Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Using data gathered by Chowning, Valentine, and Goodenough in 1954, a reconstruction is undertaken of Proto-Kimbe, an Austronesian group of languages in North Central New Britain. It significantly revises the reconstruction by Johnston (1982). It confirms that Bali and Vitu, included by Johnston, must be excluded from the Kimbe group, though remaining closely related to it. This analysis shows that both the Kimbe languages and Bali and Vitu have had complicated histories, involving extensive borrowing from another Austronesian language by Bali and the merging of two dialect communities in the formation of what became Proto-Kimbe. This analysis also provides evidence that Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *p and *b had not merged in Proto-Oceanic as *p nor had *d and *D merged as Proto-Oceanic *r, as has been hitherto assumed, although such merger is widely attested in many Oceanic languages
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ward H. Goodenough (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: