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).
Henderson 1997: 38. Two forms are attested:, probably sharing the same root morpheme: ɕá-ɕɛ̄ 'all' and ɕá-lé-gwı̀ ~ ɕá-lé-ɕá-gwı̀ 'all' (difference as well as internal structure is not quite clear). Additionally, cf. gǝyá 'all, every, the whole lot' [Henderson 1997: 125]; lólò 'all, everything' [Henderson 1997: 220].
Shee 2008: 167. Obviously a compound form; external comparison with Bwe Karen allows to extract the same root segment =sa- as in Bwe Karen ɕa q.v. ("prefixal" ló= is unclear, but it could be the same as in Bwe Karen ló-lò 'all, everything' q.v.).
Solnit 1997: 203, 353. This is a quantifier, glossed as 'every' (e. g. pwā pʰre 'every person') and distinct from ɕʰī 'whole, the entire' (e. g. 'all' as totus rather than omnis). Differently in Fraser Bennett's notes: lɔ̄ʰ=plȉ 'all' [Bennett Ms.]. However, according to Solnit, this would rather be an adverbial form, composed of lɔ̄ 'to exhaust, expend, use up' and plī 'clean, slippery' [Solnit 1997: 348, 354].
Henderson 1997: 291. Polysemy: 'ashes / dust'. Also exists as a compound: pʰɛ̄-kʰō 'earth, dust, ashes'. Distinct from the more specialized term kʰlɛ́ 'ash from a fired clearing when washed by the rain, which is recognized as a good fertilizer; lye' [Henderson 1997: 182].
Henderson 1997: 290. Polysemy: 'skin / hide / bark / scales'. Cf. also the more specialized term θrɔ̄ 'fibrous bark of a tree of the sterculia family; any kind of fibrous material used to make ropes etc., e.g. hemp' [Henderson 1997: 369].
Solnit 1997: 343. The first morpheme is glossed individually as hɔ́ 'stomach'. It may be a constituent of two compounds: hɔ́-kū 'stomach (organ)' (where kū = 'hole; inside') and hɔ́-pʰú 'the organ, belly, abdomen (external area)'. External data show that =pʰú in the second compound is the original root for 'belly'; thus, 'belly' literally = 'stomach-belly'. Glossed with the meaning 'abdomen' as hɔ́ʔ (Huai Phung, Huai Chang Kham), hɔ̋ˤ (Fraser Bennett) in [Kirkland & Dawkins 2007: 62]; in the light of Solnit's data, this looks like a possible semantic inaccuracy.
Kirkland & Dawkins 2007: 62. Meaning glossed as 'abdomen'. Since the same word means 'stomach' in Eastern Kayah Li and only means 'belly, abdomen' as part of a compound, the accuracy of semantic glossing in Western Kayah Li is also placed under doubt.
Henderson 1997: 89. Polysemy: 'big / great / important / older'. As a verbal stem, also means 'to grow, enlarge, increase'. With a different tone, cf. also ɗó 'to swell, be big' [Henderson 1997: 87].
Myar 2004: 162. Cf. ʔá 'to bite' in [Wai 2013: 22], essentially the same form as ʔá 'to eat' q.v. Not yet clear if this reflects a merger of the two meanings in one original verbal form, or if this is simply a case of secondary homonymy in a particular dialect of Kayah Monu.
Henderson 1997: 196. Polysemy: 'chest / breast'. Alternate synonym: θā dǝnɛ́ 'chest, breast' [Henderson 1997: 353], where θā = 'heart' q.v. The meaning 'female breast' is also expressed by the equivalent =nū [Henderson 1997: 265].
Shee 2008: 167. The second component is an assimilated variant of the noun 'fire' q.v. It is not clear whether the verb is transitive, intransitive, or both.
Solnit 1997: 341. Glossed as 'kindle', but textual examples throughout the book show that this is probably the main transitive equivalent for the basic 'to burn' (cf.: "she burned up two of mine [blankets]"; "his brother-in-law burnt (up) his head-skin"; "when we've finished burning (it) we chop up the brush again", etc.), as opposed to kɛ́ 'to burn (intr.)' [Solnit 1997: 344]. Quoted as čɯ̋ʔ (Huai Phung), čɯ̋ʔ (Huai Chang Kham), ȉ=ʆʰɯ̋ (Fraser Bennett) in [Kirkland & Dawkins 2007: 64].
Myar 2004: 167. The second part is 'fire' q.v. Unfortunately, the source does not specify the semantic difference between the two complex stems; it is possible that one is transitive and one is intransitive, but there is no way to prove that without solid textual evidence. We tentatively accept both forms as synonymous, pending future clarification.
Solnit 1997: 345. The first component is a productive body part prefix. Quoted as kű=mǝ̄-bàʔ (with an additional suffixal component) (Huai Phung), kú=mǝ̄ǝ̀ (Huai Chang Kham) in [Kirkland & Dawkins 2007: 61]. Fraser Bennett's equivalent for the same meaning seems to contain a different root: kǝ̏=nɔ̄-bȁ [Kirkland & Dawkins 2007: 61] (cf. also his data for Western Kayah Li).
Henderson 1997: 44. Meaning glossed as 'to be cold, cool' (applied to all sorts of objects, e.g. water). Cf. also hɔ̄ 'to be cold' (probably of weather, judging by the derived formation dē-hɔ̄-kʰɛ́ 'winter') [Henderson 1997: 133].
Myar 2004: 169. Semantic difference between the two quasi-synonyms remains unexplained, so we have to take them as technical synonyms. Additionally, a third equivalent is listed (applied to 'water') in [Wai 2013: 84]: ʔà=kò=čó.
Henderson 1997: 106. Meaning glossed as 'to return home, to go back, come back', which makes the entry somewhat dubious. However, this does seem to be the typical antonym of lē 'to go', cf. lē-gē 'to come and go, to go to and fro' [Henderson 1997: 210], and there are no better candidates for this slot in Henderson's dictionary.
Shee 2008: 166. This is a compound verb, where the first component = lè 'to go' q.v., so it is the second component that must serve as the primary carrier of the meaning 'movement towards the speaker'.
Solnit 1997: 344. Meaning glossed as 'move towards home, go, come, (sometimes) return', which makes the entry somewhat dubious; however, on p. 75 of the same source it is explained that the basic opposition between hɛ̄ and kà is not the same as in English 'come' and 'go': "kà and hɛ̄ usually refer to motion towards or away from the home of the speaker or other protagonist, whether the speaker/protagonist is at home or not". It is, however, semantically close enough to warrant the treatment of these verbs as the closest equivalents to the required Swadesh meanings; the opposition is also distinct from ɕwá 'to go' which "as main V.. usually has no deictic connotation at all" [Solnit 1997: 75].
Not properly attested. The form hi̯ā 'to come' in [Bennett Ms.] corresponds to Eastern Kayah Li hɛ̄ 'to come' [ibid.] and, according to Solnit's notes, should rather mean 'to go' than 'to come'.
Build treei