,|16,|22,|24,|24,|27,|27,|32,|35,|49,|54,|54, |58, |58, |1,|3,|9,|36,

Comparative sets (18): 1. ant HCh t’amičxel Ya cimyu:l [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 2. arm 338

HCh hičanpu, hiṭanpu Ya sal [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 3. aunt HCh malaʔe Ya nyaʔmira ‘my mother’s younger sister’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 6. bitter HCh hiqhayYa aha: [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 9. dance HCh –samhuni, -samquni Ya hi:ma [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 12. eat HCh –ama Ya ma: [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 15. fall HCh –manYa mani [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 16. father HCh ʔčilla, ʔčillayada ‘my father’ Ya tala [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 22. house HCh ʔawa Ya ʔwa [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 24. land HCh ʔamma ‘country’ Ya ʔamat [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 339

27. moon HCh ʔala, ʔalla Ya hala [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 32. ripe HCh homaYa ma [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 35. sack HCh lašaqham Ya ʔahmal [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 36. salt HCh ʔak’i Ya ʔiƟi [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 49. thigh HCh t’ina Ya miƟi:la [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 52. tongue HCh hiphen Ya hipal [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 54. water HCh ʔaqha Ya ʔaha [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1) BV] 58. young HCh ʔaman Ya hamanyi [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)]

57. Proto-Mongolic/Proto-Turkic [Transeurasian] 340

Source of lexical sets: Martine Robbeets. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Geographic region: Eurasia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 20 11 3 15 (3/20) 15 165 (11 x 15.0)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations and symbols: PMo = Proto-Mongolic, PTk = Proto-Turkic, V = vowel Correspondences series (11): PMo t s r l k g e a a u ü o o ö ö

PTk t s r l k k e a ɨ u ǖ o ō ö ȫ

Supporting Sets |10,|12,|12,|16,|26, |6,|9,|23,|25, |1,|5,|21,|23,|24, |10,|15,|22, |3,|3,|5,|6,|7,|13,|16,|20,|20,|25,|26, |2,|12,|19,|22,|25, |5,|6,|19, |1,|2,|3,|9,|10.|10,|16,|26, |2,|15,|23, |7,|13,|25, |6, |12, |22, |20, |21,|24,

Comparative sets (20): 1. 341

PMo *ariƔ- ‘clean’ PTk *ạru- ‘clean’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 2. PMo *gaƔa- ‘be angry’ PTk *kakɨ- ‘be angry’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 3. PMo *kaka- ‘break, tear off’ PTk *kak- ‘hit, knock, tear’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 5. PMo *kere- ‘to quarrel, to fight’ PTk *keriš- ‘quarrel, fight’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 6. PMo *küse- ‘wish’ PTk *kǖse- ‘to wish’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,1,1)] 7. PMo *kumi- ‘to wrap up, roll up, collect’ PTk *kum-, *kɨm- ‘wrap, tuck’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 9. PMo *saƔa- ‘to be detained, stopped, linger’ PTk *sab- ‘stop, hinder’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 10. PMo *tala- ‘rob’ PTk *tāla- ‘rob, harm’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 12. PMo *togta ‘stop’ PTk *tokto- ‘stop’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 13. PMo *uka- ‘understand’ 342

PTk *uk- ‘understand’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 15. PMo *dula-Ɣan ‘warm’ PTk *jɨlɨ- ‘be warm’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 16. PMo *kata- ‘hard’ PTk *katV ‘hard’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 19. PMo *gede ‘back’ PTk *ked ‘back, after’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 20. PMo *kökön ‘breast’ PTk *kökür ‘breast’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 21. PMo. *örü ‘inside, breast’ PTk *ȫr ‘inside, the essential part’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 22. PMo *gol ‘river, river valley, centre’ PTk *kōl ‘valley’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 23. PMo *sira ‘yellow’ PTk *sārɨg ‘yellow, white’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0) BV]

24. PMo *dö(r)- ‘four’ PTk *tȫrt ‘four’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 25. PMo *kusiga ‘walnut’ 343

PTk *kusɨk ‘nut’ [Evaluation: 9 (8,2,1,0)] 26. PMo *takija ‘hen’ PTk *takɨgu ‘hen, fowl’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)]

58. Kanoê/Kwaza [Kanoê-Kwaza] Source of lexical sets: Hein van der Voort. 2005. Kwaza in a comparative perspective. International Journal of American linguistics 7:365-412. Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 6 3 3 50 (3/6) 50 150 (3 x 50)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Abbreviations: Kn = Kanoê, Kw = Kwaza Correspondences series (3): Kn k a o

Kw k a o

Supporting Sets |1,|3,|9,|27,|36,|36,|45, |1,|45,|45,|45, |3,|9,|27,

Comparative sets (6): Note: While given in source, nasalized vowels are not recorded here. BWB evaluation makes no distinction between nasalized and non-nasalized vowels and only applies to vowel quality. Also, syllable stress is not recorded. 344

1. stone Kn aki Kw haki(-dwa) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 3. seed (hard fruit) Kn –ko Kw –ko [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 9. hand Kn i-kotso Kw -koje [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 27. nephew Kn koro Kw kore [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 36. pupunha palm Kn mukoko Kw hakuku [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 45. heron species Kn avaka Kw awaka [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,0,1)]

59. Proto-Eskimo/Proto-Yukagir [Uralo-Siberian] Source of lexical sets: Michael Fortescue. 2016. Correlating Palaeo-Siberian languages and populations: Recent advances in the Uralo-Siberian hypothesis. Man in India 95:500-521. Geographic region: Asia and North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 345

Abbreviation SETi CORi BV

Result 4 3 2

4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average

BVp BVi COMi

50 (2/4) 50 150 (3 x 50)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Abbreviations: PY= Proto-Yukagir, PE = Proto-Eskimo Correspondences series (3): PY p e u

PE p ə u

Supporting Sets |11,|39,|41, |11,|11,|48, |39,|41,|48,

Comparative sets (4): 11. PY epel’ə- ‘dirty, soil’ (Note: -l’ə is a nominaliser) PE əpəR ‘dirt’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 39. PY puɣö ‘heat, sun’ PE puqla ‘heat, hot water’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 41. PY pultə- ‘be pierced, holed’ PE putu(-) ‘hole, make a hole’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) 48. PY ule- ‘fill’ PE ulə-vkaR- ‘fill, be full’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV]

60. Proto-Japanese/Proto-Turkic [Transeurasian] 346

Source of lexical sets: Martine Robbeets. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Geographic region: Asia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 25 12 3 12 (3/25) 12 144 (12 x 12)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: PJ = Proto-Japanese, PTk = Proto-Turkic Correspondences series (12): PJ

PTk

Supporting Sets

w

b

|19,|21,|89,

t

t

|38,|38,|39,|40,|49,|72,|79,|84,|86,

r

r

|30,|67,|76,|86,

s

s

|11,|25,|30,|76,|83,

k

k

|5,|5,|11,|17,|33,|39,|40, |49,|62,|63,|71,|72,|81,|83,|84,|87,

a

a

|5,|25,|33,|49,|62,|81,

a

e

|40,|63,|72,|89,

o

o

|21,|38,|38,|87,

o

ō

|19,

o

ü

|30,|79,

o

ǖ

|11,|21,

347

u

u

|83,|86,|86,

u

ü

|40,|67,|72,

u

o

|17,|84,

u

ō

|71,

Comparative sets (25): 5. PJ kakot- ‘be angry’ PTk kakɨ ‘be angry’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 11. PJ kos- ‘wish’, PTk kǖse- ‘to wish’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)]

17. PJ kusar- 'link, join together' PTk koš-(< ? kolC-) ‘join, unite’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 19. PJ wo- ‘exist’, PTk bōl- ‘be’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 21. PJ wosi- ‘learn’ PTk bošgu- ‘learn’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 25. PJ sapa- ‘obstruct, hinder’ PTk sab- ‘stop, hinder’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 30. PJ sura- ‘rub, make smooth’ PTk sür- ‘rub, smear’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 348

33. PJ tak- ‘burn’ PTk jak- ‘burn (tr.)’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1) BV] 38. PJ tonto- ‘stop, close’ PTk tokto- ‘stop’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 39.

PJ tuk- ‘pour in, fill’ PTk tök- ‘pour’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 40. PJ tuka- ‘come to an end, exhaust, run out’ PTk tüke- ‘come to an end’ [Evaluation: 12 (8,2,1,1)] 49. PJ kata- ‘hard’ PTk katV ‘hard’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 62. PJ kapa ‘bark, skin, shell’ PTk kāpuk ‘bark, shell’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 63. PJ ka(C)itu ‘back, north’ PTk ked ‘back, after’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 67. PJ tura ‘row, line’ PTk dür- ‘ to bead, string, range in a row’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 71. PJ kura ‘valley’ PTk kōl ‘valley’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 72. 349

PJ kuta(C)i ‘bog, marsh’ PTk küte(re) ‘bog, marsh’ [Evaluation: 11 (8,2,1,0)] 76. PJ siruo ~ sira ‘white’ PTk sārɨg ‘yellow, white’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 79. PJ to ‘thousand’ PTk tümen ‘ten thousand’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 81. PJ kama ‘reed’ PTk kamɨlC ‘reed’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 83. PJ kusi ‘chestnut’ PTk kusɨk ‘nut’ [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 84. PJ kuntira ‘whale’ PTk kortu ‘burbot, pike, beluga’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 86. PJ turu ‘crane’ PTk turunja ‘crane’ [Evaluation: 10 (8,2,0,0)] 87. PJ koro ‘time’ PTk kolu ‘period of time, time’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 89. PJ wa(C)i ‘bait’ PTk beŋ ‘bait, bird-seed’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

61. Awtuw (Ram)/Alamblak (Sepik Hill) [Sepik] 350

Source of lexical sets: William A. Foley. 2005. Linguistic prehistory in the Sepik–Ramu basin. In Andrew Pawley; Robert Attenborough; Robin Hide; Jack Golson, eds., Papuan Pasts: Cultural, Linguistic and Biological Histories of Papuan-Speaking Peoples, pp. 109144.Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Geographic region: Papua New Guinea BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 3 2 2 66.7 (2/3) 66.7 134.4 (2 x 66.7)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Abbreviations: Aw = Awtuw, Al = Alamblak Correspondences series (2): Aw

Al

Supporting Sets

m

m

|8,|9,|10,

o

ǝ

|8,|9,|10,

Comparative sets (3): 8. PRONOUN PL, 1 (‘we’) Aw no-m Al nǝ-m [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 9. PRONOUN PL, 2 (‘you’) Aw o-m Al nikǝ-m [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV]

351

10. PRONOUN PL, 3 (‘they’) Aw ro-m Al rǝ-m [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

62. Proto-Central Algonquian/Proto-Muskogean [Algonquian-Gulf] Source of lexical sets: Mary R. Haas. 1958. A new linguistic relationship in North America: Algonkian and the Gulf languages. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 14:231-264. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 6 4 2 33.3 (2/6) 33.3 133.2 (4 x 33.3)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: PCA = Proto-Central Algonquian, PM = Proto-Muskogean Correspondences series (4): PCA

PM

Supporting Sets

n

n

|16,|29,|33,

k

k

|7,|33,|38,|43,

e

i

|16,|29,|33,

a

a

|7,|16,|38,|43,

Comparative sets (6): 7. PCA a??ša:ke:w-a ‘crawfish’ 352

PM sakči, sakču ‘crawfish’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 16. PCA name:- ‘fish’ PM NaNi ‘fish’ [Evaluation: 12 (6,2,1,1) BV] 29. PCA ne- ‘prefix used with nouns and verbs...pronoun (first person)’ PM ani ‘I, independent pron.’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 33. PCA neki- ‘shake’ PM niki: ‘shake’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 38. PCA ketak- ‘spotted’ PM tak- ‘spotted’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 43. PCA kaӨo:- ‘talk’ PM ka- ‘talk’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

63. Tupinamba (Tupian)/ Hishkaryana (Cariban) [Tupi-Carib] Source of lexical sets: Aryon D. Rodrigues. 1985. Evidence for Tupi-Carib relationships. In Harriet E. Manelis Klein and Louisa R. Stark (editors), South American Indian Languages: Retrospect and Prospect, pp. 371-404. Austin: University of Texas Press. Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 353


Result 9 4 3 33.3 (3/9)


BVi COMi

33.3 133.2 (4 x 33.3)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: Tb = Tupinamba (Tupian), Hk = Hishkaryana (Cariban) Correspondences series (4): Tb m r k a

Hk m r k a

Supporting Sets |15,|63,|88, |37,|45,|99,|99, |25,|41,|45,|93, |15,|25,|37,|41,|63,|88,|93,

Comparative sets (9): 15. grandfather Tb amõy Hk tam[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 25. fat (noun) Tb kaB Hk ka-tɨ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 37. Tb kwar ‘sun’ Hk a-kwarɨ ‘sunlight’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 41. hot Tb akub Hk ak [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 45. Tb kɨra ‘fat (adjective)’ Hk kare ‘to make fat’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)]

354

63. Tb sam ‘rope’ Hk o-tame ‘thick rope’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 88. to fence Tb man ‘to go around, to fence’ Hk mam-ko ‘to fence’ [Evaluation: 9 (4,2,1,1)] 93. to wake Tb pak Hk haka [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 99. to tremble Tb rɨrɨy Hk rɨrɨnɨ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

64. Proto-Witoto/Proto-Boran [Witotoan] Source of lexical sets: Juan Alvaro Echeverri, and Frank Seifart. 2015. Proto-Witoto-OcainaNonuya and its relation to Proto-Bora-Muinane: A re-evaluation of the Witotoan family. Unpublished manuscript in possession of its authors. Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 7 3 3 42.9 (3/7) 42.9 128.7 (3 x 42.9)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): At least moderate support for genealogical relationship, but one of very great chronological depth Abbreviations: PW = Proto-Witoto, PB = Proto-Boran 355

Correspondences series (3): PW m n o

PB m n ɨ

Comparative sets (7): 48. PW noʔo-ʔi ‘water-cl:liquid’ PB nɨ́-ppai()u ‘water-cl:liquid’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 130. PW noxai-to ‘toucan-cl:pointed.needle’ PB nɨgo ‘toucan’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 206. PW omo ‘2 pl’; PB amɨai ‘2 pl’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 301. PW mame 'name' PB momo 'name' [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 523. PW nemo-na ‘umarí (Poraqueiba sericea)-cl:tree’ PB niimɨ ‘umarí (Poraqueiba sericea)’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 536. PW nemo-ʔi ‘feces-cl:liquid’ PB namo ‘feces’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 558. PW naɯme ‘sweet’ PB naamo ‘sweet’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)]

356

Supporting Sets |206,|301,|301,|523,|536,|558, |48,|130,|523,|536,|558, |48,|130,|206,|523,

65. Proto-Central Algonkian/Tonkawa [Algonquian-Tonkawa] Source of lexical sets: Mary R. Haas. 1959. Tonkawa and Algonkian. Anthropological Linguistics 1(2):1-6. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 13 7 2 15.4 (2/13) 15.4 107.8 (7x15.4)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: PCA = Proto-Central Algonkian, T = Tonkawa Correspondences series (7): PCA p k k k k e a

PCEA

T p k x Ɂ c a a

Supporting Sets |1,|3,|11, |3,|12,|14,|16,|17,|26, |1,|5,|8a,|20, |14,|20,|26, |7,|17,|25, |3,|5,|8a,|25, |1,|7,|11,|12,|16,|17,|20,

Comparative sets (13): 1. beat PCA pak T (ya)paxa[Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 3. close (closed) PCA kepT –kapa357

[Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 5. frightened PCA se:kT saxawa [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 7. hide (verb) PCA kya:T cɁa:pe[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 8a. hot PCA kešyT xal(al) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 11. look PCA –a:pT hapa(xa)- ‘to look up’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 12. negative PCA kaƟ-, kan, kat T kapay ‘no, not, nothing’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 14. old PCA keckyT ko:sɁa [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 16. plural PCA –aki T Ɂa:ka [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 17. porcupine PCA ka:kwT kaci [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 20. scrape 358

PCA ka:škT xɁas(Ɂake)[Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 25. sky PCA ki:šekT cɁel-ay [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 26. spotted PCA ketakT kel(Ɂis) [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

66. Maidu (Maidun)/Lake Miwok (Utian) [California Penutian] Source of lexical sets: Harvey Pitkin and William Shipley.1958. A comparative survey of California Penutian. International Journal of American Linguistics 24:174-188. Geographic region: California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 14 7 2 14.3 (2/14) 14.3 100.1 (7 x 14.3)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: Mm = Maidu, Mil = Lake Miwok Correspondences series (7): Mm

Mil

Supporting Sets

w

w

|10,|14,|16,

t

t

|3,|13,|16,|37,

359

k

k

|2,|3,|14,|17,|18,|32,|41,

a

a

|3,|14,|16,|17,|32,|41,|49,|49,

a

e

|2,|10,|10,|37,

â

e

|18,

a

u

|2,|29,|29,|37,

ɨ

u

|1,|1,|13,|13,|32,

Comparative sets (14): 1. ANT Mm pɨc’ɨ Mil puTuukon [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 2. BEAR Mm ka:pa Mil kule [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 3. BLACKBIRD Mm c’akat Mil c’akaat [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)] 10. CHIN Mm c’awa Mil hewwe [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 13. CRADLE Mm tɨtɨ Mil tunuk [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 14. CRANE Mm waksi Mil waak [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 360

16. DUCK Mm watMil watmay [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 17. EGG Mm pakpak Mil phakphak [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 18. END Mm kân Mil keṭut [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 29. HIDE Mm –sala Mil ṣuluk [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 32. LIVER Mm kɨlla Mil kulla [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 37. RACCOON Mm 7atata Mil tuṭe [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 41. SALIVA Mm yakan Mil hakkoy [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 49. THIGH Mm mawa Mil muyya [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)]

67. Proto-Ongan/Proto-Austronesian [Ongan-Austronesian] 361

Source of lexical sets: Juliette Blevins. 2007. A long lost sister of Proto-Austronesian? ProtoOngan, mother of Jarawa and Onge of the Andaman Islands. Oceanic Linguistics 46:154-198. Geographic region: Andaman Islands, South Pacific Basin, Indian Ocean, Madagascar BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 6 3 2 33.3 (2/6) 33.3 99.9 (3 x 33.3)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: PON = Proto-Ongan, PAN = Proto-Austronesian, RM = reflex meaning Correspondences series (3): PON

PAN

Supporting Sets

w

w

|9,|46,|47,|66,

k

k

|43,|44,|46,|56,

a

a

|9,|36,|43,|43,|44,|46,|47,|56,|56,|66,|66,

Comparative sets (6): 9. PON ekeyaw (RM: 'sun, daylight') PAN qajaw 'day' [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1) BV] 43. PON kaka (RM: ‘crab’) PAN kagaŋ 'crab sp.' [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 44. 362

PON kam (RM: 'mat of split canes used for sleeping') PAN Si/kam 'mat'. [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 47. PON noŋaw (RM: ‘housefly’) PAN laŋaw 'fly (insect)' [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,0,1)] 56. PON cakaya 'walk' PAN sakay 'walk, go' [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 66. PON wawa 'to caw; crow' PAN wakwak 'bird sp.; to caw; crow' [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,0,1)]

68. Proto-Pama-Nyungan/Proto-Tangkic [Australian] Source of lexical sets: Barry Alpher. n.d. Pama-Nyungan: Phonological reconstruction and status as a phylogenetic group. Manuscript in possession of its author. Geographic region: Australia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 4 3 1 25 (1/4) 25 75 (3 x 25)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: pPNy = Proto-Pama-Nyungen, pT = Proto-Tangkic, RM = reflex meaning Correspondences series (3): pPNy

pT

Supporting Sets

363

k

k

k

|1,|5,|16, |7,|7,

a

a

|1,|5,|5,|16,

u

u

|1,|16,

u

|7,

Comparative sets (4): 1. LEFT HAND pPNy caku pTangkic thaku [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 5. COOK IN EARTH OVEN pPNy ka:mpa- (RM: ‘cook’, ‘burn’) pT kawa-tha (‘roast in ground over’) [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1) BV] 7. ALIVE pPNy kunka (RM: ‘raw’, ‘alive’) pT kunku (RM: raw’) [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)] 16. ROTTEN pPNy puka pT puka-ra [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)]

69. Proto-Austronesian/Proto-Hlai (Tai-Kadai) [Austro-Tai] Source of lexical sets: Peter Norquest. 2013. A revised inventory of Proto Austronesian consonants: Kra-Dai and Austroasiatic Evidence. Mon-Khmer Studies 42: 102-125. Geographic region: Southeast Asia, China, and adjoining areas BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets


Result 3



2 1 33.3 (1/3) 33.3 66.6 (2 x 33.3)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: PAn = Proto-Austronesian, RAn = Revised Proto-Austronesian, PHlai = ProtoHlai (Tai-Kadai, aka Kra-Dai) Correspondences series (2): PAn l u

RAn ɭ u

PHlai r u

Supporting Sets |21,|22,|24, |21,|22,|24,

Comparative sets (3): 21. head PAn qulu RAn quɭu PHlai CurǝwɁ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] 22. to plant PAn [mula] RAn muɭa PHlai Cura: [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] 24. eight PAn walu RAn waɭu PHlai ru: [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

70. Proto-Popolocan/Proto-Mixtecan [Otomanguean]

365

Source of lexical sets: Sarah A. Gudschinsky.1959. Proto-Popotecan: A Comparative Study of Popolocan and Mixtecan. Supplement to International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 25, No. 2. Geographic region: Mexico BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 4 2 1 25 (1/4) 25 50 (2 x 25.0)

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: PP = Proto-Popolocan, PM = Proto-Mixtecan Correspondences series (2): PP š a

PM Ɵ i

Supporting Sets 165,166,170,172, 165,166,170,172,

Comparative sets (4): 165. PP ša ‘earthquake, tremble’ PM θiʔ ‘to press, to chew, to nail, to quiver, to tremble, to touch, to feel’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 166. PP ša ‘salt’ PM θim ‘salt’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 170. PP šą ‘liquor, pulque’ PM θi ‘cane-whiskey, cactus-beer’ [Evaluation: 8 (4,2,1,1)] (Note: pulque is cactus-beer) 366

172. PP šaʔ ‘blanket, white hair, hair, hair of our heads’ PM θi ‘grey hairs’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0) BV] (Note: white hair and grey hairs are considered synonyms)

71. Proto-Maidun/Proto-Wintun [California Penutian] Source of lexical sets: Harvey Pitkin and William Shipley.1958. A comparative survey of California Penutian. International Journal of American Linguistics 24:174-188. Geographic region: California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): No support for historical connection

72. Proto-Gorokan/Awa (Kainutu) [Eastern Highlands] Source of lexical sets: William A. Foley. 1986. The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (For lexical sets, see pages 254-256.) Geographic region: Papua New Guinea BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): No support for historical connection 367

73. Chitimacha/Proto-Totozoquean [Chitimacha-Totozoquean] Source of lexical sets: Cecil H. Brown, Søren Wichmann, and David Beck. 2014. Chitimacha: A Mesoamerican language in the Lower Mississippi Valley. International Journal of American Linguistics 80:425-474. Geographic region: Middle and North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


74. Proto-Jê/Proto-Jabuti [(Nuclear-) Macro-Jê] Source of lexical sets: Eduardo Rivail Ribeiro and Hein van der Voort 2010. Nimuendajú was right: The inclusion of the Jabutí language family in the Macro-Jê Stock. International Journal of American Linguistics 76:517-570. Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


368

75. Reef-Santa Cruz (Natügu) /Proto-Oceanic [Temotu-Oceanic] Source of lexical sets: Malcolm Ross and Åshild Næss. 2007. An Oceanic origin for Äiwoo, the language of the Reef Islands? Oceanic Linguistics 48:456-498. Geographic region: Soloman Islands and adjoining areas of the South Pacific BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


76. Tol (aka Jicaque)/Chontal (aka Tequistlatec) [Jicaquean-Tequistlatecan] Source of lexical sets: Lyle Campbell and David Oltrogge. 1980. Proto-Tol (Jicaque). International Journal of American Linguistics 46:205-223. Geographic region: Middle America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


77. Maidu (Maidun) /Yawelmani Yokuts [California Penutian]

369

Source of lexical sets: Harvey Pitkin and William Shipley.1958. A comparative survey of California Penutian. International Journal of American Linguistics 24:174-188. Geographic region: California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 4 3 0 0 0 0

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: Mm = Maidu, Yy = Yawelmani Yokuts Correspondences series (3): Mm

Yy

Supporting Sets

w

w

|10,|13,|14,

k

x

|13,|14,|37,

a

a

|10,|10,|13,|37,|37,

â

a

|14,

Comparative sets (4): 10. CHIN Mm c’awa Yy 7aw’aS [Evaluation: 9 (6,2,1,0)] 13. CRANE Mm waksi Yy wa:xaT’ [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)]

370

14. CRY, TO Mm wâk Yy wa:xal [Evaluation: 8 (6,2,0,0)] 37. PITCH, RESIN Mm c’akam Yy sa:xal [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)]

78. Proto-Korean/Proto-Mongolic [Transeurasian] Source of lexical sets: Martine Robbeets. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Geographic region: East Asia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 3 2 0 0 0 0

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): Weak support for historical connection Abbreviations: PK = Proto-Korean, PMo = Proto-Mongolic Correspondences series (2): PK k a

PMo g a

Supporting Sets |3,|5,|11, |3,|5,|11,

Comparative sets (3): 3. PK *ako ‘open’ PMo *agui ‘opening’ 371

[Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,1)] 5. PK *ka- ‘go’ PMo *gar- ‘go out’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)] 11. PK *apwok ‘marshmallow’ PMo *abuga ‘marshmallow’ [Evaluation: 7 (4,2,1,0)]

79. Alsea/Wintu (Wintun) [Alsea/Wintun] Source of lexical sets: Victor Golla. 1997. The Alsea-Wintuan connection. International Journal of American Linguistics 63:157-170. Geographic region: Oregon and California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


80. Haida/Proto-Athabascan [Haida-Na-Dene] Source of lexical sets: John Enrico. 2004. Toward Proto-Na-Dene. Anthropological Linguistics 46:229-302. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets


Result 0



0 0 0 0 0


81. Nubian/Nilotic [Eastern Sudanic] Source of lexical sets: Joseph H. Greenberg. 1966. The Languages of Africa. Indiana University, Bloomington. Geographic region: Africa BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0

Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): No support for historical connection Note: Tom Güldemann informs me that more recent lexical sources for this comparison should yield positive BWB evaluations.

82. Paya/Talamancan [Chibchan] Source of lexical sets: Adolfo Constenla. 1981. Comparative Chibchan Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Geographic region: Middle America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets


Result 0



0 0 0 0 0


83. Proto-Chiapanec-Mangue/Proto-Mixtecan [Otomanguean] Source of lexical sets: María Teresa Fernández de Miranda and Robert J. Weitlaner. 1961. Sobre algunas relaciones de la familia Mangue. Anthropological Linguistics 3:1-99. Geographic region: Middle America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


84. Proto-Chiapanec-Mangue/Proto-Popolocan [Otomanguean] Source of lexical sets: María Teresa Fernández de Miranda and Robert J. Weitlaner. 1961. Sobre algunas relaciones de la familia Mangue. Anthropological Linguistics 3:1-99. Geographic region: Middle America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 374


Result 0 0 0 0


BVi COMi

0 0


85. Proto-Indo-European/Proto-Finno-Ugric [Indo-Uralic] Source of lexical sets: Don Ringe. 1998. Probabilistic evidence for Indo-Uralic. Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence, Joseph C. Salmons and Brian D. Joseph, eds., pp. 153-197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Geographic region: Eurasia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


86. Proto-Jê/Karaja [(Nuclear-) Macro-Jê] Source of lexical sets: Irvine Davis. 1968. Some Macro-Jê relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 34:42-47. Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index 375


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0

Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average Interpretation of results (Brown 2017:276, Table 6): No support for historical connection

87. Proto-Korean/Proto-Turkic [Transeurasian] Source of lexical sets: Martine Robbeets. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Geographic region: Asia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


88. Proto-Na Dene/Proto-Yeniseian [Dene-Yeniseian] Source of lexical sets: Edward J. Vajda. 2010. A Siberian link with Na-Dene languages. In: James Kari and Ben A. Potter (eds.) The Dene-Yeniseian connection, pp.33-99. Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Geographic region: Asia and North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average

376


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


89. Proto-Otopamean/Proto-Popolocan-Mixtecan [Otomanguean] Source of lexical sets: Doris A. Bartholomew.1965. The reconstruction of Otopamean (Mexico). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Geographic region: Mexico BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


90. Proto-Tungusic/Proto-Turkic [Transeurasian] Source of lexical sets: Martine Robbeets. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Geographic region: Asia BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


377

91. Proto-Yokuts/ Proto-Utian [California Penutian] Source of lexical sets: Catherine Callaghan. 2014. Proto Utian Grammar and Dictionary with Notes on Yokuts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Geographic region: California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


92. Pumé/Proto-Chocoan [Pumé-Chocoan] Source of lexical sets: Matthias Pache. 2016. Evidence for a genealogical link between Pumé (Yaruro) and Chocoan. Language Dynamics and Change 6:99-155. Geographic region: South America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


93. Tlapanec/Isthmus Zapotec [Otomanguean]

378

Source of lexical sets: Calvin R. Rensch.1977. Classification of the Otomanguean languages and the position of Tlapanec. In: David Oltrogge and Calvin R. Rensch (eds.) Two Studies in Middle American Comparative Linguistics, pp. 53-108. The Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington. Geographic region: Mexico BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


94. Tlapanec/Proto-Popolocan [Otomanguean] Source of lexical sets: Calvin R. Rensch.1977. Classification of the Otomanguean languages and the position of Tlapanec. In: David Oltrogge and Calvin R. Rensch (eds.) Two Studies in Middle American Comparative Linguistics, pp. 53-108. The Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington. Geographic region: Mexico BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


95. Wappo (Yukian)/ Proto-Siouan [Yukian-Siouan] 379

Source of lexical sets: William W. Elmendorf. 1963. Yukian-Siouan lexical similarities. International Journal of American Linguistics 29:300-309. Geographic region: North America BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


96. Wintu (Wintun)/Yawelmani Yokuts [California Penutian] Source of lexical sets: Harvey Pitkin and William Shipley.1958. A comparative survey of California Penutian. International Journal of American Linguistics:174-188. Geographic region: California BWB results: Result type 1. Number of BWB comparative sets 2. Number of BWB correspondence series 3. Number of sets with basic vocabulary (Swadesh 100) 4. Basic-vocabulary percentage 5. Basic-vocabulary index 6. Composite index Boldface CORi, BVi, COMi ≥ average


Result 0 0 0 0 0 0


380

381