There are 38 Polynesian languages, representing 7 percent of the 522 Oceanic languages, and 3 percent of the Austronesian family. While half of them are spoken in geographical Polynesia (the Polynesian triangle), the other half – known as Polynesian outliers – are spoken in other parts of the Pacific: from Micronesia to atolls scattered in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands or Vanuatu. The most prominent Polynesian languages, in number of speakers, are Tahitian, Samoan, Tongan, M?ori and Hawaiian.
The ancestors of modern Polynesians were Lapita navigators, who settled in the Tonga and Samoa areas about 3,000 years ago. Linguists and archaeologists estimate that this first population went through common development during about 1000 years, giving rise to Proto-Polynesian, the linguistic ancestor of all modern Polynesian languages. After that period of shared development, the Proto-Polynesian society split into several descendant populations, as Polynesian navigators scattered around various archipelagoes across the Pacific – some travelling westwards to already populated areas, others navigating eastwards and settling in new territories (Society Islands, Marquesas, Hawaii, New Zealand, Rapa Nui, etc.).
Still today, Polynesian languages show strong similarity, particularly cognate words in their vocabulary; this includes culturally important words such as tapu, ariki, motu, fenua, kava, and tapa as well as *sawaiki, the mythical homeland for some of the cultures.
The contemporary classification of the Polynesian languages began with certain observations by Andrew Pawley in 1966 based on shared innovations in phonology, vocabulary and grammar showing that the East Polynesian languages were more closely related to Samoan than they were to Tongan, calling Tongan and its nearby relative Niuean "Tongic" and Samoan and all other Polynesian languages of the study "Nuclear Polynesian".
Previously, there had been only lexicostatistical studies that squarely suggested a "West Polynesian" group composed of at least Tongan and Samoan and that an "East Polynesian" group was equally distant from both Tongan and Samoan. Lexicostatistics is a controversial [clarify]. Since Pawley's 1966 publication, inferring the ancient relationships of the Polynesian languages [clarify] and the proofs of shared innovations.
Pawley published another study in 1967. It began the process of extracting relationships from Polynesian languages on small islands in Melanesia, the "Polynesian Outliers", whose languages Pawley was able to trace to East Futuna in the case of those farther south and perhaps to Samoa itself in the case of those more to the north.
Except for some minor differentiation of the East Polynesian tree, further study paused for almost twenty years until Wilson published a study of Polynesian pronominal systems in 1985 suggesting that there was a special relationship between the East Polynesian languages and all other Nuclear Polynesian but for Futunic, and calling that extra-Futunic group the "Ellicean languages". Furthermore, East Polynesian was found to more likely have emerged from extra-Samoan Ellicean than out of Samoa itself, an astonishing suggestion given the long assumption of a Samoan homeland for the origins of East Polynesian. Wilson named this new group "Ellicean" after the pre-independence name of Tuvalu and presented fine-grained evidence for subgroups within that overarching category.
Marck, in 2000, was able to offer some support for some aspects of Wilson's suggestion through comparisons of shared sporadic (irregular, unexpected) sound changes, e. g., Proto-Polynesian and Proto-Nuclear-Polynesian *mafu 'to heal' becoming Proto-Ellicean *mafo. This was made possible by the massive Polynesian language comparative lexicon ("Pollex" - with reconstructions) of Biggs and Clark.
Despite the relative low number of Polynesian languages, and the relative abundance of data already available on many of them, the comparative method was often reduced to comparisons of vocabulary, shared sporadic sound changes and, as Wilson had done in 1985, comparison of pronominal systems, which is perhaps the second most commonly described aspect of "minor" languages often available for comparison after the lexicostatistical lists. Wilson has a forthcoming work providing further evidence of fine grained subgroups within Ellicean and a consideration of other recent work on the matter of Ellicean internal relations. Wilson's new work brings the matter to the approximate limits of current data available, incorporating much data unknown to most other researchers.
Returning to lexicostatistics, it must be emphasised that the method does not make the best possible use of its short word lists of 100 or 200 words. Dyen's massive lexicostatistical study of Austronesian, for instance, showed a great deal of (lexicostatistical) diversity in the Austronesian languages of Western Melanesia. This was sometimes on par with the lexicostatistical distance of Taiwan Austronesian languages from other Austronesian including Taiwan Austronesian languages from each other (Taiwan now definitively known to be the homeland of the language family itself). But the low lexicostatistical agreement of many Western Melanesian Oceanic languages with other Oceanic Austronesian can be easily dismissed as of little subgrouping interest because those languages are nevertheless full of diagnostic innovations of Oceanic Austronesian in their sound systems and vocabulary, including many Oceanic lexical innovations found in the 100 and 200 lexicostatistical word lists (and the deadly conclusive evidence of the shared phonological innovations of those low-scoring groups with all other Oceanic Austronesian). The Western Oceanic Melanesian "diversity" of lexicostatistical studies was never of any interest in terms of attributing any special time depth or subgrouping significance to it. They are just languages with accelerated loss of vocabulary, sometimes, in the Western[clarification needed] Oceanic case, because they involve certain more ancient peoples of the region shifting to Oceanic speech after Oceanic-speaking peoples arrived.
Partly because Polynesian languages split from one another comparatively recently, many words in these languages remain similar to corresponding words in others. The table below demonstrates this with the words for 'sky', 'north wind', 'woman', 'house' and 'parent' in a representative selection of languages: Tongan; Niuean; Samoan; Sikaiana; Takuu; Rapanui language; Tahitian; Cook Islands M?ori (Rarotongan); M?ori; North Marquesan; South Marquesan; Hawaiian and Mangarevan.
|Tongan||Niuean||Samoan||Sikaiana||Takuu||Rapanui||Tahitian||Rarotongan||M?ori||North Marquesan||South Marquesan||Hawaiian||Mangarevan|
Certain regular correspondences can be noted between different Polynesian languages. For example, the M?ori sounds /k/, /?/, /t/, and /?/ correspond to /?/, /l/, /k/, and /n/ in Hawaiian. Accordingly, "man" is tangata in M?ori and kanaka in Hawaiian, and M?ori roa "long" corresponds to Hawaiian loa. The famous Hawaiian greeting aloha corresponds to M?ori aroha, "love, tender emotion". Similarly, the Hawaiian word for kava is ʻawa.
Similarities in basic vocabulary may allow speakers from different island groups to achieve a significant degree of understanding of each other's speech. When a particular language shows unexpectedly large divergence in vocabulary, this may be the result of a name-avoidance taboo situation - see examples in Tahitian, where this has happened often.
Many Polynesian languages have been greatly affected by European colonization. Both M?ori and Hawaiian, for example, have lost many speakers to English, and only since the 1990s have they resurged in popularity.
In general, Polynesian languages have three numbers for pronouns and possessives: singular, dual and plural. For example, in M?ori: ia (he/she), r?ua (they two), r?tou (they 3 or more). The words rua (2) and toru (3) are still discernible in endings of the dual and plural pronouns, giving the impression that the plural was originally a trial (threesome) or paucal (a few), and that an original plural has disappeared. Polynesian languages have four distinctions in pronouns and possessives: first exclusive, first inclusive, second and third. For example, in M?ori, the plural pronouns are: m?tou (we, exc), t?tou (we, inc), koutou (you), r?tou (they). The difference between exclusive and inclusive is the treatment of the person addressed. M?tou refers to the speaker and others but not the person or persons spoken to (i.e., "I and some others, but not you"), while t?tou refers to the speaker, the person or persons spoken to, and everyone else (i.e., "You and I and others").
Many Polynesian languages distinguish two possessives. The a-possessives (as they contain that letter in most cases), also known as subjective possessives, refer to possessions that must be acquired by one's own action (alienable possession). The o-possessives or objective possessives refer to possessions that are fixed to someone, unchangeable, and do not necessitate any action on one's part but upon which actions can still be performed by others (inalienable possession). Some words can take either form, often with a difference in meaning. One example is the Samoan word susu, which takes the o-possessive in lona susu (her breast) and the a-possessive in lana susu (her breastmilk). Compare also the particles used in the names of two of the books of the M?ori Bible: Te Pukapuka a Heremaia (The Book of Jeremiah) with Te Pukapuka o H?hua (The Book of Joshua); the former belongs to Jeremiah in the sense that he was the author, but the Book of Joshua was written by someone else about Joshua. The distinction between one's birth village and one's current residence village can be made similarly.
|Maori||tahi||rua||toru||wh?||rima||ono||whitu||waru||iwa||tekau (also ngahuru)|
|Marquesan||e tahi||e úa||e toú||e fa||e íma||e ono||e fitu||e vaú||e iva||ónohuú|
Written Polynesian languages use orthography based on Latin script. Most Polynesian languages have five vowel qualities, corresponding roughly to those written i, e, a, o, u in classical Latin. However, orthographic conventions for phonemes that are not easily encoded in standard Latin script had to develop over time. Influenced by the traditions of orthographies of languages they were familiar with, the missionaries who first developed orthographies for unwritten Polynesian languages did not explicitly mark phonemic vowel length or the glottal stop. By the time that linguists trained in more modern methods made their way to the Pacific, at least for the major languages, the Bible was already printed according to the orthographic system developed by the missionaries, and the people had learned to read and write without marking vowel length or the glottal stop.
This situation persists in many languages. Despite efforts at reform by local academies, the general conservative resistance to orthographic change has led to varying results in Polynesian languages, and several writing variants co-exist. The most common method, however, uses a macron to indicate a long vowel, while a vowel without that diacritical mark is short, for example, ? versus a. Sometimes, a long vowel is written double, e.g. Maaori.
The glottal stop (not present in all Polynesian languages, but, where present, one of the most common consonants) is indicated by an apostrophe, for example, 'a versus a. Hawai?ian uses the ?okina, also called by several other names, a unicameral consonant letter used within the Latin script to mark the phonemic glottal stop. It is also used in many other Polynesian languages, each of which has its own name for the character. Apart from the ?okina or the somewhat similar Tahitian ?eta, a common method is to change the simple apostrophe for a curly one, taking a normal apostrophe for the elision and the inverted comma for the glottal stop. The latter method has come into common use in Polynesian languages.