Relationship of Muna Language, Ciacia, Tukang Besi and Culambacu (Lexicostatistic and Glotochronology Study)

Main Article Content

La Ino
Nanda Saputra

Abstract

This article is motivated by the results of the 2019 SIL research that the languages ​​in Southeast Sulawesi Province vary in category. Some are strong and some are threatened. Among the languages ​​that are categorized as threatened are the Muna language, the Ciacia language, while the Tukang Besi language is included in the strong language group. However, there are still several languages ​​that have not been listed in the SIl research, namely the Culamabacu language. This article discusses the kinship between the Muna language, Ciacia language, the Tukang Besi language and the Culambacu language. This paper uses the theory of comparative historical linguistics with lexicostatistical and glotochronological methods. The results of the analysis of the four languages ​​are that the percentage of Muna and Ciacia language kinship is 49%, Muna language kinship with Tukang Besi 43%, Muna language with Culambacu language 36%, Ciacia language with Tukang Besi 43%, Ciacia language with Culambacu language is 37%, the Tukang Besi language is with Culambacu language 33%. Based on the glottochronology, the Ciacia language and Muna language have a separate year of 1912-1532, the Ciacia language and the Tukang Besi language have a separate year of 2279-183, the Ciacia language and Culambacu language have the years 2587-2211, the Muna language and the Tukang Besi language have a 2371-2335 year, Muna language with Culambacu language has the years 2658-2272, the Tukang Besi language with Culambacu language has a separate year 2885-2465.

Article Details

How to Cite
La Ino, & Nanda Saputra. (2021). Relationship of Muna Language, Ciacia, Tukang Besi and Culambacu (Lexicostatistic and Glotochronology Study). LingLit Journal Scientific Journal for Linguistics and Literature, 2(4), 186-198. https://doi.org/10.33258/linglit.v2i4.557
Section
Articles

References

Blust, Robert A. 1981. “Variation and Retention Rate among Austronesia Language” Makalah Seminar Linguistik Autronesia III di Bali.
Hasbullah, Hatta, M., and Arifin, Z. (2018). Communication Pattern of Wilayatul Hisbah, Lhokseumawe City in Implementing Amar Makruf Nahi Mungkar. Budapest International Research and Critics Institure Journal, Vol. 1, No. 4, 194-205.
Keraf, Gorys. 1996. Linguistik Bandingan Historis. Jakarta: Gramedia.
La Ino. 2015. Deskripsi Fonologi Dan Leksikon Bahasa Ciacia. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Puitika.
La Ino. 2016. Rekonstruksi Protobahasa Muna dan kambowa. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture Available online at https://sloap.org/journals/index.php/ijllc/ Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2016, pages: 151~168 ISSN: 2455-8028 https://sloap.org/journals/index.php/ijllc/article/view/127
La Ino dan La ode sidu. 2018 The Lexicostatistic Study of Culambacu Language with Tolaki Language. Dalam Jurnal Cakrawala Linguista. Nomor 1 Bolume 1 SKIP Singkawang
Marhadi, Akhmad, La Ino, Maliudin. 2019. Surviving the Medicinal Plants Lexicon of Culambacu Language Proceedings of the International Conference on Education, Language and Society. Vol. 1 No.1 hal1-12. UNJ Jakarta
Moleong, Lexy J. 1997. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Karya.
Nothofer, Bernd. 1975. The Reconstruction of Proto malayo Javanic. Gravenhage-Martinus Nijhoeff.
SIL Internasional Indonesia. 2019. Ethnologue: Languages of Sulawesi. Jakarta: Unika Atmajaya.
Sudaryanto. 1993. Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa Pengantar Penelitian Wahana Kebudayaan secara Linguistik. Yogyakarta: Duta Wacana University.
Swadesh, Morris. 1972. The Origin and Diversification of Language. London: Routledge & Kegal Paul.
Wurn, S.A. tth. “Austronesian and Non-Austronesian (Papua) Languages in Contact: Some Notes.” Dalam Wurn (ed). Linguistic and Literary Studies. Paris: The Hague. P.

Most read articles by the same author(s)