Finisterre–Huon languages

The Finisterre–Huon languages comprise the largest family within the Trans–New Guinea languages (TNG) in the classification of Malcolm Ross. They were part of the original TNG proposal, and William A. Foley considers their TNG identity to be established. The languages share a small closed class of verbs taking pronominal object prefixes some of which are cognate (Suter 2012), strong morphological evidence that they are related.

Finisterre–Huon
Geographic distribution	Finisterre Range and Huon Peninsula, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea
Linguistic classification	Trans–New Guinea Finisterre–Huon
Subdivisions	Finisterre Huon
Language codes
Glottolog	fini1244
Map: The Finisterre–Huon languages of New Guinea   The Finisterre–Huon languages   Other Trans–New Guinea languages   Other Papuan languages   Austronesian languages   Uninhabited

History of classification

Huon and Finisterre, and then the connection between them, were identified by Kenneth McElhanon (1967, 1970). When McElhanon compared notes with his colleague Clemens Voorhoeve, who was working on the languages of southern Irian Jaya, they developed the concept of Trans–New Guinea. Apart from the evidence which unites them, the Finisterre and Huon families are clearly valid language families in their own right, each consisting of several fairly-well defined branches.

Pronouns

Ross (2005) reconstructs the pronouns as follows:

	sg	du	pl
1	*na	*na-t, *ni-t	*na-n, *n-in
2	*ga	*ja-ł, *ji-ł, *gi-ł	*ja-n, *ji-n, *gi-n
3	*[y]a, *wa, *i	*ya-ł, *i-ł	*ya-n, *i-n

These are not all coherent: 3sg *ya and *i are found in Huon, for example, while 3sg *wa is found in Finisterre. In other cases, however, the multiple forms are found in both branches.

Vocabulary comparison

The following basic vocabulary words are from McElhanon & Voorhoeve (1970)^[1] and McElhanon (1967),^[2] as cited in the Trans-New Guinea database.^[3]

The words cited constitute translation equivalents, whether they are cognate (e.g. hɔme, samo for “nose”) or not (e.g. mic-, sot, dzɔŋɔ for “tooth”). Notice the very low number of cognate triplets, or even pairs, among these languages.

gloss	Kâte	Selepet	Kovai
head	kpitsec-	kun; kun-	buno
hair	dzâwâ-	somot; somot-
ear	hatsec-	âdâp-; ɔndɔp	ano
eye	dzâŋe-	sen; sen-	dziŋo
nose	sâke-	hâme-; hɔme	samo
tooth	mic-	sât-; sot	dzɔŋɔ
tongue	nameŋ-	nibilam-; nimbilam	biŋio
louse	imeŋ	imen	apalau
dog	kpâto	soso	goun
bird	wipe	nâi; nɔi	naŋ
blood	soc-	hep-
bone	siec-	haǥit; hahit-	yo
skin	sahac-	hâk-; hɔk	siŋlo
breast	moŋ-	nam; nam-	suyo
tree	yâc	nak
man	ŋic	lok
woman	ŋokac	apet; ibi
sky	sambâŋ	hibim
sun	dzoaŋ	dewutâ; dewutɔ	sual
moon	mosa	emesenŋe
water	opâ	to	lap
fire		kɔlɔp	puŋ
stone	kpânâ	kât; kɔt
road, path	hata	giop	atam
name	dzâne-	kut; kut-
eat	nâ-	ne; ni-
one	mocyaha	konok
two	yayahec	yâhâp

Evolution

See also: Kâte language § Evolution, and Selepet language § Evolution

Finisterre-Huon reflexes of proto-Trans-New Guinea (pTNG) etyma are:^[4]

Kâte language:

• bɔruŋ ‘flame’ < *mbalaŋ ‘flame’
• butoŋ ‘fingernail’ < *mb(i,u)t(i,u)C
• bekɔ ‘orphan’ < *mbVŋga(-masi)
• masiŋ ‘widow’ < *masi
• sambɔŋ ‘sky’ < *sambV ‘cloud’
• tofeʔ ‘saliva’ < *si(mb,p)atV
• lo- ‘take’ < *(nd,t)a-
• munduŋ ‘inner yolk of egg’ < *mundun ‘internal organs’
• go ‘2sg’ < *ŋga
• hɔmo- ‘die’ < *kumV-
• bɔriʔ ‘glitter, flash of lightning’ < *(m,mb)elak ‘light, lightning’
• mi ‘not’ < *ma- ‘not’
• maŋu(zo) ‘to vomit’ < *mV(k,ŋ)V t(e,i)-
• ame(ʔ) ‘breast’ < *amu
• tsimin(uŋ) ‘stiff coarse hair’ < *[nd,s]umu[n,t]V ‘hair’
• imeŋ ‘louse’ < *iman ‘louse’
• no ‘1sg’ < *na ‘1sg’
• nɔ- ‘eat’ < *na-

Selepet language:

• balam ‘flame’ < *mbalaŋ
• (ni)bilim ‘tongue’ < *mbilaŋ
• kɔlɔp ‘fire’ < *kend(o,u)p
• kɔlip ‘long’ < *kuta(mb,p)(a,u)
• irak ‘new’ < *kVtak
• sak ‘sand’ < *sa(ŋg,k)asin
• somot ‘hair’ < *(s,nd)umu(n,t)[V]
• madu ‘orphan’ < *masi
• si- ‘burn’ < *nj(a,e,i)- ‘burn’
• ga ‘2sg’ < *ŋga
• kaku- ‘carry on shoulder’ < *kakV-
• kɔu ‘ashes’ < *kambu ‘ashes’
• belek ‘lightning’ < *(m,mb)elak
• ibi ‘name’ < *imbi
• mete ‘forehead’ < *me(n,t)e ‘head’
• man- ‘live, dwell’ < *mVn[a]-
• imen ‘louse’ < *iman ‘louse’
• (n)am ‘breast, milk’ < *amu ‘breast’

References

1. McElhanon, K.A. and Voorhoeve, C.L. The Trans-New Guinea Phylum: Explorations in deep-level genetic relationships. B-16, vi + 112 pages. Pacific Linguistics, The Australian National University, 1970. doi:10.15144/PL-B16
2. McElhanon, K.A. 1967. Preliminary observations on Huon Peninsula languages. Oceanic Linguistics 6: 1-45.
3. Greenhill, Simon (2016). "TransNewGuinea.org - database of the languages of New Guinea". Retrieved 2020-11-05.
4. Pawley, Andrew; Hammarström, Harald (2018). "The Trans New Guinea family". In Palmer, Bill (ed.). The Languages and Linguistics of the New Guinea Area: A Comprehensive Guide. The World of Linguistics. Vol. 4. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 21–196. ISBN 978-3-11-028642-7.

Bibliography

• Ross, Malcolm (2005). "Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages". In Andrew Pawley; Robert Attenborough; Robin Hide; Jack Golson (eds.). Papuan pasts: cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. pp. 15–66. ISBN 0858835622. OCLC 67292782.
• Suter, Edgar (2012). Verbs with pronominal object prefixes in Finisterre–Huon languages. In: Harald Hammarström and Wilco van den Heuvel (eds.). History, contact and classification of Papuan languages. [Special Issue 2012 of Language and Linguistics in Melanesia]. 23–58. Port Moresby: Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea.

Further reading

• Ross, Malcolm. 2014. Proto-Finisterre-Huon. TransNewGuinea.org.