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).
Silva f.n. Glossed as 'every'. Attested, for example, in kukäi̯ piːbaʔ ɕuɲãʔ tihiʔ {kokex pipma xoyã tihi} 'every dog has an owner'; note that the verb tihiʔ {tihi} is inherently plural. Apparently this is the closest Maxakalí equivalent to the Swadesh meaning in question. Distinct from the completive marker =nãɤ̯̃m {=nãm} [Campos 2009: 221; Silva f.n]. According to Campos, =nãɤ̯̃m {=nãm} has the internal argument of the verb as its scope, but Silva [f.n.] provides a number of examples that render Camposʼs analysis unsatisfactory: ʔɨ̃ǝ̯̃ pɨɕäǝ̯ ʔɨ̃=gɑ̃ĩ̯=nãɤ̯̃m {ũn puxet ũgãy nãm} 'one woman is completely furious'; ʔɨ̃ǝ̯̃ ʔɨ̃=gɑ̃ĩ̯=nãɤ̯̃m {ũn puxet ũgãy nãm} 'the woman is completely furious'; kaʓaɨ̯k ʔã=taʔ=nãɤ̯̃m {kayak ãta nãm} 'the shirt is completely red'. Analyzed as an intensifier in [Popovich & Popovich 2005: 30]; possibly an aspectual feature is at play. Popovich & Popovich [2005: 48] and Antunes [1999: 37] attest ɕuhɪi̯ {xohix} in this meaning ('all' / 'ten' / 'many'), but this word is attested as ɕuhiʔ {xohi} and analyzed as 'many / to abound / to be numerous / PL' elsewhere [Campos 2009: 75; Silva f.n.]. Treated as a borrowing because of the segment b. Phonology: /pipma/.
Popovich & Popovich 2005: 38; Campos 2009: 25; Antunes 1999: 31, 33; Gudschinsky, Popovich & Popovich 1970: 79; Silva f.n. Transitive. No semantic or number differences are reported for the verbs pɨtuɤ̯p {putop}; ɕahaʔ {xaha}; kadɛɤ̯p {kanep}; Silva [f.n.] attests kukäi̯-tɛʔ kaɨ̯kɕuɤ̯p pɨtuɤ̯p {kokex te kakxop putop}, kukäi̯-tɛʔ kaɨ̯kɕuɤ̯p ɕahaʔ {kokex te kakxop xaha}, kukäi̯-tɛʔ kaɨ̯kɕuɤ̯p-hãʔ kadɛɤ̯p {kokex te kakxop hã kanep}, all meaning 'the dog bit the child'. The three are thus listed as synonyms. Distinct from kʊǝ̯ɕɪi̯ {kotxix} (non-finite kʊǝ̯ɕiʔ {kotxi}) 'to chew' [Silva f.n.]. Phonology: /ptup/.
Popovich & Popovich 2005: 14; Silva f.n. Intransitive. Requires an argument expressed with an adpositional phrase with an instrumental postposition hãʔ {hã} (e.g. kukäi̯-tɛʔ kaɨ̯kɕuɤ̯p-hãʔ kadɛɤ̯p {kokex te kakxop hã kanep} 'the dog bit the child') or the morpheme nũʔ {nõ} (kukäi̯-tɛʔ nũʔ kadɛɤ̯p {kokex te nõ kanep} 'the dog bit (someone)'). Treated as a non-native item because of the segment d; according to a speaker, this verb is onomatopoeic and refers to the sound of dogʼs biting. Phonology: /kadep/.
Popovich & Popovich 2005: 10; Campos 2009: 137, 273. Polysemy: 'blood / sap / liquid'. Can be used in a classifier-like manner for liquids. Phonology: /hep/.
Popovich & Popovich 2005: 20. Polysemy: 'bone / stick / tree / stalk'. Quoted by Antunes in compounds: kɨɤ̯p-ɕʊi̯ {kup xox} 'bone / portal / tree / long object / thigh' [Antunes 1999: 26], ɕu=kɨɤ̯p {xokup} [Antunes 1999: 37]. Can be used in a classifier-like manner for tree-like or bone-like objects (cf. [Campos 2009: 119, 163]). Phonology: /kɨp/.
Pickering 1961. In [Bahetá 1982], another root is cited: a=ŋokˈai̯. However, the latter possibly refers to female breast, as suggested by the illustration in the source as well as by its Maxakalí cognate ɲõɨ̯̃ktɑǝ̯ {yõktat} 'female breast'.
Popovich & Popovich 2005: 55 (ɲĩː=mã=ɕɑi̯ {yĩmmãxax}); Campos 2009: 93 (ɲĩɤ̯̃p=ɕɑi̯ {yĩmxax}). Cf. [Araújo 2000: 113], where the meanings 'fingernail' and 'toenail' are said to be rendered as ɕɑi̯ {xax} 'skin' and pata=ɕɑi̯ {pataxax} respectively. Phonology: /ɲĩp=mã=cac ~ ɲĩp=cac/.
Popovich & Popovich 2005: 4, 5; Araújo 2000: 119; Gudschinsky, Popovich & Popovich 1970: 84. Polysemy: 'smoke / cloud / fog / to smoke'. Treated as a borrowing because of the segment g. Phonology: /gũc/.