*N   

*Na₁ conjunction: and

Note:   Cf. Tsuchida (1976:11) Proto-Rukai-Tsouic *ɬa ‘and’. Mills (1975:784) proposes PAn *(n)a, but cites forms only from Sulawesi. Given the brevity of this form, as well as other CV competitors for this meaning that are nearly as well-attested, the similarity of forms outside the Tsouic subgroup may be a product of chance.

*Na₂ already

Note:   Also Yami rana ‘already’, Itbayaten dana ~ rana ‘already, now’, Pangasinan la ‘already’. The resemblance of the Asilulu and Mbula forms to the others cited here may be a product of chance.

*Nabek breakers, surf, waves

Note:   Also Rotinese nafa (expected **nafe) ‘wave, waves’.

*NaCeŋ vegetables

Note:   This comparison was first proposed by Tsuchida (1976:150).

*Nali cicada

Note:   Although initial *N is rare, and there is thus little evidence to decide the matter, it appears that *N normally merged with *n in PMP. If so, Maranao lali is assumed to show a sporadic assimilation of the first consonant to the second.

*Naŋuy to swim

Note:   Also Moken maŋoy, Chamorro ñæŋu ‘to swim’.

*Nasu cook by boiling

Note:   Given the Paiwan distinction between ly<m>atu ‘to boil (meat)’ and pi-natuk ‘to boil’, it is possible that PAn *Nasu referred specifically to the boiling of meat and that the doublet *nasuk referred to boiling of vegetables, or to boiling of food in general. Mills (1981) suggests ‘Proto-Indonesian’ *nasu( ) ‘to cook’, but cites no Formosan cognates.

*NataD outside

Note:   Also Malay latar ‘surface, background; prevailing color’ (< Javanese), Javanese latar ‘yard or grounds around a building; background color, field’. Balinese natah probably is a loan from Javanese that underwent subsequent sound change. This leaves only Toba Batak natar as possibly pointing to *nataD rather than *natad. The basic meaning of this term evidently was ‘cleared land in a village’ (as opposed to jungle/bush), with specific reference to the cleared area around a house, or the village square used as a meeting place. From that basic sense it evolved in some languages into terms referring cleared agricultural land (Tetun), or baldness (Kei). I assume that the gloss for Saisiyat latar is underspecified.

*Nayad a plant: Sambucus formosana

Note:   Based on these and several other non-corresponding forms Li (1994:253) proposed ‘Proto-Formosan’ *NayaD ‘Ebulus formosana, Sambucus formosana’.

*Neŋ look, see

*NeŋNeŋ stare, look fixedly

Note:   With root *-Neŋ ‘ stare, look fixedly.’

*Nipis thinness (of materials)

Note:   Also Karo Batak me-nipes ‘be thin, as bamboo, paper, cloth)’, Kambera manipa ‘thin (as cloth)’, Fordata nifit ‘thin’. With root *-pis₂ ‘thin, tenuous; fine’. Although this term evidently referred to the thinness of flat objects in general, it is associated particularly often in sentence examples of the primary sources with woven cloth, and it appears likely that it was applied with very high frequency to describing fabric that was thinner than usual.

Tsuchida (1976) reconstructed PAn *Nix₁əpis ‘thin’, adding a syllable to account for the preconsonantal aspirate of Saisiyat lihpih-an ‘thin (as paper)’. However, numerous other words for this meaning contain a reflex of *-pis₂, as Pazeh halipit ‘thin’, Amis (Kiwit) kuhpits ‘thin’, Paiwan ɬusepit ‘be thin (as paper)’, Kavalan inpis ~ impis ‘thin (like paper)’, Yami ma-taripis ‘thin (as a board)’, Isneg iŋpít ‘thin, tenuous (paper, plates, strings, etc.)’, as well as others that mimic the same root, as with Bunun ma-nisbis ‘thin’ (Ferrell 1969), or Puyuma (Tamalakaw) a-RipiT ‘thin, as a board or the arm’. Given this rampant variation on a common theme there is no special reason to assume that Saisiyat lihpih-an reflects *Nipis rather than being just another innovation that contains a reflex of the root *-pis₂.

*NiSawa breath; to breathe

Note:   Also Ilokano gi-nʔáwa ‘relief, comfort, ease, rest, relaxation’ (< Tagalog?), Pangasinan nawá ‘have sufficient space, time, etc.’, Hanunóo gi-nháwaʔ ‘body, including internal organs, respiratory tract, brain, etc.’, Masbatenyo mag-gi-nháwaʔ ‘breathe, respire, take breaths’, gi-nhawaʔ-án ‘respiratory system’, Acehnese ñawɔŋ ‘the personal soul, life-force’, Mongondow gina ‘breath; mind, heart, nature, disposition, feelings; condition, health; thoughts; meaning’, mo-gina ‘to breathe’, Uma inohaʔ ‘breath’, Buli ñawa ‘soul; life; breath’ (< Malay).

This is a challenging comparison, both formally and semantically. Forms with gi- appear to be a Greater Central Philippine innovation that spread into Ilokano (more recently) and into the languages of Sabah (more anciently). It is unclear whether Pangasinan li-náwa shares the same history (from *Ri-nihawa), or is a product of convergence. If it shares the same history then *Ri-hinawa must be posited for PPh, raising questions about the absence of *Ri- in other non-Greater Central Philippine languages. For this reason I tentatively assume that the li- of Pangasinan li-náwa is unrelated to the gi- of Central Philippine forms such as Tagalog gi-nháwa.

It would be easy to reconstruct PMP *ñawa and ignore the Philippine and Sulawesian forms that point to an original trisyllable, but the highly distinctive semantic agreement of Itbayaten hinawa ‘breath, respiration’, or Tombonuwo inawo ‘soul’ with disyllables such as Malay ñawa ‘life in its association with the breath; soul’ strongly suggests that we are dealing with a single cognate set. Since most AN languages reflect a form in which *i must have followed *n rather than preceding it I reconstruct *nihawa, a trisyllable that is supported by Yakan niyawa, Sangir niawa, and many languages that appear to reflect an original *ñawa. Unless we posit doublets *nihawa, *hinawa this unavoidably implies an independent metathesis in e.g. Itbayaten hinawa, Tombonuwo inawo, Tae' inaa, Muna inawa, and what appears to be a secondary metathesis in Greater Central Philippine forms such as Tagalog gi-nháwa (with syncopated *i in the environment VC__CV).

The reconstruction proposed here differs from that of Tsuchida (1976:229), who posited PAn *ñiSawa with an initial palatal nasal, but also reconstructed *N- in other forms. However, there are problems with this proposal. First, very little evidence has been found to support the claim that PAn *N and *ñ were distinct phonemes. Second, the sound correspondences between Kanakanabu and Saaroa that Tsuchida took to support *ñ are violated by Saaroa in this case (in showing /n/ rather than /ɬ/). Third, most instances of PAn *N clearly became PMP *n, and given a PAn palatal nasal we would expect the Kapampangan form to be **-iñawa, not –inawa (note that the Wolio variant iñawa is also irregular, and is best seen as a sporadic palatalization of n by the preceding high vowel).

Reflexes of PMP *nihawa are particularly interesting in providing one of the rare examples of a phonemic palatal nasal arising from a sequence of *n + ia, much like PAn/PMP *ni-á ‘3sg. genitive’ > POc *-ña ‘3sg possessor’. What is unknown is how many parallel innovations of the form *nihawa > niawa > ñawa must be assumed in order to account for the data in terms that are compatible with currently accepted subgrouping hypotheses. It is clear, for example, that the reanalysis of *nihawa to *-ñawa was already complete in POc *mañawa, parallel to the reanalysis of PMP *ni-á to POc *-ña ‘3sg possessor’, but languages such as Malay evidently developed a palatal nasal in this form through an independent change that followed the same evolutionary path.

Finally, the semantics of *nihawa provide a reminder of the universality of animism, as first clearly stated by Tylor (1871): from the notion ‘breath; to breathe’ there is a link to the ‘breath soul’, and from this to ‘soul; inner self, mind, feelings’, but in another direction to ‘breathe easily, take a break, rest’. Although it may initially appear to be adventitious, the recurrent reference to the fontanel links to the widespread traditional belief that the soul exits the body in dreams or death through the fontanel/top of the head (also clearly linked to the pulsation of breathing in an infant’s still-forming skull).

*Nitaq type of soil, clay

Note:   With root *-taq ‘mud; earth, ground’.

*Niteq sap of a tree or plant

*Niwaŋ thinness, slenderness

Note:   Dempwolff (1934-38) posited *(n)ihaŋ ‘thin’. Cf. Zorc (n.d.) PPh *ni(w,o)aŋ ‘thin, lean, skinny’.

*Nuka wound

Note:   Also Amis dokaʔ ‘wound, sore, cut’, Mota maniga ‘ulcer, sore’. Oceanic reflexes of *ma-Nukaq were erroneously assigned to *suRat ‘wound’ in Blust (1970), a hypothesis that is now abandoned.

*Nusuŋ rice mortar

Note:   Also Seediq (Truku) duhuŋ ‘mortar’. It is assumed that PAn *Nusuŋ underwent an irregular change to PMP *lusuŋ, since all known Malayo-Polynesian reflexes point to an initial lateral.