Polynesian languages

The contemporary classification of the Polynesian languages began with certain observations by Andrew Pawley in 1966 based on shared innovations in phonology, vocabulary and grammar showing that the East Polynesian languages were more closely related to Samoan than they were to Tongan, calling Tongan and its nearby relative Niuean "Tongic" and Samoan and all other Polynesian languages of the study "Nuclear Polynesian".[6]

Previously, there had been only lexicostatistical studies[7][8] that squarely suggested a "West Polynesian" group composed of at least Tongan and Samoan and that an "East Polynesian" group was equally distant from both Tongan and Samoan. Lexicostatistics is a controversial tool that can identify points in languages from which linguistic relations can be inferred. Since Pawley's 1966 publication, inferring the ancient relationships of the Polynesian languages has proceeded by the more diagnostic findings of studies employing the comparative method and the proofs of shared innovations.

Pawley published another study in 1967.[9] It began the process of extracting relationships from Polynesian languages on small islands in Melanesia, the "Polynesian Outliers", whose languages Pawley was able to trace to East Futuna in the case of those farther south and perhaps to Samoa itself in the case of those more to the north.

Except for some minor differentiation of the East Polynesian tree, further study paused for almost twenty years until Wilson[10] published a study of Polynesian pronominal systems in 1985 suggesting that there was a special relationship between the East Polynesian languages and all other Nuclear Polynesian but for Futunic, and calling that extra-Futunic group the "Ellicean languages". Furthermore, East Polynesian was found to more likely have emerged from extra-Samoan Ellicean than out of Samoa itself, an astonishing suggestion given the long assumption of a Samoan homeland for the origins of East Polynesian. Wilson named this new group "Ellicean" after the pre-independence name of Tuvalu and presented fine-grained evidence for subgroups within that overarching category.

Marck,[11] in 2000, was able to offer some support for some aspects of Wilson's suggestion through comparisons of shared sporadic (irregular, unexpected) sound changes, e. g., Proto-Polynesian and Proto-Nuclear-Polynesian *mafu 'to heal' becoming Proto-Ellicean *mafo. This was made possible by the massive Polynesian language comparative lexicon ("Pollex" – with reconstructions) of Biggs and Clark.[12]

Despite the relative low number of Polynesian languages, and the relative abundance of data already available on many of them, the comparative method was often reduced to comparisons of vocabulary, shared sporadic sound changes and, as Wilson had done in 1985, comparison of pronominal systems, which is perhaps the second most commonly described aspect of "minor" languages often available for comparison after the lexicostatistical lists. Wilson has a forthcoming work[13] providing further evidence of fine grained subgroups within Ellicean and a consideration of other recent work[14] on the matter of Ellicean internal relations. Wilson's new work brings the matter to the approximate limits of current data available, incorporating much data unknown to most other researchers.

Returning to lexicostatistics, it must be emphasised that the method does not make the best possible use of its short word lists of 100 or 200 words. Dyen's[15] massive lexicostatistical study of Austronesian, for instance, showed a great deal of (lexicostatistical) diversity in the Austronesian languages of Western Melanesia. This was sometimes on par with the lexicostatistical distance of Taiwan Austronesian languages from other Austronesian including Taiwan Austronesian languages from each other (Taiwan now definitively known to be the homeland of the language family itself). But the low lexicostatistical agreement of many Western Melanesian Oceanic languages with other Oceanic Austronesian can be easily dismissed as of little subgrouping interest because those languages are nevertheless full of diagnostic innovations of Oceanic Austronesian in their sound systems and vocabulary, including many Oceanic lexical innovations found in the 100 and 200 lexicostatistical word lists (and the deadly conclusive evidence of the shared phonological innovations of those low-scoring groups with all other Oceanic Austronesian). The Western Oceanic Melanesian "diversity" of lexicostatistical studies was never of any interest in terms of attributing any special time depth or subgrouping significance to it. They are just languages with accelerated loss of vocabulary, sometimes, in the Western Oceanic case, because they involve certain more ancient peoples of the region shifting to Oceanic speech after Oceanic-speaking peoples arrived.[16]

Partly because Polynesian languages split from one another comparatively recently, many words in these languages remain similar to corresponding words in others. The table below demonstrates this with the words for 'sky', 'north wind', 'woman', 'house' and 'parent' in a representative selection of languages: Tongan; Niuean; Samoan; Sikaiana; Takuu; Rapanui language; Tahitian; Cook Islands Māori (Rarotongan); Māori; North Marquesan; South Marquesan; Hawaiian and Mangarevan.

Certain regular correspondences can be noted between different Polynesian languages. For example, the Māori sounds /k/, /ɾ/, /t/, and /ŋ/ correspond to /ʔ/, /l/, /k/, and /n/ in Hawaiian. Accordingly, "man" is tangata in Māori and kanaka in Hawaiian, and Māori roa "long" corresponds to Hawaiian loa. The famous Hawaiian greeting aloha corresponds to Māori aroha, "love, tender emotion". Similarly, the Hawaiian word for kava is ʻawa.

Similarities in basic vocabulary may allow speakers from different island groups to achieve a significant degree of understanding of each other's speech. When a particular language shows unexpectedly large divergence in vocabulary, this may be the result of a name-avoidance taboo situation – see examples in Tahitian, where this has happened often.

Many Polynesian languages have been greatly affected by European colonization. Both Māori and Hawaiian, for example, have lost many speakers to English, and only since the 1990s have they resurged in popularity.

Many Polynesian languages distinguish two possessives. The a-possessives (as they contain that letter in most cases), also known as subjective possessives, refer to possessions that must be acquired by one's own action (alienable possession). The o-possessives or objective possessives refer to possessions that are fixed to someone, unchangeable, and do not necessitate any action on one's part but upon which actions can still be performed by others (inalienable possession). Some words can take either form, often with a difference in meaning. One example is the Samoan word susu, which takes the o-possessive in lona susu (her breast) and the a-possessive in lana susu (her breastmilk). Compare also the particles used in the names of two of the books of the Māori Bible: Te Pukapuka a Heremaia (The Book of Jeremiah) with Te Pukapuka o Hōhua (The Book of Joshua); the former belongs to Jeremiah in the sense that he was the author, but the Book of Joshua was written by someone else about Joshua. The distinction between one's birth village and one's current residence village can be made similarly.