This feature allows to generate a graphic representation of the supposed genetic relationships between the language set included in the database, in the form of a genealogical tree (it is also implemented in the StarLing software). The tree picture also includes separation dates for various languages, calculated through standardized glottochronological techniques; additionally, a lexicostatistical matrix of cognate percentages can be produced if asked for.
The tree can be generated by a variety of methods, and you can modify some of the parameters to test various strategies of language classification. The pictures can be saved in different graphic formats and used for presentation or any other purposes.
This option displays the full description for the selected database, including: (a) the complete list of primary and secondary bibliographical sources for the included languages, including brief descriptions of all titles; (b) general notes on said languages, e. g. sociolinguistic information, degree of reliability of sources, notes on grammatical and lexical peculiarities of the languages that may be relevant for the compilation of the lists, etc.; (c) details on the transcription system that was used in the original data sources and its differences from the UTS (Unified Transcription System) transliteration.
This option, when checked, uses a set of different color markers to highlight groups of phonetically similar words in different languages with the same Swadesh meaning.
Phonetic similarity between two different forms is defined in the GLD as a situation in which the aligned consonants of the compared forms (usually the first two) are deemed «similar» to each other. In order for two consonants to be «similar», they have to belong to the same «consonantal class», i.e. a group of sounds that share the same place and a similar manner of articulation. The current grouping of sounds into sound classes can be found here.
Accordingly, the aligned forms undergo a process of «vowel extraction» (all vowels are formally assumed to belong to «class H», together with «weak» laryngeal phonemes), and the individual consonants are then converted to classes, e. g. dog → TK, drink → TRNK (in comparisons, only the first two consonants will be used, so, actually TR), eat → HT (word-initial vowel is equated with lack of consonant or «weak» consonant), fly → PR (l and r belong to the same class) and so on.
If both of the first two consonants of the compared forms are found to correlate, i.e. belong to the same class, the words are deemed similar (e. g. English fly and German fliegen both have the consonantal skeleton PR). If at least one differs, the words are not deemed similar (e. g. English tooth → TT and Old Norse tɔnn → TN, although they are etymological cognates, will not pass the similarity tense because of the second position).
In most cases, checking this option will highlight phonetically similar forms that are also etymological cognates and share the same numeric cognation indexes. Occasionally, however, the checking will also yield «false positives» (accidentally phonetically similar forms that do not share a common origin) and «false negatives» (phonetically dissimilar forms, not highlighted, but actually cognate). It should be noted that one should never expect this method to yield a 100% accurate picture of etymological cognacy. Rather, the method is useful for the following goals: (a) assess the amount of phonetic change that took place between related languages; (b) give a general idea of the degree of closeness of relationship for those languages where phonetic correspondences have not yet been properly established; (c) assess the average number of «chance similarities» that may arise between different languages.
The last task is particularly instructive if the «Highlight...» option is used between two different languages from different databases, i.e. not related to each other or distantly related: in most cases, it will yield around 2-3 accidental color highlights, but occasionally, the count may go as high up as 5 or 6.
This option unfolds all of the notes that accompany the individual forms in the database. Sometimes these notes only consist of a basic reference to the bibliographical source, but at other times, they can be quite expansive, which makes browsing through the wordlist quite cumbersome. By default, the notes stay hidden (each note can also be opened separately by clicking on the sign next to the word).
Nebel 1979: 29. Meaning glossed as 'all, every'. The Rueng variant is reduplicated: eban-eban 'all' [ibid.] or ebɐn-ebɐːn [Nebel 1979: 104]. Distinct from the bound morpheme =d̪ie, used in conjunction with pronominal stems: o=d̪ie 'we all', we=d̪ie 'you all', ke=d̪ie 'they all' etc. [Nebel 1979: 104]. In [Roettger 1989: 30], the forms ebɛn and kɛ=d̪ie ~ kɛ=d̪iɛ ~ kɛ=d̪ia are sometimes listed as alternate synonyms and sometimes are found in complementary distribution across dialects; however, it is not clear how accurate these records really are.
Miller 2006: 105. Derived from the noun waːk 'things', cf. also waːk-ɔ 'bodies' [ibid.]. According to the source, the variant waːk-id̪a is applied to 1st and 2nd persons ('we all', 'you all'); the variant waːk-ɛnd̪a is applicable to 3rd person ('they all'). Quoted as wɔk-ǝnda in [Bender 1971: 269].
Kiggen 1948: 221, 223. Plural: ŋɛd̪. Quoted as sg. ŋɛːʰt̪, pl. ŋɛt̪ 'ash (wood)' in [Frank 1999: 84]. Distinct from the more specialized term pou, pl. puːk 'burnt cowdung ashes' [Kiggen 1948: 259]. It is this latter term that is listed as pʰokʰ 'ashes' in [Bender 1971: 271] and sg. puɔʰk, pl. puːk 'ash (dung)' in [Frank 1999: 84].
Nebel 1979: 63. Meaning glossed as 'wood-ashes'. Quoted as ŋêːʰt̪ 'ash' in [Andersen 1987: 4]. Distinct from arop 'dung-ashes' [Nebel 1979: 12]. Cf. also NE, SEb ɕol, pl. ɕoːl 'ash, charcoal' in [Duerksen 2005: 36]; this word is clearly derived from 'black' q.v. and corresponds to the compound form ɕol maɕ 'charcoal, soot' (lit. 'black of fire') in [Nebel 1979: 20], so the submeaning 'ash', listed in Duerksen's dictionary, seems suspicious. On the other hand, clearly the same word is also listed as ɕoóːʰl 'ash from grass' in [Andersen 1987: 12]. In [Roettger 1989: 84], the word is listed as ŋɛt̪ (very rarely ŋet̪) for all dialects and subdialects of Dinka.
Miller 2006: 99. Plural form; the singulative is t̪oːl-d̪in. Quoted as tǝːllǝ in [Bender 1971: 269]. Distinct from ɕuːllo 'black ashes from burnt grass, soot' [Miller 2006: 27].
Kiggen 1948: 150. Polysemy: 'bark / pod / shell of egg, etc.'. Singular and plural forms are the same. Quoted as sg. kuʰm, pl. kʋːʰm in [Frank 1999: 84]; as kʰʋm in [Bender 1971: 271].
Nebel 1979: 68, 108. Plural: pat. Quoted as sg. paâːʰt, pl. páʰt 'bark, shell' in [Andersen 2002: 20]. Phonetic variants of this root in [Roettger 1989: 32] include paʰt ~ paːʰt ~ pat.
Miller 2006: 49. Literally = 'the trees' wrapping', cf. poːʈ-i 'to wrap' [Miller 2006: 92]. Cf., however, also pottin 'bark (of tree)' in [Miller 2006: 92]; it is not clear if this is an incorrectly spelled variant of the same root or a completely different entry (it is also not confirmed in any of the text examples). In [Bender 1971: 269], the word for 'bark' is listed as ʓe-na, i.e. simply 'tree' q.v.; this is probably the result of incorrect glossing.
Heasty 1937: 80. Polysemy: 'bark / skin / shell / a kind of grass'. Quoted as sg. pǝ̄d-ɔ́, pl. pǝ̄d in [Gilley 2000: 15]; as sg. pad̪-o, pl. pat̪ 'bark, shell, peel, husk' in [Kohnen 1994: 155].
Nebel 1979: 95. Locative: yiɕ. Plural: yɛɕ. Polysemy: 'belly / stomach / uterus / rumen'. Phonetic variants for this word in [Roettger 1989: 34] include yaɕ ~ yaʰɕ ~ yɛɕ ~ yeɕ (the latter only in the Aliab subdialect of Agar). Cf. also ʓuɲ 'lower belly' [Nebel 1979: 37].
Heasty 1937: 107. Plural: yɛt̪ ~ yɛt̪-i. The meaning 'belly' is found only in the English-Shilluk index; the Shilluk-English part of the dictionary glosses the word as 'intestines'. Quoted as yiɕ ~ yiʓ, pl. yɛt̪ 'belly, womb, interior (feeling); inside of anything; the contents of volume; extent, curve, winding; kind, species; in, into, therein, wherein, inside' in [Kohnen 1994: 219].
Andersen 2004: 138. Meaning glossed as 'stomach'. Semantic difference between ʓíɲ and kʌ̀n remains unclear (perhaps one of the two words is really 'abdomen', but there are no indications of that in Andersen's papers).
Nebel 1979: 25. Polysemy: 'big / tall / old'. Quoted as dìʰt 'big' (modified to díːʰt in the construction kɔ̂ːʰɕ díːʰt-kùʰ 'your elders') in [Andersen 2002: 17]. Morphological variants in [Roettger 1989: 31] include dit ~ a=dit ~ kǝ=dit.
Andersen 2007b: 76. Attested as part of the predicative form: ɗɔ̌ːŋ-kı́ 'it is big'. Cf. also the plural form ɗɔ̀ŋ-ɔ̀k 'big' (applied to young men, in the sense of 'strong') in [Andersen 2015: 545].
Heasty 1937: 29. Plural: dɔŋ. Polysemy: 'big / old / great / important'. Quoted as n. dɔŋ ~ dɔŋ-o 'greatness, largeness, height, size; old age; reputation, authority', v. dɔŋ-o 'to become great, large; to grow, to get big, old' in [Kohnen 1994: 45].
Miller 2006: 99. The dictionary entries consist of complex (reduplicated) forms: t̪ol-t̪olo 'big' ~ t̪olla-t̪ollo 'great, very'; however, textual examples frequently show the adjective in the non-reduplicated form, cf. bwam ɛkɛ t̪ol t̪olo "his throwing stick is big", but ɛkɛ ɕoːɕɕin t̪ɛrin ɲin i ona t̪olan "he sat down opposite the big building". In [Bender 1971: 269], quoted as tǝl-ʓin 'big'. Textual examples in [Miller 2006] do not allow to determine whether ɖwaŋ- or tol- is the most suitable equivalent - they are encountered with approximately the same statistical frequency and in interchangeable contexts. We include both forms as technical synonyms.
Nebel 1979: 25. Plural: diɛt. Quoted as absolutive dít, oblique dìt in [Andersen 2002: 9]; as dit ~ dıt in [Roettger 1989: 31] (same root in all subdialects of Dinka).
Miller 2006: 36. Plural: ɖiːr-go. Quoted as sg. ɖíː-n-ʌ́, pl. ɖíːr-gʌ́ in [Andersen 1999a: 100; Andersen 1992: 185]; as sg. diː-n-u in [Bender 1971: 269].
Kiggen 1948: 135. 3rd p. sg.: kai-ɛ. Polysemy: 'to bite / to sting'. Examples in the dictionary show that the word is applicable at least to insects and dogs. Quoted as kʰɛc̪ in [Bender 1971: 271].
Nebel 1979: 37. Polysemy: 'to bite / to snap / to catch'. Variants recorded as kɐɕ, kɛɕ in [Duerksen 2005: 85]. Quoted as à=kɛ̂ːʰɕ 'he is biting' in [Andersen 1987: 10]; as kaɕ for all dialects and subdialects of Dinka in [Roettger 1989: 34]. The word ɕam 'to eat' q.v. is listed with the meaning 'to bite' for the Southwestern dialect in [Duerksen 2005: 33], but not in Nebel's dictionary, which is why we do not include it on the list as a synonym.
Miller 2006: 58, 59. Quoted as kày-ɛ́ 'they bite' in [Andersen 1999a: 101]; as kâː-t̪ân 'they will bite him' in [Andersen 1992: 192]; as ka-ɲǝ 'bite' in [Bender 1971: 269].
Andersen 1999c: 67. Quoted as a=kaʓ-ar in [Bender 1971: 272]. Cf., however, also the form nan-ʈır "it is being bitten" in [Andersen 1999c: 75]. It is unclear which of the two roots is a better semantic match for the Swadesh being, so we include both in the list for the time being (kaɕ is etymologically more archaic, but nan- has a direct parallel in the Kurmuk dialect of Buruun).
Heasty 1937: 40. Imperative form; the participial form is kaʓ-o. Polysemy: 'bite / sting / harvest'. Quoted as kaʓ 'to bite; to ache; to pluck off, to gather (the durrah ears); to squeeze in, to stick fast, to hold fast, to pinch' in [Kohnen 1994: 75].
Kiggen 1948: 51. Same word as 'to eat'. Examples in the dictionary show that the word, just like kaɕ, is applicable to insects and dogs. Since it is currently impossible to establish the semantic difference, we treat them as synonyms.
Nebel 1979: 20. Polysemy: 'black / dark / dark blue'. Quoted as à=ɕòːʰl 'it is black' in [Andersen 1987: 13]. Quoted as ɕol ~ ɕuol ~ ɕuɔl ~ a=ɕol ~ a=ɕuol ~ ke=ɕol ~ kʋ=ɕol for the majority of Dinka dialects and subdialects in [Roettger 1989: 37]. The only alternate synonym is ma=ɕar in some subdialects of Rek and Agar = ɕar 'black, dirty', ma=ɕaʰr 'black; black male animal' [Nebel 1979: 19, 55].
Nebel 1979: 77. Plural: rim (glossed as 'much blood') [ibid.]. Quoted as riɛ́ːm in [Andersen 1987: 4]. Quoted as riɛm for all dialects and subdialects of Dinka in [Roettger 1989: 32].
Nebel 1979: 99. Plural: yom. Quoted as yuɔːm in [Duerksen 2005: 195]; as sg. yuɔɔ̂ːʰm, pl. yòːm in [Andersen 1987: 16, 18]. Quoted as yuɔm for all dialects and subdialects of Dinka in [Roettger 1989: 32] (the Ageer subdialect also has the additional variant yuom).
Andersen 1999c: 13. Plural: ʔʌːp [An.13]. Quoted as sg. ʔáw-it̪, pl. ʔʌ́ːb in [Storch 2005: 107]. Cf. źwǝd̪ 'bone' in [Bender 1971: 272] (perhaps a misprint for *ʌwǝd̪?).
Kiggen 1948: 138. Plural: kaː-t̪. Quoted as sg. kaw, pl. kæːʰ-t̪ in [Frank 1999: 84]; as kaw in [Bender 1971: 271]. Distinct from t̪in, pl. t̪iːn 'female breast' [Kiggen 1948: 313].
Nebel 1979: 69. Quoted as sg. pɛːm, pl. pem in [Duerksen 2005: 142]; as pɛɛ̂ːm in [Andersen 1987: 16]. According to Duerksen's dictionary, there is also a Southwestern variant of this word glossed as pɛːk. There are also several other words, scattered across the dictionary and glossed as 'chest': ɐgɐu 'chest (of body)' [Duerksen 2005: 9], ʓou 'chest' [Duerksen 2005: 77], teŋ 'chest (of body)' [Duerksen 2005: 161]; the word 'heart' q.v. can also be used in the same meaning. However, out of all these, only pɛm is found in the meaning 'chest' in Nebel's dictionary, so we tentatively leave it to occupy the primary slot. Distinct from t̪iːn, pl. t̪in '(female) breast, udder' [Nebel 1979: 87].
Miller 2006: 51. Plural: ʓɔ-t-ko. Meaning glossed as 'chests (part of body)'. Distinct from sg. tyin-nɛ, pl. tyin-gɛ '(female) breast, teat' [Miller 2006: 101], quoted as sg. t̪ién-nʌ́, pl. t̪îen-gʌ̀ in [Andersen 1999a: 101; Andersen 2006: 4].
Heasty 1937: 45. Also ko-ɕ ~ koː-r id. Plural: ko-t̪. Quoted as sg. kǝ́w, pl. kōò-d̪ in [Gilley 2000: 6]. Although glossed as 'chest, breast' in Heasty's dictionary, the word is only glossed as 'chest' by Gilley, and there is a distinct word for 'female breast': sg. t̪iʰn̪-o, pl. t̪iʰn̪ [Heasty 1937: 98].
Nebel 1979: 21, 22. Cf.: ɕuàːɲ 'am I to burn it?' vs. à=ɕuɛ̂ːɲ 'he is burning' in [Andersen 1987: 15]. The verb has both transitive and intransitive usage. Cf. also ɲop 'to burn, roast (on an open fire)' [Nebel 1979: 67] (this seems to have the semantics 'burn to a crisp, roast' rather than the required 'burn smth. down'). In [Roettger 1989: 36], the most commonly listed equivalent for 'to burn' is ɲop (with occasional phonetic variants ɲɔp and ɲuɔp), although several subdialects have dɛp as an alternative or additional synonym; this latter word is glossed as dɛp 'to burn (intr.)' in [Nebel 1979: 24].
Roettger 1989: 36. Differently in [Reid 2010: 48]: ɕwɛ̀ːʰɲ 'burn'. Roettger's entry is identical to the Nuer equivalent, while Reid's is the same as in Dinka. Reid specifies that the verb is "antipassive", but not "transitive".
Miller 2006: 99. The dictionary lists the following forms: t̪oɲ-ga (trans.) 'ignite a fire, burn something'; t̪oɲ-gan id.; t̪oɲ-ɲo (intrans.) 'ignite a fire'; t̪oːɲ (intrans.) 'ignite many fires'; t̪oːɲ-ga (trans.) 'ignite many fires'; t̪oːɲ-gan id. Quoted as t̪ʌ̀ɲ- 'light, burn' in [Andersen 1999a: 112]. Differently in [Bender 1971: 269]: illǝ 'burn'. This may be a misglossing, cf. illa 'soot' in [Miller 2006: 48].
Not properly attested. Cf. il 'burn' in [Bender 1971: 268]; however, considering that the same root in Bender's entry for 'to burn' for Mabaan seems to be wrong for the required Swadesh meaning, it is better not to trust his entry for Jumjum, either.
Andersen 1999c: 77. Attested in the phrase "The person is burning the grass". Differently in [Bender 1971: 272]: el-de 'burn' (cf. Bender's entries for Mabaan and Jumjum).
Heasty 1937: 86; Gilley 1992: 88. Imperative form; the participial form is rab-o. Quoted as rap ~ rab 'to set on fire' in [Kohnen 1994: 167] (the alternate meanings 'to turn up, down, away' probably represent homonyms); cf. wot rab en 'the house has been burned down by him'. The older root waŋ, also listed by Heasty as a potential synonym, is glossed by Kohnen as 'to be partly burnt; to scorch, to scald oneself' [Kohnen 1994: 206], implying a slight semantic shift (examples are: "my dress was partly burnt by the fire", "I scorched my hand", "take care, you will burn yourself", etc.).
Nebel 1979: 78. Meaning glossed as 'claw', but also as 'fingernail' in the English-Dinka index on p. 139. Quoted as sg. rióːʰp, pl. riòp 'nail' in [Andersen 1987: 12]. Attested phonetic variants in [Roettger 1989: 34] involve riop ~ rioʰp ~ riɛp.
Miller 2006: 49. Plural: kɛy-yɛ. (The complete form is in-tɛ kɛː-nɛ 'fingernail', where the first part = 'hand' q.v.). Quoted as kɛ̂ːn-nʌ̀ in [Andersen 1999a: 104]; as key-yɛn in [Bender 1971: 269].
Heasty 1937: 49. The complete form is kwɔʰŋ lwɛd-o, pl. kwoŋ lwɛt-i, where lwɛd-o = 'finger'. Quoted as sg. kwoŋ-o, pl. kwoŋ in [Kohnen 1994: 94], with polysemy: 'nail / claw', and both kwoŋ lwed-o 'finger-nail' and kwoŋ tyel-o 'toe-nail' listed as possible combinations.
Reh 1999: 39. Plural: kwʌ̀-g-lwɛ̀ːd-í. The second component of this compound formation is lwɛ́ːd-ɔ́ 'finger' [Reh 1999: 45]. The first is independently glossed as sg. kwʌ̀nn-ò, pl. kwʌ̀-gì ~ kwʌ̀nn-è 'scale (of fish)' [Reh 1999: 39].
Kiggen 1948: 259. Plural: puaːr-i. Meaning glossed as 'firmament, cloud'. Quoted as pʷaˤrr in [Bender 1971: 259]. Differently in [Frank 1999: 85]: tiʰk, pl. tiæʰk 'cloud, fog'. In [Kiggen 1948: 296], this word is listed as tiːk, pl. tieɣ 'rainbow', cf. also the compound tiːk puaːr 'shade of clouds, haze, mirage' [ibid.].
Nebel 1979: 71. Meaning glossed as 'white clouds'. The word apparently has a large number of phonetic variants: pial (Northeast, Southwest), piɵːl (Southeast), piɐːr (general) [Duerksen 2005: 142]. In [Andersen 1987: 16], the variant piaáːʰr is attested for the Agar Dinka dialect. In [Roettger 1989: 36], this word is attested as pioʰl in the Bor dialect and in the Malual subdialect of Rek; as poʰl in the Agar dialect; as puɔl in the Rek proper subdialect of Rek. All the subdialects of Padang-Ageer show a completely different root: luaʰt ~ luat ~ luaːʰt (also attested as luɛt in the Twic subdialect of Rek). In [Nebel 1979: 52], this word is attested as luɐt 'cloudy sky; clouds'.
Andersen 1999d: 83; Andersen 2000a: 33. According to the second source, the plural form kɔl means 'clouds' the singular form kol-it̪ means 'sky'. Quoted as kɔl 'cloud' in [Bender 1971: 272].
Heasty 1937: 83. Plural: pɔl. Quoted as sg. pɔl-o, pl. pɔl in [Kohnen 1994: 162] (cf. also the morphological variant pɔːl 'firmament' in the same source).
Nebel 1979: 49. Verbal/adjectival stem: 'to become cold'. Quoted as lır ~ lir ~ liɛr ~ a=lır ~ a=lir ~ ke=lir ~ kɛ=lir ~ kʋ=lir for all the dialects and subdialects of Dinka in [Roettger 1989: 37] (all forms represent phonetic and morphological variants of the same root). Cf. also wir 'cold' (noun) [Nebel 1979: 95].
Probably not attested. The word is not found in any of T. Andersen's papers, and in [Bender 1971: 272] the equivalent for 'cold' is yɛ́mit̪, which (a) looks like a noun and (b) is identical with the Kurmuk word for 'wind' q.v., so this could easily be an accidental misglossing. Moreover, in [Storch 2005: 104], 'coldness' is glossed as déy-ɔ́n, implying that déy- might be the basic equivalent for 'cold'.
Heasty 193: 53. Meaning glossed as 'cool, cold'. Quoted as lib 'cool, fresh' in [Kohnen 1994: 102]. This seems to be the default equivalent for 'cold' as applied to objects such as 'water'. But cf. also koʰʓ-o 'cold, coldness' (marked as a noun) [Heasty 1937: 45], a standard term applied to cold weather (e.g. piɲ da koʓ-o 'it is cold', where piɲ = 'earth, world').
Nebel 1979: 14, 15. Paradigmatic information: main form bɛ-n, indicative form a=bɔ ~ a=ba, imperative sg. ba-r, pl. ba-k. Cf. forms in Agar Dinka: à=bɔ́ʰ 'he is coming' [Andersen 2002: 12], bâːʰ-r 'come!' [Andersen 1987: 2]. Morphological variants of this root in various dialects and subdialects of Dinka, as attested in [Roettger 1989: 35], include bɛ-n ~ bɛʰ-n ~ bɔʰ ~ ba-r ~ baʰ-r.
Nebel 1979: 89. Polysemy: 'to die / to break (a pot) / to finish, cease'. Attested as t̪ou in all dialects and subdialects of Dinka (only the Ruweng subdialect has the phonetic variant t̪uou) in [Roettger 1989: 35]. Cf. also riar 'to die, perish' [Nebel 1979: 77] (same root as in the noun riar 'twilight in the evening' [ibid.], with a metaphoric development?); riap 'to die (men, cattle, plants)' [Nebel 1979: 77] (a plural action stem).
Heasty 1937: 98. The English-Shilluk section of the dictionary states that t̪ɔ is "used mostly of animals" and adds two euphemistic constructions: (a) lay yino "a polite way of saying a person is dead. It is a combination of two words: laɲ meaning 'lost' and yino meaning 'some far away unknown place'"; (b) laɲ "literally means 'lost'"; lɔɲ "is perhaps from the same word and is used by the Anuaks". In [Kohnen 1994: 199], t̪ɔ is glossed as 'to die; to suffer, to be exhausted; to be most excellent in"; the expression lai yino 'to disappear, to vanish' has the submeaning 'to die' in "distinguished language" [Kohnen 1994: 97]. Based on the comparison of these sources, we suppose that t̪ɔ is still the "neutral" rather than the "markedly vulgar" term, and include it in regular comparison.
Build treei