Talk:Lower Sepik languages

Evidence for tree?
I'd like to challenge the basis of the subgrouping as currently presented on this page, which I can't find in any published reference. I have in front of me the two published articles by Ross (2005) and Foley (2005) - both published in the volume Papuan Pasts.

Ross says nothing about subgrouping within Lower Sepik. His only mention of the family is on p. 38, where he says that the pronoun evidence suggests "a Ramu - Lower Sepik family with subgroups corresponding to Laycock's Ramu and Lower Sepik sub-phyla, except that the Yuat group is excluded from the Ramu subgroup." Ross makes no mention of breaking Ramu or Lower Sepik down further.

On the other hand, Foley (2005) devotes almost two pages (pp. 111-112) to the subgrouping of Lower Sepik. He argues for four primary subgroups, namely Yimas-Karawari, Kopar-Murik, Chambri and Angoram. He says, "The grouping of Yimas with Karawari and Kopar with Murik is well established and unquestionable (Foley 1986, 1991), but the first-order subgroup status of Chambri and Angoram is a working hypothesis."

Given Foley's comments and Ross's silence on the issue, I can't see why the current tree shows Kopar and Murik as first-order subgroups and groups Chambri and Angoram with Yimas-Karawari.

MarcusCole12 (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's use Foley then. But I thought Ross specifically broke up Kopar-Murik. Let me see if I can find it. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Ross refers to Foley, so I think we should go with him. But he says,
 * There is some evidence, mentioned by Foley, that the languages other than Murik form a subgroup, as *-p- occurs in their number markers, whereas it never occurs in Murik (Foley has worked out the basic sound correspondences of Lower Sepik languages, and Murik would normally reflect Proto Lower Sepik *p as p).
 * I'm not sure if he's contradicting Foley there, so I included both Nor and Pondo with question marks. Feel free to modify to match the sources better. — kwami (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical Numbers of the "Pronouns" Section?
Is "we few" supposed to mean the first person paucal, in contrast to the first person plural? It's pretty ambiguous in the "Pronouns" Section as it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 自教育 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty clear to me: one vs two vs few vs all would be sg, du, pauc, pl.  — kwami (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)