<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19328">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Dear colleagues,<BR><BR>My name is Angela Kluge and I'm a PhD
student at Leiden University. I'm working on 'A grammar of Papuan Malay'.
Currently I'm revising my phonology chapter and would like to ask for your input
concerning some Papuan Malay lexical items.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>For my sections on syllable structure and stress patterns, I
would like to make a distinction between Malay and non-Malay roots. With the
help of Russell's book on 'Loan words in Indonesian and Malay' I was able to
determine for most of my items whether they are Malay roots or not. But
there are nine items left for which I don't know whether they are Malay roots or
not and which are not included in Russell. These items stick out in terms of
their syllable structure and/or stress pattern. Hence, I suspect that they might
be non-Malay roots. What do you think?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT size=2><STRONG>giawas</STRONG> 'guava'<BR></FONT><STRONG>
<DIV><FONT size=2>grobak</FONT></STRONG><FONT size=2>
'wheelbarrow'</FONT></DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>honai </STRONG>'traditional.Dani
hut'<BR><STRONG>kombong </STRONG>'inflated'<BR></FONT><STRONG>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=2>koteka</FONT></STRONG></STRONG><FONT size=2> 'penis
sheath'</FONT></DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>krempeng 'thin'<BR>palungku</STRONG> or
<STRONG>flungku</STRONG> 'fist'<BR><STRONG>pakwel</STRONG> 'k.o.
crowbar'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>tiarap</STRONG> 'lie face downwards'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>In addition, I have a question concerning the four items
listed below. Are they roots which I should include in my analysis or should I
consider the first three items as affixed with prefix <STRONG>ke-</STRONG> or
preposition <STRONG>ke</STRONG> (kecuali, keluar, keliar) and the fourth one as
a compound (olaraga) and therefore exclude them from my analysis.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>kecuali</STRONG> 'except'
- *<STRONG>cuali</STRONG> does not exist in Papuan Malay</FONT></DIV><FONT
size=2>
<DIV><BR><STRONG>keluar</STRONG> 'go out' - <STRONG>luar</STRONG> as well as
<STRONG>dari/di luar</STRONG> do exist in Papuan Malay</DIV>
<DIV><BR><STRONG>keliar</STRONG> 'roam about' - <STRONG>liar</STRONG> 'be wild'
does exist in Papuan Malay but my corpus does not include <STRONG>di/dari
liar</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG><BR><STRONG>olahraga</STRONG> 'do sports' - Russell lists
this item as <STRONG>olah</STRONG> - <STRONG>raga</STRONG> (both parts are
Malay), which implies that it is not a root but some kind of compound. Hence my
question is whether I should include the item in my analysis of lexical roots.
Papuan Malay only employs <STRONG>olaraga</STRONG>; the items
<STRONG>olah</STRONG> or <STRONG>raga</STRONG> do not exist.<BR><BR>I'd be most
grateful to get your input.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Best wishes,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Angela</FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>