Page:An introduction to Indonesian linguistics, being four essays.djvu/359

 342. When one studies certain descriptions of IN phonetic conditions, it appears not infrequently as if the IN languages were less consistent in their phonetic phenomena than the IE ones. But the trouble is not always in the language, it may be due to the writer:

I. Something may be given as a striking instance of a phonetic phenomenon, though in fact it is not a phonetic phenomenon at all. On the assumption that the phrase “come here !” is mari in Malay and some other languages, but mai in Bugis, it has been asserted that in Bugis the r has disappeared. This would be the only case of the loss of r in Bugis. However, mari < ma + ri is a verbal derivative from the locative preposition ri, while mai is a derivative from the locative preposition i, and does not mean "come here !" but "to go yonder". So the Bug. mai is not a case of phonetic change at all.

II. False etymologies are propounded. Thus in the Old Javanese dictionary (Kawi-Balineesch-Nederlandsch Woordenboek), vol. IV, p. 226, the Old Jav. pula, "to plant", is connected with the Dayak pambulan, "garden". But Dayak pambulan < prefix p(a) + imbul, "to plant" + suffix on. In conformity with a strict law of Dayak phonetics (§ 247), the i of imbul has had to assimilate itself to the a of the suffix.

III. The phonetic phenomena are wrongly explained. Original IN tunu, "to burn", appears in Pampanga as tun. Now according to Conant, in his article entitled “Monosyllabic Roots in Pampanga”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1911, p. 392, tun < tunu has lost the final u

Rh