Talk:Left May–Kwomtari languages

	New Guinea portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Papua New Guinea, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Papua New Guinea on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Papua New GuineaWikipedia:WikiProject Papua New GuineaTemplate:WikiProject Papua New GuineaPapua New Guinea
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Languages

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Copy error?

Well I for one would like a bit more detail on this 'copy-error' before assuming it to be correct. Has this been discussed in print anywhere? Are the documents in which this copy-error is evident in print? If not then this counts as original research and doesn't belong here. Also, while there has been some descriptive and translation work on some of these languages it doesn't appear that there has been any historical/comparative work on any of them, in which case the whole question of their relatedness is up for grabs and whether or not the Kwomtari and the Baibait families actually exist must remain uncertain. Dougg 05:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...also, I'm curious to know where the pronoun data came from. The Fas data I've seen was a bit different. Dougg 05:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pyu isolate?

I can't see in Ross 2005 where Pyu is specifically excluded from his Left May-Kwomtari group. Perhaps I'm somehow missing it?

Also, I don't see how Ross perpetuates the 'copy error' as he doesn't use any information except pronouns to make his analysis, so the 'copy error' doesn't play a part. Dougg 00:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross (2005) does not challenge the listing of Pyu in the Kwomtari family, which goes back to Laycock (1973). Inspection of Ross's article shows that:

a) Ross does not specifically mention Pyu anywhere in the article;

b) he does list (p. 30) four areas of the island where isolates are found. These are (i) in the north of West Papua: Abinomn and Isirawa; (ii) "in the Sandaun Province of Papua New Guinea: the isolates Karkar, Busa and Yalë, also isolates in Wurm's classification"; (iii) Taiap; and (iv) in northwest Melanesia: Sulka and Kol. Since he mentions three languages neighbouring Pyu in Sandaun Province, and does not mention Pyu, he clearly is not listing Pyu as an isolate;

c) the map on p. 31 shows three areas where languages of the proposed Left May-Kwomtari family occur. One of these, marked "9b" is the Left May group of languages. Another, marked "9a" to the north of "9b" and separated from it by the Sepik family and a couple of isolates, is the main group of Kwomtari languages. The other area marked "9a" is to the west of the Left May languages. The only language corresponding to this area which could conceivably be regarded as Kwomtari is Pyu.

The conclusion is that Ross does not challenge Laycock's listing of Pyu as a Kwomtari language. I have therefore removed from the article the statement that Ross's proposal "specifically excludes the Pyu language", since it is false.

This does not necessarily mean that Pyu is really related to the Left May and Kwomtari languages. The evidence given certainly makes that questionable. However Pyu's exclusion of the family must be established by original research. MarcusCole12 08:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Ross simply did not address Pyu - it doesn't seem to be part of his classification. kwami 15:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]