- Email: [email protected]
Beginning Javanese
Lingua 12 (1963) 69--86, © North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam Not to be reproduced by photoprint or microfilm without written permission from the publisher
REVIEW
ARTICLE
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
ELINOR C. HORNE, Beginning Javanese. Yale Linguistic Series 3 (1961) X X X l I I + 560 pp. iL has ,toL been customary in this journal to publish extensive reviews of elementary linguistic textbooks. However, as "Beginning Javanese" is the only introduction to Javanese written in English and as it makes several claims which in our opinion are not substantiated, it seems necessary to make an exception. "Beginning Javanese" is said to describe the phonology and to present "a complete analysis of the grammar of Javanese" (preface p. V). It is furthermore claimed by the publishers to be "the result of original research and exploration" into a "little known language". The preface announces that "the description of Javanese contained in this book was developed in accordance with modern linguistic principles by working directly with native speakers of the language. This kind of presentation"- I am still quoting the preface - " h a s heretofore been unavailable". The few existing grammars of Javanese are said to be written in Dutch "along traditional lines, the most recent having been first published in 1930". It looks as if the author and those who helped her with her research were really under the impression that Javanese was a virtually unknown language. Apparently they did not realize that the study of the modern as well as the older stages of the language with its singularly rich literature has been pursued for nearly a century and is still being intensively pursued intensively at several centres outside of the United States. Especially from the first world war onwards there appeared a series of text editions with translations, annotations and glossaries. Modern Javanese texts of a widely divergent nature, written by Javanese authors for a Javanese public were made available in large quantities. They were largely 6,9
70
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
published by Bale Pustaka, the Bureau for popular literature which was founded in Djakarta in 1908. They represent an importan,, source of genuine Javanese language-material which can easilK be tapped by anyone who wishes to describe the language as it is used to-day. The lexicography of Javanese was greatly advanced by Pigeaud who also used to work with Javanese ini'ormants and ~hose Javanese-Dutch dictionary of 1938 can compete with the best dictionaries in the Malayo-Polynesian field, while monographs of several aspects of Javanese culture greatly added to our lexicographical knowledge of the language. Much attention was given to the structure of present-day Javanese. Between 1941 and 1961 about 500 pages of print were devoted to a description along modern structural lines of various aspects of the language (especially phonemics, morphophonemics and morphology). In nearly all publications, some of them written in English, the help of Javanese informants was explicitly acknowledged. Advanced courses in Javanese language and literature have been given in Holland and in Indonesia for many decaces and have contributed much to the establishme, nt of a common fund of linguistic knowledge shared by a number of scholars. One cannot help wondering why the author has refrained from getting into contact with any member of this group. Zoetmulder, Poerbatjaraka, Tjan Tjoe Siem in Indonesia, Aichele in Hamburg, Hooykaas in London, Gonda in Utrecht, Pigeaud, Berg, Drewes, Teeuw or the writer of these lines in Leiden would certainly have been willing to help and by making her acquainted with the actual state of Javanese studies would have prevented much waste of effort. Science progresses by joint effort and by continuity. Every newcomer into a field will place himself needlessly in a disadvantageous position if he deliberately leaves unused the knowledge patiently amassed by his predecessors or his contemporaries. I deplore that I have to make these very obvious remarks in reviewing a book which was published in one of the American centres of South East Asian studies. The main part of the book consists of 24 lessons (p. 1-449). With the exception of four review lessons (6, 12, 18 and 24) each of them has its own theme (daily activities, preparing a meal, the weather and the like). Nearly all the lessons are divided into three
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
71
sections. Section A gives a certain number of partly connected sentences called basic sentences, in Ngoko with English translation, followed by analytical remarks of various kinds. Section B gives the Krama-counterparts of the Ngoko-sentences together with some information about ceremonial word-usage and style. Section C, usually tile shortes't of the three, provides some exercises and conversations. The lessons are preceded by two short introductory chapters, one about the linguistic situation in Java and the method of learning Javanese (p. XXI-XXV) and another on Javanese pronunciation (p. X X V I - X X X I I ) . A reference list of a little over one page, and Javanese-English and English-Javanese glossaries together with an index complete the work. It would have been useful if the book had opened with a short survey of the main facts of the history of Java which have ihad important linguistic consequences, and which would have afforded the prospective student of Javanese some basic information about the present linguistic situation. What is given however is disappointing. The first paragraph which contains some sketchy remarks about the history of Indonesia from about 1000 B.C. till to-day, does not make mention of the culturally and linguistically important Indian influence at the beginning of the Christian era, nor of the no less important advent of Islam which from the end of the 13th century onwards gradually penetrated into most of Indonesia. Instead one is given to understand what every student of colonial history will consider an intolerable simplification "that after a prolonged struggle among the Portuguese, Spanish, British and Dutch, the much prized islands(!) became a Dutch colony and remained so for three centuries". The information about the highly complicated language situation in Java (witness the strong influence of Dutch and Malay, the Madure~e influence in large sections of East-Java, mutual borrowing bet~ceen Sundanese and Javanese, the position of so-called Djakarta-Malay) is also scanty. That as a result of the selection of a single national language "the Javanese people as well as most other Indonesians are in the unusual position of making everyday use of two languages", is again a gross exaggeration and a simplification of the facts. Up till 1948 the knowledge of Bahasa Indonesia among the noneducated Javanese was very restricted, even to the point of non,existence, especially in the rural areas of Java. After that time there
72
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
has been a change. The influence, of Bahasa Indonesia has become much more widespread, beck.use of its having been adopted everywhere as the sole medium of instruction even at the lowest school level. The influence of Dutch on the other hand is rapidly' vanishing since the Japanese occupation in March 1942. However, this does not mean that in the course of 15 years every Javanese has become bilingual, making use of two languages every day! The map of the languages of Java on p. XXI drawn by R. M. Koentjaraningrat especially indicates the areas of the non-islamic Badujs and Tenggerese thereby giving the wrong impression that these people have their own language different from Sundanese and Javanese restectively. The Baduj's language myth has been dispelled long ago (see for instance N. J. C. Geise, Badujs en Moslims in Lebak Parahiang, Zuid Banten, 1951) and Tenggerese is known C U t b o f JT d,V . . . . . CLIL~I;~. ... to be one of the U~"l a ~'^-'Mrs. Home's phonemic analysis is without question relatively the best and most original part of the book. It contains many features not found elsewhere. In several important aspects it differs from the one proposed by me in 1949. In general this is caused by the fact that her theoretical approach to phonemics markedly differs from mine. As a true adherent of what Pike aptly has called the compartmentalization view, she relies exclusively on phonetic considerations while in ray analysis morphophonolngical and distributional factors are also taken into account. From my point of view it was not only permi~;ible, but necessm-y to accept even overlapping aUophones belo:aging to different phonemes, a procedure which naturally would have been anathema to Mrs. Home. This very clearly shows in our vowel-inventories. While I came out with six vowelphonemes, to wit a schwa-vowel plus the vowels A, O, U, I, E each having two aflophones whose occurrence is governed by a rather complicate:l set of positional rules with certain exceptions found in special word categories (exclamations, adhortatives, loans), Mrs. Home ~ccepted eight vowel phonemes for which she uses the symbols a, 6, o, u, ~, ~, i and e (the schwavowel). A comparison of the two solutions is made possible by the following tables. I don't want to go into the question which of the two analyses all things considered suits the facts best. As interesting differences
REVIEW
ARTICLE
Mrs. Home 1962 a
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
Uhlenbeck 1949
~"~-------'~
73
Official s p e l l i n g
~
a
o__.._._____
e . . . .
~
e
in phonemic theory are involved I plan to devote a separate article to this question. It cannot be denied however, that both analyses have their strong and their weak points. While my analysis forces the formulation of a rz,ther cumbersome set of allophonic rules, but seems to suit the morphological analysis very well, Mrs. Horne's analysis has the advantage of avoiding the distinct overlap of several allophones, but puts the important distributional phenome-na too much into the background. However if one adopts a certain phonemization, 1) one has to stick to it and in this respect the book leaves much to be desired. In fairness it has to be admitted that it is often difficult to decide whether one has to do with misprints or with real inconsistencies in the spelling. At any rate I listed the following inaccuracies in the first part of the book" p. X X V I I I kuI6 nuw6n instead of kul6 nuwon, p. 12 on~qn6 i.o. un~qn6, p. 13 t~end,dla-ne i.o. t]en4dla-nd (a misprint); p. 22 ~ntoq i.o. dntoq (3 times on the same page and passim); p. 23, 70, 144 murddd i.o. muridd," p. 24, 47, 108 god.angan i.o. gu.dangan; p. 34, 37, 58 winginand i.o. wing, hand; p. 36 n6nah i.o. nonah, ni6n~ah i.o. nioniah," p. 45 l) I n this review I will use t h e spelling of mrs. H o m e .
74
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
wiueet i.o. wiwdt; mrrr.dajoh i.o. mrrr,!ajrh cf. p. 47; p. 48 end/dng i.o. dndjdng: ro-likor i.o. rr-likor; p. 51 nules i.o. nulds; p. 52 n~ng dind iki i.o. n~ng (short of nang~ng) dind iki; p. 53 saqsampunipon i.o. saqsamponipon; p. 55, 80 wdngkIng i.o. wingkdng; p. 64 and passim: Jrkdj6 i.o. Jokdjr; p. 67, 68, 71 ge.dong i.o. ge.drng; p. 68, 70 bajdqi mentioned as an alternant of betjikd, does not occur; p. 69, 161 Solo i.o. $616; p. 71 d.ajoh i.o.d, ajrh; d.aju-d i.o..dajOd," p. 76, 108 mahasiswa i.o. mrhrsdswd; p. 79 antawisipon i.o. antawdsipon (the suffix-ipon does not aftect the final ,vowel of the rootmorpheme) ; p. 81 hotel i.o. hotel, p. 82 sepuripon i.o. seporipon, see the preceding remark on the suffix -ipon, for the same reason not elu-ipon, but dohipon, not kali-ipon, but kaldhipon; p. 94 engkang i.o. dngkang (a misprint); p. 97 wdngkdng i.o. wingkd~g: p 103 rde/eq i.o. nde!~q; p. !09 ditu!es i.o. divulge," p. 116 toj6nipon i.o. to~anipon; p. 131 pamet i.o. pamdt; pangaponten i.o. pangapunten; p. 132 sambutipon i.o. sambatipon, tc i.o. 16 (misprint); p. 146 Djono i.o. Dj6n6; p. 158 April i.o. A pra; p. 169 biMq i.o. bibkq; p. 172 Rabdngulakdr i.o. Rabing~,lakdr; p. 186 wes i.o. wds; p. 203 tandangtanduqmu i.o. tandangtandoqmu; p. 204 oni i.o. uni (oni does not exist). As to the consonants Mrs. Horne's analysis distinguishes four sets of consonants, a series of fight consonants (p, t, .t, tj, k and l) against a series of heavy consonants (b, d, d., dj, g and lh), four nasal consonants (m, n, nj and ng) and five nasalized heavy consonants (rob, nd, n.d, ndj and ngg). Beside these she distinguishes (as everybody also has done) w, r, s, j, h and q (glottal stop). The distinction between the first two series of stop consonants is st21 not quite clear. Recently Catford (J. C. Catford, Phoaation Types: The Classification of Some Laryngeal Components of Speech Production, School of Applied Linguistics, University of Edin~':~ia, 1961) suggested that the difference is caused by a vertical dispr'cement of the larynx, the series b, d etc. being produced with lowere2 larynx. According to him this produces a downward shift of forman~t I of the following vowel, to which corresponds auditorily what he calls a "muffled" or centralized quality. Although I was not able to observe this lowering of the larynx, it was possible to notice a difference in pitch between the vowels after the p-series and after the b-series. Mrs. Horne apparently has made the same
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
75
observation. Further investigation, especially of pr/br and pl/blsequences is still needed. In sever~ respects however I cannot follow Mrs. Horne's analysis of the consonantal system. In the first place there seems not to be any clear reason why one should place the laterals l a n d lh in the same set as the stops. In many respects it is so very clear that l and r together form one group, while the status of lh is a very special one, it only occurs in one or two exclamations. Secondly it is not clear why mb, nd etc. are considered to be single phonemes. Mrs. Horne does not give any reasons for doing so, but only states that "they are not separable into a nasal sound plus another sound". This mystifies me, as in my opinion there are strong arguments which favour such a further analysis. The extremely widespread and .,,,~,,v,,v,,,~l,~o.uy . . . ~..1^..;^~,.. irnportarLt process of nasalization and the regular occurrence of the corresponding clusters rap, nt, n.t, nt~ and ngk between vowels are two facts which cannot be lightly dismissed. Thirdly I object to the way certain distributional fact.'~ are handled. Under the heading of automatic sound changes (p. X X X I I XXXllI) facts of a widely different nature are brought together. While the Rules II and III treat certain wordsandhi-phenomena, Rule I gives an incomplete and incorrect picture of the distribution of the h-phoneme and of certain changes of final h when suffixes are added. The main facts as describ~.d by me in 1949 are: h occurs frequently in final position, in initial position only in exclamations, interjections and a few recent loans from Dutch, while between vowels it occurs between like vowels (most frequently between two a-phonemes). Its occurrence between unlike vowels is limited to a rather small number of loanwords largely taken over from Arabic, directly or indirectly. If to words with final h a suffix is added, certain changes occur. The rather complicated mechanism of this change is described on p. 2i 1-.214 of my aforementioned book. Rule IV mentions the extension of monovocalic roots to bivocalic ones by the addition of i-, u-- or ~- without stating the rules which govern this phenomenon. No doubt this extension is closely related to the general preference in Javanese for nonaffixed words of two vowels, which is the predominant type of word-structure, as has been proved by m y statistical investigation of the vocabulary. (see also J. G. de Casparis, L'importance de
76
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
la dissyUabie en j av~.nais, India Antiqua, Studies presented to J. Ph. Vogel, 1948, p. 63-76). Finally i n Rule V one finds the linguistically objectionable statement that "heavy consonants are not pronounced at the end o~ Javanese words". The question is that at the end o.f Javanese wGrds b, d and g are not allowed. However in a certain group of words final p, t and k are replaced by b, d and g respectively, when suffixes with initial vowel are added, in much the same way as in Dutch for instance the plural paarde, horses exists beside the singular paart, horse (paard). The author should have added however that this phenomenon does not always occur in the standard language. Even in certain parts of Surakarta and J ogyakarta one finds for instance alongside blabag~, blabakd (from blabak, blackboard). If the two forms both occur the blabagdf or][I][5
_:.~__A~I .1.~ ^ ,1+,.,,-.. CJ.[~. (~,UII~LU~L~U LU LL;~ Lilt:; 1..:--1,....,,,. 111~11~I
~.Lcs,~}"l'"""~'v._,z'+J.J...l,+o +"-'-o+ T.,,~.s..s, .,-,-e~-~,~,.~+ , ~ 4h~o .l.~'O.[.tJ'~'~'t~ VJ,+ tt,.Ai,.+O
phenomenon of neutralization Standard Javanese which is largely identical with the Javanese of the Principalities takes a middle position. In the west (Banjumas) b, d and g freely occur in final position as in Sundanese, while east of the Principalities (Madiun and farther east).they never occur in final position and no final p, t or k ever changes into b, d or g, when a suffix is added to the root. As I have already mentioned in discussing the limitations of lh and h, distributional phenomena are insufficiently described. The author has not noticed that the glottal stop and the h in final position never occur after a schwa-vowel, while on the other hand final -k occurs only after a schwa-vowel (if one sets apart the blabakblabag~-cases). The description of consonantal changes before certain ~uffixes is also not correct. On p. 70 murddd and muridd are mentioned as alternative forms, while only muridd actually occurs. Conversely on p. 82 murid-muridipon is mentioned as an alternative form ot murdd-murddipon; actually only murdd-mur~di~on exists. Apparently t~ ~ author was seduced here by the parallelism between Ng -d and Kr -ipon into assuming that both suffixes wotfld have the same influence on the preceding vowel of the root, which is not the case. Also incorrect is to assume consonant-change when to words like s~bap a suffix -akd Ng, K r - a k e n is added; final p (and t and k) of the root never changes in this case into b (d or g). All these facts may be found in the existing linguistic literature. The grammatical part of the book is very disappointing and
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
77
nowhere surpasses the level of our knowledge of Javanese of around the beginning of this century. This is in the first place caused by the fact that one of the most conspicuous devices of Javanese morphology, to wit the device of using the same formal elements over and over again in different morphological subsystems, has escaped the author. If one has not detected this frequently used device and if one persists in taking only the sound form of the affixal elements into account, the existing morphological regularities can never be discovered. It is as if in a morphological description of English one would throw on one heap words like steeper,, keeper and butter, just because of the sameness of the final parts of these words. This is what has happened here with the inevitable result that the author must have found Javanese morphology a bewildering chaos. No less fundamental for the understanding of Javanese morphology and especially of the verbal subsystem is the difference between word and root or root morpheme. The importance of this distinction also is not grasped by the author. This has contributed to her not detecting the existence of the various classes of Javanese verbs, although each possesses a very clearly discernible pattern° The most important one of these classes was Gescribed by me very concisely in 1956 in the Festschrift For Roman Jakobson. It is characterized inter alia by the fact that the root morphemes of the verbs belonging to this class only occur in compound words but never as a verb on their own. For instance the root morpheme goring never occurs as a word; it occurs as an element in compound nouns (seg6 goring, fried rice) and as an element in a certain series of verbal forms accompanied by at least one other morpheme (nggor~ng, digor~ng, kagor~ng, kegor~ng, digor~ngakd etc.). For particulars see the article just mentioned. In contrast to this class there exists another class which is characterized by the fact that it contains words only consisting of a root morpheme which do occur as verbs. Also characteristic of this class is the fact that verbal forms with nasal prefix or with prefix di- and not accompanied by a suffix do not occur, but that a form regularly occurs with suffix -i (for instance beside saor, niauri and disauri, beside rampong, ngrampungi and dirampungi, beside ator, ngaturi and diaturi). A third capital shortcoming of the morphological description is that no distinction has been made between productive and
78
REVIEW
ARTICLE
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
improductive processes. This has led the author to mix up completely different morphological categories. For instance in discu~ing the nasalization of the verbs on p. 103, she treats under one heading the t~roductive process of nasalization and the unproductive process of prefixing m- (before initial vowel) / infixing -urn- (after initial consonant). Forms like reed.on, muldh, mi~aku and mrambat do not belong to the same category as mbakar, nulls and njampor. This ihas had the grave consequence that the very clear cut and wellkaown rules for the process of nasalization could not be formulated correctly. Partly this was also caused by the fact that not enough material was investigated, because several finer details of this process have been omitted as for instance the fact that words beginning with initial s and ti when followed by a second s and t,q"in second consonantal position, always replace the initial consonant by the dent,d nasal n and not by nj (for instance susu nusu,
tiatiat - natiat,
sofia
-
notiani.
In view of these :fundamental shortcomings it is not surprising that the author could not present a clear picture of the Javanese morphology and had to take refuge in vague restrictive formulatio:~s like "sometimes", "occasionally", "usually", "with rare exceptions" and the like. In the descript ',on of the process of nasalization (p. 103) one reads the warning that "each ease has to be. learned individually". Javanese like any other language is not an unruly mass of facts. As everywhere there is systematic order and it is the task of the linguist to detect and to describe this order. Also the semantic description of the various categories could not be very satisfactory, if forms of a very different nature are put into one and the same class. The important phenomena of duplication and reduplication have caused the author insuperable difficulties. On p. i86 one finds the statement that reduplication occurs in a few words. Actually in at least one category reduplication constitutes a productive process (type: tetuwuhan) and if space permitted I could give a long list of such forms. On p. 401 it is said that it is a rare phenomenon when an infix occurs in a doubled form. Here again long lists could be given of doubled forms with infix -in- (type ta.~6n-tinak6n, beside the more colloquial tak6ntak6nan). The fists of verbal forms given in several places in the book (a list of verbs without suffix on p. 104-107, of verbs with suffix - i / - h i on p. 177-183, of verbs with suffix -akg [-qakl on
REVIEW
ARTICLE
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
79
p. 209-216) are a veritable hodge-podge of forms belonging to con,~letely different classes. Moreover thelre are many factual elrors. On p. 104 ak~h (much, many) and ad6h (far, distant) are not verbal forms at all, but adjectives belongirlg to a quite different paradigm (ak~h - akih, very much, ad6h -ad~h, very distant; kak~hen, too many, kad6hen, too far etc. etc.) The same goes for angel, an~ar, gampang found also on p. 177 sq. Also on p. 104 the word ngakeh supposed to mean "to increase, to become more" does not exist; the meaning of ndadi is not "to become worse", but "to grow or to sprout luxuriously" or "to set fruit abundantly", or "to hatch out in great number" (said of insects) or "to let oneself to be caught" (said of a child in a certain children's game). On p. 105 liwet is not a simple active form in any sense, but occurs either as part in the weUknov,,~, compound noun seg6 liwet, rice boiled with coconut-milk, or as a root morpheme in forms like ngliwet, diliwet, lizaetan and pangliwet. On the same page the word nglung6 "to go away in fear or anger", does not exist; the analysis of the word men~ang in a root n~ang and a prefix me-(!) is wrong. On p. 106 nan# supposed to mean "to get up after being knocked down ia a fight" is unknown to me, while on the same page the meaning of nek6 is not "to come suddenly or unexpectedly", but "to arrive somewhere for the first time" or "to settle somewhere". It is remarkable that as far as the analy,;is of the verbal system goes, one repeatedly finds old chestnuts of javanese morphology which can be traced to grammars from t855 onwards, like the highly simplistic statement that the suffix -i/-hi has a locative meaning or that the suffix -akd/-qakd is a causative suffix. It is not i.~ robable that this is caused by the fact that the author has Vut an unusual amount of faith in the linguistic knowledge of her three informants. If one reads that one of them was considered "a specialist in the Javanese language" and that the material given by him had the "ring of academic wisdom" or that the comments of still another informant were characterized " b y deep and sensitive penetration into the subtleties of his language combined with an unusual objectivity toward it", this seems not too farfetched an assumption. I fear that her informants being educated Javanese and having received instruction in Javanese and Bahasa Indonesia out of the traditional schoolbooks which were current for many decades in pre- and post-war Indonesia,
80
REVIEW
ARTICLE
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
sometin "~s simply presented as spontaneous observations what they had learned at school. A mixing up of different verbal categories is also found on page 173--174. There are two different prefixes, a prefix which has the form ke- before, consonants, k- before vowels (as for instance kegor~ng and k6b6ng), and a prefix ka- which has the same form before consonants and vowels alike (kagor~ng and ka6b6ng). For a short description of the meaning of the two types of verbal forms I refer to my article in the Festschrift For Roman Jakobson and to my article on Word-formation in Bijdragen tot de taal-, l a n d - e n volkenkunde 111 (1955) p. 286-307. These verbal prefixes have nothing to do with a prefix a- and I don't understand what the author means when she states that this prefix " i s usually present" in such forms with ke- and ka-. %"nat has prevented the author from discovering the existing categories in this case is that beside the two categories with ke-/k- and ka- there are a certain number of relict-forms with prefix ke- and ka- which historically go back to the Old-Javanese verbal forms with prefix ka-. Well known are words like kalalt and ketingal which although historically contaixfing a prefix, are treated synchronically as monomorphemic words, witness forms like ngalah and ngetingal. Here again a patient sorting out of the forms and continuous; attention to morphological structural relationships is the only way out of what will seem to the beginner to be a inextricable mass. It is not only the verbal system which has eluded the author; in other subsystems also one finds that she has missed the existing categorical relationships. A few rather elementary cases as an illustration. In Javanese there is a categorical difference between doubled nouns with the meaning of diversity (omah-omah, various different houses) and non-doubled ones which lack this meaning" omah meaning house or houses. On p. 15 the doubled nouns are considered to be simply plurals, while the non-doubled ones are said to have sometimes a plural meaning. However when somebody answers the question kad apa? what is that? vrith p6tl6t@6a6t, this answer has not the same meaning as an answer p6tl6t. P6tl~tp6tl6t means various pencils, pencils of all sizes, p6tl6t may mean: a pencil o; just" pencils. The pronouns are considered to be a kind of noun, although
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-- R A P P O R T
CRITIQUE
81
the difference between the pronominal system and the system of nouns is very, clear-cut. I refer to my recent monograph on the Javanese pronouns (Verhandelingen Kon. Instituut voor taal-, land- en volkenkunde 30 (1960), VIII + 63 pp.). A fundamental mistake is that the distinction between iki-kuwi-kad, kdnd-konok6n6 etc. etc. is considered to be a difference in distance. It really has to do with the participants of the speech-event and with the speech-event itself. Generally speaking iki and kdnd relate to the spea~er of the sentence in which these words occur. Kuwi and kono to the addressee and kad and k6n6 to neither of them. Finally a few words about the many factual mistakes, incorrect translatio~t~s, unusuM Javanese sentences and the like. It is out of the question to list more than a small part of them. The author is quite right in insisting upon the importance of the ngoko.-krama difference and she warns against the mixing of ngoko- and krama-elements ,~n one sentence. Nevertheless in the sentences offered to her students one finds a disconcerting amount of ngoko-sentences interspersed with krama-words or conversely krama-sentences interlarded with ngoko-elements without any reason. Just to give some examples of elementary mistakes of thi:~ type" (1) Ngoko-words in krama-sentences: p. 7 kul6 aturi ngendil:an t~6r6 D~6w6, the last word has to be changed in D~awi," p. 8 men6p6 pend~enengan dudu murdd, the word dudu has to be replaced by sands; p. 31 s6qs6q, kub5 angsal serat sakdng kantjaku T6m6, the word kantjaku has to be replaced by k6ntjOkul6; p. 54 and 60 twice LOnd6 has to be replaced by Landi; p. 55 and p. 112 mangan has to be changed into ned.6; p. 60 and 110 betas instead of wds," p. 95 and 112 ge.dang instead of pisang; p. 152 dalan instead of margi; p. 196 disambuti instead of diponsambuti," p. 235 anaqkul6 taqtumpaqaken instead of anaqkul6 kul6-tumpaqaken; p. 294 nginep instead of njipeng, and many other cases. (2) Krama-words in ngoko-sentences" p. 130, 251, 264, 305 numpaq instead of nunggang," p. 144 aku krungu tn'lgh ... instead of aku krungu j~n .... ; p. 183 and 184 wulan P6s6 instead of sasi P6s6; p. 194 numpaqi instead of nunggangi; p. 311 tamu-tamu instead of d.a~6h-,.da~6h;p. 441 nat4 instead of tau. In some sentences krama-inggfl-terms ~re inserted without any justification" p. 116 T6m6 ngund~ok to~6 instead of T6m6 ngombd
82
REVIEW
ARTICLF~ - RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
to~a; p. 161 dalemipon Supardi instead of grijanipon S.; p. 197 lard-lar~ dipon-und/uki instead of lar~-lard dipon-omb~ni; p. 421 and 422 lbad.aran(ipon) instead of weteng(ipon); p. 422 wijasanipon T6m6 instead of wedalanipon T6m& The translations of krama- and krama-inggil expressions are sometimes far from satisfactory. In the very first lesson the highly polite 'and deferential sugeng is translated exactly the same as the ngoko seiamet by "Hello" and "How are you"! The same lesson starts with a conversation which is conducted in ngoko, that is in a style of speaking which presupposes that speaker and hearer are rather intimately acquainted; nevertheless the third sentence runs D~enengmu sopo. ~-~ W h a t is your name ~ Sentence number five of the same conversation contains the rather unnatural and stiff sentence 6p6 kow~ murdd? Are you a pupil, a student ? and the final sentence, the formula wds 1"6 which closes a conversation and which is not a greeting of farewell at all, is translated by Goodbye! However, the ngoko-krama vocab"~laries are not handled in the rather mechanical way which the author supposes (p. 4). There exist all sorts of intermediate possibilities between the two styles, especially by abbreviating the krama-elements. In certain situations ngoko- and krama-eleraents may be used in the same sentence. I recommend to the author the reading of the conversations in books like Kirti nd~und~ung drad~at or Ni Wungkuk ing Bend.a growong by the wellknown Javanese author R. Ng. Jasawidagda, or the two volumes of Bot~ah ing gunung the children's book which got a literary prize in 1926, written by M. Soeratman Sastradiardja and K. M. Sasrasoemarta, which give ample evidence about the subtle ways of taking into account differences in social status, age and degree of intimacy. The use of the preposition n~ng found in the Javanese sentences is rather erratic. In some sentences n~ng is found, where it will never occur in standard Javanese" p. 44 kow~ saqiki lagi n~ng 6p6 t6?, instead of no:~mal kowd saqiki lagi 6p6, t6? cf. p. 62 kowd lagi n~ng opo?, instead of kow~ lagi o~oo,,' p. 72 n~ng l~ndon~sia and n~ng A mdrika instead of dng E. and dng A. Conversely dng is found where n~ng would be l,,cessary: p. 187 aku seneng ~ng ke'nd instead of aku seneng 6n6 dng kt',,~ or aku seneng n~ng kdnd. In still other sentences n~ng is used where n~ang (short of men~ang) would be
REVIEW
AR'rICLE
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
83
necessary: p. 62 kowd arep n~ng @6? instead of kowd arep nfang ngendi?; aku amp dolan n~ng instead of aku arep dolan n]ang. Conversely men~ang is sometimes found instead of dng or n~ng: p. 218 . .tek6 men~ang ngg6nd instead of tek6 dng ngg6nd or tek6 n~ng ngg6nd. In several other sentences the wrong prepositions are found or a preposition is omitted: p. 93 tfe.daq kdnd instead of t~e.daq s6k6 kdnd, p. 368, 400 gum,antong marang instead of the normal gumantong s6k6 cf. p. 370, 372 gumantong d.ateng instead of
gumantong sakdng. The difference between punik6/pun6p6/sapunik6 and menik6/ men6p6/samenik6 is not a difference in formality (p. 17); in actual speech only menik6/men6p6/samenik6 are used; punik6 etc. are only fom:d in metric prose. In lesson 3 either the translation of sentence 47 is wrong, or the sentence itself is incorrect. Bengi-bengi cannot have the meaning "in the .evening". The doubled form in this place of the sentence could only mean: although it was n i g h t . . . We have here the wellknown syntactical doubling with rising intonation which I described in 1953 (Bijdragen tot de taM-, landen volkenkmde 109, p. 59-60). Dolan never has the meaning of "to amuse oneself", but only "to make a trip, to go to see somebody for fun, to make a casual visit". On p. 3 Javanese names and forms of address are discussed. It is said that mas is used to address young men, and mbak~u to address young women. Both statements are incorrect. The two terms are not parallel. Mbak~u means elder sister, mas is a title and has nothing to do with age. Mbakiu may only be used by somebody who is younger than the person addressed. It is not true that nonah and n~oniah are not used in speaking to ladies; they are normally only used by Javanese to address foreigners. That tuan is also used for m~ dam is new to us. On p. 27 sord-sord is mentioned with the meaning "in the evening"; as far as we know this word does not exist with t h a t meaning. Normal would have been" ~n sor,d aku ados man,h," also instead of adatd .d~w~qdtek6 awan-awan, adatd tek6 awan would be normally used. The story on p. 28 about the use of the next earlier or the following time division in order to "express the ideas of early and late" is, I am afraid, pure phantasy. Ados esok just means "to take a bath in the morning", tek6 sord "to come in the late afternoon". On p. 32 saben dinten and pend.aq dinten are said to have both the meaning of "eve:y day". Actually they are not synonyms,
84
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-- R A P P O R T
CRITIQUE
pe~ta4 dinten means "every other day". On p. 3;3 mangan is said not to combine with sarapan, but aku lagi mangan sarapan is a very c o m m o n sentence. On p. 35 a ~
w~d~ku and ang4 wmt~ku
are given as alternatives of anaqku w~d6q and anaqku wmi~); only the last two forms are in actual use; the same goes for buku D~awa-ku on p. 37. On that same page 37 the names of the days of the week Sen~n, Sl~s6 etc. are called western=style weekdaynames, which sounds strange in view of their Arabic origin. On p. 40 one finds tijang ~ t r i as krama-inggil for woman; this has to be" prijanton putri. On p. 42 ~ k u b6s6 D~awinipon does not occur, only bukunipon b6s6 D~awi is used. On p. 45 both ~6 mes.ti ora and ~6 rues.rindora k6q are translated by *'c,f course not". Actually there is a difference, the second sentence could be translated for instance •~ j
. . . . . . .
j
....
,
v.
~,v~..o,~
V~.o
,,..v~,,.yuv~.,y
,.,.t~.~.
~6A,..,~.,I.
x.,',A
p. 49 wiw~t "to begin to" is said not to occur as a predicate, but" aku lagi wiwe't, I have just started, is a very frequently used sentence. On p. 57 one finds the surprising statement that "tlhe already existing complexity of the social scale in Java is complicated further by the altered situation brought about by the establishment o] the Republic (1945)". This is contrary to the fact. The complexity to which the author refers has nothing to do with the establishment of the Republic, it already existed during several decades before the second world-war. Before the war the l~te professor Hoesein Djaja&iningrat used to tell the writer of these lines of the difficulties involved in using the correct ceremonial terms in high Javanese society and the tendency of many educated people to use Malay or Dutch instead of Javanese to escape the danger that one would offend one another. In general the establis~hment of the Republic has apparently stirred the imagination of the author. On p. X X l I she states that "the independence of the Indonesian nation . . . . has had the effect of introducing things into Indonesian life which did not previously exist there" and she then proceeds by giving the words rdpublik, republic and pr~sid.En, president as examples. Now to begin with the two examples, they are very unfortunate ones, because both words were already in use in the thirties, and accordingly both are found in the dictionary of Pigeaud of 1938. But apart from this the process to which Mrs. Home refers really started many years earlier. From 4-1900 onwards there has been a tremendous reflux of foreign loanwords, of course
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
mostly taken over from Dutch. :Especially in a community of which the socially highest strata spoke Dutch, this could hardly have been otherwise. Everywhere Dutch technical terms were taken over by Javanese working' people in sugar plantations, laboratories, hospitals, workshops etc. etc. Many of these terms were borrowed directly, although in some cases it was Bahasa Indonesia (or perhaps it is more realistic to say: Malay in various forms) which acted as an intermediary. Let us now skip a few pages in order to avoid the impression that the rest of the book does not give any grounds, for critical remarks. On p. 107 sentence 5: iki wds want~ind .dahar sounds stiff and unnatural, a better sentence would have been wds wantfind mangan, especially as the sentence kowd wds .d6 wisoh !an raop folAows, which one may assume to be spoken to children. On the same page one finds the funny sentence T6m6 ngumbah papan tulds, T. is washing the blackboard; ngumbah being only used for washing of clothes. Instead of ngumbah ngresiqi would have been normal. Equally funny is sentence 77 on p. 330" dng warong iki, ora 6n6 klambi se'ng amp taqtuku, in this stall there are no jackets which I want to buy. Quite understandable because no warong ever sells any articles of clothing. Strange is also the combination of nggdnd.6ng to wear on one's back (for instance a baby) with mdd]6, table (p. 392, 403). Tdapaqan tangan (p. 342) for palm of the hand is never used as far as I know. The normal word is ~p~q-~p~q. Durong duwd wektu seems equally unusual (p. 428), one would normally use durong k6ber. P. 370 the krama-~nggil of kad]engipon d]awah is said to be karsanipon diawah! Apparently it was unknown that kareb~n ng, kad~engipon kr (no krama-inggil of course) has 1:o be distinguished from karep (ng), kad~eng (kr) kars6 (ki) wish. On p. 112 tdr6ng is not squash but eggplant. On several places in the book si mb6q is translated by "cook or housekeeper". Normally si mb6q means mother. On p. 135 a compound word sambot-damelan, work is mentioned. As far as we know this word does not ~,xist, only ng n~ambot-gawd, kr n~ambot-damel are known to us. Gn the same page 135 an.dapan is translated by underdog; actually the meaning is boar. On p. 142 and elsewhere sekolai~ is translated by "school". Actually sekolah is a ,verb in Javanese, :meaning: to go to school or to be at school; sekolahan means schoolbuilding. On p. 146 bareng is considered to "be a synonym of .dh/and nalik6,
86
REVIEW
ARTICLE
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
while actually it has a quite different meaning, see the dictionary of Pigeaud. On p. 175 the possibility is said to exist that n~arapi means to give breakfast to repeatedly; actually it only means to give breakfast to, or more generally: to provide something or somebody with an lmderlayer or a foundation. On p. 178 ng~naqi is translated by "to make oneself more comfortable", actually it means "to make somebody more comfortable". On p. 181 n]alahi does not mean "to be different from, to diso.bey", but "to violate, to deviate from", witness a sentence like nggdnmu njetdr m6ntdr kuwi, genah n~alahi aturan, your driving that car is certainly in violation of the regulations. On p. 195 nakeni is translated by "to ask more than once"; actually it only means "to ask somebody somel:hing". The meaning of repetition and plurality is only present when both the suffixed form and the unsuffixed form occur, as for in,stance nggitiqi, to beat repeatedly: nggitdq, to beat, mbe.taqi, to boil rice for many people: mbe.taq, to boil rice. On p. 214 and 229 ngrab~qakd and ngdmah-dmahaken are both translated by "to marry off a child". NgrabOqakd is only used of a boy, ngdmahe'nahaken only of a girl. On p. 314 the description of the process of doubling with vowel change is unadequately described. If the second vowel of the root is a, it is the second member of the doubled form which is changed, and not the first, for instance from ddan, ddan-~d~n, from koran, koran-k~r~n. For particulars I refer to my book on the structure of the Javanese morpheme p. 220-225. It has not been a pleasant task to write this review. Its main function ,~as to make clear to the author and those who sponsored her research the value of cooper~:tion with other scholars. I do hope that the author will go on with her study of the Javanese language but then not in the isolated wa~, in which she has conducted her research so far. There is ample place fcr widely divergent theoretical approaches, but no approach will produce lasting results if it is based on a superficial knowledge of the linguistic facts and if it ignores results reached by others.
University o[ Leyden
E . M . UItLENBECK
REVIEW
ARTICLE
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
ELINOR C. HORNE, Beginning Javanese. Yale Linguistic Series 3 (1961) X X X l I I + 560 pp. iL has ,toL been customary in this journal to publish extensive reviews of elementary linguistic textbooks. However, as "Beginning Javanese" is the only introduction to Javanese written in English and as it makes several claims which in our opinion are not substantiated, it seems necessary to make an exception. "Beginning Javanese" is said to describe the phonology and to present "a complete analysis of the grammar of Javanese" (preface p. V). It is furthermore claimed by the publishers to be "the result of original research and exploration" into a "little known language". The preface announces that "the description of Javanese contained in this book was developed in accordance with modern linguistic principles by working directly with native speakers of the language. This kind of presentation"- I am still quoting the preface - " h a s heretofore been unavailable". The few existing grammars of Javanese are said to be written in Dutch "along traditional lines, the most recent having been first published in 1930". It looks as if the author and those who helped her with her research were really under the impression that Javanese was a virtually unknown language. Apparently they did not realize that the study of the modern as well as the older stages of the language with its singularly rich literature has been pursued for nearly a century and is still being intensively pursued intensively at several centres outside of the United States. Especially from the first world war onwards there appeared a series of text editions with translations, annotations and glossaries. Modern Javanese texts of a widely divergent nature, written by Javanese authors for a Javanese public were made available in large quantities. They were largely 6,9
70
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
published by Bale Pustaka, the Bureau for popular literature which was founded in Djakarta in 1908. They represent an importan,, source of genuine Javanese language-material which can easilK be tapped by anyone who wishes to describe the language as it is used to-day. The lexicography of Javanese was greatly advanced by Pigeaud who also used to work with Javanese ini'ormants and ~hose Javanese-Dutch dictionary of 1938 can compete with the best dictionaries in the Malayo-Polynesian field, while monographs of several aspects of Javanese culture greatly added to our lexicographical knowledge of the language. Much attention was given to the structure of present-day Javanese. Between 1941 and 1961 about 500 pages of print were devoted to a description along modern structural lines of various aspects of the language (especially phonemics, morphophonemics and morphology). In nearly all publications, some of them written in English, the help of Javanese informants was explicitly acknowledged. Advanced courses in Javanese language and literature have been given in Holland and in Indonesia for many decaces and have contributed much to the establishme, nt of a common fund of linguistic knowledge shared by a number of scholars. One cannot help wondering why the author has refrained from getting into contact with any member of this group. Zoetmulder, Poerbatjaraka, Tjan Tjoe Siem in Indonesia, Aichele in Hamburg, Hooykaas in London, Gonda in Utrecht, Pigeaud, Berg, Drewes, Teeuw or the writer of these lines in Leiden would certainly have been willing to help and by making her acquainted with the actual state of Javanese studies would have prevented much waste of effort. Science progresses by joint effort and by continuity. Every newcomer into a field will place himself needlessly in a disadvantageous position if he deliberately leaves unused the knowledge patiently amassed by his predecessors or his contemporaries. I deplore that I have to make these very obvious remarks in reviewing a book which was published in one of the American centres of South East Asian studies. The main part of the book consists of 24 lessons (p. 1-449). With the exception of four review lessons (6, 12, 18 and 24) each of them has its own theme (daily activities, preparing a meal, the weather and the like). Nearly all the lessons are divided into three
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
71
sections. Section A gives a certain number of partly connected sentences called basic sentences, in Ngoko with English translation, followed by analytical remarks of various kinds. Section B gives the Krama-counterparts of the Ngoko-sentences together with some information about ceremonial word-usage and style. Section C, usually tile shortes't of the three, provides some exercises and conversations. The lessons are preceded by two short introductory chapters, one about the linguistic situation in Java and the method of learning Javanese (p. XXI-XXV) and another on Javanese pronunciation (p. X X V I - X X X I I ) . A reference list of a little over one page, and Javanese-English and English-Javanese glossaries together with an index complete the work. It would have been useful if the book had opened with a short survey of the main facts of the history of Java which have ihad important linguistic consequences, and which would have afforded the prospective student of Javanese some basic information about the present linguistic situation. What is given however is disappointing. The first paragraph which contains some sketchy remarks about the history of Indonesia from about 1000 B.C. till to-day, does not make mention of the culturally and linguistically important Indian influence at the beginning of the Christian era, nor of the no less important advent of Islam which from the end of the 13th century onwards gradually penetrated into most of Indonesia. Instead one is given to understand what every student of colonial history will consider an intolerable simplification "that after a prolonged struggle among the Portuguese, Spanish, British and Dutch, the much prized islands(!) became a Dutch colony and remained so for three centuries". The information about the highly complicated language situation in Java (witness the strong influence of Dutch and Malay, the Madure~e influence in large sections of East-Java, mutual borrowing bet~ceen Sundanese and Javanese, the position of so-called Djakarta-Malay) is also scanty. That as a result of the selection of a single national language "the Javanese people as well as most other Indonesians are in the unusual position of making everyday use of two languages", is again a gross exaggeration and a simplification of the facts. Up till 1948 the knowledge of Bahasa Indonesia among the noneducated Javanese was very restricted, even to the point of non,existence, especially in the rural areas of Java. After that time there
72
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
has been a change. The influence, of Bahasa Indonesia has become much more widespread, beck.use of its having been adopted everywhere as the sole medium of instruction even at the lowest school level. The influence of Dutch on the other hand is rapidly' vanishing since the Japanese occupation in March 1942. However, this does not mean that in the course of 15 years every Javanese has become bilingual, making use of two languages every day! The map of the languages of Java on p. XXI drawn by R. M. Koentjaraningrat especially indicates the areas of the non-islamic Badujs and Tenggerese thereby giving the wrong impression that these people have their own language different from Sundanese and Javanese restectively. The Baduj's language myth has been dispelled long ago (see for instance N. J. C. Geise, Badujs en Moslims in Lebak Parahiang, Zuid Banten, 1951) and Tenggerese is known C U t b o f JT d,V . . . . . CLIL~I;~. ... to be one of the U~"l a ~'^-'Mrs. Home's phonemic analysis is without question relatively the best and most original part of the book. It contains many features not found elsewhere. In several important aspects it differs from the one proposed by me in 1949. In general this is caused by the fact that her theoretical approach to phonemics markedly differs from mine. As a true adherent of what Pike aptly has called the compartmentalization view, she relies exclusively on phonetic considerations while in ray analysis morphophonolngical and distributional factors are also taken into account. From my point of view it was not only permi~;ible, but necessm-y to accept even overlapping aUophones belo:aging to different phonemes, a procedure which naturally would have been anathema to Mrs. Home. This very clearly shows in our vowel-inventories. While I came out with six vowelphonemes, to wit a schwa-vowel plus the vowels A, O, U, I, E each having two aflophones whose occurrence is governed by a rather complicate:l set of positional rules with certain exceptions found in special word categories (exclamations, adhortatives, loans), Mrs. Home ~ccepted eight vowel phonemes for which she uses the symbols a, 6, o, u, ~, ~, i and e (the schwavowel). A comparison of the two solutions is made possible by the following tables. I don't want to go into the question which of the two analyses all things considered suits the facts best. As interesting differences
REVIEW
ARTICLE
Mrs. Home 1962 a
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
Uhlenbeck 1949
~"~-------'~
73
Official s p e l l i n g
~
a
o__.._._____
e . . . .
~
e
in phonemic theory are involved I plan to devote a separate article to this question. It cannot be denied however, that both analyses have their strong and their weak points. While my analysis forces the formulation of a rz,ther cumbersome set of allophonic rules, but seems to suit the morphological analysis very well, Mrs. Horne's analysis has the advantage of avoiding the distinct overlap of several allophones, but puts the important distributional phenome-na too much into the background. However if one adopts a certain phonemization, 1) one has to stick to it and in this respect the book leaves much to be desired. In fairness it has to be admitted that it is often difficult to decide whether one has to do with misprints or with real inconsistencies in the spelling. At any rate I listed the following inaccuracies in the first part of the book" p. X X V I I I kuI6 nuw6n instead of kul6 nuwon, p. 12 on~qn6 i.o. un~qn6, p. 13 t~end,dla-ne i.o. t]en4dla-nd (a misprint); p. 22 ~ntoq i.o. dntoq (3 times on the same page and passim); p. 23, 70, 144 murddd i.o. muridd," p. 24, 47, 108 god.angan i.o. gu.dangan; p. 34, 37, 58 winginand i.o. wing, hand; p. 36 n6nah i.o. nonah, ni6n~ah i.o. nioniah," p. 45 l) I n this review I will use t h e spelling of mrs. H o m e .
74
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
wiueet i.o. wiwdt; mrrr.dajoh i.o. mrrr,!ajrh cf. p. 47; p. 48 end/dng i.o. dndjdng: ro-likor i.o. rr-likor; p. 51 nules i.o. nulds; p. 52 n~ng dind iki i.o. n~ng (short of nang~ng) dind iki; p. 53 saqsampunipon i.o. saqsamponipon; p. 55, 80 wdngkIng i.o. wingkdng; p. 64 and passim: Jrkdj6 i.o. Jokdjr; p. 67, 68, 71 ge.dong i.o. ge.drng; p. 68, 70 bajdqi mentioned as an alternant of betjikd, does not occur; p. 69, 161 Solo i.o. $616; p. 71 d.ajoh i.o.d, ajrh; d.aju-d i.o..dajOd," p. 76, 108 mahasiswa i.o. mrhrsdswd; p. 79 antawisipon i.o. antawdsipon (the suffix-ipon does not aftect the final ,vowel of the rootmorpheme) ; p. 81 hotel i.o. hotel, p. 82 sepuripon i.o. seporipon, see the preceding remark on the suffix -ipon, for the same reason not elu-ipon, but dohipon, not kali-ipon, but kaldhipon; p. 94 engkang i.o. dngkang (a misprint); p. 97 wdngkdng i.o. wingkd~g: p 103 rde/eq i.o. nde!~q; p. !09 ditu!es i.o. divulge," p. 116 toj6nipon i.o. to~anipon; p. 131 pamet i.o. pamdt; pangaponten i.o. pangapunten; p. 132 sambutipon i.o. sambatipon, tc i.o. 16 (misprint); p. 146 Djono i.o. Dj6n6; p. 158 April i.o. A pra; p. 169 biMq i.o. bibkq; p. 172 Rabdngulakdr i.o. Rabing~,lakdr; p. 186 wes i.o. wds; p. 203 tandangtanduqmu i.o. tandangtandoqmu; p. 204 oni i.o. uni (oni does not exist). As to the consonants Mrs. Horne's analysis distinguishes four sets of consonants, a series of fight consonants (p, t, .t, tj, k and l) against a series of heavy consonants (b, d, d., dj, g and lh), four nasal consonants (m, n, nj and ng) and five nasalized heavy consonants (rob, nd, n.d, ndj and ngg). Beside these she distinguishes (as everybody also has done) w, r, s, j, h and q (glottal stop). The distinction between the first two series of stop consonants is st21 not quite clear. Recently Catford (J. C. Catford, Phoaation Types: The Classification of Some Laryngeal Components of Speech Production, School of Applied Linguistics, University of Edin~':~ia, 1961) suggested that the difference is caused by a vertical dispr'cement of the larynx, the series b, d etc. being produced with lowere2 larynx. According to him this produces a downward shift of forman~t I of the following vowel, to which corresponds auditorily what he calls a "muffled" or centralized quality. Although I was not able to observe this lowering of the larynx, it was possible to notice a difference in pitch between the vowels after the p-series and after the b-series. Mrs. Horne apparently has made the same
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
75
observation. Further investigation, especially of pr/br and pl/blsequences is still needed. In sever~ respects however I cannot follow Mrs. Horne's analysis of the consonantal system. In the first place there seems not to be any clear reason why one should place the laterals l a n d lh in the same set as the stops. In many respects it is so very clear that l and r together form one group, while the status of lh is a very special one, it only occurs in one or two exclamations. Secondly it is not clear why mb, nd etc. are considered to be single phonemes. Mrs. Horne does not give any reasons for doing so, but only states that "they are not separable into a nasal sound plus another sound". This mystifies me, as in my opinion there are strong arguments which favour such a further analysis. The extremely widespread and .,,,~,,v,,v,,,~l,~o.uy . . . ~..1^..;^~,.. irnportarLt process of nasalization and the regular occurrence of the corresponding clusters rap, nt, n.t, nt~ and ngk between vowels are two facts which cannot be lightly dismissed. Thirdly I object to the way certain distributional fact.'~ are handled. Under the heading of automatic sound changes (p. X X X I I XXXllI) facts of a widely different nature are brought together. While the Rules II and III treat certain wordsandhi-phenomena, Rule I gives an incomplete and incorrect picture of the distribution of the h-phoneme and of certain changes of final h when suffixes are added. The main facts as describ~.d by me in 1949 are: h occurs frequently in final position, in initial position only in exclamations, interjections and a few recent loans from Dutch, while between vowels it occurs between like vowels (most frequently between two a-phonemes). Its occurrence between unlike vowels is limited to a rather small number of loanwords largely taken over from Arabic, directly or indirectly. If to words with final h a suffix is added, certain changes occur. The rather complicated mechanism of this change is described on p. 2i 1-.214 of my aforementioned book. Rule IV mentions the extension of monovocalic roots to bivocalic ones by the addition of i-, u-- or ~- without stating the rules which govern this phenomenon. No doubt this extension is closely related to the general preference in Javanese for nonaffixed words of two vowels, which is the predominant type of word-structure, as has been proved by m y statistical investigation of the vocabulary. (see also J. G. de Casparis, L'importance de
76
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
la dissyUabie en j av~.nais, India Antiqua, Studies presented to J. Ph. Vogel, 1948, p. 63-76). Finally i n Rule V one finds the linguistically objectionable statement that "heavy consonants are not pronounced at the end o~ Javanese words". The question is that at the end o.f Javanese wGrds b, d and g are not allowed. However in a certain group of words final p, t and k are replaced by b, d and g respectively, when suffixes with initial vowel are added, in much the same way as in Dutch for instance the plural paarde, horses exists beside the singular paart, horse (paard). The author should have added however that this phenomenon does not always occur in the standard language. Even in certain parts of Surakarta and J ogyakarta one finds for instance alongside blabag~, blabakd (from blabak, blackboard). If the two forms both occur the blabagdf or][I][5
_:.~__A~I .1.~ ^ ,1+,.,,-.. CJ.[~. (~,UII~LU~L~U LU LL;~ Lilt:; 1..:--1,....,,,. 111~11~I
~.Lcs,~}"l'"""~'v._,z'+J.J...l,+o +"-'-o+ T.,,~.s..s, .,-,-e~-~,~,.~+ , ~ 4h~o .l.~'O.[.tJ'~'~'t~ VJ,+ tt,.Ai,.+O
phenomenon of neutralization Standard Javanese which is largely identical with the Javanese of the Principalities takes a middle position. In the west (Banjumas) b, d and g freely occur in final position as in Sundanese, while east of the Principalities (Madiun and farther east).they never occur in final position and no final p, t or k ever changes into b, d or g, when a suffix is added to the root. As I have already mentioned in discussing the limitations of lh and h, distributional phenomena are insufficiently described. The author has not noticed that the glottal stop and the h in final position never occur after a schwa-vowel, while on the other hand final -k occurs only after a schwa-vowel (if one sets apart the blabakblabag~-cases). The description of consonantal changes before certain ~uffixes is also not correct. On p. 70 murddd and muridd are mentioned as alternative forms, while only muridd actually occurs. Conversely on p. 82 murid-muridipon is mentioned as an alternative form ot murdd-murddipon; actually only murdd-mur~di~on exists. Apparently t~ ~ author was seduced here by the parallelism between Ng -d and Kr -ipon into assuming that both suffixes wotfld have the same influence on the preceding vowel of the root, which is not the case. Also incorrect is to assume consonant-change when to words like s~bap a suffix -akd Ng, K r - a k e n is added; final p (and t and k) of the root never changes in this case into b (d or g). All these facts may be found in the existing linguistic literature. The grammatical part of the book is very disappointing and
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
77
nowhere surpasses the level of our knowledge of Javanese of around the beginning of this century. This is in the first place caused by the fact that one of the most conspicuous devices of Javanese morphology, to wit the device of using the same formal elements over and over again in different morphological subsystems, has escaped the author. If one has not detected this frequently used device and if one persists in taking only the sound form of the affixal elements into account, the existing morphological regularities can never be discovered. It is as if in a morphological description of English one would throw on one heap words like steeper,, keeper and butter, just because of the sameness of the final parts of these words. This is what has happened here with the inevitable result that the author must have found Javanese morphology a bewildering chaos. No less fundamental for the understanding of Javanese morphology and especially of the verbal subsystem is the difference between word and root or root morpheme. The importance of this distinction also is not grasped by the author. This has contributed to her not detecting the existence of the various classes of Javanese verbs, although each possesses a very clearly discernible pattern° The most important one of these classes was Gescribed by me very concisely in 1956 in the Festschrift For Roman Jakobson. It is characterized inter alia by the fact that the root morphemes of the verbs belonging to this class only occur in compound words but never as a verb on their own. For instance the root morpheme goring never occurs as a word; it occurs as an element in compound nouns (seg6 goring, fried rice) and as an element in a certain series of verbal forms accompanied by at least one other morpheme (nggor~ng, digor~ng, kagor~ng, kegor~ng, digor~ngakd etc.). For particulars see the article just mentioned. In contrast to this class there exists another class which is characterized by the fact that it contains words only consisting of a root morpheme which do occur as verbs. Also characteristic of this class is the fact that verbal forms with nasal prefix or with prefix di- and not accompanied by a suffix do not occur, but that a form regularly occurs with suffix -i (for instance beside saor, niauri and disauri, beside rampong, ngrampungi and dirampungi, beside ator, ngaturi and diaturi). A third capital shortcoming of the morphological description is that no distinction has been made between productive and
78
REVIEW
ARTICLE
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
improductive processes. This has led the author to mix up completely different morphological categories. For instance in discu~ing the nasalization of the verbs on p. 103, she treats under one heading the t~roductive process of nasalization and the unproductive process of prefixing m- (before initial vowel) / infixing -urn- (after initial consonant). Forms like reed.on, muldh, mi~aku and mrambat do not belong to the same category as mbakar, nulls and njampor. This ihas had the grave consequence that the very clear cut and wellkaown rules for the process of nasalization could not be formulated correctly. Partly this was also caused by the fact that not enough material was investigated, because several finer details of this process have been omitted as for instance the fact that words beginning with initial s and ti when followed by a second s and t,q"in second consonantal position, always replace the initial consonant by the dent,d nasal n and not by nj (for instance susu nusu,
tiatiat - natiat,
sofia
-
notiani.
In view of these :fundamental shortcomings it is not surprising that the author could not present a clear picture of the Javanese morphology and had to take refuge in vague restrictive formulatio:~s like "sometimes", "occasionally", "usually", "with rare exceptions" and the like. In the descript ',on of the process of nasalization (p. 103) one reads the warning that "each ease has to be. learned individually". Javanese like any other language is not an unruly mass of facts. As everywhere there is systematic order and it is the task of the linguist to detect and to describe this order. Also the semantic description of the various categories could not be very satisfactory, if forms of a very different nature are put into one and the same class. The important phenomena of duplication and reduplication have caused the author insuperable difficulties. On p. i86 one finds the statement that reduplication occurs in a few words. Actually in at least one category reduplication constitutes a productive process (type: tetuwuhan) and if space permitted I could give a long list of such forms. On p. 401 it is said that it is a rare phenomenon when an infix occurs in a doubled form. Here again long lists could be given of doubled forms with infix -in- (type ta.~6n-tinak6n, beside the more colloquial tak6ntak6nan). The fists of verbal forms given in several places in the book (a list of verbs without suffix on p. 104-107, of verbs with suffix - i / - h i on p. 177-183, of verbs with suffix -akg [-qakl on
REVIEW
ARTICLE
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
79
p. 209-216) are a veritable hodge-podge of forms belonging to con,~letely different classes. Moreover thelre are many factual elrors. On p. 104 ak~h (much, many) and ad6h (far, distant) are not verbal forms at all, but adjectives belongirlg to a quite different paradigm (ak~h - akih, very much, ad6h -ad~h, very distant; kak~hen, too many, kad6hen, too far etc. etc.) The same goes for angel, an~ar, gampang found also on p. 177 sq. Also on p. 104 the word ngakeh supposed to mean "to increase, to become more" does not exist; the meaning of ndadi is not "to become worse", but "to grow or to sprout luxuriously" or "to set fruit abundantly", or "to hatch out in great number" (said of insects) or "to let oneself to be caught" (said of a child in a certain children's game). On p. 105 liwet is not a simple active form in any sense, but occurs either as part in the weUknov,,~, compound noun seg6 liwet, rice boiled with coconut-milk, or as a root morpheme in forms like ngliwet, diliwet, lizaetan and pangliwet. On the same page the word nglung6 "to go away in fear or anger", does not exist; the analysis of the word men~ang in a root n~ang and a prefix me-(!) is wrong. On p. 106 nan# supposed to mean "to get up after being knocked down ia a fight" is unknown to me, while on the same page the meaning of nek6 is not "to come suddenly or unexpectedly", but "to arrive somewhere for the first time" or "to settle somewhere". It is remarkable that as far as the analy,;is of the verbal system goes, one repeatedly finds old chestnuts of javanese morphology which can be traced to grammars from t855 onwards, like the highly simplistic statement that the suffix -i/-hi has a locative meaning or that the suffix -akd/-qakd is a causative suffix. It is not i.~ robable that this is caused by the fact that the author has Vut an unusual amount of faith in the linguistic knowledge of her three informants. If one reads that one of them was considered "a specialist in the Javanese language" and that the material given by him had the "ring of academic wisdom" or that the comments of still another informant were characterized " b y deep and sensitive penetration into the subtleties of his language combined with an unusual objectivity toward it", this seems not too farfetched an assumption. I fear that her informants being educated Javanese and having received instruction in Javanese and Bahasa Indonesia out of the traditional schoolbooks which were current for many decades in pre- and post-war Indonesia,
80
REVIEW
ARTICLE
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
sometin "~s simply presented as spontaneous observations what they had learned at school. A mixing up of different verbal categories is also found on page 173--174. There are two different prefixes, a prefix which has the form ke- before, consonants, k- before vowels (as for instance kegor~ng and k6b6ng), and a prefix ka- which has the same form before consonants and vowels alike (kagor~ng and ka6b6ng). For a short description of the meaning of the two types of verbal forms I refer to my article in the Festschrift For Roman Jakobson and to my article on Word-formation in Bijdragen tot de taal-, l a n d - e n volkenkunde 111 (1955) p. 286-307. These verbal prefixes have nothing to do with a prefix a- and I don't understand what the author means when she states that this prefix " i s usually present" in such forms with ke- and ka-. %"nat has prevented the author from discovering the existing categories in this case is that beside the two categories with ke-/k- and ka- there are a certain number of relict-forms with prefix ke- and ka- which historically go back to the Old-Javanese verbal forms with prefix ka-. Well known are words like kalalt and ketingal which although historically contaixfing a prefix, are treated synchronically as monomorphemic words, witness forms like ngalah and ngetingal. Here again a patient sorting out of the forms and continuous; attention to morphological structural relationships is the only way out of what will seem to the beginner to be a inextricable mass. It is not only the verbal system which has eluded the author; in other subsystems also one finds that she has missed the existing categorical relationships. A few rather elementary cases as an illustration. In Javanese there is a categorical difference between doubled nouns with the meaning of diversity (omah-omah, various different houses) and non-doubled ones which lack this meaning" omah meaning house or houses. On p. 15 the doubled nouns are considered to be simply plurals, while the non-doubled ones are said to have sometimes a plural meaning. However when somebody answers the question kad apa? what is that? vrith p6tl6t@6a6t, this answer has not the same meaning as an answer p6tl6t. P6tl~tp6tl6t means various pencils, pencils of all sizes, p6tl6t may mean: a pencil o; just" pencils. The pronouns are considered to be a kind of noun, although
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-- R A P P O R T
CRITIQUE
81
the difference between the pronominal system and the system of nouns is very, clear-cut. I refer to my recent monograph on the Javanese pronouns (Verhandelingen Kon. Instituut voor taal-, land- en volkenkunde 30 (1960), VIII + 63 pp.). A fundamental mistake is that the distinction between iki-kuwi-kad, kdnd-konok6n6 etc. etc. is considered to be a difference in distance. It really has to do with the participants of the speech-event and with the speech-event itself. Generally speaking iki and kdnd relate to the spea~er of the sentence in which these words occur. Kuwi and kono to the addressee and kad and k6n6 to neither of them. Finally a few words about the many factual mistakes, incorrect translatio~t~s, unusuM Javanese sentences and the like. It is out of the question to list more than a small part of them. The author is quite right in insisting upon the importance of the ngoko.-krama difference and she warns against the mixing of ngoko- and krama-elements ,~n one sentence. Nevertheless in the sentences offered to her students one finds a disconcerting amount of ngoko-sentences interspersed with krama-words or conversely krama-sentences interlarded with ngoko-elements without any reason. Just to give some examples of elementary mistakes of thi:~ type" (1) Ngoko-words in krama-sentences: p. 7 kul6 aturi ngendil:an t~6r6 D~6w6, the last word has to be changed in D~awi," p. 8 men6p6 pend~enengan dudu murdd, the word dudu has to be replaced by sands; p. 31 s6qs6q, kub5 angsal serat sakdng kantjaku T6m6, the word kantjaku has to be replaced by k6ntjOkul6; p. 54 and 60 twice LOnd6 has to be replaced by Landi; p. 55 and p. 112 mangan has to be changed into ned.6; p. 60 and 110 betas instead of wds," p. 95 and 112 ge.dang instead of pisang; p. 152 dalan instead of margi; p. 196 disambuti instead of diponsambuti," p. 235 anaqkul6 taqtumpaqaken instead of anaqkul6 kul6-tumpaqaken; p. 294 nginep instead of njipeng, and many other cases. (2) Krama-words in ngoko-sentences" p. 130, 251, 264, 305 numpaq instead of nunggang," p. 144 aku krungu tn'lgh ... instead of aku krungu j~n .... ; p. 183 and 184 wulan P6s6 instead of sasi P6s6; p. 194 numpaqi instead of nunggangi; p. 311 tamu-tamu instead of d.a~6h-,.da~6h;p. 441 nat4 instead of tau. In some sentences krama-inggfl-terms ~re inserted without any justification" p. 116 T6m6 ngund~ok to~6 instead of T6m6 ngombd
82
REVIEW
ARTICLF~ - RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
to~a; p. 161 dalemipon Supardi instead of grijanipon S.; p. 197 lard-lar~ dipon-und/uki instead of lar~-lard dipon-omb~ni; p. 421 and 422 lbad.aran(ipon) instead of weteng(ipon); p. 422 wijasanipon T6m6 instead of wedalanipon T6m& The translations of krama- and krama-inggil expressions are sometimes far from satisfactory. In the very first lesson the highly polite 'and deferential sugeng is translated exactly the same as the ngoko seiamet by "Hello" and "How are you"! The same lesson starts with a conversation which is conducted in ngoko, that is in a style of speaking which presupposes that speaker and hearer are rather intimately acquainted; nevertheless the third sentence runs D~enengmu sopo. ~-~ W h a t is your name ~ Sentence number five of the same conversation contains the rather unnatural and stiff sentence 6p6 kow~ murdd? Are you a pupil, a student ? and the final sentence, the formula wds 1"6 which closes a conversation and which is not a greeting of farewell at all, is translated by Goodbye! However, the ngoko-krama vocab"~laries are not handled in the rather mechanical way which the author supposes (p. 4). There exist all sorts of intermediate possibilities between the two styles, especially by abbreviating the krama-elements. In certain situations ngoko- and krama-eleraents may be used in the same sentence. I recommend to the author the reading of the conversations in books like Kirti nd~und~ung drad~at or Ni Wungkuk ing Bend.a growong by the wellknown Javanese author R. Ng. Jasawidagda, or the two volumes of Bot~ah ing gunung the children's book which got a literary prize in 1926, written by M. Soeratman Sastradiardja and K. M. Sasrasoemarta, which give ample evidence about the subtle ways of taking into account differences in social status, age and degree of intimacy. The use of the preposition n~ng found in the Javanese sentences is rather erratic. In some sentences n~ng is found, where it will never occur in standard Javanese" p. 44 kow~ saqiki lagi n~ng 6p6 t6?, instead of no:~mal kowd saqiki lagi 6p6, t6? cf. p. 62 kowd lagi n~ng opo?, instead of kow~ lagi o~oo,,' p. 72 n~ng l~ndon~sia and n~ng A mdrika instead of dng E. and dng A. Conversely dng is found where n~ng would be l,,cessary: p. 187 aku seneng ~ng ke'nd instead of aku seneng 6n6 dng kt',,~ or aku seneng n~ng kdnd. In still other sentences n~ng is used where n~ang (short of men~ang) would be
REVIEW
AR'rICLE
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
83
necessary: p. 62 kowd arep n~ng @6? instead of kowd arep nfang ngendi?; aku amp dolan n~ng instead of aku arep dolan n]ang. Conversely men~ang is sometimes found instead of dng or n~ng: p. 218 . .tek6 men~ang ngg6nd instead of tek6 dng ngg6nd or tek6 n~ng ngg6nd. In several other sentences the wrong prepositions are found or a preposition is omitted: p. 93 tfe.daq kdnd instead of t~e.daq s6k6 kdnd, p. 368, 400 gum,antong marang instead of the normal gumantong s6k6 cf. p. 370, 372 gumantong d.ateng instead of
gumantong sakdng. The difference between punik6/pun6p6/sapunik6 and menik6/ men6p6/samenik6 is not a difference in formality (p. 17); in actual speech only menik6/men6p6/samenik6 are used; punik6 etc. are only fom:d in metric prose. In lesson 3 either the translation of sentence 47 is wrong, or the sentence itself is incorrect. Bengi-bengi cannot have the meaning "in the .evening". The doubled form in this place of the sentence could only mean: although it was n i g h t . . . We have here the wellknown syntactical doubling with rising intonation which I described in 1953 (Bijdragen tot de taM-, landen volkenkmde 109, p. 59-60). Dolan never has the meaning of "to amuse oneself", but only "to make a trip, to go to see somebody for fun, to make a casual visit". On p. 3 Javanese names and forms of address are discussed. It is said that mas is used to address young men, and mbak~u to address young women. Both statements are incorrect. The two terms are not parallel. Mbak~u means elder sister, mas is a title and has nothing to do with age. Mbakiu may only be used by somebody who is younger than the person addressed. It is not true that nonah and n~oniah are not used in speaking to ladies; they are normally only used by Javanese to address foreigners. That tuan is also used for m~ dam is new to us. On p. 27 sord-sord is mentioned with the meaning "in the evening"; as far as we know this word does not exist with t h a t meaning. Normal would have been" ~n sor,d aku ados man,h," also instead of adatd .d~w~qdtek6 awan-awan, adatd tek6 awan would be normally used. The story on p. 28 about the use of the next earlier or the following time division in order to "express the ideas of early and late" is, I am afraid, pure phantasy. Ados esok just means "to take a bath in the morning", tek6 sord "to come in the late afternoon". On p. 32 saben dinten and pend.aq dinten are said to have both the meaning of "eve:y day". Actually they are not synonyms,
84
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-- R A P P O R T
CRITIQUE
pe~ta4 dinten means "every other day". On p. 3;3 mangan is said not to combine with sarapan, but aku lagi mangan sarapan is a very c o m m o n sentence. On p. 35 a ~
w~d~ku and ang4 wmt~ku
are given as alternatives of anaqku w~d6q and anaqku wmi~); only the last two forms are in actual use; the same goes for buku D~awa-ku on p. 37. On that same page 37 the names of the days of the week Sen~n, Sl~s6 etc. are called western=style weekdaynames, which sounds strange in view of their Arabic origin. On p. 40 one finds tijang ~ t r i as krama-inggil for woman; this has to be" prijanton putri. On p. 42 ~ k u b6s6 D~awinipon does not occur, only bukunipon b6s6 D~awi is used. On p. 45 both ~6 mes.ti ora and ~6 rues.rindora k6q are translated by *'c,f course not". Actually there is a difference, the second sentence could be translated for instance •~ j
. . . . . . .
j
....
,
v.
~,v~..o,~
V~.o
,,..v~,,.yuv~.,y
,.,.t~.~.
~6A,..,~.,I.
x.,',A
p. 49 wiw~t "to begin to" is said not to occur as a predicate, but" aku lagi wiwe't, I have just started, is a very frequently used sentence. On p. 57 one finds the surprising statement that "tlhe already existing complexity of the social scale in Java is complicated further by the altered situation brought about by the establishment o] the Republic (1945)". This is contrary to the fact. The complexity to which the author refers has nothing to do with the establishment of the Republic, it already existed during several decades before the second world-war. Before the war the l~te professor Hoesein Djaja&iningrat used to tell the writer of these lines of the difficulties involved in using the correct ceremonial terms in high Javanese society and the tendency of many educated people to use Malay or Dutch instead of Javanese to escape the danger that one would offend one another. In general the establis~hment of the Republic has apparently stirred the imagination of the author. On p. X X l I she states that "the independence of the Indonesian nation . . . . has had the effect of introducing things into Indonesian life which did not previously exist there" and she then proceeds by giving the words rdpublik, republic and pr~sid.En, president as examples. Now to begin with the two examples, they are very unfortunate ones, because both words were already in use in the thirties, and accordingly both are found in the dictionary of Pigeaud of 1938. But apart from this the process to which Mrs. Home refers really started many years earlier. From 4-1900 onwards there has been a tremendous reflux of foreign loanwords, of course
REVIEW
ARTICLE
-
RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
mostly taken over from Dutch. :Especially in a community of which the socially highest strata spoke Dutch, this could hardly have been otherwise. Everywhere Dutch technical terms were taken over by Javanese working' people in sugar plantations, laboratories, hospitals, workshops etc. etc. Many of these terms were borrowed directly, although in some cases it was Bahasa Indonesia (or perhaps it is more realistic to say: Malay in various forms) which acted as an intermediary. Let us now skip a few pages in order to avoid the impression that the rest of the book does not give any grounds, for critical remarks. On p. 107 sentence 5: iki wds want~ind .dahar sounds stiff and unnatural, a better sentence would have been wds wantfind mangan, especially as the sentence kowd wds .d6 wisoh !an raop folAows, which one may assume to be spoken to children. On the same page one finds the funny sentence T6m6 ngumbah papan tulds, T. is washing the blackboard; ngumbah being only used for washing of clothes. Instead of ngumbah ngresiqi would have been normal. Equally funny is sentence 77 on p. 330" dng warong iki, ora 6n6 klambi se'ng amp taqtuku, in this stall there are no jackets which I want to buy. Quite understandable because no warong ever sells any articles of clothing. Strange is also the combination of nggdnd.6ng to wear on one's back (for instance a baby) with mdd]6, table (p. 392, 403). Tdapaqan tangan (p. 342) for palm of the hand is never used as far as I know. The normal word is ~p~q-~p~q. Durong duwd wektu seems equally unusual (p. 428), one would normally use durong k6ber. P. 370 the krama-~nggil of kad]engipon d]awah is said to be karsanipon diawah! Apparently it was unknown that kareb~n ng, kad~engipon kr (no krama-inggil of course) has 1:o be distinguished from karep (ng), kad~eng (kr) kars6 (ki) wish. On p. 112 tdr6ng is not squash but eggplant. On several places in the book si mb6q is translated by "cook or housekeeper". Normally si mb6q means mother. On p. 135 a compound word sambot-damelan, work is mentioned. As far as we know this word does not ~,xist, only ng n~ambot-gawd, kr n~ambot-damel are known to us. Gn the same page 135 an.dapan is translated by underdog; actually the meaning is boar. On p. 142 and elsewhere sekolai~ is translated by "school". Actually sekolah is a ,verb in Javanese, :meaning: to go to school or to be at school; sekolahan means schoolbuilding. On p. 146 bareng is considered to "be a synonym of .dh/and nalik6,
86
REVIEW
ARTICLE
- RAPPORT
CRITIQUE
while actually it has a quite different meaning, see the dictionary of Pigeaud. On p. 175 the possibility is said to exist that n~arapi means to give breakfast to repeatedly; actually it only means to give breakfast to, or more generally: to provide something or somebody with an lmderlayer or a foundation. On p. 178 ng~naqi is translated by "to make oneself more comfortable", actually it means "to make somebody more comfortable". On p. 181 n]alahi does not mean "to be different from, to diso.bey", but "to violate, to deviate from", witness a sentence like nggdnmu njetdr m6ntdr kuwi, genah n~alahi aturan, your driving that car is certainly in violation of the regulations. On p. 195 nakeni is translated by "to ask more than once"; actually it only means "to ask somebody somel:hing". The meaning of repetition and plurality is only present when both the suffixed form and the unsuffixed form occur, as for in,stance nggitiqi, to beat repeatedly: nggitdq, to beat, mbe.taqi, to boil rice for many people: mbe.taq, to boil rice. On p. 214 and 229 ngrab~qakd and ngdmah-dmahaken are both translated by "to marry off a child". NgrabOqakd is only used of a boy, ngdmahe'nahaken only of a girl. On p. 314 the description of the process of doubling with vowel change is unadequately described. If the second vowel of the root is a, it is the second member of the doubled form which is changed, and not the first, for instance from ddan, ddan-~d~n, from koran, koran-k~r~n. For particulars I refer to my book on the structure of the Javanese morpheme p. 220-225. It has not been a pleasant task to write this review. Its main function ,~as to make clear to the author and those who sponsored her research the value of cooper~:tion with other scholars. I do hope that the author will go on with her study of the Javanese language but then not in the isolated wa~, in which she has conducted her research so far. There is ample place fcr widely divergent theoretical approaches, but no approach will produce lasting results if it is based on a superficial knowledge of the linguistic facts and if it ignores results reached by others.
University o[ Leyden
E . M . UItLENBECK