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).
Ramirez 2006: 144; Epps 2005: 368; Martins 2005: 300. Adjective. Superficial tone may alter in adjectives, but the underlying tone is always falling (= high [Epps 2005: 273]).
Martins 2004: 223. This is the generic term, distinct from ʔab (of round things), ʔɤb (of fruit bunches), ʔɤd 'big and wide' (e.g. of people, aturá baskets), ʔɛʔ 'big and round' (e.g. of mouths, pans), ʔw̰ɔʔ 'big or oversized' (e.g. of clothes), hěh 'big and wide' (e.g. of thorax), lɔʔ (of feet or hands, female speech), lɔȡ (of cylindrical things, like tree trunks) [ibid.]. Cf. the augmentative =pog [Martins 2014: 71; Andrade 2014: 78; Martins 2005: 43].
Weir 1984: 85. Polysemy: 'big / father' [Weir 1984: 84]. Morphologically, this is an obligatorily possessed noun. Other roots used in this meaning include =wɜːh {wʉ́ʉ́h} (glossed as multiple, i.e. used with a plural subject) [Weir 1984: 298] and ʔeːh / =ʔeh {eeh / =eh} (used only of people in the examples) [Weir 1984: 70, 295, 299]. Martins [2005: 300] also cites Roçado Nadëb pogn and Rio Negro bog.
Ramirez 2006: 86; Epps 2005: 71 (h̃ũ-tä̃̂h̃ {hũtẽ́h}), Martins 2005: 238. A generic term for small birds. Epps claims it is a diminutive of h̃ũ̂ {hṹ} 'animal'. Martins also lists βět {wë̀t} 'pigeon' [2005: 238].
Ramirez 2006: 205; Epps 2005: 87. Derived from dʸaʔã̂m {ya'ám} 'jaguar'; the suffix -hǒʔ {-hö̀'} is otherwise unattested. In the Tat Deh area h was elided, causing the gemination of root-final m.
Build treei