The relationship between “house” and “indoor” in Atayalic languages

OCHIAI Izumi

doi:10.34526/jrsi.2.0_139

This paper reconstructs the forms of “house” and “indoor” in Atayalic languages (Atayal and Seediq) based on data collected in the early 20th century. It turns out that the forms in Proto-Atayal were not cognates with the forms in Proto-Seediq. In Atayal, four formsare seen as the words for “house.”: ŋasal, saliʔ, imuu, and muyaw. Of these, ŋasal is found to be the genuine form for “house,” and sal-iʔ is derived from it by attaching the fossilized infix *-iq (ŋasal > ŋasal-iq > sal-iq > sal-iʔ). For imuu, it is proposed that the Tfuya Tsou form for “house” emoo is borrowed into the villages around Gawng Ma’aw, where the contact with Tfuya Tsou has been documented. The original meaning of muyaw is “indoor.” In Proto-Seediq, “house” is reconstructed as *sapah and “indoor” as ruan. In connection with “house” and “indoor,” tə-ruma in Seediq means “to be inside.” The root ruma could reflect the Proto-Austronesian *Rumaq “house,” because in some Formosan languages, such as Bunun, Tsou, Saaora, Paiwan, and Amis, the words for “indoor/inside” are derived by attaching affixes to roots that are reflexes of *Rumaq. This pattern is the same as tə-ruma in Seediq.

The relationship between “house” and “indoor” in Atayalic languages

Bibliographic Information

Abstract

Journal

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Export

Report a problem