on the origins of the possessive markers

8/8/2019 On the Origins of the Possessive Markers

1/21

On the Origins of the Possessive Markers in Central Pacific LanguagesAuthor(s): John Lynch

Source: Oceanic Linguistics, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Dec., 1997), pp. 227-246Published by: University of Hawai'i PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3622986Accessed: 22/06/2010 06:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oceanic

Linguistics.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3622986?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3622986?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/21

ON THEORIGINSOFTHEPOSSESSIVEMARKERSIN CENTRALPACIFICLANGUAGES

JOHN LYNCHUNIVERSITYOF THE SOUTH PACIFIC

Thispaper'sriginalmpetus as oattemptofind hemorphosyntacticriginsof thewell-known olynesian andapossessive-markers,nd heorigins fthephonologicallyndgrammaticallyimilarRotumanmarkers oand?e.Inexploringheseorigins, omecontributions made othedevelopmentf theOceanic ossessive ystemnProto-Centralacific s awhole,andespeciallywithin heFijidialectchain.Inparticular,vidence s adduced o suggestthatthePolynesianandRotumanystemsresemble hose of Kadavu ndGoneDaumore han hose of Lau,and hat hissuggests hatGeraghty's(1983)Tokalau-Polynesianypothesismayrequire ome reassessment.

1. INTRODUCTION. Proto-PolynesianPPn)andRotumanbothhaveposses-sive-marking ystems hatappear ot to continuedirectlyheProto-OceanicPOc)orProto-Central acific PCP)systemsbutthat,on thesurfaceatleast, ookverysimilar o each other.The well-known"alo distinction,"which is not found out-sidePolynesia/Rotuma,asreceiveda greatdeal of attentionn thelinguistic it-erature.But almostall of this attentionhas focusedon the semanticsof a- and o-marking. tis somewhat urprisinghat herehas not beenmuchdiscussionon themorphosyntactic istoryof these two markers. n thispaper, attempt o outlinethe historicaldevelopmentof the PolynesianandRotumanpossessive-markingsystems,and also to castsomelighton developmentswithinFijiitself.In so do-ing,I will suggest hat he CentralPacific inkagemaywell bepartof the SouthernOceanic inkage,mostcloselyrelated o thelanguagesof NorthernVanuatu.I2. SUBGROUPING HYPOTHESES. The Central Pacific subgroup ofOceanic consistsof theFijiandialectchain,Rotuman,andthePolynesianlan-guages.As far as external elationshipsreconcerned,Pawley's(I972) "EasternOceanichypothesis"(figureI) suggestedthatthe closest relativesof CentralPacificare the languagesof Northand CentralVanuatu.2Pawley subsequentlywithdrew he SoutheastSolomonicgroup romEasternOceanic,andrenamedheremainderRemote Oceanic PawleyI977).OceanicLinguistics,Volume36, no. 2 (DecemberI997)? by Universityof Hawai'iPress. All rightsreserved.


3/21

OCEANIC INGUISTICS,OL.36, NO. 2FIGURE 1. PAWLEY'S EASTERN OCEANIC HYPOTHESIS

Pawley's "EasternOceanic"(modified1972version)

SoutheastSolomonic North-CentralVanuatu/Central acific

North-CentralVanuatu CentralPacific

N.Vanuatu C.Vanuatu Fijian Rotuman Polynesian

Onthebasisof morerecentresearch,Lynch,Ross,andCrowley forthcoming)proposethe tentativeclassificationof Oceaniclanguagesoutlined in figure2.FollowingRoss (forthcoming), use the term"family"o referto aninnovation-definedgroupof languages, heproductof language issure,whereasa "linkage"is an innovation-linkedroupof languages, heproductof lectaldifferentiation.The term"subgroup"s used when it is not importanto distinguishbetweenafamilyor a linkage,or when the exactnature f therelationship as not beenfullyestablished.3TheCentral-EasternOceanicsubgroups notparticularlyecureatthisstageof investigation, ut tsvalidityas a subgroups notgermaneo thecon-clusionsreachedn thispaper.Ofparticularnterest o us here s the SouthernOceanic inkage,because t in-cludes the languagesof northern nd centralVanuatu hatPawleyfelt weretheclosest external elativesof the CentralPacific anguages.Thecompositionof thissubgroups outlinednfigure3 (Lynch orthcoming ,b), inwhichdoubleunder-lining represents linkage.FIGURE2. TENTATIVE UBGROUPING F OCEANICLANGUAGESPROTO-OCEANICAdmiralties family

Western Oceanic linkageNorth New Guinea inkagePapuanTip linkageMeso-Melanesianinkage[Unclassified:Sarmi-JayapuraBay family;cf. Ross (1996)]Central-Eastern Oceanic subgroupSoutheastSolomonic familyUtupua-VanikoroubgroupSouthernOceaniclinkageCentralPacificlinkageGreaterMicronesian amily

[Unclassifiedbutpossiblyfirst-orderubgroupsYapeseSt. Matthias amily]

228


4/21

POSSESSIVEMARKERSNCENTRALACIFIC ANGUAGES

FIGURE 3. THE SOUTHERN OCEANIC LINKAGESouthernOceanic

NorthernVanuatuI I I I I

varioussubgroupsin northernVanuatu

NuclearSouthernOceanicI I I I Ivarioussubgroupsin central

VanuatuSouth Efate-SouthernMelanesian

I IS.Efate Proto-SouthernMelanesian

IProto-SouthernVanuatu

Erromango I ITanna Anejoth

Proto-New Caledonian

Northern Southern LoyaltyGrande-Terre Grande-Terre Islands

If indeedPawleywas correct n theorizing hatCentralPacific' closest ex-ternal relativesare the languagesof northernand centralVanuatu,and if theclassificationof Oceanic anguages n figure2 is also substantiallyorrect, henonehypothesiswould be thatCentralPacificandSouthernOceanic orma singlesubgroup f Central-Eastern ceanic,whichI will call "MiddlePacific" o as nottopreempta better erm f one is needed ater.Thisis shownastree(a)in figure4.Anotherhypothesiswould be thatCentralPacific s one of thecomponent ink-ages of SouthernOceanic,a possible family treebeing (b) in figure4 (wherethe term"MiddlePacific" s used with a differentreferent).I show in section3.6 that(b) in figure4 maybe a morelikely hypothesis,at least on thebasis ofthepossessive-marking ystems.

FIGURE4. CENTRALPACIFICWITHINCENTRAL-EASTERNCEANIC(a) Central-EasternOceanicI

"MiddlePacific"

S.E. Solomonic Utupua-Vanikoro

(b)"MiddlePacific"

, ,I II I Ivarious

subgroupsin N. Vanuatu

NuclearSouthernOceanicl l l l1!

CENTRAL variousPACIFIC subgroupsin C. Vanuatu

SOUTHERNOCEANIC

CENTRALPACIFIC

GreaterMicronesian

South Efate-SouthernMelanesian(as in figure3 above)

SOUTHERNOCEANIC

I

229


5/21

OCEANICLINGUISTICS,VOL. 36, NO. 2

3. POSSESSIVE-MARKING IN PROTO-CENTRAL PACIFIC. In thissectionI attempt o reconstructhepossessive-markingystemof Proto-CentralPacific.3.1 THE PROTO-OCEANIC SYSTEM. Proto-Oceanics reconstructed shavinghada systemof possessive-markingike theonein (I), which s basedonLynch(I996a, I996b). I use thegeneric labelsKIN, PART, PASSIVE, FOOD, DRINK,andGENERALn smallcapitals o refer o thewidelyrecognized emantic atego-ries of Oceanicpossession,withoutgoinginto detailabout heirsemantics.Notealso that heremayhave been morethanone GENERALarker.4

(i) Direct Possession: KIN; PART;PASSIVEIndirectPossessionwith *ka- FOODwith *ma- DRINKwith *na-/*a- GENERAL

Onepointthatrequiresbriefdiscussionhere s the reconstruction f passivepos-sessionwithdirectmarking.ThispointwasarguednLynch 996a),andhas beendeveloped urther n Lynch(g996b).Passivepossession s markedby directpos-sessionin at least some membersof everyfirst-andsecond-orderOceanic sub-group.In someother anguagesn most(butnotall)of thesesubgroups, ASSIVEmergedwithFOODossession.Theexplanationor thisappearso be related othefact that heverbmeaning eat'often has a secondarymeaning toexperience of-tennegatively), o suffer, o takeuntooneself' in manyof theselanguages,andmaypossiblyhave had thismeaning n POc.At some stage in the developmentof Oceanic, and certainlyby what wemightcall the Pre-Proto-CentralPacificstage, the GENERALmarker*na-/*a-had been replacedby themarker*no-/*o-. This assumption s basednot onlyon the preponderanceof no-/o- in (eastern)Fiji, but also on the widespreadform no- in NorthernVanuatu anguages(Pawley I972:86, interalia). I alsoassumethat, n Pre-Proto-Centralacific,PASSIVEpossessionwas markedas itwasinProto-Oceanic-bydirectpossession-and that hemergerof PASSIVEithFOODn Fijiis a later nnovationnot sharedby Proto-Polynesianr Rotuman.justifythisassumptionn section3.5 below.In commentingon my suggestion (Lynch I996a) thatthe POc GENERALmarker*na-may have derivedfromthe POc article*na,Malcolm Ross (pers.comm.) has made the pointthat thereappears o be a close link betweenpos-sessive markersanddeictics more generally-the POc deictics being *e/*ne(or *i/*ni) 'proximal',*o/*no 'distal',and *a/*na'immediate,unmarked'. n-deed, it may well be that the GENERALpossessive markers n POc originallyweredeictics, and thereis evidence in some Western Oceaniclanguagesthatsuggests thatpossessive suffixeswere attached o deictics.This hypothesisisdefinitelyworthfurthernvestigation. f it werecorrect, hen t wouldexplaina

230


6/21

POSSESSIVEMARKERSNCENTRAL ACIFIC ANGUAGES

coupleof generalfeaturesof Oceanicpossessivemarking: a) thevariabilityofthe vowel in theGENERALmarker,withna-/a-,ne-/e-,andno-/o- all being quitewidespread;and (b) the variability n the consonant,with na- anda- (for ex-ample)bothbeing quitewidespread.Itwould alsoexplaina numberof factshaving odo specificallywith thePCPsystem,whichI will touchonlater, uchas(a)thechange nProto-Central acificfrom *na-/*a- o *no-/*o- as the GENERALarker;b)the alternationetweennaanda in theFijianarticles,andthecorrespondenceetweenthepresenceor ab-sence of n in the article and the GENERALossessive marker(Geraghty I983:253);and(c) thepresenceof apossessive-marker-inan earlier tageof WesternFijian.3.2 THE PROTO-POLYNESIANSYSTEM. Proto-Polynesian aschangedboth the system and the markersnvolved. The Proto-Polynesian ystemI re-constructbelow is basedlargely, thoughnot entirely,on Wilson (I982), and Iwill explainthe divergences shortly.

(2) Direct Possession: KINsome terms-see [3] below)IndirectPossession:with *(q)o- KIN(remaining terms); PART; ASSIVEwith *qa- FOOD;DRINK;GENERALSome comments on (2) arenecessary.First,thereare a numberof Proto-Polynesian interms, istedin (3), thatap-parently ook direct suffixationwith singularpossessors(Wilson I982:37).

(3) *tahi- 'youngersame-sexsibling'*tuaka- 'older same-sexsibling'*tina- 'mother'*tama- 'father'*m(a,o)kupu- 'grandchild'*tupu- 'grandparent'

All otherkin termswere possessed indirectlywith *(q)o-, althoughthere issome evidence thatPPNmay have been moving towardsa system in which"acquired" elatives (spouses, affines, and children)were markedwith *qa-(Wilson 1982:30-35).I take ssuewithWilson on a secondpoint.HereconstructsDRINKossessionas beingmarkedby *(q)o-rather han*qa-,based on thefollowingfacts:(a) InEasternPolynesian anguages,certaindrinks mostnotablykavaandmedicines)arepossessedwithreflexesof *(q)o-,thoughothersarepossessedwithreflexesof*qa-.Forexample,"inHawaiian, awa'kava', hat s intended o be drunk,s pos-sessed with0, while all otherpotables, includingwater andmedicine,takeA"(Wilson1982:27).(b)Tonganappearso generalize hisfurther,using o-posses-sionwith all drinks. c) InTonganandRarotongan,ourcesof drinks likewells,springs,and water anks)arepossessedwithreflexesof *(q)o-.

231


7/21

OCEANIC INGUISTICS,OL.36, NO. 2

It appears o me thata differenthypothesiscan be proposedhere.It seemslikely thatDRINKossession involving "ordinary" rinksmergedwith FOODpossession (as in Rotumanand a largenumberof Oceaniclanguagesfurtherwest), andthatthiscategorywas markedwith*qa-in PPn.However,"special"drinks ike kavaandmedicines,drunk pecifically or ceremonialorritualpur-poses and/or o inducea changeof physicalstate,werepossessedin a PASSIVEconstruction,andwere markedwith *(q)o-. The Tongansituationoutlinedin(b) and(c) abovecan thus be treatedas a laterextension,with *(q)o- expand-ing its rangeof use frommarking"special"drinksto markingall ingestedliq-uids, rather hanas a retention romPPN.5The actual orm of the PPNpossessivemarkers*qa-and*(q)o-)also needsbriefdiscussion.Wilson says that "reconstructionf initialglottalstopfor allProto-Polynesianimple possessives s suggestedby comparison f simplepos-sessives [*qa-,*(q)o-]with irrealisandellipticalpossessives[*maqa-,*moqo-,*taqa-,*toqo-,etc.],... [which]derive romsimplepossessivesprecededbyotherelements.Both[irrealis ndellipticalpossessives]areclearlyreconstructed ithaglottalstopat the historicalmorphemeboundarynitiatinghesimple possessiveelement.Goodsynchronic upportor thisglottal top s restrictedo Tongan, heonly languagewhere two crucialProto-Polynesianeaturesarepreservedto-gether:(a) PPN*q and(b) theuse of simplepossessivesphrase-internally....Polynesiananguagesoftenneutralisehedistinction etweenglottal topandzerophrase-initially.nTongan, impleA possessivesalwayscontainaninitialglottalstopevenphrase-internally,hilesimple0 possessivesmayoccurwith or with-out aninitialglottalstop" Wilson1982:48).Wilson(1982) in factreconstructs numberof Proto-Polynesian ossessivemarkers: he datain (4) below illustratenot only the variablepresenceor ab-sence of *q in the o-form,but also the fact thatthe firstelement is prefixed.Irepeatthesein full in (4) (fromWilson 1982:74withslightmodifications).6

(4) a-FORM 0-FORM COMPARESimple *qa *(q)oDefinitepreposed *te-qa- *t-o- *te definitearticleIndefinitepreposed *sa-qa- *s-o- *sa indefinitearticleDefiniteelliptical *t-aqa- *t-oqo- *te definitearticleIndefiniteelliptical *s-aqa- *s-oqo- *sa indefinitearticleRealis *ni-(q)a- *ni-(q)o- [see note 6]Irrealis *m-aqa- *m-oqo- *me irrealisIt thusappears hat the *q was definitelypresent n the marker*qa-,buthas amore dubioushistoryin the marker*(q)o-. Thatis, the originalmarkersmayhavebeen *qa- and*o-, with *o- changingto *qo- (in some contextsin somelanguages) by paradigmatic nalogy.3.3 THEROTUMANSYSTEM. RotumanChurchward94o, Schmidt orth-coming)has alsochangedboththeoriginal ystemandthemarkersnvolved.

232


8/21

POSSESSIVEMARKERSN CENTRALACIFIC ANGUAGES

(5) IndirectPossession:with ?o- KIN; PART;PASSIVE;GENERALwith ?e- FOOD;DRINK

The examples given in (6) arein phonemicrather hanorthographic cript.(6) ?o-n le? / kia / ri

POSS-3SGchild / neck / house'his child / neck / house'?e-n ?a?ana / tonuPOSS-3SG aro / water'his taro(as food) / water(as drink)'

Rotumanhas lost directpossession altogether whichProto-Polynesianwas inthe process of losing), and in otherrespects is superficially very similar toPolynesian.Themajordifference s that,whilePPnhasmerged heFOOD/DRINKcategory with the GENERAL one, Rotuman keeps FOOD/DRINK distinct fromGENERAL,ut merges all other categories with GENERAL.7

3.4 THE FIJIAN SYSTEMS. The Fijian anguagesdo not forma subgroupin the sameway thatthe Polynesian anguagesdo.8 Proto-CentralPacificwasa linkage that diversified into the Fijiandialect chain, Rotuman,andProto-Polynesian, though there was apparently ater convergence between someFijian languages (Pawley I979, GeraghtyI983). Unlike their other CentralPacificrelatives,mostFijianlanguagesretainthe Proto-Oceanic ystem (withthe exceptionof PASSIVEarking), houghsome of them have madechangesin theformof one or more of the indirectmarkers,a topicto which I will returnshortly.In discussing possessive-marking ystems,I distinguish hefollowingfoursubregions n Fiji, whicharedefinedtypologicallyand do notnecessarilyimply any statementaboutgeneticrelationship:* WESTERN IJIAN:western Viti Levu and offshore islands

* PERIPHERALIJIAN:Kadavu, and Gone Dau in Vanua Levu* CENTRALFIJIAN: asternViti Levu andalmostall of VanuaLevu* LAUAN:Lau and Vanua Balavu

Table I summarizes Geraghty's (I983:247) more detailed analysis of thepossessive markers n modernFijian anguages, ncorporating dditionaldatasuppliedby PaulGeraghty.9In table I, PROepresentsdirectpossession, thepositionof the hyphen showingwhether he pronoun s suffixed or prefixed.Idiscuss the changesthat have takenplace in Fiji in section4 below.3.5 THE PROTO-CENTRAL PACIFIC SYSTEM. Most of the Fijianpossessive-marking ystemsdescribedabove are,with the exceptionof PART-and PASSiVE-marking,denticalwith the Proto-Oceanicsystem in (i). Therewere, however,changesin thepossessive markers.

233


9/21


3.5.1 DRINK Possession. The DRINKmarker seems to be universally me- inFiji,'?whichobviouslyderives romPOc*ma-withachange nvowel that willtryto account or in section3.6. This markerhasbeen lost (throughmergerwithFOOD)n PolynesianandRotuman. reconstruct roto-Central acific *me-.3.5.2 FOOD ossession. Inreconstructinghe formof the FOOD arker,we needfirst o look at the Proto-Central acificvelarprotophonemes. herelevantPCPvelarsreconstructedy GeraghtyI986:3o5ff.)and their(diaphonemic)eflexesinFijian,Proto-Polynesian,ndRotuman regivenin(7) (whereGeraghty'sPCPsymbolshavebeenchanged oconform o themorestandard Oc orthography).

(7) POc *k-LENIS *k-FORTIS *g *qPCP *x *k *g *qFijian k k q 0PPN *q *k *k *qRotuman 0,? ? k 0, ?The formsof the food marker regenerallyke- nFiji(butnote Nabukelevuna-),PPN*qa-,andRotuman?e-.Thissuggests hat he initialconsonantwas PCP*x,derivingpresumably rom the lenis allophoneof POc *k. Now POc *ka- wasregularlypreceded n POc and its immediatedescendantsby the article*na/*a,andthusthe *k was intervocalic-a typical enitingenvironment.tis notsurpris-ing thatmanyOceanic anguageshave a lenisreflexof *k in thisform,as for ex-ampleTolaia-, CentralPapuanmarkers ike Motu a- and Hulaya-, and Proto-SouthernVanuatu*n-ya- whichhas the historicalaccretedarticle-Lenakel nd/ka-,Whitesands a/ga-,SouthwestTannan/a-,Anejoffiin/ca-inya-/).

TABLE 1. FIJIAN POSSESSIVE-MARKERSKIN PART PASSIVE FOOD DRINK GENERAL

Western FijianTubai na- PRO- ke- ke- me- na-Savatu -PRO PRO- ke- ke- me- la-Nadroga -PRO PRO- PRO- ke- me- le-All others -PRO PRO- ke- ke- me- le-

Peripheral FijianNabukelevu Kadavu) -PRO ne- na- na- me- ne-OtherKadavu -PRO no- ke- ke- me- no-Gone Dau -PRO o- ke- ke- me- o-

Central FijianC.-W. VanuaLevu, -PRO -PRO ke- ke- me- o-Labasa,Naweni,TunuloaOtherE. VanuaLevu -PRO -PRO ke- ke- me- no-Waidina -PRO -PRO ke- ke- me- ne-OtherE. Viti Levu -PRO -PRO ke- ke- me- no-

Lauan FijianLau,Vanua Balavu -PRO -PRO O- ke- me- o-

234


10/21

POSSESSIVEMARKERSN CENTRAL ACIFIC ANGUAGES

Now to the vowel of the FOODmarker. Geraghty (I983:383-384) notes thatLau andVanua Balavu have irregular irstpersonpossessive forms for GEN-ERALndFOOD-qouandqaufor expected **o-quand **ke-qu espectively:"The irregularity appearsto be the result of metathesis: the expected oqu[ISG:GENERAL]s, in fact, found in Vanua Levu.... But if [the ISG:FOODformqau]is the resultof thesamemetathesis hatproducedqou, ts sourcemusthavebeen *a-qu,rather han*ke-qu."f the Lau formwas originallya-, the modernLau FOODossessive-markerke "is an innovationof partof the Fijiandialectchain after he settlementof Polynesia" Geraghty1983:393).Nabukelevualsoshows an a in the FOODmarker,andI will suggest laterthat Nabukelevuna-FOODderives from *na ka- (ARTFOOD)by lenition. So this suggests that theoriginalform of the markern Fijiwas ka-.Oceanistshaveresorted o theconceptof "assimilation"o explainthevaria-tion in the vowels of the possessive markers e.g., Pawley I973, Lichtenberk1985). The fact thatthe vowel in POc *ma-and *ka-is raised andfronted o ein mostFijian anguages,forexample,is oftensaidto be due to assimilation othe following high (back)vowel of the high-frequency irstandsecondpersonsingularsuffixes-original *ma-gu,*ka-mu,etc. producingme-qu,ke-mu,etc.The same conceptof assimilation,however, is also often used to explain theraisingandbackingof the vowel in the GENERALarker-*na-gu, *na-mu>no-qu,no-mu,whichis contradictory.Note specifically n this context thatvir-tuallyall NorthernVanuatu anguagesshowka- from*ka-,butnearlyall showno- from*na-,suggestingthatthe *na-> no- and*ka-> ke-changes may havedifferentexplanations,andmay have takenplace atdifferent imes, *na-> no-preceding*ka-> ke-.I would suggest,therefore, hatthe Proto-CentralPacificFOODmarkerwas*xa-(andnot*xe-,despite heprevalence f the mid vowel inFijiandRotuma).II also suggestthat,at some stagein thedevelopmentof the CentralPacificlan-guages, a single Fijianlanguage(probablyone in EasternViti Levu) changedka- to ke-, either because of the "assimilation"mentionedabove or, perhapsmorelikely,throughparadigmaticssimilationo thevowelof theDRINKmarkerme- (and maybe also to the ne- allomorphof the GENERALmarkerdiscussedbelow), and thatthis ke-thenspread o some other anguages,as suggestedbyGeraghty.Morerecently,the influenceof Standard Bauan)Fijianmay havecausedotherFijianlanguagesto changeka- to ke-.3.5.3 GENERAL Possession. On thebasisof NorthernVanuatuandFijianevi-dence,theGENERAL markern PCP wasprobably*no-/*o-,and derived rom,oractuallywas,the distaldeictic. Insection4.1, I look atthequestionof whethere-/la- in WesternFijian anguages s a later nnovationor has a differentorigin.)There s alsofairly goodevidence that his*no-/*o-,which occurredbeforepro-nouns,alternatedwith a form*ne-/*e-,which occurredbeforetheproperpos-sessormarker*i. Suchalternations refoundin almostevery regionof easternFiji,with*ne-ioccasionallysurfacingasni, and *e-iusuallyoccurring s we-i.

235


11/21


3.5.4 PASSIVE and PARTPossession. AlthoughmostFijian anguages mergePASSIVEwithFOOD,Nadroga, Lau,andVanuaBalavudo not;nordo PolynesianandRotuman.Nadroga,Rotuman,andPolynesianall retain heProto-Oceanicsystem inasmuch as PASSIVEnd PART re marked in the same way (though onlyNadrogaactuallymarks hesewith a directconstruction),while Lauand VanuaBalavu merge PASSIVE ith GENERAL. his implies that PASSIVEnd FOODwerestill distinct n Proto-CentralPacificand,as I mentionedabove, themergerofFOODnd PASSIVEossession in many of the Fijian languages is almost certainly amorerecentprocesspostdatinghebreakup f Proto-Central acific.Because ofthis,I reconstruct ASSIVEs beingmarkedby directpossession.3.5.5 Summary. I suggest therefore that the following set of possessive-markers houldbe reconstructedor Proto-CentralPacific:

(8) Direct possession: KIN; PART; PASSIVEIndirectpossession:with *xa- FOODwith *me- DRINKwith *no-/*o- GENERAL (> *ne-/*e- / *i)

The developmentof these markers n the daughter anguagesof PCP is sum-marizedin table 2, where the label "Pre-Fijian"efersto the most conserva-tive reflexes(see section4 for anelaborationof this).In sections4 and5, I tryto explainhow theFijian,Proto-Polynesian,andRotumansystemsdevelopedfrom this Proto-CentralPacificsystem.3.6 CENTRAL PACIFICAND SOUTHERN OCEANIC.In section2, I out-lined two hypothesesconcerningthe immediate externalrelatives of Proto-CentralPacific.One,diagrammedn figure4(a), suggestedthatCentralPacificand SouthernOceanicwere sisterlanguagesderivingfromaputative"MiddlePacific"subgroupof Central-EasternOceanic.Theother,diagrammedn fig-ure 4(b), suggested that CentralPacific is one of the subgroupsof SouthernOceanic,andspecificallythat it is partof theNorthernVanuatu inkage.Thelanguagesof NorthernVanuatugenerallyhave no- rather hanna- as theGENERAL marker,whereas n CentralVanuatuna- is farmorecommonthanno.

TABLE2. POSSESSIVEMARKINGN PCPAND ITS DAUGHTER LANGUAGESCATEGORY PCP PRE-FIJIAN ROTUMAN PPNKIN Direct Direct ?o- *(q)o-;some residualdirectconstructionsPART Direct Direct 7o- *(q)o-PASSIVE Direct Direct ?o- *(q)o-FOOD *xa- *ka- ?e- *qa-DRINK *me- *me- ?e- *qa-GENERAL *no-/*o- *no-/*o- ?o- *qa-

236


12/21

POSSESSIVEMARKERSN CENTRAL ACIFIC ANGUAGES

Althoughmostlanguages n Vanuatuhave a DRINKossessivemarker n whichthe vowel is a or derives regularly from *a, the two languages of Ambae(NorthernVanuatu)have the formme-,whichdoes not derive regularly rom*ma-.Note thefollowing WestAmbae data.

(9) FOOD: ka-rjgu bwetaPOSS:FOOD-ISG taro'my taro'

DRINK: me-rjgu kwaiPOSS:DRINK-I G water'my water'GENERAL: no-?gu buePOSS:GENERAL- SG knife'my knife'

Thesearetheonlylanguagesof which I am aware hathave me-rather hanma-,apartof coursefromtheFijian anguages.'2If thechange*ma-> me-occurredonly once, then t musthave occurred n a languageancestral o both theAmbaelanguagesand Proto-Central acific.Thisverysmallpieceof evidencesuggeststhat hehypothesisn figure4(b)maybe thecorrectone: that he closestrelativesof CentralPacific are the NorthernVanuatuanguages andspecifically he lan-guagesofAmbae),and hat here s a"MiddlePacific" ubgroup f SouthernOce-anic that ncludesCentralPacificandthelanguagesof Ambae(andpossiblysomeotherNorthernVanuatuubgroups).Obviously,his s amostpreliminaryypoth-esis at thisstage,butcertainlyone thatdeservescloserexamination.

4. DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FIJI. Some of the developments hat tookplace in the Fijianlanguagesafter the breakupof Proto-CentralPacific havebeen discussed in detail by Geraghty (1983) andLynch(I996b), the formerdealingmostnotablywith thechangefromsuffixedto prefixeddirectmarkingfor PARTpossession in Western anguages,and the latter with the mergerofPASSIVEandFOODpossession in most Fijian languages.In this section,I sum-marize these argumentsand elaborateon otherdevelopments n Fiji, dealingwith each of the typological subregions see section3.4) in turn.4.1 WESTERN FIJIAN. ModernWesternFijianlanguages show prefixeddirectpossessionfor PARTand, n thecase of Nadroga Geraghty orthcoming),for PASSIVEas well. The examplesin (10) arefromNadroga.

(I ) KIN PART PASSIVEhuna-qu qu-mata qu-itabamother- SG ISG-eye IsG-photo'my mother' 'my eye' 'my photo(takenof me)'

237


13/21


PaulGeraghty (pers. comm.) has suggestedthat the change from suffixed toprefixedpossessionmayhaveproceededvia an intermediatendirectconstruc-tion using the possessive marker e-, as in (I I).

(I I) *Noun-PRO > e-PRO Noun > PRO-NounEvidence n support f this comes from thecommonwesternFijian3SGprefixedforme- (contrasthe 3SGsuffixed orm-a). SomeWayanexamples(PawleyandSayaba I990) illustrate this in (12).

(I2) na le-a were e-uluART POSS:GENERAL-3SGhouse 3sG-head'his/herhouse' 'his/herhead'

This suggests developments like the following in the PART/PASSIVEonstruction.(I3) ISG *Noun-qu > e-qu Noun > qu-Noun2SG *Noun-mu > e-mu Noun > mu-Noun

3SG *Noun-a > e-a Noun > e-NounGeraghty 1983:176) says that*e-aregularlybecomese in partsof westernFiji.His examplesareonly of verb-finale + 3SGobjecta, butit is possible that thisphonologicalruleappliedacrossany morphemeboundary, ndthat theresult-ing e shortenedo e in cases like (I3), possiblybecause t neverreceivesprimarystress n this environmentwhereast doesin theverb-final nvironment).Wheredid this e- come from?I noted n section3.I MalcolmRoss's sugges-tionthat here s apparently closelinkbetweenpossessivemarkers nd deictics.The POc proximaldeictichasbeen reconstructeds *e/*ne,andthismaybe thesourceof WesternFijian*e-. The factthat he deictic sproximal ather handistalandthus matches he semanticsof "close"possessionalsosuggeststhat hismaybe thecorrecthypothesis.

The FOODmarkerunderwenta changefrom ka- to ke-,not only in WesternFijian,butin mostFijian anguages,as discussed above. PASSIVEergedwithFOODn all partsof the West exceptNadroga.It is impossibleto say whetherthis was anearlyor a morerecentdevelopment,andwhether t happenedonceor more than once (see section 3.5.2).The changeof the GENERALmarker rom nV- to lV- in almost all WesternFijian languagesis unexpected.Ross (I988:186-187) has raised the questionas to whethera general possessive marker*le- should also be reconstructedfor Proto-Oceanic n addition to *na-/*a-.He notes that reflexes of putative*le- arewidespread n the NorthNew Guinealinkage,occurring n Medeburand a numberof membersof theNgero/Vitiazfamily(includingKove, Bariai,Kilenge,Lamogai,Arawe,andUvol): "Inmost languagesthatreflect t today,it is the generalclassifier,having displaced .. .*na-, butin two languagesofthe cluster [= linkage] it contrastswith the general possessive classifier,andappearsto be associated in both Mangap . . . andMedeburwith inchoativepossession"(Ross 1988:186).

238


14/21

POSSESSIVEMARKERSNCENTRALACIFIC ANGUAGES

Sudest(PapuanTipcluster) e- (Ross I988:I87) may also be a reflex of thismarker. ftheWesternFijianmarker s related o these WesternOceanicforms,then thissuggeststhat*le- GENERALhouldbe reconstructedor Proto-Oceanicand Proto-CentralPacific,probablyas an alternate o *na-/*a-.134.2 PERIPHERAL FIJIAN. The PeripheralFijiantype is now representedonly by GoneDauin VanuaLevu and theKadavu anguages,but it was possi-bly more widespread at some earlier time (cf. Geraghty I983:222-223, 321).Direct markingfor PARTnd PASSIVEas lost, these two categoriesmergingwith GENERAL,arkedby no-: the Nabukelevuformne- may represent evel-ing of the no-/ne-alternation rmayreflecttheproximaldeictic *e-. GoneDaushows a markerwithout nitial n.Althoughn mostFijian anguages possessiveconstructions markedobliga-torilyoroptionally)by aprecedingarticle,"Kadavus exceptionalndisallowingnominalmarkingof possessive phrases"Geraghty 983:252).In actual act thisis restricted o n-initialmarkersnNabukelevu t least(PawleyandSayaba1982);I have no dataon Tavuki.Comparehe DRINKonstructionn (I4), in which themarker is me-, with the FOOD nd GENERALonstructions in (15), which both usen-initialmarkers.

(14) DRINK: na me-qu waiART POSS:DRINK-ISG water'my water'

(I5) FOOD: (*na) na-qu suli(*ART) POSS:FOOD-ISG taro'my taro'

GENERAL: (*na) ne-qu vale(*ART) POSS:GENERAL-ISG house'my house'

I suggestthatthe Pre-KadavuGENERALmarkerwas *o-, and thatthe form no-is a coalescence of *na o- (ARTGENERAL). he PeripheralFijianFOODmarkerwasunchanged-as *ka-. Gone Dau andmostKadavu anguages aterchangedthis to diaphonemicke-(phonemic ?e-/).However,Nabukelevuhasna-, whichmay well derivefromphonemic na xa-/ by further enitionandcoalescenceofthe vowels.4.3 CENTRAL FIJIAN. ThePre-CentralFijiansystem s similar o thePre-CentralPacificone, except thatPASSIVEhadmergedwith FOOD.I suggest thatthe change in the PASSIVE/FOODarker from *ka- to *ke took place at somelaterstage. Note also that centralandwesternVanua Levu languageshave o-rather hanno- as the GENERALmarker.4.4 LAUAN FIJIAN. Lau and Vanua Balavu retaindirectmarkingfor KINandPART, butmergePASSIVEandGENERAL,marking his categorywith *o-.

239


15/21


I havealreadymentionedGeraghty's ypothesishat heLauFOOD arkerwasa-. If thissuppositions correct-and there s a lot of evidencescatteredhrough-out Geraghty1983 andelsewhere thatsuggeststhat "StandardBauan"Fijianmarkershavereplacedsome markersn some otherFijian anguages n at leastsome contexts-then we can assume hatLauanFijianhadmadean innovation ntheFOOD marker,osingthe consonant f *ka-.4.5 FIJIAN DEVELOPMENTS: A SUMMARY. Theconclusionsreachedin sections4.1-4.4 aresummarizedintable3.At somelater tage,PASSIVE mergedwithFOOD n mostnon-Centralanguages, ossiblyas a resultof Centralnfluence.In addition, heFOOD(andPASSIVE) marker ka-changed o *ke-in oneor morelanguages,and this also spreadalmost hroughout iji.Itmaybe thattheseweretwopartsof a single process.

5. DEVELOPMENTS IN ROTUMA AND POLYNESIA. As can be seenfrom table2, theRotumanandProto-Polynesian ystems,as well as theformsof the markers,arevery similar.The majordifferencesare:(a) RotumanhasmergedFOODandDRINKinto a single categorymarkedby ?e-, and hasmergedall otheroriginalcategories nto a secondcategorymarkedby ?o-. On theotherhand,Proto-PolynesianhasmergedFOOD, DRINK, and GENERAL into one cat-egory markedby *qa-,and all others into a second one markedby *(q)o-. (b)Rotuman has a different vowel from Proto-Polynesian in the FOOD/DRINKmarker:Rotuman?e-,PPn*qa-.Themergerof FOODandDRINKis verycommonwithin Oceanicand,whenthese two categories merge, it is almostuniversallythe DRINKmarker hat islost. So there s nothing surprisinghere,exceptthatthere s no evidence of thishaving occurredin Fiji, and thereforewe cannotsource this mergerto any-wherewithinFiji.Rotuman haresone otherapparentnnovationwithProto-Polynesiann thearea of possessive morphology: heirregulaross of POc *m in the 2SG suffix,*-mubeingreflected s PPN*-u,Rotuman u.However,bothRotuman ndProto-Polynesianshow sporadic oss of *m before*u in otherforms,while WaidinaFijianrathermoreregularly oses m before unstressedu (GeraghtyI983:178-4

TABLE3. DEVELOPMENT F POSSESSIVEMARKINGNFIJICATEGORY PCP WESTERN PERIPHERAL CENTRAL LAUANKIN -PRO -PRO -PRO -PRO -PROPART -PRO *e- '*- -PRO -PROPASSIVE -PRO *e- *o- *ka- *o-FOOD *xa- *ka- *ka- *ka- *a-DRINK *me- *me- *me- *me- *me-GENERAL *no-/*o- *le- *- *no- *o-

240


16/21

POSSESSIVEMARKERSN CENTRALACIFIC ANGUAGES

I79). I do not feel thatthisdevelopment,by itself,promisesa close connectionbetweenRotuman ndProto-Polynesianntermsof theirpossessivemorphology.Indeed,theremainingpossessivesuffixessuggestverylittle commondevelop-ment, as table4 shows. The natureof the relationshipbetweenRotumanandProto-Polynesianhusremainsanopen question orthemoment.5.1 ROTUMAN. Rotuma ies some450 kilometersnorthof Fiji, thenearestlarge slandbeingVanuaLevu. Theacceptedview (GeraghtyI996:85)s that heimmediateoriginof Rotumanwas probablysomewhere n VanuaLevu:"Themostplausibleexplanationorthelinguistic actsregardingRotuman s ... that tbelongedto partof a CentralPacificcontinuum,presumablyocated n Fiji....[T]he nnovationsRotuman hareswithFijian anguagesappearo be distributedfairlyevenlybetweenWesternFijianandVanualevuespecially he northcoast).Since it appears hat Vanualevu was originallymore like Western anguages,but heavily influenced n recentprehistoryby languagesof the coastal south-east Vitilevuprestigearea(GeraghtyI983:383, 386), I would tentativelypro-posethatRotumanderived romVanualevu tanearlyperiod,when thatareawasmore similar o WesternFijian."The modernVanua Levu languagewhose possessive-marking ystemmostclosely approximateshatof Rotuman s actually hePeripheral ijian anguageGoneDau (spoken n northwestVanuaLevu).ThePeripheral ijian,Pre-GoneDau,andmodem Rotuman ystemsarepresentedn (I6).

(I6) PERIPHERALIJIAN PRE-GONEDAU ROTUMANKIN Direct Direct ? O-PART *O- *O- ?O-PASSIVE *O- *0- ?O-FOOD *ka- *?e-e-DRINK *me- *me- ?e-GENERAL *O- *0- ?O-

If we assumethat Rotumanoriginated rom an areain Vanua Levu wherePeripheralFijian anguageswerespoken, hen we must also assume: a) thatthevowel change n theFOOD arker roma to e tookplacein Gone Dau(andsomeotherpartsof Fiji?)beforeRotuman plitoff; (b)that hemergerof PASSIVEithFOODn GoneDau tookplaceafterRotumanhadsplitoff; (c) thatthemergerofFOODnd DRINK nd the loss of directmarkingfor KINwere laterdevelopments in

TABLE 4. ROTUMAN AND PPNPOSSESSIVE SUFFIXESSINGULAR DUAL PLURALROTUMAN PPN ROTUMAN PPN ROTUMAN PPN

IINCL -ta *-ta -tara *-taua -sa *-tautoluIEXCL -tou *-ku -tomira *-maua -tomisa *-mautolu2 -u *-u -mura *-(m)urua -musa *-muutolu3 -na *-na -ria *-laua -risa *-lautolu

24I


17/21


Rotuman bothof which also tookplace in Polynesian);and(d) thatRotumanaccretedheglottal topon?o-,either hrough aradigmaticnalogywiththeothermarker?e-,orthroughaterPolynesiannfluence.5.2 PROTO-POLYNESIAN. The specificdevelopmentsthat took place inProto-Polynesian are as follows: (a) merger of PART nd PASSIVEs a single cat-egory,markedby *(q)o-;(b)subsequent?)partialoss of thedirectconstructionwith some kinship terms, and mergerof these with the PART/PASSIVEonstruction,marked by *(q)o-; (c) merger of FOOD nd DRINK,marked by *qa- < PCP *xa-(throughouthissection,I will assume hat his wasa laterdevelopment); nd(d)subsequent (?) merger of these two categories with GENERAL.5.2.1 Tokalau Fijian and Polynesian. GeraghtyI983:348)hassuggested hattheclosestrelativesof Polynesian re neasternFiji:"Veryittleevidence s foundfor a singlelanguageancestral o all theFijianandPolynesian anguages,but agooddeal of evidenceto suggestthat anguagesancestral o those of easternFiji,especiallyLauandEasternVanuaLevu,underwent periodof commondevelop-mentwiththelanguageancestralo thePolynesian anguages.The areacompris-ing Lau and EasternVanua Levu shall be called 'TokalauFiji' (tokalau eastwind'),andthe dialectchaincomprisinghelanguagesancestraloTokalauFijianandPolynesiananguages Proto-Tokalau olynesian'."f he is correct, henthefirstplaceto look for theoriginof theProto-Polynesianystem s in Lau andeast-ernVanuaLevu.That s, we shouldattempto establishwhether ome orallof thedifferencesbetweentheProto-Polynesiannd theProto-Central acificsystemscan be found in "Proto-TokalauPolynesian."The problemhere is that theTokalauFiji areacontainslanguages belongingto the typologicallydifferentLauanand CentralFijiangroupsestablished bove.All TokalauFijilanguages etaindirectsuffixationor KINerms,as (to someextent)doesProto-Polynesian.However,while allTokalauFiji languagesalsoretain direct suffixation for PARTthough not PASSIVE)erms, this has been lost inProto-Polynesian. ow easternVanuaLevulanguagesalso mergePASSIVEithFOOD,merger hathasnot takenplacein eitherLauanorPolynesian. t thusap-pearsthat,of the two TokalauFiji areas,Lauanbearscloser resemblancestoPolynesianthan does EasternVanuaLevu. The markers n Lauan andProto-Polynesianare isted n (17).

(17) PRE-LAUAN PROTO-POLYNESIANKIN -PRO -PRO> *(q)o-PART -PRO *(q)o-PASSIVE *O- *(q)o-FOOD *a- *qa-DRINK *me- *qa-GENERAL *0- *qa-

242


18/21

POSSESSIVEMARKERSNCENTRAL ACIFIC ANGUAGES

There thus appearto be some formalconnectionsbetween LauanFijianandProto-Polynesian,butthereare still a numberof systemicdifferences,particu-larlyto do with PARTndGENERALossession.5.2.2 Peripheral Fijian and Polynesian. The otherpossible "candidate"sPeripheralFijian,becausethis also shows manysimilaritieswith Polynesian.LikeWesternFijianandProto-Polynesian,ut unliketheotherFijian anguages,the PeripheralFijianlanguageslost directmarking or PARTerms.This is animportanteature,one notfound n the TokalauFijigroup.ThePeripheral ijianmarkers, ogetherwith whatareprobably he Pre-KadavuandPre-Gone Daumarkersare listed below, togetherwith theProto-Polynesianorms.(I assumethat Pre-Kadavuhadby thisstagelost the *k in *ka-.)

(I8) PERIPHERAL PRE- PRE- PROTO-FIJIAN KADAVU GONE DAU POLYNESIANKIN -PRO -PRO -PRO -PRO> *(q)o-PART *O- *O- *O- *(q)o-PASSIVE *O- *o- *o- *(q)o-FOOD *ka- *a- *?e- *qa-DRINK *me- *me- *me- *qa-GENERAL *0- *0- *0- *qa-

This is even more similarto the Polynesiansystem. Note particularly hat inKadavu,as in Polynesian,the article attachesto a possessive-markingvowel(cf. [4] and section4.2).5.2.3 Evaluation. I believe I showed fairly clearly in section 5.2.1 thattheEasternVanuaLevu areawasprobablynottheimmediatesourceof the Proto-Polynesianpossessive markingsystem.We are left with LauanandPeripheralFijianas the two contending andidates nd,as mentionedn the lastparagraph,Peripheral ijian eemsto be themore ikelyof thetwo,because a)it shareswithProto-Polynesianhe loss of direct-markingor PARTossession,and(b) it alsoshares with Proto-Polynesian the reanalysis of ARTICLE POSSESSIVEARKERsequences.The mergerof GENERALith FOODn PPN was presumablya laterdevelopment,as was the continuing oss of directpossessionwithKINandtheprobableaccretionof initial *q on the marker*(q)o-. Whatis unusualhere isthemergerof FOODandGENERALstheFOODorm *qa- rather hanastheGEN-ERALform *(q)o-, since the lattermergerwould be a morenaturalone (andithas indeedtakenplace in quitea rangeof Oceaniclanguages).

6. CONCLUSIONS. This paperhas looked at the immediateoriginsof theCentralPacific possessive-markingsystem, the developmentsof thatsystemwithinFiji, Polynesia,andRotuma,andthedevelopmentof the markerswithin

243


19/21


those systems. I believe I have shown fairly clearly that the Polynesian andRotuman systems seem to have theirorigins within the PeripheralFijianlanguage-area, and that they thus may show a closer relation to Western Fijian than hasearlier been proposed. This is in slight conflict with Geraghty's Tokalau Poly-nesian hypothesis, and will bearfurther nvestigation-as will the suggestion thatCentral Pacific is partof the NorthernVanuatu inkage of Southern Oceanic.

NOTESI. This is a revisedversionof apaperdeliveredat the Third nternational onferenceonOceanicLinguistics TRICOL), eld atHamilton,NewZealand,nJanuary 997.JoelBradshaw,Ross Clark,RobertEarly,PaulGeraghty,AndrewPawley,and MalcolmRoss made detailed commentson an earlierdraftof thispaper.PaulGeraghtyalsoshared with me his compendious knowledge of Fijian, while HollingsworthAlaNgwele andEvelynTavoasupplied he WestAmbaedata n section3.6. I amgratefulfor theirassistance,buttake ull responsibilityoranyerrors f fact orinterpretation.2. Some of thenames n figureI areslightlychanged rom theoriginal o reflectcurrentusage (especiallythereplacement f "NewHebridean"with "Vanuatu").have alsoaddedRotuman,whichwasclassifiedas a CentralPacific anguageby Pawley n 1979.In view of what is discussedbelow,notespecifically hatPawleydid not at thattimeconsider thatthe SouthernVanuatu nd New Caledonian anguagesbelongedto hisEasternOceanicsubgroup.3. Subgroups n bold in figure2 arefirst-order ubgroups,while those in normalfontaresecond-ordergroups.It is possible (i) that the Sarmi-Jayapura ay family maybe partof the NorthNew Guinea inkage,(ii) thattheUtupuaandVanikoro amiliesmay be two distinctfirst-order ubgroupsof Central-EasternOceanic,and(iii) thatYapeseand the St. Matthias amily mayturnout not to be first-order ubgroups,butpartof a "GreaterAdmiralties inkage"alongwith theAdmiralties amily.None ofthis,however, s material o thecurrentdiscussion.4. Although he term"classifier" as oftenbeenused in theliterature, prefer hemore

neutral erm"marker," hich does not necessarily mply that noun-classification sinvolved.5. Joel Bradshaw pers.comm.)hassuggested hatkavaandmedicines n a sense"con-trol"thepossessorin ways thatother drinksdo not, which wouldreinforce he PAS-SIVE dea here;while Ross Clark(pers.comm.)has drawnmy attention o the factthat, n manyPolynesian anguages, heo-categoryhas come to be the "default" at-egory,whichmay help to explain ts extension n Tonganand other anguages.6. Therehasbeen somediscussionas to theoriginof the*ni-realisprefix,withspecula-tion that t mayderive rom apasttense markerPPN*naqa/*ne) rfrom thegenitiveprepositioncf. Fijianni) (Wilson1982:49-51).If the deicticoriginof possessivesis

accepted, hentherealisprefixmaywell derive romtheproximaldeictic *ni.7. TheFOOD/DRINKmarker e s also usedwithnounsreferringo thepossessor's urnatdoing something likeava 'turn',maraya turnatpreaching') ndwith somenounsre-lating o contestsandchallenging liketu?u challenge',?atua vanquished pponent')(Churchward 1940:148-149).8. I follow Geraghty 1983) in usingthe term"language"o referto varietiesof Fijian,eventhough n manycases one of theterms"dialect," communalect,"r "lect"mightbe moreaccurate.

244


20/21


21/21

OCEANIC INGUISTICS,OL.36, NO. 2. Forthcominga. Linguisticsubgroupingn Vanuatu ndNew Caledonia. n Pro-ceedingsoftheSecond nternationalConferencen OceanicLinguistics finaltitle not

yet decidedon], ed. by PaulGeraghty.PacificLinguistics.Canberra: ustralianNa-tionalUniversity.. Forthcomingb. SouthernOceaniclinguistic history.In Proceedingsof the 3rdArchaeologicalConferencen the Westernacific,5000 to 2000 BP [finaltitle notyetdecidedon], ed. by Jean-ChristopheGalipaudand IanLilley.Lynch,John,MalcolmRoss, andTerryCrowley.Forthcoming.TheOceaniclanguages.London:CurzonPress.Pawley,Andrew.1972. On the internalrelationshipsof EasternOceaniclanguages.InStudies n Oceanicculture istory,vol. 3, ed.byR. C. GreenandM. Kelly,pp. 1-142.PacificAnthropologicalRecords13. Honolulu:Bernice P.BishopMuseum.. 1973. Some problems n Proto-Oceanic rammar.OceanicLinguistics12:103-i88.

1. 977. Onredefining"EasternOceanic."Typescript.1. 979. Newevidence n thepositionqfRotuman.WorkingPapers nAnthropology,Archaeology,Linguistics,MaoriStudies,No. 56. Auckland:University f Auckland.Pawley,Andrew,and Timoci Sayaba. 1982.A sketchgrammarof the Nabukelevu an-guageof Kadavu.TeReo25:35-93.. 1990. Possessive marking n Wayan,a westernFijian anguage:Noun class orrelationalsystem?InPacificIslandlanguages:Essaysin honourof G. B. Milner, d.by JeremyH. C. S. Davidson,pp. 147-17I. London:Universityof London,Schoolof OrientalandAfricanStudies.Ross, Malcolm D. I988. Proto-Oceanic and the Austronesian anguages of westernMelanesia.PacificLinguisticsC-98. Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity.. 1996.On the genetic affiliationsof the Oceaniclanguagesof IrianJaya.Oce-anic Linguistics 35:259-271.. Forthcoming.Social networksand kinds of speech communityevent. In Ar-chaeologyand language,vol. I, Theoretical nd methodological onsiderations,ed.by RogerM. Blench and MatthewSpriggs.London:Routledge.Schmidt,Hans.Forthcoming.Rotuman. n The Oceanic anguages,ed. by JohnLynch,MalcolmRoss, andTerryCrowley.London:CurzonPress.Wilson,William H. I982. Proto-Polynesian ossessive marking.Pacific LinguisticsB-

85. Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversity.

246

on the origins of the possessive markers

Documents